Sh**hole Countries

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, Englebert said:

3 hours ago, Englebert said:

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.

 

True!  It's funny to watch the commie-libs go crazy.  He's doing it on purpose and they keep falling for it! 

 

[TxHoops]

^

Exhibit A to supplement my video.  Guy has almost 2k posts and another 10k+ as “Smitty” and he still doesn’t know how to correctly use the quote button!

[Englebert]

58 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

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).

[TxHoops]

20 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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).

Your use of the term “real scientist” probably deserves another use of the clip since you, as a nonscientist, consistently try to prove that you know more than those who are.  But I guess once a night is probably an adequate usage of that gem.  

[Englebert]

21 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Your use of the term “real scientist” probably deserves another use of the clip since you, as a nonscientist, consistently try to prove that you know more than those who are.  But I guess once a night is probably an adequate usage of that gem.  

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. 

[PhatMack19]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[TxHoops]

27 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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. 

Once again, I am willing to objectively test my “analytical skills” against the great Englebert’s any time, any day.   For a sufficiently large wager.  And I only bet when I know I have way the best of it.  Since my “skills” are so lacking, should be easy money for you  

[Englebert]

20 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Once again, I am willing to objectively test my “analytical skills” against the great Englebert’s any time, any day.   For a sufficiently large wager.  And I only bet when I know I have way the best of it.  Since my “skills” are so lacking, should be easy money for you  

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. 

[TxHoops]

12 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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. 

Because I know you can’t beat me, and doubt very seriously you can tie me.  But don’t feel bad, the same could be said for 99 percent of those who actually have taken said test, most of whom are well above the mean, intelligence-wise.  How do I know this?  Because it’s been objectively tested before, strictly on logic and analytical skills.  If you throw in the time-tested reading comprehension portion of the test, your chances increase by 1 percent.  But since we are only speaking of “analytical skills,” that portion isn’t really germane to this discussion.  

So you see, you are already showing a severe analytical deficiency.  I don’t have to know you (although I know enough from your posts).  I know me and I know how I perform with logic games and analytical reasoning problems.  If the past is any indicator, I won’t miss.  Therefore, you are irrelevant in terms of “beating me.”  And that, my friend, is what we call flawless logic. 

[Englebert]

9 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Because I know you can’t beat me, and doubt very seriously you can tie me.  But don’t feel bad, the same could be said for 99 percent of those who actually have taken said test, most of whom are well above the mean, intelligence-wise.  How do I know this?  Because it’s been objectively tested before, strictly on logic and analytical skills.  If you throw in the time-tested reading comprehension portion of the test, your chances increase by 1 percent.  But since we are only speaking of “analytical skills,” that portion isn’t really germane to this discussion.  

So you see, you are already showing a severe analytical deficiency.  I don’t have to know you (although I know enough from your posts).  I know me and I know how I perform with logic games and analytical reasoning problems.  If the past is any indicator, I won’t miss.  Therefore, you are irrelevant in terms of “beating me.”  And that, my friend, is what we call flawless logic. 

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.)

[TxHoops]

27 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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.)

My poor friend, you like to use big words and form long posts in an attempt to mask the fact you are simply unable to grasp simple concepts.  But clearly despite your inflated sense of your own analytical skills, you miss the simplest of points being made.  

First, the test of which I speak is mostly based on analytical and logical reasoning.  In fact, it is 75 percent of said test, which would be the only pertinent portion of said test.  It is universally used by institutions of higher learning to test said skills, and is completely standardized and objective.  And in case you missed a very explicit point I made (no, not in case, you absolutely did), it’s not that I can beat you; it’s that you can’t beat me (don’t let that blow your analytically challenged mind, it’s not that difficult a concept).  Therefore, my “edge” in gambling parlance is that I essentially have a “free roll.”

But obviously I need to simplify this for you further.  And to begin, i don’t think you’re a complete idiot.  On the contrary, you’re obviously an intelligent guy.  It’s just that we all have our talents.  And you continually, in the bluster you like to engage in on this board, like to make quips to me about an area very, very few are more talented.  I propose this test would objectively measure our respective “talents” in this area.  And again, it has little to do with me beating you, but the fact that you can’t beat me.  And unless you are in the 1 percentile bracket, you will, in fact, lose to me.  So it’s worth my time (and a couple hundred bucks for the test) to wager 50 times the cost of the test that I will outscore you in logical and analytical reasoning.  

But let me simplify it further.  As I say, we all have our talents.  I would not wager AAW that I could beat him in handicapping sporting events.  He has proven to me too many times he is far more talented than I in that field.  I also wouldn’t wager on a straight up golf match with Nash, his sons, his son-in-law, or probably most of his grandsons.  Although there might be a degree of luck there, it would take the Caddyshack’s bishop’s round for me to beat them.  But really to make this more analagous to my proposition, it would be like me wagering against Nash on Augusta’s Par 3 course, where we would play those 9 holes approximately 8 times, knowing he was going to ace every single hole.  It would be mighty tough (i.e., impossible) for me to win said wager.  

I don’t know if I can break it down any better, but feel free to continue to blast my analytical skills while overtly not accepting my challenge.  As I said, I wouldn’t want to piss away 10 large on a bet I couldn’t win either.

[Englebert]

19 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

My poor friend, you like to use big words and form long posts in an attempt to mask the fact you are simply unable to grasp simple concepts.  But clearly despite your inflated sense of your own analytical skills, you miss the simplest of points being made.  

First, the test of which I speak is mostly based on analytical and logical reasoning.  In fact, it is 75 percent of said test, which would be the only pertinent portion of said test.  It is universally used by institutions of higher learning to test said skills, and is completely standardized and objective.  And in case you missed a very explicit point I made (no, not in case, you absolutely did), it’s not that I can beat you; it’s that you can’t beat me (don’t let that blow your analytically challenged mind, it’s not that difficult a concept).  Therefore, my “edge” in gambling parlance is that I essentially have a “free roll.”

But obviously I need to simplify this for you further.  And to begin, i don’t think you’re a complete idiot.  On the contrary, you’re obviously an intelligent guy.  It’s just that we all have our talents.  And you continually, in the bluster you like to engage in on this board, like to make quips to me about an area very, very few are more talented.  I propose this test would objectively measure our respective “talents” in this area.  And again, it has little to do with me beating you, but the fact that you can’t beat me.  And unless you are in the 1 percentile bracket, you will, in fact, lose to me.  So it’s worth my time (and a couple hundred bucks for the test) to wager 50 times the cost of the test that I will outscore you in logical and analytical reasoning.  

But let me simplify it further.  As I say, we all have our talents.  I would not wager AAW that I could beat him in handicapping sporting events.  He has proven to me too many times he is far more talented than I in that field.  I also wouldn’t wager on a straight up golf match with Nash, his sons, his son-in-law, or probably most of his grandsons.  Although there might be a degree of luck there, it would take the Caddyshack’s bishop’s round for me to beat them.  But really to make this more analagous to my proposition, it would be like me wagering against Nash on Augusta’s Par 3 course, where we would play those 9 holes approximately 8 times, knowing he was going to ace every single hole.  It would be mighty tough (i.e., impossible) for me to win said wager.  

I don’t know if I can break it down any better, but feel free to continue to blast my analytical skills while overtly not accepting my challenge.  As I said, I wouldn’t want to piss away 10 large on a bet I couldn’t win either.

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. 

 

 

[TxHoops]

17 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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. 

 

 

You are too much.  Since you are unable to deduce much, here is your spoon feeding.  The test is called the LSAT.  3 of the 4 graded sections are analytical and logical reasoning.  25 questions each section, 35 minutes to take each.  Each question gives you a complex scenario from which there is but one correct answer, which is derivable using logic and analytics.  Therefore it is what we call “objective.”  And before you make suppositions that are wholly incorrect, the test has nothing to do with the knowledge of law.  It merely tests the areas in which you seem to think you are superior, and I am willing to bet you are not.  So we each deposit our money with an agreed upon 3rd party (I’m so “overly confident” I’m willing to give him 10 percent of my winnings for his trouble), and take the test on the same date, time and place.  Whoever scores the  highest wins the cash, the loser gets his little ego bruised (I’d also be willing to attach a SETXsports signature bet for further humiliation).  So there you have it.  Pretty simple, even for the overly inflated individual.  I’m sure you want no part of the bet, but I guess we will see.   Oh, and I’m not doing it for less than an amount equal to X number of hours of my billable hourly rate, which we can discuss in PMs.  Otherwise, it’s not worth my time.

(And you should really give Nash an annotation for using his word twice in one paragraph...)

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

You are too much.  Since you are unable to deduce much, here is your spoon feeding.  The test is called the LSAT.  3 of the 4 graded sections are analytical and logical reasoning.  25 questions each section, 35 minutes to take each.  Each question gives you a complex scenario from which there is but one correct answer, which is derivable using logic and analytics.  Therefore it is what we call “objective.”  And before you make suppositions that are wholly incorrect, the test has nothing to do with the knowledge of law.  It merely tests the areas in which you seem to think you are superior, and I am willing to bet you are not.  So we each deposit our money with an agreed upon 3rd party (I’m so “overly confident” I’m willing to give him 10 percent of my winnings for his trouble), and take the test on the same date, time and place.  Whoever scores the  highest wins the cash, the loser gets his little ego bruised (I’d also be willing to attach a SETXsports signature bet for further humiliation).  So there you have it.  Pretty simple, even for the overly inflated individual.  I’m sure you want no part of the bet, but I guess we will see.   Oh, and I’m not doing it for less than an amount equal to X number of hours of my billable hourly rate, which we can discuss in PMs.  Otherwise, it’s not worth my time.

(And you should really give Nash an annotation for using his word twice in one paragraph...)

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. 

 

[TxHoops]

8 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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 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. 

 

1 percent is based on a previous score, not "bloviating."  Whether I am able to prove that, and beat the genius Engy is the subject of the bet.  Of course, it is not a precise measurement of any particular skill, but it is precise on who can answer the most logic and analytical problems correctly.  But to be clear, is the second to the last question of your typical, "bloviating" response an acceptance of my proposed bet?  (And get out of here with the GRE, that's child's play.  And besides, having taken both, it is incomparable with regard to the testing of one's analytical abilities.)

[Englebert]

3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

1 percent is based on a previous score, not "bloviating."  Whether I am able to prove that, and beat the genius Engy is the subject of the bet.  Of course, it is not a precise measurement of any particular skill, but it is precise on who can answer the most logic and analytical problems correctly.  But to be clear, is the second to the last question of your typical, "bloviating" response an acceptance of my proposed bet?

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.

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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.

So that's a yes, sport? 

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

So that's a yes, sport? 

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.

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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.

The bet is the LSAT.  The pot shots you were taking (letting your large mouth overload your behind which you will discover soon enough) was about analytical skills.  There is no comparison between the two because as you've preached, you shouldn't guess about what you don't know.  I've taken both, and anyone who has will tell you the same.  And I'm not wasting two Saturdays, I will one.  So are we betting on the highest LSAT score or not?  If so, I will PM you the particulars.  If not, say you don't want to do it, which I have a feeling you might anyway, and we can move on.  That's why, I guess, someone might want some clarification on "bring it on" which you have so aptly demonstrated in the quoted post...

[Hagar]

Since I'm not a highly intelligent guy, my only comment is why two people I think are very intelligent have been up all night bantering back and forth.  Both of you get an F on healthy sleeping habits, and an A on insomnia.  

Okay gentlemen, you may resume.  

[Englebert]

6 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

The bet is the LSAT.  The pot shots you were taking (letting your large mouth overload your behind which you will discover soon enough) was about analytical skills.  There is no comparison between the two because as you've preached, you shouldn't guess about what you don't know.  I've taken both, and anyone who has will tell you the same.  And I'm not wasting two Saturdays, I will one.  So are we betting on the highest LSAT score or not?  If so, I will PM you the particulars.  If not, say you don't want to do it, which I have a feeling you might anyway, and we can move on.  That's why, I guess, someone might want some clarification on "bring it on" which you have so aptly demonstrated in the quoted post...

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.  

[TxHoops]

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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.  

So the answer is no, you won't bet me on the LSAT.  I don't have to ask many, I've taken both (albeit 25 years ago on both) and the LSAT is by far the more difficult test.  Thanks for the clarification.  There's no shame in just saying no, though.  Smart move.  I thought I was going to school you in negotiations along with analytical and logical reasoning. 

[Englebert]

10 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

So the answer is no, you won't bet me on the LSAT.  I don't have to ask many, I've taken both (albeit 25 years ago on both) and the LSAT is by far the more difficult test.  Thanks for the clarification.  There's no shame in just saying no, though.  Smart move.  I thought I was going to school you in negotiations along with analytical and logical reasoning. 

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.

[TxHoops]

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Clarification: You won't bet 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 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.

You truly are a clown.  The GRE doesn't even have an analytical reasoning section.  It has one section that is quantitative reasoning (which is the closest) and the other two are irrelevant to our argument.  The LSAT has 3 sections on that skill alone.  I proposed the bet, not you.  You obviously don't want to do it, and you would have backed out anyway when we discussed amount and depositing of cash in advance.  It's okay.  We all know you bloviate with the best of them.  So continue to condescend (and then accuse others of doing it when they bite back), bloviate, etc., all the while knowing you can't back it up.  (Hint:  most of us knew it anyway, sport )

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

You truly are a clown.  The GRE doesn't even have an analytical reasoning section.  It has one section that is quantitative reasoning (which is the closest) and the other two are irrelevant to our argument.  The LSAT has 3 sections on that skill alone.  I proposed the bet, not you.  You obviously don't want to do it, and you would have backed out anyway when we discussed amount and depositing of cash in advance.  It's okay.  We all know you bloviate with the best of them.  So continue to condescend (and then accuse others of doing it when they bite back), bloviate, etc., all the while knowing you can't back it up.  (Hint:  most of us knew it anyway, sport )

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: 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

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.