Bear
blueveinedthrobber wrote:even better massagato/bernard would you be kind enough to piss off and leave the thread?
Sort of the way I imagine Bernard/Massagato maybe looks.
I don't agree, Bear. I visualize Bernard as a bald man. The toxins in his brain would kill any hair follicles.
Now, back to the topic of this thread.
BBB
you gotta admit that Tom nailed the way an indoors in his books under artificial light academic would probably look... so why the fuss over that little part of the movie?
All in all I enjoyed the movie but it was no timeless classic or anything....
The most interesting part of the movie to me was the code breaking and understanding of symbols. What an interesting field of study, not to mention the understanding of history one would need in order to have such a job.
I imagine computers do most of the code breaking with our intelligence departments now. Too bad.
If anything, the film inspired me to learn more about history. I don't think that's a bad thing unless the church wants me to continue looking forward to eternity.
BernardR wrote:There are some lawyers, Light Wizard, who make more in a day than you do in a month......and I am sure that they are much brighter than you are!! "Poorly educated dolts" do not go through Harvard, Yale, or Stanford Law Schools.
What law school failed to accept you?
The launch of the attack. BTW, I never said poorly educated dolts. Not my style. I would guess, BErnard, that you read none of my posts.
Actually, most Harvard professors wear their hair quite short. But, who cares? I care more that a movie that is allegedly a thriller have an interesting plot.
The only thing I liked about DVC was the glass pyramid and I thought putting La Madeleine under it was cute.
Plain Old Me--Sir, it is you that do not read posts. I did not address you as the writer of the attack on Lawyers. I addressed Mr. Light Wizard.
And, I am very much afraid that "blue veined throbber" is guilty of an Ad Hominem attack and "Name calling". I merely wish to call the attention of the moderator to his attack.
BernardR wrote:Plain Old Me--Sir, it is you that do not read posts. I did not address you as the writer of the attack on Lawyers. I addressed Mr. Light Wizard.
And, I am very much afraid that "blue veined throbber" is guilty of an Ad Hominem attack and "Name calling". I merely wish to call the attention of the moderator to his attack.
You even got that wrong, Italgato/Massagato/BernardR as the statement was directed at politicians, although many of them are lawyers and the majority of those are trial lawyers (I suspect many of them are failed trial lawyers who decide to run for office). You're again batting nearly zero so if you don't have an intelligent retort, I would suggest you just not state anything at all.
I am very sorry, Lightwizard, but this is what you wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comprehension skills are very limited. I stated they were educated as lawyers which does not mean they were well educated in anything else. So sensitive, aren't we? You must be a lawyer.
_____________________________________________________________
Again, A good lawyer from a top twenty school would easily be able to beat you in any area-excluding possibly the setting of lights in a show atomsphere- An undertaking which is usually performed fairly well by people whose IQ's are between 100 and 120--above average but no where near the lawyers, who could never get into a top twenty Law School without an IQ of at least 135.
People who denigrate others who are clearly superior to them in intellectual matters show their most unattractive ENVY!
I realize this is not on topic but I am RESPONDING to your NON TOPIC post!!!
So all attorneys are genuises? I think not. You are fantazing. Been indulging in mushrooms again?
Lighting is my only expertise? Think again. I also buy and sell fine art which I'm sure you couldn't afford let alone understand. Quit while you are at the bottom of the hole you are in, Italgato/Massagato. You are nothing but a joke around here. (So report that!)
(You really want to know what my IQ measurements are or are you more interested in orther measurements?)
I am afraid that you do not read well, Light wizard. I did not say that "all attorneys are geniuses" RE READ MY POST.
I am sure that you are a very prosperous Art Dealer who makes millions each year. That has nothing to do with the fact that, as I said, Attorneys who go to the top twenty law schools in the country--NOT ALL OF THEM AS YOU TRIED TO SHOW I SAID-- have IQ's something around 135 and up.
I care nothing about any of your other measurements. Intellect is the only topic here.
I am not on these posts to report anyone.I usually don't care to report anyone who does not make sense!
i respect everyone's opinion.... criticism is part of life
That's a generalization to state that all attorneys are 135 IQ or better -- considering that 140-145 is in the genius area. Your point is missed, so we will have to agree to disagree.
BernardR wrote:Lawyers who graduate from our top twenty law schools are among the most brilliant people in the USA.
Plain ol me states that there is NO correlation between intelligence and the ability to make a great deal of money.
Even as far back as 1991, the US Department of labor gave a wage chart that showed the following professions in order, Now, these may not be in quite the same order, but they are indicative of the INTELLIGENCE NEEDED. High IQ occupations have median wages well above the median.
Plain ol me was the one who "attacked; with his comment--"poorly educated dolts". If he had brought forward evidence as I have, I would have accepted his evidence and then tried to rebut it, but he gave no evidence.
You, plainolme, seem to think that a rebuttal is an attack. For a person who claims to be a voracious reader, you obvioulsy do not know that in the marketplace of ideas, good ideas flourish and poor ideas die.
All Light Wizard had to do was to defend his statement--"poorly educated dolts". I would bet that one of those poorly educated dolts who graduated from Harvard Law School would make LightWizard's head swim.
I do not side with "trial lawyers" Most of them are ambulance chasers. People from the top twenty law schools are not ambulance chasers. They do not have to be.
BernardR -- Please do not sit down in front of your computer unless you are sober.
Going to law school is no different than going to graduate school and, several years ago, it was pointed out in a conversation about fitness for graduate school, that an IQ of 115 is more than sufficient.
As for BernardR's list of high earners, just think of all those genius athletes, movie stars and pop singers who earn so much more than trial lawyers.
When I think of high IQ's, the first people to come to mind are Pam Anderson, Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears. Hey, if brains were gun powder, as the saying goes, among the three of them, they wouldn't be able to shot a cap gun on the Fourth of July!
BernardR wrote:Plain Old Me--Sir, it is you that do not read posts. I did not address you as the writer of the attack on Lawyers. I addressed Mr. Light Wizard.
And, I am very much afraid that "blue veined throbber" is guilty of an Ad Hominem attack and "Name calling". I merely wish to call the attention of the moderator to his attack.
to sensitive for a little good natured ribbing honey bunny? Have a glass of warm milk.
I did a thesis on the Sovereignty Goddess, a figure from Irish and Welsh literature, who grants the king the right to rule. Her best known English language reflex is the ugly bride in the Tale of the Wife of Bath by Chaucer.
In order to write this, I did research into the "saintly"political figures of France, because France was once a Celtic region and some of the myths found there retain the Celtic flavor.
It is with that background that I cast a jaundiced eye on DVC.
I also never heard the word Symbology. I think Dan Brown may have coined it.
I must say that the opening of DVC, with Professor Hanks presenting his power point, reminded me of a time, fairly long ago, when Simon Schama was still at HArvard and his expertise was used to support a television documentary. Made me chuckle!
blueveined -- Poor Bernie has trouble keeping things in order. He doesn't seem able to follow a thread.
plainoldme wrote:blueveined -- Poor Bernie has trouble keeping things in order. He doesn't seem able to follow a thread.
let's don't gang up on him.
Well, when you are really two or three or maybe four (?) other people, the split personalities have a habit of coming back to bite one in the ass. Ya, know, plainoldme, I no longer think of you in the same way and it's now posivitve. I apologize for attempting to tack a lable on you or anyone else but it's really a technique of baiting and you've rarely fallen for it. Can't say that for some others on this forum.
It is apparent that most people on these threads do not know how to read. I never said that ALL lawyers have IQ's. I said that "Lawyers who graduate from our top twenty law schools are among the most brilliant people in the USA"
Did you miss that, Plain ol me?
Now, again, and I'll go slowly so I don't tax your brain too much.
If you know anything about the USA's top law schools( Begin with Harvard, Yale, Stanford) you will know that you need a GPA which is between 3.4 and 3.9 and an LSAT score of 155-174(tops is 180)
Anyone who receives those scores must have at least an IQ of 135.
Your ignorance about Lawyers is massive. Most of the people( not all) who graduate from the top twenty law schools go to work for the top 200 law firms in the USA. At present the AVERAGE compensation for a partner in the top 100 Law Firms in the USA is $800,000 a year.
New lawyers in those firms begin at $135,000.
Why don't you find out about a topic before you show your massive ignorance, Plain Ol me?
