Re: OT: Artificial?

From: bogart.lloy@xxxxxxxxx
Date: 18 May 2006 11:26:50 -0700

Doug Weller wrote:

On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:18:16 +0200, in sci.archaeology, Peter Alaca wrote:
[SNIP]
quoting Inger:

Neither for those
who aren't, as many of us have, among those with above
130 IQ and thus are used to draw conclusion without
having to spell out every single step, sorry nothing personal
to anyone. For the rest it might seem confusing.

Is there something about IQs so that when someone like Inger has a
middling one (given that she mentions 130, not literally middling but not
what I would call really high) they confuse people, whereas those of us
with high IQs don't? :-)

[snip]

I think you just confused me.

.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Artificial?
  - From: Peter Alaca
- Re: OT: Artificial?
  - From: Doug Weller

References:
- OT: Artificial?
  - From: Peter Alaca
- Re: OT: Artificial?
  - From: Doug Weller

Prev by Date: Re: Can any two people agree on a definition of archaeology?
Next by Date: Re: Minotauros
Previous by thread: Re: OT: Artificial?
Next by thread: Re: OT: Artificial?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: OT: Artificial?
... having to spell out every single step, ... For the rest it might seem confusing. ... middling one (given that she mentions 130, not literally middling ... those of us with high IQs don't? ...
(sci.archaeology)
Re: OT: Artificial?
... [SNIP] ... middling one (given that she mentions 130, not literally middling but not ... with high IQs don't? ...
(sci.archaeology)