Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

>> 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.

Hi Chris,

This stuff is how I know you iKooks all have a substandard below-normal IQ.
a. Your belief systems are all completely imaginary
b. Hence, facts threaten everything you believe in
c. So you simply resort to kindergarten blind denials that facts can exist

All you iKooks ever do (besides defending Apple to the death, no matter
what), is deny all facts about anything that you simply do not like.

By denying facts, in your mind, they go away (much like the Russians do,
but more to the point, it's why Alan Browne claims he's never seen the
walled garden that, literally, he logs into every day of his living life).

> 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.

Usenet is water under the bridge to me, where I respond only to what people
say; I don't care who says it - if it makes sense - I will agree with it.

I never disagree with a sentient logical statement, Chris, no matter whom
it comes from. It could come from the Devil himself, and if it makes sense,
I'd agree with it.

You said at one point that Mount Stupid isn't on the Dunning-Kruger graphs,
and I only belatedly understood why you said that - and once I did - I
agreed with you - but that just means I was using off-the-cuff terminology
as I knew full well the quartile graphs that were in the seminal papers.

So I give you full credit for pointing that out (but no credit for getting
the reason wrong - as it's clear by now I read and understood the papers).

I have to give you credit Chris, much as I give Alan Baker credit when his
quoted text shows something correctly, that you once caught a decimal-place
error in my off-the-cuff statements (about Covid deaths in children).

I have a good memory Chris - even after a spate of life-saving operations.
Anyone who can earn higher degrees in the sciences and engineering MUST
have a good memory - or they wouldn't be able to pass any of the exams.

You do NOT have a good memory Chris as you don't remember ridiculing the
use of "vehicle" (making jokes about cars) in immunology when it's a common
term of anyone who took courses in immunology (which I have taken).

Hell... I even have my immunology textbooks, which you uneducated iKooks
ridicule because you hate that none of you iKooks even has an undergrad
degree (neither Alan Baker nor Jolly Roger could have even a high school
diploma, Chris). Nobody with their IQs would.

Those are accurate observations of fact.

>> 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?

Again, this is how I know all you uneducated iKooks have a substandard IQ.
I never once said I was an immunologist. Not then. Not now.
Yet your "Mount Stupid" iKook brain simply makes that up out of nothing.

> I did my bachelors and PhD in Chemistry I don't call myself a chemist these
> days. I lead research projects in other fields.

You did not. You are a liar. You're too stupid to have a PhD in anything,
let along a bachelors degree Chris. Sorry. But you can't.

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.

>> - 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.

You think I'm making it up because that's what _you_ do, Chris.
All you ignorant low-IQ iKooks make _everything_ up, Chris.
It's why you live west of Mount Stupid on the Dunning-Kruger extrapolation.

>> 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.

Telling you that you are west of Mount Stupid is an accurate assessment.
Telling you that denying all facts you don't like is childish is an
accurate assessment. Telling you that you're a liar is an accurate
assessment.

You don't hear me saying that about Ant, do you Chris?
I don't say it about badgolferman, do I Chris?

And yet, I say it about Steve (being a liar) and yet I don't call him an
iKook. Doesn't it ever occur to you the _reason_ I call you an iKook...

...Is because you are...

Remember, iKooks are a special kind of person west of Mount Stupid.

>> 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 never once said I was an expert in anything (as far as I recall), Chris,
where you just _think_ I'm an expert because I know so much more than you
do.

Likewise, Alan Baker _claims_ to be an expert but he doesn't know the first
thing about things he claims to be an expert in - where I only know them
because I have a grasp of detail (e.g., what a BMW is called in racing
circuits) that Alan Baker lacks. But let's be clear here, Chris - showing
that I know more than Alan Baker does makes me no expert at all Chris.

All it means is I got past kindergarten, Chris.
Seriously.

You mistake me poking fun at the ignorant iKooks for me claiming I'm an
expert. My goal isn't to claim that and in many (many!) cases I expressly
disavow being an expert because I'm too well educated to make that claim.

Only people to the left of Mount Stupid claim to be experts (like Alan
Baker for example) when they're actually incredibly ignorant people.

HINT: Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Unless they live on Mount Stupid.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>

>>>> 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...

That's true actually. What I meant in the casual conversation was that it
was prescient, more so than seminal. Thanks for clarifying as I agree with
you.

Again (and again) and again, I will agree with anyone (hell, even nospam)
if that person makes a statement that makes sense logically.

When Alan Baker claims that he's an expert and yet he knows nothing about
the subject, that doesn't make sense.

When Steve claims that T-Mobile has no signal where it does, that doesn't
make sense (especially as Steve lied for years about the FCC data).

When Jolly Roger claims Apple fully patches older releases when even Apple
expressly says they do NOT do that - what JR thinks doesn't make sense.

When nospam constantly fabricates imaginary apps in the app store that
simply don't exist - that doesn't make sense.

When Snit claims this video shows an iOS app that can graphically show
Wi-Fi signal strength over time for all nearby access points, that doesn't
make sense (although all the ignorant iKooks believed it, Chris).
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> iKooks can't even see the fatal flaw!
>> 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.

The thing Chris, is none of you iKooks has any education so if I posted my
books, for example, you'd ridicule it endlessly like a kindergarten class
where someone in the class knew how to tell time when the others didn't.

When you show you've read (and understood) the seminal Dunning-Kruger
papers, come back and ask me to point you to the principal author of mine.

>> 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.

It was in response to just the kind of "show me proof" that you ignorant
iKooks requested - just as you did above with the principle author, Chris.

> You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from
> school.

You're a liar Chris. Not a single iKook owns the IQ to pass a college exam,
let alone what it takes to earn a PhD. You just do not own that intellect.

I'll change my mind the instant you show me that you do own that intellect.
--
Usenet is water under the bridge to me, where I respond only to what people
say; I don't care who says it - if it makes sense - I will agree with it.