Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote:
We don't live in Britain, which still has an aristocracy by law.
In this country, all citizens are equal, and to look down on
another citizen for the way they talk is rude and crude.

All citizens are equal before the law. But, it is silly to think
that all citizens are equal. IMO, smarter is better, ceteris
paribus.

I'm not sure. Dilbert notwithstanding, I'm not sure we would be
better off having geniuses as trash collectors.

True, but not my point. Virtually anyone can be a trash collector.

I'm not sure that is true either. I have a high IQ, but a weak
stomach.

Perhaps
1 in 20000 can be a research mathematician or physicist. These
people are extremely valuable.

Only to people who hold certain values. As I noted, fundies tend not
to hold science in great value. Society as a whole does not, because
for al the rarity of such people, they aren't paid all that much more
than the garbageman.

I have little use for fundies.

I was not valuing people based on their paycheck, but rather on what they
offer society. Research mathematicians push our society forward.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos243.htm
Refuse and recyclable material collectors 11.60
and some other "material moving handlers" that require no especial
brains make twice that:
Gas compressor and gas pumping station operators $20.44

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm
Holders of a master's degree in mathematics will face very strong
competition for jobs in theoretical research. Because the number of
Ph.D. degrees awarded in mathematics continues to exceed the number
of university positions available, many of these graduates will need
to find employment in industry and government.
Median annual earnings of mathematicians were $76,470 in 2002. The
middle 50 percent earned between $56,160 and $91,520. The lowest 10
percent had earnings of less than $38,930, while the highest 10
percent earned over $112,780.

In other words, one can spend years working for a PhD in Math and then
not have a job, or perhaps have one paying less than $40K (much less
after paying the college loans), or one can operate a pump or a crane,
and make just as much with no loans to pay off.

How can a four-sigma person spend his life operating a crane? No way.
Money is not the primary motivator for these people.

I had the IQ to go for a graduate research degree, but I got wise to
the lack of respect and payoff to the effort, quit after my BS, and
went into computers.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm
Median annual earnings of computer applications software engineers
who worked full time in 2002 were about $70,900. The middle 50
percent
earned between $55,510 and $88,660. The lowest 10 percent earned less
than $44,830, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $109,800.

...
Median annual earnings of computer systems software engineers who
worked full time in 2002 were about $74,040. The middle 50 percent
earned between $58,500 and $91,160. The lowest 10 percent earned less
than $45,890, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $111,600.

They get paid as much as the mathematicians, need half as much
education, and the jobs are far more plentiful. Why should anyone
bother to go for a mathematician job when society values them so
little as to not have jobs for all the ones we produce, and then pays
them no more than a computer guy.

And the programmer that assists the mathematician in his research gets
paid a lot more on average:
Scientific research and development services $82,270


I don't think that they necessarily do. They offer something
different, but only at the expense of something else.

I disagree. The truly brillaint are, pound for pound, far more
valuable than the non-brilliant.

If that is aimed at me, why thank you, and I have lots of pounds (too
many). %^)

Absolutely. (I'm down 15. Getting into summer shape. Which summer, I have
no idea.)

But as noted above, society thinks that I am worth a lot more in my
secondary profession than in a research position.

One cannot expect society to value things that is not competent to even
begin to understand.

IMO, yes. It bespeaks a lack of intellectual curiosity.

Again, intellectual curiosity is a value that not all people hold
that valuable. The religious right, for example, does not value it.

You got me there. But seriously, intellect is held in high regard
by those who are doing the hiring for the choice positions.

They aren't the choice positions. "Choice position" as measured by
income is NBA player. Now THAT is a job society values. And how much
does society value intellect in the choice position of power in this
country? Look at the current occupant of the Oval Office to find the
answer.

Come on now. You know what I mean -- good, white-collar jobs.

Oh, when I was at the top of my profession in the 80s, I had the
chance to hear my bosses talking one day. "Let the programmer weenies
deal with it. If they don't, that's their problem". They then went
out for happy hour and left me and a couple others doing the work.
Such high regard for intellect. Not! I don't think they cared that I
heard.

Well, they couldn't have done that if they had hired an idiot instead of
you. Pretty smart of them to hire a sharp guy.

Another job society values based on high pay.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos122.htm
Stockbrokers have a somewhat broader pay range than computer people
and mathematicians, but have lower education requirements. A college
degree is only "preferred" and not mandatory, though probably the
higher pay ranges are almost all degreed. And it is a lot easier
degree than a math degree.

I am not valuing people by paycheck. If you did that, lawyers would be near
the top of the heap, as would Congressman. Stockbrokers and financial
analysts can probably be replaced by software. If your motive is to be
financially secure, become a leech on society.

Slainte,
Fletch

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:20:57 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

I did say that. Now try some comprehension. Those would have been
"incomprehensible" pronunciations since they could not be understood,
not "incorrect" ones. But of course since there is no one who
pronounces those words in that manner, your "argument" is pure straw.

Not according to you. You said that you can pronounce words any way
you like and that there is no correct pronunciation.

Therefore, if you pronounce "sweep" as "****" and "floors" as "goats",
then, instead of saying, "I sweep floors at McDonalds." you would say,
"I **** goats at McDonalds."

To which I would reply, "I didn't know McDonalds had any goats. Why
would you **** goats there? Why not do it at your home."

You see how confusing not pronouncing words correctly can be?

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

Why continue with these trivial examples? You know what he means. There
are no pronounciations written into the fabric of the universe. They are
determined by usage. The dictionary reflects this usage.

However, if your particular usage is thought of as dumb or lazy by the guy
you are interviewing with, you are screwed, not him.

Slainte,
Fletch

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:14:42 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:
The problem is with the black value system which is terrible.

It is better than the racist value system, which is subhuman.

Get your mind off racism. We are not talking about it. There's not
anything much worse than sitting around on your ass hollering racism
about everything. You've got to think and have a positive attitude.

lojbab

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

Nonetheless, the racist value system is subhuman.

Slainte,
Fletch

On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:59:34 GMT, "Fletch F. Fletch"
wrote:

I did say that. Now try some comprehension. Those would have been
"incomprehensible" pronunciations since they could not be understood,
not "incorrect" ones. But of course since there is no one who
pronounces those words in that manner, your "argument" is pure straw.

Not according to you. You said that you can pronounce words any way
you like and that there is no correct pronunciation.

Therefore, if you pronounce "sweep" as "****" and "floors" as "goats",
then, instead of saying, "I sweep floors at McDonalds." you would say,
"I **** goats at McDonalds."

To which I would reply, "I didn't know McDonalds had any goats. Why
would you **** goats there? Why not do it at your home."

You see how confusing not pronouncing words correctly can be?

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

Why continue with these trivial examples? You know what he means. There
are no pronounciations written into the fabric of the universe. They are
determined by usage. The dictionary reflects this usage.

However, if your particular usage is thought of as dumb or lazy by the guy
you are interviewing with, you are screwed, not him.

I agree with Bill Cosby. He didn't call them dumb or lazy. The said:

"Everybody knows it's important to
speak English except these knuckleheads..."

A knucklehead is a person who is stupid.

I think anyone who doesn't speak English correctly after his ancestors
have lived in this country for hundreds of years is certainly acting
stupid.

Asians and Hispanics master a lot of English in just a few days.

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:48:56 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:
Even so, whatever Cosby says, there is no "right" or "wrong" in
language use; there may be "appropriate" and "inappropriate", but that
is of course situational.

You've got to be kidding. Wake up. Of course, there is and always has
been a correct way to speak and a wrong way to speak. We are not born
knowing how to speak.

Very true. But we apparently have instincts that teach us to speak
based on external stimuli with no particular effort required by anyone
else. We determine what is "correct" for us, by what succeeds in
communicating that which we wish to communicate. If it works, it is
de facto "correct". In the case of English, the concept of an
Academie Anglaise has never caught on, so there is no formal standard
of correctness.

Why are you into denial so much?

Because I am informed, and you are ignorant.

What is it that
you do not understand about, "Many blacks do not speak correctly and
should do something about it."? What part of that do you not
understand.

I understand what you are trying to say, but in fact, your standard of
"correct" is personal to you, probably disagrees with my standard of
"correct" (which to me is obviously superior to yours), and definitely
disagrees with their standard of "correct". They aren't obliged to
meet your standards unless perhaps you are paying them to do so, which
you aren't.

You say their is"no right or wrong in language use".

I do, and I can present lots of expert testimony, whereas you are
limited to William Safire and his ilk.

How ridiculous can anyone get? Why do you think we have English teachers?

To teach "standard academic language", which is distinct from "correct
language". Actually in the broad sense, to teach "communication".

It's definitely
not to teach people that it's okay to say, "Why you ain't," and "Where
you is".

But it IS okay to say them, if you are talking to someone who
understands that dialect, or if you are talking to yourself.

Actually, it is okay to say it at other times, but it may fail to
communicate (just as so-called "proper" English might fail to
communicate, but hopefully does so less often), and it may affect
peoples' opinions of them. But perhaps they might WANT people to
think that way, in which case the usage is quite correct in
encouraging the desired response; it is a safe bet that when someone
"talks ghetto", they may want people to think of them as "ghetto
people", and it succeeds.

But English class has to teach people how to successfully talk and
write in the unnatural environment of academia and formal society,
which is something kids may not have experienced so as to learn on
their own, but are expected to master before adulthood.

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Holger Dansk wrote:
A knucklehead is a person who is stupid.

I think anyone who doesn't speak English correctly after his ancestors
have lived in this country for hundreds of years is certainly acting
stupid.

Damn right. I've travelled extensively in America and yet to find a
white person who can speak the Queen's English.

"Lesa" wrote:
I'd suggest you read this to clarify your views just a bit.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may04/231392.asp

I cited that very article in the post which you responded to.

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:55:25 GMT, "Fletch F. Fletch"
wrote:

I am not valuing people by paycheck. If you did that, lawyers would be near
the top of the heap, as would Congressman. Stockbrokers and financial
analysts can probably be replaced by software. If your motive is to be
financially secure, become a leech on society.

Lawyers are 15th from the top. The first figure is hourly earnings and
the second figure is annual earnings.
__________________________________________________ __________________

Highest Paying Occupations


Overall

Listed below are occupations 1-25 of the 711 occupations with the
highest median hourly wages in 2002. Click on an occupation to learn
more about it, including state data.

# Occupation Median wages, 2002
Hourly Annual
1 Anesthesiologists $70.01+ $145,600+
2 Internists, General $70.01+ $145,600+
3 Obstetricians and Gynecologists $70.01+ $145,600+
4 Surgeons $70.01+ $145,600+
5 Pediatricians, General $64.11 $133,300
6 Psychiatrists $62.95 $130,900
7 Family and General Practitioners $62.79 $130,600
8 Chief Executives $60.70 $126,300
9 Dentists, which also incorporates:
Dentists, All Other Specialists
Dentists, General
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
Orthodontists
Prosthodontists
$59.24 $123,200
10 Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers N/A $109,600
11 Podiatrists $45.61 $94,900
12 Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates $45.23 $94,100
13 Air Traffic Controllers $44.04 $91,600
14 Engineering Managers $43.71 $90,900
15 Lawyers $43.41 $90,300
16 Optometrists $41.39 $86,100
17 Computer and Information Systems Managers $40.98 $85,200
18 Physicists $40.88 $85,000
19 Petroleum Engineers $40.08 $83,400
20 Natural Sciences Managers $39.54 $82,200
21 Astronomers $39.27 $81,700
22 Nuclear Engineers $39.11 $81,300
23 Law Teachers, Postsecondary N/A $80,800
24 Political Scientists $38.73 $80,600
25 Marketing Managers $37.62 $78,200

http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview5.asp?Level=Overall

Slainte,
Fletch

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

wrote:
Nobody is holding guns to the headz of DAFNz forcing them to
breed out of wedlock. It is a free decision resulting from
irresponsibility and IQ-75 inability to envision the consequences
and impact down the road on DAFNculture.

There are plenty of people of high IQ that reproduce out of wedlock.

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:59:34 GMT, "Fletch F. Fletch"
wrote:

I did say that. Now try some comprehension. Those would have been
"incomprehensible" pronunciations since they could not be
understood, not "incorrect" ones. But of course since there is no
one who pronounces those words in that manner, your "argument" is
pure straw.

Not according to you. You said that you can pronounce words any way
you like and that there is no correct pronunciation.

Therefore, if you pronounce "sweep" as "****" and "floors" as
"goats", then, instead of saying, "I sweep floors at McDonalds."
you would say, "I **** goats at McDonalds."

To which I would reply, "I didn't know McDonalds had any goats. Why
would you **** goats there? Why not do it at your home."

You see how confusing not pronouncing words correctly can be?

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

Why continue with these trivial examples? You know what he means.
There are no pronounciations written into the fabric of the
universe. They are determined by usage. The dictionary reflects
this usage.

However, if your particular usage is thought of as dumb or lazy by
the guy you are interviewing with, you are screwed, not him.

I agree with Bill Cosby. He didn't call them dumb or lazy. The said:

"Everybody knows it's important to
speak English except these knuckleheads..."

A knucklehead is a person who is stupid.

I think anyone who doesn't speak English correctly after his ancestors
have lived in this country for hundreds of years is certainly acting
stupid.

Asians and Hispanics master a lot of English in just a few days.

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

You don't seem to be addressing my point.

Slainte,
Fletch