Who is the smartest poster at TL.net?

On May 04 2005 10:36 Kazoo wrote:
How does one define intelligence, even an idiot is intelligent in the way of idiocy

On May 04 2005 11:25 IntoTheWow wrote:
dbabo is the most retarded for sure <3 <3 <3


I think Moltke is pretty smart :D

On May 04 2005 11:34 omgbnetsux wrote:
"Smart" is relative.

On May 04 2005 11:36 Casper... wrote:
2+2=5

On May 04 2005 11:37 DJEtterStyle wrote:
Whoever has the lowest amount of posts per day is the smartest.

Sadly, that isn't me.

On May 04 2005 11:34 IntoTheWow wrote:


ENLIGHTEN US

On May 04 2005 11:24 MPXMX wrote:
This is my impression from what I have read. When they say something, rarely is there a disagreement from the community.

On May 04 2005 11:37 DJEtterStyle wrote:
Whoever has the lowest amount of posts per day is the smartest.

Sadly, that isn't me.

On May 04 2005 11:25 IntoTheWow wrote:
dbabo is the most retarded for sure <3 <3 <3


I think Moltke is pretty smart :D

On May 04 2005 10:34 Keanu_Reaver wrote:
smartest about what
and i think freak wins, he said he had an IQ of like 20572098420987

On May 04 2005 11:54 Ha.cK wrote:
Feuerbach cause you can't get any smarter than "Feuerbach out".

On May 04 2005 12:00 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:


I have a high IQ, but I lack the dedication to really make use of it. I am simply one of those naturally smart fuckers who remembers everything he reads but has no drive to read that much.

Though that has been changing in the past year.

EDIT: Please note that this does indeed mean that I value dedication far above natural ability. I will always have what I have, and chances are will not amount to anything more than a computer programmer. The dedicated people are the ones that become doctors, not people like me. My intelligence isn't something to admire. It is like tripping over a suitcase with a billion dollars in it. Who the fuck really cares?

On May 04 2005 12:33 Twisted wrote:
What people post on a game forum can hardly be used to judge intelligence, whatever discussion it may be.

You have no clue if people that post here care about intelligent input.

I for one, don't. :p

It's easy to spot the retarded, but it's hard to spot intelligent chaps. Any person that's not retarded can make a nice lengthy post with some fancy words in it, that doesn't make him intelligent perse. Or anyone can have good debating skills, yet not be that intelligent.

Poo topic to me

On May 04 2005 12:42 May wrote:
Base it on education qualifications and achievements - -;

On May 04 2005 12:09 Keanu_Reaver wrote:


oh man dont become a computer programmer, terrible job market
you're not in college yet right? im pretty sure thats what you said in one of our hostile little exchanges...if you want a career in computers, i'd suggest trying out CET or something else hardware based, i found it infinitely more enjoyable and it has a far stronger job market.

On May 04 2005 12:33 Twisted wrote:
What people post on a game forum can hardly be used to judge intelligence, whatever discussion it may be.

You have no clue if people that post here care about intelligent input.

I for one, don't. :p

It's easy to spot the retarded, but it's hard to spot intelligent chaps. Any person that's not retarded can make a nice lengthy post with some fancy words in it, that doesn't make him intelligent perse. Or anyone can have good debating skills, yet not be that intelligent.

Poo topic to me

On May 04 2005 13:02 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:
Unfortunately Ack, people don't really like that kind of person. It doesn't really matter what behavior they have. Alot of people think that I'm always out to win and that is why I'm so competitive. Generally people like me who just MUST be the best at everything they do aren't out to win, they're out not to lose. When I play starcraft, magic, snowboard, music anything like that...when I CAN'T do something I will be far harder on myself than most people. When I can't beat somebody at starcraft, not even once, I will pay for days on end without food or sleep just to be able to do it.

Same applies for songs I can't play. Tricks I can't do on a snowboard. Winning games of magic. It has nothing to do with winning, it has everything to do with complete desire to be the best at everything I wish to do.

If I could change that quality I might..it gets me in a lot of trouble with new friends. My friends I've had for awhile don't mind it anymore, they know that is just the way I am. I'm not very vocal about my competitiveness either. I just do it, talking smack will get me no where.

I dunno..I'm an odd one.

EDIT: I guess I kind of present it as about winning or doing things, but try to take it from another perspective. I can't NOT do it and I will die before I let it conquer me.

On May 04 2005 13:29 Shiv wrote:

You should try competitiveness in humility.
Seriously I don't know wether you are intelligent, very intelligent or not. But from what I have seen on these boards, you should seriously try to think a bit less about being marginal. Though I may be completely wrong.

On May 04 2005 11:41 draeger wrote:


So conforming to the majority opinion of the community is a pre-requisite for being considered smart?

On May 04 2005 13:02 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:
Unfortunately Ack, people don't really like that kind of person. It doesn't really matter what behavior they have. Alot of people think that I'm always out to win and that is why I'm so competitive. Generally people like me who just MUST be the best at everything they do aren't out to win, they're out not to lose. When I play starcraft, magic, snowboard, music anything like that...when I CAN'T do something I will be far harder on myself than most people. When I can't beat somebody at starcraft, not even once, I will pay for days on end without food or sleep just to be able to do it.

Same applies for songs I can't play. Tricks I can't do on a snowboard. Winning games of magic. It has nothing to do with winning, it has everything to do with complete desire to be the best at everything I wish to do.

If I could change that quality I might..it gets me in a lot of trouble with new friends. My friends I've had for awhile don't mind it anymore, they know that is just the way I am. I'm not very vocal about my competitiveness either. I just do it, talking smack will get me no where.

I dunno..I'm an odd one.

EDIT: I guess I kind of present it as about winning or doing things, but try to take it from another perspective. I can't NOT do it and I will die before I let it conquer me.

On May 04 2005 13:47 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:


I do believe you are quite wrong. I'm not that prideful of my wins, it is just within my nature to be the best at everything I do. It is hard to explain. You're going to have to trust me on this one.

And I don't try to be marginal...I just happen to be an odd one. I've accepted that. No point in trying to treat it differently.

On May 04 2005 13:58 MPXMX wrote:


I expected something like this

It's not really about conforming to opinion of the community as much as that they make arguments against which little can be said. I think we are on different wavelengths here ... that's not the defining quality of a smart poster but it's a part of it

On May 04 2005 11:24 MPXMX wrote:
SCFraser, you aren't too bad

On May 04 2005 13:02 Zeller wrote:
baal

On May 04 2005 11:39 FroZZoR wrote:
It's hard to tell who is really smart
you can tell who is arrogant and has to point out every flaw in other people's posts(like casper or rekrul) but intelligence is something that's hard to judge online

On May 04 2005 11:40 RaGe-xG- wrote:


that sure rules out ihatett... 1000+ posts in 2 months 160 posts every week :\

edit: midian should come close to this.. he reads tl.net alot, but only posts when he has useful things to say.

On May 04 2005 14:17 baal wrote:


weee, finally i was loosing hope in this forum , someone who can finally see through long ass posts and fancy words.

Freak you sure love petting yourself dont u , *pet pet pet* *bad kitty!*

anywayz Freak, i want to know who you consider the smartest poster on tl.net, and please dont say some random unknown poster just to pet yourself a little more

On May 04 2005 14:53 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:


Mensrea by far.

Current poster is either Cyric or Moltke.

On May 04 2005 14:53 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:


Mensrea by far.

Current poster is either Cyric or Moltke.

Draeger, WHERE DID I SAY I WAS BETTER THAN ANYBODY? I may be smarter than alot of people, but I would NEVER claim to be better at somebody because of it.

And admitting that I'm smarter than alot of people isn't pride, it is simple acceptance. I'm not going to show some sort of false modesty and say "I'm just as smart as everybody else on the planet" when it isn't true. However, I haven't claimed to be smarter than any of the folks mentioned in this thread. Get off my case you judgemental twat bunny.

On May 04 2005 15:00 ihatett wrote:
I found a way to pick the smartest posters:

liberals, line up in one corner
conservatives, line up in another
fascists/communists, line up in yet another
those who don't care, line up in the last corner

Those who aren't at a corner win. Oh, and I get a free pass for coming up with it.

On May 04 2005 15:00 ihatett wrote:
fascists/communists, line up in yet another

On May 04 2005 14:19 MPXMX wrote:
baal, you're awesome without a doubt

On May 04 2005 15:22 camooT wrote:
Intellect is a measure of your ability to solve problems, do things. Accomplishment is the measure of how well you put that ability to use. Asking how intelligent people are is like asking a writer how many reams of blank paper does he have. Not one of you is really intelligent here, not one of you have contributed anything significant to human knowledge. You can speculate on the most distinguishing attributes of intelligence outside of accomplishment (like ihatett), or testify to your own overwhelming intelligence (you know who you are), but the more you post here, the less chance you'll actually accomplish anything.

Rule #1 about judging people's intelligence: if they overgeneralize, it's a strike against them.

On May 04 2005 15:52 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
dangerous topic to post in so I'll just say

I think some of you are forgetting Manifesto :-)

On May 04 2005 14:11 MPXMX wrote:
But I found that those people do take sides on controversial topics and sound convincing on whatever side they are on, when the topic is open to debate that is (and they don't take a side that is clearly wrong when there is one)

Yeah what you said happened to be nitpicking because I didn't really choose words or put a lot of thought into what you quoted. It's there to somehow support my opinion of the posters, and I think it somehow does (maybe not very well)

whatever :-)

On May 04 2005 16:53 DV8 wrote:
They probably take the same side. Based on your list I can see myself debating them on the opposite end. Draeger's comment on your post about unison being a prerequisite to intelligence holds true in that if you don't conform to popular opinion you are often chastised if you stand your ground. A clear cut example is moltke. He often expresses his own opinion and when people lack empathy they demote anything he has to say as oppose to challenge it. Not to say that attitude applies to every poster but it is a noticible trait amongst the posters.

On May 04 2005 14:17 baal wrote:


weee, finally i was loosing hope in this forum , someone who can finally see through long ass posts and fancy words.

Freak you sure love petting yourself dont u , *pet pet pet* *bad kitty!*

anywayz Freak, i want to know who you consider the smartest poster on tl.net, and please dont say some random unknown poster just to pet yourself a little more

On May 04 2005 17:18 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


oh yea, baal, definitely, the guy who was arguing that when there's a prize behind 1 of 100 doors, after you pick one and reveal 98 of them without the prize, you should change your pick to the other door remaining because that door has a 99/100 probability of being correct.

On May 04 2005 17:18 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


oh yea, baal, definitely, the guy who was arguing that when there's a prize behind 1 of 100 doors, after you pick one and reveal 98 of them without the prize, you should change your pick to the other door remaining because that door has a 99/100 probability of being correct.

On May 04 2005 15:22 camooT wrote:
Intellect is a measure of your ability to solve problems, do things. Accomplishment is the measure of how well you put that ability to use. Asking how intelligent people are is like asking a writer how many reams of blank paper does he have. Not one of you is really intelligent here, not one of you have contributed anything significant to human knowledge. You can speculate on the most distinguishing attributes of intelligence outside of accomplishment (like ihatett), or testify to your own overwhelming intelligence (you know who you are), but the more you post here, the less chance you'll actually accomplish anything.

I also believe that intelligence is relative. There are cultures in the world (I can't remember specifics...) whose word closest to our "intelligence" actually refers to their social ability or their understanding of human nature. People who would rank high on this measure of intelligence might be men like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Hitler. Goes to show that intelligence can't neccessarily be judged on the criteria most commonly used on this forum (omg i can capitalize better than you can//i can post reams of ignorant shit for longer than you can//i can thesaurus whore better than you can).

p.s. my previous posts on this thread were a joke.

Your second paragraph again starts out with some semi-solid points. However, again, you degenerate into seperating yourself from what you seem to see as an inferior forum. Again, your take other concepts and force them into "intellgience". Social ability is not intelligence. It can be one facet of it, but they are not the same. The same goes for your loose description of "understanding human nature". These are all qualities that an intelligent person might posses, but they are not what makes that person intelligent.

Gandhi was not a particularly intelligent man, nor hitler, but both had an ability to invoke the best and worst of people that went beyond simply being able to speak out loud in front of a crowd.

On May 04 2005 17:44 Gryffindor_us wrote:
See male, that is what happens when you drink and drive. You lose.

On May 04 2005 17:47 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Much easier to post a list of dumbasses imo

There's quite a few people who have good things to say now and then:
Obsoletelogic
Arbiter
Baal (unfortunately he behaves like a dumbass more often than not)
Carnac
Hulkmania
Ironmentality (although most of what he says is hackery)
hmm some other people I can't think of atm.



both Gandhi and Hitler were pretty intelligent :/

Gandhi was a mediocre student in his youth at Porbandar and later Rajkot, barely passing the matriculation exam for the University of Bombay in 1887, and joining Samaldas College. He did not stay there long, however, as his family felt he must become a barrister if he were to continue the family tradition of holding high office in Gujarat. Unhappy at Samaldas College, he leapt at the opportunity to study in England, which he viewed as "a land of philosophers and poets, the very centre of civilization.

On May 04 2005 17:33 ihatett wrote:


your door has a 1% chance of being correct

99% of the time it is one of the other doors, so if all but one of the other doors are discarded, the remaining one has a 99% chance

On May 04 2005 17:50 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


you can't be serious...but anyway, this is off-topic. the people who agree with that probability argument shouldn't be listed in this topic.

On May 04 2005 17:50 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


you can't be serious...but anyway, this is off-topic. the people who agree with that probability argument shouldn't be listed in this topic.

On May 04 2005 10:30 SCFraser wrote:
This is a community of pretttty big nerds. I mean smart people. Anyway I just wanted to start a discussion on whos the cream of the crop here.

Personally I'm not really sure... but ill throw out a couple of names
Cyric
Eri
Bigballs
Servolisk

Casper seems like he might be smart, but its hard to tell when hes always being a prick

so on that note.. let the debate begin

On May 04 2005 17:54 LogaiN wrote:
Uhm... as far as I remember.. Kasparov had an exceptional IQ.. (depends on where we draw the line of course). Wasnt it like 150 or something?

On May 04 2005 18:01 Sp2Hydradized wrote:


Not to be too pretentious but even if it's 150 that's not that exceptional. I'm well aware of the fact that 100 is "average" but my IQ is 150 and most of the people I know are in this range or above. (We only know this about each other because the stupidity of our academic situation requires us all to be tested and many like to gloat) and I and those I associate with are not exceptional in the way Kasparov is. Not by a mile.

On May 04 2005 17:54 LogaiN wrote:
Uhm... as far as I remember.. Kasparov had an exceptional IQ.. (depends on where we draw the line of course). Wasnt it like 150 or something?

On May 04 2005 18:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you

if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.

I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.

On May 04 2005 18:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you

if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.

I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.

On May 04 2005 18:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you

if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.

I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.

the main part wrong with that logic is this. "now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct". if you remove a bunch of possibilities from the original pool, the probability does NOT stay the same. originally, with 100 doors, each one has a 1% chance of being correct. now when you remove 98 of them, how can you argue that the one you didnt pick remains at 1%, while yours is 99? its the same logic you're using.

'one of the two remaining ones is correct'. one in two is 50%. there is no reason why the other door would have a higher probability of being correct. the door you picked doesn't magically stay at 1% while the other door becomes 99%. if you believe thats true, the one you didn't pick could just as easily be 1%, and the one you picked could be 99%. your choice doesn't have a bearing on its chanes. as i said, removing some of the possibilities from the pool CHANGES all of the probability completely.

On May 04 2005 18:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you

if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.

I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.

On May 04 2005 18:12 ihatett wrote:
Imagine this, I have a brilliant analogy for you. I show you a deck of cards, and I tell you to pick the ace of spades at random. You pick a card without looking. I then take one card out from the remaining deck and say that either my card or yours is the ace of spades. Are you telling me it's 50/50? Are you saying it is a 50% chance that you randomly picked the ace of spades from a 52 card deck?

Sorry for the bold, I have to make him see it.

On May 04 2005 18:17 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


yes, your analogy is brilliant. it brilliantly proves my point. if i pick one card at random, and you pick one card, then tell me that either my card or yours is the ace of spades, YES it is a 50% chance, because the pool of possibilities has now been narrowed down to 2 possibilities, either my card is the ace of spades or yours.

On May 04 2005 18:17 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Can someone cue me in on what the debate is on now?

On May 04 2005 18:17 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


yes, your analogy is brilliant. it brilliantly proves my point. if i pick one card at random, and you pick one card, then tell me that either my card or yours is the ace of spades, YES it is a 50% chance, because the pool of possibilities has now been narrowed down to 2 possibilities, either my card is the ace of spades or yours.

On May 04 2005 18:19 ihatett wrote:


holy shit

At the time that you pick your card, what is the chance that you have picked the ace of spades? 1/52. In other words, 1 in 52 times you will pick the ace of spades.

Are you saying that after I eliminate 50 of the cards, the odds that you had picked the ace of spades goes up?

On May 04 2005 18:31 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:
if the door you picked keeps its original probability, why doesn't the door that is left keep its probability as well?

On May 04 2005 18:35 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:
and to get back on topic, i would say cyric is one of the more intelligent posters. if not, at the least he is very articulate.

On May 04 2005 18:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
because you know that one of the two doors is the correct one.. if you didn't know that one of the two doors is the correct one, then the other door would have an equal chance of being correct. (however, a huge majority of the time, they would both be wrong. )

On May 04 2005 18:39 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


if you know that one of the two doors is correct, nothing gives either door a higher chance of being correct than the other.

On May 04 2005 18:41 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
I'm probably going to reveal my lack of intelligence here, but I am curious about the Addendum #5 in the link given for this probability problem. I've been convinced as to the actual Monty Hall problem with the three doors already btw, this picture helped.

For anyone who is too lazy to look up the link, the scenario is basically three prisoners on deathrow, one of whom will be pardoned at random. Then, one of the prisoners (A) convinces the warden to reveal one of the prisoners who will not be pardoned (C). According to the addendum, the probability of A being the one pardoned is still 1/3, while the other prisoner (B) has his odds go up to 2/3. Is this just a matter of perception, because it would seem that from C's perspective he would be the 1/3 and A would be the 2/3? My brain fails me, please enlighten.

On May 04 2005 18:41 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
I'm probably going to reveal my lack of intelligence here, but I am curious about the Addendum #5 in the link given for this probability problem. I've been convinced as to the actual Monty Hall problem with the three doors already btw, this picture helped.

For anyone who is too lazy to look up the link, the scenario is basically three prisoners on deathrow, one of whom will be pardoned at random. Then, one of the prisoners (A) convinces the warden to reveal one of the prisoners who will not be pardoned (C). According to the addendum, the probability of A being the one pardoned is still 1/3, while the other prisoner (B) has his odds go up to 2/3. Is this just a matter of perception, because it would seem that from C's perspective he would be the 1/3 and A would be the 2/3? My brain fails me, please enlighten.

On May 04 2005 18:46 MoltkeWarding wrote:


Er...if you're talking about the probability of A being pardoned after its revealed C is not being pardoned, the probability of A being pardoned is now 1/2.

On May 04 2005 18:51 softwarepirate wrote:
im not extremely smart... but im arragant as all get up ^_^

Martin Gardner's version, published in October 1959, involved three condemned prisoners, one of whom will be pardoned at random. One prisoner cons the warden into naming one of the other prisoners (other than the prisoner who is asking this of the warden) who will not be pardoned. Do this prisoner's (the one talking to the warden) chances of being pardoned then go up to 50%? This is identical to the Monty Hall trap, and this prisoner's chances are still 1/3, but the probability that the third prisoner will be pardoned have gone up to 2/3. Mr. Gardner got a flood of mail about this, much smaller than Ms. Savant's flood of mail.

On May 04 2005 18:53 MoltkeWarding wrote:


If you're dumb, then why are you arrogant?

Let smart people be proud
and let stupid people be meek

and all would be right with the world.

On May 04 2005 18:50 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:

Why would C's perspective be different? Nobody was telling C anything, only A.

The only perspective that would matter is A because he was the one who was talking to the warden. The other perspectives are non-existant.

On May 04 2005 18:53 XaI)CyRiC wrote:

Addendum #5:

Martin Gardner's version, published in October 1959, involved three condemned prisoners, one of whom will be pardoned at random. One prisoner cons the warden into naming one of the other prisoners (other than the prisoner who is asking this of the warden) who will not be pardoned. Do this prisoner's (the one talking to the warden) chances of being pardoned then go up to 50%? This is identical to the Monty Hall trap, and this prisoner's chances are still 1/3, but the probability that the third prisoner will be pardoned have gone up to 2/3. Mr. Gardner got a flood of mail about this, much smaller than Ms. Savant's flood of mail.

Marilyn Vos Savant's column was published in Parade magazine, on September 9, 1990. Subsequent readers' comment appeared on Dec. 2, 1990, Feb. 17, 1991, Jul. 7, 1991, Sep. 8, 1991, Oct. 13, 1991, Jan. 5, 1992, and Jan. 26, 1992. Also see The New York Times of July 21, 1991 (front page) and August 11, 1991 about the furor. Several articles in mathematical journals were also devoted to this.

As per the bottom of http://www.jimloy.com/puzz/monty.htm
Maybe I should have said that the person to be pardoned was chosen before C was revealed as one that will not be pardoned?

On May 04 2005 19:07 camooT wrote:
Oops. Should've read more closely. A does have a 1/3 chance, following the Monty Hall rule, because he forced the warden to pick someone other than him. If B were to do the same, the odds would be 1/3 for him as well. Notice the key difference: WHO is conning the warden ELIMINATES that person from being chosen.

P.S. Moltke is a fucking idiot for being 3 pages behind everyone but your_killer. Please don't let us argue with him about this shit another 3 pages.

edit: let me explain my last post. I misread the scenario. I thought what it said was that the warden would tell the convict one person who definitely was not being released, but instead it was that the convict conned the warden into revealing the name of someone not being released, OTHER THAN HIM (the convict).

On May 04 2005 19:07 camooT wrote:
Oops. Should've read more closely. A does have a 1/3 chance, following the Monty Hall rule, because he forced the warden to pick someone other than him. If B were to do the same, the odds would be 1/3 for him as well. Notice the key difference: WHO is conning the warden ELIMINATES that person from being chosen.

P.S. Moltke is a fucking idiot for being 3 pages behind everyone but your_killer. Please don't let us argue with him about this shit another 3 pages.

edit: let me explain my last post. I misread the scenario. I thought what it said was that the warden would tell the convict one person who definitely was not being released, but instead it was that the convict conned the warden into revealing the name of someone not being released, OTHER THAN HIM (the convict).

On May 04 2005 18:37 imRadu wrote:
lost 10 IQ points reading this thread

On May 04 2005 12:00 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:


I have a high IQ, but I lack the dedication to really make use of it. I am simply one of those naturally smart fuckers who remembers everything he reads but has no drive to read that much.

Though that has been changing in the past year.

EDIT: Please note that this does indeed mean that I value dedication far above natural ability. I will always have what I have, and chances are will not amount to anything more than a computer programmer. The dedicated people are the ones that become doctors, not people like me. My intelligence isn't something to admire. It is like tripping over a suitcase with a billion dollars in it. Who the fuck really cares?

On May 04 2005 11:53 camooT wrote:
I'm MENSA bitches.

On May 04 2005 21:08 choboPEon wrote:


me, too.

I wonder who has the highest IQ here? % wise, because there are different tests and % is the only reliable way to compare them.

On May 04 2005 21:41 travis wrote:
i left MENSA cuz it was cutting into my NAMBLA time.

On May 04 2005 21:55 Smurg wrote:
No one has posted me yet.

WTF?

Thing is...I makes lots of large comments which seem fair, relevant and well written. But no-one ever notices them...and go for comments like. "lol ok, wat the shit?"

I'm fucking pissed.

On May 04 2005 19:54 ihatett wrote:
What's the highes possible IQ? I have that.

On May 04 2005 21:41 travis wrote:
i left MENSA cuz it was cutting into my NAMBLA time.

On May 04 2005 21:22 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
if you think that's what mensa is about you're kinda off

some people just need a little place where they can fit in and talk to others

On May 05 2005 00:19 JudasT wrote:


TRAVIS !

On May 05 2005 00:05 Chris307 wrote:

Last place is Fakesteve, right behind that ape that stumbled across a computer in the Congo and logged onto TL.

On May 04 2005 22:58 WhizKid77 wrote:
Smurg has the most insightful comments by far.

On May 05 2005 02:17 iD.Surv wrote:
Smurg is very smart poster!

On May 04 2005 17:59 Zerius[TPR] wrote:


Dunno about Cyric Eri and Bigballs but Servolisk is a god damn moron

On May 04 2005 17:47 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Much easier to post a list of dumbasses imo

There's quite a few people who have good things to say now and then:
Obsoletelogic
Arbiter
Baal (unfortunately he behaves like a dumbass more often than not)
Carnac
Hulkmania
Ironmentality (although most of what he says is hackery)
hmm some other people I can't think of atm.



both Gandhi and Hitler were pretty intelligent :/

On May 04 2005 14:51 ihatett wrote:


haha this guy has been on my case for a while now

he must have been molested by some other forum-goer when he was a kid

On May 04 2005 19:53 camooT wrote:
Whatever your intent, please stop posting IQ scores.

On May 05 2005 05:26 NonY wrote:


my IQ is in the mid 150's

On May 04 2005 10:36 Kazoo wrote:
How does one define intelligence, even an idiot is intelligent in the way of idiocy

On May 04 2005 17:18 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


oh yea, baal, definitely, the guy who was arguing that when there's a prize behind 1 of 100 doors, after you pick one and reveal 98 of them without the prize, you should change your pick to the other door remaining because that door has a 99/100 probability of being correct.

On May 05 2005 07:29 cYaN wrote:
oh yea, baal, definitely, the guy who was arguing that when there's a prize behind 1 of 100 doors, after you pick one and reveal 98 of them without the prize, you should change your pick to the other door remaining because that door has a 99/100 probability of being correct.

On May 05 2005 07:43 soundwave wrote:


I don't get it.

baal is suposedly "smart" because he argued that ?

On May 04 2005 18:09 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:


i wasn't going to respond to any of them, but eh.

the main part wrong with that logic is this. "now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct". if you remove a bunch of possibilities from the original pool, the probability does NOT stay the same. originally, with 100 doors, each one has a 1% chance of being correct. now when you remove 98 of them, how can you argue that the one you didnt pick remains at 1%, while yours is 99? its the same logic you're using.

'one of the two remaining ones is correct'. one in two is 50%. there is no reason why the other door would have a higher probability of being correct. the door you picked doesn't magically stay at 1% while the other door becomes 99%. if you believe thats true, the one you didn't pick could just as easily be 1%, and the one you picked could be 99%. your choice doesn't have a bearing on its chances. as i said, removing some of the possibilities from the pool CHANGES all of the probability completely.