"Jen Larson" <straycat at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3D355FC0.99C9A83 at udel.edu...
>>> John Knight wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <straycat at udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3D34643B.3F30553 at udel.edu...>> > You forgot one!
>> No, I forgot nothing you mis-formed cretin.
>> > Carly Fiorina!
>> > President of HP.
>> > Why would you leave her out?
>> She's more formed than the likes of your sledge.
>> > ps--oops, did I forget to mention that, since the day Carly made that
> > brilliant decision to replace Easter with Martin Luther Coon Day, that
the
> > value of HP stock plunged 75%.
> > http://christianparty.net/hp.htm>> Good. Religion is soon to be as much as an ancient wonder as Egyptian
> Gods, Roman Gods, Greek Gods, etc. All man-made. All fragile to the
> magnifier that is reality and adaptation and evolution is the sun.
>> > oops, make that 80%--it just dropped another 4.93% today.
> > http://money.excite.com/jsp/ct/bigchart.jsp>> Like the rest of the tech stocks. :D
>> > pps--since we're discussing "IQ" and brain size, Jen, and since the
comment
> > was about "women intellectuals" [a true oxymoron, if there ever was one]
> > would it be too much to ask if you have anything else to say about them
> > (like, what their IQ or brain size is that you think they're notable, or
how
> > you believe they qualify as "women intellectuals")?
>> No, I have no comment on their brain size, which would be irrelevant
> since they, along with hundreds of thousands of other women, are endowed
> with intellect of the most evolved nature on Earth. Your stunted
> mediaeval thinking is nothing more than a self replacing snaggletooth
> gear on the further machine of humanity. Your idiocy will be a point of
> embarrasment to our descendants much like "religion". Pathetic. Cleave
> tho as you must you fragile weakling.
Which is femineze for "I don't understand a word you wrote because I'm short
3 1/2 billion brain cells".
So let me clarify the question for you.
Do you believe it's "sexist" to point out that American girls scored lower
on ONE THIRD of some TIMSS problems than if they had merely GUESSED?
Is that a "sexist" statement in your humble opinion?
http://christianparty.net/timssphysics.htm
Or do you think perhaps that if there's a real concern here, that it would
be better for American girls if we addressed the problem, rather than just
swept it under the rug?
Does that make more sense than the original question? Is it possible for
you to strip out all the ad hominems from your response?
John Knight
ps--if you get REALLY creative, you might attempt to explain why this
happened so we can stop it from happening again--and again--and again.
[note: this was not the case for most girls around the world, so the
problem is not "women"--the problem is exclusively "American women"].
