Kevin wrote:
I don't agree with the definition that a person with a high IQ is a genius. You will notice that the page of quotations on genius I gave you a reference to (and which is also linked to at the top of the forum) made no mention of IQ.
Only an average IQ is required for genius. But the other ingredients are harder to come by.
I accept your disagreement, and liked the quotations. I see the quotations as descriptions of examples of genius, but descriptions of examples are not definitions. IQ may not equate to genius, but it is a far more reliable indicator than a penis. I perceive that you have enough words invested in your prejudice that no female alive today is a genius that your nebulous way of defining genius is the only way you have left to try to convince someone that you are right.
On Sept. 5, 2006 I wrote:
I do not have a problem with admitting when I have been deceived, even if I was only deceived by my own thoughts, because it is more important to me to have the truth than to try to falsely prove myself previously right. Do any of you guys have enough courage to admit when you have been deceived, or is the male ego that is predominant on this board so fragile that truth and honesty take a back seat to masculinity?
I see that when you, Kevin, insisted that no woman is a genius, you did not have enough courage to be open-minded.
One of the quotations you linked to on the other thread indicated that all geniuses are destitue. If that is part of the definition of genius, the following sentance would be true:
"The ability to pay your bills is not a sign of genius."
That sentance is as illogical as your prejudice against all women, and as illogical as being closed-minded for the purpose of trying to prove yourself right. "Trying" means that you are not doing a very good job of convincing people - as evidenced by the quantity of people disagreeing with your conviction.
Despite my observation of the illogic of your conviction, I still sort through what you say for worthwhile thoughts because I am open-minded. I will read your link to Camille Paglia.
sky wrote:
by posting your iq posting your picture and kissing up to david you are only underscoring exactly from whence comes the anti feminine found here
On Sept. 5, 2006 I wrote to sky:
first I quoted sky:
they who have become enlightened give off light
they are the 'beckoning candles'
then I responded:
I like that.
Would you say that I was kissing up to you?
same day I also wrote to you, sky:
Please stay.
more kissing up?
same day in response to you, sky:
Quote:
do i need to be 'butch' to grasp that
I responded:
No. Personally, I think that if someone needs to credit himself for something like his gender, then he must feel that he is so lacking in actual intelligence that he must clutch at straws to try to "prove" himself intelligent.
Genius is shown by quality thoughts, not bodily appendages, sexual orientation, mannerisms associated with gender, or anything other than quality thoughts and, if possible, behavior that is congruent with those quality thoughts.
All that was in the same tone I used with David, and that is just my tone. Since many posts in that tone were directed at you, would you like to share a can of lip balm?
sky wrote:
quite frankly you embarrass me
I do not want to embarrass you, my friend. If I can prove by example that a female can display the positive aspects of femininity and still be a genius (which was part of the reason for posting my test results and picture - the other part was to show concrete proof rather than unverifiable statements), then I will have made a positive impact by spreading some enlightenment. Isn't that a point of the board - enlightenment? Isn't that what you wanted for everyone here as well?
Kevin later wrote:
Perhaps my perceptions are distorted, but I don't think so.
I see a glimmer of hope that you can be open-minded.
(I hope that recognizing that isn't too much "kissing up" for anybody.)