QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/25/2000 4:44:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> retroman@turbont.net writes:
>
> << there is no way a person of any dominant ability is >>
>
> OK there it is, right there in that word dominant. I see it again and again.
> Your need to retain yoru dominance shows itself again and again.
>
You are taking my words completely out of context. It seems to me you have a bit
of a chip on your shoulder here. Everyone has dominant abilities of various
types, as you described yourself, whether they be emotional, social, language,
etc. and I was referring to those.
>
> Mike we are saying the same thing, you would like to keep the superiority of
> intelligence. I see little difference in your case tha nmine, except you are
> seeing your assertations as justifiable from your position of superiority,
> and I am casting a less complimentary slant on your case.
I don't care about the 'superiority of intelligence', understand? What I resent
is the idiotic beleif on the part of the social engineers that their own
insecurities about how their non-intelligence based skills need to be assuaged by
imposing on society as a whole the idea that everything we do is some sort of
'intelligence'. Be honest, call it by its right name. There is nothing wrong or
inferior about any other skills or abilities.
> (And you add a lot of needless piddle about crying your yeys out and
> "feelings">: - )
>
> I am going to put it out there one more time and then stop bothering the list
> with my own piddle. Inherently it's useless, and since Howard Gardner is a
> respected child psychologist and Mike Lorrey is not, little will be lost if
> all the Mikes and Micks in the world hate him and what he represents.
Funny that Gardner and his buddies don't feel the same way about the author of
"The Bell Curve".
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:13 MDT