brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Sat Aug 3 10:55:04 EST 2002

"John Knight" <johnknight at> wrote:
>parsetree, you and lojbab seem to have a REAL problem comprehending the word
>"average".  One single anecdote doesn't and cannot invalidate the AVERAGE to
>which Mr. August is referring.
>If you need someone to explain this to you [again], just ask, but it's
>counterproductive for you to dispute a statement about the *average* in this
>country with one single possible outlier.

Then why do you persist in jumping to conclusions about individuals
based solely on averages?  Relatively few people are exactly at
"average" on any single measure - most are "outliers" to some extent.
Almost no one is "average" on all measures.  Averages are statistical
fictions.  There is no family that has the "average" 1.9 kids.


>If you're on this planet, you ARE being charged interest, every day.

is not a statement about averages.  It is a universal claim.

>The value of the dollar against an ounce of gold barely changed for the 141
>years between 1792 and 1933, then all of a sudden it fell by 33% (not too
>long after women began to vote and right when jews took charge of our
>national bank).

And right during the Great Depression when the US economy was
paralyzed by a lack of money in the system.

  The next year it fell another 10%.  But it stayed at that
>level for 9 years, when it fell another 3% (in 1944).  It fluctuated around
>$35 an ounce for the next 22 years, then suddenly dropped 14% in 1969, and
>it's been on a downhill slide ever since.  In 1987 it was worth 1/25th as
>much as it was worth for the entire 141 years right up to 1933.

If "it has been on a downhill slide ever since", then it should be
worth significantly less than the 1/25th as much that you claim
applied in 1987.  Is it?  No (see your number below) - then your
statement that "it has been on a downhill slide ever since" is FALSE.

>You're DEAD WRONG to think this isn't a problem.  It wouldn't have happened
>if women didn't vote, because men would never have permitted the jews to
>take charge of our national bank.

Funny.  I daresay that the decision was made by men.

>A thousand ounces of gold in 1932 was worth $20,670, but today it's
>supposedly "worth" $271,000.

Which is a factor of 13 to 1.  So the dollar has been on a pretty
steep "upward slide" since 1987 when it was 25 to 1.  So much for
another nincompoop fairy tale (a tale told by the nincompoop fairy)

>What changed about that 1,000 ounces of gold?  Nothing.  It's intrinsic
>value is identical to what it was in 1932.

Actually it has changed.  When people are starving in a Great
Depression, gold is relatively worthless.  When people like to show
off their dotcom wealth, gold is valuable to them.

There is nothing magically fixed about the intrinsic value of gold.
It intrinsically is worth precisely what people will pay for it in
money or goods.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list