vs at it.uu.se
Wed Oct 17 16:13:13 CEST 2012
On 17-Oct-2012 11:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Demian Brecht <demianbrecht at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I can't ascertain what your strengths are as I don't work with you on a daily basis (one of the many benefits of working with people smarter than you ;)).
>> Doubt that, unless they have 160+ I.Q.'s(been seeing psychiatrists
>> since I was 13). I'm very secure in my childlike intellectualism.
> A high IQ just proves ability to score well on IQ tests. On the whole,
> your statement strikes me as reminiscent of Sheldon Cooper's
> insistence that "I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested!".
> Personally, I've never taken an IQ test, so I don't know how well I'd
> score. But I'm a school dropout, never went to
> college/uni/TAFE/etc/etc, don't have any certifications of any sort.
> I'm a pretty uneducated fella, according to my
> résum&htmlentitiesdontworkhere; (that's "resume" when folded
> into ASCII). So according to how most people think about intelligence,
> I probably have a sub-par IQ. On the flip side, I'm a professional
> programmer, I run a server where people play Dungeons and Dragons, and
> I'm a well-respected wordsmith as Dungeon Master. Plus, I work in
> theatre (in fact, at the moment I'm posting from the bio box, sitting
> next to the follow spot that I'll be operating for the next two
> weeks). So I think I have enough muscle upstairs to get through
> But Dwight (and I'll continue to address you as such until you change
> your mail headers), a LOT of what you're saying is coming across as
> over-inflated ego. Maybe you are a majorly interdisciplinary learner;
> but boasting that you're "the most interdisciplinary learner [we]
> might have ever encountered" just comes across poorly. One thing I've
> learned from various groups is that, no matter how X you are, there's
> someone else who's even more X - for any X. Maybe it isn't true
> somewhere, maybe you really are the peak - but more than likely you
> aren't, and it's much more pleasant to be proved better than your
> claim than to be proved worse.
> (There are exceptions, of course. I have absolutely no doubt that I am
> the person most familiar with the RosMud++ code and thus the person
> best positioned to maintain that project. This is because I wrote it.
> But I am not claiming to be the best C++ programmer in the world,
> because there are a lot of other C++ programmers among the seven
> billion here.)
An excellent response Chris :-)
More information about the Python-list