MarineHawk large booty email

[MarineHawk]

I just got this email comparing my booty to Gibraltar, and it pissed me off.

Here's the email:
_________________

THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT.

MarineHawk's booty is large - like Gibraltar.

I hope this gets passed on. Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does not like giant booties.

[MarineHawk]

And here's my response:
______________

My booty is NOT like Gibraltar.

I hope you forward this message from me to everyone who received the previous email. There is already too much intolerance and selfishness in the world to promote this kind of bigotry and ignorance.

[NJ H2]

Very good Sir

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by NJ H2

Very good Sir

Thanks.
P.S. When are you guys going wheeling again?

[NJ H2]

I hope to get up there soon. I see Pops and a few others are goin to PAP on the 20th. I'd like to do run in March/April maybe back to Rousch Creek

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by NJ H2

I hope to get up there soon. I see Pops and a few others are goin to PAP on the 20th. I'd like to do run in March/April maybe back to Rousch Creek

Me too. I'd like to go next week, but until my 4-week-old starts sleeping at least 4 hours or so at a time, I'd put my marriage under significant strain if I temporally abandoned my duties and went wheeling. March sounds more realisitic for me.

Are you guys thinking about camping again? Is the lake camping open in March? I was thinking about looking at the camping options at a few nearby state parks as well. Probably a little less crowded.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

And here's my response:
______________

My booty is NOT like Gibraltar.

I hope you forward this message from me to everyone who received the previous email. There is already too much intolerance and selfishness in the world to promote this kind of bigotry and ignorance.

Don't let selfishness be a substitute for ignorance. In contrast, it's usually the opposite. Ignorance is usually a fertile breeding ground for selfless devotion to ideals that are full of bigotry and intolerance.

One should truly fear the slightly intelligent whose selfishness drives them to promote their convenience at the expense of others. They are usually the start of the cancer that infects the ignorant.

[h2co-pilot]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Don't let selfishness be a substitute for ignorance. In contrast, it's usually the opposite. Ignorance is usually a fertile breeding ground for selfless devotion to ideals that are full of bigotry and intolerance.

One should truly fear the slightly intelligent whose selfishness drives them to promote their convenience at the expense of others. They are usually the start of the cancer that infects the ignorant.

Selfishness being the key word.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Don't let selfishness be a substitute for ignorance. In contrast, it's usually the opposite. Ignorance is usually a fertile breeding ground for selfless devotion to ideals that are full of bigotry and intolerance.

One should truly fear the slightly intelligent whose selfishness drives them to promote their convenience at the expense of others. They are usually the start of the cancer that infects the ignorant.

I agree, though I'm increasingly of the opinon that intelligence and emotional competence are completely unrelated. I think idealists are ignorant inasmuch as they skip the second of the two basic steps in analyzing things: (1) identifying an applicable theory; and (2) assessing its value by applying it pragmatically to real circumstances. For idealists (often liberals), the theory is the end unto itself. They completely skip any rigorous application of step 2. How many times in college did I hear the mindless regurgitation of such preposterous statements as (1) "In theory, communism is the ideal governmental system"; and (2) "It is better that 10,000 criminals go free than one innocent person be imprisoned." Number 1 is wrong, because the theory only works with machine-like being who do not have emotions or the need to continuing economic incentives. It does not, however, work with human beings. A social theory that does not work with humans has no value at all. Number 2 is ridiculous because 10,000 violent criminals going free would cause suffering and death by innocent people on a scale incomparable to one innocent person's regretable loss of freedom.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

I agree, though I'm increasingly of the opinon that intelligence and emotional competence are completely unrelated. I think idealists are ignorant inasmuch as they skip the second of the two basic steps in analyzing things: (1) identifying an applicable theory; and (2) assessing its value by applying it pragmatically to real circumstances. For idealists (often liberals), the theory is the end unto itself. They completely skip any rigorous application of step 2. How many times in college did I hear the mindless regurgitation of such preposterous statements as (1) "In theory, communism is the ideal governmental system"; and (2) "It is better that 10,000 criminals go free than one innocent person be imprisoned." Number 1 is wrong, because the theory only works with machine-like being who do not have emotions or the need to continuing economic incentives. It does not, however, work with human beings. A social theory that does not work with humans has no value at all. Number 2 is ridiculous because 10,000 violent criminals going free would cause suffering and death by innocent people on a scale incomparable to one innocent person's regretable loss of freedom.

Yes, yes. It would seem there's a point where intelligence and emotional competence completely diverge as each grows. With rarity, the intelligent MAY separate themselves and be able to see the virtue of applying the theory in a manner completely separate of their self in a way to determine it's further meaning. Not just look at the beginning and end of a line but each point in between and to help those points align themselve to populate the theory to fruition. That intelligent person is a leader of a different sort. To achieve the greater good for the all without serving his own is the sign of a true leader.

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

I agree, though I'm increasingly of the opinon that intelligence and emotional competence are completely unrelated.

What are your thoughts on emotional intelligence then?

The distinction between intelligence and competence in the area of scognition(IQ) is very clear, where generally, psychological research demonstrates that IQ is a reliable measure of cognitive capacity, and is stable over time. In the area of emotion, the distinction between intelligence (EQ) and competence is murky. Current definitions of EQ are inconsistent about what it measures: some say that EQ is dynamic, and can be learned or increased; whereas others say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased. Therefore there is a relation to some degree between intelligence and emotional competence.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

Therefore there is a relation to some degree between intelligence and emotional competence.

I slightly disagree.

There is a lack of consensus about a general theory of competence, and therefore, little to guide researchers in selecting and evaluating dimensions of communicative or emotional competence. I find that literature consists of numerous proposed dimensions, but that few of these have undergone rigorous assessment and evaluation. I advocate combining knowledge of how to behave with actual performance in order to distinguish competence, and i argue that competence also implies standards of appropriateness and effectiveness.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

What are your thoughts on emotional intelligence then?

I have no data, but within reasonable limits, I observe little if any correlation between intellect and emotional maturity (I?m obviously at the low end of the latter myself). More often, I see an inverse correlation. Some of the most pleasant, self-confident (the opposite of arrogant IMO) people I know are not the ones with whom I would want to discuss deep, complex intellectual issues. Of course, when you get into really low IQ's, you likely start to see a disproportionate amount of psychological problems. But, if you look at the part of the IQ bell curve containing 90% of people, I don't see a correlation. Like I said, I?m merely basing this on my own anecdotal observations. I work with a lot of highly-intelligent people, making pretty high salaries. But even their productivity in the work place, which has some significant correlation to intelligence, is probably more dependant on the person?s character than his or her intelligence. For example, I?ve consistently noticed that attorneys who grew up on farms are some of the most productive and useful I know. It?s because they consistently work through problems until they get the best resolution they possibly can find -- no matter how difficult the process is. That?s just one example. Many people with a non-agrarian background also have great work ethics. But, so many others simply focus on how much credit they think they will get and how they can ?complete? a project the most quickly and painlessly. Invariably, it affects their lives negatively because they are constantly fighting the ill impressions and disorganization their laziness yields. Many of these corner-cutters are very, very intelligent, but also very unproductive and probably fairly unhappy.

[Mr. I - Man]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

I just got this email comparing my booty to Gibraltar, and it pissed me off.

Here's the email:
_________________

THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT.

MarineHawk's booty is large - like Gibraltar.

I hope this gets passed on. Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does not like giant booties.

Sounds like a lack of P.T.