vibrators
in [Design]
|
From: Hatunen on 3 May 2010 21:18 On Mon, 03 May 2010 18:10:58 -0500, Mark Edwards <Mark-Edwards(a)comcast.net> wrote: >No cluons were harmed when Hatunen wrote: >>Last I heard there was no such thing as an SAT score over 800... > >If you only scored 200 overall, how would you know this? Well, duh. By checking the SAT web site. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Adam Funk on 4 May 2010 07:20 On 2010-05-03, Hatunen wrote: > On Mon, 3 May 2010 18:29:53 -0400, "Otto Bahn" ><Ladybrrane(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: >>That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT. > > Last I heard there was no such thing as an SAT score over 800... He took an electronic version and pegged the needle, so they estimated 875. -- Take it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo]
From: Otto Bahn on 4 May 2010 10:29 "Adam Funk" <a24061(a)ducksburg.com> wrote >>>That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT. >> >> Last I heard there was no such thing as an SAT score over 800... > > He took an electronic version and pegged the needle, so they estimated > 875. And then I needled Peggy. --oTTo--
From: Joel Koltner on 4 May 2010 13:14 "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote in message news:hrphee$gqt$1(a)gargoyle.oit.duke.edu... > Wikipedia is not a valid cite. Anyone can fake a web page. So any web page he cites you'll reject? Hmm... ok... Wikipedia is audited regularly and generally found to be as accurate as printed encyclopedias: It's not that Wikipedia doesn't have difficulty ensuring accuracy (vandalism, just plain poor research, etc.) -- it's clear that it does, and its shortcomings are obvious to most --, it's that printed encyclopedias were never as "scholarly"/well-researched as most people assumed, generally containing plenty of errors... that would persist for years and years, whereas at least Wikipedia tends to get fixed pretty quickly. (My wife had a textbook in elementary school that listed Portland as the capital of Oregon. This was *in* Oregon, so while the teacher was quick to point out that the textbook was wrong, one has to wonder how many thousands of kids in other states used that particular textbook year after year, learning the wrong information... Try changing Wikipedia to claim that Portland is Oregon's capital and I'll wager it won't stay up for more than a day...) ---Joel
From: Otto Bahn on 4 May 2010 13:45
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> Wikipedia is not a valid cite. Anyone can fake a web page. > > So any web page he cites you'll reject? Hmm... ok... > > Wikipedia is audited regularly and generally found to be as accurate as > printed encyclopedias: It's not that Wikipedia doesn't have difficulty > ensuring accuracy (vandalism, just plain poor research, etc.) -- it's > clear that it does, and its shortcomings are obvious to most --, it's that > printed encyclopedias were never as "scholarly"/well-researched as most > people assumed, generally containing plenty of errors... that would > persist for years and years, whereas at least Wikipedia tends to get fixed > pretty quickly. Maybe someone should fix it to show how the SAT was scored in 1969. > (My wife had a textbook in elementary school that listed Portland as the > capital of Oregon. This was *in* Oregon, so while the teacher was quick > to point out that the textbook was wrong, one has to wonder how many > thousands of kids in other states used that particular textbook year after > year, learning the wrong information... Try changing Wikipedia to claim > that Portland is Oregon's capital and I'll wager it won't stay up for more > than a day...) Maybe, but on any given day you can't assume it's correct. --oTTo-- |