[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/r9trip/ - The Complete Robot

More androids than an Asimov novel

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
A message from @CodeMonkeyZ, 2ch lead developer: "How Hiroyuki Nishimura will sell 4chan data"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 4 per post.

File: 1422209362073.gif (352.22 KB, 400x338, 200:169, 3245245.gif)

 No.670[View All]

Hey 54m50n,

How about we have a thread about how everyone got their trip names and discuss the creation of new ones


;^)
104 posts and 30 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1239

>>1231
what a smart guy, he articulates the point for eugenics so well.
I found the host more irritating than Dr Welsing.
Holy shit i take that back. her bullshit on pigment's role in the phylogenetic tree is so fucking whacked out, and AGAIN (I HATE this) reduces race merely to skin colour.
Jeeeeeeeesus christ.

 No.1240

>>1238
>The potential only goes so far as to further reinforce female hypergamism; they wouldn't have been selected anyway!

The gaijin hunter phenomenon is an unfortunate setback for grass-eaters, but afaik it's not too widespread yet (that is, whites coming in with a higher SMV and actually settling down with and having children with Japanese women).

putting that aside, are you really implying that women have that much of a choice?

the lower estimate for grass-eaters is 30% of the Japanese male population. 30%… that's a huge disparity. Think about all of the (lowest SMV, admittedly) women who are then unable to find a partner.

Japanese Chads would have neither the want nor ability to cater for that huge surplus in women, especially when the grass-eaters opting out has reduced their competition to go straight for the highest SMV Japanese women.

Japanese chads need never settle for a lower SMV woman ever again, so how could these women ever expect to hold onto their ridiculous standards and still find someone to be partnered up with?

Essentially, my line of thought is that they'd have to lower their unrealistic expectations and change the way they act, perhaps even assuming some of the effort it takes to build a relationship with men who are now entrenched in being both overly cautious about the prospect, and also disinterested.

How does it support hypergamy when in refusing to continue orbiting low SMV women, grass-eaters are helping to devalue their inflated worth?

 No.1241

>>1239
I remember just three months ago that I had read the revised sample testing (effectively a preamble, specification paper on the statistical observations derived from testin) preliminary to the renorming of the 3rd edition, I think it was, of the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, and something striking occured to me about Black intelligence distributions even at the highest levels of academia, which affirmative action has enabled their matriculation in:

For the highest educated Blacks in America, post-graduate to PhD, called 'socio-demographic class 5' in this paper, full-scale IQ scores were actulaly 3 points below the averages for high-school education only Whites.

This meant that a 97-IQ laggard like Dr Welsing is doubtlessly based on her incomprehensible, stupidity-rather-than-insanity-inspired word salads, was fully able to attain her PhD thanks to affirmative action despite being woefully unqualified for even the Bachelor stage of pre-medical education (which would confer a minimal IQ requirement of 110-115, based on the averages for Whites with that education level).

>>1240
Removing 30% of the lowest-SMV Japanese male segment, with the highest-70% remaining, simply reinforces the expectation in women that it is a natural order for the lowest SMV males to be rejected, and in their narcissistic expectation to see 'humility' towards them from males, fits into the fabric of their warped worldview perfectly, irrespective of how tenuous the practicality of an expectation of hypergamic selection becomes (most women don't care; it's a case of 'retarded persistence' for them, they will keep hypergamically searching and searching and searching until Mrs. 1st-percentile-attractivity gets her Mr. 31st-percentile-attractivity male). Practical implications like you've presented with the inability and lack of motivation and incentive for Chads to sustain an excess of females does not phase them, disturbingly enough.

You're just not going to affect the kind of change you want, because female psychology differs greatly in the egotism involved.

 No.1242

>>1241
ok, so even if grass-eaters voting with their feet doesn't cause a change in womens' attitudes, it's still going to make womens' lives objectively worse until some miracle happens and they do change.

as they approach the age where they become biologically hellbent on having children to the point of being desperate enough to lower their standards (even if they don't like the men they choose to father their children and see it as "settling"), they'll find that those men they would have fallen back on are no longer interested. maybe in their frustration they'd ask the grass-eaters why, but if they fail even to open a discourse on the problems, throw a hissy fit and pull some foreigner instead, what loss is it?
it's hardly eugenic to breed with such eternal children.

 No.1244

>>1212
Women do approach art with a more capitalist mindset, though.
I don't actually disagree with Autphag's statement now that I realize we're using different metrics.
And I know it was rude, but the weight of an argument isn't divvied up according to ability.
But always remember- in the end, as a cute girl you have more worth, and deserve to live more than I. You'll always have that.

 No.1245

>>1244
Apparently we still have to elucidate Craven on the meaning of metric in the context of our discussions?

I googled define metric and I can see now why Craven felt none-the-wiser. The definitions google gives are incomplete.

>>1223

This works though:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metric

noun
2.
Often, metrics. a standard for measuring or evaluating something, especially one that uses figures or statistics

It's a very broad term that needs to be taken into the context of the discussion.

Take Cohen's much maligned Empathy Quotient as an example.
If you want to see how (cognitive) empathy differs between different demographs, the respective EQ scores of those demographs are the metric by which you measure that differentiation.

>extrapolable
this is a word made up by Autphag to describe something which can be extrapolated or something from which you can extrapolate something else.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extrapolation?s=t

extrapolation

noun
1.
an act or instance of inferring an unknown from something that is known.

>caparicious
another word made up by Autphag. Perhaps he meant capricious:

adjective
1.
subject to, led by, or indicative of a sudden, odd notion or unpredictable change; erratic:
He's such a capricious boss I never know how he'll react.
2.
Obsolete. fanciful or witty.

 No.1247

>>1245
I had misspelled capricious. My apologies.

 No.1248

>>1245
Also, extrapolable is the most obvious, logical adjective derived from extrapolation.

I guess you could always say 'extrapolative', but that seems stilted to me.

 No.1249

>>1248
i think extrapolative sounds better, but extrapolable makes more sense. spell checker is red-lining both, though, so obviously oxford, collins and merriam-webster, haven't noticed the gap in our vocab yet.

 No.1251

>>1231
think i found an extended cut of that interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ULWzSpX6sk

 No.1258

File: 1424303280125.jpg (143.13 KB, 833x696, 833:696, 1412375842495.jpg)

>>1225
>I don't think Craven was implying that at all.
Y-you understand me so well.
Also, it's kinda weird to keep hearing myself called Craven. I know I picked the nickname but I'm just not used to it, I suppose. Since we're all friends here, you guys can call me Savvy (it's short for Savannah, which is my actual name.)
I know it's completely irrelevant, sorry, I'm just not a very private person and it feels odd to not be on a first name basis with people I've chatted with for a bit

>>1225
>have you explained g loading to Craven yet?
He has not. I have heard of the g factor before and have the book in my Amazon wishlist (it's apparently a college-level textbook) however I've never had the chance to order it (never had a job so that's kind of a hurdle lel)

>>1226
>lmao, you got your formatting wrong in the first, reposted, and still managed to include some of your response to your last quote of mine in my greentext.
THIS IS A NO BULLY ZONE.

>It seems so well thought out.
It took me like two seconds to think of, honestly. It's just Neurotypical politeness. Even if you think someone is being boring, you can't say it to them otherwise it'll hurt their feelings. Like I said, this is unfair especially since others never seem to take into consideration YOUR feelings, but alas that's just the way the wind blows.

>>1226
> if it weren't for the fact that you then project that on us.
Like I said, it's just insecurities. Everyone has their faults, this is just an extremely common female one. Just try to look at it from a bright side and be happy because your mom truly loves you and always wants to ensure that you're happy. Not justifying it at all, but like I said previously, I can see it from both sides.

>When I finally gave up orbiting the girl I liked in highschool, I tried mending our friendship
That's a real shame that things didn't work out. I don't know what to say other than shit happens. I don't necessarily think she's to blame, though, nor was anyone at fault. After all, enough men had to have verified the "nice guy" stereotype prior to you to have her build a wall up and be distrustful. Then she projected her fears/experiences onto you unfairly and misinterpreted your advances, leaving nobody happy at the end of the day.

:/

>Yes I've explained g-factor. No, I don't know if that means she understands it or not.
>Craven, do you?

Nope. I try my best to follow your conversations but like I said prior I tend to understand Moss Hunter's posts almost 100% and yours about…50% - 75% if it's an especially confusing one. Sorry.

>>1244
Bullshit. Everyone's life has inherently the same amount of value and worth (with the exception of some child molesters/serial killers). You deserve to live just as much as anyone else. Don't ever put yourself down like that or let anyone make you feel inferior.

>>1245
Sorry that I'm having to have you explain these things to me. I feel kind of dumb now…I really do appreciate you taking the time out to help me, though. And I was fairly certain that Autphag meant capricious (which I was familiar with) but didn't want to assume anything.

 No.1260

>>1258
I can't be arsed writing my response. If you can tolerate my pauses and slow speaking because I'm tired:

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1VxWQ5oxwd2

 No.1261

File: 1424315063910.png (234.38 KB, 853x480, 853:480, 1337470108691.png)

>>1260
Thank you so much for explaining it! You're very polite in that vocaroo, as well, haha.
those random loud ass beeps though killed my ears

So from what I understand, the g factor is like a general measure of intelligence. So while there are different factors in determining someone's overall intelligence, based on that g factor, it's fairly easy to predict the results someone might have on a specific test relating to IQ (visuospatial cognition tests or something of the nature).

So does this mean when you take an IQ test, the 'g' factor would be the number you receive, or is the g factor merely the concept of one's intelligence? Like would it be utilized as a predictive tool in order to make a hypothesis on where someone might fall on the IQ chart (or on any type of test, for that matter)?

This is really the first time I've ever looked into the g factor so pardon me if I've completely gotten it all wrong but that's what I've grasped so far between all of the confusing nomenclature and your thick accent, haha

 No.1279

File: 1424375807300.jpg (212.3 KB, 1000x562, 500:281, WP_20150219_003.jpg)

cba to start a new thread or find a more suitable one for this, but met up with Autphag in Perth today.
just talked about crap and ate lunch.
Autphag, those noodles are awesome haha, think i might have to bulk order some off ebay now.

Not the best of photos because it was nippy and windy as fuck and the sun was low in the sky, but hey

 No.1280

>>1279
Legendary picture, though my face could do with a photoshop makeover to conceal the gradual resurgence of overweight as a response to my recently-refound addiction to Nigerian-imported noodles.

Hopefully this can go on either the preamble or title of our first co-operatively written work (yes, that's something I want to work on over the course of the months; David and I tried, but David's just a shit communicator in general).

 No.1281

>>1261
That's my fire-alarm.

Yes, that's the long and short of it, but nobody's quite sure if the g-factor is merely the general model core tying other intelligences together, or whether this general model core is actually one of the subsets of intelligence we already test (though it seems general intelligence is gradually coming to being consensually agreed as synonymous with fluid intelligence – with visuo-spatial also being a high correlant – as opposed to the culturally-mediated intelligence types of verbal and performance).

The predictive value of a subtest is in its g-loading; the hypothesis is that a more g-loaded test is more predictive than a more culturally-mediated one, and let me expand upon that in much more precise, albeit less concise, terms:

It is both the concept and the metric used to measure it, but the point is that not all different subtypes of intelligence are equal in value; some have more 'g-loading' than others, and it is this 'g-loading' which gives it predictive value because it means you weren't pre-taught in a way that could mediate the score (which is why crystallized intelligence tests such as the verbal subset of Weschler are unreliable).

 No.1282

>>1281
'G-loading', therefore, and this is the best way to regard this, can best be synonymized with 'non-verbal/"survival" wit', since it evolved to give men hunting prowess in the first place.

 No.1283

>>1280
>David and I tried, but David's just a shit communicator in general).
don't count on me being the best communicator either haha. shit happens

 No.1284

>>1283
You've the conceptual backing though. He was just an airy, pretentious, pseudointellectually masturbatory freak.

 No.1293

>>1279
That's a wonderful photo! You both look so nice, I'm glad you all had a wonderful time. Seems like it was a beautiful day as well!

>>1281
>That's my smoke detector
Autphag you need to immediately go to the store and buy new batteries. The beeping per minute is a sign that it's running low on batteries and this means as soon as it stops, it has died. Make sure you don't use a rechargable battery and you check the kind before going to the store. Please do this immediately, you always want to be protected in case some kind of emergency were to happen.

And yay, I'm really glad that I understood! I was terrified that I just had it all wrong, haha.

>>1282
So therefore women have poor G-loading?

 No.1342

>>1279
Autphag, you look like a 40 year old Jewish professor. go to Berkeley, you'll fit right in

 No.1346

>>1112
I never quite worked out the paradigm you use in reference to disconnect the Scottish from a broader Celtic milieu.
Do tell…..

I might as well put my cards on the table: genetically I'm half slouching 'Bog Irish'& half Lowlands crofter.

The Scots being a meshing of Celtic & Northern Angle make this certainty of yours problematic.

 No.1349

File: 1424429123952.jpg (35.26 KB, 250x352, 125:176, 1424313755722.jpg)

>>1346
Be sure to add an image to your next post of your face so he can engage in his specialized Phrenology.

I apologise in advance for this comment, Autphag. I couldn't resist.

I'm not Cro-magnon.

 No.1368

>>1349
I look like a 19th century fat-faced supercilious high church deacon caught in flagrante delicto with a serving girl quoting Seneca whilst fitfully ejaculating.

Or a vacuum cleaner salesman from Milwaukee circa 1953 staring hopelessly and lovingly at a fifth of rye after screaming and punching the wall of a motel.

 No.1375

File: 1424433648797.png (128.68 KB, 364x384, 91:96, 1396837936268.png)

>>1368
>Quoting Seneca
ayy lmao

Pics or it didn't happen, kiddo.

 No.1385

File: 1424437307111.jpg (109.77 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, mywrithingpenisslowlyweeps.jpg)

>>1368
Just creating an image, a miasma, of what my pallid face looks like.
Still….at least I'm not Peter Coffin or Anthony Burch

I assume no one else here believes in Phrenology?

 No.1386

>>1385
She's getting phrenology (pseudoscientific measurement of superficial features of the skull's surface correlating with neurological features or even things as vague as personality) confused with craniometry (measuring the dimensions of the skull to categorize broad racial groups etc., many of the categories of which are still used in a technical capacity by anthropology).

 No.1389

>>1346
Well, the Anglos are a genetically Germanic people.

Then you have the Orcadian Nords who are a mixture of Celtic royalty and Vikings to the North East, which has gradually been drifting downwards into the lowlands over the last 500 years or so.

Overall, the Scottish Celts (to the East anyway, discounting the Irish drift into Glasgow) are ever so slightly more Germanic than they are Celtic.

 No.1390

File: 1424448210825.png (289.58 KB, 682x679, 682:679, maproute.png)

For the benefit of those who would be slightly entertained by my retarded flailing around in taking my journey.

I forgot to add that, in trying to get to the 9.33 am service, I nearly caught the wrong train (on the same platform right enough, which was going to Milgavie). Then I realised what 'front 2 carriages' meant, in a sort of delayed-recall process where I hadn't processed the information upon the first time I was reading the platform screen (having to get up early made me tired). I realised I was in carriage 3, which was not a continuous part of the train, but a seperate train! So I had to bail out of that and get into the right train. Just a lick of luck that I managed to get in the correct one just 3 minutes before departure.

 No.1391

>>1390
Sorry for quadruple-shitposting but I might as well add, since it's very clear from the alternative, greyed-out route, that I could've taken a bus to Perth (and it would've been free in my case, thanks to a travel-concession card given to the disabled – then again, stupidly enough, type-3 transvestism is considered a 'disability' here and I did see one masculine-looking 'woman' with such a card on the train going to Perth, who was not elderly – and elderly in Scotland), even though it would've taken an extra 10 minutes or so to get there and I imagine, back. I didn't see any busses going to Edinburgh while there, though.

 No.1392

>>1279
I enjoy blustery overcast days, there's a certain dramaticism to everything and the cold keeps me sharp.
What are your heights?

 No.1393

>>1392
5'8 and 6'3 respectively I believe.

 No.1394

File: 1424452658482.jpg (489.26 KB, 1720x966, 860:483, DSC00960.JPG)

>>1392
Ay lmao Ging is getting wet for Moss Hunter too.

 No.1403

>>1393
I'm 192cm, stop understating my height man.
And yeah I'm using my phone because I didn't have the resolve to give this place a break for the weekend lol

 No.1404

>>1394
I wanted to know if one of them was remarkably tall or short, because it only showed them from the bust up and I couldn't tell otherwise.
Mostly because I hadn't imagined Autphag as particularly short, and his being so would surprise me.

 No.1406

>>1403
OH WOW, A WHOLE HALF FUCKING INCH XD

>>1404
5'8'' is about 1 inch short of the Scots male average and 2 inches short of the mainland European and American averages for men.
I'm not 'particularly' short, but I am, in stature, trailing the mean, so to speak.

Hitler's statement about the city's people being more eugenic than country people is a lot of bullshit though. Returning to Edinburgh, I found a significant number of men walking down Princes Street were my height or less, perhaps up to slightly greater than half.

Meanwhile, back in my home village of Blackburn, I think I might've been the shortest male by far, in several lines at shops or other buildings in the area.

 No.1408

>>1406
5'8" doesn't seem short at all to me, living in a city with sizable Mexican population I pass at least a half dozen men who are under five foot.

 No.1409

File: 1424472570680.gif (668.91 KB, 500x281, 500:281, 1409771619988.gif)

>>1385
Yeah but do you really think it's plausible that the serving woman would be quoting Seneca, of all people?

>>1386
Both pseudoscience, oops. I forgot the word a bit ago and Googled "skull measuring" and that was the word that came up. I knew it was something of that nature, my bad.

>>1394
Don't give them any ideas, Cameron. I don't need more competition, I'm already beat by all the cute Scottish girls, I don't need another qt rowboat to be vying for his attention as well ;__;. It's hard enough as it is.

>>1406
5'8" isn't short, Moss is just insanely tall.

 No.1411

>>1409
I wouldn't say craniometry is a pseudoscience, it's given us valuable insight on extinct hominids, even if its worth as a tool to deign racial attributes is questionable.
For paleontological speculation craniometry is fairly invaluable.

 No.1412

>>1411
I would agree with you in that aspect however the way that Autphag and you have been using it to argue the inferiority of the Irish and women in general is completely baseless.

Some French faggot named Paul Broca claimed that due to women having a smaller crania, they should be denied education because our "teensy brains couldn't handle it." That's paraphrasing, of course, but still. Those ideas are largely outdated and classified currently as scientific racism. This probably sounds hypocritical coming from me as I am considered a racist however I merely look at crime statistics and refuse to condone miscegenation. I don't feel like I'm inherently superior to anyone else merely based on their race, but I don't think that the differences between ethnic groups is merely summed up with color of their skin and culture.

So while Craniometry is valuable in differentiating the intelligence between animals and helps support the theory of evolution, it's a bit silly to try and classify modern day cultural groups using Craniometry.

 No.1413

>>1412
cultural and ethnic**

 No.1423

>>1412
Women do have smaller brains than men though: we have recently discovered that the predictive value of crania volume as a correlant of intelligence differs between the sexes, but within sexes, the predictive value remains significant, though nowhere near a solid correlant (for the same skull size there can exist a range of approximately 15-30 IQ points depending on other things in brain development that don't depend on, or circumvent, skull capacity, like fold complexity, neural density, etc).

Also within the size of crania, dimensional profile (whether the skull is, on the cephalic index – and you may search that term on Wikipedia – a dolicephalic, mesocephalic, or brachycephalic one) differs, which can affect neurological development significantly. I once read a really old and obscure research paper in writing up my Wisdom of Autphag racialist-conspiracy pamphlet, yes, it was outdated, but we can attribute its antiquantedness not to a natural change in scientific paradigm but the forced discontinuation of its study and therefore, it is still valid by default. It showed that certain mental disorders were correlated with extreme dolicephalia and extreme brachycephalia respectively, with the least occuring in mesocephalics; this middle-range was deemed 'the most eudemonious cranio-developmental profile.' It also noted that extreme dolicephalia was associated with greater cases of mental retardation, theoretically speculated to be due to the constriction of neo-cortical expansion.

So there you have it, the science of craniometry.

 No.1424

>>1423
To condense the terminology a bit, I'll provide an example of how skull size differences between men and women do not impact the intelligence of the latter as much as would be predicted on an IQ-cranial volume correlant drawn up from the exclusive study of men:

The average Raven-tested g-score of women is 95, and of males is 105. (Weschler score posits a narrower difference in functional ability, with whole-scale scores of 99 and 101; that's bullshit, women are being overestimated and men, underestimated, due to the verbal component.) The average skull size for women is 1330 cm^3 while for men it is 1380 cm^3.

Given the correlant constant assuming an average IQ of 105 for men of skull size 1380cm^3 of 0.25, this would mean that women at their average skull size would have an IQ of about 87.5, which is obviously not the case; the differnece isn't that large, so we then have to go about devising plotting different correlation gradients for distinct data measures drawn from the sexes.

 No.1427

>>1423
I think it is worth noting, that in the retrospective review of my previous statement that I hadn't clarified too well as to why I had specified a range so large as a standard deviation (or more, in the case of women, owing to a narrower distribution for them) for a given skull size. The key factor to keep in mind here is: testosterone. In particular its pure form, and not the derivative metabolite and, as is speculatively deductable from its nature, waste-product, dihydrotestosterone.

Despite the brain having no actual androgenic receptors, the conversion of it to estrogen is responsible for the brain's virilization (masculinization). Males actually have more aromatazes in the brain than do women, despite having less aromataze elsewhere, and that's simply because corrected for leanness, the brains of men are bigger, and corrected for this size of neocortical matter, though the density of aromataze is the same, its persistence in male brains is higher. Hence, as well as having higher neural testosterone concentration, men have higher neural estrogen concentration, consequently.

This is important because in being responsible for virlization, it is responsible for virilization's neurological effects, namely perpendicularizing the direction of axon development, the focus of neural meiosis on grey-matter thickening and neuron cell multiplication rather than nerve axon growth and myelination, and the very development of these folds, the complexity of which determine relative neuronal density.

Perpendicularization of neuronal connections means that instead of connecting inter-hemispherically as in women (from the left to the right side of the brain mostly via. the corpus callosum), connections are made from anterior to posterior parts of the brain via the prefrontal cortex, as well as temporally-occipitally. This is mostly what's responsible for higher IQg/IQf and reaction times in men, which correlate with each-other more closely in men than women.

 No.1430

>>1409
Making a stab in the dark guess that the word is physiognomy.
I'd agree that that's a pseudoscience. The nazis tried using it to rat out the Jews by reducing it to metrics and measurements, didn't work, plenty of Jews slipped under the radar - jews that otherwise had an obviously Jewish look to them. See Europa europa, for example. In the film, the Jewish propagandists hired a very German guy to play the Jew. If you see photos of the actual jew who the film depicted, it baffles me how he got away with it because he looked Jewish as fuck.

 No.1432

>>1430
Simple, you Germans are so autistic that you couldn't recognize a Jewish face if it stared into your own.

 No.1433

>>1432
Aww shit, I forgot to unLegion Faggotamize myself after posting on /cow/.

Don't fucking ban me 54m50n you Jewish negrito prick.

 No.1436

>>1432>
I'll take that, but only because I'm not fully German. I reckon my jewdar isn't all too bad.

 No.1533

>>1430
I guess the question here is whether your genetic background is your destiny?

There are times when I feel that the maladaptive low-intellect low-implulse control behaviours that I display like junkfood consumption & alcohol abuse, are caused by a Celtic genetic background on my father's side.

These failures are under control to the extent I live a vaguely middle class life but do delay my progress.

I also suspect some of these traits are influenced by my job (split-second analysing information & subsequently making a choice based on it) & chan culture that emphasises quick slivers of information & snide trolling.

I feel like the protagonist in Gattaca, sometimes.

 No.1534

>>1533
Every race has a socio-economic stratosphere, which accompany nearly as many genetic differences between these strata (IQ being most salient, but other things too like rate of maturation; the development of children from families who go further on economically in life during adulthood is retarded compared to families who develop quicker but don't go as far), as exist among the races, as I've said on my (new) Autphag blog before.

Also in response to your penultimate statement I'd suggest finding slower, higher-quality boards.


[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]