and the more important bit of that was that before I accepted the role as arbiter I had (in what is known as chezzing) made sure we three all sufficiently understood what the bet was. Deciding it was not tricky and it was paid asap.

The usual forum nonsense went on alongside that and continued long after.

Lol. I didn't duck anything. I said your question is utterly trivial, by construction. You started with an outrageous and utterly undefendable claim about lazy academics overweighting rote learning, then magically transformed it into an utterly trivial "question" about yes obviously there is a non-zero amount of memorized knowledge (as there is in anything, like being a plumber), as I have repeatedly said numerous times already. Answering or not answering is irrelevant because "question" is just so hilariously disconnected from where you started, but the fact that I've repeatedly answered it makes it particularly hilarious.

You tried and failed with your laughable "memorize five digits of pi" example that every single person told you was nonsensical and had no basis in university level math courses. Do you have ANY other examples that get you remotely close to your claim about lazy academics overweighing rote learning? Anything?

That is more recent and allowing cheat sheets makes my point.

Ok real world example and why I know what I know.

My youngest daughter has a severe learning disability in this area. it was evident before she was age 5 and by age 7 we took her to one of the top educational Psychologist organizations in the Province to do her assessment. They retested her, for free at age 15 as they wanted the follow up data.

She was assessed by their team of PHD Child Psychologist and educational experts and got a lot of attention as they found her to be unique example and a very rare case for them to get to examine.

The nuts and bolts of the assessments was that she tested amongst the lowest they had ever tested and could find material on for rote learning skills (the ability to memorize and recite) but tested well above normal (exceptional) in almost every other area.

They explained why this profile was one of the most troubling for a student going thru the school system as almost all areas, including math were overly dependant on rote learning.

They also explained that children with this profile tended to develop immense social, saying this is one of the most problematic educational profiles to have because (for lack of better words) you are smart enough to know how dumb you are.

They said she will know she knows this material but be frustrated as she will be stuck not being able to recall what she needs to then execute as she failed course after course. They said this was a high suicide and drug and other problem group.

Then they gave us the hope.

They said however we were fortunate, as opposed to the kids who dealt with this prior, as IEP (Individualized Educational Plans) were now more common and accepted ( I think they first came in, in the 70's but few kids really got the benefit of them) and that they would be able to create an IEP for our daughter that would NEVER require her to ever go into any test that was not open book. Not in Grade SChool, Middle School or University.

Our daughter instantly bumped from a student barely passing to an honor roll student and continued that path all thru University with scholarships thru her Stem degree and now as she enjoys the start of her career.

Most of the best of her Teachers would craft specific tests for kids like her as simply giving her the regular test as open book, when the other kids had to memorize stuff was unfair as so much of the tests back then were questions overly reliant on memorization and recitation. So she would get tests tweaked to application.

She graduated her Uni classes at the top of her class.

There were no cheat sheets for kid like her prior.

Had the system NOT CHANGED and not allowed such IEP's she would have had an educational resume that everyone would call 'dumb'. She would have failed out.

She is the exact same person but because the system recognized the problem, and made it so rote learning was never issue, she is considered 'smart'.

HER INTELLIGENCE IS NOT LIMITED TO HER ABILITY TO ROTE LEARN ONLY BECAUSE THE SYSTEM ADAPTED FINALLY TO PEOPLE LIKE HER.


So the point being that if you think you could look at the ranks and ranks of people who are older than my 25 year old daughter and just assume you can silo or sort them as smart enough by Educational resume when each and every one of us older than my daughter has a different capacity to rote learn and that WILL have played out in their testing and desire to go on to secondary education, you are just wrong.

The people older had no cheat sheets (maybe a tiny percent of privileged kids got access but not the rank and file) and there would be all sorts of kids who would have every bit as good or better educational resumes than they do fi they got the benefit my daughter did.

I work with generations of those folks. Some who had the elite rote learning skill and thus got thru that system at the top tier. Many who had lesser, even if not as bad as my daughter. And again if you think that in the work place those prior generations of excellent rote learners are necessarily more intelligent just due to educational resume, you would be making a big mistake. You are ignoring there was no real correction (cheat sheets) for the other very smart people who were simply deficient in rote learning.

He can and he will.

He provided the only summary to the very argument I disagreed with. It was a summary of his summary. He declared is sufficient to settle the bet since Rococco decline.

He, Trolly and others are saying that is sufficient and it is welching if I don't pay up.

The position is that as long as the person in the bet asserts strongly they are right that is sufficient proof.

They won't let that go as this is not about whether that is correct or not. It is about how many people you can get to agree based on who they would prefer to 'side' with.

that is a very valid strategy in internet land as most things are more about sides than the actual discussion.

I can't say much about your daughter's specific situation, but any university I have been has a system for accessibility accommodations. I deal with a huge number of students with a huge range of special circumstances. It isn't just some optional part of the job, in Canada at least it is a legal requirement for their to be reasonable accommodations. It isn't surprising in the least that a student who needs accommodations would do well, this happens all the time.

Fwiw, I've never had an accommodation letter that said anything about rote learning.

uke, you tried to summarize 'where i began' in this discussion.

Where I began was comment that was not limited to recency. I acknowledged things have improved MANY times.

I was speaking to me, entering my career phase at age 25 and working with people in their 60's to my age and every year forward since then.

The vast VAST majority of the people in the work force THEN, and still NOW, would not have got the advantage of the type of IEP my daughter did. All my daughters educational journey she expressed gratitude to us for doing that and paying for it (not cheap) and she would say how many kids she knew she thought would benefit but did not get one. Some kids due to money issues, others just don't care to.

The fact is the world is filled with people who would be between my daughters almost complete inability to memorize and those who have near photographic memories and from the time the guy in the work force who was 60 (born in 1933), when I was 25 and today the VAST majority of them muddled thru an educational system that was heavily tipped towards rote learning.

You can google today 'Scholarly article on rote learning' and read all sorts of studies acknowledging what a historical over reliance it was.

So what does that mean to 'where I began'? It means that in the universe of people I worked with and those older than about 25 today, rote learning was significant and a potentially very limiting factor to them getting the same elite educational resumes that those with exceptional got.

What it DOES NOT mean is that they are necessarily more intelligent just because they they have the better educational resume. And that was my entire point as talks about 'intelligence' almost always just boil to down educational resume as if that is all that matters.


My daughter is considered pretty much gifted smart by educational resume, only because she had the benefit of her IEP. Had she not she would be considered 'dumb'.

She is the same person either way but lucky we were able to get around the system (IEP) that was not made for people like her to succeeed.

And after wil threw one of the most absurd tantrums in forum history, chez immediately rushed in to chezz up the thread.

no

I'm not just insisting anything - I provided a detailed justification as to why I believe I've fulfilled my end of the bargain here. No one provided any counter-argument as to why it does not meet the conditions. Your general point here seems to be that anything can technically be disputed but I'm not sure how that adds anything to the conversation. It's just a generic thing that can be said about any situation. It matters who's right. Do you believe, given the plain language reading of Cuepee's offer that the conditions he laid our were satisfied? Do you believe Cuepee's objections are genuine or are his objections like those of the guy who's welching in my hypothetical? That's the important point - if the conditions were met, but Cuepee did not pay, then Cuepee welched.

That has to be one of the most absurd things I've seen in my life.

I've thought of a number and written it down. It's 23. I'll bet $1000 that nobody can guess my number.

Wait, what? How did this guy know my number? He's cheating!

What am I not right about? This isn't a rhetorical question - if I'm wrong about something, I'd like to know and acknowledge my mistakes. Be specific.

At least Wil paid.

And what happens when your detailed reply, or summary is not accepted by the guy you are in conflict with, because he sees it as the same summary bs he initially objected to?

I already addressed this:

Nothing happens since its the internet.

But the mob can decide what they want.

And the mob decided you welched.

You're insisting you have shown what was requested. I dont dispute you have written a lot about why you think you have shown it. Cuepee has written a lot about why he thinks you haven't. I have written a fair bit about why I wont even attempt to decide.

On a seperate note it would be really good to see you post on political subjects imo.

Right. The point is that Cuepee hasn't addressed the point - he's just dancing around with largely procedural and/or meta arguments that amount to claiming that this is a he-said/she-said case, nothing is knowable, I was never eligible anyway and (most recently) that his statements were speculations, not claims of certain knowledge about the future. If he truly thought he had a case, he'd address the specific argument I made (recap post: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...php?p=57493241), which is fairly simple. Cuepee used the term "destroy" to describe a 4.2% drop in GDP during the Great Recession and in the same post predicted a 50% drop in GDP. In other posts, he's used phrases "a prolonged period of depression in GDP" and "a significant GDP correction" to describe his GDP predictions. Which clearly supports the case that he "was doomsaying GDP was going to be DESTROYED" which is the condition he set for the 10K bounty. Keep in mind, this isn't exactly what I had said either, yet he called this my lie, which means it's fairly to interpret the offer as meaning finding something that is equivalent in meaning to, rather than the exact quote.

Thanks but no thanks

Trying to find a new idol now that your hero has been dethroned and pretty much defenestrated?

Admit it would be good to have candybar around tho. Every time I see his name I think "candy shop" by 50 pence.

I don't know what you are saying is the answer to my question in that? Are you saying because trolls piled on I should then accept it?

But he is really insistent he was correct all along and can summarize why again if needed.

It's clear to him it is clear so it should be clear to me to.

I mean that is how it works right??

Yes, I'm saying you're the guy in the hypothetical. Only you can choose what to do.

No, the reason why you owe me money is clear:

The fact that after all these posts, you have not yet addressed this and making lots of noises about anything but the actual point says a lot about how you (or rather some part of you) also know that you're in the wrong.

You can state your arguments are clear all you want and that does not change I think they are the same wrong BS from the start.

So try this

What I said earlier was clear thus I win.

Now what?

I didn't summarize anything. I quoted the thing that I first objected to. Here is that quote again:

You have yet to provide any justification that this is actually a problem except for a hilariously inept example about memorizing the digits of pi. Instead, you have furiously reframed in one of two ways. The first way is seeming to capitulate on this quote being at all relevant today, and instead pretending this was something from many decades past. Sure, I'd be happy with you simply being completely wrong today, but note carefully nothing in the quote or its surrounding context gives any indication you are talking about something from the past. Second, you have far more desparately tried to reframe this conversation as an utterly trivial observation that learning generally has some level of prerequisite knowledge, something true of being a plumber, and something that obviously doesn't get you to justifying this quote.

Either way, a colossal fail.

Shame but I dont blame you.

Why else would you spend 50 hours typing and posting here? Imo the intention is clearly visible. Anyways you are trying to get money from a wager that was never placed and in a dubious way imo.
It is all assumptions and subjective interpretations of things said. And no, not even your argument, well cueppee said a in connection with b, so he must mean a every time he mentions b, is silly and won't convince me. There is no standard in that. I can say he got smoked and think and mean something completely different every time. I can say i like smoked turkey and this is smoking hot. See how a term in post is bad here? Only way to go about it is make clear rules. Bc youre no psychic. You are desperate and you are making it pretty obvious imo. Cuepee is no atm, but he got this. Even with all the trolls. Uke is just happy with it, trolley is trolling as per usual, d2 too, and tien can't be taking seriously because he sprouted some bs in the past. Ask monty, thanks for confirming monty earlier about him posting that btw, what did he actually say?

Better example, u can use terms that have opposite meanings. It's the ****! That stuff is wicked!

If u have other intentions, which would be possible imo, then apologies. I'm no psychic neither.