i rarely make an effort to use grammar on the forum, so be my guest

you also didn't self-pwn yourself with grammar. you self-pwned yourself with your actual argument. i have no idea if your grammar was good or not.

it was the logical fail behind it all.

and the reason im annoyed is all of us are having an academic discussion here: citing reasonings behind our argument, empirical evidence of salary and placement data as well as citing to authority on each subject.

you provided the following: "idiot"

...with this reasoning behind that allegation:




when people open and close an argument with nothing but a personal attack, it generally doesn't go well for them!

IDIOT

And the argument "I did well on my SAT and LSAT" gives weight to your argument? Exactly.

what score is "99th percentile" on the SATs.

i was gonna ask this before but i thought i'd sound like an ass.

now i'm drunk and i dont care.

99th percentile means that you scored better than 99% of test takers.

Off the top of my head, 99% Verbal is about 760+, 99% Math is 780+ (or maybe 800). Don't know about that new writing section, but I think all of us except raffy probably took the SAT before they added that part

not sure exactly what the number is but i doubt 1/100 people score >1500 on the math+reading. the year i took it was the first year of the writing portion so it didn't really count for anything.

some site i found says 2200. so that would be about 1470-1480 on the old test.

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_dow...siteCR_M_W.pdf

LOL. still drunk so I'm still going to be a dick.

so you got a 2280+ on ur SAT and you have your dick out??

what a ****ing n00b.

also how is the median score on the SAT 1500. that blows my mind.

also, sry for the derail, but **** protoss for being so OP.

MC fighting.

you argued "idiot"

we cited authority saying "not idiots"

you don't see why?

HATORADE ITT

but seriously the SATs were really easy.

i think economics is cool

edit - not worth it

(didnt want to ninjar it so brother doesnt look silly with his reply)

i agree with this post. i spend the majority of a round of golf with my dick out so it's not a big problem. if you don't play golf ignore that remark.

my main thesis is that the SATs were easy. also that econ is cool.

karak you said you played on a good 3v3 team but i couldn't find your handle in this forum. do you play AT or RT and whats your handle, we may have played before. hopefully i've BMed you.

on a starcraft note, i lost in the following way tonight:

i hydra/ling dropped on villain. he countered with the world's worst 6gate, and it's too bad i didnt do my standard game. he killed all but 20 of my drones before i killed his entire attack force with just my reinforcements. he did get my natural.

i, on the other hand, killed all of his gateways, his main, his natural and everything but 4-5 gates he had SATURATED in cannons (this explains why his 6gate was so horrible).

i simply could not get past the cannons, so i went back home, rebuilt drones, took a 3rd gold, 4th and 5th and mashed out drones saturating all of them. i harassed him with mutas but he had cannons ****ing EVERYWHERE. everytime i tried to push with roaches (had tech switched), he ff'd out his cannons with the 2834823482348 sentries (clearly he spent his initial gas very well) and i couldnt get in.

so i went home and just macro'd hard. i made a huge army of 3/3 roaches which i poked with, but he kept storming me and then ffing me out, so i went home and made brood lords and went back to attack. i kept scouting up most of this time but he had so many ****ing cannons it was ridiculous.

then i scouted void rays, so i made about 25-30 corruptors, because i figured why not they'd just be brood lords. he had around 20 void rays.

he a moved and won. my 2/0 corruptors were no match for his (fewer in number) 0/0/3 (yes you read that right) void rays. he also had DTs killing all my expos (despite me having a spine and a spore at each one just in case of that) and he just perpetually force fielded my roaches out.

seems like a fair match up.

i BM'd hard tonight. i mean ****ing HARD. i was out of the gate in every single match up just raging at anyone who was terran or protoss. i was just making stuff up that didnt even exist.

ive been in a horrible mood for the last 48 hours, and i have no idea why (it's probably cause i have been sick and not sleeping at night), and starcraft 2 has really sent me to a new level. good thing i didnt play cards today.

and now that i think about it, the SAT/ACT/test score thing was incredibly douchey. i apologize to the rest of the forum for that. that's almost as bad as just hurling insults. i just did it without thinking, and reading over it now i realize what a prick i must have come off of. so for that, i am sorry.

im also sorry if ive raged at anyone in game recently. ive been in such a horrible mood for hte past 48 hours or so (ever since ive caught this stomach bug). it's so ridiculous. ive been sick like this before, but it's never triggered me to be angry. i mean i tilt, but im a laid back guy IRL. huge bad beat. no idea why im acting this way. my bad if i told anyone to eat a dick (well, not anyone, but most people).

zerg is OP and easy

protoss is OP and easy

terran is the only hard race

well i am the one that quit terran

protoss is definitely a LOT easier than terran to master (one glance at the ladder will tell you all you need to know about how hard it is to move up with toss), but i think terran is more powerful if played correctly.

zerg is the hardest for people to handle (read: play against) at the lower levels, but the easiest to handle at the higher levels.

i agree with this. i just always rocked terran in BW so i never even thought about moving elsewhere in SC2. im not gosu enough to play zerg, but protoss sucks. it just sucks. the worst is that my good friend who plays a lot is a protoss and he still thinks terran is OP based on the early patches where nobody knew how to play protoss (exploit its OPness) properly.

i hate protoss. and the SATs were ****ing easy.

gsl spoiler in this post

ugh i didnt want to go back to this, but if a test is curved and/or evaluated on a percentile scale (such as the SAT), the level of difficulty of the exam is irrelevant unless it is so extremely easy that everyone gets a score that is very close (SD wise) or SO ridiculously hard that everyone gets a score that is very close (SD wise)

otherwise, a curve handles all these issues.

understood. im just saying looking at that link i'm floored by the way the distribution shakes down. im tired i cant do this anymore.

his point was that its not that impressive to be in the top 4% of people who take the SATs and i agree.

sure, and the SAT is pretty easy i wont lie about that. i

What? I struggled mightily with the SATs. Those ****ing words were ****ing ridiculous. I think I got like a 970 the first time I took them then a 1070 or something like that the second time.