Marge, what's your purpose here? Which disgruntled criminal--embroiled in a losing argument--beckoned you?

Do I need to dignify that with an answer?

I'll humor you, anyway. No one paid me to say anything, WritersBeware. I was looking for freelance work and happened to come across this site. I've been reading your threads but didn't comment because it doesn't concern me. If you have gripes with whoever and whatever, that's your problem. But reading about something that is obviously not right, that's different.

So you find that defending a proven criminal is the best use of your time?

Defending a proven criminal? Get real. I wasn't defending anyone.

marge, you're a moron. please explain how these two statements are inconsistent:





your posts are just a demonstration of how poor translation skills and faulty comprehension of the English language lead to complete misunderstanding. i pointed out that you clearly misunderstood my original post and now you've gone on the offensive instead doing the wise thing and backing down. your lack of comprehension does not prove that i have poor writing skills.



a better school than you. and I have more than one, thank you for asking.



never claimed this. learn how to read.



if it's so clear that i'm wrong, provide some evidence. come on, one publication, one author. let's see it.



hey moron, i mentioned both population standard deviation and sample standard deviation. either one works for my statement. go ahead and explain how they don't. really. we're all waiting.



um, except that it does.

hey i know, why don't we take a moment and reflect upon the site that EW linked for everyone, which explains standard deviation in the context of an IQ test. I realize that IQ tests are usually only described to the smart kids so you should find the information particularly informative:



OMG, that link actually explains the use of standard deviation in the context of IQ. can it be? can it BE????



you said originally that you're earning your masters degree, now you claim to have taught math for three years at the university level... hm... either you're lying or the university you work for has no standards b/c it lets individuals with only an undergrad degree teach other undergrads. you tell me which it is.

and if it's actually taken you three years to earn a master's... well...



do you know how many standard deviations below average formally distinguishes an individual as a moron? yeah, i bet you do. there are many very intelligent people all around the world. you just aren't one of them.



lol, not a debate. i wrote the post as a joke. do jokes that require thought really just go right over your head? did my joke give you brain freeze? do you hate irony? sarcasm? do you need things clearly spelled out for you all the time?

if that's true, which i doubt, your total lack of comprehension skills and your tendency to draw faulty conclusions should be a clear message to potential clients to stay away!

Marge, you got owned!

Lavinia

I will post more later but apparently you are wrong on the subject of standard deviation and IQ. MY daughter is doing this precise topic the moment at the university and read your post and said the way that you expressed yourself on the subject of standard deviation was wrong. She tried to explain the way it is calculated to me in the terms of IQ and the formula used to calculate SD but it was 5am in the morning and I really wasn't taking in much she said.

I will get her to come on later and explain were you went wrong according to her books and lecture notes etc. She is at present doing her degree at Hull University in the UK. I don't pretend to know anything about SD since my degree in law did not involve this in any way shape or form. However, my daughter's course deals extensively in SD so she tells me so I will leave it to her to post here later when she returns from Uni later today. As she does not have her own account she will be posting under my user name.

Julie! I was so wondering when you would check in.

So where is that evidence you promised to provide on the high rates of students using essay mills to cheat?

and the evidence supporting your contention that companies based in the U.S. that claim to only hire American writers will hire anyone?

have you decided to specialize in posts that promise evidence and yet don't deliver? do you really mean to provide the promised evidence this time or will it just be another to add to the list of unfulfilled promises?

since it was 5 am, i'm more than content to let you later decide that you and your daughter did not understand my original post.

my goodness, my decision to post a brilliant put down of our resident sexist moron sure has caused a commotion. WB please post something controversial!

I see dead people.

Dogs are pets, not food.

Fraud is wrong.

(Believe it or not, EssayWriters.net's cronies attempt to make that statement controversial.)

Don't waste your breath, Julie. Lavinia's too proud to accept that she was wrong about standard deviation. Despite the bad sentence construction and muddled thoughts, Lavinia probably can write a page or two. And because she can string words into semi-coherent thoughts, Lavinia now thinks she's a statistics expert.

I don't agree with fraud either, but calling Lavinia's erroneous put down brilliant? How cow!

Duh... Don't you have another one of your brilliant put downs? I'd like to see real wit coming from you, that would be refreshing.

why bother? you wouldn't get it anyway. explaining a joke kills the humor. clearly, anything beyond name calling is lost in translation.

here's some light reading for you.

First, from the Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 2002, written by Paula Anne Ford-Martin at http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?req uestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/wechsler_intelligence_test.jsp:

"The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are standardized tests, meaning that as part of the test design, they were administered to a large representative sample of the target population, and norms were determined from the results. The scales have a mean, or average, standard score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The standard deviation indicates how far above or below the norm the subject's score is. For example, a ten-year-old is assessed with the WISC-III scale and achieves a full-scale IQ score of 85. The mean score of 100 is the average level at which all 10-year-olds in the representative sample performed. This child's score would be one standard deviation below that norm."

do you give up? or do those doctors just don't know statistics?

What about the Wechsler developer? Surely, someone who had to design and standardize the test would be correct about identifying the calculated standard deviation of the test?
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceWAISWISC.html

"The WAIS(R) was standardised on a sample of 1,800 U.S. subjects, ranging from 16 to 74 years of age. It was a highly stratified sample, broken down into 9 different age groups. Equal numbers of men and women were used, as were white and non­white subjects, in line with census figures. It was further broken down into four geographic U.S. regions and six occupational categories. There was also an attempt to balance urban and rural subjects. The mean I.Q. for each age group on this test is 100, with a standard deviation of 15. The WAIS scales have impressive reliability and validity."

Ok, one more. It's not really fair to talk about IQ without at least mentioning the Stanford Binet. This is from "Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities" by Deborah Ruf, published by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scaes, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3.
http://www.assess.nelson.com/pdf/sb5-asb3.pdf

"Most major intellectual assessments now use a mean of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15. All major tests also have normalized their scores by fitting the
results from their normative sample into a normal bell curve and assigning
standard deviations and percentiles. This allows assessment professionals to more
confidently compare ability scores across tests."

you have no argument, period. do i need to quote more evidence to demonstrate my correct use?

btw, way to prioritize. supposedly you've been reading the boards for a while, so when sexist moron posts you do and say nothing, but when i post criticizing sexist moron, you try to go after me. that shows integrity, really.

Margie, you got owned--again.

^_____________^

Oh one more thing: Why not to pay attention to the monkey posting on the sideline. :)

That lying monkey... :)

Ooooooooooooooooh, another bout of "monkey" name-calling from Mr. Cerebral.

EW_writer, thank you for proving the point of this thread. You purposely posted a link that you falsely lead people to believe is somehow a negative against me, which it is NOT. You figure that most people won't even bother to open it, anyway, so you might as well try to throw yet another piece of bogus propaganda into the mix to distract from the fact that you have gotten OWNED by at least three members of this forum in the last week.

Hmmm, I wonder why you didn't post the FINAL PAGE of the thread? No worries, here it is:

http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/12_325_1.html

Is this the best you can do, little man?

We're all still waiting for ANY evidence to support your lies and absurd accusations against me.

Lavinia

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales do not mention the number of the cross section of the public that is being tested. This would therefore lead to the conclusion that regardless of the number of participants the mean score for IQ would be 100 and that the SD would then be 15.

Using this as an authority for quoting that the SD would increase by 1 if a member were to be excluded cannot follow as the mean IQ of the forum would remain at 100 regardless of the number of participants ergo the SD would remain the same.

Your error in your posting is the assumption that the SD would increase if you removed one element from the equation.

Using the usual method of SD which is effectively the mean of the mean SD would be calculated by working out the mean score of the forum members and then finding the mean of the mean ie the SD. Removing a participant would remove their score from the equation but would not necessarily increase of decrease the SD significantly if at all. It would alter the mean IQ of the forum which is what I think you should have put instead of the SD. I can post the exact equation for the calculation of SD if you would like but it would take a mathematician to be able to understand the formula.

that's exactly what i've been posting. read my posts. scroll up this page and see that i posted 3 pieces of evidence that say exactly this just on this page alone. do i need to paste them again? was highlighting them in BOLD not clear enough?

it's been EW and Margie claiming that the SD will change:





so... thanks for posting that Margie and EW are wrong and I'm right. not that I needed your validation but still.



never made this assumption. quote where i said this. oh wait, you won't find anything to quote because i never claimed that. In fact, when Margie tried to make this same accusation, i answered her, explaining:




ok, the bold is new, but i didn't want you to miss it again.

so... on to your other stuff.




that's exactly what i wrote... really, your post is embarassing. you are making my arguments and trying to pretend that i didn't make them already.

look at my original comment:



and then i clarified for the reading impaired:



and then my further explanation:



so why exactly did you post? Reading at 5 am doesn't seem to inspire strong comprehension skills. I did not say that the SD would change. i did say that the collective IQ (ie the mean or average) would change.

so... thanks for backing me up!