Gosh, you must be super smart! It makes me wonder why you are wasting your time trying to prove this on a message board, instead of planning Mars missions at NASA!
Funny, even with a nasty case of dysgraphia I am only two points short on the ACT for that “Triple Nine Society”…if only I was silly enough to pay their fees 
(32 in 1990)
Only a fool would allow me to edit anything.
Indeed.
About IQ tests and vocabulary, I actually took an IQ test last month on the NHS (it was part of a diagnosis for a potential cognitive issue, not just something I did for fun!), and I remember the vocabulary section. Part of it was analogies, and part of it was the evaluator reading a list of increasingly difficult/obscure words, which I had been instructed to explain as if to a child or someone who had no knowledge of it. For example, one of the words was “decade”, and I said something like: a decade is a period of 10 years, as indicated by the Latin root “dec”, and a year is the period of time it takes the earth to rotate around the sun, which can be measured in seasons, which is when the weather changes and days get shorter and longer, or in days, which is the amount of time it takes the earth to complete a single rotation, which you can tell by it getting dark and then light outside.
So part of that was obviously literacy (the Latin root, and simply knowing what the word meant in the first place), but some of it seemed to be evaluating reasoning and cognitive processing, ie how did I explain it and what aspects did I highlight, which might have showed how I comprehended it.
The other parts of the test were things like rearranging coloured blocks to fit a pattern I’d been shown, remembering and repeating long strings of numbers backwards and forwards, and (the hardest for me!) an exercise where words of colours were printed on a sheet of paper in different colours, eg
Red
Blue
Tan
Green
Blue
Yellow
and I had to first read the printed text (“Red, blue, tan…”), then read the colours they’d been printed in (“Blue, yellow, red…”).
If anyone has any questions about the IQ test process from the patient side I’m happy to answer them from what I can remember.
This reminds me of the Mega Test which is the test a certain Chris Langan used to justify his 190-210 IQ score 9_9 If you Google about it though it’s a test with no supervisor and no time limit, and you can take it home. It also seems to oftentimes test really obscure areas of knowledge and not so much intelligence.
I made a thread about it a long while back here: Chris Langan, the Smartest Man in America = Crackpot? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
What was Anthony Federico’s SAT score?
I ask because this thread is about him, not you, SlackerInc. It seems like you produce another claim of your own brilliance or expertise every time your statements are challenged, but it would be better if you put this energy into backing up your arguments because your intelligence and reading skills aren’t relevant. You say you’re a superior reader, but you didn’t notice the problem with “chink” in this headline. Other people did. That’s indisputable, and it’s more important.
So that makes him 43 at a minimum? Right?
No, I took my first one in 1986 in 7th grade, I’m only 37.
He claims to have taken it only once, as a high school junior.
And now I know more about some stranger’s SAT scores than I remember about my own.
That’s a reasonable assumption, given the information known. This … surprises me, even with kidchameleon’s best case scenario estimation (which doesn’t apply to SlackerInc.) I mean, the thing is, I’m sure many Dopers are elegible for this “triple nine” crap, and I went to a school where probably a quarter of the student body would have qualified, and still unbelievable dumbassery was evident. Scoring high in standardized tests doesn’t mean you may not be very well completely ignorant of basic facts, like “chink” being a common offensive word for those of Chinese/Asian descent.
Okay, I’m back. Miss me? 
That would probably be due to the fact that I’m, you know, a slacker and all.
Not quite. I’m not going to state my exact birthdate, but let’s just say I was still in utero when “the Eagle landed”, but had arrived on this earth by the time Richie Havens took the stage in Bethel.
I want to mention one thing that may have been lost in the tumult. The heat I’ve taken in this thread is from people who are incensed somehow that I believe someone (who, unless he made up all that stuff about volunteering to help the unfortunate, is apparently an unusually generous and kind person) should be given the benefit of the doubt. (You’d think, from the general reaction to that proposition, that I had advocated puppy torture or something, jeez Louise.)
We’re never going to settle the issue of whether not seeing a racial connotation in this headline is or is not “stupid” or an oversight so egregious someone deserves to lose their job for it alone. We’re deadlocked over an ultimately subjective matter of opinion there. But I do think that I hopefully proved one point here that is important for Federico’s reputation even if it doesn’t get him his job back: that is, dispelling the misconception that he wrote the headline as an intentional prank.
What’s the benefit of the doubt worth, though? Whatever kind of benefit we give him, he made the same mistake and it caused the same problem.
Did you ever see The Lion King? Sounds like Scar’s logic when telling Simba it was *his *fault his dead was dead. That is, perhaps there is some technical truth to it but it is “ungenerous” to say the very least.
I’ve seen the movie, and you’re comparing a statement of fact to a lie. Do you think you can do a little better than that? People were interested in Federico’s intent for sure, but it’s never been the sole issue here, and I’m not sure it was ever the biggest issue. A lot of people have said he deserved to be fired regardless of his intent because the headline looks the same regardless of what he was thinking (or not thinking) when he wrote it.
No, it wasn’t a flat out lie, although Scar certainly didn’t tell the whole truth. He said more or less the same type of thing you did: “sure, you didn’t *intend *it to happen, but your dad still died because you were in the way of the stampede”. If intentionality doesn’t matter, then we may as well blame butterflies in Africa for the deaths of hurricane victims in New Orleans.
This is getting silly. I said his intent does not matter much in this instance because his intent does not change the text in the headline. I’m not making a blanket statement that intent never matters. There are many situations where your intent matters morally and legally, and there are instances where your intent really doesn’t matter. I think I said this pages and pages ago, but in terms of Federico’s mistake and the consequences it caused for ESPN, his intent doesn’t matter.
You’re pointing out that after-the-fact idle discussions on the Straight Dope have no actual measurable effect on events.
We all know this already.
Why are you pointing it out?
That’s not what I’m pointing out. I was saying that he wrote the same headline whatever you think his intent was, so his intent is not that important. I explained this in post #356 (and probably a bunch of other ones).
Got it–I hadn’t read that post.
In that scene, isn’t Simba, like, a year old? If you want to argue that Frederico has the same moral culpability as a pre-teen child, fine, but that’s also a pretty strong argument for him not to be writing headlines for ESPN. They should really have an adult in that position.