OT Colonoscopy tomorrow (Friday)

hopitus wrote:


My point is this:
If I had a rare tumor like you do of the pituitary, I would present
myself and my tumor at
the nearest large teaching hospital in my area, as I am fairly
positive some cranial s[ecialist
would be jumping at the chance to not only study it, but offer its
removal with you as a
"forensic patient". You would be surprised at how quick hospital
accounts waive any accessory
fees involved when their forensic attendings (teaching docs, not the
students) are talking. I
seriously doubt that by this time such surgery is
"experimental"....just rare enough to maybe
do you some financial good.

The type of tumor I have is actually relatively common, and usually not
removed unless it's large enough to be squishing things. Mine isn't that
big as of the last (really really expensive) check, but we can't afford
the standard meds that keep it from getting bigger and in some cases
even shrink pituitary tumors. Even though it's old enough to be in
generic. We can't afford the proper re-check either, as we're still
paying off the last one.

The tumor isn't going to kill me, at least not without causing other
distinctive problems first, but the things that we can't afford to track
down (and can't afford to not track down...) might. Or they might just
keep me mostly housebound and miserable and unable to contribute to
society. I'm not sure which would be worse.


Maeve ^..^
--
http://moonglowminnow.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/

Joy wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
wrote:

You're kidding. That doesn't sound right to me (about the IQ). I'm not
going to swear by it because I'm not sure, but that seems pretty low
to me. Mine is quite a bit above that and I am hardly a genius.

I don't actually know what the different range cut-offs are, though -
what is considered developmentally disabled, what's average, and what's
genius? And then, of course, the IQ only tells a little bit about a
person's intelligence - there's usually a lot more to it than just how
well a person performs on logic, computation and language tests. I'm
not saying it's completely invalid - it's the truth, but not the whole
truth.

There's also the "EQ" - the emotional intelligence. It certainly plays
an important role in a person's overall intelligence, as much if not more
than the IQ. Mine is rather low, I have to admit. :-O (I don't have a
number, but from how it's described, I can tell that I wouldn't do very
well.) And whatever skills I do have in that area, I've gotten *during
my adulthood* by consciously working at it. Lord knows I was let loose
on the world as a young adult with hardly any skills to navigate the
social universe!

IQ tests are designed to produce a normal distribution, which means IQ
tests are usually designed to have an average score of 100, with 68% of
the population scoring between 85-115. They were originally invented to
identify developmentally delayed children, and you can find lists of
exactly which scores were considered to represent which level of
disability (or ability, on the other end). I expect nowadays children who
don't seem to be doing well are tested in a variety of ways to try to
figure out just what their problems are.

As you point out, IQ tests don't cover all of what 'intelligence' is now
understood to include. It can predict school achievement - but so can so
many other characteristics that people often combine them in studies
instead of using just one. And even when much more weight was put on IQ
testing than is now, there were 'underachievers' who did worse in school
than predicted by their IQ score, and 'overachievers' who did better in
school than predicted by their IQ score. So IQ is definitely not the be
all and end all of intelligence testing - but people still seem fascinated
by it.

--
Cheryl

Actually, it can't even predict school achievement. If a student is bored
with the work, s/he may not do it, or may do very little of it, while
pursuing other interests. When I entered what was then called a junior
college (now they're called community colleges), my counselor was surprised
that I wasn't a straight 'A' student. I probably had a 'B' average, but
there was one class in which I spent the entire period reading library
books. There were a lot of noisy, disruptive kids in that class, and the
teacher gave me an 'A', not because I earned it, but because I didn't give
her a bad time.

It's a predictor of school acheivement - just not a very good one,
particularly when used alone.

Actually, the best predictor of future school performance is past school
performance, which is kind of circular. But it's better than the usual
combinations of IQ, test scores, family background (income, books at
home, interest from parents etc), school characteristics etc.

IQ tests also don't test one of the things that is most important for
leading a full, happy and productive life (IMNSHO) - people skills. I met
many people in Mensa who have very poor people skills.

Very few highly intelligent people because wealthy or successful in the
business world, mainly because they can't be bothered to concentrate on one
thing. Instead, they pursue a variety of interests and seldom excel at any
of them.

I'd disagree with you here. There are some formidably intelligent people
who are successful in all kinds of areas. Whether they all have top IQ
scores, I don't know, but they're probably well above average - AND they
work hard and do well. IQ alone doesn't guarantee a thing - including
that the holder of a very high IQ won't concentrate on one thing long
enough to excel in it.

--
Cheryl

wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:

Actually, it can't even predict school achievement. If a student is
bored
with the work, s/he may not do it, or may do very little of it, while
pursuing other interests.

When I was growing up, my problem in school wasn't so much boredom as
emotional problems. I was too anxious and distracted to pay attention
in school, so I was a pretty mediocre student - lots of Bs and Cs. Back
then, nobody looked at kids like me and recognized that there might be
emotional issues needing to be addressed - instead, I was just seen as
a slacker who daydreamed all the time. On the other hand, I might've
dodged a bullet. If I were growing up now, someone would probably
investigate my family life, and next thing you know, I'm in foster care.
Bad as my family life was, foster care would have been much worse!!

When I entered what was then called a junior
college (now they're called community colleges), my counselor was
surprised
that I wasn't a straight 'A' student. I probably had a 'B' average, but
there was one class in which I spent the entire period reading library
books. There were a lot of noisy, disruptive kids in that class, and
the
teacher gave me an 'A', not because I earned it, but because I didn't
give
her a bad time.

Wow. Now that's a seriously incompetent teacher...

IQ tests also don't test one of the things that is most important for
leading a full, happy and productive life (IMNSHO) - people skills. I
met
many people in Mensa who have very poor people skills.

Exactly. That's what I was talking about when I mentioned "EQ" (so-called
emotional intelligence).

Very few highly intelligent people because wealthy or successful in the
business world, mainly because they can't be bothered to concentrate on
one
thing. Instead, they pursue a variety of interests and seldom excel at
any
of them.

That's *exactly* what I'm like - I can do a decent job of many different
things, but I don't excel at very much. I've never thought this was a sign
of intelligence, though - more like a lack of discipline, poor frustration
tolerance, etc. I used to feel bad about this, like I hadn't accomplished
anything impressive. But the truth is, I really enjoy all my interests.
So what's the harm?

Joyce

There's absolutely no harm in enjoying a multitude of interests. It may not
be a sign of intelligence, per se, but it does generally seem to be highly
intelligent people who have a variety of interests. It is also true, in my
experience at least, that people with a variety of interests are the most
interesting to talk to.

Joy

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
wrote:

You're kidding. That doesn't sound right to me (about the IQ). I'm not
going to swear by it because I'm not sure, but that seems pretty low
to me. Mine is quite a bit above that and I am hardly a genius.

I don't actually know what the different range cut-offs are, though -
what is considered developmentally disabled, what's average, and what's
genius? And then, of course, the IQ only tells a little bit about a
person's intelligence - there's usually a lot more to it than just how
well a person performs on logic, computation and language tests. I'm
not saying it's completely invalid - it's the truth, but not the whole
truth.

There's also the "EQ" - the emotional intelligence. It certainly plays
an important role in a person's overall intelligence, as much if not
more
than the IQ. Mine is rather low, I have to admit. :-O (I don't have a
number, but from how it's described, I can tell that I wouldn't do very
well.) And whatever skills I do have in that area, I've gotten *during
my adulthood* by consciously working at it. Lord knows I was let loose
on the world as a young adult with hardly any skills to navigate the
social universe!

IQ tests are designed to produce a normal distribution, which means IQ
tests are usually designed to have an average score of 100, with 68% of
the population scoring between 85-115. They were originally invented to
identify developmentally delayed children, and you can find lists of
exactly which scores were considered to represent which level of
disability (or ability, on the other end). I expect nowadays children
who don't seem to be doing well are tested in a variety of ways to try
to figure out just what their problems are.

As you point out, IQ tests don't cover all of what 'intelligence' is now
understood to include. It can predict school achievement - but so can so
many other characteristics that people often combine them in studies
instead of using just one. And even when much more weight was put on IQ
testing than is now, there were 'underachievers' who did worse in school
than predicted by their IQ score, and 'overachievers' who did better in
school than predicted by their IQ score. So IQ is definitely not the be
all and end all of intelligence testing - but people still seem
fascinated by it.

--
Cheryl

Actually, it can't even predict school achievement. If a student is
bored with the work, s/he may not do it, or may do very little of it,
while pursuing other interests. When I entered what was then called a
junior college (now they're called community colleges), my counselor was
surprised that I wasn't a straight 'A' student. I probably had a 'B'
average, but there was one class in which I spent the entire period
reading library books. There were a lot of noisy, disruptive kids in
that class, and the teacher gave me an 'A', not because I earned it, but
because I didn't give her a bad time.

It's a predictor of school acheivement - just not a very good one,
particularly when used alone.

Actually, the best predictor of future school performance is past school
performance, which is kind of circular. But it's better than the usual
combinations of IQ, test scores, family background (income, books at home,
interest from parents etc), school characteristics etc.

IQ tests also don't test one of the things that is most important for
leading a full, happy and productive life (IMNSHO) - people skills. I
met many people in Mensa who have very poor people skills.

Very few highly intelligent people because wealthy or successful in the
business world, mainly because they can't be bothered to concentrate on
one thing. Instead, they pursue a variety of interests and seldom excel
at any of them.

I'd disagree with you here. There are some formidably intelligent people
who are successful in all kinds of areas. Whether they all have top IQ
scores, I don't know, but they're probably well above average - AND they
work hard and do well. IQ alone doesn't guarantee a thing - including that
the holder of a very high IQ won't concentrate on one thing long enough to
excel in it.

--
Cheryl

The people you mention are a tiny minority of highly intelligent people.
You're right that IQ alone doesn't guarantee anything.

One reason I don't think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence is that
my Dad was probably the smartest person I've ever met, but he would have
scored fairly low on such a test because he was a slow reader, and because
he was meticulous about everything being done right. IQ tests are timed,
and slow reading plus double-checking each answer would mean that many of
the questions in each section would go unanswered, resulting in a low score.

Like many highly intelligent people, my Dad had a large variety of
interests. However, he did usually concentrate on one at a time. At one
point he became interested in rock-hounding. We would go camping in the
Mojave desert and he would dig up agate. Later, he decided to make jewelry
out of the agate he found. He used standard tools to cut and polish the
stones, but he designed his own punches to make designs in the settings.
Some of them were quite intricate.

Many years later, he became interested in repairing and restoring antique
clocks. He made many of the parts he used to repair the clocks. My
siblings and I each have one of the clocks he restored. At the time he
died, he had gotten rid of a lot of the clocks he had repaired, but my
mother was left with 14 of them.

When he was interested in Bonsai trees, he gradually accumulated them until
he had 700 trees.

So yes, he was highly skilled at many things, but his greatest achievements
in a given area came when he concentrated on that interest to the exclusion
of others.

Joy

Joy

Joy wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
wrote:

You're kidding. That doesn't sound right to me (about the IQ). I'm not
going to swear by it because I'm not sure, but that seems pretty low
to me. Mine is quite a bit above that and I am hardly a genius.

I don't actually know what the different range cut-offs are, though -
what is considered developmentally disabled, what's average, and what's
genius? And then, of course, the IQ only tells a little bit about a
person's intelligence - there's usually a lot more to it than just how
well a person performs on logic, computation and language tests. I'm
not saying it's completely invalid - it's the truth, but not the whole
truth.

There's also the "EQ" - the emotional intelligence. It certainly plays
an important role in a person's overall intelligence, as much if not
more
than the IQ. Mine is rather low, I have to admit. :-O (I don't have a
number, but from how it's described, I can tell that I wouldn't do very
well.) And whatever skills I do have in that area, I've gotten *during
my adulthood* by consciously working at it. Lord knows I was let loose
on the world as a young adult with hardly any skills to navigate the
social universe!

IQ tests are designed to produce a normal distribution, which means IQ
tests are usually designed to have an average score of 100, with 68% of
the population scoring between 85-115. They were originally invented to
identify developmentally delayed children, and you can find lists of
exactly which scores were considered to represent which level of
disability (or ability, on the other end). I expect nowadays children
who don't seem to be doing well are tested in a variety of ways to try
to figure out just what their problems are.

As you point out, IQ tests don't cover all of what 'intelligence' is now
understood to include. It can predict school achievement - but so can so
many other characteristics that people often combine them in studies
instead of using just one. And even when much more weight was put on IQ
testing than is now, there were 'underachievers' who did worse in school
than predicted by their IQ score, and 'overachievers' who did better in
school than predicted by their IQ score. So IQ is definitely not the be
all and end all of intelligence testing - but people still seem
fascinated by it.

--
Cheryl
Actually, it can't even predict school achievement. If a student is
bored with the work, s/he may not do it, or may do very little of it,
while pursuing other interests. When I entered what was then called a
junior college (now they're called community colleges), my counselor was
surprised that I wasn't a straight 'A' student. I probably had a 'B'
average, but there was one class in which I spent the entire period
reading library books. There were a lot of noisy, disruptive kids in
that class, and the teacher gave me an 'A', not because I earned it, but
because I didn't give her a bad time.
It's a predictor of school acheivement - just not a very good one,
particularly when used alone.

Actually, the best predictor of future school performance is past school
performance, which is kind of circular. But it's better than the usual
combinations of IQ, test scores, family background (income, books at home,
interest from parents etc), school characteristics etc.

IQ tests also don't test one of the things that is most important for
leading a full, happy and productive life (IMNSHO) - people skills. I
met many people in Mensa who have very poor people skills.

Very few highly intelligent people because wealthy or successful in the
business world, mainly because they can't be bothered to concentrate on
one thing. Instead, they pursue a variety of interests and seldom excel
at any of them.
I'd disagree with you here. There are some formidably intelligent people
who are successful in all kinds of areas. Whether they all have top IQ
scores, I don't know, but they're probably well above average - AND they
work hard and do well. IQ alone doesn't guarantee a thing - including that
the holder of a very high IQ won't concentrate on one thing long enough to
excel in it.

--
Cheryl

The people you mention are a tiny minority of highly intelligent people.
You're right that IQ alone doesn't guarantee anything.

One reason I don't think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence is that
my Dad was probably the smartest person I've ever met, but he would have
scored fairly low on such a test because he was a slow reader, and because
he was meticulous about everything being done right. IQ tests are timed,
and slow reading plus double-checking each answer would mean that many of
the questions in each section would go unanswered, resulting in a low score.

Like many highly intelligent people, my Dad had a large variety of
interests. However, he did usually concentrate on one at a time. At one
point he became interested in rock-hounding. We would go camping in the
Mojave desert and he would dig up agate. Later, he decided to make jewelry
out of the agate he found. He used standard tools to cut and polish the
stones, but he designed his own punches to make designs in the settings.
Some of them were quite intricate.

Many years later, he became interested in repairing and restoring antique
clocks. He made many of the parts he used to repair the clocks. My
siblings and I each have one of the clocks he restored. At the time he
died, he had gotten rid of a lot of the clocks he had repaired, but my
mother was left with 14 of them.

When he was interested in Bonsai trees, he gradually accumulated them until
he had 700 trees.

So yes, he was highly skilled at many things, but his greatest achievements
in a given area came when he concentrated on that interest to the exclusion
of others.

Joy

Joy


He sounds like an interesting person. MLB

"MLB" wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
wrote:

You're kidding. That doesn't sound right to me (about the IQ). I'm
not
going to swear by it because I'm not sure, but that seems pretty low
to me. Mine is quite a bit above that and I am hardly a genius.

I don't actually know what the different range cut-offs are, though -
what is considered developmentally disabled, what's average, and
what's
genius? And then, of course, the IQ only tells a little bit about a
person's intelligence - there's usually a lot more to it than just
how
well a person performs on logic, computation and language tests. I'm
not saying it's completely invalid - it's the truth, but not the
whole
truth.

There's also the "EQ" - the emotional intelligence. It certainly
plays
an important role in a person's overall intelligence, as much if not
more
than the IQ. Mine is rather low, I have to admit. :-O (I don't have a
number, but from how it's described, I can tell that I wouldn't do
very
well.) And whatever skills I do have in that area, I've gotten
*during
my adulthood* by consciously working at it. Lord knows I was let
loose
on the world as a young adult with hardly any skills to navigate the
social universe!

IQ tests are designed to produce a normal distribution, which means IQ
tests are usually designed to have an average score of 100, with 68%
of the population scoring between 85-115. They were originally
invented to identify developmentally delayed children, and you can
find lists of exactly which scores were considered to represent which
level of disability (or ability, on the other end). I expect nowadays
children who don't seem to be doing well are tested in a variety of
ways to try to figure out just what their problems are.

As you point out, IQ tests don't cover all of what 'intelligence' is
now understood to include. It can predict school achievement - but so
can so many other characteristics that people often combine them in
studies instead of using just one. And even when much more weight was
put on IQ testing than is now, there were 'underachievers' who did
worse in school than predicted by their IQ score, and 'overachievers'
who did better in school than predicted by their IQ score. So IQ is
definitely not the be all and end all of intelligence testing - but
people still seem fascinated by it.

--
Cheryl
Actually, it can't even predict school achievement. If a student is
bored with the work, s/he may not do it, or may do very little of it,
while pursuing other interests. When I entered what was then called a
junior college (now they're called community colleges), my counselor
was surprised that I wasn't a straight 'A' student. I probably had a
'B' average, but there was one class in which I spent the entire period
reading library books. There were a lot of noisy, disruptive kids in
that class, and the teacher gave me an 'A', not because I earned it,
but because I didn't give her a bad time.
It's a predictor of school acheivement - just not a very good one,
particularly when used alone.

Actually, the best predictor of future school performance is past school
performance, which is kind of circular. But it's better than the usual
combinations of IQ, test scores, family background (income, books at
home, interest from parents etc), school characteristics etc.

IQ tests also don't test one of the things that is most important for
leading a full, happy and productive life (IMNSHO) - people skills. I
met many people in Mensa who have very poor people skills.

Very few highly intelligent people because wealthy or successful in the
business world, mainly because they can't be bothered to concentrate on
one thing. Instead, they pursue a variety of interests and seldom
excel at any of them.
I'd disagree with you here. There are some formidably intelligent people
who are successful in all kinds of areas. Whether they all have top IQ
scores, I don't know, but they're probably well above average - AND they
work hard and do well. IQ alone doesn't guarantee a thing - including
that the holder of a very high IQ won't concentrate on one thing long
enough to excel in it.

--
Cheryl

The people you mention are a tiny minority of highly intelligent people.
You're right that IQ alone doesn't guarantee anything.

One reason I don't think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence is
that my Dad was probably the smartest person I've ever met, but he would
have scored fairly low on such a test because he was a slow reader, and
because he was meticulous about everything being done right. IQ tests
are timed, and slow reading plus double-checking each answer would mean
that many of the questions in each section would go unanswered, resulting
in a low score.

Like many highly intelligent people, my Dad had a large variety of
interests. However, he did usually concentrate on one at a time. At one
point he became interested in rock-hounding. We would go camping in the
Mojave desert and he would dig up agate. Later, he decided to make
jewelry out of the agate he found. He used standard tools to cut and
polish the stones, but he designed his own punches to make designs in the
settings. Some of them were quite intricate.

Many years later, he became interested in repairing and restoring antique
clocks. He made many of the parts he used to repair the clocks. My
siblings and I each have one of the clocks he restored. At the time he
died, he had gotten rid of a lot of the clocks he had repaired, but my
mother was left with 14 of them.

When he was interested in Bonsai trees, he gradually accumulated them
until he had 700 trees.

So yes, he was highly skilled at many things, but his greatest
achievements in a given area came when he concentrated on that interest
to the exclusion of others.

Joy

Joy
He sounds like an interesting person. MLB

He was. He was also extremely talented. I still have a bookcase he built
for me about 50 years ago.

Joy

hopitus wrote:

On Nov 21, 3:52?pm, wrote:
hopitus wrote:

? ROFL. Snaggly in spite of his commen sense and non-Mensa status, dos
? not have basic math skills.
I'm sure he makes up for all of it with cuteness! Do you have a photo
of him online?
Joyce

No. Have only had Snag since May this year. I have found a couple pics
which I am showing you the links for...Snaggly came from the local
animal control shelter. I consulted some people I know and my
suspicions were what they agreed on (though Snag chose *me* when I
was in his cage area to look at a different cat) he is a
nondeterminate
age, weighs 28#, and look closely at the photo examples of his breed.
He is all gray and has no "mitts" (white feet) nor any white on his
bod.
He is a blue-point ragdoll. He may be pedigreed but who cares?

http://animal.discovery.com/breedsel...ile.do?id=3090

Snaggly's eyes are light blue/ Gray paws not white.

http://www.ragdoll.net/

If you are interested is what ragdolls are like, see Cat Fanciers of
America website
and click on ragdoll under "breeds".

Oh, he's a really elegant cat if he looks like those guys. The
name "Snaggly" made me think of "Snagglepuss", remember that cartoon?
Kind of a scruffy street cat. That's what I was picturing.

I saw a show about ragdolls, actually it was on Animal Planet.
Apparently they're a very sociable, human-friendly breed.

Joyce

--
Who ever thought up the word "Mammogram"? Every time I hear it, I think
I'm supposed to put my breast in an envelope and send it to someone.
-- Jan King

Joy wrote:

The people you mention are a tiny minority of highly intelligent people.
You're right that IQ alone doesn't guarantee anything.

Well - I don't agree, but I don't have any sources for my claim that
there are lots of intelligent people who do well in life. Do you have
for the claim that only a tiny minority do? We'd have to agree on a
definition of 'intelligence' first, of course, and I think we're agreed
that IQ score alone isn't it. That complicates the hunt for evidence.

I bet someone's studied the question though. If I remember when I'm at a
better computer and have a bit of time I might do some digging.

One reason I don't think IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence is that
my Dad was probably the smartest person I've ever met, but he would have
scored fairly low on such a test because he was a slow reader, and because
he was meticulous about everything being done right. IQ tests are timed,
and slow reading plus double-checking each answer would mean that many of
the questions in each section would go unanswered, resulting in a low score.

I never said IQ alone was a good measure of intelligence - but one
aspect of intelligence is the ability to think things through quickly.
Of course, unusually poor or good reading skills can affect the ability
to measure that, as you say.

Like many highly intelligent people, my Dad had a large variety of
interests. However, he did usually concentrate on one at a time. At one
point he became interested in rock-hounding. We would go camping in the
Mojave desert and he would dig up agate. Later, he decided to make jewelry
out of the agate he found. He used standard tools to cut and polish the
stones, but he designed his own punches to make designs in the settings.
Some of them were quite intricate.

Many years later, he became interested in repairing and restoring antique
clocks. He made many of the parts he used to repair the clocks. My
siblings and I each have one of the clocks he restored. At the time he
died, he had gotten rid of a lot of the clocks he had repaired, but my
mother was left with 14 of them.

When he was interested in Bonsai trees, he gradually accumulated them until
he had 700 trees.

So yes, he was highly skilled at many things, but his greatest achievements
in a given area came when he concentrated on that interest to the exclusion
of others.

I'm also not sure that becoming interested in different things is
necessarily a sign of intelligence. It seems likely to me that it would
be tied to other aspects of personality, such as attentiveness,
persistance and curiosity. Some brilliant people have very narrow interests.

--
Cheryl

On Nov 21, 4:01*pm, "Joy" wrote:


.. *IQ tests are timed,
and slow reading plus double-checking each answer would mean that many of
the questions in each section would go unanswered, resulting in a low score.

The timing was what made me fail my 11+ (My age really showing there!)
in the mock I was told I might have passed but no examiner would be
able to read my writing so in the real thing I had to be so slow to
make sure my writing was okay I didn't finish it.

Like many highly intelligent people, my Dad had a large variety of
interests. *However, he did usually concentrate on one at a time. *

He sounds like my dad- when I was a kid he decided to learn the piano
and got himself to concert standard, he'd practice for hours every
night. Then it was photography for a time then showing rabbits then
something else then gardening then something else then golf and in his
last years photography again and when he was into these things he did
little else when he was into photography each time he spent all his
spare money getting the best equipment he could- after he died we
found 5 state of the art SLR cameras with all the additional lenses
and bits.

He was also amazingly good at painting and decorating (when he first
left National Service he and a friend set themselves up doing that but
then he accidentally (his version) on purpose (mum's version) knocked
a tennis ball into the garden next door but one where a certain Rose
Maynard was sunbathing....next thing he's got a mortgage to save up
for then a wedding then a baby (me) on the way so he had to get
something with a steady wage) he rewired the house (the last thing he
was reading before he died with the Newnes electrical engineering
book) he once got his hands on a Jaguar (car before anyone wonders
what I am talking about) where some idiot had so damaged the gear box
and the engine that it was only fit to be sold for scrap and he
repaired and replaced everything himself (used to service all the cars
for my aunts and uncles and fix them to) as well as being well read-
he was bright but his education was somewhat disrupted by WW2 so he
was entirely self taught

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

On Nov 21, 10:36*am, "Matthew"
wrote:
*I thought to my
self what a joke when I looked at his math part of the test for a cashier..
I asked him why he failed the math part.
* *

An old friend of mine had an MSc in pure mathematics but he couldn't
add and subtract anything like as fast as this 0 level maths failure
could

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs