Assume Nothing

I thought there was a system that prevented double posts.

My basic setup goes: most relevant first, least relevant last. Don't include blank statements, and illustrate your strengths. Oh, and always check for spelling errors - a single grammatical or spelling mistake could cost you the potential job (the surveys indicate approx 30%+ of employers would refuse a Resume on the first typo - the mentality goes 'if you're going to make a mistake on a Resume, you're going to make a mistake on the job'). I've spent my first few hours of today just practicing my new signature. I've got a pretty neat one now

Banned for wearing a full body latex outfit, with a tail.

It was a player moderator mute. It's possible that you just annoyed one of the more abusive player moderators on this game.

I can't say I disagree with that.

Good intention doesn't mean its a good action/decision.

Banned for eyeing my avatar's eye.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone has discalculia. They are able to do extremely complex sums, but they must be given additional time to make up for the slower performance. Should they be considered less intelligent than the person who could perform more quickly, but less accurately/correctly? Given the scale of these types of psychological conditions, especially autism - it's difficult to really compare people based on scores. To reiterate from obfuscator - they provide a means of roughly gauging one's ability, but they are by no means accurate measurements that could be equated to something more quantifiable, such as mass or height.

Be careful what you're accusing me of saying. I've merely stated that I believe his acts weren't justified - not unjustifiable. I'm not assuming his actions were morally wrong, I'm inferring that he is. Your quotes are a blatant misrepresentation of my views, and I must admit - it's a great way to distort the truth. It's a more controlled form of anger, but it seems to be anger nonetheless. Are you suggesting that anger cannot be premeditated? Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that your assumption is correct. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it was for teaching a lesson and he didn't have vested interest to lie about his true motives. How effective would that lesson be? I've left this out previously simply because I didn't believe it was the case.

You haven't answered the glaring question - are you a good driver in the first place?

It should be self-evident. If an action cannot be justified, then it's irrational. This irrationality is harmful, and in the context of this specific case with a gun and a laptop, it posed considerable harm and risk as I've highlighted before. I think you pretty much missed the point entirely, Nyo. He intentionally placed himself in greater danger as a form of retribution - it wasn't to teach a lesson, it was simply anger and rage being expressed with gunshots. @Kimberly - You're assuming what he says is true. Is that not an assumption?

Banned for exhibiting such prowess in the English language.

Precisely. We're operating on assumptions here - you claim that she's a disobedient, spoiled brat. I believe that may not be the case, although it's not entirely implausible. We don't know whether she's being disciplined for anything beyond the Facebook post, and whether the post has been misconstrued (only one sentence has to be misconstrued or poorly quoted to twist the entire context). I believe that the best judgements are based on assuming nothing (or the least possible), so any judgement now would be redundant. Bah.

We don't know enough about her background beyond what the father claims. I don't believe it's wise to judge at this very moment.

It's not the same thing. Breaking the speed limit endangers people's lives, whereas a Facebook post may harm his reputation a little. The latter is negligible in comparison to your little analogy. It doesn't matter if the highway's deserted - their own life, which the cops have a duty to protect, is at risk. Your argument from analogy doesn't work as they're too different to be viably compared. The act of shooting the computer in itself is harmful - the computer parts may come apart and injure him. It's financially harmful - for a young teenager, a $800+ computer is considered a significant amount of money. Granted, he's the one paying for it - but that doesn't give him an entitlement to destroy the girl's work on it too. I have yet to cover 'emotional harm', too. It's no doubt harmful to at least one party here. Please explain - how is it justified?

The kid had been warned. The point was - the act of shooting a computer on the basis of that particular facebook post was not justified. The fact that she was forewarned would not be relevant - it still doesn't justify the unnecessary action of shooting the computer. A much more 'severe' punishment is such an ambiguous term that it allows for abuse - as evidenced in many other cases, if it were to serve as real justification for one's asinine decisions/actions. Here's the two questions we need to ask: was it necessary? Did it cause harm, or somehow limited happiness/wellbeing? I'd answer that to be 'no', and 'yes it did cause (unnecessary) harm'. On that premise, I don't think it was justified.

Intentional overreaction coupled with a supportive movement on his side? I'd be insane to call it justified.

I think you should have separated your posts into two parts - one that introduces us to the thread, and one that tells us how you feel about the topic. On a more relevant note - I feel it's a terrible way to gauge intelligence. As you've stated, the very definition of intelligence is under debate - we're not even sure what we're measuring here. Does it measure intelligence outside of the limitations of the IQ test? Does a person having more capacity but less speed equate to having a lower level of intelligence? If exam conditions are imposed, does that skew the results of those with particular learning or personality disorders? Could you really compare a 12 year old's purported 130IQ with a 30 year old's 130IQ? Does it measure current ability, or capacity for learning, or both? It serves the role of diving the academic populace, but does it do that job well? Given the number of flaws in addition to the significance of these flaws, I don't feel that it's very optimal. It's a sub-par way of comparing each-other. I'd call it a pseudoscience.

I think I share a few of those. If I'm asked a question that I really need to think about, I can't make eye-contact until I've completed my thought. I don't think I suffer from schizophrenia, but I do share the personality quirk in regards to irrelevant observations - I try to make it into a discussion, so any random thought will be posed as a question like the way 'Freakonomics' presents them. Is there anything about these personality quirks which annoy/frustrate you? I find them completely normal, although they can hinder your work progress depending on the setting which they occur in.

Banned for blaspheming.

Please clarify - which category of personality quirks? 'Eccentric' hardly identifies the type of quirk.

Banned for the lulz.

Banned for gettin' your fingers all greasy. I would offer to clean it up, but I'd be accused of being extremely disturbing.

Banned for the implicit allegation that I'm verbose to the nth degree.

Banned for participating.