The figures (150 verbal IQ, etc.) seem to be plucked out of thin air, and the central idea---that there would be an IQ 'threshold' separating people who can be successful/good writers from those who can't---similarly backed by nothing. Where is even a hint of what a mechanism for such a threshold might be?
Trying to show off how smart one is is probably part of the motivation behind many interesting comments posted on here, and more generally, a big motivation behind a huge number of the useful things people do. Doing it in a non-obvious way requires additional ingenuity. The cumulative effect of people trying to show off how smart they are has undoubtedly greatly accelerated the development of our species.
I can almost guarantee that the number of people who have made substantive scientific contributions to society were far more interested in their chosen object of study than they were with their perceived intelligence. I can think of a few, perhaps, but that number is slim.
People quickly jump to conclusions all the time on here. I did not claim that it is not a valid translation. All I said is that I did not know the word and that probably many native English speakers do not know it either. Additionally I claimed that I think it is better to use "news-speaker" instead of "herald" as it is obvious to most if not all people who speak English, whether native or not. I am fine with "reporter", too.
You could go around and ask people if they know the meaning of "herald". I did, and many people did not know, but "news-teller" is definitely obvious, and as I have previously said in two other comments: while "news-teller" is not a standard or formally recognized English word, it is likely that many English speakers would still recognize and understand its meaning, more so than "herald", in my opinion, and in accordance to my experiences.
My comment wasn't really so much about the nature of the steps being taken, as it was intended to display my anger, as someone who has been on this earth for 72 years, regarding the ongoing atrocities committed in the name of religion. If there is a loving god, there is zero doubt such a god would, first and foremost above anything else, detest every organized religion.
I completely agree, I think that precedent matters. But again, that's just not how conversations go when it's the other side that's being discussed. Try bringing up the US in a Russia thread, here or elsewhere and you'll get that magic word on every single reply lol.
Then let us not descend to the level of our inferiors but maintain an intelligent standard of discussion. There is no reason to cry whataboutism which is what you are doing here in a roundabout way.
