>You know what's funny? I think this is exactly what the author would call a "stupid" remark - it's meant to say something nasty about the person you're replyin

>You know what's funny? I think this is exactly what the author would call a "stupid" remark - it's meant to say something nasty about the person you're replying to, and you don't even gain from it! Or it's meant to point out something that I, at least, happen to agree with. Reveling in identifying stupidity tends to obscure that we're all stupid at one point or another. Besides, it's not all too difficult to turn this around on you; you just called him stupid for no gain of your own. >You see, the irony here is that the author isn't actually talking about stupidity and intelligence. He's actually talking about people who engage in lose/win, win/win, lose/lose, or win/lose behavior. Then he shouldn't use those terms over and over again in such a misleading fashion. All of your post--which is essentially a smokescreen--fails to address the salient accusation, which is that applying mathy and logic-y terms to a discussion of stupidity doesn't quite ameliorate the distasteful sense that, in reading/enjoying the article, we're gloating.