"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:00:38 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Commodore Joe Redcloud©" wrote in message

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:40:20 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Perhaps you simply have no ability to make your points concise and
understandable. Of course it's always easier to blame everyone but
yourself
for the misperception.


I never considered that I might have to "dumb down" my posts for you
to be able to grasp them. I guess you are among those that the
education system has failed to educate.

Yeah, right. I understood your premise, but found it erroneously
presented.
Present your arguments intelligently and you won't become a target.

Not even close. Unless you have kids that *want* an education, you're
barking up a tree in the wrong forest. The solution must begin at home,
where kids have to be instilled with the desire to be educated, and
convinced that an education is critical to their future well-being. Of
course if their parent(s) is/are clueless to these issues, the kid will
be
similarly clueless. The state requires the kid to attend school, which
he/she hates and wants nothing more than to avoid. It can be the best,
most
innovative and efficient educational program in existence, but futile if
the
kid isn't interested.


There you go, being small minded, and short sighted again, Jeff.
Improve the education system so that successive generations will have
more and more chance of being raised by parents that DO have a clue.

The cultural rejection of education is self-perpetuating. You can alter
and
inprove the system until it encompasses the entire GDP and you'll still
have
a culture of people for whom education means nothing. (Hint: don't read
race here--this culture of ignorance crosses racial lines rather nicely)
The process must begin at home. We constantly hear how "bright" oriental
students are; how they almost universally excel in primary, secondary, and
college-level programs. Do you honestly believe they are genetically
superior in terms of brilliance and the ability to learn and absorb? The
primary difference between them and those who fail the educational process
is parental/family motivation. Without that, the whole process is an
exercise in futility. Throwing money at education has been tried, and it
has failed. Answer this: why, if the system is so broken, do so many
excel
within the existing one?

That's always the best concept, but you've got the methods all wrong.


Well, I agree that a better education would not have helped you much,
Jeffy.

Care to compare advanced degrees? GPAs?

Max


Good grief! You really ARE a moron. Have no fear, Jeffy. If you continue
to
bull**** yourself into "not getting it", there's a pretty good chance you
never
will. Your ignorance will be safe.

Thanks, Rudeclod. A personal attack is always a cry of "uncle."


Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Well, you may be right, but one has to fight against the tide, else be
drawn along with it.

Agreed. I just don't know how to go about it. Throwing money at the
problem has proved ineffective. More money is probably needed, but a viable
plan should be formulated first.

Not having to have three jobs to make ends meet, so that they actually
have time to spend with the kids.

Very true. It is a major problem with the working poor.

Something being a prime motivator has only a little to do with making it
financially viable for people take on a profession.

Are you contending that teaching is not a financially viable profession?
Most of the teachers I know earn between $50K and $80K for nine months of
work. And their retirement plans are legendary.

I don't think raising teacher salaries can be defined realistically as
throwing money at a problem.

It is if those same teachers are no more effective at higher pay rates than
they are a lower ones.


I think we would all benefit from knowing the answers. However, just
because someone is a single parent does not preclude doing a good job with
one's kids.

Absolutely, but the statistics demonstrate preponderantly that single-parent
families have a substantially higher school drop-out rate than two-parent
families. We need to know why that is the case, but whenever we attempt to
examine the situation, the PC cops put a stop to it, calling it
discrimination. Inner city blacks have a higher drop-out rate, too, but
we're not allowed to examine the etiology of that phenomenon either. It's
really difficult to prescribe remedies to a problem without understanding
the nature of the problem first.

Max

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote i

Care to translate your "bandwidth" analogy into English?

Not having to have three jobs to make ends meet, so that they
actually have
time to spend with the kids.


Three jobs? Why would they need 3 jobs? When we planned to have
kids we decided that Mom would not work till the kids were at
least 14 YO. Sure this meant sailing a Mac instead of a Swan,
driving a Dodge van instead of a Beemer, but you've got to get
your priorities straight.
Too many have it the wrong way today.

Perhaps you weren't working a $6/hr. job, Scoot.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Well, I said close. Besides, a major league pitcher is much more valued
than a doctor, and that says a whole lot about the society.

Volumes.

I don't think relative rarity is a good measure either. If that were the
case, buggy whip makers would be billionaires. Some of them could make
extraordinary buggy whips. Of course Bill Gates can make extraordinarily
buggy software...

Um, you missed the point, Jon. Rarity in and of itself is not the point.
Rarity in a field of demand is the point. If you are the only maker of
buggy whips and everyone drives horse-drawn carriages, you prosper. Today,
however . . .

Max

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, I said close. Besides, a major league pitcher is much
more valued than
a doctor, and that says a whole lot about the society.

I don't think relative rarity is a good measure either. If that
were the
case, buggy whip makers would be billionaires. Some of them
could make
extraordinary buggy whips. Of course Bill Gates can make
extraordinarily
buggy software...


There are a lot of buggy whip shops in my area, Some are quite
good at it.

It's gotta be a lot like those consummate craftsmen who build costly wooden
dinghies. They slave endlessly over their creations, lovingly producing
watercraft of aesthetically-pleasing lines and textures, building only a few
each year. And they all have to plow snow and mow yards to pay the bills.

Max

"Scout" wrote in message
...
Max
Yes, theoretically, teaching is easy; all one needs is good students.
Check with Katysails about their recent adventure.
Your comment that any reasonably intelligent individual can do makes me
wonder why so many above average intelligence people can't.
Scout

Okay, so I was wrong. I should have said *anyone of relatively modest
intelligence* can teach. g

Max

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
Take a look at your own posts, Doug. You are truly the *King* of hurling
insults and redundantly proclaiming your opinion to be gospel.

Excuse me? I always distinguish between my opinion and fact.

In which parallel universe is this happening? Certainly not here.

Further, when stating my opinions I generally give the observations &
experience behind it.

*Your* observations and experience? Um, I believe that would still qualify
them as opinions.

You're just PO'd because you always feel like a dumb jerk...
and rightly so... when trying to argue with me.

It would be difficult to feel anything but vindicated when debating anyone
so blatantly arrogant and self-important. Ad hominem attacks are tantamount
to admitting you have no argument; an admission of defeat. When your debate
fails, attack the opponent, right?

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
Doug, despite the fact I generally disagree with you I respect you
ability
to make a reasonably well-reasoned argument in many cases. Same with Max.
But Max is right on this point. The ad hominem attacks detract from
otherwise well-articulated arguments, rather than contributing to them.

Baloney.

You and Max are always calling names because you can't summon any facts or
logic to support your statements.

Perhaps you believe that my pointing out your errors is the same as
insulting you? You simply have repeated this "ad-hominem" stuff so often
that you believe it yourself. Now let's see the proof: quote at least
three of my insults to you in the past month. Last time I challenged you
to do so, you were rather quiet for a few days.

12/14 8:35pm to Maxprop: " . . . don't you neo-cons usually dismiss this
kind of stuff with a laugh?"

12/19 8:18pm to Dave: "Where you were ridiculed constantly for being so
gullible and dumb?"

12?20 6:48pm to Maxprop: "You're just PO'd because you always feel like a
dumb jerk . .and rightly so . . .when trying to argue with me."

Shall I continue?

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I'm pretty sure Cal has such a program... I'm not sure it's for all level
of teacher. I'll ask my friend.

You are correct about this point, Jon, but it's not universal. The poorest
rural and inner city schools often don't have the resources to provide what
some teachers consider mandatory for their classes in terms of supplies.
There are good resources--some published by the DOE--detailing just how
financially deficient some school systems are in impoverished areas. Some
schools don't have enough funds for textbooks for each student, let alone
school supplies. But most do.

Max

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
Well, that was going to be my point, you *don't have to* spend
your own money. Seems like the better teachers do. Lisa is
constantly buying stuff for 'her kids',

Dinner, drinks, dancing? Gotta watch those promiscuous 15 year old boys.

and yes, I complain about
it,

Think of it this way--when the dust settles you've got first book and TV
mini-series rights. g

Max