|
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:42:11 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:31:28 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:33:23 -0500, Harry wrote: wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... MESQUITE, Texas - The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust its grooming policy. The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November. After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor, who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar. His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended. According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states. The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year, a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him. On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because "students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live." Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of Education. "I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said. God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas. Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom??? Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school? Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic) schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression, etc. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument. "government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the description of schools receiving government monies as being subsidized? My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It reminded me of nukular. Nice retype.... And your proposition that "schools are created for the purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you left out a comma).) http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is how they define themselves. Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative, you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be equally condescending. Depends on the private, religious school. If the school is being run by fundamentalist christian protestants, it is run to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on, and socializing with children whose parents allow them to think. Fundamentalist christian protestantism is the american version of talibanism. I really wasn't trying to go there, but since you have.... one of the chairs at my college developed a very general program to aid home schoolers in learning teaching strategies, how to spot learning disabilities, etc...... The program never happened. She was absolutely vilified by the fundies, not only verbally, but in writing on forums and blogs. Purely an US agin' THEM (public/worldly heathen) argument that held no substance, but was all about how folks had been indoctrinated. I've had better than 37 years to see this over and over and over...... whether religious, cultural, socioeconomic, whatever, it all comes out the same...... indoctrination over education...... I know lot's of young athletes who are home schooled so they can spend more time working on their sport and participate in national events. Penn-Foster is popular, and there are a few other good secular home school programs. When I home schooled my daughter for two years it was not as easy to find secular programs, but there are plenty of them out there now. Back then, we actually worked with the school and combined two programs along with a lot of material from the school in town. She was able to attend some functions too. As to your long history of hate and bigotry against anything non-secular, this line of thought from you is not unexpected but still, way off the mark as usual...;) Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue beyond some weighted geographic issues.... The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver... You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack depth of experience. And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time? |
Texas Taliban
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 12/01/2010 5:20 PM, Harry wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... MESQUITE, Texas - The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust its grooming policy. The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November. After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor, who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar. His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended. According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states. The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year, a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him. On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because "students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live." Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of Education. "I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said. God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas. Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom??? Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school? Individual freedom in a tax-based economy? We certainly cannot allow that. We cannot have harmony without conformity. right? Might as well just call us a herd of sheep. Maybe even brand you wih a RFID and mini explosive if you misbehave. Except for Sarah Palin, of course. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"jps" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:55:38 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message m... MESQUITE, Texas - The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust its grooming policy. The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November. After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor, who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar. His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended. According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states. The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year, a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him. On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because "students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live." Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of Education. "I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said. God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas. Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom??? Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school? Individual freedom in a tax-based economy? How absurd! I'm getting maveriky... :) Amazingly, I agree with Dick Cheney on this... Palin is unqualified. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 12/01/2010 5:53 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: A parent has a choice to home-school, given certain requirements. Children don't typically have a legal voice of their own. They must usually be represented by an adult. It's in the best interest of society for the population to be educated. I suppose you disagree with this. And given how people make excuses, and get away with it. Might as well repeal the requirements. BTW, I think all children should be going physically to a school unless circumstances are abobiously unavoidable. Such as a family on an island manning a lighthouse and the nearest school is 100 miles away. Chop the squakers hair and march to school... Actually, homeschooled kids tend to do better academically. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 12/01/2010 3:39 PM, Harry wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... MESQUITE, Texas - The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust its grooming policy. The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November. After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor, who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar. His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended. According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states. The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year, a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him. On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because "students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live." Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of Education. "I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said. God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas. Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom??? I guess we need to stir them up a little . Huh. Won't be long before government tells you who will provide you your health care. Better like big fat government up your Harry butt... Sure... well, the good news is that you don't have to worry about it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:56:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:03:04 -0800, jps wrote: MESQUITE, Texas - The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust its grooming policy. The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November. After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor, who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar. His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended. According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states. The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year, a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him. On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because "students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live." Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of Education. "I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said. God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas. I'm sure that kid's long hair is preventing all of the other 4 year olds from learning..... but, then..... it becomes all to obvious when education is tossed in deference to indoctrination.... That's right! Another example - gay marriage preventing hetero couples from enjoying their relationships! Biggest problem with gay.... well most anything.... is that it is so IN-YOUR-FACE. I wouldn't, as a hetero, expect to display my sexuality like this in public. I don't need to see this, my kids don't need to see this, and my grand kids don't need to see this. Frankly, it gets MUCH worse than this.... whips, chains, leashes, Corinthian leather.... fine.... keep it to yourself... http://tinyurl.com/yrohxb Sorry, can't transmit mindbleach through the net..... There's plenty of "opposite" sex out there. I don't think that's going to be a cogent argument when it gets to the SC. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Come on... that sort of thing has been going on for a while. You left right? What's the problem? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
Gene wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:33:23 -0500, Harry wrote: wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... MESQUITE, Texas - The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust its grooming policy. The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November. After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor, who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar. His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended. According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states. The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year, a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him. On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because "students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live." Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of Education. "I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said. God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas. Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom??? Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school? Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic) schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression, etc. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument. "government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the description of schools receiving government monies as being subsidized? My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It reminded me of nukular. Nice retype.... And your proposition that "schools are created for the purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you left out a comma).) http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is how they define themselves. Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative, you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be equally condescending. Depends on the private, religious school. If the school is being run by fundamentalist christian protestants, it is run to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on, and socializing with children whose parents allow them to think. Fundamentalist christian protestantism is the american version of talibanism. I really wasn't trying to go there, but since you have.... one of the chairs at my college developed a very general program to aid home schoolers in learning teaching strategies, how to spot learning disabilities, etc...... The program never happened. She was absolutely vilified by the fundies, not only verbally, but in writing on forums and blogs. Purely an US agin' THEM (public/worldly heathen) argument that held no substance, but was all about how folks had been indoctrinated. I've had better than 37 years to see this over and over and over...... whether religious, cultural, socioeconomic, whatever, it all comes out the same...... indoctrination over education...... I inherited a couple of fundie relatives, a young couple, who are home schooling their kids not because they think they can offer them a better education, but to keep them from "mixing" with kids whose parents are more moderate and liberal. Their words. In other words, they want to raise isolated automatons. -- Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles. |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
I am Tosk wrote:
When I home schooled my daughter for two years Holy schitt...are no qualifications necessary to home school someone? -- Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles. |
Texas Taliban
Gene wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... You've said it before. "What's wrong with you people up there" JPS is nuts |
Texas Taliban
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 12/01/2010 5:53 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: A parent has a choice to home-school, given certain requirements. Children don't typically have a legal voice of their own. They must usually be represented by an adult. It's in the best interest of society for the population to be educated. I suppose you disagree with this. And given how people make excuses, and get away with it. Might as well repeal the requirements. BTW, I think all children should be going physically to a school unless circumstances are abobiously unavoidable. Such as a family on an island manning a lighthouse and the nearest school is 100 miles away. Chop the squakers hair and march to school... Actually, homeschooled kids tend to do better academically. Head of their class. Eh |
Texas Taliban
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Come on... that sort of thing has been going on for a while. You left right? What's the problem? Go sit in the corner with JPS. No touching. |
Texas Taliban
Gene wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:04:42 -0500, Harry wrote: Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... You've said it before. "What's wrong with you people up there" JPS is nuts Well..... you've got me, there.... That would be a flajim commentary on JPS...not a "harry"commentary, of course. -- Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles. |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:59:18 -0500, Gene
wrote: snipped for brevity Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue beyond some weighted geographic issues.... The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver... You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack depth of experience. And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time? Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist Academy for several years. In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes...... I judge, from your posts, that you haven't. You judge poorly then. I have never homeschooled. |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:33:26 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:25 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:59:18 -0500, Gene wrote: snipped for brevity Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue beyond some weighted geographic issues.... The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver... You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack depth of experience. And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time? Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist Academy for several years. In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes...... I judge, from your posts, that you haven't. You judge poorly then. I have never homeschooled. Well... that explains a LOT..... again, you are waxing eloquent about a subject you have no knowledge or personal experience. I thought you were an idiot..... I didn't realize you just didn't know what you were talking about..... OK...... I'm good..... The sensible and honest reader will note that I have refrained from making any statements of fact that would lead one to believe that the author of these lines is an expert in homeschooling. In fact, I doubt that a challenge to corroborate such an assertion would yield much evidence that this humble person made any statements of fact in this regard. What this person did do, aside from making a few meager inquiries, was to illustrate the poor thinking of a pontificating, ultra-resplendent academician. And it would appear from the knee-jerk response of the Infallible Erudite from the Great Halls of Conceit, that the sting of that illustration was...tangible. |
Texas Taliban
In article ,
says... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:48:32 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:42:11 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:31:28 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:33:23 -0500, Harry wrote: wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... MESQUITE, Texas - The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust its grooming policy. The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November. After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor, who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar. His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended. According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states. The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year, a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him. On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because "students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live." Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of Education. "I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said. God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas. Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom??? Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school? Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic) schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression, etc. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument. "government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the description of schools receiving government monies as being subsidized? My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It reminded me of nukular. Nice retype.... And your proposition that "schools are created for the purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you left out a comma).) http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is how they define themselves. Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative, you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be equally condescending. Depends on the private, religious school. If the school is being run by fundamentalist christian protestants, it is run to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on, and socializing with children whose parents allow them to think. Fundamentalist christian protestantism is the american version of talibanism. I really wasn't trying to go there, but since you have.... one of the chairs at my college developed a very general program to aid home schoolers in learning teaching strategies, how to spot learning disabilities, etc...... The program never happened. She was absolutely vilified by the fundies, not only verbally, but in writing on forums and blogs. Purely an US agin' THEM (public/worldly heathen) argument that held no substance, but was all about how folks had been indoctrinated. I've had better than 37 years to see this over and over and over...... whether religious, cultural, socioeconomic, whatever, it all comes out the same...... indoctrination over education...... I know lot's of young athletes who are home schooled so they can spend more time working on their sport and participate in national events. Penn-Foster is popular, and there are a few other good secular home school programs. When I home schooled my daughter for two years it was not as easy to find secular programs, but there are plenty of them out there now. Back then, we actually worked with the school and combined two programs along with a lot of material from the school in town. She was able to attend some functions too. As to your long history of hate and bigotry against anything non-secular, this line of thought from you is not unexpected but still, way off the mark as usual...;) Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue beyond some weighted geographic issues.... The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver... You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack depth of experience. And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time? Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist Academy for several years. In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes...... I judge, from your posts, that you haven't. I have to wonder if you intimidate and mock Christian students in your charge. My kid had a teacher like that a few years ago, used to really crush one of her friends pretty bad for being religious. Right in front of the other kids, it was bad... |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:04:53 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:48:32 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:42:11 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:31:28 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:33:23 -0500, Harry wrote: wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... MESQUITE, Texas - The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust its grooming policy. The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November. After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor, who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar. His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended. According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states. The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year, a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him. On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because "students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live." Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of Education. "I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said. God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas. Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom??? Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school? Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic) schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression, etc. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument. "government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the description of schools receiving government monies as being subsidized? My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It reminded me of nukular. Nice retype.... And your proposition that "schools are created for the purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you left out a comma).) http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is how they define themselves. Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative, you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be equally condescending. Depends on the private, religious school. If the school is being run by fundamentalist christian protestants, it is run to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on, and socializing with children whose parents allow them to think. Fundamentalist christian protestantism is the american version of talibanism. I really wasn't trying to go there, but since you have.... one of the chairs at my college developed a very general program to aid home schoolers in learning teaching strategies, how to spot learning disabilities, etc...... The program never happened. She was absolutely vilified by the fundies, not only verbally, but in writing on forums and blogs. Purely an US agin' THEM (public/worldly heathen) argument that held no substance, but was all about how folks had been indoctrinated. I've had better than 37 years to see this over and over and over...... whether religious, cultural, socioeconomic, whatever, it all comes out the same...... indoctrination over education...... I know lot's of young athletes who are home schooled so they can spend more time working on their sport and participate in national events. Penn-Foster is popular, and there are a few other good secular home school programs. When I home schooled my daughter for two years it was not as easy to find secular programs, but there are plenty of them out there now. Back then, we actually worked with the school and combined two programs along with a lot of material from the school in town. She was able to attend some functions too. As to your long history of hate and bigotry against anything non-secular, this line of thought from you is not unexpected but still, way off the mark as usual...;) Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue beyond some weighted geographic issues.... The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver... You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack depth of experience. And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time? Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist Academy for several years. In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes...... I judge, from your posts, that you haven't. I have to wonder if you intimidate and mock Christian students in your charge. My kid had a teacher like that a few years ago, used to really crush one of her friends pretty bad for being religious. Right in front of the other kids, it was bad... It's the Tyranny of Conceit... |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... That's why we don't take our kids to San Francisco. harry seems to like it there though. ;-) --Mike |
Texas Taliban
"I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:48:32 -0600, wrote: I have to wonder if you intimidate and mock Christian students in your charge. My kid had a teacher like that a few years ago, used to really crush one of her friends pretty bad for being religious. Right in front of the other kids, it was bad... Our kids go to a private Catholic school for just that reason. The PC of public schools is out of control. I want my kids to be proud of their religion, and get a top notch education to boot. The public schools around here, just plain suck. --Mike |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:51:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 12/01/2010 5:53 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: A parent has a choice to home-school, given certain requirements. Children don't typically have a legal voice of their own. They must usually be represented by an adult. It's in the best interest of society for the population to be educated. I suppose you disagree with this. And given how people make excuses, and get away with it. Might as well repeal the requirements. BTW, I think all children should be going physically to a school unless circumstances are abobiously unavoidable. Such as a family on an island manning a lighthouse and the nearest school is 100 miles away. Chop the squakers hair and march to school... Actually, homeschooled kids tend to do better academically. This is true, with reservations. They tend to be excellent readers with good written communications skills. One-on-one verbal skills are excellent. Group verbal communication and socialization skills tend to be from fair to exceedingly poor. They tend to do very well in math, through college algebra.... trig and beyond is a vast sea of ignorance. They tend to be well versed in certain areas of history, but perform poorly in world history. Most home schooling texts stress recall and these kids excel at that, though they have a lot of issues with synthesis of ideas and problem solving. They perform very well when given directions, but suffer when tasked with giving directions. (Probably not surprising, other countries teach in much the same fashion and those foreign nationals suffer from identical issues.) Employers.... when asked what is important in the workplace, seldom mention "academics." Communication and Teamwork are usually at the top of their list..... and most home schooled and private schooled kids don't get enough of these skills.... Hmmm... you have a source for this data? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... "Some people are a bit strange." Do you think that's a wrong answer? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"mgg" wrote in message
... "Gene" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... That's why we don't take our kids to San Francisco. harry seems to like it there though. ;-) --Mike I guess that guy who tried to date a horse would be ok then... -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:39:27 -0800, "mgg" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message m... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... That's why we don't take our kids to San Francisco. harry seems to like it there though. ;-) --Mike I've been to SF and I know it has a large gay population. Personally, I haven't seen them showing their *ss, but I guess that doesn't mean they don't. I'm not a homophobe. I have gay friends. I have gay friends that I would trust as babysitters, but that doesn't describe all gay folks. I stand by my original position. You need to show up on Halloween. You have gay friends... good for you. "but that doesn't describe all gay folks." That's rich. "That" doesn't describe all _any_ folks. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:26:48 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:51:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 12/01/2010 5:53 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: A parent has a choice to home-school, given certain requirements. Children don't typically have a legal voice of their own. They must usually be represented by an adult. It's in the best interest of society for the population to be educated. I suppose you disagree with this. And given how people make excuses, and get away with it. Might as well repeal the requirements. BTW, I think all children should be going physically to a school unless circumstances are abobiously unavoidable. Such as a family on an island manning a lighthouse and the nearest school is 100 miles away. Chop the squakers hair and march to school... Actually, homeschooled kids tend to do better academically. This is true, with reservations. They tend to be excellent readers with good written communications skills. One-on-one verbal skills are excellent. Group verbal communication and socialization skills tend to be from fair to exceedingly poor. They tend to do very well in math, through college algebra.... trig and beyond is a vast sea of ignorance. They tend to be well versed in certain areas of history, but perform poorly in world history. Most home schooling texts stress recall and these kids excel at that, though they have a lot of issues with synthesis of ideas and problem solving. They perform very well when given directions, but suffer when tasked with giving directions. (Probably not surprising, other countries teach in much the same fashion and those foreign nationals suffer from identical issues.) Employers.... when asked what is important in the workplace, seldom mention "academics." Communication and Teamwork are usually at the top of their list..... and most home schooled and private schooled kids don't get enough of these skills.... Hmmm... you have a source for this data? Yes, I do.... at least, in part. I have information from employers.... simplified..... and expanded, as a DACUM. http://www.ccsf.edu/Services/CTE/crc/dacum.html The specifics of the classes and students.... well, that's my accumulated wisdom.... Interesting.... -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:31:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:39:27 -0800, "mgg" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message m... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message news:6hbqk592jtl7o2e9t6j12alj1jb6bu3hlt@4ax. com... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... That's why we don't take our kids to San Francisco. harry seems to like it there though. ;-) --Mike I've been to SF and I know it has a large gay population. Personally, I haven't seen them showing their *ss, but I guess that doesn't mean they don't. I'm not a homophobe. I have gay friends. I have gay friends that I would trust as babysitters, but that doesn't describe all gay folks. I stand by my original position. You need to show up on Halloween. You have gay friends... good for you. "but that doesn't describe all gay folks." That's rich. "That" doesn't describe all _any_ folks. I don't know where you are gong with this, but *all* is a dangerous area..... and I *thought* I made that point.... ... what did I miss? You used the word all, specifically all gay folks, as though that group wouldn't be exceptional in people's minds. I was going to say that if you left off the "but...," it would be more reasonable, but the whole paragraph seems wrong. There are ex-cons who I would probably trust with a few hundred $$ cash. There are others I wouldn't trust with $1. I'm not intending to bash you. It's just that when you start a thought with "I'm not a homophobe," one wonders why it's necessary to say that. Ok, well, I did the best I could with this... :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:14 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message m... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... "Some people are a bit strange." Do you think that's a wrong answer? A wrong answer? No. Not, if you could get away with that, good for you. I'm just wondering if that wouldn't just mitigate the inevitable follow up questions you'd get. :) I can assure you that would never have satisfied my kid...... nor me, when I was his age........ If you can befuddle your kid with.... they ain't like us..... good on you, but around our household, that wouldn't buy you 15 seconds to come up with the next half-truth...... What do you think the next question would be? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:55:16 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:19:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:07:23 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: I find reference to poster's families particularly offensive and I doubt that I am by myself. Gene, take a deep breath along with whomever else finds my reference to Herring's wife being a masochist in poor taste. Herring is an exercise in poor taste and any chance to use him as fodder for humor, however sick you deem it, is fair territory for me. Do your eyebrows constantly furrow? Same with your rectum? I do my share of picking on John, too, but his family, and yours, and mine are..... as far as I'm concerned, not fair game. Some of you folks take this so damn seriously. I don't like John's politics, but I'd sit down and drink a beer with him..... some of you guys, well.... I guess I'm glad you DON'T like guns..... Your fascination with gays and my rectum is duly noted...... I'm more interested in what your eyebrows and rectum say about your state of mind. My suspicion is that they're both tight as can be. Based on the photos I recall from your website, you're not at all my type, or even gender. Thanks for keeping me in mind. |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:35:51 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... What was happening went right over your 8 year old's head. You could have swept it aside in a moments notice by telling your kid that they were play acting and just having silly fun. Your kid would have thought nothing more of it. My wife managed the campaign of an openly gay state rep in California several years ago and both our pre-10 year olds marched in the local parade next to drag queens and transvestites. We've chosen to expose them to all sorts of people and not seed fearful complexes (like yours). They also go to school with African Americans, 16 different flavors of Asians, Indians, Arabs, North Africans, etc., etc. They're completely normal kids with a broader range of understanding and empathy because of it. I'm sure you'd like them, even if you can't appreciate the leanings of their father. What's astonishing to me is that you find gays a more frightening influence than guns. I guess inanimate things are easier for you to deal with. |
Texas Taliban
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:55:26 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:31:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:39:27 -0800, "mgg" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message m... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message news:6hbqk592jtl7o2e9t6j12alj1jb6bu3hlt@4ax. com... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... That's why we don't take our kids to San Francisco. harry seems to like it there though. ;-) --Mike I've been to SF and I know it has a large gay population. Personally, I haven't seen them showing their *ss, but I guess that doesn't mean they don't. I'm not a homophobe. I have gay friends. I have gay friends that I would trust as babysitters, but that doesn't describe all gay folks. I stand by my original position. You need to show up on Halloween. You have gay friends... good for you. "but that doesn't describe all gay folks." That's rich. "That" doesn't describe all _any_ folks. I don't know where you are gong with this, but *all* is a dangerous area..... and I *thought* I made that point.... ... what did I miss? Sounds like your gay friends may be log cabin types. |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:14:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Gene" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:14 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message om... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... "Some people are a bit strange." Do you think that's a wrong answer? A wrong answer? No. Not, if you could get away with that, good for you. I'm just wondering if that wouldn't just mitigate the inevitable follow up questions you'd get. :) I can assure you that would never have satisfied my kid...... nor me, when I was his age........ If you can befuddle your kid with.... they ain't like us..... good on you, but around our household, that wouldn't buy you 15 seconds to come up with the next half-truth...... What do you think the next question would be? Something he's afraid he couldn't handle. Some people are better suited to parenting than others. |
Texas Taliban
|
Texas Taliban
mgg wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:48:32 -0600, wrote: I have to wonder if you intimidate and mock Christian students in your charge. My kid had a teacher like that a few years ago, used to really crush one of her friends pretty bad for being religious. Right in front of the other kids, it was bad... Our kids go to a private Catholic school for just that reason. The PC of public schools is out of control. I want my kids to be proud of their religion, and get a top notch education to boot. The public schools around here, just plain suck. --Mike Religion is something in which to be "prideful"? -- Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles. |
Texas Taliban
mgg wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:55:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Gene" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not exclusive to the gay population. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? . I'm not ASSUMING anything. You weren't forced to be there. It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in PUBLIC. They didn't. It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at the museums.... it was WRONG. I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine..... The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as possible. OK, so humor me.... two chicks, leather, thigh high stilettos, leash, studded collar, and crop. Couple reaches a cross street and waits for traffic. Domme gets sub on her knees for a little show-off licky-licky.... shoot, it just ain't no fun if everybody isn't able to watch, now is it? So, Dad, what sort of direct answer have you got to explain that to a kid? Yeah...... thought so...... That's why we don't take our kids to San Francisco. harry seems to like it there though. ;-) --Mike Indeed, Mikey, I'm not ambivalent or nervous about my heterosexuality, and I'm not put off or made nervous by "gays." Gays are part of every vibrant community, whereas closed-minded homophobes like you are not. My wife and I love San Francisco. It is a beautiful city, with great architecture, old and new; livable neighborhoods everywhere, terrific restaurants, great meeting places, interesting shops, museums, whatever. Like every big city, it has its problems, but as tourists they don't impact us very much. We've seen gay couples in San Franciso, just as we've seen them in New York, DC, LA, New Orleans, Miami, and even at...Disney World. A few act a bit strangely in public, but most do not. So what? I think my oldest kid was about five when we took our first family vacation to California. We saw some gay couples then...and explained that some women date women and some men date men. No biggie. You mentioned you send your kids to Catholic schools. Now *that* might be a major concern, what with all the pedophilia running rampant in those places, eh? -- Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles. |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:54:36 -0500, Harry wrote:
I inherited a couple of fundie relatives, a young couple, who are home schooling their kids not because they think they can offer them a better education, but to keep them from "mixing" with kids whose parents are more moderate and liberal. Their words. In other words, they want to raise isolated automatons. Wish them luck. It rarely works out that way. Unless you lock them in a closet, kids tend to find their own way. |
Texas Taliban
|
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:32:27 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:50:03 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:33:26 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:25 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:59:18 -0500, Gene wrote: snipped for brevity Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue beyond some weighted geographic issues.... The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver... You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack depth of experience. And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time? Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist Academy for several years. In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes...... I judge, from your posts, that you haven't. You judge poorly then. I have never homeschooled. Well... that explains a LOT..... again, you are waxing eloquent about a subject you have no knowledge or personal experience. I thought you were an idiot..... I didn't realize you just didn't know what you were talking about..... OK...... I'm good..... The sensible and honest reader will note that I have refrained from making any statements of fact that would lead one to believe that the author of these lines is an expert in homeschooling. In fact, I doubt that a challenge to corroborate such an assertion would yield much evidence that this humble person made any statements of fact in this regard. What this person did do, aside from making a few meager inquiries, was to illustrate the poor thinking of a pontificating, ultra-resplendent academician. And it would appear from the knee-jerk response of the Infallible Erudite from the Great Halls of Conceit, that the sting of that illustration was...tangible. Wow! I thought Spiro T. Agnew passed in 1996, but perhaps you are channeling him... No meager inquiries, in fact, you admitted to being condescending. If fact appears to you as pontification and academia offends you as being too intellectual, please feel comfortable in your liberal yet parochial views. You will surely find comfort as others, here, have posted with respect to the evils of intellectuals, so you should be able to find many soul mates.... I didn't note any illustration, but if the images in your mind give your comfort, please enjoy them. In the future, please let me know if you are responding with eloquent verbiage, rather than any experience or knowledge on the subject. It will greatly enhance the reader's experience..... Generally, I prefer to have discourse with folks that have knowledge of a subject, rather than a patter of magical words... Who's going to permit you to find refuge in the red herring? There is nothing to suggest that I'm anti-intellectual in any of this discourse. What should be obvious, even to you, is that I oppose conceit. Experience is not the issue when you have served up a game of feigned intellectualism replete with examples of poor thinking. Are you able to redeem yourself? To put the onus on lack of experience is disingenuous, when the term itself is broad and generic. If my experience is in the dialectic, do you bear the conceit to deny it? All you have to do to play your game is to put the focus on my verbiage. You, my conceited fellow, are in error. |
Texas Taliban
mgg wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:48:32 -0600, wrote: I have to wonder if you intimidate and mock Christian students in your charge. My kid had a teacher like that a few years ago, used to really crush one of her friends pretty bad for being religious. Right in front of the other kids, it was bad... Our kids go to a private Catholic school for just that reason. The PC of public schools is out of control. I want my kids to be proud of their religion, and get a top notch education to boot. The public schools around here, just plain suck. --Mike How do you explain the pedophiliac priests? Are you proud of that aspect of your religion, too? |
Texas Taliban
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:32:27 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:50:03 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:33:26 -0500, Gene wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:28:25 -0600, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:59:18 -0500, Gene wrote: snipped for brevity Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue beyond some weighted geographic issues.... The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver... You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack depth of experience. And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time? Yes, I have, and my son attended both a private school and a Baptist Academy for several years. In addition to all of that..... I have learned from my mistakes...... I judge, from your posts, that you haven't. You judge poorly then. I have never homeschooled. Well... that explains a LOT..... again, you are waxing eloquent about a subject you have no knowledge or personal experience. I thought you were an idiot..... I didn't realize you just didn't know what you were talking about..... OK...... I'm good..... The sensible and honest reader will note that I have refrained from making any statements of fact that would lead one to believe that the author of these lines is an expert in homeschooling. In fact, I doubt that a challenge to corroborate such an assertion would yield much evidence that this humble person made any statements of fact in this regard. What this person did do, aside from making a few meager inquiries, was to illustrate the poor thinking of a pontificating, ultra-resplendent academician. And it would appear from the knee-jerk response of the Infallible Erudite from the Great Halls of Conceit, that the sting of that illustration was...tangible. Wow! I thought Spiro T. Agnew passed in 1996, but perhaps you are channeling him... No meager inquiries, in fact, you admitted to being condescending. If fact appears to you as pontification and academia offends you as being too intellectual, please feel comfortable in your liberal yet parochial views. You will surely find comfort as others, here, have posted with respect to the evils of intellectuals, so you should be able to find many soul mates.... I didn't note any illustration, but if the images in your mind give your comfort, please enjoy them. In the future, please let me know if you are responding with eloquent verbiage, rather than any experience or knowledge on the subject. It will greatly enhance the reader's experience..... Generally, I prefer to have discourse with folks that have knowledge of a subject, rather than a patter of magical words... Who's going to permit you to find refuge in the red herring? There is nothing to suggest that I'm anti-intellectual in any of this discourse. What should be obvious, even to you, is that I oppose conceit. Experience is not the issue when you have served up a game of feigned intellectualism replete with examples of poor thinking. Are you able to redeem yourself? To put the onus on lack of experience is disingenuous, when the term itself is broad and generic. If my experience is in the dialectic, do you bear the conceit to deny it? All you have to do to play your game is to put the focus on my verbiage. You, my conceited fellow, are in error. Frankly, you have nothing to offer but overblown "verbiage." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com