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.



--
Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles.

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.

That may be. I have no real-world experience in that.

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...

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.

On Jan 12, 9:58*pm, Harry wrote:
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..

Well, Ingerfool had to stand OUTside the fence at the School. He isn't
allowed on the grounds due to his affliction with spending weekends in
a Tent with young girls.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."