|
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 3:37 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 2:45 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote: Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic cable package at home in his mom's basement. I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in history at the same age. And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time. Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and results in the same, but...it doesn't. Dance Mr Bojangles. You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me $100 a point and I will make at least five grand. Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes. I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval european history, what the "kid" was studying. Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps the desire to get the **** out of Europe.. And perhaps you might enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries. I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the main thrust of the piece? It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo Soldiers coming across the plain. Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70 you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where are your academic discussions? You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at 5 and never left. Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers. I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on in high school. 1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English, literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have read. 2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high school. The question had more to do with your understanding of the Frontier Thesis and whether you knew enough history in regard to that Thesis and to its application in modern times to societal integration. This is the sort of question a contemporary student of U.S. history might be asked on a final exam, to see if he/she really understood the study materials and could apply them. You don't get that ability, usually, by reading a helter-skelter list of books that sound interesting to you. You may well be a "student of history," as you claim, but that doesn't mean you have completed the academic requirements to be anything more than a guy who has read some books, or that you have the background to show you know more than someone with a B.A. and M.A. in history and a lifetime of study and writing in the field. In college, especially these days, you get a pass if you agree with the bloviating professor. Especially liberal arts profs. Frankly, Bilious, there is no serious subject on which I would accept your opinion as reality. That is because you have a closed mind. No, it is because I think you are detached from reality. That is because you have a closed mind, and disconnect from reality. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On 12/28/16 4:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/28/2016 2:19 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:30:13 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote: Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic cable package at home in his mom's basement. I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in history at the same age. And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time. Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and results in the same, but...it doesn't. Dance Mr Bojangles. You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me $100 a point and I will make at least five grand. Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes. I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval european history, what the "kid" was studying. Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps the desire to get the **** out of Europe.. And perhaps you might enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries. I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the main thrust of the piece? It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo Soldiers coming across the plain. Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70 you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where are your academic discussions? You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at 5 and never left. Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers. I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on in high school. 1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English, literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have read. It sounds more like she had to write papers that agreed with what "4 maybe 5" faculty members believed. In a trade that is as ambiguous as psychology, nobody is that right or wrong. It may be an issue of when you were trained more than what is true. 40-50 years ago homosexuality was a disorder that therapy could treat. 2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high school. The question had more to do with your understanding of the Frontier Thesis and whether you knew enough history in regard to that Thesis and to its application in modern times to societal integration. This is the sort of question a contemporary student of U.S. history might be asked on a final exam, to see if he/she really understood the study materials and could apply them. You don't get that ability, usually, by reading a helter-skelter list of books that sound interesting to you. You asked me to make a point based on something I may not believe is totally accurate and it just makes me happy that I do not need to please you to get a good grade. Reading a helter-skelter lost of books is better than just reading the list that reinforces your professor's views. You may well be a "student of history," as you claim, but that doesn't mean you have completed the academic requirements to be anything more than a guy who has read some books, or that you have the background to show you know more than someone with a B.A. and M.A. in history and a lifetime of study and writing in the field. You seem to forget how we got here. The discussion was not about someone who has years of study in American history, it is about how someone can get a liberal arts degree without a single credit hour in American history. So much for that broadly based academic education. I do understand that this is just the rejection of America by the people who depend on America to make a living but that is typical among the liberal left. They don't just bite the hand that feeds them they make a meal out of it and then write a paper that says it wasn't satisfying enough. Seems to me that "Liberal Arts" was what you signed up for in college when you didn't have a clue what you wanted to be when you grew up. If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On 12/28/2016 5:49 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 4:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/28/2016 2:19 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:30:13 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote: Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic cable package at home in his mom's basement. I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in history at the same age. And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time. Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and results in the same, but...it doesn't. Dance Mr Bojangles. You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me $100 a point and I will make at least five grand. Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes. I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval european history, what the "kid" was studying. Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps the desire to get the **** out of Europe.. And perhaps you might enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries. I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the main thrust of the piece? It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo Soldiers coming across the plain. Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70 you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where are your academic discussions? You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at 5 and never left. Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers. I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on in high school. 1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English, literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have read. It sounds more like she had to write papers that agreed with what "4 maybe 5" faculty members believed. In a trade that is as ambiguous as psychology, nobody is that right or wrong. It may be an issue of when you were trained more than what is true. 40-50 years ago homosexuality was a disorder that therapy could treat. 2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high school. The question had more to do with your understanding of the Frontier Thesis and whether you knew enough history in regard to that Thesis and to its application in modern times to societal integration. This is the sort of question a contemporary student of U.S. history might be asked on a final exam, to see if he/she really understood the study materials and could apply them. You don't get that ability, usually, by reading a helter-skelter list of books that sound interesting to you. You asked me to make a point based on something I may not believe is totally accurate and it just makes me happy that I do not need to please you to get a good grade. Reading a helter-skelter lost of books is better than just reading the list that reinforces your professor's views. You may well be a "student of history," as you claim, but that doesn't mean you have completed the academic requirements to be anything more than a guy who has read some books, or that you have the background to show you know more than someone with a B.A. and M.A. in history and a lifetime of study and writing in the field. You seem to forget how we got here. The discussion was not about someone who has years of study in American history, it is about how someone can get a liberal arts degree without a single credit hour in American history. So much for that broadly based academic education. I do understand that this is just the rejection of America by the people who depend on America to make a living but that is typical among the liberal left. They don't just bite the hand that feeds them they make a meal out of it and then write a paper that says it wasn't satisfying enough. Seems to me that "Liberal Arts" was what you signed up for in college when you didn't have a clue what you wanted to be when you grew up. If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. I know what a liberal arts course of study is ... or was. I was in one for a while. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:49:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 4:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/28/2016 2:19 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:30:13 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote: Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic cable package at home in his mom's basement. I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in history at the same age. And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time. Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and results in the same, but...it doesn't. Dance Mr Bojangles. You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me $100 a point and I will make at least five grand. Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes. I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval european history, what the "kid" was studying. Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps the desire to get the **** out of Europe.. And perhaps you might enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries. I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the main thrust of the piece? It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo Soldiers coming across the plain. Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70 you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where are your academic discussions? You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at 5 and never left. Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers. I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on in high school. 1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English, literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have read. It sounds more like she had to write papers that agreed with what "4 maybe 5" faculty members believed. In a trade that is as ambiguous as psychology, nobody is that right or wrong. It may be an issue of when you were trained more than what is true. 40-50 years ago homosexuality was a disorder that therapy could treat. 2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high school. The question had more to do with your understanding of the Frontier Thesis and whether you knew enough history in regard to that Thesis and to its application in modern times to societal integration. This is the sort of question a contemporary student of U.S. history might be asked on a final exam, to see if he/she really understood the study materials and could apply them. You don't get that ability, usually, by reading a helter-skelter list of books that sound interesting to you. You asked me to make a point based on something I may not believe is totally accurate and it just makes me happy that I do not need to please you to get a good grade. Reading a helter-skelter lost of books is better than just reading the list that reinforces your professor's views. You may well be a "student of history," as you claim, but that doesn't mean you have completed the academic requirements to be anything more than a guy who has read some books, or that you have the background to show you know more than someone with a B.A. and M.A. in history and a lifetime of study and writing in the field. You seem to forget how we got here. The discussion was not about someone who has years of study in American history, it is about how someone can get a liberal arts degree without a single credit hour in American history. So much for that broadly based academic education. I do understand that this is just the rejection of America by the people who depend on America to make a living but that is typical among the liberal left. They don't just bite the hand that feeds them they make a meal out of it and then write a paper that says it wasn't satisfying enough. Seems to me that "Liberal Arts" was what you signed up for in college when you didn't have a clue what you wanted to be when you grew up. If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. Ah yes, College Algebra. Just what an 8th grader wished for. And this was 'liberal arts' math. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On 12/28/16 5:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/28/2016 5:49 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 4:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/28/2016 2:19 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:30:13 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote: Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic cable package at home in his mom's basement. I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in history at the same age. And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time. Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and results in the same, but...it doesn't. Dance Mr Bojangles. You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me $100 a point and I will make at least five grand. Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes. I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval european history, what the "kid" was studying. Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps the desire to get the **** out of Europe.. And perhaps you might enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries. I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the main thrust of the piece? It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo Soldiers coming across the plain. Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70 you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where are your academic discussions? You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at 5 and never left. Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers. I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on in high school. 1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English, literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have read. It sounds more like she had to write papers that agreed with what "4 maybe 5" faculty members believed. In a trade that is as ambiguous as psychology, nobody is that right or wrong. It may be an issue of when you were trained more than what is true. 40-50 years ago homosexuality was a disorder that therapy could treat. 2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high school. The question had more to do with your understanding of the Frontier Thesis and whether you knew enough history in regard to that Thesis and to its application in modern times to societal integration. This is the sort of question a contemporary student of U.S. history might be asked on a final exam, to see if he/she really understood the study materials and could apply them. You don't get that ability, usually, by reading a helter-skelter list of books that sound interesting to you. You asked me to make a point based on something I may not believe is totally accurate and it just makes me happy that I do not need to please you to get a good grade. Reading a helter-skelter lost of books is better than just reading the list that reinforces your professor's views. You may well be a "student of history," as you claim, but that doesn't mean you have completed the academic requirements to be anything more than a guy who has read some books, or that you have the background to show you know more than someone with a B.A. and M.A. in history and a lifetime of study and writing in the field. You seem to forget how we got here. The discussion was not about someone who has years of study in American history, it is about how someone can get a liberal arts degree without a single credit hour in American history. So much for that broadly based academic education. I do understand that this is just the rejection of America by the people who depend on America to make a living but that is typical among the liberal left. They don't just bite the hand that feeds them they make a meal out of it and then write a paper that says it wasn't satisfying enough. Seems to me that "Liberal Arts" was what you signed up for in college when you didn't have a clue what you wanted to be when you grew up. If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. I know what a liberal arts course of study is ... or was. I was in one for a while. So you were in a college of arts and sciences, which is usually where the liberal arts are taught. You know, like pure science? |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 12/28/16 4:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/28/2016 2:19 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:30:13 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote: Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic cable package at home in his mom's basement. I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in history at the same age. And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time. Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and results in the same, but...it doesn't. Dance Mr Bojangles. You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me $100 a point and I will make at least five grand. Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes. I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval european history, what the "kid" was studying. Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps the desire to get the **** out of Europe.. And perhaps you might enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries. I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the main thrust of the piece? It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo Soldiers coming across the plain. Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70 you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where are your academic discussions? You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at 5 and never left. Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers. I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on in high school. 1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English, literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have read. It sounds more like she had to write papers that agreed with what "4 maybe 5" faculty members believed. In a trade that is as ambiguous as psychology, nobody is that right or wrong. It may be an issue of when you were trained more than what is true. 40-50 years ago homosexuality was a disorder that therapy could treat. 2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high school. The question had more to do with your understanding of the Frontier Thesis and whether you knew enough history in regard to that Thesis and to its application in modern times to societal integration. This is the sort of question a contemporary student of U.S. history might be asked on a final exam, to see if he/she really understood the study materials and could apply them. You don't get that ability, usually, by reading a helter-skelter list of books that sound interesting to you. You asked me to make a point based on something I may not believe is totally accurate and it just makes me happy that I do not need to please you to get a good grade. Reading a helter-skelter lost of books is better than just reading the list that reinforces your professor's views. You may well be a "student of history," as you claim, but that doesn't mean you have completed the academic requirements to be anything more than a guy who has read some books, or that you have the background to show you know more than someone with a B.A. and M.A. in history and a lifetime of study and writing in the field. You seem to forget how we got here. The discussion was not about someone who has years of study in American history, it is about how someone can get a liberal arts degree without a single credit hour in American history. So much for that broadly based academic education. I do understand that this is just the rejection of America by the people who depend on America to make a living but that is typical among the liberal left. They don't just bite the hand that feeds them they make a meal out of it and then write a paper that says it wasn't satisfying enough. Seems to me that "Liberal Arts" was what you signed up for in college when you didn't have a clue what you wanted to be when you grew up. If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. So is basket ****ingweaving. Haven't you beaten this topic to death? Did college **** up your life or did your life get ****ed up because you're you? -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Keyser Söze wrote:
justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 12/27/16 3:19 PM, Tim wrote: 2:14 PMKeyser Soze On 12/27/16 2:56 PM, Tim wrote: I'm sure there is a good reason for this. Like, removing history class for the history majors. The students probably know it all anyhow, so why waste man power and tuition expenses . Pass em anyhow. Sounds logical to me. After all a sheepskin proves your knowledge, right? So, you and FlaJim the Moron know as much "history" as someone with a B.A. in it, eh? Doubtful. And of course you know as much about the design and manufacture of electric motors as, say, degreed mechanical or electrical engineers, eh? Doubtful. And FlaJim knows as much about chipping paint on a navy vessel as, oh, a guy who chips paint on a navy vessel... .... And you're an expert on foreign policy because you supposedly saw people getting shot at a table in some banana republic? I am an advanced amateur at being shot at, having been a target three times, and each time by right wingers...And yes,I know a bit about foreign policy. Up until now you claimed to be shot at twice. Now it's three times. Check the archives. Three times. Always been three, **** for brains It wasn't always three until the last one. I call BS anyway. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Its Me wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 10:12:53 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 20:25:34 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 12/27/16 3:19 PM, Tim wrote: 2:14 PMKeyser Soze On 12/27/16 2:56 PM, Tim wrote: I'm sure there is a good reason for this. Like, removing history class for the history majors. The students probably know it all anyhow, so why waste man power and tuition expenses . Pass em anyhow. Sounds logical to me. After all a sheepskin proves your knowledge, right? So, you and FlaJim the Moron know as much "history" as someone with a B.A. in it, eh? Doubtful. And of course you know as much about the design and manufacture of electric motors as, say, degreed mechanical or electrical engineers, eh? Doubtful. And FlaJim knows as much about chipping paint on a navy vessel as, oh, a guy who chips paint on a navy vessel... .... And you're an expert on foreign policy because you supposedly saw people getting shot at a table in some banana republic? I am an advanced amateur at being shot at, having been a target three times, and each time by right wingers...And yes,I know a bit about foreign policy. Up until now you claimed to be shot at twice. Now it's three times. Check the archives. Three times. Always been three, **** for brains I also only remember two Dementia/Alzheimers ....and lies! |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/27/2016 8:11 PM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 12/27/16 3:19 PM, Tim wrote: 2:14 PMKeyser Soze On 12/27/16 2:56 PM, Tim wrote: I'm sure there is a good reason for this. Like, removing history class for the history majors. The students probably know it all anyhow, so why waste man power and tuition expenses . Pass em anyhow. Sounds logical to me. After all a sheepskin proves your knowledge, right? So, you and FlaJim the Moron know as much "history" as someone with a B.A. in it, eh? Doubtful. And of course you know as much about the design and manufacture of electric motors as, say, degreed mechanical or electrical engineers, eh? Doubtful. And FlaJim knows as much about chipping paint on a navy vessel as, oh, a guy who chips paint on a navy vessel... .... And you're an expert on foreign policy because you supposedly saw people getting shot at a table in some banana republic? I am an advanced amateur at being shot at, having been a target three times, and each time by right wingers...And yes,I know a bit about foreign policy. Up until now you claimed to be shot at twice. Now it's three times. Check the archives. The third time was a result of a shot fired in the air at a convenience store robbery a couple of miles away. Hey, the bullet has to land somewhere, right? Bravo! |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:49:49 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. === Yes but they are watered down courses that don't require (or teach) in depth knowledge. Ask any engineer or physicist who has studied the real thing. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:41:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: No, I didn't *know* them all but I met many of them. Meeting and knowing aren't the same thing. I knew Truman best of all, though, and I spoke with him frequently when I was working at the paper in KC, and saw him personally several times a year in Independence. He was quite approachable, especially to his neighbors and friends. Did you ever criticize him regarding his lack of a college degree? === :-) |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:25:57 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote: His answer also demonstrates his outstanding ability to pat himself on the back. You are guessing that any of it is actually true. One has to wonder how someone who tells tales of being in such famous company and doing such grandiose things can end up such a failure living in a basement? A lack of integrity never kept Krause from praising himself! === There are huge gaps in his life story that he chooses to ignore. It would be interesting to hear the version that his ex wife would tell. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 6:56:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:25:57 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: His answer also demonstrates his outstanding ability to pat himself on the back. You are guessing that any of it is actually true. One has to wonder how someone who tells tales of being in such famous company and doing such grandiose things can end up such a failure living in a basement? A lack of integrity never kept Krause from praising himself! === There are huge gaps in his life story that he chooses to ignore. It would be interesting to hear the version that his ex wife would tell. Both his Ex Wife and Daughter have restraining orders against him. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:08:36 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: I think at the core of your anti-academic belief system is compensation for the fact that you never really experienced college. I don't know why...it certainly couldn't have been $$$, because any bright kid could have combined scholarships and student jobs to make it through without student debt. No not at all, the main reason I did not pursue college, under the GI bill, was because I was offered a job that was as good as what I could expect 4 years and thousands of dollars later. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:54:57 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: 2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high school. You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek. I asked, asshole, I didn't demand. You asked me to create a case for something based on a theory I did not agree with. I gave you the best case I could make for how the exceptionalism created by the pioneering experience would affect the advancement of black people and I gave it to you. Pioneers were less likely to have prejudices against black people. If I step back and look at Turner a century later, I see a different thing. That pioneering spirit and independence that exists is still concentrated outside the big cities in flyover country. The people in the cities, like you, are reaching back to Europe for the model of how you want the democracy to go on. You want an all powerful government, more akin to a monarchy than a democracy. Is Trump the outcome of that experience Turner says molded our democracy? |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:34:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Gee. I guess you should have informed Bill Gates, Steve Jobs Frank Lloyd Wright, Buckminster Fuller, James Cameron, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Lady Gaga and Tiger Woods (among others) that none of them were really qualified to be successful in their respective careers. None are/were college graduates. You are a classic example of an academic. The schools you attended and the classes you took are more important to you than what you later achieved with the introduction of knowledge they provided you. To listen to Harry you would think he was a PHD from Harvard. He is certainly making a lot of smoke over a half century old BA from a university ranked down in the 3 digit category and probably best known for a fairly good basketball team but we never heard he played. I am waiting for the "Scary Harry, power forward" stories. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:37:40 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Seems to me that "Liberal Arts" was what you signed up for in college when you didn't have a clue what you wanted to be when you grew up. Maybe that was my "Problem". I had a very good idea of what I wanted to be when I grew up and I did it. Any education I sought was toward that goal. Once I had a good job, I had the opportunity to seek knowledge in all sorts of other fields and in other venues. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
|
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 12/28/16 9:47 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:49:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. === Yes but they are watered down courses that don't require (or teach) in depth knowledge. Ask any engineer or physicist who has studied the real thing. That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. I'm not saying "easier" courses don't exist here and there but for the most part what you are describing is fiction. If, for example, you are "pre-med" in a college of arts and sciences and majoring in biology, the classes you take are going to be on the same list of offerings other students in the college of arts and sciences can take. Is that why NASA covets Kansas Klown Kollege graduates and shuns MIT graduates.? You are such a dip****, Harry. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
|
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
|
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
|
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On 12/29/16 6:55 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 12/28/16 9:47 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:49:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. === Yes but they are watered down courses that don't require (or teach) in depth knowledge. Ask any engineer or physicist who has studied the real thing. That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. I'm not saying "easier" courses don't exist here and there but for the most part what you are describing is fiction. If, for example, you are "pre-med" in a college of arts and sciences and majoring in biology, the classes you take are going to be on the same list of offerings other students in the college of arts and sciences can take. Is that why NASA covets Kansas Klown Kollege graduates and shuns MIT graduates.? You are such a dip****, Harry. All you are doing is offering up further evidence of your ignorance, **** for brains. You couldn't get a job at my alma mater raking leaves. Oh...scientist alum include: Jon Davies (BS 1980), meteorologist, expert on severe thunderstorm environments and forecasting Paul R. Ehrlich (MA/PhD 1957), entomologist, researcher and author of The Population Bomb, and 1990 MacArthur Fellow recipient Joe Engle (BS 1955), former NASA astronaut and a retired U.S. Air Force colonel[24] Ronald E. Evans (BS 1956), former NASA astronaut and a retired U.S. Navy captain[25] Robert M. Haralick (BA 1964, BS 1966, MS 1967, PhD 1969), Distinguished Professor of Computer Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York[26] Steve Hawley (BA 1973), former NASA director and astronaut; Professor of Physics and Astronomy at KU Erasmus Haworth, founder of the Kansas Geological Survey David Hillis, evolutionary biologist and 1999 MacArthur Fellow recipient Wes Jackson (MA 1960), environmental historian and founder of the Land Institute, a 1992 MacArthur Fellow recipient Richard F. Johnston, ornithologist and author, onetime curator of the Natural History Museum William T. Kane, physicist in field of fiber optics Joseph W. Kennedy (MA 1937), co-discoverer of the element plutonium Brian McClendon (BSEE 1986), VP of Engineering for Google Earth, formerly Keyhole, Inc. Elmer McCollum, co-discoverer of Vitamin A Nariman Mehta, pharmacologist, developer of the antidepressant and smoking cessation drug bupropion Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer, "father" of the Aegis Combat System and namesake of the USS Wayne E. Meyer naval destroyer Douglas Shane (BS 1982), director of flight operations for SpaceShipOne, which made the first privately funded human spaceflight Vernon L. Smith (M.A. in economics 1952), awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics[1] Kathryn Stephenson (MD 1941), first American woman board-certified plastic surgeon Walter Sutton, pioneer of cellular biology and genetics, physician, inventor George Tiller (BS 1963, MD 1967), physician, abortion provider, pro-choice advocate Clyde Tombaugh, astronomer, discoverer of the dwarf planet Pluto Kent Whealy, co-founder of the Seed Savers Exchange; 1988 MacArthur Fellow recipient Did you even graduate from high school? |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:49:17 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. === In a top rated engineering school the freshman 101 courses are already the real thing and students are expected to hit the ground running. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
|
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:24:19 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/29/16 8:00 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:49:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. === In a top rated engineering school the freshman 101 courses are already the real thing and students are expected to hit the ground running. I suppose that is is wonderful if you want to be an engineer. Wait...you went to a top-rated engineering school to become a bankster? What's that old engineering school joke... "Before I went to engineering school, I couldn't spell engineer...now I are one." Bankstering...in the good old days in New England, white Protestant boys with no particular skills went into banking because it was a white collar job and they could wear a suit, and they didn't have to compete with sharper, smarter Catholic and Jewish boys, for whom the banking doors were mostly closed. Were you at least a line officer at Citicorp or were you just a staff puke with a title? He's retired and lives on the water in Florida, has a nice boat, and goes on some really nice boating adventures. Put away the ugly green monster, harry. It'll eat you up. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On 12/29/16 8:31 AM, Its Me wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:24:19 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/29/16 8:00 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:49:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. === In a top rated engineering school the freshman 101 courses are already the real thing and students are expected to hit the ground running. I suppose that is is wonderful if you want to be an engineer. Wait...you went to a top-rated engineering school to become a bankster? What's that old engineering school joke... "Before I went to engineering school, I couldn't spell engineer...now I are one." Bankstering...in the good old days in New England, white Protestant boys with no particular skills went into banking because it was a white collar job and they could wear a suit, and they didn't have to compete with sharper, smarter Catholic and Jewish boys, for whom the banking doors were mostly closed. Were you at least a line officer at Citicorp or were you just a staff puke with a title? He's retired and lives on the water in Florida, has a nice boat, and goes on some really nice boating adventures. Put away the ugly green monster, harry. It'll eat you up. Oh, please...there's nothing about any of the righties here that makes me even slightly jealous, least of all w'hine. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:02:14 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 12/29/16 1:44 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:54:57 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high school. You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek. I asked, asshole, I didn't demand. You asked me to create a case for something based on a theory I did not agree with. I gave you the best case I could make for how the exceptionalism created by the pioneering experience would affect the advancement of black people and I gave it to you. Pioneers were less likely to have prejudices against black people. If I step back and look at Turner a century later, I see a different thing. That pioneering spirit and independence that exists is still concentrated outside the big cities in flyover country. The people in the cities, like you, are reaching back to Europe for the model of how you want the democracy to go on. You want an all powerful government, more akin to a monarchy than a democracy. Is Trump the outcome of that experience Turner says molded our democracy? Actually, I was referring to how the white man's expansion of the west, as outlined by Turner, caused the end of native American society and culture, for the most part. The white man went everywhere, leaving no stone unturned, as it were. There were no reasonable places for the native Americans to hide. Had the blacks been able to do this in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, going everywhere, as it were, and leaving no areas unintegrated, we would have today a far different less much less segregated society, because "white flight" would have been meaningless...there would be black faces everywhere. HUD tried to do some of this in the 1970s and 1980s, but the attempts to require inclusion of lower income properties in or adjacent to "fancy" subdivisions was only modestly successful. To start with this has little to do with Turner's thesis. The black people who did have the pioneering spirit, did go west. That has nothing to do with the government building "projects" in the suburbs. Don't you think economic issues have as much to do with this as skin color? Nobody living in a rich neighborhood wants a title 9 housing project next door. You also have the problem that there is no welfare money to be had out in the hinterlands. We have already had this conversation when I suggested LBJ caused a lot of these problems by piling the welfare money up in the big cities and now we see the result. That is where the concentrations of poverty are. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:17 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 12/29/16 8:00 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:49:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. === In a top rated engineering school the freshman 101 courses are already the real thing and students are expected to hit the ground running. I suppose that is is wonderful if you want to be an engineer. Wait...you went to a top-rated engineering school to become a bankster? What's that old engineering school joke... "Before I went to engineering school, I couldn't spell engineer...now I are one." Bankstering...in the good old days in New England, white Protestant boys with no particular skills went into banking because it was a white collar job and they could wear a suit, and they didn't have to compete with sharper, smarter Catholic and Jewish boys, for whom the banking doors were mostly closed. Were you at least a line officer at Citicorp or were you just a staff puke with a title? === Your knowledge of the financial industry is so seriously deficient that it sounds like it came from a comic book or a freshman level political screed. My advice? Stick to what you know, whatever that is. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On 12/29/16 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/29/16 8:00 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:49:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. === In a top rated engineering school the freshman 101 courses are already the real thing and students are expected to hit the ground running. I suppose that is is wonderful if you want to be an engineer. Wait...you went to a top-rated engineering school to become a bankster? What's that old engineering school joke... "Before I went to engineering school, I couldn't spell engineer...now I are one." Bankstering...in the good old days in New England, white Protestant boys with no particular skills went into banking because it was a white collar job and they could wear a suit, and they didn't have to compete with sharper, smarter Catholic and Jewish boys, for whom the banking doors were mostly closed. Were you at least a line officer at Citicorp or were you just a staff puke with a title? === Your knowledge of the financial industry is so seriously deficient that it sounds like it came from a comic book or a freshman level political screed. My advice? Stick to what you know, whatever that is. Yeah, I figured you for one of those whitebread boys who went into banking because it was a white collar job and you could wear a suit. So, were you a line officer or just a staff puke? |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
10:07 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text - Yeah, I figured you for one of those whitebread boys who went into banking because it was a white collar job and you could wear a suit. So, were you a line officer or just a staff puke? ..... Harry are you sure you're not describing Union bargains reps Lol! |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/29/16 6:55 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 12/28/16 9:47 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:49:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. === Yes but they are watered down courses that don't require (or teach) in depth knowledge. Ask any engineer or physicist who has studied the real thing. That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. I'm not saying "easier" courses don't exist here and there but for the most part what you are describing is fiction. If, for example, you are "pre-med" in a college of arts and sciences and majoring in biology, the classes you take are going to be on the same list of offerings other students in the college of arts and sciences can take. Is that why NASA covets Kansas Klown Kollege graduates and shuns MIT graduates.? You are such a dip****, Harry. All you are doing is offering up further evidence of your ignorance, **** for brains. You couldn't get a job at my alma mater raking leaves. Oh...scientist alum include: Jon Davies (BS 1980), meteorologist, expert on severe thunderstorm environments and forecasting Paul R. Ehrlich (MA/PhD 1957), entomologist, researcher and author of The Population Bomb, and 1990 MacArthur Fellow recipient Joe Engle (BS 1955), former NASA astronaut and a retired U.S. Air Force colonel[24] Ronald E. Evans (BS 1956), former NASA astronaut and a retired U.S. Navy captain[25] Robert M. Haralick (BA 1964, BS 1966, MS 1967, PhD 1969), Distinguished Professor of Computer Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York[26] Steve Hawley (BA 1973), former NASA director and astronaut; Professor of Physics and Astronomy at KU Erasmus Haworth, founder of the Kansas Geological Survey David Hillis, evolutionary biologist and 1999 MacArthur Fellow recipient Wes Jackson (MA 1960), environmental historian and founder of the Land Institute, a 1992 MacArthur Fellow recipient Richard F. Johnston, ornithologist and author, onetime curator of the Natural History Museum William T. Kane, physicist in field of fiber optics Joseph W. Kennedy (MA 1937), co-discoverer of the element plutonium Brian McClendon (BSEE 1986), VP of Engineering for Google Earth, formerly Keyhole, Inc. Elmer McCollum, co-discoverer of Vitamin A Nariman Mehta, pharmacologist, developer of the antidepressant and smoking cessation drug bupropion Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer, "father" of the Aegis Combat System and namesake of the USS Wayne E. Meyer naval destroyer Douglas Shane (BS 1982), director of flight operations for SpaceShipOne, which made the first privately funded human spaceflight Vernon L. Smith (M.A. in economics 1952), awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics[1] Kathryn Stephenson (MD 1941), first American woman board-certified plastic surgeon Walter Sutton, pioneer of cellular biology and genetics, physician, inventor George Tiller (BS 1963, MD 1967), physician, abortion provider, pro-choice advocate Clyde Tombaugh, astronomer, discoverer of the dwarf planet Pluto Kent Whealy, co-founder of the Seed Savers Exchange; 1988 MacArthur Fellow recipient Did you even graduate from high school? Harold Krause, BA. Two bankruptcies, estranged from his kids, biggest accomplishment: one of the chief internet trolls. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:07:08 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 12/29/16 10:48 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/29/16 8:00 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:49:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. === In a top rated engineering school the freshman 101 courses are already the real thing and students are expected to hit the ground running. I suppose that is is wonderful if you want to be an engineer. Wait...you went to a top-rated engineering school to become a bankster? What's that old engineering school joke... "Before I went to engineering school, I couldn't spell engineer...now I are one." Bankstering...in the good old days in New England, white Protestant boys with no particular skills went into banking because it was a white collar job and they could wear a suit, and they didn't have to compete with sharper, smarter Catholic and Jewish boys, for whom the banking doors were mostly closed. Were you at least a line officer at Citicorp or were you just a staff puke with a title? === Your knowledge of the financial industry is so seriously deficient that it sounds like it came from a comic book or a freshman level political screed. My advice? Stick to what you know, whatever that is. Yeah, I figured you for one of those whitebread boys who went into banking because it was a white collar job and you could wear a suit. So, were you a line officer or just a staff puke? === Sounds like you're stuck on stupid today. Why is that? |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:23:26 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: Oh...scientist alum include: Jon Davies (BS 1980), meteorologist, expert on severe thunderstorm environments and forecasting Paul R. Ehrlich (MA/PhD 1957), entomologist, researcher and author of The Population Bomb, and 1990 MacArthur Fellow recipient Joe Engle (BS 1955), former NASA astronaut and a retired U.S. Air Force colonel[24] Ronald E. Evans (BS 1956), former NASA astronaut and a retired U.S. Navy captain[25] Robert M. Haralick (BA 1964, BS 1966, MS 1967, PhD 1969), Distinguished Professor of Computer Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York[26] Steve Hawley (BA 1973), former NASA director and astronaut; Professor of Physics and Astronomy at KU Erasmus Haworth, founder of the Kansas Geological Survey David Hillis, evolutionary biologist and 1999 MacArthur Fellow recipient Wes Jackson (MA 1960), environmental historian and founder of the Land Institute, a 1992 MacArthur Fellow recipient Richard F. Johnston, ornithologist and author, onetime curator of the Natural History Museum William T. Kane, physicist in field of fiber optics Joseph W. Kennedy (MA 1937), co-discoverer of the element plutonium Brian McClendon (BSEE 1986), VP of Engineering for Google Earth, formerly Keyhole, Inc. Elmer McCollum, co-discoverer of Vitamin A Nariman Mehta, pharmacologist, developer of the antidepressant and smoking cessation drug bupropion Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer, "father" of the Aegis Combat System and namesake of the USS Wayne E. Meyer naval destroyer Douglas Shane (BS 1982), director of flight operations for SpaceShipOne, which made the first privately funded human spaceflight Vernon L. Smith (M.A. in economics 1952), awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics[1] Kathryn Stephenson (MD 1941), first American woman board-certified plastic surgeon Walter Sutton, pioneer of cellular biology and genetics, physician, inventor George Tiller (BS 1963, MD 1967), physician, abortion provider, pro-choice advocate Clyde Tombaugh, astronomer, discoverer of the dwarf planet Pluto Kent Whealy, co-founder of the Seed Savers Exchange; 1988 MacArthur Fellow recipient You come up with a couple dozen folks in 80 years |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
|
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 05:31:04 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:24:19 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/29/16 8:00 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:49:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. === In a top rated engineering school the freshman 101 courses are already the real thing and students are expected to hit the ground running. I suppose that is is wonderful if you want to be an engineer. Wait...you went to a top-rated engineering school to become a bankster? What's that old engineering school joke... "Before I went to engineering school, I couldn't spell engineer...now I are one." Bankstering...in the good old days in New England, white Protestant boys with no particular skills went into banking because it was a white collar job and they could wear a suit, and they didn't have to compete with sharper, smarter Catholic and Jewish boys, for whom the banking doors were mostly closed. Were you at least a line officer at Citicorp or were you just a staff puke with a title? He's retired and lives on the water in Florida, has a nice boat, and goes on some really nice boating adventures. Put away the ugly green monster, harry. It'll eat you up. It has already done so. We're witnessing just what can occur. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/29/16 6:55 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 12/28/16 9:47 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:49:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: If you knew what comprised the liberal arts, you might not say that...or maybe you would. Math and the physical sciences, for example, are included in the liberal arts. === Yes but they are watered down courses that don't require (or teach) in depth knowledge. Ask any engineer or physicist who has studied the real thing. That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. I'm not saying "easier" courses don't exist here and there but for the most part what you are describing is fiction. If, for example, you are "pre-med" in a college of arts and sciences and majoring in biology, the classes you take are going to be on the same list of offerings other students in the college of arts and sciences can take. Is that why NASA covets Kansas Klown Kollege graduates and shuns MIT graduates.? You are such a dip****, Harry. All you are doing is offering up further evidence of your ignorance, **** for brains. You couldn't get a job at my alma mater raking leaves. Oh...scientist alum include: Jon Davies (BS 1980), meteorologist, expert on severe thunderstorm environments and forecasting Paul R. Ehrlich (MA/PhD 1957), entomologist, researcher and author of The Population Bomb, and 1990 MacArthur Fellow recipient Joe Engle (BS 1955), former NASA astronaut and a retired U.S. Air Force colonel[24] Ronald E. Evans (BS 1956), former NASA astronaut and a retired U.S. Navy captain[25] Robert M. Haralick (BA 1964, BS 1966, MS 1967, PhD 1969), Distinguished Professor of Computer Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York[26] Steve Hawley (BA 1973), former NASA director and astronaut; Professor of Physics and Astronomy at KU Erasmus Haworth, founder of the Kansas Geological Survey David Hillis, evolutionary biologist and 1999 MacArthur Fellow recipient Wes Jackson (MA 1960), environmental historian and founder of the Land Institute, a 1992 MacArthur Fellow recipient Richard F. Johnston, ornithologist and author, onetime curator of the Natural History Museum William T. Kane, physicist in field of fiber optics Joseph W. Kennedy (MA 1937), co-discoverer of the element plutonium Brian McClendon (BSEE 1986), VP of Engineering for Google Earth, formerly Keyhole, Inc. Elmer McCollum, co-discoverer of Vitamin A Nariman Mehta, pharmacologist, developer of the antidepressant and smoking cessation drug bupropion Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer, "father" of the Aegis Combat System and namesake of the USS Wayne E. Meyer naval destroyer Douglas Shane (BS 1982), director of flight operations for SpaceShipOne, which made the first privately funded human spaceflight Vernon L. Smith (M.A. in economics 1952), awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics[1] Kathryn Stephenson (MD 1941), first American woman board-certified plastic surgeon Walter Sutton, pioneer of cellular biology and genetics, physician, inventor George Tiller (BS 1963, MD 1967), physician, abortion provider, pro-choice advocate Clyde Tombaugh, astronomer, discoverer of the dwarf planet Pluto Kent Whealy, co-founder of the Seed Savers Exchange; 1988 MacArthur Fellow recipient Did you even graduate from high school? Harold Krause, BA. Two bankruptcies, estranged from his kids, biggest accomplishment: one of the chief internet trolls. You'll get crickets on that one. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 05:31:04 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote: On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:24:19 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/29/16 8:00 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:49:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: That's just bull****. Universities typically have "Colleges of Arts and Sciences," and the courses contained within usually are the same offerings any student who wants to take can take, assuming the pre-reqs are met. Once you get past the typical freshman "101" stuff, you are into the real thing. === In a top rated engineering school the freshman 101 courses are already the real thing and students are expected to hit the ground running. I suppose that is is wonderful if you want to be an engineer. Wait...you went to a top-rated engineering school to become a bankster? What's that old engineering school joke... "Before I went to engineering school, I couldn't spell engineer...now I are one." Bankstering...in the good old days in New England, white Protestant boys with no particular skills went into banking because it was a white collar job and they could wear a suit, and they didn't have to compete with sharper, smarter Catholic and Jewish boys, for whom the banking doors were mostly closed. Were you at least a line officer at Citicorp or were you just a staff puke with a title? He's retired and lives on the water in Florida, has a nice boat, and goes on some really nice boating adventures. Put away the ugly green monster, harry. It'll eat you up. It has already done so. We're witnessing just what can occur. I see nothing about W'hine or any of the other righties to envy. -- Posted with my iPhone 7+. |
Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:16:50 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/29/16 2:04 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:37:40 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Seems to me that "Liberal Arts" was what you signed up for in college when you didn't have a clue what you wanted to be when you grew up. Maybe that was my "Problem". I had a very good idea of what I wanted to be when I grew up and I did it. Any education I sought was toward that goal. Once I had a good job, I had the opportunity to seek knowledge in all sorts of other fields and in other venues. My dad parlayed his apparently significant graphic arts abilities he developed in high school into an academic scholarship at a major Pennsylvania university. His uncle, a Russian immigrant like his dad, helped out, and during the Great Depression after graduation, he worked for that uncle as manager of displays and merchandising for the latter's small chain of variety stores, and also a store and regional manager. When he had his boat store, my dad would spend the slow winter hours at the store painting rather risque portraits of nudes and semi-nudes of voluptuous women he never met, an avocation that drove my mom nuts. A friend's father in Overland Park, Kansas, a real estate developer, had artistic abilities, too, and he would sculpt nudes of well-developed women he never met, a hobby that also drive his wife nuts. Ahhh, art! :) Sure hope he didn't wear his arm out patting himself on the back as much as his son does. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com