On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-5, 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.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.

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.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 10:37 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/27/16 11:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:14:04 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

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...

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.


If you have a degree in history, you should have general knowledge of all
history. Not just what you specialized in!


So, you're now on the California board of regents, eh?


Closer than you. I grew up with Clark Kerr Jr. Seems to be if you know
someone, their knowledge is your knowledge. Plus I pay taxes to support
the California school system. So why should a history major, not have at
least a knowledge of his country's history?


Wow. You knew the son of Clark Kerr. I know the nephew of Gore Vidal. BFD.


BFD to you. You claim to have known every POTUS since Truman, and that
makes you a brilliant POLYSCI wannabe.

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.

1:14 PMIts Me
- show quoted text -
You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.
......

Oh that's ok. The double standard wad pretty evident when he wouldn't give me a legitimate reason for why I should vote for Hillary or support the DNC.

He acted like I was really stupid for asking...

On 12/28/16 2:14 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-5, 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.

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.

On 12/28/16 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.


Uh, no. She didn't have to write papers that "agreed" with anything. Her
dissertation was original research.
Further, she didn't know who the four or five would be until just before
the oral exams. So, once again, you are taking a stab in the dark.

And I don't recall a requirement to take a single credit hour in
American history way back in the dark ages when I was pursuing a B.A. in
Kansas, and it had nothing to do with broadly based academic education
or the rejection of America. What it is is something you don't know
because you never experienced it.

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.

On 12/28/16 2:29 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 10:37 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/27/16 11:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:14:04 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

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...

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.


If you have a degree in history, you should have general knowledge of all
history. Not just what you specialized in!


So, you're now on the California board of regents, eh?


Closer than you. I grew up with Clark Kerr Jr. Seems to be if you know
someone, their knowledge is your knowledge. Plus I pay taxes to support
the California school system. So why should a history major, not have at
least a knowledge of his country's history?


Wow. You knew the son of Clark Kerr. I know the nephew of Gore Vidal. BFD.


BFD to you. You claim to have known every POTUS since Truman, and that
makes you a brilliant POLYSCI wannabe.


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.

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 2:55:00 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 2:14 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-5, 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.

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.

Heh. When John does the same as you, you accuse him of demanding answers and you tell him he's not in charge. Same shoe, different foot.

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.