'Yes, but I have a place to attack me, if you want to.' If I cared enough to want to attack you I would go there. Instead, I take issue with your argument in respect of this thread, so I respond here. This seems to me to be entirely appropriate. Viz. 'I was never supporting the AFA act
'On the contrary, if I hold an opinion that changes the meaning of certain words in my brain, it does not mean that I am any less competent in the use of the English language.' Oh but of course it does. Your competence in using the language directly affects your ability to communicate. If you are unable to subscribe to common understandings concerning the meanings of words, then your ability to make yourself understood to o
'Then you are less aggresive in your debating than me.' Incorrect conclusion. It should be: 'Then you are more competent in your use of the English language than me.'
'I think in asking McDonalds to remain neutral in the homosexual culture war, the AFA was giving very good advice.' I have no doubt you do, but that wasn't my point. erathoniel supports the AFA action, which sought to pressure McDonalds into adopt
Mason, I know we have crossed swords in the past, but I must commend you unreservedly on your contribution here. Your analysis of the crux of the issue under question is excellent, and - despite all the insect whining to which you have been subjected along the way - remains substantially unchallenged. Kudos! On the subject of the whining insect, I am surprised that no one has taken him up on this particularly choice bit of frothing at the mouth: <span style="backgrou
[I]'I didn't contradict myself at all ...'[/I] So now you are advocating docking teachers for both lack of productivity and laziness? While you did throw in a glib line about how you might assess productivity (although then acknowledging that it wouldn't work), you haven't yet revealed how you would identify laziness. (Back to the clipboard Nazis scenario, I suspect.) At best, your answer is ill-informed and hopelessly fudged. 4/10 - see me. :LOL:
[I]'But, that said, lazy teachers are one piece of the puzzle.'[/I] You're contradicting yourself here, Mason. Let me remind you of what you said earlier, in response to Champas telling you how hard HE works: [I]'Working hard is not, in and of itself, justification for a certain level of pay. If your 'hard work' isn't effective, then the money you are paid is wasted as was the time spent.'[/I] So which is it you're saying we need to identify - laziness or ineffectivene
[I]'As for Furry's reply, teacher performance can be measured through evaluation of student improvement. Of course the flaw here is that the teacher will simply teach to the test instead of actually teaching more in depth. There is no simple answer, but given the state of education, at least in this country, something needs to be done.'[/I] That's such a throwaway one-liner I won't even begin to address its failings. And even you acknowledge it would be useless. Yet we should do it for fear
Thankyou for being so forgiving Furry. Don't mention it. I'm only sorry my intent was not clearer. '... the only teachers who go on about how much better they are than other teachers are the ones who leave at 3:05 every day, never share any resources and still teach the same way they did in 1903.' But I object most strongly to this. I didn't start teaching until 1905! <img src="../images/smiles/joke.gif" border=0 ALIGN="a
'Working hard is not, in and of itself, justification for a certain level of pay. If your 'hard work' isn't effective, then the money you are paid is wasted as was the time spent.' Mason, if you really think that 'productivity' is as easily and objectively determined for a teacher as for a long haul trucker, then let's hear a little bit of the detail. Regardless, even if one accepts the argument that it is possible, then you're inevitab
'Sorry Furry. I'm writing reports and highlighting net folders and it's a terribly humour-removing process.' I wondered if perhaps the time of year was getting to you. (Let's face it, you'd be superhuman if it wasn't.) For my part, I'm truly sorry that I didn't make my humorous intentions more explicit. I was really only trying to have a friendly dig, in line with the 'champagne socialism' of both your blog ID and the title of your th
'Jesus, I can't even say I'm happy that Kevin Rudd won without getting ruthlessly attacked.' Whoa Champas, hold your horses. I intended no 'ruthless attack' whatsoever. On the whole Rudd / Latham thing, I imagined I was writing a relatively light-hearted and decidedly tongue-in-cheek riposte to your earlier comments, that's all. i.e. Just booting the political football about, really. Absolutely nothing was intended to be personal, or as
'His accent made him seem more thuggish, less educated or civilised.' Let's get this straight. It's not whether Latham actually was working class, but whether he sounded like he was? Is this why Rudd is acceptable, in your eyes - because, despite his humble origins, he sounds middle class? This kind of attitude sounds suspiciously like a throwback to the days of the British Empire, Australia as a colonial outpost, and all the injusti
[I]'Originally, the article stated "ingratiating" because, at times, it pleases me to see people act like total rondo fools.'[/I] Ooh, poor save. If you did use 'ingratiating' deliberately, it was obviously only because you didn't know what it means. In the context in which you employed it, it completely negated the sense of the preceding sentence. (Did you think it had something to do with being 'grating', perhaps?) But maybe I can help you get your grammatical account back in
'But the fact is I don't expect to be nearly as effective with the kids I'll be teaching next year as I have been this year.' I expect you to be just as effective with the kids you're teaching next year. However, they will be starting in a very different place from the nice, middle-class students with no serious problems you've had this year, and both the resources and the extent / quality of the external support they rece
'In '04, Labor made a dreadful mistake in handing their leadership to a working class thug that the Australian people hated.' Far be it from me to wish to compromise your celebration, Champers. I do think it's a little naive at this point to make such claims as 'We will see an end to race-based commentary on immigration and assimilation from our Government'. However, please don't get me wrong - I too am happy to see Howard out
'I think it will just cause more eating disorders.' I presume you mean anorexia nervosa, bulimia etc. But don't forget, in many cases obesity is assessed as the result of an eating disorder. So, do you think the overall number of eating disorders will increase?
I want to be completely fair here. So, rather than my commenting on this thread, I invite JoeUsers to read the debate that prompted it, and to make their own minds up. Link That said, adnauseam, I'm sorry. I had no idea that I had upset you to this extent.
CharlesCS1, if you don't mind, I'll respond to you here rather than on the adnauseam thread that attacks me personally. I don't want to be accused of attempting to sway anyone's opinions there. I want to invite visitors to that thread to judge for themselves, and leave it at that. 'Funny to think that I was somewhat like you on that article yet he/she did not mention me.' Yes it is. Perhaps I was rather more persistent than you -
'You have become another sad blogger who makes judgements without knowing the person on the other end.' Yes, we all know the type, adnauseam. The kind of blogger who would respond to criticism of his arguments by attacking the critic, not the criticism. The kind of blogger who would fail to rise to a challenge that he supply evidence to support his assertions, but elect instead to publish a completely separate thread of personal invecti
Okay, a quick recap: Furry Canary: " I can only feel deeply sorry for its staff and students --having such an anti-education inverted snob in a position of responsibility." adnauseam: 'How do you justify such a statement as the above especially when I've been an educationist for over thirty years and regard my school, a good school, as a very important part of my life.' 1) 'Why don't you take your incredibly arrogant
'Meet Matilda.' Hey, my luck's changed! (I usually get the ugly one ...)
'If you want to get into Australia, you have to be skilled, speak English and have a few quid in your pocket.That's how it should be.' Oh, I missed this latest gem. But don't fret, I only have two things to add: 1) The first sentence is factually wrong. (But I'm sure you're getting used to that.) 2) The second sentence is, I think I can say without fear of contradiction (but you never know), not a fact but your opinion . And it explains many of your still unsubstant
'I invite you to disprove this.' Laugh? I've had to wring my socks out! But (semi-)seriously, let's do what you say, adnauseam, and 'start at the beginning'. Recap - you claim, among other things: 1) That immigration into the UK is uncontrolled; 2) That this causes discrimination against smokers; 3) That most immigrant Nigerians, Somalians, Ethiopians and Zimbabweans form gangs, claim welfare, and/or deal in drugs, prostitution and theft; and 4) That
'The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.' Excuse my density, LW, but you've lost me. 'Alcohol and tobacco kill more people every year than anything else combined, so what do we do? We ban artificial sweeteners because a rat died.' Cute. 'I'm a smoker, by the way ...' I have a huge amount of sympathy for the way smokers are treate
Stardock Forums
JoeUser Forums