Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

wrote in news:c3l1o2tl5dkm8p1ua9fb61obhci3pdpsc3@
4ax.com:

And speaking of "ancient Egyptians," I find it hypocritical that not
only do few decry informing children of what ancient Egyptians believed
but would actually argue for doing so, yet these same people find it
worthy of legal intervention should someone wish to inform them of what
a great many of their contemporaries believe.


We don't teach the theories of the ancient Egyptions while making believe
that they are true. We either teach it in a social studies classroom, or
in the context of the history of science. You and I have contemporaries in
this world that fully believe they are spending their lives gathering
karma, which will directly impact upon their reincarnation and/or
enlightenment, yet we don't spend valuable time in the science classroom
instructing the students in how to avoid spending their next life as a
centipede. Perhaps we should??

I have no trouble teaching children these beliefs in the proper context,
which is in a framework of comparative religion, social studies, or history
of science. I have tremendous issues with teaching faith as science.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in news:25r0o2tmif0er5jp06na3uggm6ncg1cmb9@
4ax.com:

IAC, just how do you "squander resources" by teaching about something in
a school? In fact, how do you squander them teaching about anything,
anywhere?



When you teach as part of your living, you come to realize that time is a
precious asset. When you are teaching them one thing, you cannot be
teaching them something else. There are enough hard choices about what we
should spend this precious resource of time on, without worrying about when
we should cram in the fairy tales and tell the kids they're true.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman typed:
snip
You and I
have contemporaries in this world that fully believe they are
spending their lives gathering karma, which will directly impact upon
their reincarnation and/or enlightenment, yet we don't spend valuable
time in the science classroom instructing the students in how to
avoid spending their next life as a centipede. Perhaps we should??

By golly, you may have just revealed the path to the next anti-drug program.
"Just say 'No'" was a non-starter and "Officer DARE" is certainly pabulum,
but "DO YOU WANT TO LIVE YOUR NEXT LIFE AS A CENTIPEDE?" has wings, IMHO.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Tim J." wrote in
:

Scott Seidman typed:
snip
You and I
have contemporaries in this world that fully believe they are
spending their lives gathering karma, which will directly impact upon
their reincarnation and/or enlightenment, yet we don't spend valuable
time in the science classroom instructing the students in how to
avoid spending their next life as a centipede. Perhaps we should??

By golly, you may have just revealed the path to the next anti-drug
program. "Just say 'No'" was a non-starter and "Officer DARE" is
certainly pabulum, but "DO YOU WANT TO LIVE YOUR NEXT LIFE AS A
CENTIPEDE?" has wings, IMHO.

This gets better. Perhaps the Intelligent Designer would actually build a
centipede with wings! The Unification Hypothesis unfolds.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports
that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that
he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a
resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he
would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in
our public schools, that's gotta be just a troll.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
et...
rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports
that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that
he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a
resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he
would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in
our public schools, that's gotta be just a troll.

Not surprisingly, you miss the point entirely. dicklet has seen to it that
whether he is serious or trolling or whatever is as irrelevant as it is
uninteresting. Like you, he has made himself into a plaything. That's
o.k......the world needs more cheap, amusing, and unbreakable toys.

Wolfgang

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:28 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports
that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that
he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a
resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he
would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in
our public schools,

And why would you, Joe, or anyone else believe that he does? It's not
like he said he thinks it should.be even suggested that it is science.
IMO, what he said was that he thought that kids should be informed about
it as an alternative theory that some believe in, so as to have as full
an understanding as possible about the subject, and that he had no
problem with that information being disseminated in a "science" class.
I'd bet he'd not have a problem with a little history creeping into a
science class, or a little science creeping into a history class,
either. Why, hell, I'd go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure that he
wouldn't find reason to object if, on occasion, kids discussed the
spring dance decorations in GASP! math class...

that's gotta be just a troll.

Um, perhaps it would be, if it had occurred. And yet again, the fact
that some people have readily and willingly jumped to all sorts of
erroneous conclusions based upon their misinterpretation of what they
didn't understand when they misread what they are absolutely sure was
written, while arguing with the writer that they know more about what
the writer meant than the writer, pretty well relegates the use of or
need for trolling per se to the occasional side diversion aimed at
particularly cocksure types.

Oh, the use of "he" rather than "me?" He just didn't want to interrupt
the flow of the discussion by switching pronouns, in case you guys were
close to a breakthrough on determining what he meant or
something...here's a wild thought - if you come to a conclusion, maybe
you could run it by him, you know, just to get some feedback,
sorta-like...

HTH,
him

wrote:
And why would you, Joe, or anyone else believe that he does?

Because he said:

IMO, what he said was that he thought that kids should be informed about
it as an alternative theory that some believe in, so as to have as full
an understanding as possible about the subject, and that he had no
problem with that information being disseminated in a "science" class.

HTH,
Joe F.

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:01:28 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I can only conclude he's having a bit of
fun with this troll but I don't for one second take it, or him,
seriously on this.

I cannot be as magnanimous. Having a bit of fun with this one?
Perhaps; who knows? Either he's serious, which makes him an idiot
(IMHO), or he's not, which makes this another episode in a long
string of trolls that garners no respect from me. For me, his
stupidity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential. Any other regular on
this forum has no problem with clearly stating their opinion and
position without speaking in questions, hypotheticals, qualifiers,
insults, and innuendos. The fact that you are not sure of his opinion
or motivation even after his presence here for years is testament to
his utter failure to actually say something about who he is and where
he stands beyond an obvious delight in his role as resident sociopath.
YMMV, of course.

My M does V, mainly because my wife has met Richard and reports
that he is gracious, eloquent, generous and real. I do agree that
he appears to take an obvious delight in being a contrarian and a
resident sociopath. But I don't for one second believe that he
would really want Intelligent Design to be taught as science in
our public schools,

And why would you, Joe, or anyone else believe that he does? It's not
like he said he thinks it should.be even suggested that it is science.
IMO, what he said was that he thought that kids should be informed about
it as an alternative theory that some believe in, so as to have as full
an understanding as possible about the subject, and that he had no
problem with that information being disseminated in a "science" class.
I'd bet he'd not have a problem with a little history creeping into a
science class, or a little science creeping into a history class,
either. Why, hell, I'd go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure that he
wouldn't find reason to object if, on occasion, kids discussed the
spring dance decorations in GASP! math class...

that's gotta be just a troll.

Um, perhaps it would be, if it had occurred. And yet again, the fact
that some people have readily and willingly jumped to all sorts of
erroneous conclusions based upon their misinterpretation of what they
didn't understand when they misread what they are absolutely sure was
written, while arguing with the writer that they know more about what
the writer meant than the writer, pretty well relegates the use of or
need for trolling per se to the occasional side diversion aimed at
particularly cocksure types.

Oh, the use of "he" rather than "me?" He just didn't want to interrupt
the flow of the discussion by switching pronouns, in case you guys were
close to a breakthrough on determining what he meant or
something...here's a wild thought - if you come to a conclusion, maybe
you could run it by him, you know, just to get some feedback,
sorta-like...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wolfgang