Increasing stupidity...

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Spider AL

So you do think that kids should conform to the superior, older educational standards that they used to?

nee. we need NEW STANDARDS regarding to MODERN TIME ISSUES.

 

Good. Then we agree that the education system needs reform.

not good. and not then. but yes.

 

WHAT? You're saying that this problem is a "good thing" because... it gets people talking about the problem? That doesn't make any damn sense!

WHAT? i said "it is a bad thing". the good thing is that we recognize it as a problem.

 

When one accepts the terms of a contract, one is agreeing to the terms of that contract. When one accepts a glass of water, one is TAKING that glass of water. One is ACCEPTING it, that is to say, not opposing it. Not rejecting it.

 

-> to agree (with something, eg AN OPINION)

"yes yes, we should kill him."

-> to accept (something, eg AN OPINION)

"yes yes, try to kill him if you want. but maybe i'll have to kill you too, then."

 

I REJECT these changes for the worse. Utterly. Unequivocally. Thus, I do not "accept" them.

yes, then reject them. i did not say you shouldn't. where is your problem anyways? i just said some things change. in a "we now don't burn witches anymore"-context.

 

 

What you call quibbling I call proper use of language. And no, I don't care if you ARE from another country, you don't see me trying to debate in Swahili...

what the..? did i say you should care? have i EVER said "but look, i am from another country blahranabley"? meh. and i may be wrong, but maybe we both are posting from the same planet? and maybe swahili wouldn't be the badest idea??

 

uiuiui.

 

I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that they should only learn at schools. So what are you contradicting, exactly?

looky:

Schools are places for children to learn in.

i would tend to say: life is the place where children learn. maybe it sounds different in my native tounge or swahili, but najanaja, you know?

 

Guh, the school is supposed to teach the kid how to do maths. Many parents aren't good at maths, so it's not their fault if their kid can't add two and two after graduating, it's the SCHOOL's damn fault.

 

MANY PARENTS ARENT GOOD AT MATHS? tse.

maybe someone should have teached them proper? maybe they should get the damn finger out of their behinds and HELP THEIR CHILDREN INSTEAD OF WATCHING TV??

 

and maybe a higher BASIC level of education and KNOWLEDGE would raise the level in schools?

 

and i think kids should know how to add two and two BEFORE they enter school.

[lukeiamyourdad]

You can't just look at some statistics and say school needs this or that.

 

I agree there should be changes.

 

Is school too easy now? I don't think so.

 

I can't say anything for the US and UK since I'm not familiar with any of those two school systems.

 

Now, should we have competition in school?

It depends on which level. Early on, you should'nt. Seriously, young children should not have to go through the stress of competition in such an early age. If you must know, I'm young enough to remember it and I did went through the stressful competition. I'm asian afterall.

For us, it always is a competition. Whoever is the best get's the most glory. While true, applying it to young children is not a good idea. Many will bum out because they can't compete. We'll get a huge gap between the "smart" people and the "stupid" people. We'll have geniuses we'll take care of and we'll leave everyone else behind to their own fate.

Crime is a result. Suicide is another.

Look at the situation in Japan. The competition is very high in school. The result? Kids jumping off the roof of schools and one of the highest teen sucide rate in the world. Why? An overcompetitive school system(and mentality).

 

The problem of the workforce today is not one of education but one of specialization. Again, I'll speak for Québec but I think it could be a worldwide problem.

Our workers are too educated...in one domain. Meaning that a computer technician can only do certain task. In our modern world we need workers who are versatile. Which is why these days coming out of University with a single diploma isn't the best of ideas. Now they look for people with multiple diplomas in order to find the most versatile worker.

 

Is this the result of a dumbed down school system? Not at all.

 

As for kids not talking or spelling right. Don't blame schools, blame the media and your kids' role models. When 50 cent becomes a role model...what did you expect?

 

 

 

Fiinally, if one of you spelling nazi finds some grammar mistake in my post, give me a break. I have to spell right in french, english, vietnamese, german and spanish. It happens to me to get mixed up.

 

As a matter of fact, I once said "Yo ist..."

 

You get mixed up.

[Ray Jones]

German. Tatsächlich? Hmm. These are some gut points, nebenbei bemerkt.

 

Agreed! ;D

[Spider AL]

I can't say anything for the US and UK since I'm not familiar with any of those two school systems.

The UK is what I'm familiar with, and according to the US reps in this thread, the US is in a similarly poor situation to the UK at this juncture.

 

Frankly, Canada's a pleasant place and I wouldn't be surprised if the school system was excellent there.

 

But I'm talking about the UK. And YES, the exams are too easy over here.

 

And yeah, your post is full of errors. But hey, why should you be any different?..

 

nee. we need NEW STANDARDS regarding to MODERN TIME ISSUES.

The standard's either high or it's low! It's not "nineties standard", or "2004 standard", it's high or low. At the moment the standard is low. We want it to be HIGH. Geddit?

 

WHAT? i said "it is a bad thing".

You said that the existence of the problem results in a good thing: discussion about the problem.

 

"i think that can be considered a bad thing. how can it cause something good? maybe it is already something good that people are talking about it."

 

That doesn't make any sense. You don't make any sense. And frankly, I think you're deliberately obtuse at times. You have no argument.

 

"yes yes, try to kill him if you want. but maybe i'll have to kill you too, then."

Rubbish. That's not what accept means... YOU don't get to decide what the definition of an English word is, sonny. Check my earlier post for the correct definition.

 

Have you never even heard the phrase "accept this gift"? or "accept your surrender"? Accept - Reject... diametrically opposed. You cannot accept AND reject a thing simultaneously.

 

but maybe we both are posting from the same planet?

I don't know WHAT planet you're on.

 

maybe someone should have teached them proper?

I rest my case.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Spider AL

The standard's either high or it's low! It's not "nineties standard", or "2004 standard", it's high or low. At the moment the standard is low. We want it to be HIGH. Geddit?

i never said it should be low nor that i want it to be as it is. get it?

 

You said that the existence of the problem results in a good thing: discussion about the problem.

 

"i think that can be considered a bad thing. how can it cause something good? maybe it is already something good that people are talking about it."

well.. relative. it wouldn't be better if everyone would say it's ok as it is, right? and i didn't say it couldn't or shouldn't be better

 

That doesn't make any sense. You don't make any sense. And frankly, I think you're deliberately obtuse at times. You have no argument.

i think i just think outside of the box, the big picture, you know? and what you may call 'deliberately obstuse' may be just the fact that i still have to improve my skills to express my thoughts in english. but hey, i'm working on it. (and you cannot really say i didn't try)

besides, stating that i have no argument doesn't automatically mean you have one or i don't have one. maybe you just don't accept mine or frankly are 'deliberately obstuse' by quibling about definitions of words by simply applying them without any context. i did not use 'accept' against it's definition, i used it in context to the point i tried to make up, and that was not implying any glasses of water nor any contracts. that can't be so hard to see. maybe you start playing connect the dots a bit so we can get over this 'accept'-definition-stuff some time in the near future. definition and meaning. use language instead of simply using it. and don't dare to quibble about use.

 

so, in the end we both see the need for a change in education. there is a need for more dicipline and stricter rules in schools, including and based on old standards that have shown to be working well and give good results. the issues of modern time are for instance points like versatility, like lukeiamyourdad said. also proper and valuable education in media technologies and IT related topics are necessary as well. it can not be that people "use" a computer, but don't have the slightest grasp of how computers work or what a hex number is. that counts for everybody, the young and the old. that is where i say where old standards simply need to be updated, with the goal to recieve a higher level, not a lower, since they simply are not layed out to handle the things which are needed nowadays. again, a change is needed, higher standards for everyone. the "old standards" may be higher than those today, but BOTH are too low. for everyone, notabene.

and it cannot be that people tend to stop learning as soon as they "leave" the education system. and if they can't "add two and two together" after school, then they have to learn it later. that would set the standards higher, as well as the point of versatility would do. and it would also set a higher standard for parents to gain the skills to prepare their children for school and give them proper backup for school related issues including maths, language, morals and whatever. values have to be "(re)established" without calling the name of religions. we need respect, consideration, tolerance, humanity. perspectives are needed, away and different from status, power and glamour.

 

Rubbish. That's not what accept means... YOU don't get to decide what the definition of an English word is, sonny. Check my earlier post for the correct definition.

i know the definition of 'accept' very well. it may surprise you, but 'to accept' means what it means, regardless of the language. so it comes that it means the same in my native language, eh. uh, maybe even in swahili, huh?

 

Have you never even heard the phrase "accept this gift"? or "accept your surrender"? Accept - Reject... diametrically opposed. You cannot accept AND reject a thing simultaneously.

quibbling, again. of course you aren't wrong, but think bigger. it's not always 'yes' and 'no'. i can accept that you offer me a glass of water, but reject it at the same time with a remark "fishs make love in it." i have to accept a fact as a problem to take it into perspective and reject the results as inappropriate.

 

I don't know WHAT planet you're on.

well. you wouldn't be too surprised.

 

I rest my case.

i accepted your decision, but rejected your conclusions. well, partially. ^^

[Spider AL]

i never said it should be low nor that i want it to be as it is. get it?

YOU obviously don't get it. There is no "modern standard" as you said earlier, there's merely a high standard or a low standard of education. Ignorance, or learning. The standard is now low, we want it to be high. This would be accomplished by improving our ailing school system.

 

well.. relative. it wouldn't be better if everyone would say it's ok as it is, right?

You just didn't get it, and you don't seem to be making any effort to get it.

 

and i didn't say it couldn't or shouldn't be better

You began this argument with: "there is a point where the older generation should take a look at the younger generation and follow or at least accept a change." Implying that you believe that we should ACCEPT these changes for the worse.

 

Obviously this is unacceptable.

 

i think i just think outside of the box, the big picture, you know?

No, you're merely rattling off on meaningless tangents.

 

maybe you just don't accept mine or frankly are 'deliberately obstuse' by quibling about definitions of words by simply applying them without any context.

Context does not change the definition of a word, Ray.

 

i did not use 'accept' against it's definition

One would think it would be impossible to "use" a word "against it's definition". You just didn't put your sentence together sufficiently well to convey your idea. And then you got defensive when the fact was pointed out.

 

maybe you start playing connect the dots a bit so we can get over this 'accept'-definition-stuff some time in the near future.

What, do your work for you? Do I have to find meaning in your meaninglessness? Hardly a viable option my friend. No, you must learn to use the correct words to say what you mean, if you wish to be taken seriously in a debate.

 

use language instead of simply using it. and don't dare to quibble about use.

Use language, instead of using it. Mmkay. Wish me luck on that one. And I scoff furthermore at your attempt to TELL me what I can and cannot dare. Ha.

 

that is where i say where old standards simply need to be updated

You mean that the syllabus must be updated, not the standard of learning. The standard of learning, regardless of the subjects taught, must be high. It is currently low. It used to be higher. Thus, we want to reach once again, that old standard, the high standard.

 

and if they can't "add two and two together" after school, then they have to learn it later.

If one cannot add two and two together after school, school has failed in its duty. End of line.

 

i know the definition of 'accept' very well. it may surprise you, but 'to accept' means what it means, regardless of the language.

Of course! Why didn't I remember that "accept" is such a well known Japanese word, and Sanskrit word! Ergh.

 

it's not always 'yes' and 'no'. i can accept that you offer me a glass of water, but reject it at the same time with a remark "fishs make love in it."

Once again, glaringly missing the obvious point... You can accept the fact that I have offered it, but you cannot accept THE GLASS and reject THE GLASS at the same time.

 

Thus we either ACCEPT the changes to our school system, or REJECT them. I reject them.

 

well. you wouldn't be too surprised.

Let me guess... You're from Ferenginar.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Spider AL

YOU obviously don't get it. There is no "modern standard" as you said earlier, there's merely a high standard or a low standard of education. Ignorance, or learning. The standard is now low, we want it to be high. This would be accomplished by improving our ailing school system.

what else can i possibly say. oh well.

when did i say it's ok like it is? when, huh? and to get it started: with "modern standard" i was actually using the word modern to put something into relation of time. wait. i wasn't using the term "modern standards". "we need new standards regarding to modern time issues", that's what i said. hm. what could that "modern"-word-thingy possibly mean here.

 

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : CONTEMPORARY b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time

2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : UP-TO-DATE

3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language

 

and what could i, in my dissabled mind, have meant with that whole sentence then..?

"we need" (we need) "new" (new, not like what we have now, and what we have had before) "standards" (standards, norms, demands) "regarding to" (concerning, in consideration of) "modern time" (actual, recent) "issues" (requirements, err.. standards?)

 

so, why would we need that? hmm. maybe because the "actual" standards are bad/ineffective/TOO LOW. whoa, too low? did i imply that? really? and if the "actual standards are too low, are they too low, compared to what? well, were they changed in the last years? yes. so the "old" standards were HIGHER?? heissa. so, if we change them again, and want the results like those we got with the "old" standards, does that mean we have to set the NEW STANDARDS HIGHER? impossible. i would never have been able to think about that. and yet, i want the new standard to be higher than ever before.

 

phew.

 

 

You just didn't get it, and you don't seem to be making any effort to get it.

what's that? maybe you just didn't get it. what's your aim in stating such crap? use your brain. i know very well what YOU are talking about. and i said that over and over again. and wether you don't want to or you can't follow my explanation of WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. gah.

 

You began this argument with: "there is a point where the older generation should take a look at the younger generation and follow or at least accept a change." Implying that you believe that we should ACCEPT these changes for the worse.

 

Obviously this is unacceptable.

AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN: I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT CHANGES IN THE SCHOOLSYSTEM. I WAS RATHER TALKING ABOUT ANY, I REPEAT: ANY, RANDOM CHANGE THAT JUST TAKE PLACE TO HAPPEN IN SOCIETY!

 

boah. please tell me you understood that at least by the definitions of the words i have used.

 

No, you're merely rattling off on meaningless tangents.

yeah, of course. and you hit me hard with that "fact".

 

Context does not change the definition of a word, Ray.

i never said that. i said it changes the meaning of a word.

 

One would think it would be impossible to "use" a word "against it's definition". You just didn't put your sentence together sufficiently well to convey your idea. And then you got defensive when the fact was pointed out.

well, 'defensive' in the meaning of trying to explain what i tried to point out. NOT 'defensive' as in opposite to 'offensive'. nnnaaaa? ^^

 

What, do your work for you? Do I have to find meaning in your meaninglessness? Hardly a viable option my friend. No, you must learn to use the correct words to say what you mean, if you wish to be taken seriously in a debate.

if, then it's work for your brain, eh. "to abstract" is something you don't seem to know. but it works with language very well. maybe instead of phrasing about definitions, what seems to be work too, you could have used your brain a little bit more. maybe i didn't came over clearly with the "accept changes" term, at least not for you, but i think i explained over and over again that i was (A) not talking about the schoolsystem (regarding to your "i reject theses changes for the worse thing") and (B) concretising what my intention was when i used the word you seem to love so much.

 

 

 

Use language, instead of using it. Mmkay. Wish me luck on that one. And I scoff furthermore at your attempt to TELL me what I can and cannot dare. Ha.

Ha.

 

You mean that the syllabus must be updated, not the standard of learning. The standard of learning, regardless of the subjects taught, must be high. It is currently low. It used to be higher. Thus, we want to reach once again, that old standard, the high standard.

oh. no. what have you read? my signature?

i think i said clearly BOTH, the 'actual' and the 'old', standards are too LOW. it is rather useless to simply CHANGE the syllabus. and it is rather useless to simply set the standards higher WITHOUT changing the content of what's been teached.

 

hey, or maybe we should quibble about the word 'standard' first?

 

If one cannot add two and two together after school, school has failed in its duty. End of line.

i did not say something else.

 

Of course! Why didn't I remember that "accept" is such a well known Japanese word, and Sanskrit word! Ergh.

hey, you're human, what did you expect?

 

Once again, glaringly missing the obvious point... You can accept the fact that I have offered it, but you cannot accept THE GLASS and reject THE GLASS at the same time.

accept in the meaning of 'take'

 

Thus we either ACCEPT the changes to our school system, or REJECT them. I reject them.

yes yes, i think you've mentioned that before. and just in case: I DID NOT SAY YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THESE CHANGES IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. (and i fully accept that you reject.)

 

Let me guess... You're from Ferenginar.

hey, first try a hit.

[Spider AL]

when did i say it's ok like it is? when, huh?

I'll repeat myself to answer this.

 

You began this argument with: "there is a point where the older generation should take a look at the younger generation and follow or at least accept a change." Implying that you believe that we should ACCEPT these changes for the worse.

 

Obviously this is unacceptable.

 

Change your stance if you wish, but don't pretend that you never TOOK this stance.

 

AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN: I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT CHANGES IN THE SCHOOLSYSTEM. I WAS RATHER TALKING ABOUT ANY, I REPEAT: ANY, RANDOM CHANGE THAT JUST TAKE PLACE TO HAPPEN IN SOCIETY!

Shouting eh, how immature.

 

Of course you were referring to changes in the school system, because that's what this thread is about. Or did you take a wrong turn at Albuquerque?

 

If you want to discuss something else, go somewhere else.

 

wait. i wasn't using the term "modern standards".

 

I asked: "So you do think that kids should conform to the superior, older educational standards that they used to?"

 

You responded with:

nee. we need NEW STANDARDS regarding to MODERN TIME ISSUES.

QED.

 

And once again, there is no "modern" standard, merely high or low. The older standard was higher than our current standard, so it is desirable.

 

i know very well what YOU are talking about.

You still don't get it...

 

"to abstract" is something you don't seem to know. but it works with language very well.

Lol. Abstraction is one thing, mate, but your butchery of the English language is quite another. You might as well use the word "banana" in place of "accept" for all the sense it makes in context, and for all the understanding you have of its meaning.

 

well, 'defensive' in the meaning of trying to explain what i tried to point out. NOT 'defensive' as in opposite to 'offensive'.

You won't find that definition of "defensive" in any dictionary, my friend. You should try utilising a nice fat English dictionary sometime.

 

accept in the meaning of 'take'

Exactly what I was saying. You cannot take the glass (accept) and refuse to take the glass (reject) simultaneously. Perhaps you're beginning to understand! Hallelujah!

 

 

hey, first try a hit.

Aha! You admit that you're from Ferenginar eh? This then, is you:

 

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I'll repeat myself to answer this.

 

You began this argument with: "there is a point where the older generation should take a look at the younger generation and follow or at least accept a change." Implying that you believe that we should ACCEPT these changes for the worse.

 

what i said is this:

 

but it's simple as that. there is a point (a) where the older generation should take a look at the younger generation and follow or at least accept a change(b). i kind of get sick when i hear "i walked to school, without shoes, in december!" © kind of stuff. yes, and i still know bw-tv-sets and 8-bit computers.

 

(a) there is a point: clearly a hint that i was not addressing certain issues. maybe i was going to build up an argument.

 

(b) a change: note: NOT the change as in the change in education system standards, but simply a as in undefined

 

© i kind of get sick when i hear "i walked to school, without shoes, in december!" : an example of what i was addressing in general, bad as examples are usually, when they come from me.

 

none of this implies in the least you/we should accept the changes in the school system for good NOR that i was addressing those.

 

oh, and just to add this: nowhere it's said that it's ok as it is. not in the least.

 

guess i could repeat AND expand my question, huh?

 

ok, where AND when did i say it's ok like it is? where and when, huh?

 

Change your stance if you wish, but don't pretend that you never TOOK this stance.

i never TOOK this stance. and i dont change my stance. i think i pointed out my views clearly enough. and i think i pointed out that i see a lack in todays education system, too.

 

Of course you were referring to changes in the school system, because that's what this thread is about. Or did you take a wrong turn at Albuquerque?

no, i was not. how do you want to know? you don't listen to what i say. and if you would have stopped your crap for one second, maybe you would have taken notice of my point and what i was aiming at.

 

If you want to discuss something else, go somewhere else.

sure. but guess why i am in here?

 

 

I asked: "So you do think that kids should conform to the superior, older educational standards that they used to?"

 

You responded with:

 

nee. we need NEW STANDARDS regarding to MODERN TIME ISSUES.

QED.

??? that sentence clearly says "we need NEW STANDARDS regarding to MODERN TIME ISSUES." - nee (no), new standards, that's definitly different from old standards conformity or any use of the term modern standards, so what's proven? do you really try to say "new standards regarding to moderm time issues" is exactly the same wording as "modern standards"? prrf. again. i did not use the term "modern standards".

 

and if you ask "So you do think that kids should conform to the superior, older educational standards that they used to?" and i answer "nee" (NO, just in case .. ) did i agree?

 

so again, what's proven, what's the point?

 

 

And once again, there is no "modern" standard, merely high or low. The older standard was higher than our current standard, so it is desirable.

and again, i (read it from my virtual lips) N.E.V.E.R. used the term "modern standard". again? ok. i (read it from my virtual lips) N.E.V.E.R. used the term "modern standard". and please. before you start again. look above. wait don't look i'll quote what i said above

jones said a short short time ago:

that sentence clearly says "we need NEW STANDARDS regarding to MODERN TIME ISSUES." - nee (no), new standards, that's definitly differen from old standards conformity or any use of the term modern standards, so what's proven? do you really try to say "new standards regarding to moderm time issues" is exactly the same wording as "modern standards"? prrf. again. i did not use the term "modern standards".

and just in case: i never said "modern standard".

 

 

oh, and.. if i get this right, you are saying there is NO "modern standard" but HIGH and LOW ones, but there was/is an OLD standard which is higher than the current.

(and don't say you didn't)

 

BUT, which one is the current if not the modern, regarding to the fact that the actual, modern standard just is crap?

 

You still don't get it...

... i still know very well what's your point.

 

Lol. Abstraction is one thing, mate, but your butchery of the English language is quite another. You might as well use the word "banana" in place of "accept" for all the sense it makes in context, and for all the understanding you have of its meaning.

i did not use another word like yellow for describing the cold winter nor did i say "banana changes" what would make monkeys sad.

i was using the word 'accept' in a wider context than your book defines, but still within an acceptable meaning. that is where abstraction comes into play.

 

You won't find that definition of "defensive" in any dictionary, my friend. You should try utilising a nice fat English dictionary sometime.

dude, why kill trees? there are countless online dictionaries and be sure i use them. how am i supposed to know words like 'quibbling'? i never had to use it before this thread. well.. at least in english. ;

[toms]

my head hurts.....

 

Things need to change, but they need to change to reflect the modern world... not change back to "the way they used to be" just because people remember it being "better when i was a lad".

 

Is my post to short? I'll pad it out with some binary:

1101111000100001010100000001001001010110100010

101000100001001010

1010100001

010110000

111111101

 

1100101

[Ray Jones]

 

now, anyone who says i just should have said it as simple as toms did, is right. including the binaries, of course.

 

hey, sir, this one is on me.

*throws an aspirin*

[Spider AL]

clearly a hint that i was not addressing certain issues. maybe i was going to build up an argument.

"Build up" an argument? This is a forum, not IRC. You can encapsulate an argument into a single post, you don't have to lay any separate groundwork with a post unconnected to the argument at hand! No, obviously you were referring to "ignorance".

 

none of this implies in the least you/we should accept the changes in the school system for good NOR that i was addressing those.

The implication is obvious. And since it was in response to MY post regarding educational issues facing our children today, which was itself a reply to your earlier post implying that I and the others were merely nostalgic regarding the ignorance of our children... OF COURSE IT WAS ADDRESSING THOSE.

 

You're just trying to weasel out of it, not very effectively.

 

i did not use another word like yellow for describing the cold winter nor did i say "banana changes" what would make monkeys sad.

Your English tutor and I need to have a little chat.

 

i was using the word 'accept' in a wider context than your book defines, but still within an acceptable meaning. that is where abstraction comes into play.

What nonsense. If you use a word outside its definition, you take away its meaning altogether. In fact, your error was in phrasing RESULTING in the word being out of place, but that's beside the point.

 

??? that sentence clearly says "we need NEW STANDARDS regarding to MODERN TIME ISSUES." - nee (no), new standards, that's definitly different from old standards conformity or any use of the term modern standards, so what's proven?

What's proven:

 

Older standards = higher than now. So returning to that standard (higher) is desirable.

 

You said that we do NOT want to return to older standards. You said we need some sort of "new" standard. Therefore you were saying that returning to the older (higher) standard is undesirable.

 

But as I pointed out, standards are either high or low. You either want to have a high standard, or not. Therefore your argument made no sense. QED.

 

Thus, it is proven:

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Spider AL

"Build up" an argument? This is a forum, not IRC. You can encapsulate an argument into a single post, you don't have to lay any separate groundwork with a post unconnected to the argument at hand! No, obviously you were referring to "ignorance".

 

meh. i can post like i want to. at least within 'skinwalkers' ruls. and if i like to "build up" an argument, or whatever i do this. and if i tell you it is so then it is so. and if you don't get my meaning and i explain it again and again with "dozens" of argumentations then you really could say "ok, maybe he just expressed his thoughts in an 'unlucky' way" instead of calling me a liar without calling me a liar. i really despise this kind of behaviour. period.

 

so. i was not referring to ignorance. end of discussion.

 

The implication is obvious. And since it was in response to MY post regarding educational issues facing our children today, which was itself a reply to your earlier post implying that I and the others were merely nostalgic regarding the ignorance of our children... OF COURSE IT WAS ADDRESSING THOSE.[/Quote]

 

riiight. it was in response to your post. and of course to that small part:

".. people wheel out the Socrates as if to say that we're all just nostalgiamaniacs."

 

and it was rather addressing the fact that there are people who always say everything was better back in the days. that's why i also said something like

" i kind of get sick when i hear "i walked to school, without shoes, in december!" kind of stuff. yes, and i still know bw-tv-sets and 8-bit computers.

"

 

and the rest of my post wasn't even addressing you. and especially not "ignorance"

 

You're just trying to weasel out of it, not very effectively.

that is just a blatantly insolent statement of yours. did you ever had the thought that i just try to explain myself instead of trying to weasel out? i don't know which film your camera is recording, but it causes an attitude that is really disrespecting toward others.

 

Your English tutor and I need to have a little chat.

i invite you to proceed the discussion of that point in my language.

 

What nonsense. If you use a word outside its definition, you take away its meaning altogether. In fact, your error was in phrasing RESULTING in the word being out of place, but that's beside the point.

your whole "point" is beside the point.

 

What's proven:

 

Older standards = higher than now. So returning to that standard (higher) is desirable.

 

You said that we do NOT want to return to older standards. You said we need some sort of "new" standard. Therefore you were saying that returning to the older (higher) standard is undesirable.

papperlapapp. REQUIRED standard > older standard > actual standard. maybe that equation makes you understand my point.

 

But as I pointed out, standards are either high or low. You either want to have a high standard, or not. Therefore your argument made no sense. QED.

i said more than once i want a standard HIGHER than ever before. i think you're clever enough to see that this IMPLIES an higher standard than now AND than it WAS. and that makes very well sense.

so you, sire, start to make no sense if you continue to ignore my words. do i smell a weasel?