 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4008
|
(Msg. 61) Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:45 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 11:43 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> well?
>>
>> >> Kenneth Clifton
>> >> christiansuperhero.com
Message-ID:
<42bd4a25-7e25-4fc2-9bbe-00582c960a2e.RemoveThis@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 06:32:43 -0800 (PST)
>>
>> >well?
>>
>> >Kenneth Clifton
>> >christiansuperhero.com
Message-ID:
<4df3e5f7-cd4e-40b3-8007-72ee76f13ce5.RemoveThis@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 07:27:45 -0800 (PST)
>> An hour and a half after the prior post!
Obviously I misread the time. It was 55 minutes between your two
attempts to dive into that deep subject, a bit less than an hour and a
half.
And there still isn't anything worth a more serious answer than I
gave.
>> How could I be so sinful as
>> to not be at my computer answering you the moment you post your raving
>> idiocies?
>>
>> Repeatedly asking that deep question that would be over your head will
>> not get you a different answer.
>
>Try a day and a half.
Your headers prove you wrong. 55 minutes, loser.
(oh, and I went looking for the original message before you asked the
deep question
Message-ID:
<1955be8b-67c3-4646-ac7d-dfc9d59e1ea1.RemoveThis@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:58:24 -0800 (PST)
23 hours and 34 minutes, which is still less than a day.
1. Usenet can take more than a day to propagate
2. Sometimes messages don't make it at all to particular newsservers
or are weeded out by filters
3. Most people don't read Usenet every day.
4. Even fewer people see something worth replying to in every post on
a newsgroup. And you never post anything worth replying to. I do it
only when I want to waste time (and/or entertain cary %^) or possibly
when I see a way to promote intelligence on the net in spite of your
post. (Thus the INTELLIGENT reader of this post will know that one
should not expect a reply to any particular post, and shouldn't jump
to any conclusions about whether there will be a reply until at least
several days have passed.)
lojbab |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4008
|
(Msg. 62) Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:48 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Come on, Bob. Don't chicken out, now...you said no one should blame
>right after blaming a whole list of people...right?
If one blames everyone, then one has in fact blamed no one. My post
that you responded to was an attempt to show that everyone shares in
the blame, therefore there is utterly no reason to spend time figuring
out who is to blame.
Actually it is USUALLY not worth while figuring out who is to blame.
lojbab |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4008
|
(Msg. 63) Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:53 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 11:46 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 1, 8:16 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 30, 6:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >An impeachment would follow the statement, not stop it.
>>
>> >> >> Duh. Firing the teacher would follow the statement too. There is
>> >> >> nothing other than the threat of losing job or going to court to stop
>> >> >> a teacher.
>>
>> >> >And...I'm not the one who said impeachment would stop the statement. I
>> >> >guess you are changing your mind, again.
>>
>> >> You again show that you cannot read:
>> >> <Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress had the will to
>> >> <do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in the
>> >> <Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution.
>>
>> >> I clearly said nothing about stopping statements. I mentioned
>> >> stopping Presidents.
>>
>> >This quote of yours validates both this point and the point below that
>> >I made...
>>
>> >My words in this thread: "The Presidents (both parties) can speak
>> >religion in official speeches and documents but teachers cannot?"
>>
>> >Your response: "Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress
>> >had the will to do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in
>> >the Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution."
>>
>> >Care to retract your claim that you didn't give impeachment as a means
>> >to stop statements?
>>
>> No.
>
>You clearly gave it as a means of stopping the statements
I clearly did not. You clearly don't understand the English language.
>> >> I clearly said nothing about stopping statements. I mentioned
>> >> stopping Presidents.
You have this funny idea that my replies for you necessarily are
limited to what you said. I said what I meant, not what you
interpreted it to mean.
>> >> >but
>> >> >claim schools are the government NOT being explicitly in the
>> >> >Constitution.
>>
>> >> But they ARE effectively in the constitution under the 10th amendment.
>> >> States have the power to set up education systems, if the people want
>> >> them to, and that is the case in all states.
>>
>> >> The Federal government has the power to set up schools in DC and in US
>> >> territories and in support of the military outside the US.
>>
>> >Above, you claim teachers are not mentioned in the constitution.
>>
>> They aren't.
>>
>> >Here, you claim they are in the 10th amendment.
>>
>> No. I do not.
>>
>> lojbab
>
>Your words...
>"But they ARE effectively in the constitution under the 10th
>amendment"
Please identify the referent of the pronoun "they" in that sentence.
Hint: it was NOT "teachers".
>Want to try again?
Want to start answering questions rather than asking more stupid
questions?
lojbab >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4008
|
(Msg. 64) Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:56 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 11:47 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How dare he not pay for the social security of others....oh, wait..it
>> >didn't exist, then.
>>
>> You are free to go to some other country that does not provide social
>> security. We won't miss you.
>>
>> lojbab
>
>And that has to do with your claim that the same percentage saved up
>for their kids in the past and the present (regardless of the creation
>of Social Security)...how, exactly?
Why would anyone thing that my remark had something to do with some
other remark that I may have made, which was utterly irrelevant to
this remark.
lojbab >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 2804
|
(Msg. 65) Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:20 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <d09ee5f2-0d49-4ec5-b3fd-8f257d016407.TakeThisOut@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Nov 30, 7:30 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> > Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Nov 29, 9:27 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> > >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >On Nov 29, 1:03 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> > >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Nov 28, 10:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> That the tax rate needs to be higher in order to maintain the
> > >> >> >> >> government services that "we the people" want is patently obvious to
> > >> >> >> >> anyone but a "tax cut and spend" Republican. The irresponsibility is
> > >> >> >> >> to cut taxes anyway. And the whole generation is not to be held
> > >> >> >> >> responsible for the idiocy of people like YOU.
> >
> > >> >> >> >The Social Security system was known to be deficient before Reagan
> > >> >> >> >came to power, but that is irrelevant, since I said BOTH parties of
> > >> >> >> >this generation failed their kids and neither did anything to fix it.
> > >> >> >> >Further, since they knew it was coming, why didn't the Irresponsible
> > >> >> >> >Generation save money up in a saving account or investments for their
> > >> >> >> >expenses.
> >
> > >> >> >> Why should they?
> >
> > >> >> >> >You can keep spinning this all you want, but..in the end...it used to
> > >> >> >> >be that parents saved up an inheritance for their kids,
> >
> > >> >> >> Myth. SOME parents did, and some still do. But far more often than
> > >> >> >> today, parents died before the kids reached adulthood, parents had so
> > >> >> >> many kids that their inheritance was split so many ways that it wasn't
> > >> >> >> worth much, and most of the time the savings lost ground against
> > >> >> >> inflation because it wasn't invested in anything that would gain in
> > >> >> >> value. And since there was no social security, when the parents lived
> > >> >> >> into old age, they drained their savings down to zippo rapidly,
> > >> >> >> whereupon the kids had to support them.
> >
> > >> >> >You DO understand that AVERAGE life span is an AVERAGE...right,
> > >> >> >factoring in all the children and others that died from disease?
> >
> > >> >> Duh.
> >
> > >> >> You did see the word "SOME" that I used in that paragraph, and even
> > >> >> capitalized, didn't you?
> >
> > >> >DUH. What's your point, then, considering that SOME individuals die
> > >> >at any age of the lifespan?
> >
> > >> My point, as usual, is that you are an idiot who can't read properly
> > >> and who doesn't know what he is talking about, but you'll keep
> > >> blathering anyway.
> >
> > >> YOU made the claim "it used to be that parents saved up an inheritance
> > >> for their kids" and that was no more true THEN than it is NOW. Indeed
> > >> it is probably less true.
> >
> > >I guess I misunderstood
> >
> > That isn't a guess; that is a certainty.
> >
> > >your claim that the shorter lifespan of earlier generations excused them from an inheritance
> >
> > I made no such claim, especially since the sentence makes no sense.
> > How does one "excuse [someone] from an inheritance"?
> >
> > >to be a claim that there was a shorter lifespan in earlier generations (I guess
> > >foundations need not be true).
> >
> > There WAS a shorter average lifespan in earlier generations.
> > 1) there was a VERY high infant mortality
> > 2) diseases that we now control like smallpox, took a constant toll
> > throughout life
> > 3) a significant percentage of women died in or as a result of
> > childbirth.
> > Despite this, there were still a goodly number who were not felled
> > along the way and who therefore lived into their 70s, 80s or even
> > beyond. My brother in law has a number of centenarians in his
> > ancestry (though he'll be very lucky to live to age 60 himself).
> >
> > What I said, for those who choose not to read all the quote above:
> >
> > >> Myth. SOME parents did, and some still do [save up an inheritance for their kids]. But far more often than
> > >> today, parents died before the kids reached adulthood, parents had so
> > >> many kids that their inheritance was split so many ways that it wasn't
> > >> worth much, and most of the time the savings lost ground against
> > >> inflation because it wasn't invested in anything that would gain in
> > >> value. And since there was no social security, when the parents lived
> > >> into old age, they drained their savings down to zippo rapidly,
> > >> whereupon the kids had to support them.
> >
> > In other words, there is no reason to believe that people back then
> > saved money or provided inheritances to their kids more than they do
> > today.
> >
> > lojbab
>
> You MUST be right, Bob. People are just as likely to horde their
> money for their kids, today, as they used to be
Oh, I'm sure you can easily find the numbers to refute
Bob's claims.
If yours are true, that is.
Go for it!
-- cary >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 2804
|
(Msg. 66) Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:24 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org>
>
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> well?
> >>
> >> Kenneth Clifton
> >> christiansuperhero.com
> >
> >well?
> >
> >Kenneth Clifton
> >christiansuperhero.com
>
> An hour and a half after the prior post! How could I be so sinful as
> to not be at my computer answering you the moment you post your raving
> idiocies?
" `Excitable boy', they all said"
-- W Zevon
-- cary >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 29
|
(Msg. 67) Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:05 am
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Dec 1, 8:45 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 1, 11:43 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> well?
>
> >> >> Kenneth Clifton
> >> >> christiansuperhero.com
>
> Message-ID:
> <42bd4a25-7e25-4fc2-9bbe-00582c960... DeleteThis @n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 06:32:43 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
> >> >well?
>
> >> >Kenneth Clifton
> >> >christiansuperhero.com
>
> Message-ID:
> <4df3e5f7-cd4e-40b3-8007-72ee76f13... DeleteThis @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 07:27:45 -0800 (PST)
>
> >> An hour and a half after the prior post!
>
> Obviously I misread the time. It was 55 minutes between your two
> attempts to dive into that deep subject, a bit less than an hour and a
> half.
>
> And there still isn't anything worth a more serious answer than I
> gave.
>
> >> How could I be so sinful as
> >> to not be at my computer answering you the moment you post your raving
> >> idiocies?
>
> >> Repeatedly asking that deep question that would be over your head will
> >> not get you a different answer.
>
> >Try a day and a half.
>
> Your headers prove you wrong. 55 minutes, loser.
>
> (oh, and I went looking for the original message before you asked the
> deep question
> Message-ID:
> <1955be8b-67c3-4646-ac7d-dfc9d59e1... DeleteThis @e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:58:24 -0800 (PST)
>
> 23 hours and 34 minutes, which is still less than a day.
>
> 1. Usenet can take more than a day to propagate
> 2. Sometimes messages don't make it at all to particular newsservers
> or are weeded out by filters
> 3. Most people don't read Usenet every day.
> 4. Even fewer people see something worth replying to in every post on
> a newsgroup. And you never post anything worth replying to. I do it
> only when I want to waste time (and/or entertain cary %^) or possibly
> when I see a way to promote intelligence on the net in spite of your
> post. (Thus the INTELLIGENT reader of this post will know that one
> should not expect a reply to any particular post, and shouldn't jump
> to any conclusions about whether there will be a reply until at least
> several days have passed.)
>
> lojbab
How long was your post after my quote of your blame-naming...not after
the last "well?" post of mine.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 29
|
(Msg. 68) Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:07 am
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Dec 1, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Come on, Bob. Don't chicken out, now...you said no one should blame
> >right after blaming a whole list of people...right?
>
> If one blames everyone, then one has in fact blamed no one. My post
> that you responded to was an attempt to show that everyone shares in
> the blame, therefore there is utterly no reason to spend time figuring
> out who is to blame.
>
> Actually it is USUALLY not worth while figuring out who is to blame.
>
> lojbab
Now, you are changing your own words. I asked you if you were saying
that no one is to blame for this broken system, and your EXACT
response was "correct." Now, you say everyone is to blame. Make up
your mind.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 29
|
(Msg. 69) Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:09 am
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Dec 1, 8:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 1, 11:46 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 1, 8:16 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Nov 30, 6:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >An impeachment would follow the statement, not stop it.
>
> >> >> >> Duh. Firing the teacher would follow the statement too. There is
> >> >> >> nothing other than the threat of losing job or going to court to stop
> >> >> >> a teacher.
>
> >> >> >And...I'm not the one who said impeachment would stop the statement. I
> >> >> >guess you are changing your mind, again.
>
> >> >> You again show that you cannot read:
> >> >> <Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress had the will to
> >> >> <do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in the
> >> >> <Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution.
>
> >> >> I clearly said nothing about stopping statements. I mentioned
> >> >> stopping Presidents.
>
> >> >This quote of yours validates both this point and the point below that
> >> >I made...
>
> >> >My words in this thread: "The Presidents (both parties) can speak
> >> >religion in official speeches and documents but teachers cannot?"
>
> >> >Your response: "Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress
> >> >had the will to do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in
> >> >the Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution."
>
> >> >Care to retract your claim that you didn't give impeachment as a means
> >> >to stop statements?
>
> >> No.
>
> >You clearly gave it as a means of stopping the statements
>
> I clearly did not. You clearly don't understand the English language.
>
> >> >> I clearly said nothing about stopping statements. I mentioned
> >> >> stopping Presidents.
>
> You have this funny idea that my replies for you necessarily are
> limited to what you said. I said what I meant, not what you
> interpreted it to mean.
>
>
>
> >> >> >but
> >> >> >claim schools are the government NOT being explicitly in the
> >> >> >Constitution.
>
> >> >> But they ARE effectively in the constitution under the 10th amendment.
> >> >> States have the power to set up education systems, if the people want
> >> >> them to, and that is the case in all states.
>
> >> >> The Federal government has the power to set up schools in DC and in US
> >> >> territories and in support of the military outside the US.
>
> >> >Above, you claim teachers are not mentioned in the constitution.
>
> >> They aren't.
>
> >> >Here, you claim they are in the 10th amendment.
>
> >> No. I do not.
>
> >> lojbab
>
> >Your words...
> >"But they ARE effectively in the constitution under the 10th
> >amendment"
>
> Please identify the referent of the pronoun "they" in that sentence.
> Hint: it was NOT "teachers".
>
Ok. You said schools are in the constitution and teachers are not.
Got it. So, teachers are not limited by the establishment
clause...only schools.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4008
|
(Msg. 70) Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:41 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Come on, Bob. Don't chicken out, now...you said no one should blame
>> >right after blaming a whole list of people...right?
>>
>> If one blames everyone, then one has in fact blamed no one. My post
>> that you responded to was an attempt to show that everyone shares in
>> the blame, therefore there is utterly no reason to spend time figuring
>> out who is to blame.
>>
>> Actually it is USUALLY not worth while figuring out who is to blame.
>
>Now, you are changing your own words.
Not in the least. I am pointing out that I was making fun of your
attempt to point blame by showing that everyone is to blame, and
therefore pointing fingers is as much nonsense as everything else you
post.
>I asked you if you were saying
>that no one is to blame for this broken system, and your EXACT
>response was "correct." Now, you say everyone is to blame.
They are equivalent answers, dodo.
lojbab >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4008
|
(Msg. 71) Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:43 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ok. You said schools are in the constitution
You keep ignoring that word "effectively".
>and teachers are not.
I did not say that. I did not mention teachers at all.
>Got it.
You got nothing.
>So, teachers are not limited by the establishment
>clause...only schools.
Teachers who aren't associated with public schools are not limited by
the establishment clause. Nor are schools not associated with the
government.
lojbab >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 29
|
(Msg. 72) Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:13 am
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Dec 2, 12:41 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 1, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Come on, Bob. Don't chicken out, now...you said no one should blame
> >> >right after blaming a whole list of people...right?
>
> >> If one blames everyone, then one has in fact blamed no one. My post
> >> that you responded to was an attempt to show that everyone shares in
> >> the blame, therefore there is utterly no reason to spend time figuring
> >> out who is to blame.
>
> >> Actually it is USUALLY not worth while figuring out who is to blame.
>
> >Now, you are changing your own words.
>
> Not in the least. I am pointing out that I was making fun of your
> attempt to point blame by showing that everyone is to blame, and
> therefore pointing fingers is as much nonsense as everything else you
> post.
>
> >I asked you if you were saying
> >that no one is to blame for this broken system, and your EXACT
> >response was "correct." Now, you say everyone is to blame.
>
> They are equivalent answers, dodo.
>
> lojbab
No one is to blame=everyone is to blame....really? That's the same?
So, if I say that no one voted for Al Gore, I would be saying that
everyone did?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 29
|
(Msg. 73) Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:20 am
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Dec 2, 12:43 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Ok. You said schools are in the constitution
>
> You keep ignoring that word "effectively".
>
> >and teachers are not.
>
> I did not say that. I did not mention teachers at all.
>
Your words..."Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution."
Care to revise your answer?
> >Got it.
>
> You got nothing.
>
> >So, teachers are not limited by the establishment
> >clause...only schools.
>
> Teachers who aren't associated with public schools are not limited by
> the establishment clause. Nor are schools not associated with the
> government.
>
> lojbab
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 30, 2007
Posts: 7
|
(Msg. 74) Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:31 am
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Dec 3, 12:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No one is to blame=everyone is to blame....really?
>
> It doesn't work in reverse. Everyone is to blame -> No one is to
> blame, not vice versa.
>
> >So, if I say that no one voted for Al Gore, I would be saying that
> >everyone did?
>
> Has nothing to do with "blame".
>
> lojbab
It has to do with how you phrased it. However, if I said everyone is
a human, am I saying no one is a human? How about if I said everyone
is to blame for the recent successes of No Child Left Behind? Am I
saying that no one is to blame for it? Or, if I said everyone is to
blame for world hunger, am I saying no one is to blame for it? Or,
does your own logic only apply to yourself?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4008
|
(Msg. 75) Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:13 pm
Post subject: Re: The Irresponsible Generation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No one is to blame=everyone is to blame....really?
It doesn't work in reverse. Everyone is to blame -> No one is to
blame, not vice versa.
>So, if I say that no one voted for Al Gore, I would be saying that
>everyone did?
Has nothing to do with "blame".
lojbab >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
