Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Paul - 08 Jan 2004 06:48 GMT
http://archive.thebrunswicknews.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=./pubfiles/tb
n/archive/2004/January/06/Frontpage/33118.xml&start=0&numPer=20&keyword=&section
Search=Frontpage&begindate=1%2F1%2F2001&enddate=12%2F31%2F2005&authorSearch=&Inc
ludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=1&IncludeImages=1&mode=allwords&arc
hive_pubname=The+Brunswick+News%0A%09%09%09


Hopefully the link above works, I found this while cruising the web. Not two
weeks after christmas and two children in this sleepy little town have
already been hit by cars while riding scooters that their best friends
(parents) indulged them with this holiday season.

IMO, these parents should be held civilly and criminally liable for the
damage to the vehicles that these children of theirs caused.

I have witnessed these children on numerous occasions lately breaking nearly
every traffic law imaginable except for speeding on these things - which I
assume these scooters are not capable of. Among the violations and/or
dangerous acts I have seen my self include disregard for traffic signals,
disregard for stop signs, riding on sidewalks, riding on the wrong side of
the road and darting in and out of traffic and otherwise acting in an
unpredictable manner. Also, (atleast in GA), these kids are violating the
law simply by taking these scooters on public rights of way since they must
be at least 15 years of age to operate one off private property and they
must also have a DL or Learner's Permit.

It would be nice if the police would start to crack down on these idiot
kids - hitting their parents in the pocketbook would be a good start.

<rant off>

--
Paul
Jon Walters - 08 Jan 2004 06:05 GMT
> http://archive.thebrunswicknews.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=./pubfiles/tb
n/archive/2004/January/06/Frontpage/33118.xml&start=0&numPer=20&keyword=&section
Search=Frontpage&begindate=1%2F1%2F2001&enddate=12%2F31%2F2005&authorSearch=&Inc
ludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=1&IncludeImages=1&mode=allwords&arc
hive_pubname=The+Brunswick+News%0A%09%09%09

>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> --
> Paul

First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
wait until it melts before I pay that much.

About 7-8 teens (12-15) received these motor cycles/scooters
this Christmas and they ride (speed) up and down the street
and don't even use helmets! The law here requires helmets
for bicycles so you'd think the parents would demand they
wear them .... but they (kids) always get "their way" but
this will change when one of them is seriously hurt! They even
ride through this neighborhood at night with no lights attached
to their motor cycles. Where are the parents?

Jon
Cathy Weeks - 08 Jan 2004 15:21 GMT
> First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
> and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
> right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
> wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
> told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
> wait until it melts before I pay that much.

Ah, so you think just because he's 13, he ought to do it for less than
an amount that he considers worth his time?  He doesn't owe you
service.  The only thing I can think of is that he might not have been
polite, and that's the only thing that he might have done wrong.  But,
I've seen people like you grump over the polite ones, too.

Shoveling snow is hard work, and it's no fun.  And if you contract
with an agency that does stuff like that, they charge $75.  So you
should either pay up or shut up and do it yourself.

I've heard this so many time before...old codgers who think the
neighbor kids owe them labor for cheap.  And for whatever reason, it's
always over shoveling snow.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
Beth Kevles - 08 Jan 2004 15:44 GMT
My grandmother's neighbor used to shovel her snow for her every winter,
a pretty big job where she lived!  She commented one year that she could
tell he was growing up, because he still shoveled her snow but no longer
charged her for it.  I think he started shoveling for her when he was
about 10 or 11, and stopped charging when he was about 16 or so.

Kids do need a way to earn money when they're too young to take a
regular job.  ANd I've always thought hard physical labor was worth
paying for, if done well.

If your 13 year old neighbor seems to be charging too much, look at how
much walkway you have to get cleared.  Consider how long it ought to
take him to do a good job, and in your own head work out a fair hourly
rate.  Then negotiate, and include both how much you think the job is
worth, and what the job specifically entails.  Do you want just a narrow
path, or the full walkway uncovered?  Does it include the full sidewalk
in front of your property as well as the walkway?  A walkway to the back
or garage?  The driveway?  Does he put out salt or dirt as well?  For
labor of this demanding nature, we figure on a wage equivalent to $7 or
$8 per hour with a $10 minimum.

So given all that, was $40 really out of line?  If only by a little,
perhaps you could work on teaching the child how to negotiate, and throw
in some hot apple cider on completion.

Just my thoughts,
--Beth Kevles
 bethkevles@aol.com
 http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
 Disclaimer:  Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
 advice.  Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE:  No email is read at my MIT address.  Use the AOL one if you would
like me to reply.
Cathy Weeks - 08 Jan 2004 19:34 GMT
> For
> labor of this demanding nature, we figure on a wage equivalent to $7 or
> $8 per hour with a $10 minimum.

That seems low to me. I'm thinking back to that "mother of all
snowstorms" that hit the east coast about a year ago. Here in NJ we
got two feet of snow.  We dug out only one of our cars and the bare
minimum of driveway and a path to the door (only about 5 feet of
path).  This is actually a very small area (our front door is RIGHT by
our driveway, and our house is VERY close to the road).  The job took
hours (4 or so).  If I could have paid someone $25 per hour I would
have HAPPILY paid the $100 (or perhaps more).  I was stiff and sore
for days after that job.

But it is still the case that everyone values their time differently,
and as long as the teen wasn't rude, the man shouldn't be insulted
about "today's kids" because the kid wouldn't do it for less than $40.

By the way, *I* might shovel someone's snow for free (if they were
friends, and were unable to do it) but I wouldn't take on a shoveling
*job* for $10 (unless it were quick and easy).

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
Brent P - 08 Jan 2004 20:37 GMT
> minimum of driveway and a path to the door (only about 5 feet of
> path).  This is actually a very small area (our front door is RIGHT by
> our driveway, and our house is VERY close to the road).  The job took
> hours (4 or so).  If I could have paid someone $25 per hour I would
> have HAPPILY paid the $100 (or perhaps more).  I was stiff and sore
> for days after that job.

As I have learned in chicago blizzards is to go out in the snow as
it's falling and shovel low depths often. The last one we had in 99 (I
think) I went out and shoveled every couple-three hours. Annoying yes,
but I didn't have my cars burried like the neighbors did. It's just
easier to take care of it in small bites.
The Lindbergh Baby - 14 Jan 2004 02:20 GMT
> As I have learned in chicago blizzards is to go out in the snow as
> it's falling and shovel low depths often. The last one we had in 99 (I
> think) I went out and shoveled every couple-three hours. Annoying yes,
> but I didn't have my cars burried like the neighbors did. It's just
> easier to take care of it in small bites.

I just moved to California!   :-)  Problem solved.

John

Signature

To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address

Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen.  --Beethoven

caroldeans - 15 Jan 2004 12:14 GMT
> > As I have learned in chicago blizzards is to go out in the snow as
> > it's falling and shovel low depths often. The last one we had in 99 (I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> John

I get my kids to shovel the snow
Mike Helm - 09 Jan 2004 01:14 GMT
On 8 Jan 2004 11:34:11 -0800, kathyspam@weeksfamily.net (Cathy Weeks)

>> For
>> labor of this demanding nature, we figure on a wage equivalent to $7 or
>> $8 per hour with a $10 minimum.
>
>That seems low to me. I'm thinking back to that "mother of all
>snowstorms" that hit the east coast about a year ago.

Think of a typical snowfall instead.  Obviously you'd charge more to
shovel 2 feet of snow than to shovel 4 inches.  When it snows where I'm
from, nobody shovels anything - we don't have snow shovels and the city
doesn't have plows.  Of course, it all melts in about an hour, so it's
no big deal.

During the '80s, I got $20 to mow the yard, which of course includes
edging, sweeping the pavement, and it was a big yard.  I can't imagine
shoveling 4 inches of snow off of someone's front walk would be even
half as large of a job.  Half the job, half the price and I'd generously
double the money to make up for increases in the cost of living.  

> Here in NJ we
>got two feet of snow.  We dug out only one of our cars and the bare
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>friends, and were unable to do it) but I wouldn't take on a shoveling
>*job* for $10 (unless it were quick and easy).

Yeah, but you're probably not a teenager without a regular job either,
are you?

>Cathy Weeks
>Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
Banty - 09 Jan 2004 01:22 GMT
>On 8 Jan 2004 11:34:11 -0800, kathyspam@weeksfamily.net (Cathy Weeks)

>>By the way, *I* might shovel someone's snow for free (if they were
>>friends, and were unable to do it) but I wouldn't take on a shoveling
>>*job* for $10 (unless it were quick and easy).
>
>Yeah, but you're probably not a teenager without a regular job either,
>are you?

She's not an aerospace engineer laid off after a contract is lost either, but
what's the point?

Banty
Scott in Aztl?n - 09 Jan 2004 03:07 GMT
>>>By the way, *I* might shovel someone's snow for free (if they were
>>>friends, and were unable to do it) but I wouldn't take on a shoveling
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>She's not an aerospace engineer laid off after a contract is lost either, but
>what's the point?

The point is adults with marketable skills rightly value their time more highly
than a 13-year-old kid with no marketable skills.

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

P. Tierney - 09 Jan 2004 03:18 GMT
> >>>By the way, *I* might shovel someone's snow for free (if they were
> >>>friends, and were unable to do it) but I wouldn't take on a shoveling
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> The point is adults with marketable skills rightly value their time more highly
> than a 13-year-old kid with no marketable skills.

   Though perhaps some 13 year old kids value their time more
highly than $10.  Nothing wrong with that.

                                                           P. Tierney
Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 11:32 GMT
"P. Tierney" <silviomossa@insightbb.com> wrote in news:T3pLb.2825$sv6.10011
@attbi_s52:

>     Though perhaps some 13 year old kids value their time more
> highly than $10.  Nothing wrong with that.

No sh.t.  You can't buy a decent piece of rock for that much.

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Scott in Aztl?n - 09 Jan 2004 16:18 GMT
>    Though perhaps some 13 year old kids value their time more
>highly than $10.  Nothing wrong with that.

You can value your time at $1 Billion/hour if you want. That doesn't mean it's a
realistic price WRT the market. You're right, there's nothing wrong with that;
the market is self-correcting in that respect. If there are others who wil do
the job at $10/hour, the $80/hour kid is going to have a lot of free time for
his PlayStation 2...

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Brandon Sommerville - 09 Jan 2004 17:23 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:18:50 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>    Though perhaps some 13 year old kids value their time more
>>highly than $10.  Nothing wrong with that.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>the job at $10/hour, the $80/hour kid is going to have a lot of free time for
>his PlayStation 2...

Maybe he'd rather be playing Playstation?  That's a good way of
telling his parents that he looked for work but no one was interested.
Signature

Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Banty - 09 Jan 2004 17:33 GMT
>>    Though perhaps some 13 year old kids value their time more
>>highly than $10.  Nothing wrong with that.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>the job at $10/hour, the $80/hour kid is going to have a lot of free time for
>his PlayStation 2...

Yeah, maybe that's what the kid wants.  Who knows?  Maybe was 7:00 pm, his back
was hurting, and he wanted to get himself, his shovel, and his wad of
hard-earned cash home for some rest and play on this PlayStation2 (oh the
horrors of it!)

Or maybe he's doing someone *else's* walk for the given price since that's the
market price.
Or maybe he's doing someone else's walk for a lower price, having learned a
lesson.
Or maybe he's doign someone else's walk for a lower price, releived that he
doesnt' have to have 'Jon' screaming at him while he does it (or whatever other
reason he purposely priced himself out).

The kid either got what he wants, or learns something.  I still wonder what the
heck the problem is.

Banty
P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 00:05 GMT
> >    Though perhaps some 13 year old kids value their time more
> >highly than $10.  Nothing wrong with that.
>
> You can value your time at $1 Billion/hour if you want. That doesn't mean it's a
> realistic price WRT the market. You're right, there's nothing wrong with that;
> the market is self-correcting in that respect.

   I agree.  But the poster seemed to think that the kid
should've accepted his price without question, and that's
what I disagree with.

                                                   P. Tierney
Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 06:08 GMT
>    I agree.  But the poster seemed to think that the kid
>should've accepted his price without question, and that's
>what I disagree with.

I don't understand how you and toto got that impression. To refresh our
memories, here's the quote again:

>First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
>and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
>right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
>wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
>told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
>wait until it melts before I pay that much.

To my mind,  Jon is saying he felt the kid's asking price was too high, he made
a counteroffer, and they could not come to terms so the kid left. Where's the
"bitching?" Where's the "demand" that the kid shovel his walk, or that the kid
accept his price? Frankly, I don't see any of this stuff.

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 06:50 GMT
> >    I agree.  But the poster seemed to think that the kid
> >should've accepted his price without question, and that's
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> "bitching?" Where's the "demand" that the kid shovel his walk, or that the kid
> accept his price? Frankly, I don't see any of this stuff.

   If he didn't expect the kid to adhere to his price, then why is
he complaining about it?  I wondered that from the beginning.
If the poster didn't expect to go along with his price, then he
didn't (unless I missed some posts) state what he did expect.
Thus leaving it up to the imagination.

P. Tierney

                                                           P. Tierney
Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 16:51 GMT
>> >    I agree.  But the poster seemed to think that the kid
>> >should've accepted his price without question, and that's
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>    If he didn't expect the kid to adhere to his price, then why is
>he complaining about it?

com·plaint    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (km-plnt)
n.

  1. An expression of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
  2. A cause or reason for complaining; a grievance.

Please quote the exact words that you consider to be the complaint.

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 21:00 GMT
> >> To my mind,  Jon is saying he felt the kid's asking price was too high, he
> >made
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Please quote the exact words that you consider to be the complaint.

   Let's start with the first word in this thread:  Rant.
Defined as, "To speak or write in a angry or violent manner".
Now, perhaps you interepret him to be writing in an
angry manner about an incident that satisfies him.
By my reading, he is dissatisfied with the incident,
and is complaining about it.  That is likely always the
case when someone openly professes to be "ranting"
about something.

   If not, then give your interpretation of the word
choice of the OP, "Rant", as it applies to his original
post.  I'd like to know how he is "ranting", but at the
same time, not complaining.

                                                       P. Tierney
Mike Helm - 10 Jan 2004 22:42 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:00:49 GMT, "P. Tierney"
<silviomossa@insightbb.com>

>"Scott in Aztlán" <slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>    Let's start with the first word in this thread:  Rant.

That's not what the guy expressing his displeasure at the kid said.

BFD - maybe he would have accepted a compromise price of $20.

>Defined as, "To speak or write in a angry or violent manner".
>Now, perhaps you interepret him to be writing in an
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>                                                        P. Tierney
P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 22:49 GMT
> >> >    If he didn't expect the kid to adhere to his price, then why is
> >> >he complaining about it?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> That's not what the guy expressing his displeasure at the kid said.

   He seemed to be joining right in.  Regardless, I'm wrong
in characterizing it as a "rant" or a "complaint", but what it
really was is that he "expressed his displeasure"?  What a
huge difference!

                                                   P. Tierney
Mike Helm - 11 Jan 2004 01:05 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:49:09 GMT, "P. Tierney"
<silviomossa@insightbb.com>

>> >> >    If he didn't expect the kid to adhere to his price, then why is
>> >> >he complaining about it?
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>really was is that he "expressed his displeasure"?  What a
>huge difference!

Well, the first guy admitted he was ranting.  The second guys remarks
could be characterized as a "complaint", IMO.  I was bending over
backwards not to say "complaint".

>                                                    P. Tierney
P. Tierney - 11 Jan 2004 06:18 GMT
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:49:09 GMT, "P. Tierney"
> <silviomossa@insightbb.com>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> could be characterized as a "complaint", IMO.  I was bending over
> backwards not to say "complaint".

   Don't blame you.  BTW, the "first guy" didn't appear on
the newsgroup I'm reading.  Perhaps subsequent responses
were crossposted, but not the OP?  I don't know.  The post
about snowshoveling is the first one on the newsgroup
that I subscribe to.

                                                       P. Tierney
Mike Helm - 11 Jan 2004 15:20 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:18:45 GMT, "P. Tierney"
<silviomossa@insightbb.com>

>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:49:09 GMT, "P. Tierney"
>> <silviomossa@insightbb.com>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>the newsgroup I'm reading.  Perhaps subsequent responses
>were crossposted, but not the OP?  I don't know.

Actually, I just checked.  You're right.  Another sign that it was
simply a troll.

> The post
>about snowshoveling is the first one on the newsgroup
>that I subscribe to.
>
>                                                        P. Tierney
Banty - 11 Jan 2004 16:17 GMT
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:49:09 GMT, "P. Tierney"
>> <silviomossa@insightbb.com>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>                                                        P. Tierney

Actually, I think the snowshovelling was an aside - most of the post was a rant
about kids on scooters, hence the crossposting to the driving and motorcycle
'groups.  Amusing that the discussion centered on the snowshovelling.

If the OP/troll had just focussed on his scooter complaint, instead of revealing
himself as a curmudgeon by wingeing about snowshovelling not being done on his
terms, he might have done a better job of trolling.

Cheers,
Banty
Mike Helm - 11 Jan 2004 18:55 GMT
On 11 Jan 2004 08:17:11 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com>

>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:49:09 GMT, "P. Tierney"
>>> <silviomossa@insightbb.com>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>himself as a curmudgeon by wingeing about snowshovelling not being done on his
>terms, he might have done a better job of trolling.

Why do you say that - he got everyone talking about something.

>Cheers,
>Banty
Nan - 11 Jan 2004 19:14 GMT
>On 11 Jan 2004 08:17:11 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com>
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
>Why do you say that - he got everyone talking about something.

You don't really understand a good trolling job, do you.  Yes, he got
us talking/discussing something.  He *didn't* get us arguing and
getting upset over it.  Imo, it's been an informative discussion, and
I'm sure a few people walk away educated.
Well, a few got their boxers in a bunch, but they're certainly not
from the parenting group.

Nan
P. Tierney - 11 Jan 2004 21:37 GMT
> On 11 Jan 2004 08:17:11 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com>
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Why do you say that - he got everyone talking about something.

   What is the difference between a troll and a conversation starter?
The former tends to start discourse that completely lacks substance,
and/or just gets people flaming each other.  For the most part,
that has not been the case here.

                                                       P. Tierney
Mike Helm - 14 Jan 2004 02:37 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:37:07 GMT, "P. Tierney"
<silviomossa@insightbb.com>

>> On 11 Jan 2004 08:17:11 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>    What is the difference between a troll and a conversation starter?

A troll does it merely to see how big of a reaction he can get.

>The former tends to start discourse that completely lacks substance,
>and/or just gets people flaming each other.  For the most part,
>that has not been the case here.
>
>                                                        P. Tierney
toto - 14 Jan 2004 04:09 GMT
>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:37:07 GMT, "P. Tierney"
><silviomossa@insightbb.com>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>A troll does it merely to see how big of a reaction he can get.

<g>
http://www.cs.uu.nl/~gv/education/afstuderen/AltTrollFAQv02.txt

>>The former tends to start discourse that completely lacks substance,
>>and/or just gets people flaming each other.  For the most part,
>>that has not been the case here.
>>
>>                                                        P. Tierney

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 11 Jan 2004 01:42 GMT
>BFD - maybe he would have accepted a compromise price of $20.

Maybe the kid would have too.  We don't know and that isn't
the point.

Why does asking for $40 become overvaluing your labor?
Why does not accepting $10 become a sign of overindulgent
parents?

It doesn't connect.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Mike Helm - 11 Jan 2004 04:00 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:42:51 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>

>>BFD - maybe he would have accepted a compromise price of $20.
>
>Maybe the kid would have too.  We don't know and that isn't
>the point.
>
>Why does asking for $40 become overvaluing your labor?

Without knowing more details, we can't be sure in this case, but it
certainly could be overvaluing it.  If he could do it in a half-hour,
would you consider $40 a bit much?

>Why does not accepting $10 become a sign of overindulgent
>parents?

Same thing, basically.  Lots of kids would be glad to make $10.

>It doesn't connect.
Nan - 11 Jan 2004 04:07 GMT
>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:42:51 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>certainly could be overvaluing it.  If he could do it in a half-hour,
>would you consider $40 a bit much?

*IF* it was indeed a 15 minute or half hour job as some seem to think
it was, I'd say $40 is high.  However, several of us asked the OP to
clarify, and he's refused.  Tells me he's trolling.

Nan
Banty - 11 Jan 2004 16:22 GMT
>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:42:51 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>certainly could be overvaluing it.  If he could do it in a half-hour,
>would you consider $40 a bit much?

Possibly, even probably.  But, like you said, we dunno.

>>Why does not accepting $10 become a sign of overindulgent
>>parents?
>
>Same thing, basically.  Lots of kids would be glad to make $10.

First of all, how does this translate to a conclusion regarding parental style?
Like I've pointed out many times, this could be anything from a kid who didn't
know the market rate, to one knowingly pricing himself out of the job, to one
who *did* know what the job was worth and 'Jon' didn't value his labor according
to market.  We dunno.  But how this is supposed to reveal some parental
conversation or indoctrination concerning moving snow around sure beats me.

As to all those "lots of kids glad to make $10", 'Jon' could have hired one of
*those* kids, if they were running around looking for work.

>>It doesn't connect.

Sure doesn't.

Banty
Mike Helm - 11 Jan 2004 19:01 GMT
On 11 Jan 2004 08:22:24 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com>

>>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:42:51 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>First of all, how does this translate to a conclusion regarding parental style?

Same thing as with the first question.  "Without knowing more details,
we can't be sure in this case...."

>Like I've pointed out many times, this could be anything from a kid who didn't
>know the market rate,

quickly and easily learned.  If so, this was a learning experience for
the kid.

> to one knowingly pricing himself out of the job,

So he's intentionally trying to get out of work while pretending to look
for it?

> to one
>who *did* know what the job was worth and 'Jon' didn't value his labor according
>to market.  

Possibly

> We dunno.  But how this is supposed to reveal some parental
>conversation or indoctrination concerning moving snow around sure beats me.

It could - like I said, many kids would be glad to make even $10.  If
the parents have already given him that Playstation 2, a nice car, car
insurance, gas money, clothing, entertainment allowance, etc..., they
have made money so worthless to him, that he thinks he should be paid an
equivalent of $80 an hour to wield a shovel.

Again, that's not definitely known, but it is a possibility.

>As to all those "lots of kids glad to make $10", 'Jon' could have hired one of
>*those* kids, if they were running around looking for work.

Perhaps he ended up doing exactly that.

>>>It doesn't connect.
>
>Sure doesn't.
>
>Banty
toto - 12 Jan 2004 02:32 GMT
>> We dunno.  But how this is supposed to reveal some parental
>>conversation or indoctrination concerning moving snow around sure beats me.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Again, that's not definitely known, but it is a possibility.

It's an unlikely possibility.  Any kid who is given whatever he wants
in terms of money is most likely not going to be out looking to shovel
snow at all.  Why should he?  He already has what he needs without
doing the work.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 10 Jan 2004 16:03 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:08:58 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>    I agree.  But the poster seemed to think that the kid
>>should've accepted his price without question, and that's
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>"bitching?" Where's the "demand" that the kid shovel his walk, or that the kid
>accept his price? Frankly, I don't see any of this stuff.

***********
the kids of this generation are spoiled
and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
right and you are wrong ..

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
dragonlady - 10 Jan 2004 17:43 GMT
> >    I agree.  But the poster seemed to think that the kid
> >should've accepted his price without question, and that's
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> kid
> accept his price? Frankly, I don't see any of this stuff.

I see him calling the kids spoiled and his parents overindulgent because
he walked away.  It may not be a demand, but it is certainly critical of
the boy's decision.

meh
Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 21:06 GMT
> > >First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
> > >and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> he walked away.  It may not be a demand, but it is certainly critical of
> the boy's decision.

   Maybe.  But extending it to "the kids of this generation" is
the first and most major misstep his post.  There can be
many reasons why the kid walked away, some good, some
not.  But there isn't any reason to label a generation based
upon what happens on his street.

                                                           P. Tierney
Matthew Russotto - 11 Jan 2004 22:43 GMT
>>    I agree.  But the poster seemed to think that the kid
>>should've accepted his price without question, and that's
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>"bitching?" Where's the "demand" that the kid shovel his walk, or that the kid
>accept his price? Frankly, I don't see any of this stuff.

The "bitching" is in the first two sentences quoted.

Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Mike Helm - 10 Jan 2004 22:39 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:18:50 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com>

>>    Though perhaps some 13 year old kids value their time more
>>highly than $10.  Nothing wrong with that.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>the job at $10/hour, the $80/hour kid is going to have a lot of free time for
>his PlayStation 2...

Yeah, too bad he didn't have to earn the money to buy his PS2.
Nan - 09 Jan 2004 03:18 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:07:58 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>>>By the way, *I* might shovel someone's snow for free (if they were
>>>>friends, and were unable to do it) but I wouldn't take on a shoveling
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>The point is adults with marketable skills rightly value their time more highly
>than a 13-year-old kid with no marketable skills.

Huh??  I thought shovelling snow was "menial" and "mindless".

Nan
Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 11:30 GMT
> During the '80s, I got $20 to mow the yard, which of course includes
> edging, sweeping the pavement, and it was a big yard.

During the mid-80's I kept food in my belly by shoveling snow in the
winter and doing yard work in the summer and fall for $5 an hour.  Spring
was a very lean time for me.  Even though I got paid by the hour I
usually did 2 hour's worth of work in that 60 minutes...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Scott in Aztl?n - 09 Jan 2004 03:06 GMT
>> For
>> labor of this demanding nature, we figure on a wage equivalent to $7 or
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>have HAPPILY paid the $100 (or perhaps more).  I was stiff and sore
>for days after that job.

Let's see... You can pay Richie Rich to shovel your walk a couple of times, or
you can buy yourself a snowblower and never have to worry about it again.

Tough choice. :)

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Polarhound - 09 Jan 2004 04:10 GMT
> That seems low to me. I'm thinking back to that "mother of all
> snowstorms" that hit the east coast about a year ago. Here in NJ we
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> friends, and were unable to do it) but I wouldn't take on a shoveling
> *job* for $10 (unless it were quick and easy).

One of my new neighbors from 2 doors down (we just moved to this house
in August) not only does my neighbor's driveway, mows his lawn, rakes
his leaves (he is very old), every snowstorm so far this year he has
done MY driveway and sidewalk.  I never asked him to, and have yet to
catch up to him when he is around during my work schedule to thank him.
NZMSC - 14 Jan 2004 00:19 GMT
> That seems low to me. I'm thinking back to that "mother of all
> snowstorms" that hit the east coast about a year ago. Here in NJ we
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> have HAPPILY paid the $100 (or perhaps more).  I was stiff and sore
> for days after that job.

Well, Cathy, you will live in NJ.

Here in New Zealand most of the country never even sees any snow.

Just as well, I guess, otherwise we'd never be able to find the sheep...

--
Allan Kirk,
Megarider Organisation,
(Saving motorcyclists'  lives since 1971 )
www.megarider.com
Cathy Weeks - 14 Jan 2004 13:10 GMT
> > That seems low to me. I'm thinking back to that "mother of all
> > snowstorms" that hit the east coast about a year ago. Here in NJ we
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Just as well, I guess, otherwise we'd never be able to find the sheep...

Most of us here in the US can't conceive of even *that* much snow.
There are parts of the US that do get lots of snow, but most don't.
I'd never seen that much snow before, much less shoveled it.  Where I
grew up (in the midwest) it was rare to get even 8-10 inches of snow,
let alone 24.  Actually it was rare for this area too. It was the
biggest single snowfall in recorded history. The governor of NJ
declared a state of emergency and sent all non-essential workers and
children home early in the day - to keep the roads as clear as
possible so that emergency vehicles could get through.  The snow plows
were clearing the roads continuously for about 36 hours during and
after the storm.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
Banty - 14 Jan 2004 13:41 GMT
>> > That seems low to me. I'm thinking back to that "mother of all
>> > snowstorms" that hit the east coast about a year ago. Here in NJ we
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>Cathy Weeks
>Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

Wimps.    :-)

Banty (here in upstate NY)
Cathy Weeks - 14 Jan 2004 20:10 GMT
> >Most of us here in the US can't conceive of even *that* much snow.
> >There are parts of the US that do get lots of snow, but most don't.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Banty (here in upstate NY)

<laugh> Yeah, you WOULD be the exception.  Upstate New York does get a
lot of snow from what I see on the news reports.  I grew up in
Missouri, which didn't really get a lot of snow, but is cold as hell
in the winter.

It was pretty impressive though - people don't see "biggest single
snowfall in recorded history of area" very often!!

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
toto - 15 Jan 2004 00:20 GMT
>It was pretty impressive though - people don't see "biggest single
>snowfall in recorded history of area" very often!!

LOL.  I am an exception too.  Been through 2 of them in Chicago.
1967, 1979  - see my other post for a URL to a picture.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 15 Jan 2004 00:19 GMT
>> > That seems low to me. I'm thinking back to that "mother of all
>> > snowstorms" that hit the east coast about a year ago. Here in NJ we
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Most of us here in the US can't conceive of even *that* much snow.

Many, perhaps. Most, no. Anyone who lives on the east coast  - NJ
and NY gets quite a bit of snow as do points Northeast.  

>There are parts of the US that do get lots of snow, but most don't.
>I'd never seen that much snow before, much less shoveled it.  Where I
>grew up (in the midwest) it was rare to get even 8-10 inches of snow,
>let alone 24.  

Chicago has a snowstorm like that about once in every 10 years. <g>
I was here for both of these.  And for the -80 windchill we had
another winter.  In 1967, my car (VW bug) was buried in its parking
spot for a week or so.  In 1979, the idiotic snowplows came up our
l-shaped driveway instead of coming in from the West and going
down the slope and piled all the snow in front of our garage and
had to come back and dig it out with a backhoe.

Here's the 1967 storm.
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/snowstorms.html

1967, 1979: Major Snowstorms
Severe snowstorms are relatively frequent in Chicago
compared to Miami, but infrequent compared to Buffalo
and other points east. Chicago's snowstorm of the century
occurred in the winter of 1967. After unseasonably warm
temperatures, snow started falling at 5:02 a.m. Thursday
January 26. Snow continued to fall through Friday morning
for a total accumulation of 23 inches, with drifts to 6 feet.

Cold weather and periodic snowfalls over the next 10 days
created more havoc. Although trains continued to run, cars,
buses and planes didn't. Almost all schools, offices and
other work places were closed for several days. Commuters
unable to reach home spent several nights camped out in
downtown hotels, O'Hare International Airport and stranded
cars. The Department of Streets and Sanitation, which is
responsible for plowing streets, estimated that 75 million
tons of snow fell on Chicago. Some of it was sent south in
empty railcars as a present to Florida children who had
never seen snow before.

Large numbers of fatalities are relatively uncommon in
winter storms, but 60 deaths were attributed to the storm--
mostly heart attacks from shoveling snow. 273 looters
were arrested. One young girl was killed while police were
shooting at looters.

The Blizzard of 1979 started on Friday night January 12
and lasted until 2 a.m. Sunday January 14. On top of a 7-10
inch base left over from a New Year's Eve blizzard, 20.3
inches of new snow fell--setting a record for total snow on
the ground.

Transportation again came to a standstill for several days.
De-icing salt caused electrical motor failures on trains
running in expressway medians. These lines had all started
operation since 1968. Therefore, unlike previous storms,
rapid transit service, as well as buses, cars and planes
came to a halt. Aside from transportation problems, garbage
piled up, rats flourished and cemeteries delayed burials by
several weeks. Popular wisdom attributes the February 27
electorial defeat of Mayor Bilandic to the difficulties the city
had in dealing with the storm.

>Actually it was rare for this area too. It was the biggest single
>snowfall in recorded history. The governor of NJ declared a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> snow plows were clearing the roads continuously for about
>36 hours during and after the storm.

Yes, these big ones are rare.  Mainly because that much falling
in a short period is unusual.  But the amount itself is not unusual
in any given season.   We get 4 to 10 inchers regularly here,
though some winters we get none.

>Cathy Weeks
>Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Alex Rodriguez - 09 Jan 2004 04:07 GMT
>If your 13 year old neighbor seems to be charging too much, look at how
>much walkway you have to get cleared.  Consider how long it ought to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>perhaps you could work on teaching the child how to negotiate, and throw
>in some hot apple cider on completion.

this sounds like the reasonable thing to do.
-----------
Alex
DTJ - 10 Jan 2004 04:37 GMT
>labor of this demanding nature, we figure on a wage equivalent to $7 or
>$8 per hour with a $10 minimum.

Then you are stupid.

$7 per hour is far more than minimum wage, and only an idiot, or a
lazy daddy-gives-me-all-his-money a.shole would pay that much.

I wouldn't have a problem with paying someone $5 to shovel for me (if
I needed it), even though it should take less than 10 minutes.  But
don't ever offer to pay by the hour for something that should be paid
by the job.
Banty - 08 Jan 2004 15:57 GMT
>> First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
>> and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>Cathy Weeks
>Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

Yep.  Like any contractor, he states a price, and the OP agrees or not.  If it's
obviously high, it can be one of several reasons.  Perhaps the kid doesn't know
the market.  OK - he'll learn or lose out and go into another business.  Maybe
it's becuase it's a loooong walkway to shovel.  Maybe it's because he know what
the professionals *do* charge (would be awful high in my area, but I don't know
the OP's area) and he's going to charge what they charge (and why not? - did the
OP ectually expect a cheaper rate?).  Finally, he may not *want* to do this job,
except if it's very lucrative for him, and is coming in with the high bid -
which is something real contractors do all the time.  Especially if they can
tell they build be building/working/whatever on a difficult job.

So all the OP has to do is say "no deal".  Which he did.  Now as to what the
actual problem is......????

Banty
Stan McCann - 08 Jan 2004 18:20 GMT
> So all the OP has to do is say "no deal".  Which he did.  Now as to what the
> actual problem is......????

That was my take on it to.  The kid asked for what he wanted.  The OP
didn't want to pay that much.  End of story.  I don't see where the kid
did anything wrong.  Why the bitching?

Stan McCann
stan at sure cann dot com or
stan at nmsua dot nmsu dot edu
Calgary - 09 Jan 2004 00:38 GMT
> Finally, he may not *want* to do this job,
>except if it's very lucrative for him, and is coming in with the high bid -
>which is something real contractors do all the time.  

It's called the Ding Dong factor.  You figure out what the job will
cost you add some for overhead recovery, factor in anticipated profit,
then look at who you will be working for.  The bigger the Ding Dong
the higher your price.

84 - Virago 1000
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/

Stressed is just Desserts spelled backwards
Banty - 09 Jan 2004 01:04 GMT
>> Finally, he may not *want* to do this job,
>>except if it's very lucrative for him, and is coming in with the high bid -
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>then look at who you will be working for.  The bigger the Ding Dong
>the higher your price.

Yep.  Ya makes it so, if they say "no", it's just as good news as when they say
"yes".  If they say "yes", ya can consider the differential combat pay.  :-)

It's not always "Ding Dong", though - sometimes the job is harder to to do or to
get to, but you don't want to totally walk away and piss off a possible future
customer for lean times.

Banty
Scott in Aztl?n - 08 Jan 2004 16:32 GMT
>> especially when a 13 year old
>> wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Ah, so you think just because he's 13, he ought to do it for less than
>an amount that he considers worth his time?

It has nothing to do with his age. It has everything to do with his own
overinflated opinion of the value of his unskilled labor. $40 for half an hour's
work? How many years of education and experience does the typical professional
have to accumulate before he can earn $80/hour?

>Shoveling snow is hard work, and it's no fun.  And if you contract
>with an agency that does stuff like that, they charge $75.  

Or you can hire Jose down in front of Home Depot to do it for $10/hour.

>I've heard this so many time before...old codgers who think the
>neighbor kids owe them labor for cheap.  

Wow, talk about your biases coloring your perceptions! Where did you get the
idea that Jon  believes the neighbor kid OWES him ANYTHING? All I saw was
someone who refused to be overcharged for a mindless, menial task requiring no
skills to perform.

OBTW, I feel that I should be paid $50 for each of your USENET messages that I
read. I feel that anything less than that is not worth my time. What's your
address so I can send you my bill?

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Nan - 08 Jan 2004 17:05 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:32:26 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>> especially when a 13 year old
>>> wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>work? How many years of education and experience does the typical professional
>have to accumulate before he can earn $80/hour?

And you know for fact that this is only a half hour's worth of work???
Years of education and experience have *nothing* to do with hiring
someone to do tasks that one doesn't wish to do, or cannot do
themselves.  Your Assuming that it's only a half hour's worth of work.
Jon admitted he would let it melt first, so that tells me he doesn't
want to do the job himself, either.
Fine, call a professional and pay their rates, then.

Nan
Scott in Aztl?n - 09 Jan 2004 03:13 GMT
>>>Ah, so you think just because he's 13, he ought to do it for less than
>>>an amount that he considers worth his time?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>And you know for fact that this is only a half hour's worth of work???

I know precisely as much about it as you do. :)

>Years of education and experience have *nothing* to do with hiring
>someone to do tasks that one doesn't wish to do, or cannot do
>themselves.  

Oh, really? I suppose your gardener has a Ph.D., and your housekeeper has a law
degree, and all those guys picking strawberries out in the Imperial Valley are
Rhodes Scholars... :rolleyes:

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Nan - 09 Jan 2004 03:21 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:13:01 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>>>Ah, so you think just because he's 13, he ought to do it for less than
>>>>an amount that he considers worth his time?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>I know precisely as much about it as you do. :)

So you were just projecting, and possibly erroneously at that.

>>Years of education and experience have *nothing* to do with hiring
>>someone to do tasks that one doesn't wish to do, or cannot do
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>degree, and all those guys picking strawberries out in the Imperial Valley are
>Rhodes Scholars... :rolleyes:

Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.

Nan
Reassembler - 09 Jan 2004 05:55 GMT
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:13:01 -0800, Scott in Aztl?n
> Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
> degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.
>
> Nan

   Mail order degrees with "life experience credit?"

Reassembler
Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 11:42 GMT
> Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
> degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.

All those degrees and you're still cleaning the sh.t stains from someone
else's toilets...  congratulations...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

toto - 09 Jan 2004 21:13 GMT
>> Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
>> degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.
>
>All those degrees and you're still cleaning the sh.t stains from someone
>else's toilets...  congratulations...

Is there something wrong with cleaning as a job?

Honestly, someone has to do it and if you own your own business doing
this, there may be some benefits to that which have nothing to do with
the particular kind of work.  Some people actually like cleaning,
though usually not the dirtiest jobs.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Nan - 09 Jan 2004 21:23 GMT
>>> Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
>>> degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>the particular kind of work.  Some people actually like cleaning,
>though usually not the dirtiest jobs.  

Yep, very little overhead ;-)
But I ended up with 5 people I contracted out to do the work for me
when I got too many clients.

Nan
Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 23:37 GMT
>>> Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
>>> degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Is there something wrong with cleaning as a job?

Not at all...  It helped my mother put food on the table during the lean
years...  but it certainly doesn't take a bunch of B.S. degrees to do
it...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Nan - 10 Jan 2004 00:33 GMT
>>>> Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
>>>> degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>years...  but it certainly doesn't take a bunch of B.S. degrees to do
>it...

Nobody claimed it did.  There was reference made by Scott about
degrees.  I stated the ones I have under my belt, which have nothing
to do with manual labor.  Which was exactly my point.

Nan
Stephen! - 10 Jan 2004 00:33 GMT
Nan <nan@altmothers.org> wrote in news:21iuvv4d6cebgfi4f01369l66gmt1qeut9
@4ax.com:

> Nobody claimed it did.  There was reference made by Scott about
> degrees.  I stated the ones I have under my belt, which have nothing
> to do with manual labor.  Which was exactly my point.

Seems to me "Scott" mentioned Ph.D.'s...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Nan - 10 Jan 2004 00:52 GMT
>Nan <nan@altmothers.org> wrote in news:21iuvv4d6cebgfi4f01369l66gmt1qeut9
>@4ax.com:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Seems to me "Scott" mentioned Ph.D.'s...

And this matters...... how?
His beef is that manual labor is mindless and menial and only
deserving of sub-standard wages.
My counter is that physical labor is worth much more then a skin-flint
like Jon was wanting to cough up.

Nan
Circe - 10 Jan 2004 01:21 GMT
> Nan <nan@altmothers.org> wrote in
> news:21iuvv4d6cebgfi4f01369l66gmt1qeut9 @4ax.com:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Seems to me "Scott" mentioned Ph.D.'s...

As someone who got as far as starting her thesis, let me point out that
there is a surfeit of PhDs who can't get a job in their own fields (because
there are relatively few available in a lot of fields) and who therefore do
all sorts of other things for a living. Some of them might do manual labor,
for all I know. My uncle, PhD in Medeival Studies, sells cars. Not physical
labor, but not exactly a job requiring an advanced degree, either...
Signature

Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Taxi's R Us" -- name of a cab company

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Stephen! - 10 Jan 2004 01:52 GMT
> As someone who got as far as starting her thesis, let me point out
> that there is a surfeit of PhDs who can't get a job in their own
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Studies, sells cars. Not physical labor, but not exactly a job
> requiring an advanced degree, either...

Which comes right around to my original point...  Waste your time and
money getting all those "advanced" degrees to end up cleaning the sh.t 
stains out of someone else's toilet...  Good game plan there, fer-sher...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

dragonlady - 10 Jan 2004 02:25 GMT
> > As someone who got as far as starting her thesis, let me point out
> > that there is a surfeit of PhDs who can't get a job in their own
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> money getting all those "advanced" degrees to end up cleaning the sh.t 
> stains out of someone else's toilet...  Good game plan there, fer-sher...

I don't see getting an education as a waste of time, money or energy.  
If your goal is to make money with it, then you need to pay attention to
your major, but an education -- even one that is NOT used to make money
-- is hardly a waste!

meh
Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

toto - 10 Jan 2004 04:23 GMT
>> As someone who got as far as starting her thesis, let me point out
>> that there is a surfeit of PhDs who can't get a job in their own
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>money getting all those "advanced" degrees to end up cleaning the sh.t 
>stains out of someone else's toilet...  Good game plan there, fer-sher...

Regardless of the time and money, education is worth the price
because no one can ever take it away from you once you have it.

And while some things don't lead to *jobs* that doesn't mean they
are not valuable to the person who is learning about them.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Circe - 10 Jan 2004 17:15 GMT
>> As someone who got as far as starting her thesis, let me point out
>> that there is a surfeit of PhDs who can't get a job in their own
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> stains out of someone else's toilet...  Good game plan there,
> fer-sher...

I don't think that's anyone's "game plan". Life, however, is what happens
when we're making other plans.

I was working on a PhD in Classics. I have a Master's in the subject. I now
work as an instructional designer for a software company. I very much enjoy
my job, which is much like what I thought I would do with my PhD (write and
teach), except that the subject matter is completely different. Point being
that I didn't end up doing what I thought I would (being a college
professor), but I still ended up doing something I enjoy. My education was
hardly a waste.
Signature

Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Call anywhere, any time...virtually from any phone" -- prepaid phone card
dispenser

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

toto - 10 Jan 2004 04:19 GMT
>>>> Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
>>>> degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>years...  but it certainly doesn't take a bunch of B.S. degrees to do
>it...

No, the degrees aren't necessary, but someone who has them can
do the work too if they want to.   Women have always cleaned even
when they had degrees.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Scott in Aztl?n - 09 Jan 2004 16:21 GMT
>>>Years of education and experience have *nothing* to do with hiring
>>>someone to do tasks that one doesn't wish to do, or cannot do
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
>degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.

Kewl! When will you be coming by to mow my lawn?

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Nan - 09 Jan 2004 16:52 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:21:47 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>>>Years of education and experience have *nothing* to do with hiring
>>>>someone to do tasks that one doesn't wish to do, or cannot do
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Kewl! When will you be coming by to mow my lawn?

I don't do lawns.
My accounts included restaurants and bars.  I probably made more in
one month sending out employees to do the cleaning than you do,
sweetie.

Nan
Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 23:39 GMT
>>>Actually, I have a Psych degree, Business degree, and a Journalism
>>>degree and have owned my own housecleaning business.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> one month sending out employees to do the cleaning than you do,
> sweetie.

No English degree, eh?

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 06:20 GMT
>>>>>Years of education and experience have *nothing* to do with hiring
>>>>>someone to do tasks that one doesn't wish to do, or cannot do
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>one month sending out employees to do the cleaning than you do,
>sweetie.

Thanks for proving my point. YOU don't scrub the sh.t stains; your (barely
literate) *employees* do. And you don't pay them $80 an hour to do it, either.
:)

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Nan - 10 Jan 2004 20:26 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:20:37 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>>>>>Years of education and experience have *nothing* to do with hiring
>>>>>>someone to do tasks that one doesn't wish to do, or cannot do
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>literate) *employees* do. And you don't pay them $80 an hour to do it, either.
>:)

No, I haven't proven your point.  I have cleaned plenty of toilets,
and without minding much.  It cut out my overhead to do it myself.
But, when I obtained too many accounts to handle on my own, I hired
people (and paid them *very* well) to do it.

Nan
Brent P - 09 Jan 2004 03:39 GMT
> Oh, really? I suppose your gardener has a Ph.D., and your housekeeper has a law
> degree, and all those guys picking strawberries out in the Imperial Valley are
> Rhodes Scholars... :rolleyes:

I think you've just described the new USA service economy.


Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 11:36 GMT
> Years of education and experience have *nothing* to do with hiring
> someone to do tasks that one doesn't wish to do, or cannot do
> themselves.

You are right.  The military is under paid...

;)

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

DTJ - 10 Jan 2004 04:40 GMT
>Jon admitted he would let it melt first, so that tells me he doesn't
>want to do the job himself, either.

Maybe because he knows that a quarter inch of snow will melt in half a
day?

>Fine, call a professional and pay their rates, then.

Why pay when it is melted?

Hubby sleeping with your sister or something?
Thumper - 08 Jan 2004 17:20 GMT
> >> especially when a 13 year old
> >> wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> read. I feel that anything less than that is not worth my time. What's your
> address so I can send you my bill?

I just paid a migrant worker $1000.00 to fix my long suffering roof. No
roofing company's would even consider it. It took franscisco about 4 hours
and about 50.00 in materials. I would have gladly paid him $2000.00.

$40.00 is just not a lot of money, unless your a Republican business owner
trying to keep your workers down so you can make even more money for
yourself.

Thumper.

Thumper
Banty - 09 Jan 2004 00:56 GMT
>>> especially when a 13 year old
>>> wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>work? How many years of education and experience does the typical professional
>have to accumulate before he can earn $80/hour?

Auto mechanics school?  :-)

>>Shoveling snow is hard work, and it's no fun.  And if you contract
>>with an agency that does stuff like that, they charge $75.  
>
>Or you can hire Jose down in front of Home Depot to do it for $10/hour.

OK, then Jose wins out.  And 13 year old misses out.  Or 13 year old wins - he
*does* have customers lined up (mebbe Jose doesn't get there until the next
morning, and/or just shovels a choppy path down the middle). Or 13 year old wins
- he didn't want to do the job, unless he could make $$$ at it, and doesn't care
either way.

>>I've heard this so many time before...old codgers who think the
>>neighbor kids owe them labor for cheap.  
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>someone who refused to be overcharged for a mindless, menial task requiring no
>skills to perform.

OK.  But - but what we over here at misc.kids are wondering - what's the
problem??
Actually, I think Jon bringing this up in the post as an example pretty much
implies that he thought the kid owed him the price he wanted to hear.  Nah - uh.

>OBTW, I feel that I should be paid $50 for each of your USENET messages that I
>read. I feel that anything less than that is not worth my time. What's your
>address so I can send you my bill?

Whoopsie - looks like you already read it before you agreed on a price.  Oh,
well.

Banty
toto - 09 Jan 2004 03:11 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:32:26 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>OBTW, I feel that I should be paid $50 for each of your USENET messages that I
>read. I feel that anything less than that is not worth my time. What's your
>address so I can send you my bill?

The question is why bitch about the kid refusing his offer?  Will you
bitch about her if she doesn't give you what you want?

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Scott in Aztl?n - 09 Jan 2004 16:30 GMT
>The question is why bitch about the kid refusing his offer?

Is it "bitching" if you walk away from a car dealer because he refuses to sell
you a car without tacking on a $5000 markup above MSRP? Is it bitching if you
call this car dealer "greedy" for asking such a ridiculous price?

Personally, I don't consider any of this to be "bitching." The OP was merely
remarking on how over-indulgent parents have inflated their children's
expectations over and above what is reasonable compensation for performing a
menial task that requires no special skills. Kinda like the grocery store
workers who are on strike here in Southern California; these people are making
around $17/hour plus benefits to scan groceries. That's a lot of money to pay
for what is essentially unskilled labor(*), which is why they are so pissed;
they have a cushy, sweet deal, and they feel it slipping away.

(*) Proof that this is unskilled labor can be found a few lanes over where the
customers can check themselves out at the "self-checkout" lanes. If anyone can
walk up and complete the sale, it clearly requires no special skills and about
10 seconds' worth of training.

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Nan - 09 Jan 2004 16:56 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:30:04 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>The question is why bitch about the kid refusing his offer?
>
>Is it "bitching" if you walk away from a car dealer because he refuses to sell
>you a car without tacking on a $5000 markup above MSRP? Is it bitching if you
>call this car dealer "greedy" for asking such a ridiculous price?

Uhm, Jon's "bitch" was that the kid wouldn't do the job for sub-wages,
then proclaimed kids to be over-indulged by parents.  We've all been
pointing out that there is no parallel between the two.

Clearly, if Jon wanted slave-labor, he's free to hire someone that
will do the job for slave-wages, or do it himself, or let the snow
melt.
Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
it done.

Nan
Banty - 09 Jan 2004 17:37 GMT
>Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
>deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
>it done.
>
>Nan

Yeah - I noticed that, too.  Maybe all this hot air melted all his snow  :-)

Banty
Nan - 09 Jan 2004 18:15 GMT
>>Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
>>deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Banty

Or he's too embarrassed to admit he actually did end up paying someone
a decent wage, or hired a pro to do it since he didn't want to do it
himself ;-)

Nan
0tterbot - 10 Jan 2004 10:28 GMT
> >>Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
> >>deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> a decent wage, or hired a pro to do it since he didn't want to do it
> himself ;-)

he decided to "let it stay there till it melts" because he's tighter than a
fish's bum, but it hasn't melted, he's snowed in, he starved to death & his
dog ate him...?
kylie
Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 16:53 GMT
>> >>Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
>> >>deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>fish's bum, but it hasn't melted, he's snowed in, he starved to death & his
>dog ate him...?

Or maybe he was a troll who dropped his little incendiary charge into a bunch of
newsgroups, then sat back and watched the explosion? :)

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Nan - 10 Jan 2004 20:28 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:53:24 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>> >>Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
>>> >>deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>Or maybe he was a troll who dropped his little incendiary charge into a bunch of
>newsgroups, then sat back and watched the explosion? :)

What explosion?  We've merely been having an interesting discussion.
You and Stephen have been getting your boxers in a bunch.

Nan
P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 21:03 GMT
> >>> Or he's too embarrassed to admit he actually did end up paying someone
> >>> a decent wage, or hired a pro to do it since he didn't want to do it
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> What explosion?  We've merely been having an interesting discussion.
> You and Stephen have been getting your boxers in a bunch.

   It's what people always write on these threads when, logically
speaking, they have nowhere else to go.  "The intent of my post
was really only manipulate you into responded to me!  HaHaHa!"
Very lame.

                                                           P. Tierney
Charles Soto - 10 Jan 2004 22:04 GMT
>     It's what people always write on these threads when, logically
> speaking, they have nowhere else to go.  "The intent of my post
> was really only manipulate you into responded to me!  HaHaHa!"
> Very lame.

You are new here, aren't you?

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 22:36 GMT
> >     It's what people always write on these threads when, logically
> > speaking, they have nowhere else to go.  "The intent of my post
> > was really only manipulate you into responded to me!  HaHaHa!"
> > Very lame.
>
> You are new here, aren't you?

   No.  The "always" in my first sentence indicates otherwise.

                                                       P. Tierney
just me - 11 Jan 2004 01:33 GMT
> >     It's what people always write on these threads when, logically
> > speaking, they have nowhere else to go.  "The intent of my post
> > was really only manipulate you into responded to me!  HaHaHa!"
> > Very lame.
>
> You are new here, aren't you?

/pppppssssst.......check headers and note heavy xposting.  He's a regular
"here", but not where you are apparently.

-Aula, also a regular
toto - 11 Jan 2004 01:44 GMT
>You are new here, aren't you?

Where's here.  The thread is going to 3 different
ngs.  P. Tierney is a regular on one of them.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Banty - 11 Jan 2004 16:31 GMT
>>     It's what people always write on these threads when, logically
>> speaking, they have nowhere else to go.  "The intent of my post
>> was really only manipulate you into responded to me!  HaHaHa!"
>> Very lame.
>
>You are new here, aren't you?

Gee - from here it looks like you're the new guy...
Nan - 10 Jan 2004 20:27 GMT
>> >>Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
>> >>deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>dog ate him...?
>kylie

We can hope ;-)

Nan
Stan McCann - 11 Jan 2004 03:17 GMT
>>Or he's too embarrassed to admit he actually did end up paying someone
>>a decent wage, or hired a pro to do it since he didn't want to do it
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> dog ate him...?
> kylie

Give the kid the death penalty for murder!

Signature

Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator
Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(

Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 23:40 GMT
> Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
> deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
> it done.

Interesting how this "do it for the children" bullshit keeps showing up
on rec.motorcycles....

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Nan - 10 Jan 2004 00:35 GMT
>> Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
>> deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
>> it done.
>
>Interesting how this "do it for the children" bullshit keeps showing up
>on rec.motorcycles....

"do it for the children"?  No, we're simply disputing Jon's apparent
attitude that the teenager he griped about should have taken
sub-wages.
If Jon posted from rec.motorcycles, that's your issue.

Nan
Stephen! - 10 Jan 2004 01:54 GMT
> "do it for the children"?  No, we're simply disputing Jon's apparent
> attitude that the teenager he griped about should have taken
> sub-wages.

You're right.  He shoulda slapped the f.cking ingrate and made him do the
work just so he wouldn't slap him again...

> If Jon posted from rec.motorcycles, that's your issue.

Not at all...  You whiney jokers are amusing...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

toto - 10 Jan 2004 04:26 GMT
>Not at all...  You whiney jokers are amusing...

Seems to me it was Jon doing the whining.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 10 Jan 2004 17:07 GMT
>> Interesting how Jon's dropped out of this thread... no answers on how
>> deep the snow was, how long his walk is, and how he ended up getting
>> it done.
>
>Interesting how this "do it for the children" bullshit keeps showing up
>on rec.motorcycles....

Your trolls, your problem.

I never delete x-posts to other groups because I am never sure
where the poster is posting from, but if you don't want to hear
parents opinions on a matter, then don't x-post to parenting groups.

mk gets plenty of trolls that say *don't have children* or *get your
kids away from us*

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Banty - 09 Jan 2004 17:15 GMT
>>The question is why bitch about the kid refusing his offer?
>
>Is it "bitching" if you walk away from a car dealer because he refuses to sell
>you a car without tacking on a $5000 markup above MSRP? Is it bitching if you
>call this car dealer "greedy" for asking such a ridiculous price?

You can call him that as you walk away to make yourself feel better.  But the
fundamental point is - if *he* can sell to someone else for that, but *you* can
say "no" and walk away, neither of you has a problem.

>Personally, I don't consider any of this to be "bitching." The OP was merely
>remarking on how over-indulgent parents have inflated their children's
>expectations over and above what is reasonable compensation for performing a
>menial task that requires no special skills.

Whoa!  Presumption upon presumption upon presumption.

You dont' know how big the sidewalk is or how much snow there is.
You don't know the going rate in Jon's area.
You dont' know if the kid's parents told him *anything* about snow-shovelling
prices.  Or even if *anybody* did - he may have started out on his own
initiative,  just then getting a feel for the market.
You don't know if the kid was purposely pricing himself out not wanting to
overtly refuse a job that was distasteful in some other way (like, maybe Jon is
a class-A jerk no one much wants to deal with but he's a neighbor the family has
to at least not piss off too badly, or the walk is next to a 100 ft unfenced
precipice.)  The latter is something contractors do all the time.

Banty
Matthew Russotto - 09 Jan 2004 18:23 GMT
>to at least not piss off too badly, or the walk is next to a 100 ft unfenced
>precipice.)

Actually, a 100ft unfenced precipice makes the job easier, not
harder.  You just dump all the snow down there :-)

Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Banty - 09 Jan 2004 19:33 GMT
>>to at least not piss off too badly, or the walk is next to a 100 ft unfenced
>>precipice.)
>
>Actually, a 100ft unfenced precipice makes the job easier, not
>harder.  You just dump all the snow down there :-)

This may be true  :-)

I was trying to think of something that would make the job something to
avoid....
Brandon Sommerville - 09 Jan 2004 20:08 GMT
>>to at least not piss off too badly, or the walk is next to a 100 ft unfenced
>>precipice.)
>
>Actually, a 100ft unfenced precipice makes the job easier, not
>harder.  You just dump all the snow down there :-)

And hope like hell that there's no ice underneath the snow!
Signature

Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

toto - 09 Jan 2004 21:28 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:30:04 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>The question is why bitch about the kid refusing his offer?
>
>Is it "bitching" if you walk away from a car dealer because he refuses to sell
>you a car without tacking on a $5000 markup above MSRP?

No

>Is it bitching if you call this car dealer "greedy" for asking such a ridiculous price?

Frankly yes.  You didn't like the price so you walked away.  If the
car dealer can get someone else to buy at his price that's his right
too.

>Personally, I don't consider any of this to be "bitching." The OP was merely
>remarking on how over-indulgent parents have inflated their children's
>expectations over and above what is reasonable compensation for
>performing a menial task that requires no special skills.

But we don't *know* that the price was overinflated because we don't
know how much the going rate is nor do we know how big the job was
in terms of the amount and kind of snow or the length of the walk the
guy wanted cleared.

Imo, $10 was probably below the insult price.  And I bet if he was
going to pay an adult, he would have had to pay more, though we
can't *know* that because there are too many factors missing.

>Kinda like the grocery store workers who are on strike here in Southern
>California; these people are making around $17/hour plus benefits to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>If anyone can walk up and complete the sale, it clearly requires no
>special skills and about 10 seconds' worth of training.

Interestingly, the machines breakdown quite a bit.  I have used them.
As for the checkers, I suspect they do other things besides just
checking out groceries as well.  And, the checking does actually take
more than scanning depending on how people are paying and whether
or not there are glitches where the scanner will not scan the bar
code.

I have used the self-checkouts at the grocery.  It's not difficult,
but the machinery breaks down fairly often and there are some
quite silly things that happen because of unreadable bar codes
or other stuff.  One interesting story came accross usenet in
relation to using them at Home Depot.  It seems that the thing
has a sensor to tell if you have the right weight and so you *must*
scan each item and then put it in the bag.  Well, if one bar code
is bad, you can't just scan 1 item several times to alleviate this
because of the machines inability to understand what you want
to do.  So Home Depot has had to hire some people just to help
customers with problems at the self-check.  My bet is eventually
they may pull the self-checks out if the problems turn out to be
continual and frequent.

I can self-check at the library also, but I don't call librarians
unskilled labor.  And the machines there break down and won't
scan my card all too frequently.  Aside from that it seems that
many people would rather wait in line and talk to an actual
person here.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Nan - 09 Jan 2004 21:41 GMT
>I can self-check at the library also, but I don't call librarians
>unskilled labor.  And the machines there break down and won't
>scan my card all too frequently.  Aside from that it seems that
>many people would rather wait in line and talk to an actual
>person here.

No, we're not unskilled laborers ;-)

Neither are cashiers, for that matter.  Anyone working in retail has
to do all manner of other jobs, not just scan some items for a
customer.

Nan
Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 06:28 GMT
>>Kinda like the grocery store workers who are on strike here in Southern
>>California; these people are making around $17/hour plus benefits to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Interestingly, the machines breakdown quite a bit.

Irrelevant. The customers could just as easily use the regular scanning stations
if the store managers would allow them.

>I can self-check at the library also, but I don't call librarians
>unskilled labor.  

Absolutely not. Librarians typically have MLS degrees or better. Of course, they
also do things like reference work, cataloging, classification, and other
decidedly non-menial tasks. About the most mentally challenging thing a grocery
store cashier does is count out her drawer at the end of her shift. When I was
in middle school, I used to cashier for $3.35/hour.

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

toto - 10 Jan 2004 16:04 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:28:57 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>Interestingly, the machines breakdown quite a bit.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>store cashier does is count out her drawer at the end of her shift. When I was
>in middle school, I used to cashier for $3.35/hour.

Creative job of clipping.  I suspect adult checkers do much more than
just cashiering too.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 16:56 GMT
>>>I can self-check at the library also, but I don't call librarians
>>>unskilled labor.  
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Creative job of clipping.  I suspect adult checkers do much more than
>just cashiering too.

Instead of "suspecting," why don't you research it and get back to me? None of
the adult cashiers I worked with had any additional responsibilities over and
above what I had as a 13-year-old.

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

0tterbot - 11 Jan 2004 13:41 GMT
> >>>I can self-check at the library also, but I don't call librarians
> >>>unskilled labor.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> the adult cashiers I worked with had any additional responsibilities over and
> above what I had as a 13-year-old.

the ones in supervisory roles certainly do at the supermarket i go to.

of course, i live in a different country. one where 13 year olds aren't
legally able to be employees of supermarkets (or anywhere else) unless the
supermarket (or whatever) is a business belonging to their parents. so ymmv.
but i'm having trouble imagining a checkout area full of jumped-up 13 year
olds earning $3.35 an hour twinkling with efficiency & competence without a
living adult soul there to take responsibility. (after all, according to
you, supervising the others & intervening where difficulties arise wouldn't
count, since you've assured us that checkout operators don't do a single
thing besides putting people's shopping through. but what do i know. you
worked in a supermarket when you were 13, you clearly know all there is to
know on the subject.)
kylie
Mike Helm - 11 Jan 2004 01:17 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:28:20 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>

>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:30:04 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
><slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
>Interestingly, the machines breakdown quite a bit.  I have used them.

I've used them quite a bit, and they hardly ever break down.  Every once
in a while, you may run into a problem, but you do the same thing the
checker would if they ran into a problem.  Get someone to fix it.

Some stores don't even have anyone working the self-checkout lanes full
time, which is kind of a pain if you're buying alcohol.

>As for the checkers, I suspect they do other things besides just
>checking out groceries as well.  And, the checking does actually take
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>to do.  So Home Depot has had to hire some people just to help
>customers with problems at the self-check.  

I hadn't noticed this - they've got 1 person working 4 stations at the
one near me.

> My bet is eventually
>they may pull the self-checks out if the problems turn out to be
>continual and frequent.

They won't be pulled out.

>I can self-check at the library also, but I don't call librarians
>unskilled labor.  And the machines there break down and won't
>scan my card all too frequently.  Aside from that it seems that
>many people would rather wait in line and talk to an actual
>person here.
Avril - 12 Jan 2004 01:44 GMT
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:28:20 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
>
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
> >many people would rather wait in line and talk to an actual
> >person here.

Checkers are unskilled labor, huh?
You night customers are overwhelmingly men; domestically bored
husbands, Daddies getting diapers, divorced, hapless types, and the
socially autistic or freakishly tall Scandinavian Pepperdine students.
The hours between 7 pm and 9 pm are nicknamed the “Sad Bastard
Hours”.
 
Later in the evening the ‘Ellis Island’ effect begins. “Bring me
your tired, your poor, unbathed, wretched masses who apparently
don’t own mirrors”; substance abusers straggling in at different
levels of ‘high’; the eating disorder people; food orders over
four hundred dollars with not a vegetable or piece of fruit in them.
The human x-rays; laxative and enema queens, many with breast implants
and scar tissue outlines bulging taught, sun-damaged skin against
visible ribcages, and the always fun generally disoriented.

The day shoppers, a different breed, are mostly stay at home Moms with
their Nannies pushing the carts, or older people escaping the confines
of their home, needing to get a walk in, arguing about the sales
circular or chit chatting with the lottery ticket dispenser. “No
annual payments, I need the cash now”.
 
Interesting correlation between age and bag preferences.  The older
the shoppers, the more intricate the demands are, and paper bags are
almost always involved.  The orders they give the baggers make us all
stop what we’re doing sometimes to absorb the complexity of their
wishes.  These people are convinced that there is an evil cabal
waiting to improperly arrange their groceries; hot chicken with Ice
Cream, bananas under cat litter, Drano with raspberries.  Bagging is a
big deal.

Most of our patrons are pretty nice.  Cheerful, happy to be off work
and on the way home, a genuine response to our pat “Hi, how are
you” opener, and a pleasure to help.  Then there are the others,
about 10% of the total, a little higher during heat spells and full
moons, who live to make everyone’s life difficult.  We spot them
coming in, all the checkers bracing for the Russian roulette game of
chance, having to deal with them in our respective lines.
Germ-a-phobes, nitpickers, fill in your ethnic preference-princesses,
ones with superiority complexes or inferiority complexes- their
defense mechanism an outright offensive or passive-aggressive assault.
There are the useless parents; you’ve shopped with them, not reining
in little Skylar or Madison, ignoring them completely, letting the
fruit of their loins scream at full volume, whine incessantly, roll in
the aisles and make German spectacles of themselves through the entire
store, getting nerves raw.
Everyone shooting each other the if they were mine look.

There are the growing hordes of oblivious cell phone addicts.  Unless
you’re Dick Cheney or an on-call brain surgeon, trust us, your banal
conversation can wait until you’re outside.  Always beginning their
conversation, “Hi, I’m in the grocery store, yeah, in the checkout
line.”   We do our best to rifle their orders through our lines at
Chuck Yeager / Mach II speeds, ‘Hello, thank you and Goodbye’
being the only verbal interaction with these charmers.  We hope.
Struggling to keep our reptilian “Kill, Kill, Kill” brains at bay,
our faces locked in the grimace passing as a smile, we say ‘thank
you’ and hope they beat it quick, because after all, “It’s Your
Store”, and they just might be a mystery shopper, grading our work
performances for Corporate, who are already at the drawing board
thinking up a new catchphrase to sum up your whole lovely shopping
experience, protecting market share and above all else, the Brand.

Thanks to the expansion of Wal-Mart and the grocery strikes all over,
you really will get to enjoy lots of UNSKILLED labor checking you out
now.
All the good people who worked in the Albertsons, Von's and Ralphs
stores have had to scramble and find other jobs, and the dregs of the
workforce have stepped in, so you won't have to worry about what their
being paid, and you'll get to pay their medical expenses through
raised taxes because someone will have to cover the bills now, won't
they?
Circe - 10 Jan 2004 01:26 GMT
> Kinda like the grocery store workers who are on strike here
> in Southern California; these people are making around $17/hour plus
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> lanes. If anyone can walk up and complete the sale, it clearly
> requires no special skills and about 10 seconds' worth of training.

You presumably have not have the pleasure of shopping in a one of these
grocery stores recently. Half the time, the self-serve lanes are not
operational and half the time, when they are, something rings up incorrectly
and you must get someone to fix it. And let me tell you, the $17/hour
checkers were, IMO, worth every penny of their salaries. At least they had a
clue. I cannot say the same for many of their replacements (*).

*I only shop at Ralphs, which is not currently being picketed by the union.
The people who work there now are pleasant enough in the grand scheme of
things, but they don't know a navel orange from a valencia and the amount of
time it takes to get through the checkout line as a result is significantly
greater. IOW, not an improvement.
Signature

Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Taxi's R Us" -- name of a cab company

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Stephen! - 10 Jan 2004 01:55 GMT
> Half the time, the self-serve lanes are not
> operational and half the time, when they are, something rings up
> incorrectly and you must get someone to fix it.

So they only work properly one out of four times?  Hell, I must have some
real good luck.  Maybe I should start buying lottery tickets that way.

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Circe - 10 Jan 2004 17:16 GMT
>> Half the time, the self-serve lanes are not
>> operational and half the time, when they are, something rings up
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> some real good luck.  Maybe I should start buying lottery tickets
> that way.

Maybe. All I can say is that I have had very little success with them. They
are generally not turned on at all when I go into the store, and the one
time I tried to use them, I had a problem with the scanner and so did
another person who was using another machine. I pretty well gave up on them
as a bigger waste of my time than standing in line to wait for a human
checker.
Signature

Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Call anywhere, any time...virtually from any phone" -- prepaid phone card
dispenser

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Stephen! - 12 Jan 2004 20:50 GMT
> Maybe. All I can say is that I have had very little success with them.
> They are generally not turned on at all when I go into the store, and
> the one time I tried to use them, I had a problem with the scanner

So with a sample group of "one" you came to the conclusion that they only
work 25% of the time...  Great reasoning...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Circe - 12 Jan 2004 21:42 GMT
>> Maybe. All I can say is that I have had very little success with
>> them. They are generally not turned on at all when I go into the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> So with a sample group of "one" you came to the conclusion that they
> only work 25% of the time...

Contrariwise. I said that IN MY EXPERIENCE, this was the case (also, my
sample included one other person, who also had trouble with the scanner, but
I see you conveniently snipped that out) and that, given that fact combined
with the poor performance of the replacement workers, I think the striking
grocery workers are worth every penny of what they were paid.

Mind you, only ONE of the four unionized grocery stores at which I regularly
shop even HAS self-serve checkout registers, so in my area, they are not
widespread enough to be viewed as a reasonable alternative to human
checkers.
Signature

Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Call anywhere, any time...virtually from any phone" -- prepaid phone card
dispenser

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Matthew Russotto - 09 Jan 2004 15:03 GMT
>>> especially when a 13 year old
>>> wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>work? How many years of education and experience does the typical professional
>have to accumulate before he can earn $80/hour?

Who cares?  He's there, and the professional isn't.  The cost of
labor isn't determined by its skill, it's determined by supply and
demand.  Skill requirements increase cost of labor by reducing
supply.  Snowstorms increase the cost of unskilled labor by increasing
demand.  If the kid went down the street and found a neighbor willing
to pay the $40, his opinion wasn't so inflated after all.  If he
didn't get any takers, it was.

Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Scott in Aztl?n - 09 Jan 2004 16:30 GMT
>>>> especially when a 13 year old
>>>> wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>labor isn't determined by its skill, it's determined by supply and
>demand.

Clearly the demand was not there. ;)

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Thumper - 08 Jan 2004 17:15 GMT
> > First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
> > and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Cathy Weeks
> Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

Oh Jeezuz, another overindulged maniac.

Thumper

Sons,

Paul III 29,  Film Technician and Musician

William  22, Math Major and College Math Tutor, soon to be a High School
Math Teacher.
dragonlady - 08 Jan 2004 17:27 GMT
> > First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
> > and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> neighbor kids owe them labor for cheap.  And for whatever reason, it's
> always over shoveling snow.

Not always.  Many years ago, I was a much in demand babysitter.  I sat
for a new family in the neighborhood without stating a price up front,
and was stunned to get paid about 1/3 of the going rate.  When that
neighbor called again, I told her my normal hourly rate (actually, since
she had 6 kids who were, um, challenging, the price I quoted was about
twice my normal hourly rate), and she told me that she would only pay
what she'd paid before, so I turned the job down.  She called my mother
to complain that I was a lazy, spoiled teenager who was turning down
legitimate work!  Fortunately,  Mom knew what was going on, and told her
that I didn't need to work for pitifully low wages -- if she wanted me,
she'd have to pay what I was worth.

I think my cousins got $5 per sidewalk when they were doing it about 40
years ago;  they invested in a snow blower, so they could take on more
clients, and did very well.  I no longer live where snow happens, but
I'm guessing the "going rate" for shoveling is WELL above $10!

meh
Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Nan - 08 Jan 2004 17:42 GMT
>Not always.  Many years ago, I was a much in demand babysitter.  I sat
>for a new family in the neighborhood without stating a price up front,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>clients, and did very well.  I no longer live where snow happens, but
>I'm guessing the "going rate" for shoveling is WELL above $10!

Probably 17 years ago my mom would have the newspaper boy mow her
lawn.  It was a fairly large back yard, but a tiny front yard.  We
supplied the mower and the gasoline.  She paid him $15.  

My son used to shovel sidewalks 10 years ago, and got paid around
$10-$15 per, back then.

Funny how people seem to think $10 is a windfall for something the
going rate is likely much higher for currently.

Nan
Brandon Sommerville - 08 Jan 2004 18:32 GMT
>Probably 17 years ago my mom would have the newspaper boy mow her
>lawn.  It was a fairly large back yard, but a tiny front yard.  We
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Funny how people seem to think $10 is a windfall for something the
>going rate is likely much higher for currently.

Everyone remembers what the going rate was when they were young and
they expect it to be the same.
Signature

Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Nan - 08 Jan 2004 18:50 GMT
>>Probably 17 years ago my mom would have the newspaper boy mow her
>>lawn.  It was a fairly large back yard, but a tiny front yard.  We
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Everyone remembers what the going rate was when they were young and
>they expect it to be the same.

Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth paying
someone to take the burden from themselves.

Nan
Calgary - 09 Jan 2004 00:53 GMT
>Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth paying
>someone to take the burden from themselves.
>
>Nan

Here in Calgary there are several companies clearing in excess of a
million per season each pushing that white stuff.  And it doesn't snow
a hell of a lot here.

84 - Virago 1000
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/

Stressed is just Desserts spelled backwards
Nan - 09 Jan 2004 01:08 GMT
>>Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth paying
>>someone to take the burden from themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>million per season each pushing that white stuff.  And it doesn't snow
>a hell of a lot here.

I know several people that do it privately with a snowplow on their
truck and rake in the bucks every winter.

>84 - Virago 1000
>http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/
>
>Stressed is just Desserts spelled backwards

Love your sig :-)

Nan
Calgary - 09 Jan 2004 01:22 GMT
>>>Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth paying
>>>someone to take the burden from themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I know several people that do it privately with a snowplow on their
>truck and rake in the bucks every winter.

Yup, if you can stay awake, keep the rig out of the ditch and nothin
breaks you can do very well.

84 - Virago 1000
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/

Stressed is just Desserts spelled backwards
Banty - 09 Jan 2004 02:31 GMT
>>>>Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth paying
>>>>someone to take the burden from themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Yup, if you can stay awake, keep the rig out of the ditch and nothin
>breaks you can do very well.

Yep.  I hire the contractor who has done a lot of work on my house (the guy's a
perfectionist!) to plow my driveway.  He rakes in the cash when it snows as the
weather forbids outside work anyway.  Consistent, reliable, meticulous (I swear
if it's still snowing he'll chase the flakes off my driveway), cheerful, funny.

Even if  he were so-so about the task, it's worth it saving my back.

Although, once in awhile I don't mind doing the shovelling.  It's quiet,
comtemplative, vigorous work.  But here in upstate New York, I don't want to
commit to do it all the time.  Seems if it ain't 18 inches anymore, it hardly
counts as a snowstorm.

Cheers,
Banty
Scott in Aztl?n - 09 Jan 2004 03:18 GMT
>Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth paying
>someone to take the burden from themselves.

You consider shoveling snow to be a mental challenge?

That explains a lot... ;)

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Nan - 09 Jan 2004 03:24 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:18:22 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth paying
>>someone to take the burden from themselves.
>
>You consider shoveling snow to be a mental challenge?
>
>That explains a lot... ;)

No, I consider it physically hard work, and worth a helluva lot more
than a measly $10.

Nan
Circe - 10 Jan 2004 01:18 GMT
>>> Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth
>>> paying someone to take the burden from themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> No, I consider it physically hard work, and worth a helluva lot more
> than a measly $10.

Frankly, I enjoy challenging mental work considerably more than mindless,
heavy physical labor and, were I given the opportunity, I'd charge a *lot*
more per hour for the mindless, heavy physical labor than the fun mental
work.
Signature

Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Taxi's R Us" -- name of a cab company

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Nan - 10 Jan 2004 01:59 GMT
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:18:22 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
>> <slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>more per hour for the mindless, heavy physical labor than the fun mental
>work.

Ayup, same here.

Nan
Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 06:31 GMT
>>> No, I consider it physically hard work, and worth a helluva lot more
>>> than a measly $10.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Ayup, same here.

And, of course, you'd have few (if any) takers, since there are hundreds of day
laborers standing around next to the Home Depot waiting for somebody to give
them some menial work, which they will happily perform for a lot less than you
two would charge. :)

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Nan - 10 Jan 2004 20:30 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:31:47 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>>> No, I consider it physically hard work, and worth a helluva lot more
>>>> than a measly $10.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>them some menial work, which they will happily perform for a lot less than you
>two would charge. :)

Only *if* we chose to actually do the work.  I'd prefer to pay someone
else (much more than you're willing to, since you'll take advantage of
the day laborers need for putting some scraps on their table), to do
it for me.

Nan
Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 04:56 GMT
>No, I consider it physically hard work, and worth a helluva lot more
>than a measly $10.

That's for the market to decide, not you.

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Roger Dodger - 11 Jan 2004 19:05 GMT
> >Funny how people seem to think $10 is a windfall for something the
> >going rate is likely much higher for currently.
>
> Everyone remembers what the going rate was when they were young and
> they expect it to be the same.

"You want me to shovel your sidewalk for $10?  Fine.  Make it ten
shiny 1910 silver dollars, the kind that you earned back in the
good old days!"
Banty - 08 Jan 2004 18:37 GMT
>>Not always.  Many years ago, I was a much in demand babysitter.  I sat
>>for a new family in the neighborhood without stating a price up front,
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>Nan

On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year old
kids who live on my block) to watch my son for an hour or two, provided that
their parents were in the house too, in case of emergencies (this being
understood with the parents).  When the father of one found that I paid a 22
year old babysitter, who sometimes does overnights, more than his 10 year old,
he got mad and sent his son for 'the difference'.  I sent him back.  Dad called.
I told his Dad that, by design of the babysitting job, his boy takes on
considerably less responsibility than the 22 year old - I'm not relying on the
10 year old for responsible action in emergencies; he's not on tap to feed my
son; he doesn't have to get him ready for school.   So, that was the end of his
son babysitting.  IOW, "no deal".

Banty
Cathy Kearns - 08 Jan 2004 19:47 GMT
> On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year old
> kids who live on my block) to watch my son for an hour or two, provided that
> their parents were in the house too, in case of emergencies (this being
> understood with the parents).

So how much do you pay their parents to be "on call"?

>When the father of one found that I paid a 22
> year old babysitter, who sometimes does overnights, more than his 10 year old,
> he got mad and sent his son for 'the difference'.  I sent him back.  Dad called.
> I told his Dad that, by design of the babysitting job, his boy takes on
> considerably less responsibility than the 22 year old - I'm not relying on the
> 10 year old for responsible action in emergencies;

It sounds like you are relying on his parents to be responsible for action
in
emergencies.

>he's not on tap to feed my
> son; he doesn't have to get him ready for school.   So, that was the end of his
> son babysitting.  IOW, "no deal".

I offered to be backup when my daughter was younger and was babysitting
friends.  However, I would have also been willing to babysit the kids at my
house for free instead.  Sure, grown-ups get paid more, but in the case
of the 10 year olds, you did hire grown-ups.   If I were you I would look
hard at the responsibility thing.  If you are paying less because they
aren't
feeding him, dressing him, or driving him places that's one thing.  If you
aren't paying the babysitter as much because they have to depend on their
own parents to backup, then you should also be paying the back up.  If
you are paying less because they are watching the kids while you are
busy, but on the premises then that sounds legit.

> Banty
Mike Helm - 09 Jan 2004 01:19 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:47:56 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
<cathy_kearnsnospam@yahoo.com>

>> On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year
>old
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>So how much do you pay their parents to be "on call"?

Probably not as much as the taxes paid for the ambulance or cops that
the parents would end up calling if there were an emergency.

>>When the father of one found that I paid a 22
>> year old babysitter, who sometimes does overnights, more than his 10 year
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>in
>emergencies.

Wouldn't a neighbor be glad to offer assistance if there were an
emergency?  The parents probably never have to lift a finger.  Perhaps
they're not interested in being neighborly and view it as purely a
business transaction.  If they feel that way, they can ask for money to
be paid just in case they have to dial 911 or something.

>>he's not on tap to feed my
>> son; he doesn't have to get him ready for school.   So, that was the end
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>> Banty
Brandon Sommerville - 08 Jan 2004 20:08 GMT
>On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year old
>kids who live on my block) to watch my son for an hour or two, provided that
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>son; he doesn't have to get him ready for school.   So, that was the end of his
>son babysitting.  IOW, "no deal".

It sounds like you are relying on the 10 yr old to get their parents
in an emergency, which would be pretty responsible.  The dad didn't
have any right to request more money for past work as it was paid at
the negotiated rate, but he did have the right (and probably the
obligation) to ask that the future rate be the rate of the 22 yr old
since that was what you were willing to pay for hourly services of
equivalent responsibility (safety of your child and all).

Essentially the parents are responsible for your child and simply
delegating the actual watching to their children.
Signature

Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Banty - 09 Jan 2004 00:51 GMT
>>On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year old
>>kids who live on my block) to watch my son for an hour or two, provided that
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>since that was what you were willing to pay for hourly services of
>equivalent responsibility (safety of your child and all).

No, not really.  First of all, it's the *Dad* who had approached me with the
idea as a way to introduce his sons to some responsibility.  That isn't
necessarily the most important point (except to establish that I wasn't casting
for bargains), but at that time I told him 10 was too young unless my son can go
to his house but an adult is always around. I gave a price; Dad agreed.  So, no,
I don't view this as a babysitting job on the order of someone whose experience
and householding abilities (dinner, off to school) I was buying in the case of
the 22 year old.  And Dad didn't bring up any concern that he be paid.

In one case a kid is setting time aside to basically play with another younger
kid; in the other someone is holding down a household for many more hours.  This
isn't like a 13 year old clearing a sidewalk vs. a 35 year old clearing a
sidewalk.

>Essentially the parents are responsible for your child and simply
>delegating the actual watching to their children.

Except that particular arrangement wasnt' the one offered.  I didn't contract
with the dad for services for him to delegate.

If for some reason I thought the boy was an amazingly capable and mature 10 year
old, and I had him come to my house and his services were avaiable for long
hours including overnights - then, yes, the fact that he's 10 and not 22 should
not have affected how I pay him.  But that's simply (and impossibly) not the
case.  What he could offer was limited, though useful, and I paid him
accordingly, and it was agreed.  Until Dad learned through the grapevine what I
paid the 22 year old, whose services, knowledge, experience, and availability
was on a significantly different category in my view.  (BTW, one lesson: - don't
talk money with your neighbors - really, sometimes I think I shouldn't even
mention the current price of carrots in the supermarket.)

Cheers,
Banty
Cathy Kearns - 09 Jan 2004 02:15 GMT
> >>On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year old
> >>kids who live on my block) to watch my son for an hour or two, provided that
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> for bargains), but at that time I told him 10 was too young unless my son can go
> to his house but an adult is always around. I gave a price; Dad agreed.

That's a very salient point, as the Dad agreed to be the backup for free,
to get his son the experience.  So this makes sense.

> Cheers,
> Banty
Brandon Sommerville - 09 Jan 2004 02:28 GMT
>No, not really.  First of all, it's the *Dad* who had approached me with the
>idea as a way to introduce his sons to some responsibility.  That isn't
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>isn't like a 13 year old clearing a sidewalk vs. a 35 year old clearing a
>sidewalk.

In a way.  In pure business terms the parents are subsidizing the
child's experience to help them gain job experience.  You pay a
reduced rate for training time.  :)

>>Essentially the parents are responsible for your child and simply
>>delegating the actual watching to their children.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>talk money with your neighbors - really, sometimes I think I shouldn't even
>mention the current price of carrots in the supermarket.)

I just can't believe that they actually had the gall to demand the
same rate after the original rate was fairly negotiated.
Signature

Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Banty - 09 Jan 2004 02:50 GMT
>>No, not really.  First of all, it's the *Dad* who had approached me with the
>>idea as a way to introduce his sons to some responsibility.  That isn't
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>child's experience to help them gain job experience.  You pay a
>reduced rate for training time.  :)

Yep, basically.  And I'm supposedly doing this to be neighborly.  Then suddenly
I'm supposed to up the price according to some perceived market rate.  Erg.

>>>Essentially the parents are responsible for your child and simply
>>>delegating the actual watching to their children.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>I just can't believe that they actually had the gall to demand the
>same rate after the original rate was fairly negotiated.

How it came to mind is something his Dad said in the phone call that I was
reminded of by this snow shovel discussion - his perception was that I paid his
son less for the *same* work just because he was young.  But, no - it's *not*
the same work.

Banty
Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 11:49 GMT
> When the father of one found that I paid a 22
> year old babysitter, who sometimes does overnights, more than his 10
> year old, he got mad and sent his son for 'the difference'.

A roll of Duct Tape would have been far cheaper...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

C R Krieger - 09 Jan 2004 01:42 GMT
> > First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
> > and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> with an agency that does stuff like that, they charge $75.  So you
> should either pay up or shut up and do it yourself.

You know what?  Although your views are diametrically opposed, you're both
morons and for the same reason.  If Jon wants his snow shoveled for less
than $40, he has a perfect right to find someone who will do it.  He need
not simply capitulate to the demands of a 13-year-old who *may or may not*
be overpricing his services.  Too many, like Cathy here, are conditioned to
accept every offer as a 'take it or leave it' proposition and, further, it
is parents exactly like you that Jon's writing about.

Has it ever occurred to either of you that the best solution may lie
somewhere in between?  Maybe the job's not actually worth $40, but maybe
it's worth more than $10, too.  So how could we possibly arrive at that best
solution?  Read Beth's post.  Negotiate an acceptable price for the services
or negotiate the services to suit the price offered.  Either that or get
into a snit and eventually pay a lawyer to settle it.  I'd hate to see my
professional colleagues starving ...
--
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em, m'dear; they're beneath our dignity." - W.C. Fields
toto - 09 Jan 2004 03:19 GMT
>You know what?  Although your views are diametrically opposed, you're both
>morons and for the same reason.  If Jon wants his snow shoveled for less
>than $40, he has a perfect right to find someone who will do it.  He need
>not simply capitulate to the demands of a 13-year-old who *may or may not*
>be overpricing his services.

No, but neither does he have any particular right to bitch because the
kid didn't want to accept his price.

If he could find someone else to do it for his price fine.  I'm
betting that he couldn't because of the bitch about *kids today.*
The fact is that $10 was probably too little.  $40 might have been
too much, but given that he offered a price the kid didn't want to
take, what's his problem with the kid?

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Paul - 12 Jan 2004 04:06 GMT
> If he could find someone else to do it for his price fine.  I'm
> betting that he couldn't because of the bitch about *kids today.*
> The fact is that $10 was probably too little.  $40 might have been
> too much, but given that he offered a price the kid didn't want to
> take, what's his problem with the kid?

Apparently, more people than previously have some trouble with the concept
of a "free market," where goods/services are exchanged in a mutually
beneficial manner for money.

--
Paul

"Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form."
                                                             --K. Marx
P. Tierney - 12 Jan 2004 03:11 GMT
> > If he could find someone else to do it for his price fine.  I'm
> > betting that he couldn't because of the bitch about *kids today.*
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> of a "free market," where goods/services are exchanged in a mutually
> beneficial manner for money.

   But when "mutually beneficial" isn't agreed upon, then
goods and services end up not being exchanged.  That's also a
facet of the free market that the guy with snow didn't understand.

                                                       P. Tierney
Cathy Weeks - 09 Jan 2004 15:48 GMT
> > Jon Walters <walters-j@noway.com> wrote in message
>  news:<3FFCF30F.C9E687C9@noway.com>...
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> not simply capitulate to the demands of a 13-year-old who *may or may not*
> be overpricing his services.  

Capitulate to the demands?  Huh?  Who wanted his walk shoveled?  The
kid probably didn't just show up, and say, "give me $40 or else."  Jon
on the other hand, expected the kid to capitulate to *his* demands -
"shovel my walk and take $10, or else you are a spoiled brat with
overindulgent parents."

Sure, it would have been nice if the kid (and Jon) had negotiated a
price that was mutually acceptable. But NEITHER did.  It doesn't sound
like Jon tried to negotiate, but posts have ragged on the kid (and his
parents) because he didn't.

The truth is, that everyone has his price.  And if $40 was the kid's
price, and it just wasn't worth it to him to do the work for less,
then that's his choice.  And it's Jon's to not hire him.  What I - and
others - are pointing out, is that Jon *complained* that the kid
wouldn't take his offer, like it was some failing on the part of the
kid, or that the kid owed it to him.

> Has it ever occurred to either of you that the best solution may lie
> somewhere in between?  Maybe the job's not actually worth $40, but maybe
> it's worth more than $10, too.  So how could we possibly arrive at that best
> solution?  

Sure, that would have been nice. But what if the kid doesn't want the
job for less than $40?  Should we overindulgent parents force him to
take it for some amount less?

> Read Beth's post.  Negotiate an acceptable price for the services
> or negotiate the services to suit the price offered.  

Forced negotiation isn't negotiation.  And I suspect that it will
teach the kid little - either about neighborliness or about good
citizenship.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
Alex Rodriguez - 09 Jan 2004 04:05 GMT
>> First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
>> and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>polite, and that's the only thing that he might have done wrong.  But,
>I've seen people like you grump over the polite ones, too.

What are you talking about?  The kid wanted one price, the poster offered
a different price.  The kid walked away without even a counter offer.  
Unless the sidewalk is very long and the snow very deep, I too would think
that $40 is unreasonable.  

>Shoveling snow is hard work, and it's no fun.

So is washing dishes.  I don't think dish washers get paid much above
minimum wage.

>And if you contract
>with an agency that does stuff like that, they charge $75.

For $75 I would expect my drive way plowed too.  But the truth is I wouldn't
pay someone else to do it.  I would shoveled it my self.  Nothing wrong with
some exercise when it is cold out.

>I've heard this so many time before...old codgers who think the
>neighbor kids owe them labor for cheap.  And for whatever reason, it's
>always over shoveling snow.

I think the poster was pointing out the exact opposite, kids who think they
should be paid outrageous amounts for unskilled labor.  
-----------
Alex
Brent P - 09 Jan 2004 04:50 GMT
> I think the poster was pointing out the exact opposite, kids who think they
> should be paid outrageous amounts for unskilled labor.  

They should unionize, then it would be acceptable.
toto - 09 Jan 2004 05:47 GMT
>>Shoveling snow is hard work, and it's no fun.
>
>So is washing dishes.  I don't think dish washers get paid much above
>minimum wage.

But if someone doesn't want the wage offered for dishwashing and
refuses the job, what is the problem with that person?  Nothing, imo.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Matthew Russotto - 09 Jan 2004 15:53 GMT
>What are you talking about?  The kid wanted one price, the poster offered
>a different price.  The kid walked away without even a counter offer.  
>Unless the sidewalk is very long and the snow very deep, I too would think
>that $40 is unreasonable.  

$10 was probably below the kid's insult price.  It's the same
principal as if you were selling a car and listing it for $4000 and
someone offered you $1000 -- you probably wouldn't make a
counteroffer, you'd just refuse.
Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

DTJ - 10 Jan 2004 04:34 GMT
>Ah, so you think just because he's 13, he ought to do it for less than
>an amount that he considers worth his time?  He doesn't owe you
>service.  The only thing I can think of is that he might not have been
>polite, and that's the only thing that he might have done wrong.  But,
>I've seen people like you grump over the polite ones, too.

Must be that time of the month.

>Shoveling snow is hard work, and it's no fun.  And if you contract
>with an agency that does stuff like that, they charge $75.  So you
>should either pay up or shut up and do it yourself.

Kid came to his door, bothered him, trying to extort money.  Wanted to
charge $80 bucks an hour to shovel f.cking snow.

Are you really so dense you can't see the problem there?
toto - 10 Jan 2004 05:31 GMT
>Kid came to his door, bothered him, trying to extort money.  Wanted to
>charge $80 bucks an hour to shovel f.cking snow.

How do you know that this job would only have taken 1/2 hour.

How deep was the snow?  Was it wet or dry?  How long was the
area of the walkway to be cleared?

Where did he say the kid knocked on his door and wanted to
shovel?

How does this relate to overindulgent parents?  We don't
know anything about his parents from this anecdote.
How does this show anything about the kid not *doing any
wrong* in the eyes of his parents?

We know only that the boy said his price was $40 for the
job at hand and the man didn't like the price.  How does that
say anything about the kid being spoiled when we don't
know the parameters of the job.  

Note: Jon was trolling - misc.kids was included because he
wanted to start an argument.  Most of the mk posters simply
don't see the connection he made and I don't see how you
can if you look at this rationally.

(begin OP include)

First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
wait until it melts before I pay that much.

(end OP include)

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Jon Walters - 10 Jan 2004 06:24 GMT
> >Kid came to his door, bothered him, trying to extort money.  Wanted to
> >charge $80 bucks an hour to shovel f.cking snow.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> --
> Dorothy

I am the original poster. I was responding to this post:

Paul wrote:

http://archive.thebrunswicknews.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=./pubfiles/tb
n/archive/2004/January/06/Frontpage/33118.xml&start=0&numPer=20&keyword=&section
Search=Frontpage&begindate=1%2F1%2F2001&enddate=12%2F31%2F2005&authorSearch=&Inc
ludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=1&IncludeImages=1&mode=allwords&arc
hive_pubname=The+Brunswick+News%0A%09%09%09


> Hopefully the link above works, I found this while cruising the web. Not
two
> weeks after christmas and two children in this sleepy little town have
> already been hit by cars while riding scooters that their best friends
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I have witnessed these children on numerous occasions lately breaking
nearly
> every traffic law imaginable except for speeding on these things - which I
> assume these scooters are not capable of. Among the violations and/or
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> --
> Paul

Here is what I wrote:


> First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
> and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Jon

I had responded that 7-8 young children were given small
motorcycles for Christmas, too, and they ride and speed,
while ignoring traffic laws that we (licensed drivers)
must obey - or PAY! And you either pay with your wallet
or your life, depending on your luck.

I feel that any child that receives a motorcycle for
Christmas (what in the name of GOD are the parents thinking?)
is very spoiled. To further demonstrate my thoughts, I told
about the boy who refused to help me for $10. I have had
a heart attack and cannot shovel. I cannot afford to pay
$40 because I'm on a fixed income.

I decided NOT to respond to any messages because immediately
I saw the mothers jumping in to defend the kid who tried
to take my $40. And then you have the nerve to ask me about
"how many feet?" the walkway is .... who are you a sidewalk
superidendent?

This was cross posted to <rec.mototcycles> hoping that some
experienced riders would tell about how important helmets
are, and the dangers of speeding - when you are not experienced.

I won't be responding anymore to this thread. I just knew
the same parents who spoil kids and justify their "every
actions" might jump on me .... and you did.

Jon
P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 07:00 GMT
> I decided NOT to respond to any messages because immediately
> I saw the mothers jumping in to defend the kid who tried
> to take my $40.

   Tried to take?  How ridiculous.

> I won't be responding anymore to this thread. I just knew
> the same parents who spoil kids and justify their "every
> actions" might jump on me .... and you did.

   No, that's simply to insulate yourself from any
criticism.  If anything, it provides a justification for
those who thought that your original post was
shallow and baseless insofar as it related to your premise.

                                                       P. Tierney
Cathy Weeks - 10 Jan 2004 14:47 GMT
> I feel that any child that receives a motorcycle for
> Christmas (what in the name of GOD are the parents thinking?)
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> "how many feet?" the walkway is .... who are you a sidewalk
> superidendent?

<laugh> The sidewalk superintendents are trying to figure out if $10
were a reasonable offer.  Any contractor would evaluate the perameters
of a job before giving your a price.  $10 might be reasonable if the
walk were six feet long, and the snow were six or less inches deep,
and $40 might seem high.

However, if you have a 20 foot walk, a driveway and a porch, and the
snow is a foot deep, $40 seems way low, and $10 an insult.

Somewhere in between?  Well, then perhaps $40 was too high, and $10
was too low.  Did you try and negotiate a better deal?  Or do you
expect a free handout, just because you are poor?

Some teens are nice enough to shovel snow for free for those old
fellows they like...usually because they (the old fellows) are nice
people. I've never known ANY teen (or anyone else of any age) to
shovel snow for someone they disliked, or thought was a jerk.  You
might take a good look at yourself, and see which category you fall
into.

As for trying to take your $40, how did he do that?  Did he push you
down and grab you wallet?  If so, you should have called the police.
Did he ask for $40 because that's the amount he wanted, and you didn't
want to pay it?  Then he didn't try do anything wrong. And "the
mothers who jumped in to defend" STILL want to know HOW we parents are
overindulgent with regard to this kid. What do you want us to do?
Force him to take the job?

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
Rosalie B. - 10 Jan 2004 15:25 GMT
>> I feel that any child that receives a motorcycle for
>> Christmas (what in the name of GOD are the parents thinking?)
>> is very spoiled. To further demonstrate my thoughts, I told

Anyone who is riding a motorcycle (as opposed to one of those three or
four wheeled things or some kind of dirt bike for use on a track) has
to be at least 16 in order to get a license.   They aren't really a
child at that age IMHO. What kind of motorcycle are you talking
about??

My son had a motorcycle - a small Japanese one that was second hand.
My husband also has one.  My son liked it because it was easier on gas
than the cars we had that he could drive, so it cost him less to ride.

My 2nd daughter also rode a motorcycle.  She did this because at 16,
she wasn't allowed to drive before 6 am, and she needed to get down to
the barn to do chores before school, and if she waited until 6 am to
leave, she would have either been late to school, or would have come
in smelling of manure and she didn't want to do that.

I don't know that motorcycles are any more unsafe than other things
that my children did - they all were able to drive, and drove cars and
had and rode horses.  My son and daughter #3 competed over the same
cross country course that Christopher Reeves fell and was paralyzed
on.

We stressed safety (on both horses and motorcycles) and they always
wore the safety gear.  I would reject any notion that just because
they rode or had motorcycles that they were therefore spoiled.
They've all grown up to be responsible citizens with children of their
own.

>> about the boy who refused to help me for $10. I have had
>> a heart attack and cannot shovel. I cannot afford to pay
>> $40 because I'm on a fixed income.

My mom who is 94 has neighbors who help clear the snow on her car and
driveway because they value her as a member of the community.  She
does not go out when it is snowy or icy but in an emergency she'd like
to be able to get out.   My husband used to shovel the ramps and
street of the lady across the street who was crippled by arthritis and
in a wheelchair.

My husband had a heart attack in 2002, and my mom also has heart
problems, and we are retired and on a fixed income.  Neither my
husband nor my mother would ever whine about health problems or try to
use them as an excuse to rant about spoiled children.

>> I decided NOT to respond to any messages because immediately
>> I saw the mothers jumping in to defend the kid who tried
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>Cathy Weeks
>Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

Rosalie

Mom to 4 children 1961, 1963, 1968 and 1971 and grandmom to 10
grandchildren 1980, 1982, 1992 (deceased 1994), 1993, 1994, 1994,
1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001

Bownse - 10 Jan 2004 18:25 GMT
> Mom to 4 children 1961, 1963, 1968 and 1971 and grandmom to 10
> grandchildren 1980, 1982, 1992 (deceased 1994), 1993, 1994, 1994,
> 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001

WOW! That's a lot of rings accumulated.  When was the last time someone
took a core sample?
Signature


Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

"It's amazing how long we've been going to hell in a
handbasket ,without ever getting there." Will Rodgers

Stephen! - 12 Jan 2004 20:52 GMT
> Anyone who is riding a motorcycle (as opposed to one of those three or
> four wheeled things or some kind of dirt bike for use on a track) has
> to be at least 16 in order to get a license.  

Wrong.  No license is required to ride a motorcycle on private property.

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

toto - 10 Jan 2004 16:10 GMT
>STILL want to know HOW we parents are overindulgent
>with regard to this kid. What do you want us to do?
>Force him to take the job?
>
>Cathy Weeks
>Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

Exactly.  The part of the post most parents responded to
show not one bit of overindulgence.  Nor any thinking that
kids can't do anything wrong.  We simply don't see that
this teen did anything wrong in this particular instance by
refusing a price that he thought was too low.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Scott in Aztl?n - 10 Jan 2004 17:14 GMT
>>STILL want to know HOW we parents are overindulgent
>>with regard to this kid. What do you want us to do?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>this teen did anything wrong in this particular instance by
>refusing a price that he thought was too low.

How about this: The kid had every right to refuse to take the job for $10, just
as Jon had every right to refuse to hire the kid for $40. No harm, no foul -
that's the capitalist marketplace functioning correctly.

The overindulgent part is that the kid EXPECTED $40 for a job worth, in Jon's
adult judgement, $10. In other words, the kid has an unrealistic, overinflated
opinion of the value of his labor. And where else could such an overinflated
opinion come from but the kid's parents?

We can argue about whether the job was really worth only $10 until the cows come
home, but until the sidewalk superintendent gets back to us with the official
measurements of Jon's sidewalk, we'll never know who was right and who was
wrong.

What's *really* interesting is to see who accepts the premise and who doesn't.
"Mommy to Kivi Alexis" rejects the premise out of hand - she automatically
assumes that the 13-year-old kid was right and Jon was wrong. This, of course,
reinforces Jon's point that kids of this generation can do no wrong in the eyes
of the parents. :)

Signature

I contribute to charity by not needing it.

Barbara Bomberger - 10 Jan 2004 19:10 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:14:27 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>We can argue about whether the job was really worth only $10 until the cows come
>home, but until the sidewalk superintendent gets back to us with the official
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>reinforces Jon's point that kids of this generation can do no wrong in the eyes
>of the parents. :)

I have avoided responding to this thread up till now.

However, as a parent of a kid almost exactly that age, you assume a
great deal.

First, you assume that the adult judgement of the value of the job is
automatically more valid than that of the boy.  Why?  Just because he
is an adult?  How do you know that the boy has not already shoveled
fifteen walks at that price, and in this case the adult had the
unrealistic expectation. How do you not know that after he left Jon's
house, he found five other people willing to pay his fee.  The fact
that the adult (read customer), disagreed with the teen (read service
provider's) evaluation of the position does not make him more correct,
be it as adult or customer.

We have had this discussion elsewhere, on babysitting, whether its a
new parent looking for part time evening sitting, or full time care.
I have had people tell my teenagers "oh, no, I will pay this amount
and no more...........".  And my children always said, "well then, I'm
sorry, but I just cannot babysit for you".  Because they knew the
value of that particular job, how much they can get elsewhere, and can
make their own decisions.

Secondly, myself and most parents would never tell the kid how much to
expect from a job.  I would expect my kid to do some reasearch, find
out the going rate, and do their own leg work and get their own jobs.
If my kid had an overinflated idea of what the job is worth, then that
kid would learn next time.

I agree that many parents can be indulgetn.  I STILL dont see the
correlation here.
toto - 10 Jan 2004 20:07 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:14:27 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>How about this: The kid had every right to refuse to
>take the job for $10, just as Jon had every right to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>The overindulgent part is that the kid EXPECTED $40
>for a job worth, in Jon's adult judgement, $10.

Why is the kid's judgement suspect when Jon's is not?
We don't know that the kid didn't have a better idea of what
the job was worth than Jon did.  We only know that Jon
*thinks* the price was overinflated.  It may have been, it
may not have been.  No overindulgence shown.

>In other words, the kid has an unrealistic, overinflated
>opinion of the value of his labor.

Again only if we believe that *Jon's* opinion of the worth is
correct.  Frankly it depends on the conditions and I don't
see any reason to believe Jon.

> And where else could such an overinflated opinion come
>from but the kid's parents?

From the actual labor market where he can get the price he
asked if he was experienced.  Or perhaps he was new and
didn't have any way of gaging it.  After all that is how kids
learn the price of these things, but trying and getting turned
down, he may have put a different price on it for the next time.

>We can argue about whether the job was really worth only
>$10 until the cows come home, but until the sidewalk
>superintendent gets back to us with the official measurements
>of Jon's sidewalk, we'll never know who was right and who
>was wrong.

This is true as to the actual price, but, imNsho, asking for $40
doesn't show overindulgent parents or even overvaluing of
his labor.   You accept that this was overvalued on Jon's word.
I see no reason to do that.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Matthew Russotto - 11 Jan 2004 22:54 GMT
>How about this: The kid had every right to refuse to take the job for $10, just
>as Jon had every right to refuse to hire the kid for $40. No harm, no foul -
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>opinion of the value of his labor. And where else could such an overinflated
>opinion come from but the kid's parents?

You need (or Jon needs) a rocket-powered pogo stick to make a leap
like that based on so little.

Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Bownse - 10 Jan 2004 18:23 GMT
> Some teens are nice enough to shovel snow for free for those old
> fellows they like...usually because they (the old fellows) are nice
> people. I've never known ANY teen (or anyone else of any age) to
> shovel snow for someone they disliked, or thought was a jerk.  You
> might take a good look at yourself, and see which category you fall
> into.

It's a good thing then that:

1. I ain't old
2. It don't snow here

Thnk I'll go for a ride today and find some teens toward whom I can be
an a.shole.
Signature


Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

"It's amazing how long we've been going to hell in a
handbasket ,without ever getting there." Will Rodgers

toto - 10 Jan 2004 20:08 GMT
>Thnk I'll go for a ride today and find some teens toward whom I can be
>an a.shole.

Just don't complain when they treat you as an a.shole in return.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 02:49 GMT
>>Thnk I'll go for a ride today and find some teens toward whom I can be
>>an a.shole.
>
> Just don't complain when they treat you as an a.shole in return.  
> Dorothy

Why would I be upset. At least if they know I'm an a.shole, they'll
leave me alone.  Too bad I can't get the candy-dealing little pukes to
self-emolate when they try to use the doorbell.
Nan - 10 Jan 2004 20:33 GMT
>> I feel that any child that receives a motorcycle for
>> Christmas (what in the name of GOD are the parents thinking?)
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>Cathy Weeks
>Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

Why you Over-Indulgent Horrible Mom for attempting to justify the
EXTORTION that child had the NERVE to force on poor Jon!!!

/removes tongue from cheek ;-)

Nan
toto - 10 Jan 2004 16:08 GMT
>I am the original poster. I was responding to this post:

The post you responded to did not appear in misc.kids where I am
reading from the rant that most MKers are responding to
was the following part of the post I saw as the OP.  It was signed
Jon.  So I assume it was your post.  And you are trolling MK.

***********
(begin OP include)

First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
wait until it melts before I pay that much.

(end OP include)

*************

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 10 Jan 2004 18:55 GMT
>I feel that any child that receives a motorcycle for
>Christmas (what in the name of GOD are the parents thinking?)
>is very spoiled.

How is that being any more spoiled than getting a $2000 laptop for
x-mas to download porn onto or sending your kids to a $5,800/yr
private school? Face it... people have means and it's none of your
business what they do with it even if it is to their kid's detriment.

My kids are getting motorcycles and it'll give me an excuse to do
something fun with them on the weekends. Beats the hell out of the
more "responsible" parents who shuttle them around in their SUVs to
keep up with the Joneses at soccer camp and aren't around when junior
is lighting up a doobie or gang raping a cheerleader.

> To further demonstrate my thoughts, I told
>about the boy who refused to help me for $10. I have had
>a heart attack and cannot shovel. I cannot afford to pay
>$40 because I'm on a fixed income.

So it's the kid's fault you have heart problems and on a fixed income?
Where were you when they were telling you that smoking and eating
McDonald's every other day was bad for you? If the act of procreation
is to provide little slaves for people in need then I think I'll pass.

Don't complain here, thank the GOP style "faith charity" bullshit. Cut
social services so the richest .2% pays less taxes and then expect
everyone's little kid and Jesus knitting group to take the place of
Medicare and Social Security.

>This was cross posted to <rec.mototcycles> hoping that some
>experienced riders would tell about how important helmets
>are, and the dangers of speeding - when you are not experienced.

I for one hope anyone too stupid to live doesn't make it. America has
been protecting the incompetent against themselves for entirely too
long and it shows in the mental diarrhea that passes for a thought
these days.

First and foremost America is the land of self interest. Greed is what
has propelled us to accomplish as much as we have. The collectivist
think rubes on both the liberal and conservative fronts are recent
phenomenons and the primary reason why this country has become a
nation of half-wits in need of incessant public assistance.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Useful George Bush stats:

Born        1946
Graduated    1975 (29 years to attain Masters)
First known job    1989 (bought Texas Rangers with daddy's money)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calgary - 10 Jan 2004 21:14 GMT
>>I feel that any child that receives a motorcycle for
>>Christmas (what in the name of GOD are the parents thinking?)
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>phenomenons and the primary reason why this country has become a
>nation of half-wits in need of incessant public assistance.

Hard to believe and if anyone ever asks I will claim I was drunk when
I wrote this, but well said. (applause)

84 - Virago 1000
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/

Stressed is just Desserts spelled backwards
Paul - 12 Jan 2004 04:24 GMT
> How is that being any more spoiled than getting a $2000 laptop for
> x-mas to download porn onto or sending your kids to a $5,800/yr
> private school? Face it... people have means and it's none of your
> business what they do with it even if it is to their kid's detriment.

It isn't any more (or less) spoiled, but the fact that the kid looking @
porn or going to the provate school is not running stop signs and causing
accidents. I'm waiting for the day when a car (or real motorcycle) operator
is seriously injured or killed because of one of these brats on these
scooters.

> My kids are getting motorcycles and it'll give me an excuse to do
> something fun with them on the weekends.

So long as you are teaching them to ride responsibly and legally, more power
to you. You are in a small minority. Have fun.

--
Paul
<==HOMICIDE!!             SLOWER TRAFFIC THIS SIDE==>
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 12 Jan 2004 03:31 GMT
>It isn't any more (or less) spoiled, but the fact that the kid looking @
>porn or going to the provate school is not running stop signs and causing
>accidents. I'm waiting for the day when a car (or real motorcycle) operator
>is seriously injured or killed because of one of these brats on these
>scooters.

The kid downloading porn might grow up to make a mighty fine date
rapist. The blueblood educated silverspoon darling, just might someday
become president with disastrous consequences for all.

>So long as you are teaching them to ride responsibly and legally, more power
>to you. You are in a small minority. Have fun.

I got news for you... America was always run by and for the benefit of
a small minority. The majority of the population is/was a bunch of
clueless flesh monkies being manipulated for fun and profit.

Nothing wrong with that, but whining about its expression in society
(such as in brats running around on scooters) is ultimately fruitless.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Useful George Bush stats:

Born        1946
Graduated    1975 (29 years to attain Masters)
First known job    1989 (bought Texas Rangers with daddy's money)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Banty - 11 Jan 2004 16:48 GMT
>Here is what I wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>Christmas (what in the name of GOD are the parents thinking?)
>is very spoiled.

Maybe you should have stopped there... we might have been discussing kids and
scooters if you hadn't decided to "further your point" by indicating that you
expect charity from every kid that comes along. else the kids are 'spoiled'.  It
kinda set the stage for what you consdier 'spoiled', y'know.  As in "any kid
that doesn't do what I want when I want must have been spoiled by his parents".
Not a good place from which to start a discussion.

>To further demonstrate my thoughts, I told
>about the boy who refused to help me for $10. I have had
>a heart attack and cannot shovel. I cannot afford to pay
>$40 because I'm on a fixed income.

So - are you admitting here that you know the $10 was less than you would pay at
market?  Because, y'know, you could have opened the phone book and made some
calls (or call neighbors to find out what they do.)

>I decided NOT to respond to any messages because immediately
>I saw the mothers jumping in to defend the kid who tried
>to take my $40. And then you have the nerve to ask me about
>"how many feet?" the walkway is .... who are you a sidewalk
>superidendent?

"Take (your) $40"??!?  Who "tried to take (your) $40"??  If you look at it that
way, the whole world is trying to take your money.  Good thing ya gets ta say
"no"!  Sounds like you made an offer, he made a counter offer (or vice-versa),
and it was a no-deal situation.  As to who was closer to what the market would
be for a snow-shovelling job - yes, indeedy, questions like how long the walk is
certainly come into play.

>This was cross posted to <rec.mototcycles> hoping that some
>experienced riders would tell about how important helmets
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Jon

Hmmm - you know, my thinking on the situation (since you don't say anything more
about the snowshovelling deal except to hint you should be a charity case) is
that the kid knows you, knows you're a curmudgeon, and priced himself out
purposely.

Grow up and quit expecting the world to come to your door, loosen up, and
develop some friendly give-and-take relationships around your neighborhood if
you want charity help.

Banty
0tterbot - 10 Jan 2004 12:52 GMT
"toto"
> Note: Jon was trolling - misc.kids was included because he
> wanted to start an argument.  Most of the mk posters simply
> don't see the connection he made and I don't see how you
> can if you look at this rationally.

he's not looking at it rationally, & i hope you're not suggesting that he
*would*, either! he was apparently unable to work out it was a troll,
decided that even after two days no poster would have had the wit, style &
effervescence to make a remark like "must be that time of the month" & just
had to get it out there before it slipped inevitably away from him again.

i give this thread 5 out of 10 for trolling. it would have been only 4 out
of ten but the o.p. found himself a couple of ngs with some truly excitable
types who have contributed greatly to an otherwise fairly dull & borderline
unsuccessful troll. i daresay this is more excitement than scott & stephen
have had for months.
kylie

> (begin OP include)
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> The Outer Limits
Nate Nagel - 10 Jan 2004 12:30 GMT
>>Ah, so you think just because he's 13, he ought to do it for less than
>>an amount that he considers worth his time?  He doesn't owe you
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Are you really so dense you can't see the problem there?

I used to live in a corner house in Dearborn... took me about 2.5 hours
to shovel everything after a heavy snow, including busting up the ice
underneath.  So in that case it would have been around $30/hour.  Oh,
wait, that's still too much...

nate

Signature

go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

Cathy Weeks - 10 Jan 2004 14:31 GMT
> Kid came to his door, bothered him, trying to extort money.  Wanted to
> charge $80 bucks an hour to shovel f.cking snow.
>
> Are you really so dense you can't see the problem there?

And are you so dense, that you, along with everyone else, is making
assumptions about what really happened?  The way I see it, is that he
thinks he's God's gift to teenagers, with his low-wage jobs, and he
flagged down some kid who was out sledding, thinking he'd be grateful
for an "easy" ten bucks.

Or, the kid was going door, to door, asking for $40 to shovel walks
(two hour job average) and Jon offered an insultingly low $10 as a
counter offer.

Or, or, or.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
dragonlady - 10 Jan 2004 17:48 GMT
> >Ah, so you think just because he's 13, he ought to do it for less than
> >an amount that he considers worth his time?  He doesn't owe you
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Are you really so dense you can't see the problem there?

And you know it was a half an hours work because . . . .?

The sidewalk in front of grandma's house used to take two of us about
two hours to shovel (4 hours total) -- unless it was a really heavy
snowfall, in which case it took longer.  Of course, she had a large
corner lot, and a long walkway up to her front door.

And where on earth do you get "extort" out of offering to do a job?  I
saw nothing indicating that the child got so much as pushy, never mind
demanding.

meh
Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 08 Jan 2004 15:50 GMT
>About 7-8 teens (12-15) received these motor cycles/scooters
>this Christmas and they ride (speed) up and down the street
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>ride through this neighborhood at night with no lights attached
>to their motor cycles. Where are the parents?

I'll tell you where... they've been stupidified by our nanny
government (both liberal and Konservative) and are incapable of using
common sense. They need someone to pass a law and regulate their lives
otherwise it doesn't occur to them.

The scooters are new, so they don't think they're as dangerous as
motorcycles/bicycles. When their kid goes brain dead after smashing
their skull on an a-pilar, they'll show up all teary eyed on Oprah
talking about those murderscooters.

"If I only knew... Oprah, if I can only reach all those mothers out
there. If I can only save the life of one child..."

Oh yes and don't forget the multi-million dollar study and
appropriations to law enforcement so they can form "scooter patrols"
with a cute slogan imploring you to follow the new law.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Useful George Bush stats:

Born        1946
Graduated    1975 (29 years to attain Masters)
First known job    1989 (bought Texas Rangers with daddy's money)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Banty - 08 Jan 2004 16:14 GMT
>>About 7-8 teens (12-15) received these motor cycles/scooters
>>this Christmas and they ride (speed) up and down the street
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>appropriations to law enforcement so they can form "scooter patrols"
>with a cute slogan imploring you to follow the new law.

You forgot - the law that will be passed, inevitably named "(Oprah's guest's
deceased or brain-gorked kid's name)'s Law"

Cheers,
Banty
Rob Kleinschmidt - 08 Jan 2004 22:26 GMT
> >About 7-8 teens (12-15) received these motor cycles/scooters
> >this Christmas and they ride (speed) up and down the street
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> common sense. They need someone to pass a law and regulate their lives
> otherwise it doesn't occur to them.

I think that's mostly a crock.

As a kid, I remember school sponsered races for home made go-karts.
Typically they'd go maybe 25-30 mph, but most kids could never figure
out how to get the brakes or steering to really work right. Helmets
were of course optional.

Since we were still in the middle of a space race with the Rooshins,
chemistry experiments were also encouraged, do it yourself rocketry
and pyrotechnics. One unfortunate non-sanctioned experiment blew out
a portion of the chem lab and sent a kid to the hospital with shrapnel
wounds when somebody tried to grind dry explosive in a meatgrinder.
I recall a friend and I used to amuse ourselves by shooting off
homemade rockets made from empty CO2 cartidges. It wasn't until
many years later that it occurred to me to wonder where the things
had been landing.

Attitudes that seemed completely unremarkable a couple of decades ago
now look like they came from the 19th century or perhaps the dark ages.
I suggest that from one generation to the next we're becoming more
and more a nation of safety nazis.
Brent P - 09 Jan 2004 01:14 GMT
> Attitudes that seemed completely unremarkable a couple of decades ago
> now look like they came from the 19th century or perhaps the dark ages.
> I suggest that from one generation to the next we're becoming more
> and more a nation of safety nazis.

I would hate to be a kid now. Dumbed down, locked away from anything
that might hurt them etc. My parents didn't let me do half the stuff
I wanted, but I still got to play with model rockets, electricity,
etc etc. And generally did it without supervision. Although I never
did anything particularly dangerous, most of it is probably disallowed
today.

Only the particularly dumb kids hurt themselves... Like the ones that
found a july 4th dud and decided to hack it open with a hatchet.....
toto - 09 Jan 2004 03:21 GMT
>> Attitudes that seemed completely unremarkable a couple of decades ago
>> now look like they came from the 19th century or perhaps the dark ages.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Only the particularly dumb kids hurt themselves... Like the ones that
>found a july 4th dud and decided to hack it open with a hatchet.....

You don't have to be particularly dumb to get badly hurt, but I agree
that we are trying to take the risk out of life which not only cannot
be done, but which harms kids because they never get to experience
situations where they must make good decisions about safety on their
own.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Rob Kleinschmidt - 10 Jan 2004 00:57 GMT
> >Only the particularly dumb kids hurt themselves... Like the ones that
> >found a july 4th dud and decided to hack it open with a hatchet.....
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> situations where they must make good decisions about safety on their
> own.

I lost a pretty good friend at age 19 (motorcycle accident).
My son lost a pretty good friend at age 18 (auto passenger).

I don't think either of them were dumb, but at that age, most
have no clue about their mortality. Hard to say if anybody's
safer these days. More vigilantly protected perhaps, but safer ?

Also, seems like just the tiniest touch of irony claiming "only the
particularly dumb kids hurt themselves" in this forum.

Could we please have a show of hands from all the rec.moto readers
who have never hurt themselves and believe they never will ?
Stephen! - 10 Jan 2004 01:58 GMT
> Could we please have a show of hands from all the rec.moto readers
> who have never hurt themselves and believe they never will ?

Here's mine:

                    /"\
                   |\./|
                   |   |
                   |   |
                   |>~<|
                   |   |
                /'\|   |/'\..
            /~\|   |   |   | \
           |   =[@]=   |   |  \
           |   |   |   |   |   \
           | ~   ~   ~   ~ |`   )
           |                   /
            \                 /
             \               /
              \    _____    /
               |--//''`\--|
               | (( +==)) |
               |--\_|_//--|

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Charles Soto - 10 Jan 2004 21:59 GMT
> I lost a pretty good friend at age 19 (motorcycle accident).
> My son lost a pretty good friend at age 18 (auto passenger).

Same here.  Car-load of buddies in HS.

> I don't think either of them were dumb, but at that age, most
> have no clue about their mortality. Hard to say if anybody's
> safer these days. More vigilantly protected perhaps, but safer ?

This is why I say we beat our kids.  It's our job to put the fear of
death into them, since they lack a sufficiently developed sense of
mortality on their own.

> Also, seems like just the tiniest touch of irony claiming "only the
> particularly dumb kids hurt themselves" in this forum.

With any luck, the dumb kids would take themselves out along with their
parents.

> Could we please have a show of hands from all the rec.moto readers
> who have never hurt themselves and believe they never will ?

I only do this when the little man in my head tells me to.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Stephen! - 09 Jan 2004 11:51 GMT
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:mgnLb.2369$I06.17042
@attbi_s01:

> I would hate to be a kid now. Dumbed down, locked away from anything
> that might hurt them etc. My parents didn't let me do half the stuff
> I wanted, but I still got to play with model rockets, electricity,
> etc etc. And generally did it without supervision. Although I never
> did anything particularly dangerous, most of it is probably disallowed
> today.

You'll be happy to know that some schools consider a snowball fight a
punishable "act of violence" now...

f.cking w.nkers...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Brent P - 09 Jan 2004 15:32 GMT
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:mgnLb.2369$I06.17042
> @attbi_s01:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> f.cking w.nkers...

My guess is they still punish the kid who acts in self defense too.
toto - 09 Jan 2004 21:32 GMT
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:mgnLb.2369$I06.17042
>> @attbi_s01:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>My guess is they still punish the kid who acts in self defense too.

While this is awful, it is hard to avoid when you can't tell who
started things or who was defending and who was bullying.
Unless you are an eyewitness and most of the time teachers
don't witness the beginning of a fight, you can't always tell
which kid is in the wrong.

Punishing both is unfair, but if the rule is *no fighting,* what
would you have the school do?

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 09 Jan 2004 23:01 GMT
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:mgnLb.2369$I06.17042
>>> @attbi_s01:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> don't witness the beginning of a fight, you can't always tell
> which kid is in the wrong.

That's crap. I know from experience. The teachers know who the victim
and the perps are. But to make things easier they write up a 'zero
tolerance policy' or some other BS so they can just point to the policy
and not think. Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
thrown a punch. And that was like 18 years ago, I shudder to think what
it is like now.

> Punishing both is unfair, but if the rule is *no fighting,* what
> would you have the school do?

Well let's see, stop asking for infinite tolerance. And actually
come down hard on the harrassers in the first place. Schools are
asking for children to just sit there and take the abuse. The staff
doesn't do anything to stop it. When a kid stands up for himself,
he often gets punished too or alone. This puts a kid that is trying
to play by the rules in a really bad spot. All he can do is just
sit there and take it. And even then he isn't safe from punishment.

I think the inability of kids to fight back on a low level is a
contributor to this eventual explosion where frustration manifests
itself in a lethal event. I can only go by my personal experience,
and what I've seen/read.
toto - 10 Jan 2004 05:03 GMT
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:mgnLb.2369$I06.17042
>>>> @attbi_s01:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>tolerance policy' or some other BS so they can just point to the policy
>and not think.

Administrators make ZT policy not teachers.

>Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
>the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
>thrown a punch.

Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.

>And that was like 18 years ago, I shudder to think
>what it is like now.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>itself in a lethal event. I can only go by my personal experience,
>and what I've seen/read.

Interestingly, when I went to school, girls didn't get into physical
fights much, but they do now.

I think there are several things schools need to do.  

First they must identify what is happening and not make it ok (it
tended to be ok if the jocks did it when I was in school and I think
that is still fairly true).  

Second, they must make the school atmosphere such that
everyone - school secretaries, janitors, teachers, etc. are all
on the same page and intervene *before* the fight gets to the
level of physical violence.

There are several peer-intervention programs that work in
middle school and high school.  

Third, they should intervene with the bullies and their parents
well before middle school.  Teachers in elementary school
can certainly see some of this coming.  

Fourth, they must actively teach tolerance and acceptance
of differences.  In elementary school, every conflict is a
teachable moment.  If we want violence free schools and
classrooms, we have to teach this and we have to allow the
children to have some control as well.  

But, remember that the school budget doesn't allow for this
and it *will* take away from academic teaching.  The politicians
already say that schools are not supposed to teach ethical
and moral behavior.  Yet, kids are endangered if they are
*different* in any way.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Nan - 10 Jan 2004 05:21 GMT
>>Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
>>the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
>>thrown a punch.
>
>Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.

Is it really that way now?  When my ds was in elementary school, the
ZT policy was for those getting *into* a fight, even in self-defense.
However, if a child is hit or being beaten on that doesn't fight back
wasn't victimized again by the school by being suspended.

Nan
toto - 10 Jan 2004 05:32 GMT
>>>Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
>>>the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>However, if a child is hit or being beaten on that doesn't fight back
>wasn't victimized again by the school by being suspended.

Probably depends on if an adult witnessed that he didn't hit back.
I don't know.  Neither of my kids ever were in physical fights at
school.

>Nan

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 05:53 GMT
> >>>Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
> >>>the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> >However, if a child is hit or being beaten on that doesn't fight back
> >wasn't victimized again by the school by being suspended.

   That's how it was at the high school that I taught at.  I doubt
there are any written policies at schools where it says that a
person being assaulted deserves suspension.

                                                   P. Tierney
Nan - 10 Jan 2004 20:47 GMT
>> >>>Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
>> >>>the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>there are any written policies at schools where it says that a
>person being assaulted deserves suspension.

Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
My ds got hit by a boy that had bullied him for some time.  Other kids
thankfully witnessed and spoke up against the bully (anonymously), so
my ds didn't get in trouble.

Nan
P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 21:10 GMT
> >> >>>Seriously, a kid can walk up to another kid, hit him, and
> >> >>>the kid who got hit will get suspended for fighting without ever have
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.

   Sorry, my writing was not clear.  The "that's how it was
at the high school I taught at" was intended to be related
to your experience, not the one you were responding to.
IOW, victimized students were *not* intentionally suspended
at my school.  I say "intentionally" because I'm sure that
mistakes happened, but every effort was made to make
sure that a true victim was not punished.

                                                               P. Tierney
toto - 11 Jan 2004 01:46 GMT
>> Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>mistakes happened, but every effort was made to make
>sure that a true victim was not punished.

I would agree with this where the schools my kids attended
were concerned and in the schools where I taught.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Nan - 11 Jan 2004 02:01 GMT
>> Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>mistakes happened, but every effort was made to make
>sure that a true victim was not punished.

Oh, okay.  I'll honestly say it's surprising to me that schools would
even consider suspending both kids if one clearly didn't fight back,
and it can be corroborated by others.

Nan
toto - 11 Jan 2004 02:33 GMT
>>> Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>even consider suspending both kids if one clearly didn't fight back,
>and it can be corroborated by others.

I agree, the problem though is in the corroboration.

>Nan

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Nan - 11 Jan 2004 03:48 GMT
>>>> Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>I agree, the problem though is in the corroboration.

True!  I was thinking of the fact that it was on the elementary school
level and most kids aren't going to tell tales.  That the school
allowed the witnesses to come forth anonymously, helped I'm sure.
I'd imagine that kids wouldn't want to become targets of the bully
themselves!

Nan
emore - 11 Jan 2004 03:01 GMT
>>>Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Nan

He should be expelled if he didn't fight back.  If he is stoopid enough
to stand there (or lie there) and take an ass-kicking with no effort to
defend himself...well, never mind...      He'll be dead soon enough and
we won't have to see him except for his entry into the Darwin Awards.

E
0tterbot - 11 Jan 2004 13:21 GMT
"emore" <
> > Oh, okay.  I'll honestly say it's surprising to me that schools would
> > even consider suspending both kids if one clearly didn't fight back,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> defend himself...well, never mind...      He'll be dead soon enough and
> we won't have to see him except for his entry into the Darwin Awards.

damn straight! that's why pacifist nobodies like gandhi and jesus vanished
into obscurity & didn't live on to spread their message, (whatever it
was)!!!!!
kylie
Roger Dodger - 11 Jan 2004 19:28 GMT
> damn straight! that's why pacifist nobodies like gandhi and jesus vanished
> into obscurity & didn't live on to spread their message, (whatever it
> was)!!!!!

Whatever it was.

It was *not* likely pacifism.  That is a modern Western fabrication.

Jesus and Gandhi were spoiled rich kids.  Jesus, the *historical*
jesus, not the mythical one, was a prince.  He was not a humble
shepherd's illegitimate surrogate son.  "King of the Jews" was
not just an expression.  As for Gandhi, he was a rich, powerful,
arrogant, high-caste Hindu educated in Britain.

Jesus was a political leader first of all, rather than a religious
one.  Think of Yasser Arafat.  If he ever preached pacifism, it was
a temporary measure, a delaying tactic to confuse the heathen Romans
and soften them up.

Gandhi cultivated a certain image for the West, one of exaggerated
pacifism.  His real policy mas more quietism than pacifism, to make
the masses easier for Ghandhi to rule, once the heathens have gone
politely back to Britain.  He was a Hindu tribalist, for whom vio-
lence against the godless Muslims was quite acceptable.

In short, the pseudo-pacifism covering a conniving manipulative
true nature, common to those born into power (rather than starting
at the bottom, and earning it).
Charles Soto - 11 Jan 2004 22:01 GMT
> Jesus and Gandhi were spoiled rich kids.  Jesus, the *historical*
> jesus, not the mythical one, was a prince.  He was not a humble
> shepherd's illegitimate surrogate son.  "King of the Jews" was
> not just an expression.  As for Gandhi, he was a rich, powerful,
> arrogant, high-caste Hindu educated in Britain.

You sure know how to take stuff out of context.  Jesus was a jew.  You
konw how Jewish moms think their sons are all princes ;)

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Roger Dodger - 12 Jan 2004 03:08 GMT
> > Jesus and Gandhi were spoiled rich kids.  Jesus, the *historical*
> > jesus, not the mythical one, was a prince.  He was not a humble
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You sure know how to take stuff out of context.  Jesus was a jew.  You
> konw how Jewish moms think their sons are all princes ;)

What does that have to do with anything?
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 12 Jan 2004 03:31 GMT
>> You sure know how to take stuff out of context.  Jesus was a jew.  You
>> konw how Jewish moms think their sons are all princes ;)
>
>What does that have to do with anything?

Er.... welcome to usenet.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Useful George Bush stats:

Born        1946
Graduated    1975 (29 years to attain Masters)
First known job    1989 (bought Texas Rangers with daddy's money)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Banty - 11 Jan 2004 16:28 GMT
>>>>Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>E

Hmmm - this sounds a lot like a typical bully's rationalization.  On the lines
of the "he deserved it he's a wimp".

Banty
Charles Soto - 11 Jan 2004 22:03 GMT
> Hmmm - this sounds a lot like a typical bully's rationalization.  On the lines
> of the "he deserved it he's a wimp".
>
> Banty

The other kids will take care of that.  They can smell fear.

Columbine could have been avoided if some of the other kids had just
beat the sh.t out of the whackos a bit more often.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Matthew Russotto - 12 Jan 2004 01:15 GMT
>> Hmmm - this sounds a lot like a typical bully's rationalization.  On the lines
>> of the "he deserved it he's a wimp".
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Columbine could have been avoided if some of the other kids had just
>beat the sh.t out of the whackos a bit more often.

Columbine was a result of the other kids beating the sh.t out of the
whackos one time too many.

Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Charles Soto - 12 Jan 2004 01:34 GMT
> >> Hmmm - this sounds a lot like a typical bully's rationalization.  On the
> >> lines
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Columbine was a result of the other kids beating the sh.t out of the
> whackos one time too many.

No.  Other kids were "mean to them."  Called them names.  sh.t.  Kids
were mean to me.  I knew some of them would kick my a.s royally, so I
stayed in line.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

DTJ - 13 Jan 2004 01:25 GMT
>> >Columbine could have been avoided if some of the other kids had just
>> >beat the sh.t out of the whackos a bit more often.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>were mean to me.  I knew some of them would kick my a.s royally, so I
>stayed in line.

No, Columbine was what a.sholes kids deserve when they think they are
better than others (especially those who know how to buy guns!).
Roger Dodger - 15 Jan 2004 21:55 GMT
> >> >Columbine could have been avoided if some of the other kids had just
> >> >beat the sh.t out of the whackos a bit more often.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> >No.  Other kids were "mean to them."  Called them names.

And physically abused them to the point of mental breakdown.
That's when they became whackos.  And these kids were not the
only victims.  If you ask the non-jock students and ex-students
of that school, and even some of the teachers, most will admit
that bullying was out of control for many years.

The insanity also started with compulsory attendance laws.
If you stay at home, because of bullies, you get penalized.
Not the bullies.  If you fight back, you get penalized.
So the tension builds until the victims "fight back" with
murder.

> >sh.t.  Kids
> >were mean to me.  I knew some of them would kick my a.s
> >royally, so I stayed in line.

Stayed in line?  You mean let the thugs dictate what you can
wear, what you can say, where you can walk, where you can
eat your lunch, which bathroom you can use?

How does that saying go?
"The terrorists have already won."

> No, Columbine was what a.sholes kids deserve when they
> think they are better than others (especially those who
> know how to buy guns!).

Too bad some innocent people who were probably also bullying
victims had to die, too.
Stephen! - 17 Jan 2004 01:27 GMT
>> >No.  Other kids were "mean to them."  Called them names.
>
> And physically abused them to the point of mental breakdown.

Boo-f.cking-hoo...  Keep it outa Reeky.

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

DTJ - 17 Jan 2004 03:47 GMT
Hey Roger boy, learn to quote people correctly.  Otherwise I will be
forced to remove your computer from the Internet as punishment.

>> >> >Columbine could have been avoided if some of the other kids had just
>> >> >beat the sh.t out of the whackos a bit more often.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> >
>> >No.  Other kids were "mean to them."  Called them names.

I did not say that.  Note the number of indents....

>And physically abused them to the point of mental breakdown.
>That's when they became whackos.  And these kids were not the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>So the tension builds until the victims "fight back" with
>murder.

You got this part right.

>> No, Columbine was what a.sholes kids deserve when they
>> think they are better than others (especially those who
>> know how to buy guns!).
>
>Too bad some innocent people who were probably also bullying
>victims had to die, too.

Personally, I have little sympathy for them.  From what the FBI
investigation found, not only was virtually every kid in Columbine
harassing them, so were the teachers.  I only wish they could have
taken out more of the bad guys, so that the remaining bullies in the
country would learn.

And please, let's not whine about my comment everyone.  The fact is,
sometimes it is better to kill a few, to save a lot more.  Iraq for
instance.  We killed a bunch of Iraqis, but saved millions more.
Scott in Aztl?n - 17 Jan 2004 04:47 GMT
>Hey Roger boy, learn to quote people correctly.  Otherwise I will be
>forced to remove your computer from the Internet as punishment.

Oh, the hypocrisy...

Signature

A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

toto - 18 Jan 2004 00:24 GMT
>Personally, I have little sympathy for them.  From what the FBI
>investigation found, not only was virtually every kid in Columbine
>harassing them, so were the teachers.  I only wish they could have
>taken out more of the bad guys, so that the remaining bullies in the
>country would learn.

Cite for this FBI report that shows that virtually every kid and
teacher was harrassing them?

>And please, let's not whine about my comment everyone.  The fact is,
>sometimes it is better to kill a few, to save a lot more.  Iraq for
>instance.  We killed a bunch of Iraqis, but saved millions more.

Yeah, except when Saddam was on *our side* and killing Iraqis
citizens who opposed him.

http://www.catalyzerjournal.com/cnews/newsid/EpVpEyyZVpnflceGNI.php

CIA buddies with Saddam as early as 1960 7:59PM EST Saturday,
4/12/2003

he UPI has just released a report stating that US officials
and the CIA were working with Saddam 20 years before
the Iran-Iraq war (many thought that the US only started
working with Saddam in 1980).  The UPI talked to numerous
officials for the exclusive report, which says that the CIA
worked with Saddam to get rid of pro-Soviet Iraqi PM Abd
al-Karim Qasim, cooperating with the Egyptian intelligence
service which installed Saddam accross the street from
Qasim to observe him, in order to plan an assassination.  
One of UPI's sources said that Saddam missed Qasim in
firing, and a number of sources have confirmed that after
the botched October 1959 assassination Saddam was
helped out of the country by the CIA and the Egyptians.  
The CIA paid for a Beirut apartment for Saddam after the
attempt and gave him a "brief training course", then helped
him get to Cairo.  

After a Baath party coup, the CIA gave the anti-communist
party a list of suspected communists who were then shot
by the Iraqi Guardsmen.  Ex-intelligence officers say that
this was regarded as a "great victory".  

Note the word *suspected*  in the above.  Who knows if
they were innocent or guilty and why is *being a communist*
enough to allow someone to be murdered?

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
P. Tierney - 11 Jan 2004 06:24 GMT
> >> Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> even consider suspending both kids if one clearly didn't fight back,
> and it can be corroborated by others.

   Yeah, the problem arises in the "clearly" part.  Even without
witnesses, there are ways to try to figure out if there was a
clear aggressor.  But like any system involving humans,
errors will occur.

                                                       P. Tierney
Nan - 11 Jan 2004 16:20 GMT
>> >> Hmmmm.... I'd have to intervene for my kid, then.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>clear aggressor.  But like any system involving humans,
>errors will occur.

I agree.  Typically, teachers will know who an aggressor is, based on
previous experiences and observations.  Bullies tend to make
themselves very well known.
I do understand that in the case of an actual fight that certain lines
need to be established in order to mete out punishment, though.

Nan
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 02:56 GMT
> Oh, okay.  I'll honestly say it's surprising to me that schools would
> even consider suspending both kids if one clearly didn't fight back,
> and it can be corroborated by others.
>
> Nan

That's why a "no tollerance" policy should automatically raise your red
flags and you should fight them at every turn.  Opression by the
majority is never a good thing.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 12 Jan 2004 03:32 GMT
>That's why a "no tollerance" policy should automatically raise your red

You spelled tolerance wrong and are hereby prohibited from posting
ever again.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Useful George Bush stats:

Born        1946
Graduated    1975 (29 years to attain Masters)
First known job    1989 (bought Texas Rangers with daddy's money)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brent P - 10 Jan 2004 07:04 GMT
>>Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.
>
> Is it really that way now?  When my ds was in elementary school, the
> ZT policy was for those getting *into* a fight, even in self-defense.
> However, if a child is hit or being beaten on that doesn't fight back
> wasn't victimized again by the school by being suspended.

That's how it was when I was in junior high, and that was back in the
80s. I had a kid punch me and would have been suspended if my mother
hadn't gotten involved. What did I do? I stood there and looked at  
him with an 'is that-all-you-got' expression.

BTW what's a ds?
P. Tierney - 10 Jan 2004 07:06 GMT
> >>Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> hadn't gotten involved. What did I do? I stood there and looked at
> him with an 'is that-all-you-got' expression.

   Then times have changed.  In some places, anyway.

                                                                   P.
Tierney
Brent P - 11 Jan 2004 20:34 GMT
>     Then times have changed.  In some places, anyway.

By appearances for the worse.
toto - 10 Jan 2004 16:16 GMT
>>>Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>BTW what's a ds?

dear son or darling son

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Nan - 10 Jan 2004 20:44 GMT
>>>Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>him with an 'is that-all-you-got' expression.
>BTW what's a ds?

Dear Son.

It's an acronym common to the parenting groups.

Nan
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 02:52 GMT
>>BTW what's a ds?
>
> Dear Son.
> Nan

Odd how different a parentinh group and a motorcycle group can be. I saw
it as an acronym for dumb sh.t.
Nan - 12 Jan 2004 03:03 GMT
>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Odd how different a parentinh group and a motorcycle group can be. I saw
>it as an acronym for dumb sh.t.

Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
you in there.

Nan
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 03:36 GMT
>>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Nan

Yep, there are a lot of us motorcyclists in the moto group. Most of them
recognize dumb sh.ts from other groups the moment they read the first
line typed by said DS's.
Nan - 12 Jan 2004 04:00 GMT
>>>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>recognize dumb sh.ts from other groups the moment they read the first
>line typed by said DS's.

Erm, you missed my point.  I asked if the dumbshits were in your
group.  Not from other groups.

Nan
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 05:12 GMT
>>>>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear Son.
>>>>>Nan

>>>>Odd how different a parenting group and a motorcycle group can be. I saw
>>>>it as an acronym for dumb sh.t.

>>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>>>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Nan

You coulda fooled me. Your sentence structure was pretty convoluted.
Nan - 12 Jan 2004 14:09 GMT
>>>>>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>You coulda fooled me. Your sentence structure was pretty convoluted.

Grammar Lames are the mark of an idiot.

Nan
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 23:36 GMT
>>>>>>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Nan

I wasn't flaming you for your grammar. I responded based on my
understanding of how you constructed your sentence. YOU'RE the one that
got all huffy because I can't read your mind.

No go home or I shall taunt you again.

[NEE!]
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 00:33 GMT
>>>>>>>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>No go home or I shall taunt you again.

You say this as if you believe I'm worried about your idiocy.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 04:27 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> You say this as if you believe I'm worried about your idiocy.
> Nan

No I say this as if I suspected you'd not recognize a Puthon quote if it
slapped you upside the head with a hallibut.
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 04:28 GMT
>>I wasn't flaming you for your grammar. I responded based on my
>>understanding of how you constructed your sentence. YOU'RE the one that
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Nan

Oh, and we're still waiting to find out how you assumed the "biker" mantle.

We have two mid-aged HD's. We have that you sold them "several" years
ago.  We still don't know if you ever got them out of town without the
help of a trailer.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 04:39 GMT
>Oh, and we're still waiting to find out how you assumed the "biker" mantle.

You don't read for comprehension, do you.  Whether or not I fit your
"definition" isn't something I'm concerned about.

>We have two mid-aged HD's. We have that you sold them "several" years
>ago.  We still don't know if you ever got them out of town without the
>help of a trailer.

I answered the questions.  If not to your satisfaction, sorry for your
luck, sweetie.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 05:44 GMT
>>Oh, and we're still waiting to find out how you assumed the "biker" mantle.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Nan

Geeze, Nan. I guess you don't understand how message threads work.  I
read your response, but it was some messages later in the thread from
this one that I was replying to.  Precognition isn't one of my strong suits.

I guess you're all in a huff about being nailed as a hobbiest.  Sorry to
shatter your personal image.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 12:32 GMT
>>>Oh, and we're still waiting to find out how you assumed the "biker" mantle.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>read your response, but it was some messages later in the thread from
>this one that I was replying to.  Precognition isn't one of my strong suits.

Oh, I understand perfectly well, hon.  I read the thread before
posting to individual posts.  It saves time and saves me from looking
like a moron.  You might try it sometime.

Nan
Charles Soto - 12 Jan 2004 23:49 GMT
> >>>>>>>BTW what's a ds?
> >>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Nan

I know you are but what am I?

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 12 Jan 2004 04:00 GMT
>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>you in there.

If you don't like talking to us smelly motorcyclists (who no doubt
have buzzed you at 100+mph in your minivan countless times) then you
might want to learn how to operate a news reader and TRIM THE GOD
DAMNED HEADERS.

That way us dumbshits wouldn't have the opportunity to respond to your
impeccably crafted prose. Really I mean that's like passing by the
baboon cage and poking them with a stick. Sooner or later, you'll be
asking the cleaners "can you remove this primate dung from my
Chanel?".

I know we certainly cannot rise up to the level of a parenting
newsgroup. After all it takes an incredible amount of means and
intellectual ability to knock yourself up, which us bikers obviously
do not have. Invariably when it does happen it's usually the result of
relations with our siblings and we've skipped town to avoid the child
support payments. Besides even if we could somehow afford the white
picket fence masturbation of the great American Dream[tm], we'd prolly
just have the kid and raise them the same way millions of other
parents raised their children before the advent of the internet.

Can you imagine anything as gauche as not consulting with several
dozen of your peers every time junior burps up his Chefboyrdees? Of
not debating your feelings with the child and several thousand usenet
w.nkers in the middle of a tantrum (the kid not yourself) and actually
doing something as barbaric as slapping the little sh.t for mouthing
off?

No, at best all we can muster is wrenching on our bikes and picking
lice off each other. So what are you, Jane Goodall or something? Cause
you're obviously quite lost in here.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Useful George Bush stats:

Born        1946
Graduated    1975 (29 years to attain Masters)
First known job    1989 (bought Texas Rangers with daddy's money)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nan - 12 Jan 2004 04:11 GMT
>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>might want to learn how to operate a news reader and TRIM THE GOD
>DAMNED HEADERS.

I don't own a minivan, and I've been a biker, sweetie.
I've been to Sturgis, Beanblossom... you name it.  Had a great time.
And no, I won't trim the GOD DAMNED HEADERS.  The crossposts came from
a group other than the one I post in.  I never trim the GOD DAMNED
HEADERS, when I'm replying, as I don't know which group the post I'm
replying to, came from.  As it is, the post you decided to hump came
directly from your group.  So suck it up and deal with it, or trim
your own GOD DAMNED HEADERS.

<snip rest of mindless drivel>

Nan
Reassembler - 12 Jan 2004 04:35 GMT
> >>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
> >>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Nan

when I grow up, i want to be just like you.
kd5nrh@yahoo.com - 13 Jan 2004 00:58 GMT
> > I don't own a minivan, and I've been a biker, sweetie.
> > I've been to Sturgis, Beanblossom... you name it.  Had a great time.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> when I grow up, i want to be just like you.

A washed-up ex-biker who can't afford a minivan?

Signature

Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH

Alan Moore - 12 Jan 2004 04:39 GMT
>>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>>>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I don't own a minivan, and I've been a biker, sweetie.
>I've been to Sturgis, Beanblossom... you name it.  

Sturgis? OK, I'll name it: POSER!

Al Moore
DoD 734
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 05:22 GMT
>>>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>>>>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Al Moore
> DoD 734

Hey! Be nice. She may have gone to Sturgis when no one was looking. She
may have ridden there and back.  She may have put serious miles on her
bike every year. She may have even owned a bike. For long enough to rack
up a year's worth of miles. Maybe not. But she mighta.
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 05:19 GMT
>>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>>>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I don't own a minivan,

You sound positively depressed about it, too. A Volvo, maybe?

> and I've been a biker, sweetie.

"Been"?  Past tense, eh?  Knees give out after you reached 80, did they?
How many miles a year DO you ride (did if you are over 80). Trailering
doesn't count.  How many states have to RIDEN to and ridden in? (see
above about trailering not counting).

> I've been to Sturgis, Beanblossom... you name it.  Had a great time.

With or without a bike? Riding it to Sturgis, trailering it, or taking
the bus and standing on the corner in store bought leathers posing for
cameras?

I'll withhold assessment about your "biker" status pending your
response.  It's the great, understanding, kinda guy I am.

> And no, I won't trim the GOD DAMNED HEADERS.  The crossposts came from
> a group other than the one I post in.  I never trim the GOD DAMNED
> HEADERS, when I'm replying, as I don't know which group the post I'm
> replying to, came from.  As it is, the post you decided to hump came
> directly from your group.  So suck it up and deal with it, or trim
> your own GOD DAMNED HEADERS.

> Nan

Signature

Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

"It's amazing how long we've been going to hell in a
handbasket ,without ever getting there." Will Rodgers

Nan - 12 Jan 2004 14:18 GMT
>>>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>>>>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>You sound positively depressed about it, too. A Volvo, maybe?

Wrong again.  A '68 GMC truck we belong to a classic auto club with,
and a Bonneville as the family mover.

>> and I've been a biker, sweetie.
>
>"Been"?  Past tense, eh?  Knees give out after you reached 80, did they?
>How many miles a year DO you ride (did if you are over 80). Trailering
>doesn't count.  How many states have to RIDEN to and ridden in? (see
>above about trailering not counting).

Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
too.  Life goes in different directions, but it was a good time.

>> I've been to Sturgis, Beanblossom... you name it.  Had a great time.
>
>With or without a bike? Riding it to Sturgis, trailering it, or taking
>the bus and standing on the corner in store bought leathers posing for
>cameras?

See above.

>I'll withhold assessment about your "biker" status pending your
>response.  It's the great, understanding, kinda guy I am.

<sarcasm>
I'm *so* impressed.
</sarcasm>

Nan
Alan the Horse - 12 Jan 2004 17:17 GMT
>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
>too.  Life goes in different directions, but it was a good time.

Oh, dear.

--
Al      | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
Banty - 12 Jan 2004 18:12 GMT
>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>owl tuna| '83 GR650
>hot mail| '57 6T

Oh well...  if Nan's machines weren't quite kewl enough for you, I can be fairly
sure that the whole motor-scooter thing wasn't exactly your brew, either.

Banty (amused...)
Nan - 12 Jan 2004 19:05 GMT
>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Banty (amused...)

Hehe, they seem to keep the current owner pretty happy ;-)

Nan
Alan the Horse - 12 Jan 2004 22:06 GMT
>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
>>>too.  Life goes in different directions, but it was a good time.
>>
>>Oh, dear.

>Oh well...  if Nan's machines weren't quite kewl enough for you, I can be fairly
>sure that the whole motor-scooter thing wasn't exactly your brew, either.
>
>Banty (amused...)

I'm rather amused myself at how much you errantly read into my simple
statement.  By the way, which part of a bike is the kewl part?

--
Al      | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
Banty - 12 Jan 2004 23:12 GMT
>>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>I'm rather amused myself at how much you errantly read into my simple
>statement.  By the way, which part of a bike is the kewl part?

OK, I admit, I did make a conclusion about the meaning of your response
(although I'm hard pressed to come up with an alternative to the one I inferred)
- so I give you the floor.  What means, exactly, then, "Oh, dear"?

Over to you, cheers,
Banty
Alan the Horse - 13 Jan 2004 00:07 GMT
>>>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>(although I'm hard pressed to come up with an alternative to the one I inferred)
>- so I give you the floor.  What means, exactly, then, "Oh, dear"?

Well, it's a bit involved so I hope you have a minute.  This fellow
"Bownse," whom I don't believe I am familiar with (although he appears
to be a re-nicked version of the redoubtable "One Thumb"), put forward
a couple of questions designed to deduce the degree of dedication once
directed to motorcycling by Ms Nan.  Boasting of a trip to the Black
Hills Motor Classic, incorrectly referring to the rally simply as
"Sturgis," casts a shadow called "poser" over her persona.

Now she's followed up Bownse's questions, not with answers, but with
the simple statement that she's owned a couple of bikes, and sold
them.  Top it all off with the fact that said bikes are both of a
certain brand favored by posers (yeah I might be a poser, ya never
know), and that she also had an ABATE membership (not "Abate," as it
is an acronym), and we've got her fairly screaming, "Yes, I am a
POSER."  Thus, "Oh, dear, she certainly does appear to be a poser,
doesn't she?" would be the best interpretation of what I left unsaid.

Anyhow, I really don't give a hoot what rallies anyone goes to, or how
many miles they ride in a week, but don't go around calling yourself a
biker if all you've ever done is tooled about from pub to pub, bought
and sold a ride or two, and bought a Sturgis T-shirt.  It also shows a
special lack of class, to want to be defined as "cool" by what brand
of motorbike you once owned.  My kids think I'm cool because I've been
a decent parent, and that's all the cool I need.

--
Al      | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 00:28 GMT
> Well, it's a bit involved so I hope you have a minute.  This fellow
> "Bownse," whom I don't believe I am familiar with (although he appears
> to be a re-nicked version of the redoubtable "One Thumb"),

Very true. Not an avoidance of anything other than spam attacks from
address mining bots.
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 00:29 GMT
>>>>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> --
> Al      | '98 FLTRI

Oh, and PS:  Spot on, Al.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 00:46 GMT
>Anyhow, I really don't give a hoot what rallies anyone goes to, or how
>many miles they ride in a week, but don't go around calling yourself a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>of motorbike you once owned.  My kids think I'm cool because I've been
>a decent parent, and that's all the cool I need.

<ahem>
Please refer to my response to your buddy.
I don't care to be thought of as "cool", hon.
Your bud referred to bikers in a very unfavorable light, I attempted
to clarify that I didn't think of bikers in that light.
That you two have fallen all over yourselves in an attempt to prove
something is amusing to me.

Funny, the "bikers" I've always been friends with never had to define
themselves the way you two do.

Carry on,

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 04:44 GMT
>>Anyhow, I really don't give a hoot what rallies anyone goes to, or how
>>many miles they ride in a week, but don't go around calling yourself a
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Nan

Referred to bikers in an unfavorable light?  How so?

Because I expect someone to tosses the "bike" mantle over their
shoulders to ride and not pose?  Deary me!  Imagine anyone being
expected to actually RIDE their bike before being considered anything
other than a hobbiest.  The horror!

Posers are fun when they recognize themselves as such and are just as
willing to have a go at it as the next person (Dan and others on
rec.moto).  However posers who insist that there is something
inherrently "unfavorable" about expecting people to ride their bikes
before claiming to be "bikers" are a prime example of the type of
hobbiest that gives bikers a bad name.

Signature

Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

"It's amazing how long we've been going to hell in a
handbasket ,without ever getting there." Will Rodgers

Nan - 13 Jan 2004 05:14 GMT
>>>Anyhow, I really don't give a hoot what rallies anyone goes to, or how
>>>many miles they ride in a week, but don't go around calling yourself a
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>
>Referred to bikers in an unfavorable light?  How so?

Re-read all your posts.  You *might* get it.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 06:04 GMT
>>Referred to bikers in an unfavorable light?  How so?

> Re-read all your posts.  You *might* get it.
>
> Nan
Interesting choice of editing.

What I actually said was:

"Referred to bikers in an unfavorable light?  How so?

Because I expect someone to tosses the "bike" mantle over their
shoulders to ride and not pose?  Deary me!  Imagine anyone being
expected to actually RIDE their bike before being considered anything
other than a hobbiest.  The horror!

Posers are fun when they recognize themselves as such and are just as
willing to have a go at it as the next person (Dan and others on
rec.moto).  However posers who insist that there is something
inherrently "unfavorable" about expecting people to ride their bikes
before claiming to be "bikers" are a prime example of the type of
hobbiest that gives bikers a bad name. "

Quite a bit different when left that way.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 12:22 GMT
>>>Referred to bikers in an unfavorable light?  How so?
>
>> Re-read all your posts.  You *might* get it.
>>
>> Nan
>Interesting choice of editing.

I haven't edited anything, hon.  I snipped the irrelevant part of your
post, after answering the question you asked.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 23:45 GMT
>>>>Referred to bikers in an unfavorable light?  How so?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Nan

I think you need to delve into a dictionary and learn just exactly what
all editing includes.
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 04:46 GMT
> That you two have fallen all over yourselves in an attempt to prove
> something is amusing to me.

I'm not really sure I even know him other than both of us being
long-time participants on rec.moto.  I suspect that it's the common
reaction to posers which we share.

> Funny, the "bikers" I've always been friends with never had to define
> themselves the way you two do.

Probably because they too were hobbiests.

> Carry on,
> Nan

We will. On two wheels.
Alan the Horse - 13 Jan 2004 16:37 GMT
>>Anyhow, I really don't give a hoot what rallies anyone goes to, or how
>>many miles they ride in a week, but don't go around calling yourself a
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>That you two have fallen all over yourselves in an attempt to prove
>something is amusing to me.

You really missed it.  Wow, I mean you *really* missed it.  I'm afraid
I must come to the conclusion that not only are you a poser, but also
that your head is buried deep within your, ah, subconscious.

>Funny, the "bikers" I've always been friends with never had to define
>themselves the way you two do.
>
>Carry on,
>
>Nan

--
Al      | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 17:56 GMT
>>>Anyhow, I really don't give a hoot what rallies anyone goes to, or how
>>>many miles they ride in a week, but don't go around calling yourself a
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>I must come to the conclusion that not only are you a poser, but also
>that your head is buried deep within your, ah, subconscious.

I don't think I have missed it Alan.  I responded to your assumption
that I said biker in an effort to look cool.  I'm not concerned with
your opinion of me.
Damn, you guys are thick.

Nan
Bownse - 14 Jan 2004 00:00 GMT
>>>>Anyhow, I really don't give a hoot what rallies anyone goes to, or how
>>>>many miles they ride in a week, but don't go around calling yourself a
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Nan
No one ever claimed you used the term "biker" to look cool.

At the very most, what has been establishes is your erronious use of the
term when applied to yourself.
Alan the Horse - 14 Jan 2004 17:14 GMT
>>You really missed it.  Wow, I mean you *really* missed it.  I'm afraid
>>I must come to the conclusion that not only are you a poser, but also
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>that I said biker in an effort to look cool.  I'm not concerned with
>your opinion of me.

Yes, I know.  Problem is, I never made that assumption.  The
assumption I made is that you're not now and never have been much of a
motorcyclist.  Simple as that.

>Damn, you guys are thick.

Somebody sure is.

--
Al      | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
Banty - 13 Jan 2004 02:38 GMT
>>>>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>POSER."  Thus, "Oh, dear, she certainly does appear to be a poser,
>doesn't she?" would be the best interpretation of what I left unsaid.

Then I got it right, assuming poser = unkewl.

>Anyhow, I really don't give a hoot what rallies anyone goes to, or how
>many miles they ride in a week, but don't go around calling yourself a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>of motorbike you once owned.  My kids think I'm cool because I've been
>a decent parent, and that's all the cool I need.

That's cool.

Stick around, we're about parening.

Cheers,
Banty
Stephen! - 17 Jan 2004 01:31 GMT
> directed to motorcycling by Ms Nan.  Boasting of a trip to the Black
> Hills Motor Classic, incorrectly referring to the rally simply as
> "Sturgis," casts a shadow called "poser" over her persona.

Seems to me it's the w.nker posers who changed it from "Let's get
together at Sturgis" to "Black Hills Motor Classic"...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 23:57 GMT
> Oh well...  if Nan's machines weren't quite kewl enough for you, I can be fairly
> sure that the whole motor-scooter thing wasn't exactly your brew, either.
>
> Banty (amused...)

I'm still trying to learn if they were ever anything more than
driveway/trailer jewelry.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 00:50 GMT
>> Oh well...  if Nan's machines weren't quite kewl enough for you, I can be fairly
>> sure that the whole motor-scooter thing wasn't exactly your brew, either.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>I'm still trying to learn if they were ever anything more than
>driveway/trailer jewelry.

I'm still trying to figure out why you give a rat's a.s?  You don't
know me, I don't know you.  I kinda like it that way.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 04:48 GMT
>>>Oh well...  if Nan's machines weren't quite kewl enough for you, I can be fairly
>>>sure that the whole motor-scooter thing wasn't exactly your brew, either.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Nan

Because you proclaimed yourself a biker in the rec.moto forum and appear
to have been a hobbiest.  I can see you're not really well-versed in
things Reeky.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 05:16 GMT
>>>>Oh well...  if Nan's machines weren't quite kewl enough for you, I can be fairly
>>>>sure that the whole motor-scooter thing wasn't exactly your brew, either.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>to have been a hobbiest.  I can see you're not really well-versed in
>things Reeky.

And it matters to me if you think I was a hobbyist?  No.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 06:05 GMT
>>Because you proclaimed yourself a biker in the rec.moto forum and appear
>>to have been a hobbiest.  I can see you're not really well-versed in
>>things Reeky.

> And it matters to me if you think I was a hobbyist?  No.
> Nan

Like was posted elsewhere. YOU are the one that continues to post to
Reeky. Don't let the door hit you in the a.s on the way out.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 12:24 GMT
>>>Because you proclaimed yourself a biker in the rec.moto forum and appear
>>>to have been a hobbiest.  I can see you're not really well-versed in
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Like was posted elsewhere. YOU are the one that continues to post to
>Reeky. Don't let the door hit you in the a.s on the way out.

Incorrect.  I'm posting FROM misc.kids, in direct response to posts by
you and your buds, FROM your group.  If you and your buds wish to trim
your GOD DAMNED HEADERS, you have that option.  I've explained that I
do not.

Nan
Steve - 13 Jan 2004 14:17 GMT
> >>>Because you proclaimed yourself a biker in the rec.moto forum and appear
> >>>to have been a hobbiest.  I can see you're not really well-versed in
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> your GOD DAMNED HEADERS, you have that option.  I've explained that I
> do not.

Can't, won't, or don't know how?
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 17:54 GMT
>> >>>Because you proclaimed yourself a biker in the rec.moto forum and
>appear
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Can't, won't, or don't know how?

Won't.  
I'll explain it *again* for the thick-headed lot:
If someone crossposts, leaving the groups intact is the only way of
knowing for sure that the person you are responding to, will see your
response.  Unless you know for certain that the post you are
responding to, is from your group.
Therefore, it is pointless to trim headers if the person you wish to
see the post won't see it.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 23:59 GMT
>>>>>>Because you proclaimed yourself a biker in the rec.moto forum and
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Nan
Not pointless at all if your intent is to curtail the cross posts that
are off topic to your ng.

But then, seeing discourse to your posts at such an elevated level,
would surely fill the poser void left behind when you sold your bikes.
0tterbot - 13 Jan 2004 11:55 GMT
"Bownse"
> > I'm still trying to figure out why you give a rat's a.s?  You don't
> > know me, I don't know you.  I kinda like it that way.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to have been a hobbiest.  I can see you're not really well-versed in
> things Reeky.

i would like to know some sort of general definition (well, yours, anyway)
of "hobbyist". thanks!
kylie
Banty - 13 Jan 2004 12:32 GMT
>"Bownse"
>> > I'm still trying to figure out why you give a rat's a.s?  You don't
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>i would like to know some sort of general definition (well, yours, anyway)
>of "hobbyist". thanks!

Or even "hobbiest"  :-)
0tterbot - 13 Jan 2004 23:57 GMT
> >"Bownse"
> >> > I'm still trying to figure out why you give a rat's a.s?  You don't
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Or even "hobbiest"  :-)

oh banty, i knew you'd say that - you're just so hobby. i know i'm hobbier,
but i'm glad it's nan who's the hobbiest. must be all those hours she works
in the library, or something ;-)
kylie
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 23:44 GMT
> "Bownse"
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> of "hobbyist". thanks!
> kylie

Hobbiest: Someone who buys a bike and, rides more than the typical poser
(who only gets the bike to the nearest bar or other hangout) but not so
much that they could actually be considered putting "serious" miles on a
bike.

All of the terms are sufficiently vague to give the reader (and author)
plenty of wiggle room.

To nail it down a little more (but all of this is still not something
I'm completely happy with):

Poser: Fair weather rider. Rides to the local (x) and home - trailers
everywhere so they can do the same thing in "distant lands". Often only
interested in polishing chrome and entering bike shows.

Hobbiest: Only rides within a (x) mile radius of home (say 100 or 200)
but never farther. May trailer elsewhere. May never go anywhere else.
Mileage per year under (x) (say 3000 for argument sake). Often still
many aspects of the poser remain (fair weather, etc.).

Biker: Someone who accumulates miles on their bike (ie: Someone who
rides). Seldom trailers anywhere unless they are trying to save their
tires for the ride once they get to their destination (say on street
tires that only last 8000 miles and they plan on using them all up
during their remote trip and might not make it out there and back on one
set). This rider will ride rain or shine (maybe not looking for bad
weather, but won't cancel plans just because the forcast calls for a
chance of rain - as long as there's no ice on the roads). Some bikers
are limited in their total yearly mileage because of work (and other)
commitments, but still accumulate more miles per year than the hobbiest
simply because their horizons are greater (a 2000+ mile holiday weekend
is within their scope). Often rides for no other reason than the miles
and the road (no need for others or a destination). Someone who has put
aside the aspects of the poser and the hobbiest to enjoy the ride, the
road, and the curve under all conditions and places.
Robert Bolton - 14 Jan 2004 05:40 GMT
...
> > i would like to know some sort of general definition (well, yours, anyway)
> > of "hobbyist". thanks!
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> aside the aspects of the poser and the hobbiest to enjoy the ride, the
> road, and the curve under all conditions and places.

How about this?...
A poser rides primarily for image, presenting themselves as something
they're not to impress others.

A hobbyist rides because they enjoy riding, but not often at the expense of
convenience and other interests.

A biker rides because they enjoy riding, and often rides at the expense if
convenience and other interests.  Riding has become a primary means of
transportation and primary hobby for the biker.

When I was a lot younger, a  biker to my friends and me was more of the
Hells Angels type.  A biker would more than likely ride a Harley, maybe ride
a Norton or a Triumph, wouldn't be riding a Honda, didn't go to church, and
didn't work for the bank.  Mileage had nothing to do with it.  You didn't
mess with a biker because a biker would whop you up along side of the head.
A person who rode a BMW or Honda would be a person who rides, not a biker.
Times change I guess.

Robert
0tterbot - 14 Jan 2004 11:05 GMT
> ...
> > > i would like to know some sort of general definition (well, yours,
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> A person who rode a BMW or Honda would be a person who rides, not a biker.
> Times change I guess.

ta robert - your definitions make more sense to me than bownse's because
there's a place in there for people who ride to get around, without undue
emotional attachment to the bloody thing - because they prefer to ride or
it's more convenient. i mean, there has to be more than poser, hobbyist,
biker. what would be a good category for someone like this?? what about
someone who would be a biker in bownse's world, but for the fact that they
honestly *prefer* a honda (therefore there are mechanical, aesthetic or
other reasons they like their honda, but they are disinclined to get into a
big-dick contest about it with someone who owns one of the "classic"
brands?)

tbh, i'm thinking the whole thing's a bit too emotive. really.
kylie
Bownse - 14 Jan 2004 23:13 GMT
> ta robert - your definitions make more sense to me than bownse's because
> there's a place in there for people who ride to get around, without undue
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> tbh, i'm thinking the whole thing's a bit too emotive. really.
> kylie

Gee. I don't see brand as having anything to do with my definitions. I
know I personally don't see it that way. In fact, most "classic brand"
owners I know tend toward the pose(u)r side of the discussion instead of
being bikers.

I think "biker" would cover those folks too, since IIRC my descripting
included all-weather riding just for the sake of riding (no other
purpose needed than wanting to ride the bike). No rally to go to, no
"group" to be seen by, etc.  Seems the "transportationalist" would be
covered in the broader description of "biker" imo.
Signature


Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org

0tterbot - 15 Jan 2004 13:36 GMT
"Bownse"
> Gee. I don't see brand as having anything to do with my definitions. I
> know I personally don't see it that way. In fact, most "classic brand"
> owners I know tend toward the pose(u)r side of the discussion instead of
> being bikers.

this is a relatively recent & disturbing trend.

> I think "biker" would cover those folks too, since IIRC my descripting
> included all-weather riding just for the sake of riding (no other
> purpose needed than wanting to ride the bike). No rally to go to, no
> "group" to be seen by, etc.  Seems the "transportationalist" would be
> covered in the broader description of "biker" imo.

hm. ok, i suppose it would, it's just that those people wouldn't call
themselves "bikers". (though obviously, i only asked what _you_ would call
them, not what they would call themselves. :-) i mean, i don't call them
anything. well, "motorcyclists" maybe.

right, motorcyclists they are in my tiny world, bikers in yours.

say, have you ever seen the dykes on bikes element of the sydney mardi gras
on telly? hee hee.
kylie
Bownse - 16 Jan 2004 00:12 GMT
> "Bownse"
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> on telly? hee hee.
> kylie

Seen photos and vids of them somewhere.  It was good for about a 2
second smile.  They ride. Other than that I don't care about what they
do in the privacy of their own homes.

Signature

Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org

dragonlady - 16 Jan 2004 15:02 GMT
> > "Bownse"
> >
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> second smile.  They ride. Other than that I don't care about what they
> do in the privacy of their own homes.

See, you're making the common mistake of thinking that being a dyke is
primarily about sex.  It isn't (or no more or less than being straight
is primarily about sex) -- it's about who you love, and that's a very
public thing.  Surely you've seen the newspaper pictures of (straight)
weddings?  Of kids going on (opposite sex) prom dates?  Being straight
is a VERY public thing -- why shouldn't being gay?

meh
Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Bownse - 16 Jan 2004 23:54 GMT
>>>"Bownse"
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> meh
Because it's an offensive abomination to nature that should be punished
by the plucking of fingernails by their roots from all who attempt such
in public.

Next?

:-)
toto - 18 Jan 2004 05:14 GMT
>> See, you're making the common mistake of thinking that being a dyke is
>> primarily about sex.  It isn't (or no more or less than being straight
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>> meh

>Because it's an offensive abomination to nature that should be punished
>by the plucking of fingernails by their roots from all who attempt such
>in public.

You do know that many animals have sex with partners of the same
sex for various reasons, don't you?   If this is an abomination to
nature, why would that happen in so many species?

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Stephen! - 18 Jan 2004 06:53 GMT
> You do know that many animals have sex with partners of the same
> sex for various reasons, don't you?   If this is an abomination to
> nature, why would that happen in so many species?

Yah...  and monkeys throw their sh.t at each other so that makes it
acceptable for humans as well, eh?

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

toto - 18 Jan 2004 09:02 GMT
>> You do know that many animals have sex with partners of the same
>> sex for various reasons, don't you?   If this is an abomination to
>> nature, why would that happen in so many species?
>
>Yah...  and monkeys throw their sh.t at each other so that makes it
>acceptable for humans as well, eh?

Not necessarily, but you can't use the *against nature* argument to
make it unacceptable.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
DTJ - 19 Jan 2004 00:32 GMT
>> You do know that many animals have sex with partners of the same
>> sex for various reasons, don't you?   If this is an abomination to
>> nature, why would that happen in so many species?
>
>Yah...  and monkeys throw their sh.t at each other so that makes it
>acceptable for humans as well, eh?

Maybe Dorothy enjoys scat.
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 13:14 GMT
>>Yah...  and monkeys throw their sh.t at each other so that makes it
>>acceptable for humans as well, eh?
>
> Maybe Dorothy enjoys scat.

Maybe. I, personally, have a hard time understanding the words.
Margaret M. - 19 Jan 2004 13:38 GMT
>>> Yah...  and monkeys throw their sh.t at each other so that
>>> makes it acceptable for humans as well, eh?
>>
>> Maybe Dorothy enjoys scat.
>
> Maybe. I, personally, have a hard time understanding the words.

BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!
<cue Demetrios>
Mag
Scott in Aztl?n - 19 Jan 2004 16:15 GMT
>>>Yah...  and monkeys throw their sh.t at each other so that makes it
>>>acceptable for humans as well, eh?
>>
>> Maybe Dorothy enjoys scat.
>
>Maybe. I, personally, have a hard time understanding the words.

Folks, now here's the story 'bout Minnie the Moocher,
She was a red-hot hootchie-cootcher,
She was the roughest, toughest frail,
But Minnie had a heart as big as a whale.

[Call and response scat chorus differs every time. The following is simplified:]
Hi-de-hi-de-hi-di-hi!
Ho-de-ho-de-ho-de-ho!
He-de-he-de-he-de-he!
Ho-de-ho-de-ho!

Now, she messed around with a bloke named Smoky,
She loved him though he was cokie,
He took her down to Chinatown,
He showed her how to kick the gong around.

Now, she had a dream about the king of Sweden,
He gave her things that she was needin',
He gave her a home built of gold and steel,
A diamond car with a platinum wheel.

Now, he gave her his townhouse and his racing horses,
Each meal she ate was a dozen courses;
She had a million dollars worth of nickels and dimes,
And she sat around and counted them all a billion times.

Poor Min, poor Min, poor Min.
Signature

A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 17:15 GMT
Scott in Aztlán wrote:
> Poor Min, poor Min, poor Min.

<seg>
Charles Soto - 18 Jan 2004 15:18 GMT
> >> See, you're making the common mistake of thinking that being a dyke is
> >> primarily about sex.  It isn't (or no more or less than being straight
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> sex for various reasons, don't you?   If this is an abomination to
> nature, why would that happen in so many species?

Um.  We grind animals up and feed them to our cats.  Not a very good
example, IMO.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

toto - 19 Jan 2004 03:50 GMT
>> >> See, you're making the common mistake of thinking that being a dyke is
>> >> primarily about sex.  It isn't (or no more or less than being straight
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>Um.  We grind animals up and feed them to our cats.  Not a very good
>example, IMO.

The point was that nothing that is found in large quantities in nature
is *unnatural* so that argument doesn't hold water when it comes to
sexual behavior.  No sexual behavior that is common in animals can
be an *abomination to nature.*

You can argue against homosexuality in humans in other ways, but
not that one.  It's a specious argument.

>Charles

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Charles Soto - 19 Jan 2004 18:24 GMT
> >> >> See, you're making the common mistake of thinking that being a dyke is
> >> >> primarily about sex.  It isn't (or no more or less than being straight
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> You can argue against homosexuality in humans in other ways, but
> not that one.  It's a specious argument.

So, you advocate grinding up homosexuals and feeding them to cats, eh?  
Sicko!

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 18 Jan 2004 21:08 GMT
>You do know that many animals have sex

Pardon me but since when did mankind look to the animal kingdom for
behavioral inspiration? If so, you might want to turn off that
computer of yours as virtually no animals are capable of posting to
usenet.

Now shouldn't you be licking your daughter's genitals or something?
Charles Soto - 19 Jan 2004 00:26 GMT
> >You do know that many animals have sex
>
> Pardon me but since when did mankind look to the animal kingdom for
> behavioral inspiration? If so, you might want to turn off that
> computer of yours as virtually no animals are capable of posting to
> usenet.

Uh.  Dude.  Humans ARE animals (if by "mankind" you mean "humans").  We
are endowed by our creator with such behavioral inspiration.  All
behavioral tendancies are the result of our evolution.

> Now shouldn't you be licking your daughter's genitals or something?

We evolved means to create wiping paraphenalia, even with cute little
designs and a "fresh spring scent."

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 19 Jan 2004 04:30 GMT
>Uh.  Dude.  Humans ARE animals (if by "mankind" you mean "humans").  We
>are endowed by our creator with such behavioral inspiration.  All
>behavioral tendancies are the result of our evolution.

This has absolutely nothing to do with pointing at dumb animals and
using their behaviors as a paradigm for your own behavior.

>We evolved means to create wiping paraphenalia, even with cute little
>designs and a "fresh spring scent."

Yes, but that's not interesting of a suggestion.
toto - 19 Jan 2004 03:54 GMT
>>You do know that many animals have sex
>
>Pardon me but since when did mankind look to the animal kingdom for
>behavioral inspiration? If so, you might want to turn off that
>computer of yours as virtually no animals are capable of posting to
>usenet.

My dd says that only dogs and cats are posting to usenet.  <g>

<snip flame>

Read the post I was answering.  Your creative snipping won't make
the facts go away.  It seems that there are a lot of people who can't
answer arguments who snip parts of sentences and answer what
was not said.

// begin restore//

Bownse:
> >Because it's an offensive abomination to nature that should be punished
> >by the plucking of fingernails by their roots from all who attempt such
> >in public.

toto:

> You do know that many animals have sex with partners of the same
> sex for various reasons, don't you?   If this is an abomination to
> nature, why would that happen in so many species?

// end restore //

When you argue that something is an abomination to nature and it is
actually common in nature, then you are simply incorrect to make that
argument.

You are welcome to argue against homosexuality in other ways, but
it is not an abomination to nature.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Bownse - 18 Jan 2004 23:37 GMT
>>>See, you're making the common mistake of thinking that being a dyke is
>>>primarily about sex.  It isn't (or no more or less than being straight
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> nature, why would that happen in so many species?
> Dorothy

Because it is C'Thulu's plan for the universe. It begins in the lower
species and spreads upward, through soccer moms, before being received
by his human servants in this plane.
0tterbot - 17 Jan 2004 12:31 GMT
"Bownse"
> Seen photos and vids of them somewhere.  It was good for about a 2
> second smile.  They ride. Other than that I don't care about what they
> do in the privacy of their own homes.

oh, that was a silly aside i didn't expect you to answer.

still, if you ever have barebreasted women on big bikes riding up YOUR main
street, it might pique your interest a bit more ;-)
kylie
toto - 14 Jan 2004 13:33 GMT
>How about this?...
>A poser rides primarily for image, presenting themselves as something
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>Robert

Those definitions make sense to me and they really don't have to imply
condemnation of the person who is classified that way though I am sure
that bikers and perhaps even hobbyists may not like posers.  

Thanks for clarifying the terms you are using.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
0tterbot - 14 Jan 2004 11:14 GMT
"Bownse"
> > i would like to know some sort of general definition (well, yours, anyway)
> > of "hobbyist". thanks!
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> aside the aspects of the poser and the hobbiest to enjoy the ride, the
> road, and the curve under all conditions and places.

ok, ta. responded to robert, really. where *is* the missing link? to you, is
a biker a committed rider of any brand?

now i'm not being an arsehole, i'm really, really not, (truly, i'm not!!)
but you have to accept "hobbyist" as the correct spelling in order to make
sense of my joke, above. and also because it's the correct spelling. but
mainly to understand my joke.
kylie
Bownse - 14 Jan 2004 23:17 GMT
> "Bownse"
>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> ok, ta. responded to robert, really. where *is* the missing link? to you, is
> a biker a committed rider of any brand?

Not brand specific.  As I said, I don't think brand came into my
discussion; other than maybe to the effect that someone using the brand
they owned as their primary claim to the title "biker". So, in a way, I
actually was supporting your (I think) assertion that a "biker" is such
without reference to brand.

> kylie

Signature

Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org

dragonlady - 14 Jan 2004 16:49 GMT
> > "Bownse"
> >
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> aside the aspects of the poser and the hobbiest to enjoy the ride, the
> road, and the curve under all conditions and places.

Just out of curiousity, where does the person who owns a motorcycle for
transportation fit in this taxonomy?  I mean, someone who only owns a
motorcycle (no car) and uses it for most of their transportation needs?

meh
who has only been on a motorcycle once, and has no particular desire to
repeat the experience
Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Alan the Horse - 14 Jan 2004 22:29 GMT
>> Biker: Someone who accumulates miles on their bike (ie: Someone who
>> rides). Seldom trailers anywhere unless they are trying to save their
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>transportation fit in this taxonomy?  I mean, someone who only owns a
>motorcycle (no car) and uses it for most of their transportation needs?

He or she fits in the biker category.  If you use your bike to
commute, you will accumulate miles, and it takes someone with a
special affinity for motorcycling to use it as a commuter vehicle.

>meh
>who has only been on a motorcycle once, and has no particular desire to
>repeat the experience

Must have been a category:[squid] pilot.  For your reference, a squid
is a motorcycle pilot with severely restricted skills and sense.

--
Al      | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
toto - 15 Jan 2004 00:38 GMT
>>> Biker: Someone who accumulates miles on their bike (ie: Someone who
>>> rides). Seldom trailers anywhere unless they are trying to save their
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>Must have been a category:[squid] pilot.  For your reference, a squid
>is a motorcycle pilot with severely restricted skills and sense.

Or she was a *passenger* behind the driver or in a side car <g>

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Alan the Horse - 15 Jan 2004 00:48 GMT
>>>meh
>>>who has only been on a motorcycle once, and has no particular desire to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Or she was a *passenger* behind the driver or in a side car <g>

Yeah.  That's what I meant.  To have meant otherwise would have been a
bit insulting, don't you think?

--
Al      | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
Bownse - 15 Jan 2004 03:17 GMT
> Or she was a *passenger* behind the driver or in a side car <g>
> Dorothy

I can't read you're intent here, but I have to give credit to
passengers. I've done it a couple of times to get to/from the shop when
leaving my bike for service. ACK!  That back seat ain't for me, sistah gurl!
Signature


Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org

toto - 15 Jan 2004 05:24 GMT
>> Or she was a *passenger* behind the driver or in a side car <g>
>> Dorothy
>
>I can't read you're intent here, but I have to give credit to
>passengers. I've done it a couple of times to get to/from the shop when
>leaving my bike for service. ACK!  That back seat ain't for me, sistah gurl!

Well, I admit to not having any desire ever to ride a motor bike
either as a passenger or as the driver.  But then I don't really
like driving my car either.  I much prefer to walk or to bike on a
bicycle.   I am somewhat incapacited because of knee surgery,
but I have walked many miles for fun and in all kinds of weather.

I see your point about a biker being someone who rides in all
weather with no purpose other than riding.  It's what I do when
I walk. (no, I don't hike, I don't power walk.  I just walk for my
own pleasure).

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
dragonlady - 15 Jan 2004 01:06 GMT
> >> Biker: Someone who accumulates miles on their bike (ie: Someone who
> >> rides). Seldom trailers anywhere unless they are trying to save their
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> commute, you will accumulate miles, and it takes someone with a
> special affinity for motorcycling to use it as a commuter vehicle.

Or someone who is trying to be very economical;  I've known several
people who didn't seem to enjoy riding all that much, but they could
afford a motorcycle, but not a car.

> >meh
> >who has only been on a motorcycle once, and has no particular desire to
> >repeat the experience
>
> Must have been a category:[squid] pilot.  For your reference, a squid
> is a motorcycle pilot with severely restricted skills and sense.

I think he was probably fine, and I had a good enough time -- I didn't
hate it -- it just didn't pop my cork.  I don't enjoy jet skis or speed
boats, either (which my oldest just finds weird -- she'd give her  left
arm to go jet skiing)  -- I like swimming and snorkeling, hiking and
horses;  I think I'm just a quieter, lower speed kind of girl.  I'm not
much of one for things that go "vrooooom!"
Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Rosalie B. - 15 Jan 2004 02:10 GMT
>> >> Biker: Someone who accumulates miles on their bike (ie: Someone who
>> >> rides). Seldom trailers anywhere unless they are trying to save their
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>horses;  I think I'm just a quieter, lower speed kind of girl.  I'm not
>much of one for things that go "vrooooom!"

That reminded me.

When I was in school, girls were not allowed to own a motor vehicle of
any kind, and the guys could not own cars or if they did own one, they
had to park it in the storage lot and not use it during the year.  We
rode bicycles (even in Ohio in the winter), and some of the guys rode
motorcycles.  I used to ride with them when I could.  I was really
more interested in the guys than the motorcycles though.  I tried to
get my license when my daughter did, and didn't pass, and didn't try
again.  

I am too uncoordinated to water ski (when I fall I don't let go of the
tow rope until I've been dragged under water for a ways, which is very
soggy and I usually fall on the skis and get big bruises across my
thighs).  I'm afraid of horses - although all my kids rode and three
of them did 3 day eventing.  I also like swimming and scuba, and don't
particularly like power boats.  But I'd like to try a jet ski
sometime.

grandma Rosalie
Bownse - 14 Jan 2004 23:26 GMT
>>>"Bownse"
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> transportation fit in this taxonomy?  I mean, someone who only owns a
> motorcycle (no car) and uses it for most of their transportation needs?

"Biker" imo:

- Someone who accumulates miles on their bike (ie: Someone who rides)
- Seldom trailers
- This rider will ride rain or shine (maybe not looking for bad weather,
but won't cancel plans just because the forcast calls for a chance of
rain - as long as there's no ice on the roads).
- Some ... are limited in their total yearly mileage because of work
(and other) commitments, but still accumulate more miles per year than
the hobbiest simply because their horizons are greater (in this case,
cummuting, trips out of town, etc. would all be done by bike because
it's the sole transportation - miles accumulate quickly in small chunks)

> meh
> who has only been on a motorcycle once, and has no particular desire to
> repeat the experience

Signature

Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org

Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 23:51 GMT
>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> owl tuna| '83 GR650
> hot mail| '57 6T

No definition of "several"
No clue as to how long they owned them, if they rode or trailered them, etc.

Don't be too impressed too quickly.

Signature

Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

"It's amazing how long we've been going to hell in a
handbasket ,without ever getting there." Will Rodgers

Alan the Horse - 13 Jan 2004 00:16 GMT
>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
>>>too.  Life goes in different directions, but it was a good time.
>>
>> Oh, dear.

>No definition of "several"
>No clue as to how long they owned them, if they rode or trailered them, etc.
>
>Don't be too impressed too quickly.

Dang, that was a good study in interpretation.  Two opposite
interpretations of my admittedly very vague statement, and both
assuming reinforcement of the antagonist's position.  I could be a
good boy and promise to not be vague in the future, but I am not a
good boy.  I am a naughty fellow, and promise to be even more vague in
the future, especially in crossposted newsgroup flame fests!

Party on!

--
Al      | '98 FLTRI
Brennan | '98 T509 EN
owl tuna| '83 GR650
hot mail| '57 6T
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 00:41 GMT
>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>No definition of "several"

Several.... what?  Rallies?  It's been "several" years since we were
ABATE (that better, Alan?) members, but having said that, we stuck
mainly to our Region's events, save for the annual trips to the
Boogie.
We did have regular lives with regular jobs that took priority.

>No clue as to how long they owned them, if they rode or trailered them, etc.

I owned the '76 for 6 years.
Boyfriend owned the '84 for close to 8 years.
I rode mine whenever we were local.
We rode the '84 to SD.

>Don't be too impressed too quickly.

I don't care if you're impressed, hon.
My comment about having been a biker had nothing to do with wanting to
be thought of as "cool".  It was to point out to you that I don't
consider bikers to be the type you described in your post.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 04:39 GMT
>>>>Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
>>>>Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Nan

No, your post was an attempt to justify why you continue to post to
rec.moto from a mommie newsgroup.  So far it's fizzling out.  Glad to
hear you rode your bikes for several years.  I hate to ask this, but
because of some confusion foisted on the general public, do you define
"riding to SD" as actual door-to-door ride on the bike (no trailering at
all)? If so, then that's a step in the right direction.

BTW: We all have other lives.  That doesn't preclude some folks from
doing more than 3000 miles a year though.

BBTW: I could care less if you were ABATE members. Bikers are and aren't
members of many different groups.  More important to your claim to being
a "biker" would be the love of riding without a rally or other even
waiting at the other end of a long weekend on 2 wheels... more than once
or twice a year.

BBBTW: Things are starting to look a little better though. More
questions are being answered; however slowly.

1. Actually owned more than just a leather vest
2. Rode your own bike (although not more than just around town ("locally"))
3. Rode to SD (2 up) is implied but not yet verified.  Now to find out
if the ride to Sturgis was from Gillette, WY or from Fla. (without
trailering of course).

To just cast it aside though is the real kicker.  Sounds like just
another hobby like buying a restored classic car and entering it in car
shows. Do you still have some Beanie Babbies stashed around the house
somewhere?
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 05:13 GMT
>> Several.... what?  Rallies?  It's been "several" years since we were
>> ABATE (that better, Alan?) members, but having said that, we stuck
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>No, your post was an attempt to justify why you continue to post to
>rec.moto from a mommie newsgroup.  So far it's fizzling out.

No, you assume wrong again, sweetie.  You attempted to throw your
cojones around by being quite rude to both groups of people.  

> Glad to
>hear you rode your bikes for several years.  I hate to ask this, but
>because of some confusion foisted on the general public, do you define
>"riding to SD" as actual door-to-door ride on the bike (no trailering at
>all)? If so, then that's a step in the right direction.

<sigh>

Why any of this even matters to you is a mystery to me, but I'll play
your silly little game.

We rode from Northern IN to Sturgis, SD.  If I remember correctly, it
was over 1000 miles.  We loved camping, so we pitched the tent (oooh,
it was a 3-person dome tent... that enough info for you??) for one
night along the way.  I couldn't tell you exact numbers, but we had *a
lot* of members of our region all riding together.

>BTW: We all have other lives.  That doesn't preclude some folks from
>doing more than 3000 miles a year though.

And this is supposed to prove what?  That someone has to put 3000
miles a year on a bike in order to meet your approval?  Trust me,
nobody gives a crap.

>BBTW: I could care less if you were ABATE members. Bikers are and aren't
>members of many different groups.  More important to your claim to being
>a "biker" would be the love of riding without a rally or other even
>waiting at the other end of a long weekend on 2 wheels... more than once
>or twice a year.

Again, why do you think your definition is the only one that fits?  I
haven't met a "biker" that didn't love to ride.

>BBBTW: Things are starting to look a little better though. More
>questions are being answered; however slowly.

Gee, I'm so grateful to be looking better in your narrow little eyes.
Please note the sarcasm.

>1. Actually owned more than just a leather vest

<sigh>
I didn't own a vest.  I thought they looked dorky (okay, that's a mom
word ;-)
I had everything I needed.... my jacket, boots, gloves, helmet,
goggles, even chaps.  Duplicates of a few things.  I sold the leathers
not long ago.

>2. Rode your own bike (although not more than just around town ("locally"))

I preferred to keep my bike local (within our region, which consists
of 4 counties).  

>3. Rode to SD (2 up) is implied but not yet verified.  Now to find out
>if the ride to Sturgis was from Gillette, WY or from Fla. (without
>trailering of course).

As stated above, from Northern IN.

>To just cast it aside though is the real kicker.  Sounds like just
>another hobby like buying a restored classic car and entering it in car
>shows. Do you still have some Beanie Babbies stashed around the house
>somewhere?

Oh, the '68 GMC was built from the ground up.  We really, honestly do
drive it.  
Never got into Beanie Babies.  I have bought a few at a yard sale
once, but tore the tag off and gave it to my daughter to play with <G>

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 06:02 GMT
> No, you assume wrong again, sweetie.  You attempted to throw your
> cojones around by being quite rude to both groups of people.  

The only way to be rude in Reeky is to cross post to it and expect to do
so with impunity.

>>Glad to
>>hear you rode your bikes for several years.  I hate to ask this, but
>>because of some confusion foisted on the general public, do you define
>>"riding to SD" as actual door-to-door ride on the bike (no trailering at
>>all)? If so, then that's a step in the right direction.

> <sigh>

> Why any of this even matters to you is a mystery to me, but I'll play
> your silly little game.

Simply because YOU'RE the one who started with proclamations of
attainment.  All I did was wonder if you were one of those who claimed
to ride and really trailered. A simple question in Reeky.  You seem
intent on making it a big deal.

> We rode from Northern IN to Sturgis, SD.  If I remember correctly, it
> was over 1000 miles.  We loved camping, so we pitched the tent (oooh,
> it was a 3-person dome tent... that enough info for you??) for one
> night along the way.  I couldn't tell you exact numbers, but we had *a
> lot* of members of our region all riding together.

Congratulations! To actually ride to Sturgis means that you did better
than more than a third of the attendees.  Camping is also nice when
someone can pull it off (time, location, etc.). I know it makes for a
better trip when I get the chance.  So was this pattern repeated the
other times you attended BHMC during your 8 years of riding?

Any good back roads that you can recommend for us readers the next time
we're passing through IN.

>>BTW: We all have other lives.  That doesn't preclude some folks from
>>doing more than 3000 miles a year though.

> And this is supposed to prove what?  That someone has to put 3000
> miles a year on a bike in order to meet your approval?  Trust me,
> nobody gives a crap.

3000 miles a year ain't crap. That means the bike is parked most of the
time. I was being kind by picking an obscenely low number so as not to
offend anyone. Heck your trip to SD and back did 2/3rd of that.  Are you
now telling me that you didn't get the other 1/3rd in during the rest of
the year?  I hope I read that wrong. Less than 1000 miles a year on a
bike (outside of a 1-time special trip) may explain why you sold your
bikes. I hope they didn't dry rot out from under you.

>>BBTW: I could care less if you were ABATE members. Bikers are and aren't
>>members of many different groups.  More important to your claim to being
>>a "biker" would be the love of riding without a rally or other even
>>waiting at the other end of a long weekend on 2 wheels... more than once
>>or twice a year.

> Again, why do you think your definition is the only one that fits?  I
> haven't met a "biker" that didn't love to ride.

Because I (and others here) ARE bikers and not hobbiest.  Next question?

>>BBBTW: Things are starting to look a little better though. More
>>questions are being answered; however slowly.

> Gee, I'm so grateful to be looking better in your narrow little eyes.
> Please note the sarcasm.

It's my Native American heritage. It gives my eyes that Asian look.

>>1. Actually owned more than just a leather vest

> <sigh>
> I didn't own a vest.  I thought they looked dorky (okay, that's a mom
> word ;-)
> I had everything I needed.... my jacket, boots, gloves, helmet,
> goggles, even chaps.  Duplicates of a few things.  I sold the leathers
> not long ago.

>>2. Rode your own bike (although not more than just around town ("locally"))
> I preferred to keep my bike local (within our region, which consists
> of 4 counties).  

I can understand that. I ride with some hobbiests that do the same
thing.  They have a good enough time and it's fun to ride with them as
they see new roads.

>>3. Rode to SD (2 up) is implied but not yet verified.  Now to find out
>>if the ride to Sturgis was from Gillette, WY or from Fla. (without
>>trailering of course).

> As stated above, from Northern IN.

Excellent!

>>To just cast it aside though is the real kicker.  Sounds like just
>>another hobby like buying a restored classic car and entering it in car
>>shows. Do you still have some Beanie Babbies stashed around the house
>>somewhere?

> Oh, the '68 GMC was built from the ground up.  We really, honestly do
> drive it.  

Great! Some people aren't cut out for certain hobbies while other
hobbies just light them up with excitement.  It's always good to spend
time with an enthusiast.  I'm sure you'd not consider me as dedicated to
classic cars if I bought one already restored, trailered it to all your
local events and took all the best of shows.  Buying into the lifestyle
just isn't the same thing. Is it?

> Never got into Beanie Babies.  I have bought a few at a yard sale
> once, but tore the tag off and gave it to my daughter to play with <G>
> Nan
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 12:26 GMT
>> No, you assume wrong again, sweetie.  You attempted to throw your
>> cojones around by being quite rude to both groups of people.  
>
>The only way to be rude in Reeky is to cross post to it and expect to do
>so with impunity.

I'll type real slow so you can understand:  I'm posting in direct
response to posts coming FROM your group.  If you wish to discontinue
the conversation, you may do so at any time.  I do not trim headers
when having a conversation with someone who is not in the group I'm
posting from.
Elementary my dear.

Nan
0tterbot - 14 Jan 2004 00:11 GMT
"Nan"

(bownse wrote:)
> >The only way to be rude in Reeky is to cross post to it and expect to do
> >so with impunity.

oh bownse. there's obviously a million ways to be rude in reeky - and, to
your credit, you've demonstrated a number of them with almost no effort!

(perhaps you mean "unacceptably rude"?)

(nan wrote:)
> I'll type real slow so you can understand:  I'm posting in direct
> response to posts coming FROM your group.  If you wish to discontinue
> the conversation, you may do so at any time.  I do not trim headers
> when having a conversation with someone who is not in the group I'm
> posting from.

i'd have thought that makes perfect sense too, nan, but this is a thread
where, for a sizable clump of the participants in virtually all the
sub-threads, the logic just isn't there from the o.p. downwards (& i believe
i really do mean "downwards"), is it not? i'm loving it! carry on, everyone.
a few more cross-posts squeaking "stop crossposting" should do me for the
week & we can then resume normal transmission.
kylie
Stephen! - 17 Jan 2004 02:21 GMT
Bownse <bownse@swbell.net> wrote in news:NDKMb.4060$vt2.527978663
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> 3. Rode to SD (2 up) is implied but not yet verified.  Now to find out
> if the ride to Sturgis was from Gillette, WY or from Fla. (without
> trailering of course).

The wife and I rode two-up from Norfolk to Sturgis...  we only spent one
night of the two week vaction in a hotel...  Does that count?  ;)

That wasn't nearly as exciting as our ride (two-up as well) through 360
miles of Virginia and North Carolina through Hurricane Bertha in '96...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 23:42 GMT
>>>>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>>>>>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Nan

No need to be impressed. I'm still waiting for you to address the
clarification. What you wrote:

> Yep, "been".  Sold the '76 Super Glide FXE and '84 Electra Glide
> Classic FLHTC several years ago.  Let the Abate membership go then,
> too.  Life goes in different directions, but it was a good time.

Only clarified the currency of your claim to being a "biker". That you
were ABATE and HD raises the possibility of poser to a much higher
probability.

""Been"?  Past tense, eh?"

Has been answered. "Yes, past tense."

"Knees give out after you reached 80, did they? How many miles a year DO
you ride (did if you are over 80). Trailering doesn't count.  How many
states have to RIDEN to and ridden in? (see above about trailering not
counting)."

and

"With or without a bike? Riding it to Sturgis, trailering it, or taking
 the bus and standing on the corner in store bought leathers posing for
cameras?"

I'm being more than generous in withholding judgement about your claim
of being a "biker".  But I'm beginning to suspect poser status based on
your avoidance of the issue.  But the 76 and 84 help a little as the
weekend warrior wannabes were so prevalent back then; unless they were
more recent purchases with that tendancy toward old vehicles you
admitted to.

"Several years ago", is pretty vague. It also avoids the question of any
real, long term commitment to riding that could qualify the claim of
being a "biker".
Signature


Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
2003 FJR1300 "E²"

"It's amazing how long we've been going to hell in a
handbasket ,without ever getting there." Will Rodgers

Nan - 13 Jan 2004 00:42 GMT
>"Several years ago", is pretty vague. It also avoids the question of any
>real, long term commitment to riding that could qualify the claim of
>being a "biker".

Refer to my other post.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 04:40 GMT
>>"Several years ago", is pretty vague. It also avoids the question of any
>>real, long term commitment to riding that could qualify the claim of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Nan

Thanks. I did. I see you owned them for 6 and 8 years. I didn't see how
long "several" was. I also so where you rode to SD (at least part way
and at least once).  We are making progress; slow as it is.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 05:12 GMT
>>>"Several years ago", is pretty vague. It also avoids the question of any
>>>real, long term commitment to riding that could qualify the claim of
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>long "several" was. I also so where you rode to SD (at least part way
>and at least once).  We are making progress; slow as it is.

Do I have to reveal the circumstances surrounding the reason I sold
it, too?  Or can I at least keep that part of my life private.
Sheesh.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 05:48 GMT
>>>>"Several years ago", is pretty vague. It also avoids the question of any
>>>>real, long term commitment to riding that could qualify the claim of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Sheesh.
> Nan

Aging is a sad thing. It affects many enoyable things in everyone's
lives. Hobbiest tend to place a lower priority on riding, so it often
suffers early on.  I didn't ask anything extra. All I did was try to
determine if a self-proclaimed biker was more than just a hobbiest.

You said "several" so I'm guessing you sold the 84 (or was it an 85)
after it's 8 years of storage in your garage. That would mean 93. 11
years ago would surely be "several". An absense of more than the total
time spent riding would hardly strengthen someone's claim to being a
biker, though.
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 12:29 GMT
>> Do I have to reveal the circumstances surrounding the reason I sold
>> it, too?  Or can I at least keep that part of my life private.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>suffers early on.  I didn't ask anything extra. All I did was try to
>determine if a self-proclaimed biker was more than just a hobbiest.

And why it matters to you, is still a mystery to me.

>You said "several" so I'm guessing you sold the 84 (or was it an 85)
>after it's 8 years of storage in your garage. That would mean 93. 11
>years ago would surely be "several". An absense of more than the total
>time spent riding would hardly strengthen someone's claim to being a
>biker, though.

Actually, the '84 was not mine to sell.  It belonged to the ex.  The
'76 was mine, and yes, I sold it 11 years ago for reasons you don't
need to know.  Your silly little ASSumptions don't wash, though.

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 23:47 GMT
> Actually, the '84 was not mine to sell.  It belonged to the ex.  The
> '76 was mine, and yes, I sold it 11 years ago for reasons you don't
> need to know.  Your silly little ASSumptions don't wash, though.
>
> Nan

Sort of like you and your association with laundry, eh?

I'm still not sure why you're so angry about a bunch of bikers nailing a
hobbiest for delusions of grandure.
Stephen! - 17 Jan 2004 02:27 GMT
Nan <nan@altmothers.org> wrote in news:n0p700d4upbnieso5a8hu9e52hl93l0m5g@
4ax.com:

> And why it matters to you, is still a mystery to me.

Because, you stupid cow, you are replying to a newsgroup where it does
matter.

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Stephen! - 17 Jan 2004 02:26 GMT
Nan <nan@altmothers.org> wrote in news:0gv600p1oivbfj8reak1s314ted2j3qijp@
4ax.com:

> Do I have to reveal the circumstances surrounding the reason I sold
> it, too?  Or can I at least keep that part of my life private

Tired of getting swapped around the camp fire?

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Banty - 12 Jan 2004 23:23 GMT
>>>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few of
>>>>you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>doesn't count.  How many states have to RIDEN to and ridden in? (see
>above about trailering not counting).

Ooo, my favorite game - que es mas macho.

Banty
Circe - 12 Jan 2004 23:54 GMT
>>> and I've been a biker, sweetie.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Ooo, my favorite game - que es mas macho.

Ricardo Montalban, of course <g>!
Signature

Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Call anywhere, any time...virtually from any phone" -- prepaid phone card
dispenser

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 00:33 GMT
>>Ooo, my favorite game - que es mas macho.

> Ricardo Montalban, of course <g>!

Is it true that all his motorcycle saddles are made with
Corrrrrrrynthian leather?

"From the pit of Hell I spit my last breath at you!" (er sumpin lahk dat)
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 00:26 GMT
>>>and I've been a biker, sweetie.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Banty

Not at all. Many people claim to be "bikers" (or even "motorcyclists).
No small few of them ride more than 1500 miles a year and not much
farther than the local bar. I know one ex-coworker who actually went
with he boyfriend in a cage, hung out for the rally in the never-user
leathers, and drove back; not ven owning a motorcycle of any kind. I'm
just trying to substantiate her claim.

Off all her banter, all she clarified was the "past tense" of her riding
and that it was on some HD's of intermediate age (a plus IMO of the HDs
she could have claimed).  Actually riding them TO Sturgis (instead of
unloaded them in Wasta or Tilford and claiming that as "riding to
Sturgis" as some do).
Nan - 13 Jan 2004 01:02 GMT
>Actually riding them TO Sturgis (instead of
>unloaded them in Wasta or Tilford and claiming that as "riding to
>Sturgis" as some do).

What's this.... referring to the "Black Hills Motor Classic" as
"Sturgis"???

Shame on you, POSER ;-)

Nan
Bownse - 13 Jan 2004 04:50 GMT
>>Actually riding them TO Sturgis (instead of
>>unloaded them in Wasta or Tilford and claiming that as "riding to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Nan

I've never ridden to the BHMC. I have ridden to Sturgis and the area on
several occasions when passing through. The rally was not taking place
and I made a point of scheduling to miss it.  Poser status has nothing
to do with being able to name rallies properly.  It has to do with
claiming to be a biker and using your bike for driveway jewelry more
than riding it.
C.R. Krieger - 13 Jan 2004 19:12 GMT
> >> and I've been a biker, sweetie.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Ooo, my favorite game - que es mas macho.

Game's over, Banty.  Nan won on a technicality.  Not that she's more of a
'biker' than Bownse, but that she's a lot less of an a.shole than he is.

BTW, it's "P-O-S-E-*U*-R", you f.cking morons!  I ought to know.  I *am*
one!
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)
Bownse - 14 Jan 2004 00:11 GMT
>>>>and I've been a biker, sweetie.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> BTW, it's "P-O-S-E-*U*-R", you f.cking morons!  I ought to know.  I *am*
> one!

You lose that point. U is the Yupeeun spellink. Us 'muricans don't need
it any more than we do for color or armor.

As for ass-holiness, that's not a part of this debate and doesn't win or
lose the debate; especially when the accusation is made against one
whose self-proclaimed ass-holiness is worn as a badge of honor (see no
"U" there either).  In fact, I sport an oak leaf cluster on that
particular medal.
0tterbot - 14 Jan 2004 11:09 GMT
> >>>>and I've been a biker, sweetie.
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> "U" there either).  In fact, I sport an oak leaf cluster on that
> particular medal.

i reckon you're both wrong:
both words are right: a poser is someone who poses, makes perfect sense. a
poseur is the same thing, but someone _calling_ someone a poseur is being
ironic. the poseur is _such_ a poser that they require french spelling when
being insulted.
kylie
C.R. Krieger - 14 Jan 2004 17:44 GMT
> > > BTW, it's "P-O-S-E-*U*-R", you f.cking morons!  I ought to know.  I *am*
> > > one!
> >
> > You lose that point. U is the Yupeeun spellink. Us 'muricans don't need
> > it any more than we do for color or armor.

No; it's not an English spelling.  It's French, and it's correct in this
context.  Read on ...

> > As for ass-holiness, that's not a part of this debate and doesn't win or
> > lose the debate; especially when the accusation is made against one
> > whose self-proclaimed ass-holiness is worn as a badge of honor (see no
> > "U" there either).  In fact, I sport an oak leaf cluster on that
> > particular medal.

Which cuts no ice with the #1 ranked Smartass (one word, no hyphen, always
capitalized) in at least two automotive newsgroups, me.

> i reckon you're both wrong:

You reckon backwards.  What you *say* below is that we both are *right*.

> both words are right: a poser is someone who poses, makes perfect sense.

As in a photograph or a modeling assignment.  Nothing to do with the
derogatory reference Bownse wants it to be.

> a
> poseur is the same thing, but someone _calling_ someone a poseur is being
> ironic. the poseur is _such_ a poser that they require french spelling when
> being insulted.

Absolutely correct.  As with the word "grandeur" (Look vaguely familiar,
Bownse?), it *is* a French word that has been *directly* incorporated into
English *without* any spelling modifications.  It implies a rich irony which
is *lost* by spelling it wrong.  It need not be an insult when it is
intentionally adopted by someone like me, who rides a Shadow VLX about 4000
miles/year in a state where it *can* and *does* snow in eight months out of
the year primarily because it *looks good* (not to mention it fits me
perfectly and is more reliable than dirt).

If you guys don't understand after *this* much illumination, tomorrow's word
will be, "obtuse".
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; rode that)
0tterbot - 14 Jan 2004 23:31 GMT
"C.R. Krieger"
> > i reckon you're both wrong:
>
> You reckon backwards.  What you *say* below is that we both are *right*.

haha, yes i can see that.

> > both words are right: a poser is someone who poses, makes perfect sense.
>
> As in a photograph or a modeling assignment.  Nothing to do with the
> derogatory reference Bownse wants it to be.

photograph, modelling assignment, propping self on bike to be admired...

> > a
> > poseur is the same thing, but someone _calling_ someone a poseur is being
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> If you guys don't understand after *this* much illumination, tomorrow's word
> will be, "obtuse".

have you been lurking on the m.k. thread about mathematical shapes? you lot
are uncanny, i swear...
kylie
toto - 15 Jan 2004 05:26 GMT
>have you been lurking on the m.k. thread about mathematical shapes? you lot
>are uncanny, i swear...
>kylie

hey, now..  <g>

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Stephen! - 17 Jan 2004 02:33 GMT
> Game's over, Banty.  Nan won on a technicality.  Not that she's more
> of a 'biker' than Bownse, but that she's a lot less of an a.shole than
> he is.

You must be trying to get on his good side...

No, seriously...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Bownse - 18 Jan 2004 22:38 GMT
>>Game's over, Banty.  Nan won on a technicality.  Not that she's more
>>of a 'biker' than Bownse, but that she's a lot less of an a.shole than
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> No, seriously...

[snicker]

clearly clueless about the dynamics of this ng.  eh, wot?
toto - 19 Jan 2004 03:55 GMT
>[snicker]
>
>clearly clueless about the dynamics of this ng.  eh, wot?

which ng?  Remember this is x-posted to 3 ngs and Banty is
posting from mk, so of course she is not familiar with the
dynamics of the other two ngs.

So what?

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 14:12 GMT
>>[snicker]
>>
>>clearly clueless about the dynamics of this ng.  eh, wot?
>
> which ng?  

Reeky. The only one that matters.

> Remember this is x-posted to 3 ngs and Banty is
> posting from mk, so of course she is not familiar with the
> dynamics of the other two ngs. So what?
> Dorothy

So trim out Reeky if you don't care for the "Reeky style" of discourse.
 Then get laid. You'll feel better.
toto - 20 Jan 2004 04:51 GMT
>So trim out Reeky if you don't care for the "Reeky style" of discourse

I am enjoying the discourse, but you are free to trim.  The OP
was not posted in mk and the discussion has drifted all over the
place, but I don't mind at all.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 12 Jan 2004 18:05 GMT
>I don't own a minivan, and I've been a biker, sweetie.
>I've been to Sturgis, Beanblossom... you name it.

Ahhhh, Sturgis... Disneyland for wannabes. Did you trailer or ride
your McHarley down there?

Been had by a bunch of bikers is not the same as "been a biker". Just
because they passed you around like a doob and you managed to snag the
one that was Bogarting doesn't mean you were accepted for any
definition of.

>And no, I won't trim the GOD DAMNED HEADERS.  The crossposts came from
>a group other than the one I post in.  I never trim the GOD DAMNED
>HEADERS, when I'm replying, as I don't know which group the post I'm
>replying to, came from.

I would not be surprised if you have no idea who/what you're replying
to even when they're staring at you squarely in the face.

Dude, if the kids make you this frazzled maybe it's time to take your
little darlins out for a drive, roll the SUV into a lake and claim
some big black man carjacked you at gunpoint or something. If your
lawyer is any good at that voire dire sh.t, you should get a box full
of premenstrual Oprah addicts who will sympathise and slap you with
counseling and community service.

>  As it is, the post you decided to hump came
>directly from your group.  So suck it up and deal with it, or trim
>your own GOD DAMNED HEADERS.

Sorry to disappoint, but the level of banality you assume as
appropriate simply does not exist in any motorcycle newsgroup. "Dumb"
and "motorcycles" don't go well together, at least not for long.
"Dumb" and "pregnant" OTOH, seemingly have an almost magnetic
attraction for each other at times. Now if you could please show me
how to trim my headers as to avoid a bunch of parenting types popping
up in the rec.moto stream, I'm all ears. Otherwise it is considered
common courtesy to trim headers and most certainly after being asked
to cut it the f.ck out.

I can appreciate the fact that if you mail a million AOL trial CDs out
eventually a few chimpanzees will find their way onto usenet but try
to follow along here. Just because you have every right to continue
being an unbridled c.nt, does not mean the rest of us have to sit
around an appreciate it. Indeed in certain cultures we'd simply slit
your throat and sacrifice you to the volcano god, having already
established your absolute uselessness for any other particular
purpose.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Useful George Bush stats:

Born        1946
Graduated    1975 (29 years to attain Masters)
First known job    1989 (bought Texas Rangers with daddy's money)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nan - 12 Jan 2004 18:15 GMT
<drivel snipped>

>I would not be surprised if you have no idea who/what you're replying
>to even when they're staring at you squarely in the face.

I'm well aware that the posts I've replied to have not been from any
regulars in the groups I post in.  Deal with it.

>Dude,

ma'am to you.

>avoid a bunch of parenting types popping
>up in the rec.moto stream, I'm all ears. Otherwise it is considered
>common courtesy to trim headers and most certainly after being asked
>to cut it the f.ck out.

Sorry to disappoint, but you have the option of ignoring those that
get your boxers in a wad.  I don't do anything after being asked to
"cut it the f.ck out".  Speak like a human and not some ape biker
wannabee, and I might re-consider.

Nan
Ice Queen - 12 Jan 2004 18:24 GMT
> get your boxers in a wad.  I don't do anything after being asked to
> "cut it the f.ck out".  Speak like a human and not some ape biker
> wannabee, and I might re-consider.

 What kind of a mommy are you anyhow, copping a haughty attitude toward his
filthy language instead of bending him over your knee and giving him the
thrashing he deserves! It's for his own good, after all.
Nan - 12 Jan 2004 19:04 GMT
>> get your boxers in a wad.  I don't do anything after being asked to
>> "cut it the f.ck out".  Speak like a human and not some ape biker
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>filthy language instead of bending him over your knee and giving him the
>thrashing he deserves! It's for his own good, after all.

He'd probably enjoy that too much.

Nan
Banty - 12 Jan 2004 23:21 GMT
>> get your boxers in a wad.  I don't do anything after being asked to
>> "cut it the f.ck out".  Speak like a human and not some ape biker
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>filthy language instead of bending him over your knee and giving him the
>thrashing he deserves! It's for his own good, after all.

I think she suspects he *wants* that.

You getting in line, "Ice"?

Cheers,
Banty
Charles Soto - 12 Jan 2004 23:50 GMT
> > get your boxers in a wad.  I don't do anything after being asked to
> > "cut it the f.ck out".  Speak like a human and not some ape biker
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> filthy language instead of bending him over your knee and giving him the
> thrashing he deserves! It's for his own good, after all.

MPEGs!

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

winger81 - 12 Jan 2004 23:52 GMT
>> > get your boxers in a wad.  I don't do anything after being asked to
>> > "cut it the f.ck out".  Speak like a human and not some ape biker
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Charles

Bah!  Tickets, front and center. ;-)
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 23:56 GMT
Nan mumbled:

> Sorry to disappoint, but you have the option of ignoring those that
> get your boxers in a wad.  I don't do anything after being asked to
> "cut it the f.ck out".  

Probably how you ended up knocked up.

> Speak like a human and not some ape biker wannabee, and I might re-consider.
> Nan

Advice from the expert? Hmmm?
Circe - 12 Jan 2004 16:29 GMT
>> Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few
>> of you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> might want to learn how to operate a news reader and TRIM THE GOD
> DAMNED HEADERS.

May I suggest instead that you STOP RESPONDING or trim your own headers? You
don't like the conversation, you IGNORE it. That isn't any harder than
getting knocked up, hon.
Signature

Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Call anywhere, any time...virtually from any phone" -- prepaid phone card
dispenser

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 23:50 GMT
>>>Does it mean dumb sh.t in your motorcycle group?  Seems to be a few
>>>of you in there.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> don't like the conversation, you IGNORE it. That isn't any harder than
> getting knocked up, hon.

I would propose that there are probably few things harder than knocking
up a guy in a newsgroup.  Being knocked up BY a guy would be possible,
the opposite would be medical history.
toto - 12 Jan 2004 06:24 GMT
>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Odd how different a parenting group and a motorcycle group can be. I saw
>it as an acronym for dumb sh.t.

LOL.   Well dh sometimes stands for something other than dear husband
<g>

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Cathy Weeks - 12 Jan 2004 14:19 GMT
> >>BTW what's a ds?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Odd how different a parentinh group and a motorcycle group can be. I saw
> it as an acronym for dumb sh.t.

<laugh>

I'm from the parenting groups, and thought this was hilarious.  Agreed
how paradigms influence thinking.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
Bownse - 12 Jan 2004 23:44 GMT
>>>>BTW what's a ds?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Cathy Weeks

There you go, Nan. Cathy's a Mom who didn't check her humor at the door
of the delivery room.

Of the 2, Cath, you're the cooler of the two.
Cathy Weeks - 13 Jan 2004 15:03 GMT
> There you go, Nan. Cathy's a Mom who didn't check her humor at the door
> of the delivery room.
>
> Of the 2, Cath, you're the cooler of the two.

Um, thanks!

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
0tterbot - 14 Jan 2004 00:18 GMT
> > There you go, Nan. Cathy's a Mom who didn't check her humor at the door
> > of the delivery room.
> >
> > Of the 2, Cath, you're the cooler of the two.
>
> Um, thanks!

ah, he's just using wedge politics - that compliment wasn't worth a piece of
sh.t.

still, it must be a thrill to have someone from rec.moto not talking down to
you in this thread like you're a prize twit. :-)
kylie
Roger Dodger - 11 Jan 2004 19:46 GMT
> >>Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> hadn't gotten involved. What did I do? I stood there and looked at  
> him with an 'is that-all-you-got' expression.

IMHO, much of this is caused by anti-educational schools that
promote feel-good "self-esteem" and "socialization" over academics.

I can suggest the following improvements:

1.  Separate sports/jocks from school, just like religion.  A good
   many bullies (but not the ones who are troublemakers) are jocks.

2.  Re-academize schools.

3.  Bring back a certain amount of tracking.  Maybe self-tracking.

4.  Have a civil moral code, separate from any religious one.
   Force and fraud are wrong, and need to be punished.  The only
   allowable force is self-defense.

5.  Discipline based on the above.

6.  Eliminate compulsory attendance, if even past a certain age.
   Thugs seldom want to be in school, and resent it, and act out
   their resentment by picking on real students.

And beyond school, for society itself:

6.  Encourage personal responsibility.

7.  Revamp civil law, make it harder to sue, allow judges more
   discretion re. frivolous lawsuits.

Many lawsuits are frivolous, or yet another form of bullying the
productive people.  They cost money, and especially time.  Fanatics,
tribalists, social crusaders, and other such busybodies have plenty
of time.  Not so productive people.
Jenn - 11 Jan 2004 21:09 GMT
> > >>Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> IMHO, much of this is caused by anti-educational schools that
> promote feel-good "self-esteem" and "socialization" over academics.

you are hopelessly behind the times -- most elementary schools in the US
today don't even have recess for kids to play and blow off steam and
most have also dropped PE.  What has been substituted is endless drill
in the basics.  Many districts no longer fund art, music or drama either
-- so that school consists of nothing but teaching to the test.  There
is ample evidence that this doesn't work very well for precisely the
kids who are least likely to test well -- but that doesn't stop the
'zero tolerance for anything but drill' people who controll US education.

> I can suggest the following improvements:
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> tribalists, social crusaders, and other such busybodies have plenty
> of time.  Not so productive people.
toto - 12 Jan 2004 02:35 GMT
>> > >>Both will get suspended.  And no it's not fair.
>> > >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>kids who are least likely to test well -- but that doesn't stop the
>'zero tolerance for anything but drill' people who controll US education.

You mean GW Bush, don't you?

>> I can suggest the following improvements:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>> tribalists, social crusaders, and other such busybodies have plenty
>> of time.  Not so productive people.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
DTJ - 13 Jan 2004 01:26 GMT
>>kids who are least likely to test well -- but that doesn't stop the
>>'zero tolerance for anything but drill' people who controll US education.
>>
>You mean GW Bush, don't you?

No, liberals and the NEA control education, which is why it sucks.
toto - 13 Jan 2004 02:24 GMT
>>>kids who are least likely to test well -- but that doesn't stop the
>>>'zero tolerance for anything but drill' people who controll US education.
>>>
>>You mean GW Bush, don't you?
>
>No, liberals and the NEA control education, which is why it sucks.

Read the text of Bush's NCLB.  It's online.
It makes schools worse not better.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
C.R. Krieger - 13 Jan 2004 18:39 GMT
> >>kids who are least likely to test well -- but that doesn't stop the
> >>'zero tolerance for anything but drill' people who controll US education.
> >>
> >You mean GW Bush, don't you?
>
> No, liberals and the NEA control education, which is why it sucks.

No; *professional educators* control education, which is why someone who has
a record of good teaching ability in some unconventional settings (high
speed driving schools; competition schools; normal high schools) as well as
widely diverse life experience and education (car freak, research chemist,
lawyer) and is highly motivated to do so is not deemed qualified to help
educate our children.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)
Roger Dodger - 13 Jan 2004 21:33 GMT
> >>kids who are least likely to test well -- but that doesn't stop the
> >>'zero tolerance for anything but drill' people who controll US education.
> >>
> >You mean GW Bush, don't you?
>
> No, liberals and the NEA control education, which is why it sucks.

Liberals and the NEA have most of the real control over education
and miseducation.  Conservatives, including Bush, provide the
federal funding.

A much bigger problem than politics are the facts that:

Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
jobs than in educating.

Teachers lack sufficient talent and training in their subject
areas.  There are exceptions - but in most colleges education
has lower requirements than science or engineering.

The talented people who would make the best teachers usually
find more rewarding, and higher paying, work in the private
sector, and outside of education.

"Those that can, do.  Those that can't, teach."

The educational system is not geared towards knowledge, or
students of knowledge.  It's geared to the lowest common
denominator.  Educators have this delusion that Larry the
Looter can become a brain surgeon, so they spend so much
time and effort to keep him in school, at the expense of
the real students.
Bownse - 14 Jan 2004 00:12 GMT
>>>>kids who are least likely to test well -- but that doesn't stop the
>>>>'zero tolerance for anything but drill' people who controll US education.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> "Those that can, do.  Those that can't, teach."

...and those who can't teach, teach teachers.
toto - 14 Jan 2004 01:35 GMT
>>>>>kids who are least likely to test well -- but that doesn't stop the
>>>>>'zero tolerance for anything but drill' people who controll US education.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>...and those who can't teach, teach teachers.

Those that can, teach.  Those that can't bitch.
----  GLORIA LADSON-BILLINGS

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
DTJ - 15 Jan 2004 03:45 GMT
>Those that can, teach.  Those that can't bitch.
>----  GLORIA LADSON-BILLINGS

You left out a few words - Those that can suck off the principle
fastest, teach.  Those that can't bring themselves to such a low
level, bitch to the police.
Charles Soto - 17 Jan 2004 15:56 GMT
> >Those that can, teach.  Those that can't bitch.
> >----  GLORIA LADSON-BILLINGS
>
> You left out a few words - Those that can suck off the principle
> fastest, teach.  Those that can't bring themselves to such a low
> level, bitch to the police.

I know a lot of principals, and most of them are women.  But, yeah, some
of them are lesbians, so I guess your ideas could work...

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

DTJ - 15 Jan 2004 03:38 GMT
>> Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
>> jobs than in educating.

And fight any effort to hold them accountable.  Tenure?  What the f.ck
is that?  Any other job you can get fired from, but not a f.cking
teacher.

>> Teachers lack sufficient talent and training in their subject
>> areas.  There are exceptions - but in most colleges education
>> has lower requirements than science or engineering.

I doubt there are any exceptions.  I have never heard of a teaching
certificate or degree requiring anything near what any other bachelors
degree requires, much less and engineer.  Further, the majority of
those who seek to become teachers are the absolute least intelligent
among us.  I have heard future teachers complain when they had to take
a math class or a logic class, claiming that they don't need logic,
they are only going to teach.

>> The talented people who would make the best teachers usually
>> find more rewarding, and higher paying, work in the private
>> sector, and outside of education.

And when one of those people have an opportunity to teach, they are
turned down.  When I was laid off a couple years ago, I looked into
teaching.  You would think that someone who actually has 10 years
experience in software development, project management and other
managerial positions would have some value in teaching high school
kids how to program.  Not.  Instead, they prefer to have someone with
3 hours of computer science, but who did take courses in 8th grade
education.  Wow,  that makes sense.

A few years ago there was a push to allow people with experience in
industry to teach, as there were "not enough teachers".  I guess that
got canned when the NEA realized that intelligent people wouldn't want
to join their union.
toto - 15 Jan 2004 04:58 GMT
>>> Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
>>> jobs than in educating.
>
>And fight any effort to hold them accountable.  Tenure?  What the f.ck
>is that?  Any other job you can get fired from, but not a f.cking
>teacher.

Wrong.  Administrators can fire a teacher for cause.  They need
documentation in the states where the teachers are unionized.

Note that the reasons for tenure involve the fact that prior to this,
teachers could be fired for political opinions or things they did in
their private lives that have no relation to how they do their job.

If the administrator wants to fire a teacher who is not doing the
job, they can.  They simply have to document the poor performance.

Now, you probably won't believe the study itself, but this
is data about the states that are unionized and non-union
from a study of unionization and how it affects school
performance.

http://www.weac.org/Resource/1997-98/Dec97/table2.htm

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia
and West Virginia have no teacher contracts at all.  Teachers
can be fired at will under this system.

Georgia and Alabama have less than 2% of their districts under
contract.  Arizona, Lousiana, Arkansas, Kentucky and Missouri
all have less than 20% of their districts under contract

Wyoming has about 34% of its districts under contract.

Districts that do not have contracts for teachers do not
have tenure for teachers.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
0tterbot - 15 Jan 2004 14:18 GMT
> >>> Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
> >>> jobs than in educating.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Wrong.  Administrators can fire a teacher for cause.  They need
> documentation in the states where the teachers are unionized.

indeed, i knew a couple of teachers personally who lost their jobs because
they could literally be described as "f.cking teachers" (rather than
"teachers who knew how to keep their dacks on"). the more time goes by, the
higher the standards to which teachers are generally held.

but by the time teachers are held to a standard somewhere between
beatification & full-blown sainthood, i fear that certain people, sadly
well-represented in this thread, will still be unable to see beyond their
own experience & still find forgiveness to be some foreign (nay, "touchy
feely") concept.
kylie
DTJ - 16 Jan 2004 02:52 GMT
>>>> Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
>>>> jobs than in educating.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Wrong.  Administrators can fire a teacher for cause.  They need
>documentation in the states where the teachers are unionized.

Right.  I know of teachers who were caught with their hand in the
cookie jar, or underage girl's panties as it was, and were then given
tenure - knowing the guy was a sexual abuser.  The parents caught him,
the girl and the parents went to the police and the school, and it was
covered up by the school.

>Note that the reasons for tenure involve the fact that prior to this,
>teachers could be fired for political opinions or things they did in
>their private lives that have no relation to how they do their job.

Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 03:14 GMT
>>Note that the reasons for tenure involve the fact that prior to this,
>>teachers could be fired for political opinions or things they did in
>>their private lives that have no relation to how they do their job.

> Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?

Better yet, it's interesting how tenure can be denied for the same  
reasons.
toto - 16 Jan 2004 05:40 GMT
>>>>> Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
>>>>> jobs than in educating.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>the girl and the parents went to the police and the school, and it was
>covered up by the school.

How if the parents brought charges?

>>Note that the reasons for tenure involve the fact that prior to this,
>>teachers could be fired for political opinions or things they did in
>>their private lives that have no relation to how they do their job.
>
>Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?

Do you know bosses who fire you because you are a Democrat?
Because you demonstrated against Vietnam?  Because you
were active in politics for a candidate he disliked?  Because
you would not campaign for a candidate he did like?

I don't.  But teachers have been fired for all of these.  And for
simply having unpopular opinions.  These have nothing to do
with how they did their job.  

And anyone can be fired as long as there is documentation
that it is for a cause related to job performance so what is the
problem with that.  Do you think that employees should be
fired on a whim?  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 06:13 GMT
>>Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?

> Do you know bosses who fire you because you are a Democrat?
> Because you demonstrated against Vietnam?  Because you
> were active in politics for a candidate he disliked?  Because
> you would not campaign for a candidate he did like?

I think he became governor of IL. George "CDL's for sale" Ryan.

> I don't.  But teachers have been fired for all of these.  And for
> simply having unpopular opinions.  These have nothing to do
> with how they did their job.  

There are all sorts of equilivent things that happen in major
corporations. People get fired for nothing with how they do their
job all the time. When the downsizing events occur the unpopular
people get it regardless of their job performance.

> And anyone can be fired as long as there is documentation
> that it is for a cause related to job performance so what is the
> problem with that.  Do you think that employees should be
> fired on a whim?  

So they build of fictional case. That's how a former employer of
mine went about downsizing people. The method was copied from GE.
toto - 16 Jan 2004 06:38 GMT
>>>Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I think he became governor of IL. George "CDL's for sale" Ryan.

That however isn't most jobs.  It's a government job as teaching
is and that is why teachers need the protections we have and
why state employees need such protection as well.

>> I don't.  But teachers have been fired for all of these.  And for
>> simply having unpopular opinions.  These have nothing to do
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>job all the time. When the downsizing events occur the unpopular
>people get it regardless of their job performance.

Which may be why those corporations will go out of business.
I don't want to see that happen in schools.

>> And anyone can be fired as long as there is documentation
>> that it is for a cause related to job performance so what is the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>mine went about downsizing people. The method was copied
>from GE.

What prevents people from building a *fictional case* against
teachers then.  

It's not tenure that is the problem.  It's lazy administrators who
don't evaluate teachers properly and don't want to take the
trouble to document a case against a poor teacher.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 15:50 GMT
>>> Do you know bosses who fire you because you are a Democrat?
>>> Because you demonstrated against Vietnam?  Because you
>>> were active in politics for a candidate he disliked?  Because
>>> you would not campaign for a candidate he did like?
>>
>>I think he became governor of IL. George "CDL's for sale" Ryan.

> That however isn't most jobs.  It's a government job as teaching
> is and that is why teachers need the protections we have and
> why state employees need such protection as well.

I doubt it's not like most teaching either.

>>> I don't.  But teachers have been fired for all of these.  And for
>>> simply having unpopular opinions.  These have nothing to do
>>> with how they did their job.  

>>There are all sorts of equilivent things that happen in major
>>corporations. People get fired for nothing with how they do their
>>job all the time. When the downsizing events occur the unpopular
>>people get it regardless of their job performance.

> Which may be why those corporations will go out of business.
> I don't want to see that happen in schools.

It does because they keep technically poor people who spent their time
socializing with each other instead of working on the projects.
Given what you wrote in the other post, it's already happened in
the schools.

>>> And anyone can be fired as long as there is documentation
>>> that it is for a cause related to job performance so what is the
>>> problem with that.  Do you think that employees should be
>>> fired on a whim?  

>>So they build of fictional case. That's how a former employer of
>>mine went about downsizing people. The method was copied
>>from GE.

> What prevents people from building a *fictional case* against
> teachers then.  

Tenure? Hell if I know.

> It's not tenure that is the problem.  It's lazy administrators who
> don't evaluate teachers properly and don't want to take the
> trouble to document a case against a poor teacher.

Not arguing if tenure is a problem or not. I am merely pointing
out that other people face the same or similiar risks without
the protection. That teachers (especially below the college level
where publication isn't a key part of the job) don't really face
any special risks that the rest of us don't.
toto - 17 Jan 2004 03:16 GMT
>Not arguing if tenure is a problem or not. I am merely pointing
>out that other people face the same or similiar risks without
>the protection. That teachers (especially below the college level
>where publication isn't a key part of the job) don't really face
>any special risks that the rest of us don't.

You are wrong about that.  I worked in the private sector.
Bosses don't fire people for having political opinions.  Heck
most bosses in the private sector don't even know your
political opinions as long as you do your job well.  If you are
borderline and the boss dislikes you too, you may have a
problem, but not if you are doing the job as you should.
Teachers though are in a position where the school board
and administrators scrutinized their every move when outside
of school, so tenure developed to prevent this kind of firing
without cause.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 17 Jan 2004 04:13 GMT
>>Not arguing if tenure is a problem or not. I am merely pointing
>>out that other people face the same or similiar risks without
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You are wrong about that.  I worked in the private sector.
> Bosses don't fire people for having political opinions.

similiar != exact.

> Heck
> most bosses in the private sector don't even know your
> political opinions as long as you do your job well.

Why and how would they know them from a HS or gradeschool teacher?

>  If you are
> borderline and the boss dislikes you too, you may have a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> of school, so tenure developed to prevent this kind of firing
> without cause.

Wasn't a news achor just fired for flashing her boobs in a wet tshirt
contest in FL? hmmm.... Wasn't there a big uproar a couple months
ago about getting rush limbaugh fired because of a comment he made
regarding the expectations of some sports writers?  

Teachers have been able to get away with some out right criminal
activities for considerable lengths of time before someone squealed
on them. So I doubt that there is anyone following  them around looking
for undesirable *legal* behaviors, like handing out flyers for somebody
running for senator.
Charles Soto - 17 Jan 2004 16:15 GMT
> Wasn't a news achor just fired for flashing her boobs in a wet tshirt
> contest in FL? hmmm.... Wasn't there a big uproar a couple months
> ago about getting rush limbaugh fired because of a comment he made
> regarding the expectations of some sports writers?  

She was fired because her rack just didn't stack up.

Rush "quit" because he's a Big Fat Idiot.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Brent P - 17 Jan 2004 18:31 GMT
>> Wasn't a news achor just fired for flashing her boobs in a wet tshirt
>> contest in FL? hmmm.... Wasn't there a big uproar a couple months
>> ago about getting rush limbaugh fired because of a comment he made
>> regarding the expectations of some sports writers?  
>
> She was fired because her rack just didn't stack up.

Then she wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

> Rush "quit" because he's a Big Fat Idiot.

Wasn't speaking of the outcome, just what some people called for
Charles Soto - 18 Jan 2004 03:44 GMT
> >> Wasn't a news achor just fired for flashing her boobs in a wet tshirt
> >> contest in FL? hmmm.... Wasn't there a big uproar a couple months
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Then she wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

Maybe she's a "stuffer" and was fired for "misrepresentation" :)

> > Rush "quit" because he's a Big Fat Idiot.
>
> Wasn't speaking of the outcome, just what some people called for

I could care less about that outcome, as I don't watch sports talk
shows.  But, anything that makes Rush uncomfortable (even anal
fissures), makes me happy.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

toto - 17 Jan 2004 23:58 GMT
>> Wasn't a news achor just fired for flashing her boobs in a wet tshirt
>> contest in FL? hmmm.... Wasn't there a big uproar a couple months
>> ago about getting rush limbaugh fired because of a comment he made
>> regarding the expectations of some sports writers?  
>
>She was fired because her rack just didn't stack up.

If she sues, she will most likely be reinstated because what
she does outside of work is none of their business.  Of course,
it is possible that her contract has a *morals clause.*  Some
entertainer's contracts still do.  It used to be very common back
in the days of the big studios.

>Rush "quit" because he's a Big Fat Idiot.

Rush may be a big fat idiot, but in this case, his racist remarks
were probably an *excuse* for firing him or having him quit.
His knowledge of sports and incompetence at broadcasting
them as a sports commentator were painfully obvious to the
fans.

>Charles

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Charles Soto - 18 Jan 2004 03:36 GMT
> >> Wasn't a news achor just fired for flashing her boobs in a wet tshirt
> >> contest in FL? hmmm.... Wasn't there a big uproar a couple months
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> entertainer's contracts still do.  It used to be very common back
> in the days of the big studios.

Well, anybody who signs on to any job with a "morals clause" is a boob,
anyway, so she deserves it ;)

> >Rush "quit" because he's a Big Fat Idiot.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> them as a sports commentator were painfully obvious to the
> fans.

I don't watch those shows, but he's stupid every time his mouth opens,
so I can understand if he sucked at that, too.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

toto - 17 Jan 2004 23:54 GMT
>> Heck
>> most bosses in the private sector don't even know your
>> political opinions as long as you do your job well.
>
>Why and how would they know them from a HS or gradeschool teacher?

Many teachers are quite active politically.

I am involved in organizations that demonstrate against the war
in Iraq for example.  Other teachers are involved in pro-choice
or anti-abortion groups.

Aside from that schools are political entities.  They are controlled
by politicians and without tenure, they could and did force teachers
to work on the incumbent's political campaigns

Way back before unions and tenure, women teachers were fired
if they were pregnant even if they were married.  Teachers could
be fired for getting married for that matter back in those days.

the teacher tenure law is one of the most misunderstood laws in
the states.

A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
cannot be fired without due process.

It does not protect incompetent teachers. It just protects
teachers from political firings and nepotism and just basic
mistreatment..

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 18 Jan 2004 00:29 GMT
>Many teachers are quite active politically.

Of course. How else would they sustain the mediocrity of our public
school systems for so long?

Well they do seem to get a lot of help from those idiotic soccer
mommies running the school board...

>Way back before unions and tenure, women teachers were fired
>if they were pregnant even if they were married.  Teachers could
>be fired for getting married for that matter back in those days.

How incredibly dense does one have to be in order to continue
justifying a system based on what went on 100 years ago?

FYI... I mean I don't expect a stay at home mommy to figure this one
out since their brains have been rotted out on too much Oprah, but in
the real world there's women working all over the place. Minus tenure,
they are able to reproduce with impunity and still keep their jobs.

>It does not protect incompetent teachers.

I can see you've never toured the NY state school system.

> It just protects teachers from political firings and nepotism and just basic
>mistreatment..

Oh, poor f.cking babies. Funny how we seem to run AN ENTIRE ECONOMY
based on the free market principle of "at will" employment but those
poor delicate teachers need things like tenure to survive.
The Real Bev - 18 Jan 2004 00:56 GMT
> >Many teachers are quite active politically.
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> >It does not protect incompetent teachers.

Yeah, right.  Has anybody here NOT wanted to mark up one of the
teachers' notes and send it back with a YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS
comment?  

> I can see you've never toured the NY state school system.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> based on the free market principle of "at will" employment but those
> poor delicate teachers need things like tenure to survive.

What I find hilarious is that they're deathly afraid of subjecting
themselves to what amounts to the same test a 10th grader can use to
graduate early from HS if he passes it.  How many of the members of the
teachers' unions know they wouldn't have a hope in hell of passing any
kind of objective test?  How about 65%?  That's just a guess.  

Sample question:  
    How many sides does a triangle have
?
        (A) 2
        (B) 3
        (C) 4
        (D) None of the above

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
====================================
Start worrying -- details to follow.

toto - 18 Jan 2004 02:34 GMT
>What I find hilarious is that they're deathly afraid of subjecting
>themselves to what amounts to the same test a 10th grader can use to
>graduate early from HS if he passes it.  How many of the members of the
>teachers' unions know they wouldn't have a hope in hell of passing any
>kind of objective test?  How about 65%?  That's just a guess.  

Teachers are not *afraid* of such tests.

And the tests they have been required to take are not on the level
of high school tests, but often have been about esoteric knowledge
that has nothing to do with the real world today.  I can probably
find the big controversial ones online.  The sample questions are
ones I doubt you could answer.  

And they don't tell us anything about whether someone is a good
teacher or not.

As for me, I can take and pass most tests as long as I know what
the material is like before hand (not the specifics, but the subject
area and the general kinds of questions).  But that doesn't mean
I think the tests are a good evaluation.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
The Real Bev - 18 Jan 2004 04:38 GMT


> >What I find hilarious is that they're deathly afraid of subjecting
> >themselves to what amounts to the same test a 10th grader can use to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Teachers are not *afraid* of such tests.

You're not from around here, are you?  There were quotes in the paper
from teachers saying that it just wasn't fair to spring these tests
[samples in box of pretty damn basic stuff:  "Which is greater, 7.95 or
300?"] on teachers who have been out of school for a long time and who
are good teachers even if they can't pass them.  Duh.  The poor cows
were outraged that somebody would expect them to pass the same kind of
test that they make their students pass at least once a week.  

They're also whining about the kids having to pass exit exams (passing =
50% and the kids can take the test three times) in order to graduate.
More samples which a 10-year-old really shouldn't have trouble with.
It's not fair because the teachers haven't had enough time to teach the
kids what they need to know to pass.  Duh again.  What were they doing
for the last 12 years?

> And the tests they have been required to take are not on the level
> of high school tests, but often have been about esoteric knowledge
> that has nothing to do with the real world today.  

What, you mean like naming the ancient Sumerian god of wigmaking?  You
say that the tests have nothing to do with what the teachers are
teaching?  Frankly, I find that difficult to believe.

> I can probably
> find the big controversial ones online.  The sample questions are
> ones I doubt you could answer.

Go for it.

> And they don't tell us anything about whether someone is a good
> teacher or not.

So what do you suggest?  Reading pig entrails?  If tests tell us nothing
about whether someone is a good teacher or not, how can tests possibly
tell us anything about whether someone is a good student or not?  

> As for me, I can take and pass most tests as long as I know what
> the material is like before hand (not the specifics, but the subject
> area and the general kinds of questions).  But that doesn't mean
> I think the tests are a good evaluation.

I can pass most multiple choice tests -- certainly if 50% is passing --
even if I know NOTHING about the subject and walk in cold.  Exception
for math, which I have never been able to deal with unless I can apply
proportion principles :-)

Signature

Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I don't care who your father is! Drop that cross  
one more time and you're out of the parade!"

P. Tierney - 18 Jan 2004 08:30 GMT
> > And they don't tell us anything about whether someone is a good
> > teacher or not.
>
> So what do you suggest?  Reading pig entrails?  If tests tell us nothing
> about whether someone is a good teacher or not, how can tests possibly
> tell us anything about whether someone is a good student or not?

   Very good point.  They don't in either case.

> > As for me, I can take and pass most tests as long as I know what
> > the material is like before hand (not the specifics, but the subject
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I can pass most multiple choice tests -- certainly if 50% is passing --
> even if I know NOTHING about the subject and walk in cold.

   Case in point.

                                                   P. Tierney
The Real Bev - 19 Jan 2004 00:19 GMT
> > > And they don't tell us anything about whether someone is a good
> > > teacher or not.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>     Very good point.  They don't in either case.

So what's better?  Are pass/fail grades more or less useless than A-F
grades?  Given that educational resources are limited, what sort of
allocation system would you recommend?  I'm waiting...

> > > As for me, I can take and pass most tests as long as I know what
> > > the material is like before hand (not the specifics, but the subject
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>     Case in point.

Not really.  Some of us are smarter than others.  Being able to pass an
easy test doesn't mean much, but being able to pass a difficult one
does.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
==================================================================
"I used to be convinced that MicroSquish shipped crap because they
simply didn't give a flying f.ck as long as the sheep kept buying
their sh.t. Now, I'm convinced that they really do ship the best
products they are capable of writing, and *that's* tragic."
                     - John C. Randolph, about MS quality control.

P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 03:28 GMT
> > > > And they don't tell us anything about whether someone is a good
> > > > teacher or not.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> grades?  Given that educational resources are limited, what sort of
> allocation system would you recommend?  I'm waiting...

   Why do you feel the need to wait?

   What is better is using a broader system of accountability
that holds students to high standards but measures achievement
in was that traditional tests sometime lack the adequacy to do.

> > > > As for me, I can take and pass most tests as long as I know what
> > > > the material is like before hand (not the specifics, but the subject
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> easy test doesn't mean much, but being able to pass a difficult one
> does.

   But you specifically stated that you could pass it "if you
knew nothing about the subject".  That has nothing to do with
easy or hard.  That implied to me, and you can correct me if
I'm wrong, that you could pass a standardized test at that
rate, on a subject not in your area, because you had the
testing and logical skills that would allow you to guess in
an educated fashion, and thus pass.

   If it's a subject that you know *nothing* about, then
easy or hard is irrelevant.  If you know nothing, then you
don't know the content.  That means that you must have
other ways of passing.

                                               P. Tierney
The Real Bev - 19 Jan 2004 05:53 GMT
> > > > > And they don't tell us anything about whether someone is a good
> > > > > teacher or not.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>     Why do you feel the need to wait?

Nothin' better to do, jist hangin' out...

>     What is better is using a broader system of accountability
> that holds students to high standards but measures achievement
> in was that traditional tests sometime lack the adequacy to do.

Great bleeding christ on a crutch, there speaks a union teacher.  Total
gobbledygook.  You have defined a requirement, not a solution.  Here is
the musical equivalent:  "In order to play the flute, one must place
one's fingers over the proper holes and blow into the mouthpiece.  The
rest is left as an exercise for the reader."  

> > > > > As for me, I can take and pass most tests as long as I know what
> > > > > the material is like before hand (not the specifics, but the subject
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> testing and logical skills that would allow you to guess in
> an educated fashion, and thus pass.

Why is "figuring it out" not a possibility?  Extending this to real
life, many people can fix things about which they know nothing.  They
take the gizmo apart, look for something that just looks "wrong" and
make it look "right."  The more times you take similar gizmos apart the
faster and better you get at it, but you STILL fixed the first one
knowing nothing about it.  I speak of someone else here, not me.  

>     If it's a subject that you know *nothing* about, then
> easy or hard is irrelevant.  If you know nothing, then you
> don't know the content.  That means that you must have
> other ways of passing.

At which point I offered the pig-gut method.  You have offered nothing.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
*************************************************
Never argue with a woman holding a torque wrench.

P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 07:43 GMT
> >     What is better is using a broader system of accountability
> > that holds students to high standards but measures achievement
> > in was that traditional tests sometime lack the adequacy to do.
>
> Great bleeding christ on a crutch, there speaks a union teacher.  Total
> gobbledygook.  You have defined a requirement, not a solution.

   How it would play out depends on the specific situation.
However, it's probably not worth spelling out, as your
first two sentences pretty much shows how you'll react
to whatever I say.

> Here is
> the musical equivalent:  "In order to play the flute, one must place
> one's fingers over the proper holes and blow into the mouthpiece.  The
> rest is left as an exercise for the reader."

   No, the rest is left for the inquisitive person to ask for more
specifics, if desired.  I didn't know that you wanted a complete
curriculum.  I do now know, however, how you would react
to it, or anything else written given the pointless negativity of
your opening response.

> > > Not really.  Some of us are smarter than others.  Being able to pass an
> > > easy test doesn't mean much, but being able to pass a difficult one
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Why is "figuring it out" not a possibility?  Extending this to real
> life, many people can fix things about which they know nothing.

   If I could figure out how to pass any test about a subject
which I know nothing just by "figuring it out", then I would
surmise that it's a poorly written test.

                                                               P. Tierney
Margaret M. - 19 Jan 2004 08:33 GMT
> However, it's probably not worth spelling out, as your
> first two sentences pretty much shows how you'll react
> to whatever I say.

Let me guess.  You're not an English teacher, right?
...two sentences shows???
IIRC... sentence shows
      ... sentences show...

I mean, we *are* being pedantic, after all.
Mag
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 08:51 GMT
> > However, it's probably not worth spelling out, as your
> > first two sentences pretty much shows how you'll react
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> IIRC... sentence shows
>        ... sentences show...

   Yup, you caught a grammar error.  Cuff me.

> I mean, we *are* being pedantic, after all.

   "We" are?

                                                       P. Tierney
Margaret M. - 19 Jan 2004 09:01 GMT
>> P. Tierney wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>     "We" are?

LOL  I've just been dipping in and out of this thread.  Too much
repetition and "I didn't say that, I said" and "go back and read what
I wrote again" to hold my attention for long.  That...and I'd rather
spend the extra time I have out riding my motorcycle.  My ISP "can't
resolve" rec.autos.driving & misc.kids so I'm never sure if I'm
posting to those groups, or just peddling my pedantry in Reeky.  My
"baby" is almost 19, and so far, none of my 3 kids have killed anyone
or spent time in a jail or rehab center; nor do they terrorize special
needs children.  I feel like maybe I didn't totally f**k them up.
Successful parenting?  Well...I didn't kill them, so I guess the
experiment was a success.  I'm ready for grandkids. :-)
Mag
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 09:16 GMT
> >> P. Tierney wrote:
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> LOL  I've just been dipping in and out of this thread.

   So have I.  Perhaps that's why I didn't catch the
drift of your comment.  Oh well.

                                                       P. Tierney
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 14:25 GMT
>>>>However, it's probably not worth spelling out, as your
>>>>first two sentences pretty much shows how you'll react
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> experiment was a success.  I'm ready for grandkids. :-)
> Mag

Exactamundo. Congrats.

22 and 24 here.  Same same. No killers or bullies bred.  Socially
conscious and aware that the state is not their mother or nursemaid.
Pretty damned good if you ask me. And at no time did I ever tell them to
modify THEIR behavior because of the actions of a bully.  Although my
youngest DID crush a bullies foot (instead stomp) when she, as a new
student, was singled out by a "pack" within days of transferring into
her grade school.  End of all problems.  Modifying the behavior of the
bully is the solution that reaches not only the intended victim but also
other potential victims down the road.
DTJ - 20 Jan 2004 02:47 GMT
>> However, it's probably not worth spelling out, as your
>> first two sentences pretty much shows how you'll react
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I mean, we *are* being pedantic, after all.
>Mag

Actually he/she/it probably IS an English teacher.  Just because
he/she/it is a moron does not preclude he/she/it from teaching in
America.
P. Tierney - 20 Jan 2004 06:25 GMT
> >> However, it's probably not worth spelling out, as your
> >> first two sentences pretty much shows how you'll react
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Actually he/she/it probably IS an English teacher.

   Probably not.

                                                               P. Tierney
root - 19 Jan 2004 09:11 GMT
>     What is better is using a broader system of accountability
> that holds students to high standards but measures achievement
> in was that traditional tests sometime lack the adequacy to do.

I am sorry, but I can't make any sense out of the paragraph above.
I suspect that there is a typo somewhere after 'achievement' but
I cannot be sure.
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 09:17 GMT
> >     What is better is using a broader system of accountability
> > that holds students to high standards but measures achievement
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I suspect that there is a typo somewhere after 'achievement' but
> I cannot be sure.

   Yes, I did err.  The "was" in the third line should be "ways".
Thanks for giving me the chance to correct myself.

                                                       P. Tierney
Margaret M. - 19 Jan 2004 07:36 GMT
> Not really.  Some of us are smarter than others.

While others are delusional about their intelligence.
Mag
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 13:10 GMT
> So what's better?  Are pass/fail grades more or less useless than A-F
> grades?  Given that educational resources are limited, what sort of
> allocation system would you recommend?  I'm waiting...

Put all the ankle biters in a "Cage of Doom" and have them fight it out.
Only those left standing (alive?) are passed. Sell it to PPV to
suppliment administrative "overhead".
toto - 18 Jan 2004 08:33 GMT
>> And the tests they have been required to take are not on the level
>> of high school tests, but often have been about esoteric knowledge
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>say that the tests have nothing to do with what the teachers are
>teaching?  Frankly, I find that difficult to believe.

The Massachusetts test (pretty sure that was the state) is one I have
seen and it had absolutely nothing to do with what the teachers were
supposed to be teaching.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 18 Jan 2004 08:39 GMT
>If tests tell us nothing
>about whether someone is a good teacher or not, how can tests possibly
>tell us anything about whether someone is a good student or not?  

In general they don't tell us much about whether someone is a good
student or not.

Most standardized tests are multiple choice and they are not very
well-designed.  The problem with these tests is that they do not
test any real thinking.  

Tests need to be used as a way to tell what concepts a student has
missed not as an evaluation, but as a tool for him to learn more
about his own progress.  They are not the best indicator of learning
though.  

My dd, for example, went to Carnegie Melon and the evaluations
of her work were done by portfolio evaluation of her actual projects
and work.  This was very difficult, but paid off in real learning and
the evaluations were based on the real work, not on answering a
few multiple choice questions in a short period of time.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 18 Jan 2004 08:58 GMT
>I can pass most multiple choice tests -- certainly if 50% is passing --
>even if I know NOTHING about the subject and walk in cold.  Exception
>for math, which I have never been able to deal with unless I can apply
>proportion principles :-)

How long has it been since you read The Federalist Papers?

Not that I think teachers should not be able to read them, but
could you as a test of spelling, grammar and punctuation,
listen to someone read them and take it down accurately
spelled and punctuated?  

Does that seem a good test of literacy?  It sure doesn't to me
and I just looked it up and that was one item that caused the
controversy.

What does taking dictation have to do with teaching?  And
how does accurate writing of such dictation actually test
whether or not you can spell or punctuate anything you write?

***********
Here is what a PhD in Physics from MIT who took the test
says:

One prospective teacher who has serious doubts is Nancy
Schmeing. A Fulbright scholar, Schmeing, 58, holds a Ph.D.
in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and is a free-lance translator of German technical documents.
She took the exam hoping to become licensed to teach physics,
her specialty, if she moved to Massachusetts from her home
in Canada.

Despite her sterling academic background, Schmeing failed
the reading portion of the communications and literacy test in
July with a score of 59 out of a possible 100. On her second
try, she passed it--but not before holding a press conference
outside the Cambridge high school to blast the test.

"Not being able to read is out of the question," she says. "My
guess is that the way I would have thought logical was not the
way the test answerers selected certain answers." .

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
The Real Bev - 19 Jan 2004 00:33 GMT
> >I can pass most multiple choice tests -- certainly if 50% is passing --
> >even if I know NOTHING about the subject and walk in cold.  Exception
> >for math, which I have never been able to deal with unless I can apply
> >proportion principles :-)
>
> How long has it been since you read The Federalist Papers?

Never.

> Not that I think teachers should not be able to read them, but
> could you as a test of spelling, grammar and punctuation,
> listen to someone read them and take it down accurately
> spelled and punctuated?

Is the original spelling/grammar/punctuation required, or can we use the
20th century conventions?  Yeah, I think I could do it.  Could you?

> Does that seem a good test of literacy?  It sure doesn't to me
> and I just looked it up and that was one item that caused the
> controversy.

Literacy = ability to read and write.  

> What does taking dictation have to do with teaching?  

Teaching ability isn't what's being tested here, but literacy.  An
illiterate teacher will not be able to teach a single student to read.

> And
> how does accurate writing of such dictation actually test
> whether or not you can spell or punctuate anything you write?

If you can do the first, you can probably do the second.

> ***********
> Here is what a PhD in Physics from MIT who took the test
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> guess is that the way I would have thought logical was not the
> way the test answerers selected certain answers." .

No URL so we can find out the details ourselves?  Was this the
Federalist dictation you mentioned above?  Perhaps the test was stupidly
devised.  Perhaps her command of English was fairly awful, even though
adequate for the translation of technical documents.  Not enough info
here, sorry.  

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
==================================================================
"I used to be convinced that MicroSquish shipped crap because they
simply didn't give a flying f.ck as long as the sheep kept buying
their sh.t. Now, I'm convinced that they really do ship the best
products they are capable of writing, and *that's* tragic."
                     - John C. Randolph, about MS quality control.

toto - 19 Jan 2004 08:46 GMT
>> Not that I think teachers should not be able to read them, but
>> could you as a test of spelling, grammar and punctuation,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Is the original spelling/grammar/punctuation required, or can we use the
>20th century conventions?  Yeah, I think I could do it.  Could you?

The original spellings/grammar/punctuation were required.

And if a Fulbright scholar who was a physics PhD couldn't pass it
on the first try, I don't know that I could.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 19 Jan 2004 08:46 GMT
>> Does that seem a good test of literacy?  It sure doesn't to me
>> and I just looked it up and that was one item that caused the
>> controversy.
>
>Literacy = ability to read and write.  

Not the ability to take dictation though.

The person was not reading the piece, but taking it down
verbatim.  That's not a test of literacy.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 19 Jan 2004 09:21 GMT
>No URL so we can find out the details ourselves?  Was this the
>Federalist dictation you mentioned above?  Perhaps the test was stupidly
>devised.  Perhaps her command of English was fairly awful, even though
>adequate for the translation of technical documents.  Not enough info
>here, sorry.  

http://mscaunion.org/news/bu010410.htm

Testimony before the Joint Committee on Education, Arts and
Humanities

Support for SB258: A Bill to Require an Independent Audit of the
Reliability and Validity of the Massachusetts Educator Certification
Tests(MECT)

R. Clarke Fowler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Salem State College
April 10, 2001

Chairman Antonioni, Chairman Larkin, members of the Committee,
my name is Clarke Fowler. I am a professor in the education
department at Salem State College. I appear before you today
in support of SB 258, a bill that would establish an independent
review of the Massachusetts Educator Certification Tests
(MECT).

The MECT were first administered on April 4, 1998--almost
exactly three years ago today. Currently, the state has given
more than 100,000 tests to more than 60,000 individuals.

And yet, despite having given so many tests to so many people,
neither the state nor the test maker, NES, has produced one piece
of independent evidence to indicate that these tests function
properly. There are, however, two independent studies--studies
published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal--that document
serious problems with these tests.

Rather than go over the studies, however, I will tell you briefly
about people I have met who flunked and later passed parts
of these tests. Their stories illustrate some of the problems
with these exams.

When one of my students took the reading exam for the first
time last June, she got a failing score of 57. When she took it
again this past October, however, she got a 93, even though
she told me she didn't do anything differently on her second
attempt.

I met another test taker who earned graduate and undergraduate
degrees in history from prestigious institutions. She was elected
to the national honor society in history because of her high g.p.a.
and her solid work. She was selected as the most promising
teacher out of a cohort of 200 student teachers. According to
the July 1998 MECT, however, she did not know enough about
history to teach in a Massachusetts school.

Finally, I met another test taker, Nancy Schmeing, who
graduated from MIT with a Ph.D. in Physics, has published over
20 articles, was a Woodrow Wilson scholar, and now works for
Fortune 500 companies translating complex legal and technical
documents from German into English. According to the July
1998 administration of the MECT, however, Dr. Schmeing didn't
read well enough to teach in a Massachusetts school. She got a
59. When she took that test three months later, however, she
got a 93.

I don't think the preceding people failed these exams. I think these
exams failed these people--and the commonwealth. Examples like these,
along with other factors, have convinced me that this test should be
audited.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/15mass.h18

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0106fow.htm

http://www.s-t.com/daily/07-00/07-27-00/a13op053.htm

Note - this was unavailable when the original flap about
the test occurred. It has since been given to people who
are going to take the test, I believe.

http://www.wheelock.edu/MTELc/MTELc_main_1.htm#TOC

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
DTJ - 19 Jan 2004 02:09 GMT
>Duh.  The poor cows
>were outraged that somebody would expect them to pass the same kind of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>about whether someone is a good teacher or not, how can tests possibly
>tell us anything about whether someone is a good student or not?  

You go girl!
toto - 18 Jan 2004 02:28 GMT
>Oh, poor f.cking babies. Funny how we seem to run AN ENTIRE ECONOMY
>based on the free market principle of "at will" employment but those
>poor delicate teachers need things like tenure to survive.

Jobs controlled by political entities are a bit different than those
in the marketplace in terms of what is necessary.

OTOH, employment at will means most people will eventually be
out of work as companies outsource their positions to foreign
workers who will do the job for less money.  That is going on at
a great pace now and will continue as companies continue to
be oriented to the short term rather than the long term.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 18 Jan 2004 03:36 GMT
>Jobs controlled by political entities are a bit different than those
>in the marketplace in terms of what is necessary.

Oh yes, there are no politics in corporate America... no sir-ee!

Hey, do FBI agents get tenure? How about postmen? State police?
They're government employees too! Wouldn't it be nice if it took as
much effort to rid yourself of an incompetent police officer with a
gun and badge!

>OTOH, employment at will means most people will eventually be
>out of work as companies outsource their positions to foreign
>workers who will do the job for less money.  That is going on at
>a great pace now and will continue as companies continue to
>be oriented to the short term rather than the long term.

So you've changed your tune. From defending tenure on the basis of
outdated 1900's style patriarchy to Y2K foreign outsourcing concerns.

Tell me oh great genius... exactly how will schools outsource their
teachers to India? That's one hell of a bus ride every morning.

IOW you're still spouting off crap. When you sit back and ponder the
great mediocrity that lays before you and wonder if there's anything
we can do about it, for the children's sake realize that a gun to your
head is the quickest way to put society back on track towards
progress.
Rosalie B. - 18 Jan 2004 04:13 GMT
>>Jobs controlled by political entities are a bit different than those
>>in the marketplace in terms of what is necessary.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>much effort to rid yourself of an incompetent police officer with a
>gun and badge!

Government employees are either civil service, contract or political
appointees.  

The political appointees do not have tenure and are replaced when the
administration changes.  Political appointments are usually heads of
departments and agencies such as the Secretary of State and the like.

Civil service employees generally can't run for political office,
although some minor political activities are allow (can't remember the
name of the law or act that applies to that).  They do have a sort of
tenure although it is not the same as that of teachers.  

In order to save money, governments are also employing contract
workers just like the private sector does.  These workers do not get
benefits like pensions and have no job security to speak of.  COntract
workers can be anything from the transportation workers on a military
base (bus drivers etc) to job safety consultants.

The Post Office is kind of a special case, but I'm pretty sure that
FBI agents and state police are civil service.  The sheriff in our
county is elected so is a political position.  Judges are sometimes
elected and sometimes appointed.

grandma Rosalie
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 18 Jan 2004 21:08 GMT
>Government employees are either civil service, contract or political
>appointees.  
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>name of the law or act that applies to that).  They do have a sort of
>tenure although it is not the same as that of teachers.  
snip-a-roo

What does this have to do with teachers and tenure? Besides proving
how cushy grade school babysitters have it in comparison to other
government jobs?

>In order to save money, governments are also employing contract
>workers just like the private sector does.

Rotten government trying to save the taxpayers a dollar!

>These workers do not get benefits like pensions and have no job security to speak of.

They should find other jobs then. Or does the contract keep them under
indentured servitude?

Funny how some of us don't have to worry about silly things like job
security, benefits and pensions. How do you figure that happens?
Tom Enright - 28 Jan 2004 17:06 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:28:41 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
wrote:

<snip>

>OTOH, employment at will means most people will eventually be
>out of work as companies outsource their positions to foreign
>workers who will do the job for less money.  That is going on at
>a great pace now and will continue as companies continue to
>be oriented to the short term rather than the long term.

I am sure you, like all people worried about jobs being exported, drive
a vehicle manufactured by an American company.

-TOE

<snip>
Brent P - 18 Jan 2004 09:03 GMT
>>> Heck
>>> most bosses in the private sector don't even know your
>>> political opinions as long as you do your job well.
>>
>>Why and how would they know them from a HS or gradeschool teacher?

> Many teachers are quite active politically.

So what. So are many other people. Again, how would they even know?

> I am involved in organizations that demonstrate against the war
> in Iraq for example.  Other teachers are involved in pro-choice
> or anti-abortion groups.

And I am against moving manufacturing to china, and have a number
of views.

> Aside from that schools are political entities.  They are controlled
> by politicians and without tenure, they could and did force teachers
> to work on the incumbent's political campaigns

What government worker doesn't have such a risk? What employee of
a corporation or private company doesn't have a similiar risk? I don't
think my stance against relocating manufacturing to china would have
sat very well with my previous employer that was very pro-china and
spent alot of money lobbying for favorable trade policies.

> Way back before unions and tenure, women teachers were fired
> if they were pregnant even if they were married.  Teachers could
> be fired for getting married for that matter back in those days.

So were people in so called regular jobs way back when.

> the teacher tenure law is one of the most misunderstood laws in
> the states.

It's a special protection that other people just don't have despite
having some similar risks and problems. Why is that so difficult to admit?

> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
> cannot be fired without due process.

Wonderful. I could have used protection like that when my previous
job was moved to somewhere in asia.

> It does not protect incompetent teachers. It just protects
> teachers from political firings and nepotism and just basic
> mistreatment..

Not my arguement. See someone else. This is what I find fundamentally
annoying in this thread. By the end of your response it makes it
seem I was arguing something entirely different than I was. I'll
repeat, I find the risks that tenure protects against nothing
particularly unique to the teaching profession. That everyone with
a job faces similiar risks.
toto - 18 Jan 2004 09:36 GMT
>> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
>> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
>> cannot be fired without due process.
>
>Wonderful. I could have used protection like that when my previous
>job was moved to somewhere in asia.

If the number of students is less, teachers are *not* protected from
being laid off by tenure.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Charles Soto - 18 Jan 2004 15:29 GMT
> >> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
> >> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> If the number of students is less, teachers are *not* protected from
> being laid off by tenure.

This is 100% true.  You can get a call in late August with the news that
"there just weren't enough kindergarteners this year, so you'll have to
go to the waiting list."  This happens often.  Friends have had to go
across town just to keep a job.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Brent P - 18 Jan 2004 19:53 GMT
>>> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
>>> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> If the number of students is less, teachers are *not* protected from
> being laid off by tenure.

That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
of school for less money.
toto - 19 Jan 2004 03:33 GMT
>>>> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
>>>> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
>of school for less money.

Do you actually support laying off good experienced people for new
hires right out of school as a way to better kids education?

Is saving money on teacher salaries more important than educating
the students?

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 05:40 GMT
>>>>> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
>>>>> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Is saving money on teacher salaries more important than educating
> the students?

Again the arguement change. Here's a reminder: The things that tenure
protects teachers against are similiar to those that people in other
professions face. People in other professions face systems where
corporations create turn over to hire new grads at significantly lower
cost than the people who've been on the job awhile. Good practice?
of course not. But that's not the question. The question is what could
get a person fired through no fault of their own. Being fired for lower
wage newbies is one of things.
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 14:08 GMT
>>That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
>>of school for less money.

> Do you actually support laying off good experienced people for new
> hires right out of school as a way to better kids education?

Just a guess here, as I'm not the author, but I would suspect the point
is that tenure doesn't equate to "good experience" (or even cimply
"good".  Laying off tenured teachers who don't meet their goals and
objectives should be a no brainer.

> Is saving money on teacher salaries more important than educating
> the students?
> Dorothy

No. But neither is spending additional money on useless, unaccomplished
tenured teachers simply because they worked the system well enough to
avoid getting sacked the first 3 years of their career.
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 16:23 GMT
>>>That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
>>>of school for less money.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> "good".  Laying off tenured teachers who don't meet their goals and
> objectives should be a no brainer.

Actually my point was one of risk. It was claimed that teachers
were at special risk of being fired. I was attempting to demonstrate
how these risks are nothing special and shared by most of the
professional workforce.

Companies are coming up with schemes to make sure they can turn over
experienced higher cost personal and replace them with new fresh-outs
or people more desperate for a job that work for cheap. It's actually
funny you mention 'goals' as it's the goal system that can be manipulated
to create a turn over program. The GE bottom 10% method is the modern
classic.
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 17:29 GMT
>>>>That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
>>>>of school for less money.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> to create a turn over program. The GE bottom 10% method is the modern
> classic.

Good point. "+10% of last year" may work the first year, but the n+1
year that +10% gets inifinitely more difficult.

However a fixed goal system, as within a school, would be attainable:

"90% of my students understand the material I am responsible for
imparting to them. Those who will never understand it due to their
inability to comprehend the material will be xfered to some tardo
replacement course [1]. Those who are exceptional will be acellerated
[2]. Tardos will be removed from the "mainstream" classroom to avoid
dragging down the students able to learn [3]. Disruptive students will
be identified after the 2nd ocurrance (in any one class) and removed
from the school system after the 3rd ocurrance [4]."

A fixed, unmoving goal; unlike those hinted at above.

[1] Those who have problem with algebra should be removed from the class
so the rest of the students can move forward. Placement in a prep class
(business math, etc.) or other like-type, foundational class so the
student has the option to move forward at their own pace without
adversely impacting the other students.

[2] See 1. The desire to hold back an exceptional student does them as
much harm as insisting the class be slowed down for a minority of
students so a "slow" kid can maintain some touchy-feely self image.

[3] Same premise as 1 but for those students with cross-subject
difficulties.

[4] Disruptive students get too many chances. 1st a warning, 2nd a
punishment, 3rd and they're out!
toto - 20 Jan 2004 04:25 GMT
>>>>>That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
>>>>>of school for less money.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>However a fixed goal system, as within a school, would be attainable:

Read the NCLB.   The goal is not fixed.  You must have some percent
of students over and above the % that passed last year.  IOW, you
must keep adding to the numbers by a fixed % or your school is
considered failing.

>"90% of my students understand the material I am responsible for
>imparting to them. Those who will never understand it due to their
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>A fixed, unmoving goal; unlike those hinted at above.

Tell it to Bush and the politicians.

>[1] Those who have problem with algebra should be removed from the class
>so the rest of the students can move forward. Placement in a prep class
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>[4] Disruptive students get too many chances. 1st a warning, 2nd a
>punishment, 3rd and they're out!

By middle school or high school, this may work, but in the
primary grades, I think it's better to keep all ability levels
together for some kinds of activities.  

Frankly, part of the problem is our age stratification.  I favor
elementary school having multiage classes with kids together
by ability, but flexibly grouped so that kids can move up or down
as they need and different groups by subject so that the kids
who have talent in math but not in reading can be appropriately
place for math and vice versa.

I teach a multi-age class of three to five year olds now.  My
own kids were in multiage groupings for k-5 and this worked
well.  Kids could be grouped and regrouped depending on
the subject and project.  Also, the ability to *play* big brother
or sister to younger kids is a plus in a day and age when a
lot of kids are only children.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 20 Jan 2004 04:16 GMT
>> Do you actually support laying off good experienced people for new
>> hires right out of school as a way to better kids education?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>"good".  Laying off tenured teachers who don't meet their goals and
>objectives should be a no brainer.

Tenure does not protect anyone who is not a good teacher.  It simply
means the admin can't be lazy.  He has to document how that teacher
is not doing the job before he can fire the teacher.  Actually, he has
to get off his a.s and observe the teacher in the classroom first of
all.  Then he has to document that the teacher is not doing the job.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Bownse - 21 Jan 2004 02:57 GMT
>>>Do you actually support laying off good experienced people for new
>>>hires right out of school as a way to better kids education?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> --
> Dorothy

And, since most administrators aren't business people (being promoted
from within the ranks of the teaching staff via The Peter Principle) the
end result is that the flotsam accumulates instead of being skimmed off.
It's just too much effort to do anything else.
Stephen! - 20 Jan 2004 04:25 GMT
> Is saving money on teacher salaries more important than educating
> the students?

Yes.  Teachers are the second most overpaid "professional"...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Brent P - 18 Jan 2004 19:58 GMT
>>> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
>>> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> If the number of students is less, teachers are *not* protected from
> being laid off by tenure.

That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
of school for less money.
Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 07:15 GMT
>>> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
>>> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> If the number of students is less, teachers are *not* protected from
> being laid off by tenure.

That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
of school for less money.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Ford commercial on Super Bowl
References: <4b6d2dd6.0402020756.45829c6@posting.google.com> <L8jUb.140$t16.214189@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> <7TjUb.225106$xy6.1155270@attbi_s02> <TZjUb.147$t16.221639@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> <SokUb.182162$nt4.781908@attbi_s51> <fykUb.150$t16.227215

@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <fykUb.150$t16.227215@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, 223rem wrote:

>> I drove my mustang every winter in chicago until I got the TW. And
>> the reason I drive the TW is because of the road salt and grime. I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> OK. So you need to be

> 1) an expert Mustang driver and

No, someone who knows how to handle a RWD car.

> 2) have expensive winter tires
> to drive your Mustang in winter. No thanks.

I the last set of all seasons I had on the car were $130 something
a tire. That's peanuts for a 17 inch tire.

> Its not a matter of RWD vs FWD drive. There are other RWD, powerful
> cars--BMW for example. I suspect that a BMW handles much better in the
> snow than a GT.

And probably in the dry. But so does an expensive FWD compared to
a less expensive FWD.

> The Detroit recipe for the 'performance' car seems to be: powerful
> engine on a cheap platform. Get lots of HP & torque (that's what sells),
> and not worry about things like independent suspension, good handling,
> proper F/R weight distribution, good brakes, latest engine technology, etc.

The SN95 mustang has a weight distribution as close to 50/50 as any
other front engined, RWD car. Check for yourself. I posted it the last
time some one brought up the nose-heavy myth. Latest engine technology?
What exactly are you claiming the mustang is lacking here? Sure it
isn't lean-burn or some other less used cutting edge technology, but
neither are the bulk of BMWs out there. Cheap platform? Well yeah, that's
what happens when the car lists for HALF as much, but even that's going
away for '05. And the rest, sure it's not as good as cars that cost
TWICE as much.

But to me, it sounds like you just want to hang on to myths or blame
your inability to handle a car in the snow on the car. After the first
few snow falls with the mustang I got pretty good with it. When I got
tires that actually had a snow rating I didn't have any problem that
wouldn't happen this side of an audi quattro. Frick, the TW spins
it's front wheels trying to get going in the snow....  

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Bicyclist shoots motorist
References: <0JPVb.20948$uM2.10621@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <%j8Yb.335032$na.493890@attbi_s04> <403162d3$0$567$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <3cgYb.201956$U%5.1107782@attbi_s03> <4032bfc6$0$570$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <4032bfc6$0$570$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>, John F. Carr wrote:

>>But it does say there is no obligation to allow for unsafe passing.

> Where does it say this?

See IL vehicle, code as posted for matt.

> UVC 11-303(b) obligates the overtaken vehicle to move right.
> It does not make this duty conditional on whether the pass
> is safe or not.  In clear contrast to 11-1205(a), 11-303(b)
> does not make exceptions for narrow lanes.

I could care less right now what the UVC says as I don't have
to live with the UVC. IL, not unlike many other states does not
obligate the bicyclist to allow for unsafe passing.

> "Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted,
> the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right
> in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall
> not increase the speed of the vehicle until completely passed
> by the overtaking vehicle."

This implies there is enough space to begin with, ie multiple
lanens.

> When 11-303(b) and 11-1205(a) are read together, they say a
> bicycle may ordinarily use the middle of the lane on a narrow
> road but must move to the right edge of the lane when signaled
> by traffic intended to pass.

They can wait until it's safe. As per state law. If it's safe
I wouldn't be  out towards the middle of the lane to begin with.

And since when to motorists pull over to the edge when signaled
with an intent to pass? Even on the interstate they often throw
a fit when so signaled.


>>In fact, the usual response is to move all the way left and accelerate.

> I saw a report on TV about a guy who went to jail for doing that,
> because the car he wouldn't let back into the right lane crashed
> head-on into oncoming traffic.

1 out of a billion....

Newsgroups: us.talk.headline-news,alt.law-enforcement.traffic,rec.autos.driving,talk.politics.misc,alt.law-enforcement
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: ILL POLICE CRACK DOWN ON  KID SEAT SCOFFLAWS
References: <4051D149.43FADE2E@igs.net> <Lpl4c.17248$C51.72770@attbi_s52> <s7q3501klug2epg1s4hhf73nmmtk2u7386@4ax.com> <sio4c.18053$YG.190774@attbi_s01> <ss7450poo9502jk9efk0ijh114pkbk9p0d@4ax.com> <dvq4c.18109$ft4.185806@attbi_s54> <j5e450104qljbtlev57t6

45gdlbqaefoce@4ax.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <j5e450104qljbtlev57t645gdlbqaefoce@4ax.com>, Diogenes wrote:

> People crash cars. It happens. 5mph or 50mph or 150 mph. Subjecting a
> child to something potentially unsafe (in terms of their life) is
> criminal, is it not? Punishable by law, no?

Then ban all transport of children in motor vehicles if you are so
concerned about the risk.

> I personally don't care if
> you don't want to wear a seatbelt, that's your prerogative.

We are not discussing adult use of seatbelts. But of course you
use this in an effort to frame me as something that I am not.

> Children are another thing entirely.

They are an excuse for people to justify whatever they wish.

>>>     Fear is not being used here, tickets are being given to people
>>> who fail to comply with child-seat laws. Noone's intruding, and
>>> nothing's eroding save the fatal injury accident rate. Don't you think
>>> you're being a little alarmist?

>>It's more nanny state nonsense to sell products and tell us how to
>>live our lives. Maybe you want a parent to tell you what to do. I DON'T.
>>What's next? That's my question. Each one of these things leads to
>>something more.

> Unless you're living some other "when" or are entirely funded by
> welfare, having children is expensive. You already accept the fact
> that you must...gasp..."buy products".

So what next? Gonna mandate everyone buy an armored SUV to protect their
children? Where does it end? WHERE?

> Carseats are one of those
> thousand things that you will probably need when your children are
> small, to protect them from the FACT that accidents happen.

Most collisions are collisions. Someone is at fault. It's not an
act of god, someone screweed up.

> So many
> people, unfortunately, have children with no understanding of this
> FACT.

Let me guess, you believe in styrofoam hats too.

> They thumb their noses at anti-seatbelt legislation and zoom
> around until they slam into a car or a car slams into them and they
> are injured, if not killed, for lack of proper driving knowledge, i.e.
> put your seltbelt on.

This isn't a seat belt law type issue. For seatbelts there are other
people involved because the driver needs to remain in his seat to remain
in control of the vehicle. Passengers also need to be secured as not to
fly into the driver. This law is about the method people must use to
secure a child capable of utilizing the restraint system the automobile
comes with. It mandates the use of a product. It has no effect on anyone
else how passengers are secured in their vehicles to people in other
vehicles so long as they are secured and remain so. Thusly this law
is yet another intrusion of the state upon people.

> If people always took the proper precautions and
> acted with the proper mindset toward something as simple as driving
> (much less raising children), these horrible tickets would never need
> be given out. We are still talking about child carseats, aren't we?

This law is for BOOSTER SEATS. A second generation product conceived of
and designed for making a profit. The need manufactured one. Are you
going to also force midgets and dwarves to use booster seats too? If
the 3 point seat belt system as mandated is defective, then address that
point.

>>It's another law that will be used as a tool. It's another law to force
>>people to buy products. And let me guess the damn things have to replaced
>>3 times before the kid can legally not use them...

> Most of them are adjustable as your child grows, and they're really
> not terribly expensive, either. Especially if you already thought
> about having children.

Another person who doesn't understand concepts. It doesn't matter if they
are $5 or $500,000.

>>> If you care about your child, you're going to want a carseat
>>> for them.

>>I don't have a child, but I am still offended at that comment. It implies
>>that anyone who doesn't think like you doesn't care for children. It's
>>how this crap is constantly sold. By making it appear that anyone who
>>objects hates children or something. Nothing of the kind.

> It's fairly obvious you don't have children. That's why you think of a
> child's carseat as "crap".

Again this law IS NOT ABOUT CARSEATS! why don't you pay attention? It's
about booster seats.

> It's a protective device. If you had to
> throw your child in the swimming pool, wouldn't you put a lifevest on
> them first? The seatbelts in a car are designed for adults, not
> children who, if you haven't noticed, are a bit smaller.  

Do you wear a helmet when you drive? Have you modified your auto with a
roll cage and 5 point racing harnesses? Why not? They are all protective
devices far superior than what comes in a car stock. They really don't
cost all that much either. So why don't you use them? Why aren't your
children wearing helmets in the car? Why aren't they wearing them on
the school buses? Obviously you are about maximizing their safety. Have
you dressed them up in racing suits to protect them from vehicle fires?

Did you know that school buses and church vans and other such vehicles
that transport *CHILDREN* are exempt from the *BOOSTER*
seat law? If it's such a nesscary thing that they cannot use the normal
seatbelts as they have been for years, then why the exemptions?

See, there is something called a risk benefit analysis, and in a free
country we get to make those decisions for ourselves and our families
when they have no effect on anyone else. The method of securing a child
in passenger vehicle has no bearing on anyone else. Only that the child
*IS* secured. If I have a child, and dress him up in nomex, put in a roll
cage, get him a kidding helmet and install 5 point harness sized to him,
that's up to *ME*. Not you and your busybody allies. But, because of
mandates like booster seats, my idea of protecting children with much
superior racing quality protection is illegal.

> It is
> BECAUSE you don't have children that you are offended.

You want to play like this? Fine. It's gonna be rough ride from hear on out
so strap yourself in.

>>> But people still don't do it. So do we have classes for
>>> people with children at the DMV? Start telling people how to raise
>>> their children?

>>That's exactly what the nanny state loving busybodies want, telling
>>people how to raise their children and how to live.

> So why are they ticketing instead? You're sort of thrashing around
> here.

What do you think fines are for? They are to force people to obey the
will of people who pass these laws.

>>Again, the premise that anyone who isn't for it is against children.
>>Not the case. I am against the state and the busy bodies forcing the
>>sale of products and telling people what they have to do.

> Anyone against it seriously underestimates the importance of safety on
> the road. Again, if everyone was driving like angels already, no law
> or nasty old ticket would come into effect.

Is this your idea of debate? These thinly vailed insults and the like?
I am all for road safety. I've got a few thousand posts on the topic.
I just don't approach it the same noneffective nannystate, local busybody,
controlling, parental methods that you and people like you blindly
support because you don't understand a damn thing about road safety and
nothing about trying to pass laws compatible with individual liberty
instead of taking it away so that your ideas are forced upon everyone.

>>> Noone's liberty is taken away, it's just a ticket, man. relax.
>>It's just a ticket. So is a speeding ticket. So the speed limits get
>>set too low. The point is that you are giving police more power to stop
>>and check people out by defining more and more people as violators of
>>the law. Do you understand the consquences of this?

> Safer Freeways? They don't pull people over at random, you know...

They certainly pull over anyone they feel like.

> How fast do you think we should go, by the way? 75? 100? whatever?

Another person fixated on numerical speed. 100mph is just fine on some
roads in some conditions, dangerous on some others in some other
conditions. Some of the safest driving I've done in my life was done
on the high side of a 100mph. Some of the most dangerous done on the low
side of 55mph. That's why we have engineering methods to determine speed
limits. The 85th percentile *METHOD* is the best to date.

> With babies strapped to the hood and kids playing grabass in the back
> of the SUV?
> I'll say it again: live your life in a decent, humble, intelligent,
> law-abiding way and you need never fear intrusion of the state.

Have you read patriot acts one and two. I suggest you do.

> If your  worry about the State is that it's taking away all the things
> you like to do, you should look at yourself and your habits; or
> perhaps ask someone who knows you to be honest with you.

I see your primary debate tatic is insult.

> We are still talking about child carseats, yes?

The law is about *BOOSTER SEATS* learn how to read.

>>OBEY YOUR PARENTAL MASTERS OR ELSE.

> Seriously, take it easy.

You are the one with the law-is-the-law attitude.

>>Well, I don't want a parental government. This used to be the land of
>>the free. The existing laws requiring kids to be strapped in do all that
>>is needed. It keeps the kid from being a projectile in the vehicle
>>leading to a (further) loss of control by the driver. Does it matter
>>to anyone in any other vehicle if a child is in a booster seat or using
>>the factory seat belts? No. Therefore the law is needlessly intrusive.

> It's only a "parental" government if you live and think like a
> "child".

You want the local busy bodies to tell us what to do. They love booster
seats, so now everyone has to use em.

> We're still free,

You haven't read the patriot acts.

> you're free to ride around with no carseat and free to get a ticket.

You're free too kill your neighbor and go to prison.

> If your worry about the child in the
> accident is to stop them from "being a projectile", that goes a long
> way towards telling me you're too far removed from the reality of this
> topic to speak in any lucid fashion.

Primary debate tatic is insult. The law should only step in where one
persons actions go against anothers. Maintaining control of a vehicle is
one of those. A booster seat or stock seat belt makes no significant
difference in this regard.

> And YES, if I happened to
> accidentally hit a car with kids in it, I would pray that they in
> protective seating. How could you live with it otherwise? The law is
> unfortunately NEEDED.

Ahh yes, the I'll feel better arguement. See this in the foam hat wars.
A bicyclist has to wear a foam hat so when a driver hits him with her
canyonero, rolls over his chest and parks on him. She can feel better
knowing he had a foam hat on to protect himself from her ignorance.

Here's a hint for you, learn how to drive. Really drive. Sign up
for course. A real one, like an autocross school or bob bondurant type
thing. It's alot more effective in saving lives than making sure everyone
is padded up to share the roadways with you.

>>The booster seat is about marketing and selling product. Just like the
>>you-can't-reuse-that-baby-carseat. It's about selling more product.
>>Forcing people to buy and consume more. And the busy body do gooders
>>lap it up.

> WRONG. A booster seat is about child safety. Having a child means
> planning (in a rational universe) and consuming....

No sh.t. But you don't get to tell other people how to do it.

> And I'm not sure what's wrong with doing good.
> BTW, who are the "busy body do gooders" and what are they "lapping
> up"?

Busy body do-gooders, people like you that want to force everyone into
their idea of safety.

> I should stop, but I can't help myself. He's getting more paranoid by
> the post. It's almost funny.

And your insults are coming ever more frequently because you don't have
a rational basis for this mandate. It just makes you feel good.  

Newsgroups: us.talk.headline-news,alt.law-enforcement.traffic,rec.autos.driving,talk.politics.misc,alt.law-enforcement
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: ILL POLICE CRACK DOWN ON  KID SEAT SCOFFLAWS
References: <4051D149.43FADE2E@igs.net> <Lpl4c.17248$C51.72770@attbi_s52> <73da2590.0403121558.753c6249@posting.google.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <73da2590.0403121558.753c6249@posting.google.com>, Jonesy wrote:

>> It's their job to force people to buy the products legislated
>> to be manditory by the representives that probably got money
>> from the companies that made the product or were motivated to
>> be everyone's parent.

> A charge for which you have no evidence.  A lie at best.

What do you think is behind legislation these days? MONEY.
The cops carry out the enforcement.

> Children cannot make informed choices about automotive safety devices.
>  And automotive saftey devices made for adults can injure or kill
> children.  (Airbags, poorly-fitted shoulder harnesses.)

But magically, seatbelts didn't start killing children until the
booster seat appeared on store shelves.
 
>> > when the child weighs more than 40 pounds and the car's
>> > back seat is not equipped with a combination lap and
>> > shoulder belt.

>> Keep your old cars folks. It's going to be the only way for us
>> to escape more intrusion by the state. (then they will outlaw old
>> cars)

> The black helicopters are coming for you...

Ahh yes. the insults an the parnoid label. That's all you got because
there is no rational reason why your idea of a proper child restraint
has to be imposed upon everyone.
 
Oh, and BTW, read hemmings motor news. I haven't in a number of years
but when I was they were constantly fighting against legislation to
outlaw older cars.

>> And before anyone goes off on how we 'have to protect the children'
>> or any of the other excuse that's typically used to justify things
>> that take choice away from people needlessly.

> What automotive safety device choices can be left to children?
> CHildren are not allowed to make adult decisions in this society.

THEIR PARENTS MAKE THE DECISION. NOT THE STATE.

>> A child can use a regular
>> seatbelt to prevent him from becoming a missile in the car.

> An infant?  Sure....

This is about the *BOOSTER SEATS*. You people must be morons, afterall,
you want to use descriptive insults like paranoid, you're gonna get them
flung back at you.

>> This right
>> there ends any reason for a law requiring a booster seat. And on top
>> of that, the kid can put the seatbelt on himself.

> An infant?  A two-year-old?
> Logic is your friend.  Try it sometime.

I was putting on my own seatbelt in the backseat of a '69 mach 1 mustang.
One of my earliest memories. Couldn't have been more than 3 at the time.
And those old seat belts weren't as easy to use as todays.

Newsgroups: us.talk.headline-news,alt.law-enforcement.traffic,rec.autos.driving,talk.politics.misc,alt.law-enforcement
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: ILL POLICE CRACK DOWN ON  KID SEAT SCOFFLAWS
References: <4051D149.43FADE2E@igs.net> <Lpl4c.17248$C51.72770@attbi_s52> <s7q3501klug2epg1s4hhf73nmmtk2u7386@4ax.com> <sio4c.18053$YG.190774@attbi_s01> <ss7450poo9502jk9efk0ijh114pkbk9p0d@4ax.com> <dvq4c.18109$ft4.185806@attbi_s54> <j5e450104qljbtlev57t6

45gdlbqaefoce@4ax.com> <Ttt4c.18511$zS4.183207@attbi_s51> <4b1550tja7ufrlbm8p45rbbijnclispktl@4ax.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <4b1550tja7ufrlbm8p45rbbijnclispktl@4ax.com>, Diogenes wrote:

>>Then ban all transport of children in motor vehicles if you are so
>>concerned about the risk.
>
> I think a reasonable amount of safety is not too much too ask for.

Why do you get to choose for everyone what "reasonable" is?

> I
> don't need to take it to the far extreme of five point whatevers and
> roll cage super cars, but I realize the need to adjust seatbelts to
> fit and protect small children. You mock my concern.

If it only saves one life it will be worth it. That's the mantra
behind laws of this nature.

>>> Children are another thing entirely.

>>They are an excuse for people to justify whatever they wish.

> Children are not an "excuse". They are a responsibilty. I said this to
> point out that children do not make safety decisions for themselves.

Children are constantly used an excuse to pass more laws.

>>> Unless you're living some other "when" or are entirely funded by
>>> welfare, having children is expensive. You already accept the fact
>>> that you must...gasp..."buy products".

>>So what next? Gonna mandate everyone buy an armored SUV to protect their
>>children? Where does it end? WHERE?

> Oh, I don't know, probably somewhere after bottles, baby food,
> clothes, toys, wipes, strollers, cribs, carseats or BOOSTER seats,
> etc. ad infinitum. I was speaking of all the things that need to be
> bought when you have children. I never said anything about armored
> SUVs. So that is where it ends. THERE...

You are talking about mandating things to make children safe. But now
there's a line? It's supposed to be about safety, right?  What did
you write before? "anything" was the term you used. There are all
sorts of safety things we can mandate that would make children safer
in crash. I've mentioned but a few, but you don't seem to want to
go that far. Why do you want to let children die on the highway
needlessly?

> Regardless of the cause, accidents still do happen on a daily basis.

No excuse to impose your will on to others.

>>Let me guess, you believe in styrofoam hats too.

> I believe that this issue is less about Big Brother government
> intrusion, and more about simple safety issues.

Like the war on terror. Keep us safe oh father government. Even if
it's from ourselves, eh?

> Not MASSIVE safety
> issues, but simple ones. Like asking that children have safety rated
> seat when they ride in cars.

Why stop there? Why let so many kids die needlessly who could have been
saved from a fire by a racing suit? Or saved from head injury by a helmet
in the car?  Why stop short?

>>> They thumb their noses at anti-seatbelt legislation and zoom
>>> around until they slam into a car or a car slams into them and they
>>> are injured, if not killed, for lack of proper driving knowledge, i.e.
>>> put your seltbelt on.

>>This isn't a seat belt law type issue. For seatbelts there are other
>>people involved because the driver needs to remain in his seat to remain
>>in control of the vehicle. Passengers also need to be secured as not to
>>fly into the driver.

> Passengers need to be secured so as to LESSEN INJURY. Flying into the
> driver is of secondary importance. Can you really think that the worst
> thing in an accident is that you could be struck by a flying child?
> WHAT ABOUT THE KID, MAN.....?

The law doesn't get to decide. It makes no difference to *OTHER* people
how the kid is secured. Therefore there is no basis for the law. The
law is mandating that people protect their children in a given method.
If someone wants to do something better it's illegal. Right there this
tells us it's a bad law. It's deciding for everyone what the
risk/benefit/cost point is. That's all this law does and that's not
the government's business in a free society.

What's to stop the state from telling you what to feed your children?
What time they have to be in bed? What you have to teach them? What
you cannot teach them? The list of things the government can mandate
for the good and safety of the children is endless. That's why laws
cannot intrude into the area of simple personal choices.

A free society has RESPONSIBILITIES. We don't pass those off to the
government, because in doing so, we lose freedom. Freedom and
responsibility are tied together. If you have a problem with
irresponsible parents not doing what you think is best it's your
job to persaude them, not to get the government to force them.

There is and has been far too much of busy-body-do-gooders trying
to enforce their will on to everyone else. Another good for instance
is prohibition. Where the womens christian temperance union decided
that because they didn't like alcoholic beverages, nobody could have
them.  Look what that did.

>> This law is about the method people must use to
>>secure a child capable of utilizing the restraint system the automobile
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I want you to reread what you wrote and explain to me:
> a) how child restraint is NOT a seatbelt law type issue

I've already explained it to you. Seatbelt laws can be justified by
the fact that sliding around in the interior can lead to harm to *OTHER*
road users. This law is mandating a SPECIFIC METHOD of securing a
passenger.

> b) how, "thusly this law is an intrusion...etc."

You don't get to choose how others secure their children in the car.

> Having children mandates the use of a great many products, like it or
> not.

The government pick out what kinds of babyfood you can feed your
child? What clothes he wears? What toys he can play with? What TV
he can watch? What radio he can listen to? Right now we've got the
FCC et al trying to make sure there's no tv or radio beyond a 7 year
old's level to make it safe for children. Where does it all end?
So much can be excused by it being 'for the children'. People need
to be responsible parents and stop shoving the responsibility on
to government. And just because some parent makes a choice you don't
like doesn't give the government an excuse to step in either.

>> A second generation product conceived of and designed for making a
>> profit.

> Not for protecting children? Are you sure?

They aren't selling them at cost.

>  The need manufactured one.

> huh?

The need a manufactured one.

>>  Are you
>>going to also force midgets and dwarves to use booster seats too? If
>>the 3 point seat belt system as mandated is defective, then address that
>>point.

> Some of them do use carseats or BOOSTER seats, because they recognize
> the difference in size between themselves and the people the car was
> designed for. Children are not able to make this decision for
> themselves, tho.

Their parents get to. Not the government.

>>Another person who doesn't understand concepts. It doesn't matter if they
>>are $5 or $500,000.

> It does if you have children. I understand your "concept" about how
> the BOOSTER seat laws are going to undermine your freedom and liberty,
> I just don't feel the same way.

Just because you agree with where this line was placed. What happens
when the government crosses the line that you set? What's to stop them?
You've already decided to pass this responsibility on to them. Your freedom
to set that line for yourself and your family is gone. They pick it now,
and like it or not you'll have to obey it. I don't like these sorts of
things on that conceptual basis. Wether I agree with what the government
decided for everyone is neither here nor there. What I personally find
reasonable isn't better than anyone else's. The government has no
business deciding this for people. It's business ends at the interaction
between people here.

Another for instance, drug laws. I wouldn't touch the poison. But
it's none of my business if someone wants to smoke a joint in his
bedroom. But some people can't let that happen, so they made the
stuff illegal. Now the government has far reaching powers to stop
people from smoking a joint in their bedroom.

>>> It's a protective device. If you had to
>>> throw your child in the swimming pool, wouldn't you put a lifevest on
>>> them first? The seatbelts in a car are designed for adults, not
>>> children who, if you haven't noticed, are a bit smaller.  

>>Do you wear a helmet when you drive? Have you modified your auto with a
>>roll cage and 5 point racing harnesses? Why not? They are all protective
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>the school buses? Obviously you are about maximizing their safety. Have
>>you dressed them up in racing suits to protect them from vehicle fires?

> I am an adult, and as such am just the right size for the seatbelts in
> my car. I don't race cars, so no I don't need all the extra crap.

It would make you far safer on the street. Prevent head injuries, burns
from fire, make the passenger compartment stronger. These are the things
that let occupants survive crashes at 150mph. Think how much good they'll
do you at 55mph.  But see look at your reaction. They are beyond your
line. You don't want to pay for them. You don't want them mandated.
Maybe I do. Maybe I really want to protect children and the irresponsible
adults who can't drive worth a damn. So I call up representives and find
one that agrees the law gets to the floor, and it's for the children
and anyone who's against it gets treated like you treated me, as someone
who doesn't care about the children, so it ends up passing. Just like
many of these laws do. But now you find it unreasonable, because the
government is no longer in agreement with you. This is why we don't
let the government do these things. EVER.


>>Did you know that school buses and church vans and other such vehicles
>>that transport *CHILDREN* are exempt from the *BOOSTER*
>>seat law? If it's such a nesscary thing that they cannot use the normal
>>seatbelts as they have been for years, then why the exemptions?

> The cutoff for a child seat is 8 years old or 80 lbs., or
> approximately the size of a small adult.
> I dont know about the buses, man, (yawn) maybe it's a conspiracy.

They are exempt. Don't have em. Frick don't even have to have seatbelts
still as far as I know.

>>See, there is something called a risk benefit analysis, and in a free
>>country we get to make those decisions for ourselves and our families
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>mandates like booster seats, my idea of protecting children with much
>>superior racing quality protection is illegal.

> Of course the method has bearing. You're going to the extreme in
> desperation but I'm not impressed.

You just aren't grasping the concept then. You like this law because
it fits the line you chose. But you don't want it to be any other line.

> I don't have any allies that I know
> of, I just expressing my views on the internet. None of which are
> extreme like say, wrapping up a child like a Formula 1 driver. I'm
> just thinking something like a BOOSTER seat would be just the trick
> for transporting Junior to market.

Why do you get to decide that line for everyone? Why does the government
get to decide? What else do they get to decide for us? Where does our
responsibility (and with it our freedom) end and the government's begin?
We end up with a fuzzy line that keeps getting pushed closer and closer
and closer to us.

>>> So why are they ticketing instead? You're sort of thrashing around
>>> here.

>>What do you think fines are for? They are to force people to obey the
>>will of people who pass these laws.

> In this case, to force people to have their children restrained safely
> within the vehicle. Safe for the CHILD, not the driver who may have
> his vision blocked by flying baby. God, what an oppressive country we
> live in...<snif>

Are you really so stupid as to not be able to grasp this SIMPLE
FUNDAMENTAL concept of liberty? Just because you like where this line
is doesn't make it ok. Next time the government may pick a line you
don't agree with. What are you going to do then? It's obvious you
have a line in mind, since you don't like my idea of race driver
level protection there's a line somewhere that you think is too much.

>>I am all for road safety. I've got a few thousand posts on the topic.
>>I just don't approach it the same noneffective nannystate, local busybody,
>>controlling, parental methods that you and people like you blindly
>>support because you don't understand a damn thing about road safety and
>>nothing about trying to pass laws compatible with individual liberty
>>instead of taking it away so that your ideas are forced upon everyone.

> Wow, an expert. Well, all due respect sir, but I don't think having
> kids in BOOSTER seats is taking away individual liberty. And you just
> called me a lot of names there.

You with your thinly vailed insults. And I didn't do anything more than
you did. I told you where you crossed the line with me, I'm not going
to play nice when someone uses the tatics you have.

And it's *NOT* the booster seat itself that's the problem. It's allowing
the government to mandate something it has no business mandating. Just
because they chose a line you like and one I could even probably live
with isn't the point. The point is they are choosing the line. That's
the problem. this law doesn't have purpose because it isn't about one
person intruding upon another. It's deciding for the people what's good
for them. That's why I don't like it and all laws like it. Next it could be
cheese burgers. I don't like cheese burgers but I'll be against a law
mandating them.

But while the government is telling us what's best for us, it's falling
flat with the job it's supposed to be doing with regulation to insure
a quality food supply, non glaring headlamps, and a whole host of other
areas where the actions of a person or company have a direct consquence
to other people. The place where laws should be. I wonder if there is
even a law mandating a particular level of booster seat performance.
Probably not.

So, as I've tried to explain to you, it's about where government should
go and where they should not go. If government decided the seat belt
system be adjustable in new cars that would be acceptable, because these
minimium standards for sale are something that has to be done one way
or another.

>>> Safer Freeways? They don't pull people over at random, you know...

>>They certainly pull over anyone they feel like.

> Are you feeling alarmist yet? even a little?

Ahhh another trust the cop type. I got to be the subject of a few
papers stops some years ago. I found it surprising this happened in the
US of A.  Oh BTW, this sort of thing is coming up to the supreme court
later this month. We'll see how much freedom we really have left.

>>> How fast do you think we should go, by the way? 75? 100? whatever?

>>Another person fixated on numerical speed. 100mph is just fine on some
>>roads in some conditions, dangerous on some others in some other
>>conditions. Some of the safest driving I've done in my life was done
>>on the high side of a 100mph. Some of the most dangerous done on the low
>>side of 55mph. That's why we have engineering methods to determine speed
>>limits. The 85th percentile *METHOD* is the best to date.

> Well, you're obviously a driving ace. They should invent a new class
> of license for you and people like you. Also a new lane on the freeway
> devoid of children so you can be safe at 100 mph. The rest of us clods
> will just have to putter along in Caravans with our kids in BOOSTER
> seats, all of us just hoping we get to where we're going without some
> much-more skilled driver plowing into us at high speed.

In other words you have no reply. The 100mph driving was done on the
autobahn in northern Germany if you must know. Safest driving I've ever
done. Safest I've ever felt in a car. Sharing the road with competent
people. Instead of lowest common demonator clods looking for the
government to keep them safe and decide things for them.

>>> I'll say it again: live your life in a decent, humble, intelligent,
>>> law-abiding way and you need never fear intrusion of the state.
>>
>>Have you read patriot acts one and two. I suggest you do.
>
> Is there a section on BOOSTER seats?

You need to pay attention to your government.

>>> If your  worry about the State is that it's taking away all the things
>>> you like to do, you should look at yourself and your habits; or
>>> perhaps ask someone who knows you to be honest with you.

>>I see your primary debate tatic is insult.

> Not you specifically, you in the general sense. replace the word you
> with one or me.

> I have not insulted you once. If you feel insulted, walk away from the
> computer, go race your car.

You've used a method of debate that is rather low. The exact one used
to push laws through under the guise that anyone against them is against
children. You've used that tatic multiple times so it isn't a mistake on
your part.  


> Health and safety of the child is the chief concern, here; and BOOSTER
> seats make a significant difference to be sure.

Not the government's choice. Roll cages could make a huge difference too.
Let me guess though, the booster seat research was done by the companies
selling booster seats.

> You're a driving stud,

See this kind of comment, that's what I am talking about.

> haven't you had belt burn before? A painful, abraded bruise where the
> seat belt dug into your flesh? Now, pretend you're a small child or
> that you have a small child. Do you want that? Or is all you're
> concerned about is the child striking the driver mid-accident?

Again the attack making it seem as if I don't care about children.
I've had it with you. It's clear you don't understand the concept
and you are going to continue with this line of attack. It's sickening.

>>> And YES, if I happened to
>>> accidentally hit a car with kids in it, I would pray that they in
>>> protective seating. How could you live with it otherwise? The law is
>>> unfortunately NEEDED.

>>Ahh yes, the I'll feel better arguement. See this in the foam hat wars.
>>A bicyclist has to wear a foam hat so when a driver hits him with her
>>canyonero, rolls over his chest and parks on him. She can feel better
>>knowing he had a foam hat on to protect himself from her ignorance.

> So you would accidentally hit the car with the loose kids and say
> proudly, "Those were American kids with American parents who were
> exercising the right to secure (or not) their child safely in the
> vehicle...<snif>" As you zoom away at a safe 100 mph.

See this crap you are doing? It's uncalled for. You have no arguement
here. You're just trying to characterize me as an uncaring menance.
The fact remains, government doesn't get to decide for other people what
their risk tolerance is when it has no bearing on other people what so ever.

>>Here's a hint for you, learn how to drive. Really drive. Sign up
>>for course. A real one, like an autocross school or bob bondurant type
>>thing. It's alot more effective in saving lives than making sure everyone
>>is padded up to share the roadways with you.

> Hee. Look, stud, lose yourself in a mercedes commercial if you want;
> the rest of us are just trying to get our families from A to B without
> being scattered across the highway. I haven't even said what I do for
> a living, but I guarantee you'd feel a little stupid for the above
> comment.

I don't care what you do for living. Judging by your posts it's
probably as a cop.

>>>>The booster seat is about marketing and selling product. Just like the
>>>>you-can't-reuse-that-baby-carseat. It's about selling more product.
>>>>Forcing people to buy and consume more. And the busy body do gooders
>>>>lap it up.

>>> WRONG. A booster seat is about child safety. Having a child means
>>> planning (in a rational universe) and consuming....

>>No sh.t. But you don't get to tell other people how to do it.

> YOu get to set minimum safe guidelines,  and you get revenue from
> people who break those guidelines; and you do this for the common
> greater good.

1) You don't get to. Not for situations that don't have negative
  consquences for other road users.
2) This isn't a minimum guideline, it's a fixed requirement. All safety
  measures that aren't a booster seat are illegal even if superior.

The greater good? Another universal excuse for shoving yourself into
other people's lives. LIBERTY comes first. LIBERTY is the greater good.
Not the 'if it saves but one life it's worth it'.

>>Busy body do-gooders, people like you that want to force everyone into
>>their idea of safety.
>
> God forbid we force people towards safety.

The means do not justify the ends.


> I haven't insulted you once, and I've been as rational as I can.

You've done your best at character frame job.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Local a.shole cop retires
References: <kIAfc.5138$Wf5.3024@fe1.texas.rr.com> <csPfc.51148$oj6.14738@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <nISfc.8645$Hf7.6939@fe2.texas.rr.com> <8d50a8ca2c5953b7c2677d9cf04e91a9@news.teranews.com> <2QSgc.359$NR5.234@fe1.texas.rr.com> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404191234460

.12253@alumni.engin.umich.edu> <iSTgc.537$NR5.225@fe1.texas.rr.com> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404191347520.24687@alumni.engin.umich.edu> <4v3hc.3670$hR1.467@fe2.texas.rr.com> <fxahc.33752$yD1.98762@attbi_s54> <SRahc.4414$hR1.2063@fe2.texas.rr.com> <2a29bd7963f89683

432e1f5ef9f69169@news.teranews.com> <N3dhc.1599$Dn1.267@fe2.texas.rr.com> <Wodhc.175974$K91.442067@attbi_s02> <fjohc.6177$hR1.906@fe2.texas.rr.com> <wwvhc.180527$K91.448477@attbi_s02> <8fyhc.9541$hR1.7908@fe2.texas.rr.com> <f_yhc.30901$hw5.48509@attbi_s53

> <RUAhc.9944$hR1.7907@fe2.texas.rr.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <RUAhc.9944$hR1.7907@fe2.texas.rr.com>, jaybird wrote:

> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f_yhc.30901$hw5.48509@attbi_s53...
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> you may eventually end up with reasonable suspicion... maybe even someday
> probable cause.

I didn't add anything jaybird. it's all old hat with you.

>> >> >> > They think they can get away with it, so they speed.
>> >> >>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> I've never posted anything of the sort.

Everytime you say 'police aren't ordinary traffic' and defend the
multitude of traffic violations officers make as they drive around.

>> > everything I do is within those guidelines.  I can't
>> > see violators if I'm at 110mph.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I can only get away with what the law allows me to do.  Anything beyond and
> I become a criminal.

You just ran over your own arguement. Cops can get away with all sorts
of illegal activities. Why don't you do it? Your arguement is people will
do what they can get away with.

>> >> >> > Others see that and they speed up too thinking there's safety in
>> >> >> > numbers.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> If you can't come up with an example of common sense then I feel sorry for
> you.  It doesn't really surprise me though.

You are claiming people speed because of 'safety in numbers' from
roadside taxation. This is something that can be verified, just as
we have verfied that people drive the speed they feel comfortable at.

>> >> >> > That ends up being true because there aren't enough cops to get
>> >> >> > them all.  It becomes a game of chance.  It doesn't make me happy
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Then you've given up before you've begun the fight.  I expected nothing
> less.

Again, trying to make it appear that I do nothing is a lame tatic
that doesn't change anything with regard to my arguements.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Deceptive gas station tactics
References: <v2t490t156bdphhjkf857l1hmqa5t9ruqn@4ax.com> <r1vkc.4272$J71.545933@attbi_s03> <7o25901a7d47fumflsu1nff52pvm5oufis@4ax.com> <300420041136506554%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv> <Gnxkc.4944$J71.592093@attbi_s03> <300420041529084854%68gtcs@streetracer.sf

v> <vtDkc.1950$TD4.179520@attbi_s01> <010520041116169788%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv> <X%Skc.6229$IG1.174706@attbi_s04> <010520041735358965%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <010520041735358965%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv>, CobraJet wrote:

>    Let's see now. *I* misunderstood, but you *know* this girl was
> giving you a look that said, "You're too poor".

No, it's a guess based on past experience. And I am not the only person
who has moved into this area that experiences it. Two guys I know go
back home on friday after work because of the way things are around here.
The one's who have married don't marry people from here either.

>> And I do get it from men up here too. But the stories, short of the guy with
>> the aston martin aren't amusing enough to mention. There was the 50year
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> of amusing stories along these lines that have no sexual nature to
>> them.

>    But you didn't post about the men, did you?

Oh, I'm sure I've told that aston martin story before, if not in this
ng, in another. The comment had to fit in with JD's to make sense.

> You extrapolated your
> own frustrations by assigning an attitude to a strange *woman* that you
> cannot possibly prove she was thinking, backed it up with a second
> instance of another female friend who supposedly cooled off to you
> because of your reduction in income,

And you took my post assigned me the behaviors of your friend, where
you cannot possibly prove what I was thinking or doing. I admitted I
might be wrong regarding her perceptions, a couple of posts ago.
Seems you cannot admit that maybe, just maybe, I am not the same as your
buddy.

> and appended this to a post about
> gas station rip-off tactics that only casually mentioned females. Uh
> huh.

The post JD made had two distict sections. I replied to both of them.
You replied to one of them. Threads branch and fork, if you can't handle
it, take your own advice and don't post.

>> >    I don't have the time to pursue this further. If you have a fragile
>> > ego, I suggest that you refrain from posting about personal issues. I
>> > can't help anyone in deep denial. And believe me, I've helped many
>> > people over the years in big and small ways.

>> I suggest you don't jump to conclusions in the future. Nahh, that's too
>> simple for you. Much more fun to fill in the gaps with whatever you
>> want to create. Maybe you should examine other posibilities than just
>> the ones you leap to for whatever reason.

>    If you had no issues, you wouldn't be griping about female
> attitudes, would you? It's all as simple and obvious as that, Brent. If
> you keep your mind nice and closed, you'll be in the same situation 30
> years from now. Or you'll be dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to
> the temporal lobe. Or the basal ganglia via the mouth. Your choice.

In this area, yeah I gripe about it, I haven't found a person who has
been displaced into this area from one like I come from who hasn't. I
date women that come here from elsewhere and stay away from
the natives. I find the behavior of the natives amusing at times.

But it does greatly cut down the opertunities, so yeah I don't like it.
Have you ever dated a woman who down graded you beacuse you didn't valet
your car assuming that you were just too cheap to pay for it? Come on, I
know you don't hand the keys of a big block ford to some russian who
can't speak english or some HS kid.... You aren't stupid like ferris are
you?

Sure, like your boasting it's a simple matter to hook up with
someone and bang her. It's just playing the animal mating game
like you describe. You just use one form of it. But expensive
clothes and car are just as a valid form of it as any other.
Look at the behaviors on a crusing night, it's like watching a nature
show on wildabeast mating or something...

>    Oh no, I understand you much better than you think.

Nope. You've committed the same errors you are now accusing me of.
Think of it like this, imagine yourself a black person who's just
moved into a lillywhite old-money area where your kind isn't welcome.
It's kinda like that, but much more minor.

See, if I was like your tounge dragging friend, I should get the same
reaction both here and back home, right? A good looking woman is the same
here as there, they should have the same frustration. (and here vs back
home is about 60 miles BTW, just opposite ends of the same metro area)

If it's my behavior, it should move with me. It doesn't. I can go
in a bar elsewhere, and no scowls, no problems. I never get that 'look'
even in the torqueless wonder car. 'Tounge dragging dweeb' should have
no geographical borders.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Me First law
References: <40a41174_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> <UXVoc.5829$_Z4.416718@attbi_s51> <40a42f1b_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <doWoc.44775$xw3.2755151@attbi_s04> <40a43816_4@newsfeed.slurp.net> <t7Xoc.44940$xw3.2769237@attbi_s04> <40a43fb0_4@newsfeed.slurp.net> <OUXoc.44

956$z06.6597011@attbi_s01> <c832vt$dri$1@blue.rahul.net> <EDapc.49931$z06.7059835@attbi_s01> <40a572df_3@newsfeed.slurp.net> <CXhpc.52237$xw3.3162953@attbi_s04> <40a61842_4@newsfeed.slurp.net> <si7ca0l58ou9r42e3em56ekkokeurq4ssk@4ax.com> <2gmnvoF4e3m4U1@u

ni-berlin.de> <40a62c4b_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <FPspc.16335$6f5.1426241@attbi_s54> <40a6a4d8_1@newsfeed.slurp.net>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <40a6a4d8_1@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:

>> In article <40a62c4b_5@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I never said right at the closure point, but what I was envisioning is
> within 100 yards or so thereof.

300 feet... given the standards of 'preventing queue jumping a.sholes'
300 feet is a long way early. I've seen people do alot more than just be
a garden variety a.shole for 10 feet, let alone a 300 foot jump. That's
passing what? 15 cars?  If you don't think people aren't going to run
that all the way to end as your obedient turn takers turn in 300 feet
from the end, you're in fantasy land.

All your turn taking a 100 yards before the closure point is gonna do
is enable a.sholes, at least when implied to be *AT* the closure point
it would have at least made everyone miserable.

So, we are left with expecting civil behavior from people, and if we
are going to expect civil behavior, there is nothing wrong with merging
over a distance. We just have to expect people to do it. And if we are
going to go through the effort of making laws and enforcing them, we
should pick what has the maximum throughput.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Me First law
References: <zX7oc.72623$kh4.4172751@attbi_s52> <751f8d35.0405130545.55e2ceb8@posting.google.com> <4b6d2dd6.0405131058.39678492@posting.google.com> <19Qoc.83723$Ik.6381206@attbi_s53> <P-qcnbz5Pr_mSzndRWPC-w@speakeasy.net> <eb5pc.10203$6f5.832912@attbi_s54

> <b35550e649700c868f8e112cf51b5c95@news.teranews.com> <568pc.1134$gr.66264@attbi_s52> <054c906264acd45a705c86aab135616f@news.teranews.com> <RVhpc.52234$xw3.3162546@attbi_s04> <023001e2269919456c5ae959c9aa62d8@news.teranews.com> <eKspc.98070$Ik.7644577@at

tbi_s53> <40a6a5d0_3@newsfeed.slurp.net>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <40a6a5d0_3@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:

>> As far as a.sholes are concerned, taking turns doesn't stop them either.
>> Don't let the f.cking a.sholes in, and that will discourage them. Leave
>> them jammed up looking into a jersey barrier. The reason they jump ahead
>> is because somebody will back down and let them in. Same with turn taking,
>> they'll just ride somebody's bumper.

> Brent, don't take this personally (because I usually respect your
> opinion) but you come off like a f.cking moron and a complete a.shole in
> this post.  Reading it makes me hope I'm never driving on the same road
> as you in a merge situation.  You've got some serious issues with
> merging, bro.

This thread as become very annoying. Both of you keep arguing against
something that isn't my point, and doing so repeatedly, after multiple
corrections. Some put in all caps in an attempt to illustrate the
frustration and highlight it.

I am not arguing for everyone merging early, I don't know how many times I
have to repeat that. Also, I am arguing for civil behavior, the problem
is if there isn't civil behavior nothing works. If there isn't going to
be civil behavior when following my idea, there won't be following
yours. And I was trying to express that.

There is nothing about whats above that others
haven't expressed all ready. The thing is, if you're going to make the
basis of invalidating my prefered method that there are 'a.sholes'
to take advantage of it, and their won't be the civil behavior required,
then fine, the solution is easy, stand up to them, it becomes a self
correcting problem. It's the same thing that will have to be done in
turn taking. You'll have to stand up and defend your turn. Otherwise
someone else will take it from you. That is if we're going to use
no-civil-behavior standard as what determines the better method.

So, that's what I am expressing there, the standard of preventing
assholish moves. If that is what we're trying to come up with a solution
for, well, its the same either way, hold your ground and let them sit
stopped looking at the wall. Wether it's turn taking or merging over a
distance that's what will have to be done.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Me First law
References: <19Qoc.83723$Ik.6381206@attbi_s53> <P-qcnbz5Pr_mSzndRWPC-w@speakeasy.net> <eb5pc.10203$6f5.832912@attbi_s54> <b35550e649700c868f8e112cf51b5c95@news.teranews.com> <568pc.1134$gr.66264@attbi_s52> <054c906264acd45a705c86aab135616f@news.teranews.c

om> <RVhpc.52234$xw3.3162546@attbi_s04> <023001e2269919456c5ae959c9aa62d8@news.teranews.com> <eKspc.98070$Ik.7644577@attbi_s53> <3e353d2c96ffad1e4dd98b321e824376@news.teranews.com> <zrypc.18340$6f5.1596074@attbi_s54> <53d5514c526dd2b365770c2bfa873982@news

.teranews.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <53d5514c526dd2b365770c2bfa873982@news.teranews.com>, Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>>In article <3e353d2c96ffad1e4dd98b321e824376@news.teranews.com>, Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Everyone merging at one point is orderly merging.  Everyone merging
> over an unspecified distance is chaotic merging.

unspecified != chaotic. If that's the case, then every on ramp is chaotic.
So, why don't you support your 'orderly merging' everywhere?

Lane changes are not always chaotic. Smooth lane changes over a distance
are perfectly orderly and fluid.

IMO you are confusing control with order. You seek to control and call that
order. It's a mistake people often make.

>>> It penalizes those who merge early by having lots of people pass them
>>> to merge and it penalizes those who are behind the early mergers
>>> because now they get lots of cars in front of them instead of just a
>>> few.

>>And we're back at the road-is-a-line scott wiser arguement. I got
>>on the road first, none shall pass me, ever. You are using the same
>>basis of arguement.

> Sigh.  When there is an open highway, there is no line.  When there is
> a choke point that everyone is trying to get through, there is a line.
> There is a significant difference between the two circumstances.

No there isn't. Either we have a line everywhere, or we have traffic
everywhere. Roads have a series of choke points, on ramps, etc, what you are
essentially saying is that at every choke point passing should stop. In any
kind of urban setting that means no passing. Wait your turn behind those
people who are in the line.

Traffic we try to make into a smooth flow, turn taking lines are not smooth.

>>Merging over a distance requires people to *GASP* behave in a civil
>>manner. Your turn taking has the same requirement. Yet, you seem to
>>think that turn taking will somehow make people act in a civil manner.

> Because turn taking makes it obvious that no one is "taking advantage"
> of anyone else.

So I just imagine those people riding each other's bumper in turn taking?
Maybe I imagined that pickup taking a left turn right in front of me after
his arrow expired today too... turn taking isn't going to stop people
from "taking advantage" of others in and of itself.

> You let one car in front of you, no more, no less,

That's blocking, that's the kind of combative behavior your turn taking
is supposed to prevent.

> knowing that everyone else is doing the same.

Yeah right. They don't have to.

>  Merging over a distance
> means that you will get a larger number of cars passing you to get
> ahead of you and get to the choke point first.  More cars in front of
> you means you'll have to slow down.

If done in a correct in civil manner, it won't. Once again you are claiming that
it's impossible for turn taking to be uncivil. I am telling you it is very possible
for it to be uncivil. I see it frequently. If you get to expect civil behavior
for your turn taking to work, I get to expect for my idea too.

>>See a traffic light that's gone out recently? me-first-f.ck-you. They
>>can't even take turns there. I have to sieze my turn and protect it
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>fuckin' work. Because people will ride each others bumpers and ram their
>>way in as well.

> If there is no civil behaviour, then no "little scheme" will work,
> period.

bingo.

>>But, if we say that civil behavior can be achieved, the most efficent
>>manner is the way we do every other merge, over a distance. With no
>>requirement to go all the way down to end.

> In very low traffic volumes, you're right.  In heavy traffic, you're
> wrong.

In heavy traffic it matters even more as gaps are more likely to close up and
a braking wave can tip the road. Heavy traffic requires more attention to
smoothness. The skill level to achieve smoothness in turn taking just isn't
there. Not to mention no way of recovering from or preventing a third party from
changing lanes at a time where it blocks out the person in the closing lane.

> Good lord, how can it be an issue in low traffic volume situations?
> Any braking will be absorbed by the excess capacity of the road.

Because your 'low' isn't the same as my 'low'. My idea of low traffic
volume is likely significantly higher than yours. 1am on the dan ryan
is light traffic for me. That's rush hour volumes in many places.
 
>>> And the guys who move over at the end are going to be thought of as
>>> a.sholes by everyone else for "taking advantage" of the situation.
>>> Read some of Yanik's posts to see what I mean.

>>No, they are a.sholes when they *FORCE* their way in. I've already stated
>>how I take a optimal gap to move over, but don't force my way in. I don't
>>recall seeing a reply calling me an 'a.shole'.

> And as you get closer to the end, if Yanik is beside you he'll close
> the gap because he considers you to be an a.shole.

If that's the case, he won't have left a gap in the first place.

>>>>As far as a.sholes are concerned, taking turns doesn't stop them either.
>>>>Don't let the f.cking a.sholes in, and that will discourage them. Leave
>>>>them jammed up looking into a jersey barrier. The reason they jump ahead
>>>>is because somebody will back down and let them in. Same with turn taking,
>>>>they'll just ride somebody's bumper.

>>> Didn't seem to happen when I was involved in it.

>>I90/94 southbound, just after the last left hand on ramp. 24 hours a day
>>7 days a week.

> Maybe it's because I'm in Canada?

maybe. Yesterday's backup stretched back to a mile north of ogden. That's
late sunday morning.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: What kind of idiot passes on a blind curve???
References: <cfpnb0dp8sq9qcg0mjgm5gakf0kaivuo7k@4ax.com> <yZvvc.39043$js4.32758@attbi_s51> <osxvc.44070$Ly.14987@attbi_s01> <GEyvc.38755$eY2.11622@attbi_s02> <Mazvc.44220$Ly.15953@attbi_s01> <22Avc.44299$Ly.37087@attbi_s01> <d901215e.0406030722.13415525@p

osting.google.com> <6PIvc.988$Sw.16@attbi_s51> <d901215e.0406031425.305db689@posting.google.com> <XuUvc.5250$%F2.2014@attbi_s04> <d901215e.0406040623.129a4c41@posting.google.com> <976wc.44257$3x.1053@attbi_s54> <_98wc.41906$pt3.31691@attbi_s03> <d901215e.

0406051754.50899e03@posting.google.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <d901215e.0406051754.50899e03@posting.google.com>, Eric wrote:

> I've read your posts for about 5 years or so now. I used to post with
> a little more frequency on R.A.D. back in my earlier days of reading
> this group. I've always apreciated and respected your views towards
> cyclists and have found you to be even handed with the critisism of
> those that bike without regard to the law. I ask you, have you ever
> seen a bigger tool than Dmitry?

Only while on the road ;)

And thanks :). it's because I am cyclist too that I have those views.
I stick to r.a.d these days for this sort of topic. I used to read
rec.bicycles.soc as well, but a significant portion of the regulars
are very anti-car and didn't take well to 85th percentile speed limits
and the like and I wasn't winning anyone over. R.a.d on the other
hand has more bicyclists who are also interested in driving and skilled
drivers so it's alot easier.

Just to get into driving, I never really know a road until I bike it.
My biking and driving go hand in hand, one feeds into the other and
it's mostly from bicycling to driving. It seems though that SCCA
realizes that people like me exist so it's against the rules to preview
an autocross course on a bicycle. If I biked the course, I'd be good
to go ;) If I could do that, I probably would have taken to autoXing.

Newsgroups: alt.smokers,rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Smokers tossing out the window?
References: <NuWdndVOB7b4p0PdRVn-uw@look.ca> <IltDc.103212$Hg2.86248@attbi_s04> <6-Kdnfpuz59I4kLdRVn-vw@look.ca> <RzLDc.127070$Sw.72062@attbi_s51> <iuWdnT3McOuIY0LdRVn-uw@look.ca> <r9WDc.124290$HG.123606@attbi_s53> <BD05C808.4168D%ipad@ptd.net> <NhZDc.130

329$Sw.76696@attbi_s51> <XbCdnbK1YftAe33dRVn_iw@look.ca> <pU5Ec.131499$0y.91868@attbi_s0 3> <2N2dnaljcNeQcH3dRVn-vw@look.ca> <pA7Ec.132943$Sw.76940@attbi_s51> <40E205DA.CE0ED1E1@earthlink.net> <SHpEc.1619$IQ4.1005@attbi_s02> <rik5e0hdfmttvf0drgnevf2pi4b4h

f62r4@4ax.com> <1YydnWLrUdpQ4X7dRVn-hQ@look.ca>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <1YydnWLrUdpQ4X7dRVn-hQ@look.ca>, Marky wrote:

>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:37:38 GMT, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
>> (Brent P)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I would imagine that this was brents mistake...good catch though...

Seriously, it's clear I delt you quite a blow when you have to take
snipes like this. Why don't you follow the URL and see for yourself?

Newsgroups: chi.general,milw.general
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: stainless steel rod (1/4")
References: <f74bff24.0406302057.7d140b58@posting.google.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <f74bff24.0406302057.7d140b58@posting.google.com>, Errol Holt wrote:
> I am looking for a local (Chicago or Milwaukee) source of 1/4"
> diameter stainless steel rod in a length of 18" (minimum) or longer.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I need a minimum of two (2) 18" pieces but I would happily purchase a
> longer rod (48", 60", 72", etc.) if that is how it is sold.

NakMan is one place, might be out of business can't find them listed. Metal
supermarkets (http://www.metalsupermarkets.com/) is another. Otherwise
see http://www.smartpages.com/

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: NEVER jaywalk
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0407011444140.20559@alumni.engin.umich.edu> <Xns9519CAA6F848Cjyanikkuanet@204.117.192.21>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <Xns9519CAA6F848Cjyanikkuanet@204.117.192.21>, Jim Yanik wrote:

> I waited for the "walk" light,began crossing,got across the three
> southbound lanes of SR436,started across the Norhtbound 3 lanes,and a guy
> blew thru the RED light and nearly tagged me,even with a Country Sheriff
> sitting in the turn lane,who incidentally sat there and did nothing,until I
> began jumping up and down,pointing at the schmuck to go get the RLrunner.
> By then,the RLrunner was long down the road.

You actually expected a cop to do something about road safety?
Sounds like the typical situation to me. Cop right there, a violation
that causes a clear safety hazard occurs, he does nothing. But be sure
when you're driving the regular speed of traffic at 1am with nobody
else in visual range, he'll be hiding in the bushes to ticket you.



Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Hydraulic Hybrid On Speed Channel This Morning
References: <8hdme0tnbkubjomnbl0d4f46uf0794pthr@4ax.com> <40eb6703_1@newsfeed.slurp.net> <4ojne0101cubjh78ruvr0jud926un9pf6b@4ax.com> <DZTGc.6912$WX.1036@attbi_s51> <ffkoe0t2fqd5p09bad0kp5qgn5aeiuss4b@4ax.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <ffkoe0t2fqd5p09bad0kp5qgn5aeiuss4b@4ax.com>, Dave Head wrote:

>>In article <4ojne0101cubjh78ruvr0jud926un9pf6b@4ax.com>, Dave Head wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> and when braking, the hydraulic motors become hydraulic pumps to capture the
> braking energy back into the accumulators.

CEO level diagrams don't do it for me at all. I need mechanical
drawings, cad models, photographs, that sort of thing.

> Controls I would imagine are simple hydraulic valves, although the actuating of
> those valves I would expect to be electronic and precisely controlled to
> recapture the most energy.

Again, I'd like to see it.

>>The vehicle concept EPA wise sounds like a boring vehicle to drive that
>>only toastermobile and SUV drivers could love.

> It appears to me that it could be used to build some killer sports cars.  Why
> not?

This is going to be a 'fly-by-wire' system of some sort. Maybe I need
alot more feed back than most people, but I want to be involved in the
process. Not just pushing the go pedal.

> There's nothing that says it has to be big and clunky.  15 or 22 gallon
> accumulators in a Ford Expedition could be 8 - 10 gallon accumulators in a
> small car, and provide a really whopping power increase under acceleration.
> Couple that with a high-output turbo diesel, and it would probably light
> anyone's fire.

I wasn't refering to clunkiness, but rather what I imagine to be a
disconnected feel. I need to feel what the car is doing or I am going
to have trouble driving it. I can never have too much feedback
from the car, too little is very un-nerving to me. Like the steering
on a dodge dipolmat where it doesn't even feel like it's attached to
anything. I am generally very poor at first-person driving/flying games
for the very reason that the game cannot simulate the feedback of a
real, mechanical vehicle. Generally I do better with the 'outside'
view on such games.

The user-selectable automatics and automatic clutch manuals also
have no appeal to me, because I feel disconnected, like in a video
game. That mechanical feedback has to be there for me.

>>Of course that is a
>>considerable number of the vehicles on US roads that could benefit.
>
> Uh-huh.

Look around ;)

Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: MORE recalls from Ford
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0407072316560.18281@alumni.engin.umich.edu> <_ueHc.30167$JR4.7563@attbi_s54> <2l5jghF92j8oU1@uni-berlin.de> <NfhHc.47790$Oq2.10768@attbi_s52> <40EDB459.7CC8D024@inetnebr.com> <2l680pF9dgqdU1@uni-berlin.de> <40edecf8_3@newsfeed.s

lurp.net> <FfmHc.71178$Np3.3423367@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> <slrnceull1.fml.rogblake10@unix5.netaxs.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <slrnceull1.fml.rogblake10@unix5.netaxs.com>, Roger Blake wrote:
>>Both the Chrysler and the Taurus 4 speed transmissions sucked horribly over
>
> I always thought Chrysler automatics were pretty much the cream of the
> crop.  My car has one, and it has needed little attention over the last
> 25 years or so.

A ford C4/C6 from that time serves similiarly. That era has ended.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Smart technology to outrage motorists!
References: <7rbue0t0vm1n4ahfaa1oj0p2rn1n6d7jap@4ax.com> <waOdndQbVvSdoHLd4p2dnA@golden.net> <VNHHc.59232$XM6.34838@attbi_s53> <a86dnaVeCOKjw3LdRVn-sQ@golden.net> <7ULHc.51178$MB3.41237@attbi_s04> <HdudnUBOYdt4Bm3dRVn_iw@golden.net> <qt3Ic.65952$XM6.44320

@attbi_s53> <100720042350341011%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv> <FwnIc.37171$WX.28576@attbi_s51> <110720042350558975%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv> <pUGIc.77290$Oq2.26067@attbi_s52> <130720040026585491%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv> <UC%Ic.72899$IQ4.62586@attbi_s02> <130720041

819014330%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv> <wu0Jc.72062$%_6.54187@attbi_s01> <130720042201337392%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv> <Gy4Jc.86553$XM6.34514@attbi_s53> <140720040216489542%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <140720040216489542%68gtcs@streetracer.sfv>, CobraJet wrote:
> In article <Gy4Jc.86553$XM6.34514@attbi_s53>, Brent P
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> faculty at my private school. At 14, I was tested at an IQ of 165. I
> guess I must be an moe-ron

Please try a logic course. No relationship means just that, there isn't
one. And the inverse relationship usually deals with people in technical
fields such as engineering.

 
>> >> is that a persons arguement is invalid unless he
>> >> himself can make it so. Making it so and being correct are two different
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> Ahh Another way of saying you get to whine about those evil speeders

>    *I* wasn't the one whining, numbnuts. I was observing human nature,
> as I have done for a long time. If it were up to me, there would be no
> speed limit. Pay attention.

Ahh.. for you it's just expressing reality, for others it's whining. Sorry.

>> who don't obey the law, but other people don't. If you don't want to
>> be exposed to the viewpoints of other people then usenet is not a good
>> place for you.

>    Usenet is a cesspool devoid of rules or compassion. Welcome aboard

Then why are you trying to create rules if that's what you believe?

>>  
>> >    Crying about nonsense like tactics, conversely, does not make your
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>> Why don't you put up or shut up? What are you doing to lower speed limits?

>    Why the hell would I want to? You just don't get it, do you? You're
> no smarter now that when you were whining about females dissing your
> a.s. Here's a clue, Brent: you're an idiot.

Name calling another lame tactic surfaces. I think you've hit them all.


>> What are you doing to bring about your utopia where driving is an
>> automated task or whatever it was you mentioned earlier?  It's a debate
>> tactic, plain and simple. And I could use it to just as effectively. I
>> try to get above such tired old nonsense, but if that's the way you
>> want to play, fine. Since you want to talk about putting up or shutting
>> up, you first. Put yours and I'll put up mine.

>    You are so stubborn you don't see that I have no agenda here.

So you're just a troll then and you should be kill filed?

>> >    No, the *problem* is that the government will not allow Americans
>> > even the remote chance of eradicating the archaic bipartisan system.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> while you can instead of wasting time worrying about what other people
> think.

Who's worrying? Why do you insist on such projections?

<snip more of the same>

>>  
>> >> > Idealism for mental
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> links just concerning the speed limit thing shows me you are a bit too
> passionate about stuff out of your influence.

You mean a simple include file of URLs that I've cut and pasted into
over time?  Gee. I think my time investment in that file might be a
whole minute and half. It's simply a list of articles I've come across
(generally someone on usenet refering to them) and figures from a book
I've read. It's website was so hard to fine, it was the book's title.

I am sure you have 'bookmarks' in your favorite web-browser. This is
nothing more than that for one particular subject.

I grow tired of all this reading into of simple ordinary things.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.greens,talk.environment,sci.environment,soc.culture.europe
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: tax SUVs, subsidize cleaner cars
References: <4e4a3f58.0407170123.5eea2b12@posting.google.com> <cdh72l$gu8$1@puck.cc.emory.edu> <if6dncMcqrRs3mDd4p2dnA@speakeasy.net> <c8cLc.17756$Vw3.984535@news20.bellglobal.com> <POmdnbOEpIOv5WDdRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net> <nVeLc.18622$Vw3.1029499@news20.bel

lglobal.com> <nPfLc.127408$a24.120163@attbi_s03> <sUgLc.19055$Vw3.1077030@news20.bellglobal.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <sUgLc.19055$Vw3.1077030@news20.bellglobal.com>, Ian St. John wrote:
>> In article <nVeLc.18622$Vw3.1029499@news20.bellglobal.com>, Ian St.
>> John wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> government entitlement program which can be adjusted or eliminated at
>> any time. It  bares no resemblence to a savings account.

> Well, it is true that the government can adjust it at any time. They are the
> ones paying interest so they are the ones that set the rate of payout to
> payin. However it is not hard to calculate for the average of the program.
> Just look at what the average paying has been over the working mans career
> vs the payout levels. Even an idiot ought to be able to figure that one out.

It's still not a savings account. And because they can change it at
anytime and we cannot go elsewhere to save our money, we become dependent
on elected officals. This increases their power over us.

>>> The idea of it as a pyramid scheme is a lie promoted by rightwing
>>> propagandists.
>>
>> According to social security it works very much like a pyramid scheme.

> No. It is neither described as a pyramid scheme nor operates as one. You are
> just blowing smoke.

Sorry, the material on the Social Security Administration says otherwise.
Like a pyramid scheme, it's pay-as-you-go. Those on the bottom of pyramid
(taxpayers) have money transfered from them to those on the top of the
pyramid (retires).

>> http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
>> -> Does Social Security have dedicated assets invested for my
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> -> to pay today's benefits is invested in special-issue Treasury
>> bonds.

> Which is basically equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank by
> customer X is paid out to customer Y when he draws on his account. It is
> *cashflow* description, not an accounting.

If any citizen of the USA were to put together this same scheme and call it
"cashflow" or "equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank" he
would still go to jail for running a pyramid scheme.


>> The proof is here, where they declare there is not sufficently large
>> bottom of the pyramid for the future:

> It is not proof of anything except a discussion of how the cashflow is
> managed. This does not make your bank a 'pyramid scheme' and it does not
> make the SS a pyramid scheme. This is the basic lie promoted by right wing
> idiots that cannot understand basic accounting.

You snip it because it shows the collaspe of the pyramid. A bank account
doesn't require new accounts to be opened. A bank account does not require
others to keep making deposits for the bank to stay solvent. A pyramid
scheme on the other hand does require the base to grow sufficently with
those on top of the pyramid to remain functional. The collaspe of a
pyramid scheme is characterized by not finding enough people to make up
that base. This is the problem social security is projected to have. Not
enough people to feed the payouts. If I put a $100000 in the bank, I don't
have to worry about there being 6 people to open new accounts so I can
get my money back. With social security, this is a very real problem. When
and if I ever retire, I do have to worry about there being enough workers
to pay enough into the system so I can get the same amount I put in back,
let alone any 'interest'.

> Discussing the problem with cash flow, NOT the accounts. The fact is that as
> the 'customers' withdraw their moeny from their accounts, they may have to
> recall some of the loans made from the previous surpluses when the cashflow
> becomes critical.

Elected officals could tell us all tomorrow that
they are canceling the program and we're sh.t out of luck. If a bank did
that there would be legal recourse to recover the funds. There is no
parallel between social security and savings in a bank account. None, zero,
zilch. It is now, IMO, at best a risky long term investment that I am being
forced to make. At worst, and as I consider it most of the time, just
another income tax.

>> Regardless of how much of a reserve may exist at that time, once pay
>> ins  do not meet pay outs, the pyramid is collasping.

> Only if the surplus paid in before is wasted rather than invested as in SS.
> Show me how the workers investments were blown on mansions, wild parties,
> booze and fast cars for the government and maybe I'll give you some
> credibility. Oh. wait! It cannot be spent on such things! It is REQUIRED by
> law to be invested for the future payout.

Ahh divert the issue. Cute, but totally irrelevant. A lack of corruption
doesn't make it any less of a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes can be run
without corruption too. Run by the book and they still collaspe. The
reason is that the base eventually cannot be big enough to support all
the people who are further up. That's social security's future problem, not
enough people working and paying taxes to fund those getting a payout.
This is right from their website.  

> It seems I'm speaking to a horses a.s...

I knew you would react badly to the actual information from a source you
cannot call 'right wing' and dismiss.

>< more specious crap deleted>

You mean the Q and A from the social security admin.

> Note: The bookkeeping does not have to keep specific account information.
> Basically the governmetn got the money and the government will repay the
> money with interest. None of it was 'wasted' for a fancy lifestyle by a
> scammer. The only scam here is the one that is being run by rightwing idiots
> trying to lie about it.

Again, you try to divert the issue. By the information from the social
security administration, it doesn't work like a bank account (as you
claim) in any shape or form. Given what they wrote, it most resembles
a pyramid scheme. Those low on the pyramid (workers) paying those high
on the pyramid (retirees). There are no savings accounts, no interest,
you work your way to the top, paying your way up, and if the pyramid
hasn't collasped, and you haven't died, then you get a payout.

If social security was anything like a bank account, it wouldn't go
*poof* with an act of congress or one's death.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,alt.politics.greens,talk.environment,sci.environment,soc.culture.europe
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: tax SUVs, subsidize cleaner cars
References: <nPfLc.127408$a24.120163@attbi_s03> <sUgLc.19055$Vw3.1077030@news20.bellglobal.com> <6KlLc.114204$WX.76909@attbi_s51> <cdolb8$7dj$7@puck.cc.emory.edu> <NNRLc.161704$Oq2.131589@attbi_s52> <YRSLc.1495$Fj.115461@news20.bellglobal.com> <3%TLc.1431

19$%_6.124205@attbi_s01> <qVWLc.6103$Fj.187263@news20.bellglobal.com> <8AXLc.145801$JR4.138228@attbi_s54> <cdrhkp$ia4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <cdrhkp$ia4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <8AXLc.145801$JR4.138228@attbi_s54>,

<snippage of what parker didn't reply to because he's too lazy to edit>

>>To review these are the points I have made:
>>
>>1) Social Security is not like a bank account.
>>2) Social Securtiy has key common similiarities and weaknesses with
>>   pryamid schemes.
>>3) If social Security is insurance, it is not cost effective insurance.

> Actually it is, as SS pays out far more of what it takes in than any
> insurance company does.

Cite?

>>4) If social security is an investment, it's a risky (as in expecting it
>>   to pay out as advertised) one for anyone under the age of 35.

>>I have supported all four of these points with information directly
>>from the SSA's web site. http://www.ssa.gov/   You on the other hand
>>have provided nothing to back up your arguement.

> No, you've added your libertarian-anarchist twist.

It's right there parker. You're free to find your own supporting
information. You have yet to do so. You just spout one democrat
slogan-view after another.

And I suppose my idea of government is anarchy compared your ideal
of parental control via government.


>>I have not claimed the government is about to collaspe or anything
>>of the kind. That is your creation because you cannot support your
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>to support it. This is directly from the SSA website. What the government
>>intends to do about this is as of yet unknown.

> Fund it, obviously.  Have you heard any elected official say otherwise?

With WHAT? There is no infinite source of money. That money has to
come from the people. Other people. You might as well rob them at
gunpoint as have the government take from them.


>>I know Dr. Parker is considerably older than 35, Ian, I have no idea
>>if you are even in the USA, let alone your age. But the older people
>>do have to keep the illusion for younger folk that SS is a good thing
>>and could never go away. After all, as you well know, if younger folk
>>stopped paying,

> And how would they do that?

Ahh that's right, you don't have a problem taking the money from them
by force. When taxes become too high, I'll just quit working.

> Oh I know, let them divert the funds to
> something else, like Bush wants to do.

<sarcasm>
Heaven forbid that SS actually become like a savings account or
investment account or retirement account. People might have control
of their *OWN* money. You can't have that now can we? That's
a job for central control, for mommy and daddy government. The individual
doesn't have the brains or ability for it, special elites in government
have to take care of us.
</sarcasm>

>>then the collaspe happens when people parker's age are
>>taking the money out instead of when the younger folks reach retirement
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>older folks don't get the benefits they were expecting. Like a
>>pyramid scheme.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.autos.driving,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?
References: <4e4a3f58.0407220924.1b44feca@posting.google.com> <xnVLc.143658$%_6.25670@attbi_s01> <IfKdnf_6K8gqzJzcRVn-og@speakeasy.net> <2ndMc.152918$JR4.143360@attbi_s54> <N4qdnbL6W_cv-ZzcRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <N4qdnbL6W_cv-ZzcRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net>, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> But they aren't related to you as a bicyclist.  If you merely walked,
> you'd still pay those.  People who drive everywhere pay those too.

So what?

>>I paid to use 3 cars, but used a bicycle instead.

> Unless your state is vastly different than mine (which is possible,
> e.g. Virginia and the hated personal property tax on automobiles), the
> majority of road money comes from gas tax, not fixed amounts such as
> registration fees.  So if you're not driving the three cars, you're
> not paying (much) for them.

registration, vehicle stickers, etc and so forth. More than enough
to cover the pennies per year. And since Smallish V8 powered cars
and smallish old cars use more fuel per mile than average cars of
the same weight, well that's even more coverage.

The whole tax thing on bicycles is just pure bullshit anyway. Any
fairly assessed tax on bicyclists wouldn't amount more than $0.50 a
year anyway.  



Newsgroups: chi.general
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Alan Keyes is out of his mind
References: <Xns9544DCCE31AB7dracula20riggsspamgo@207.115.63.158> <b6d06883.0408141327.1e46f96a@posting.google.com> <slrnchv67l.35l.glg@ftupet.com> <pan.2004.08.15.22.01.45.277896@yahoo.com> <gMVTc.18998$TI1.15785@attbi_s52> <pan.2004.08.16.20.52.04.97698

7@yahoo.com> <75aUc.136148$8_6.78860@attbi_s04> <pan.2004.08.18.13.58.38.580322@yahoo.com> <JiPUc.147947$8_6.143215@attbi_s04> <pan.2004.08.21.23.05.09.736967@yahoo.com> <NPcWc.71334$TI1.66103@attbi_s52> <slrnciiojm.5tu.glg@ftupet.com> <mKdWc.296843$a24.2

89148@attbi_s03> <MPG.1b942036be139ad1989720@chi.news.speakeasy.net>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <MPG.1b942036be139ad1989720@chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
>> > You're no better, Blennie, with this statement that paints all those you
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> That's not a fact, that's an opinion based upon your observations.

No, most of those I have encountered is a fact.

Like most of those posting to chi.general once lived or do live in or around
chicago.

Newsgroups: chi.general
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Alan Keyes is out of his mind
References: <Xns9544DCCE31AB7dracula20riggsspamgo@207.115.63.158> <b6d06883.0408141327.1e46f96a@posting.google.com> <slrnchv67l.35l.glg@ftupet.com> <pan.2004.08.15.22.01.45.277896@yahoo.com> <gMVTc.18998$TI1.15785@attbi_s52> <pan.2004.08.16.20.52.04.97698

7@yahoo.com> <75aUc.136148$8_6.78860@attbi_s04> <pan.2004.08.18.13.58.38.580322@yahoo.com> <JiPUc.147947$8_6.143215@attbi_s04> <pan.2004.08.21.23.05.09.736967@yahoo.com> <NPcWc.71334$TI1.66103@attbi_s52> <b6d06883.0408252038.23a45c6@posting.google.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <b6d06883.0408252038.23a45c6@posting.google.com>, Nexus7 wrote:
>> In article <pan.2004.08.21.23.05.09.736967@yahoo.com>, Nexus7 wrote:
>> > ridicule the democratic position. So once again, for or against:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> It isn't about you personally, it about your arguments (lack thereof).

It's not about me, but about me. A change from your lack of knowledge
of libertarian view point.

> As seen below you've failed to state an explicit position (or good
> reason to equivocate) on every issue presented.

There is no reason for me to do so. This isn't a call for me to do so.
I replied simply to point out that you don't know what the libertarian
party's views are.

> IOW, you denigrate the
> democratic position on specific issues, but will argue for libwackoism
> in the most general terms only.

Insult me, make it about me, try to associate me with wackos. Typical
usenet. Tiresome.

> Furthermore when the argument was
> about libw, you inserted yourself into it, claiming people attacked
> you for apparently no reason at all. So I'm trying to determine where
> you stand, because no libertarian will ever take a consistent stand on
> more than 2 issues.

Cite?

>> > 1 Deregulation of energy, leading to deteriorating grid infrastructure,
>> > price gouging, pollution
>> See, here's your problem. You reduce the posistion to two words and
>> insert your opinion of it.

> So make a bloody argument. State that you disagree or agree with part
> A, don't think B follows, whatever.

Again, this is you assigning. My view is not relevant here. You are
trying to make this about me, because you wish to hide the fact you
were wrong about libertarian party views.

>> > 2 Deregulation of education, leading to parochial/wingnut-schooled
>> > creationists so it remains necessary to import half the graduate school
>> > class

>> Same as above. You reduce the posistion to two words and insert your
>> opinion of it.

> More moralizing.

How about I do this for a democrat party issue as a republican would:
For gay marriage, leading to the destruction of family and the
institution of marriage and the rise of groups such as NAMBLA
Do you understand what you are doing now?

>> > 3 Elimination of capital gains and real estate taxes, leading to the tax
>> > burden being borne by income or consumption based taxes, so we have once
>> > again a burgeouis and proletariat

>> This is outright wrong with what the search for taxes pulls up on the
>> lp party website. It pulls up a posisition that is looking for the repeal
>> of income taxes and an end to ALL corporate welfare. Of course that
>> doesn't stop you from spinning it your way.

> The libw platform is sufficiently abstracted to hide the internal
> inconsistencies and complete lack os practicality. I'm not interested
> in their intellectually bankrupt philosophy unless they argue in
> specific terms, how the roads are going to get fixed, how the
> occupation is ending, etc. What I want to know is where you stand,
> since all you do is run interference for the wackos.

Why is where I stand relevant to this discussion regarding your incorrect
notions of libertarian party views?  Why do you want to make this about
me?
 
>> Cite? The lp.org has the exact opposite listed, calling for the a drastic
>> reform in presidental war powers that would prevent presidents from doing
>> that sort of thing.

> My website calls for world peace too, but you know the libwacko is
> going to vote the 2nd amendment,

Change the subject. Declaring war has nothing to do with the citizens
being allowed to have weapons.

> irrespective of whether or not it
> means giving the keys to a preemptive warmonger. You haven't presented
> an example of libertarians taking a practical (not ideological)
> stance, successfully legislated or implemented it, and seen beneficial
> conseuqences.

And you have presented an example showing the success of team work
between the CIA and the alien race known as 'the greys'. I'm not going
to fall for stupid usenet games today.
 
>> That's nice. We were discussing the libertarian party, not me personally.
>> Why are you trying to make this personal? Because you don't know sh.t 
>> about libertarians and it's far easier to insult me than to look the fool
>> as you post what someone on the internet who claimed to be a libertarian
>> tells you he believes?

> Yes, no one but you in the whole wide world is intimately acquainted
> with the machinations of the omniscient libertarian party. As I've
> stated before, their platform is impractical, their practice is
> inconsistent with it. If you're not going to venture examples, and
> even take a stand on those given to you, then we're going to have to
> leave it at that.

I fail to see any reason to morph a thread that started about alan keyes
and ended up on your incorrect ideas of libertarian party views into a
discussion of Brent P's views on whatever issue you feel like bringing
up. So you can get me defending myself and the topic diverted away from
you not being able to correctly state the libertarian party's views,
instead picking what some wackos online who called themselves
liberatarians said their views were. Again, this can be done with
any group or party, including democrats.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Way OT, but VERY Interesting!
References: <a523f33e.0408311727.7186c2e9@posting.google.com> <0sidnSz26N8fdajcRVn-uw@comcast.com> <lsrZc.353233$%_6.53325@attbi_s01> <S5qdnU9_C8kXx6vcRVn-pQ@comcast.com> <OjvZc.10960$3l3.1861@attbi_s03> <IdmdnbMdYP5mAqvcRVn-iQ@comcast.com> <XSQZc.227797$

8_6.73369@attbi_s04> <aNydncbNzoNWmqXcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <aNydncbNzoNWmqXcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

<guess I am the only one who knows how to trim AGAIN!>

>>>http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image1.jpg
>>>http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image2.jpg
>>>http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image3.jpg

>> Something after the big bang? This doesn't show anything of value to this
>> discussion.

> Of course it does.  It shows what happens to an aircraft when hitting a
> hardened structure.  Granted, it's not a plane hitting the Pentagon but
> there is some similarities between them.  It shows that an airplane can
> be pulverized in a high speed collision.

You have a picture of an explosion. Not what's left afterwards.


>>>You can find a link to the video of the test here:
>>>http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

>> I've tried this in both IE and mozilla. neither will load and play it.

>>>As you can see the plane is completely destroyed.

>> I see nothing of the kind in the photos. I see an explosion. I don't see an
>> aircraft turning completely into dust and vapor. A photo of what's left
>> would be needed for that.

> I remember that 60 Minutes or 20/20 did a segment on this experiment
> several years ago.  The video doesn't show the debris but they did on
> that program.  Most people wouldn't have been able to tell it was debris
> from a jet crash.  It looked like it went through a car shredder.  It
> stuck in my mind because the concrete block was hardly damaged.

I've seen a melted and rehardened blob of aluminium alloy mixed in with
the dirt and rocks at a crash site that had been cleaned up and graded
with earth moving equipment and could still tell it came from an aircraft.
So I am not your average bear... (chared carbon fiber emmbedded in it was
a dead give away)

>> How? what would grate a ductile material into confetti?  
>> I have found one photo online of a piece of aircraft that bounced off,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> This picture doesn't support a conspiracy theory.

ARG! I am trying to DISCUSS THIS and support my view that airplane bits
should be out on the lawn, should have survived the fire, etc, not to
support a conspiracy theory! We are back at the elvis comment.

To discuss this, requires searching things out. My belief is that there
should be airplane parts out on the lawn. This photo *GASP* shows an
airplane part on the lawn, supporting my view. That's why I mention it.

>> I would expect a fair amount of this type of sizable material or larger
>> that wasn't in the fire. Also, even in the heart of the fire, components
>> such as significant parts of the engines should be present.
>> More photos:
>> http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

> I have no doubts that parts of the engine, among other parts, were found
> in larger pieces in the building.  Especially those pieces that escaped
> the fire.

Ahh... so now you agree that that pieces should have survived. Thusly if
our government didn't keep everything it could secret alot of problems in
this regard could be avoided.

>  All the pictures on the page you linked further disproves a
> conspiracy theory.

I am not supporting a conspiracy theory. I am looking into something. I
have a view that states, if aircraft of that size, parts should be on the
lawn, and should have survived. So I have sought out proof of that,
that's what's in the pictures linked to. If you are going to keep doing
this, there's no point to it.

>>> IMO, it's obvious that physics
>>>does not support this conspiracy theory.
>>
>> Physics does not support the entire plane turning into vapor and dust.

> I never said it did turn to completely to dust.  Most of it went into
> the building and probably melted in the fire.

Your whole line has been everything gone, nothing indentifiable. Should I
go back and quote you? That the photos in the flash presentation are
exactly what one would expect, nothing on the lawn, the whole plane in
the building and no surprise nothing being being found. That's the line
you took against the flash presentation. That the photos were normal. My
view is that they aren't normal. And I found out why, creative people
taking what they wanted and deleting what didn't fit their view.

> Do you see that the
> pictures in the web pages you linked help to disprove this conspiracy
> theory?

Three strikes. You're out.

You can't discuss this without labeling, without this line of thinking
that because I disagree with you, I must believe the whole thing. I only
believe that there should be parts on the lawn and parts that survived.
Those pictures prove what I believe. Which means the flash presentation
is as manipulitive as a michael moore movie.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.autos.driving,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles
References: <4e4a3f58.0409070513.728f3364@posting.google.com> <SFL6d.284647$mD.278591@attbi_s02> <m2u0tfved8.fsf@Stella-Blue.local> <X0Z6d.142059$MQ5.51477@attbi_s52> <m2d603z9pq.fsf@Stella-Blue.local> <g017d.393998$8_6.111280@attbi_s04> <m2hdpfw2tu.fsf@S

tella-Blue.local> <H5adnctBAtEvVsHcRVnytw@comcast.com> <m2u0tey0sl.fsf@Stella-Blue.local> <4b6d2dd6.0410011210.7690a165@posting.google.com> <m24qleupw7.fsf@Stella-Blue.local> <TtKdnV4kTff8ecDcRVnygA@comcast.com> <415e11bf@news.ysu.edu> <4b6d2dd6.041002134

9.7ab40dbd@posting.google.com> <41604007@news.ysu.edu> <d9OdnRJo16O97P3cRVn-vg@comcast.com> <41609e87@news.ysu.edu> <Df6dnY0T6txjAv3cRVn-jQ@comcast.com> <4160a654@news.ysu.edu> <vsqdnX87Q_9zOv3cRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <41617b95$1@news.ysu.edu> <WKGdnd2biqn5aP

zcRVn-rA@comcast.com> <n-OdndCZ3_Nvnf_cRVn-jg@comcast.com> <Yoo8d.69216$He1.45162@attbi_s01> <4162381c@news.ysu.edu>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <4162381c@news.ysu.edu>, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
>> 25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
>> 'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time.

> I am absolutely astounded that this is such a problem for you guys!

Frank insults. No arguement.

> Really, what on earth do you do driving curving mountain roads?

There are no mountains in IL.

> Do you
> need a backseat driver to say "Hmmm - this looks like a 37 mph curve to
> me.  Better slow down."

Frank insults again, being without arguement regarding inconsistant road
signage.

> Can't you judge these things properly on your own??

Frank's primary debate tactic continues to be one of personal attack.
This isn't about me Frank. It's about accurate signage. I'll find out
soon enough if the signage is accurate. It would simply be nicer if I
could trust the sign and get accurate information sooner.

What's the purpose of the sign Frank? To give the driver information. I
only want the signs to be ACCURATE AND CONSISTANT. If they aren't going
to provide useful information, remove them. Do not put them up and save
the tax money for fixing frost heaves or something.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,az.general
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: I'm Not the Only One Who Hates Driving in Tucson
References: <LPqdnd6Gr-CVg5XfRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <tkag01hvvptmlbvmq5tqpmc69u7si3f14a@4ax.com> <KIKdnceLM_bH_5XfRVn-tg@comcast.com> <98kh011vhjabtj7k3sto0gv0ju2smrss8l@4ax.com> <WuydnRzRXblgq5TfRVn-jw@comcast.com> <hugj01h4pe6qpuudc8krstc5qj6r6ik5df@4ax.co

m> <i8OdnVsfP_ixqJffRVn-jg@comcast.com> <akgk0198bn3vr1634cr529e7k56t6eo6de@4ax.com> <WqOdnaa0EeqpxJffRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <c4pk01dsucq9100iuq6r4pq75ut6svn4ru@4ax.com> <QJWdnaREWf9t55ffRVn-vg@comcast.com> <cbvk015pbu9r3npfsf9ou88d1efbk2ddgq@4ax.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <cbvk015pbu9r3npfsf9ou88d1efbk2ddgq@4ax.com>, Cashew wrote:

>>I've been rear ended 3 times while at a dead stop at a traffic light.

> You must have a magnet in your trunk.
> Most drivers NEVER get rear-ended.

One of them somebody rear ended the guy behind me and pushed
him into my car.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republicans
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P)
Subject: Re: Hawaii institutes price limits on gasoline
References: <vgfqg1ts60348ssf0jvr6bl58f3tcfddr4@4ax.com> <ssudnfbDY6aWxZDeRVn-1w@athenet.net>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <ssudnfbDY6aWxZDeRVn-1w@athenet.net>, Michael G. Koerner wrote:

> This assumes, of course, that the retailers will be able to get any fuel to
> sell.  For those who cannot remember or were not alive at that time, price
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Econ-101 lesson:  *NOBODY* will sell anything like that at a mandated loss.

The price cap law in question is not a fixed cap. It's a cap calculated
from the cost of fuel in the lower 48 at any given time.

Considering that now fuel in chicago now costs about the same as it did
on Maui last month I don't think this cap should be all that big of a
deal on a functional standpoint.

My objections to government control in general still apply of course.
Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 08:03 GMT
Please ignore the previous post... my error, I tried to repost something
that failed to post when my connection died and instead got every failed
post since the last time I cleaned things out.

I sent out a cancel, but I doubt it will do anything.
Scott en Aztlán - 25 Aug 2005 15:27 GMT
>Please ignore the previous post... my error, I tried to repost something
>that failed to post when my connection died and instead got every failed
>post since the last time I cleaned things out.

That was a pretty amazing failure. I think it's time to upgrade your
news reading software. ;)
Brent P - 25 Aug 2005 16:44 GMT
>>Please ignore the previous post... my error, I tried to repost something
>>that failed to post when my connection died and instead got every failed
>>post since the last time I cleaned things out.
>
> That was a pretty amazing failure. I think it's time to upgrade your
> news reading software. ;)

I had forgotten that slrn appends to, rather than over writes the failed
post file.
Bernard Farquart - 26 Aug 2005 02:09 GMT
>>>Please ignore the previous post... my error, I tried to repost something
>>>that failed to post when my connection died and instead got every failed
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I had forgotten that slrn appends to, rather than over writes the failed
> post file.

I never have that problem posting with outlook!

Bernard
(ducks and runs)
Brent P - 26 Aug 2005 03:55 GMT
>>>>Please ignore the previous post... my error, I tried to repost something
>>>>that failed to post when my connection died and instead got every failed
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I never have that problem posting with outlook!

Outlook can overcome the cable modem going out? Now that's magic.
Arif Khokar - 26 Aug 2005 04:28 GMT
> Outlook can overcome the cable modem going out? Now that's magic.

In some cases, it can overcome the OS making the computer useless ;)
The Real Bev - 16 Jan 2004 06:55 GMT
> >>Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> job all the time. When the downsizing events occur the unpopular
> people get it regardless of their job performance.

If you have to lay people off ("downsizing" is just more mealy-mouthed
sh.t) you figure out who is needed least, who it will be easiest to
survive without.  These people are generally unpopular because they're
drones, not because their personal/political characteristics are a bit
wanting. The people with miserable personal characteristics weren't
hired to begin with, and a lot will be forgiven a guy who carries the
weight of two.

I saw this from the inside;  there were a lot of real yucks who were
kept around because they actually produced, and the first to be let go
were the ones who were incompetent or difficult to manage,
characteristics which may have only been evident after they were hired.

> > And anyone can be fired as long as there is documentation
> > that it is for a cause related to job performance so what is the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> So they build of fictional case. That's how a former employer of
> mine went about downsizing people. The method was copied from GE.

I'm not saying that people never get fired for political reasons, but
NOBODY wants to fire a useful person.  If you get canned unfairly, check
it out with your local labor board or EEO office.  A person truly fired
for improper (or even PROPER) reasons can cause ungodly amounts of
trouble by the proper use of governmental resources.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
--------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as a foolproof device
because fools are so ingenious.

Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 16:57 GMT
>> There are all sorts of equilivent things that happen in major
>> corporations. People get fired for nothing with how they do their
>> job all the time. When the downsizing events occur the unpopular
>> people get it regardless of their job performance.

> If you have to lay people off ("downsizing" is just more mealy-mouthed
> sh.t)

Downsizing is better IMO because a lay off implies return, there is no
return. Lay-off sounds nicer because it says they'll call the people
back to their jobs later. No they won't people will have compete in
the open market should there be any openings.

> you figure out who is needed least, who it will be easiest to
> survive without.

In most cases I would hope that were true. Not with the GE method
that is designed to create constant turn over and removal of experienced
people to keep wages down.

> These people are generally unpopular because they're
> drones,

Not when the drones run the shop.

> not because their personal/political characteristics are a bit
> wanting. The people with miserable personal characteristics weren't
> hired to begin with, and a lot will be forgiven a guy who carries the
> weight of two.

Not always. At least my former employer would take the guy who could
carry a heavy load and call him a slacker for not carrying more. Not
only my own experience of carrying 3-5 times the average part load,
but some others were actually chastised for not working enough _overtime_.
These people were already in 50-60 hour a week range.

> I saw this from the inside;  there were a lot of real yucks who were
> kept around because they actually produced, and the first to be let go
> were the ones who were incompetent or difficult to manage,
> characteristics which may have only been evident after they were hired.

I watched alot of good engineers get purged. I saw some get driven out of
the company when they couldn't deal with the idiotcy anymore. I saw how
promotion was denied to the technically competent. I watched how people
who deserved promotions had to make ultimatiums to get them. Those not
willing to do that didn't get promoted. Idiots who ass-kissed all day
and made themselves *look* good got them without such do-or-die moves.

When they finally got to me (I had been expecting it for about a year  
and had just started looking for a new job because I had stayed to get
vested), I felt bad until I saw who else got it in my group.
Then I didn't feel bad. One manager, who was privey to the activity that
had left on his own accord, ie he asked to be downsized, explained alot
of how the system there really worked. It was absolutely disgusting.
(and no, I know he wasn't lying to me about any of it as I had
independent verification)

> I'm not saying that people never get fired for political reasons, but
> NOBODY wants to fire a useful person.

It depends on the definition of useful now doesn't it? The politically
savy were the ones that had the *perception* of being useful in the
culture I am using as an example. The actually useful people were
considered replacable cogs. In the trenches we had a saying, 'A monkey
can do proE'. It was a statement about how management viewed the
engineers that designed the parts and product. That corporation has
moved on a study pace to ODM more and more of it's products in China.

> If you get canned unfairly, check
> it out with your local labor board or EEO office.  A person truly fired
> for improper (or even PROPER) reasons can cause ungodly amounts of
> trouble by the proper use of governmental resources.

Not worth the uphill battle and hassle for a job I was going to leave
in a few months anyway. They just sped it up a bit. I took the cash.

If you want to know more about where I worked, read dilbert and dilbert
books. Seriously.
Bownse - 17 Jan 2004 00:04 GMT
>>If you have to lay people off ("downsizing" is just more mealy-mouthed
>>sh.t)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> back to their jobs later. No they won't people will have compete in
> the open market should there be any openings.

Fire the sh.ts and be done with it. Why sugar coat it?
0tterbot - 18 Jan 2004 14:38 GMT
> >>If you have to lay people off ("downsizing" is just more mealy-mouthed
> >>sh.t)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Fire the sh.ts and be done with it. Why sugar coat it?

because they're so "touchy feely"? ;-)

jesus, if someone's been sacked, i say they've been sacked. fired. their
employment has been terminated.

i'm sure corporations invented "downsizing" so people wouldn't realise
they'd actually been sacked until they were out the door (you wouldn't want
a scene, after all). i daresay they couldn't believe it when real actual
people took up using this stupid word.
kylie
Scott in Aztl?n - 17 Jan 2004 04:48 GMT
>>>Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I think he became governor of IL. George "CDL's for sale" Ryan.

Isn't that George "Headed for Federal Pound-Me-in-the-a.s Prison" Ryan?

Signature

A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

DTJ - 19 Jan 2004 00:50 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:48:49 -0800, Scott in Aztlán
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>>>>Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Isn't that George "Headed for Federal Pound-Me-in-the-a.s Prison" Ryan?

We can only hope.
Brent P - 18 Jan 2004 19:59 GMT
0lvoj@4ax.com> <_KTNb.70319$nt4.96005@attbi_s51> <58ah00tfkej2vfid9q24lav1p78180tcb7@4ax.com> <4E2Ob.82565$I06.357473@attbi_s01> <a4ij00d0vg9863fbmb7ph5v04ieecclslo@4ax.com> <jZrOb.91534$I06.405403@attbi_s01> <drkk00ds66dcm2296af7tc7ad7c33r62pc@4ax.com>
Organization: A World Full of Junk
Followup-To:

In article <drkk00ds66dcm2296af7tc7ad7c33r62pc@4ax.com>, toto wrote:

>>> A teacher has to teach three years and be rehired for a fourth
>>> year before receiving tenure, which guarantees a teacher
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> If the number of students is less, teachers are *not* protected from
> being laid off by tenure.

That's nice. But it's protected from hiring a new teacher fresh out
of school for less money.
DTJ - 17 Jan 2004 04:10 GMT
>>>>>> Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
>>>>>> jobs than in educating.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>
>How if the parents brought charges?

I just knew SOME MORON would ask that.  I never said they brought
charges.  See, the local police happened to have strong connections to
the superintendent of the schools, and the super did not want anyone
to know about it.  Police refused to "believe" the girl or her
parents.

Yet schools are purrrrfect.
toto - 18 Jan 2004 00:03 GMT
>>>>>>> Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
>>>>>>> jobs than in educating.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>Yet schools are purrrrfect.

Schools are certainly not perfect.  But the parents can file charges.
In a case like this with collusion by the police, parents can also
take the charges to the media.  It's been done here.

OTOH, I know of a case where the parents didn't file because
the scumbag teacher paid them off and paid for the girl's
college education.  He had other money besides that from
his teaching job.  His wife knew and didn't leave him either
which I never understood.

Interestingly, a young security guard was prosecuted for rape
despite the fact that he was almost the same age as the girl
and wanted to marry her.  Her parents disapproved and they
got him on charges of statutory rape.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
P. Tierney - 16 Jan 2004 05:55 GMT
> >>>> Educators are bureaucrats more interested in keeping their
> >>>> jobs than in educating.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> the girl and the parents went to the police and the school, and it was
> covered up by the school.

   So he was arrested.  Must've made the newspaper?

   BTW, if a computer programmer commits a crime, do you
then decide that computer programmers are a criminal lot?

> >Note that the reasons for tenure involve the fact that prior to this,
> >teachers could be fired for political opinions or things they did in
> >their private lives that have no relation to how they do their job.
>
> Um, how is that different from any other non-union job?

   You didn't answer a prior question-- How come you couldn't
get a job at one of the many non-union schools around?

                                                   P. Tierney
toto - 15 Jan 2004 05:13 GMT
>>> Teachers lack sufficient talent and training in their subject
>>> areas.  There are exceptions - but in most colleges education
>>> has lower requirements than science or engineering.

Liberal arts has lower requirements than science or engineering too.

>I doubt there are any exceptions.  I have never heard of a teaching
>certificate or degree requiring anything near what any other bachelors
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>a math class or a logic class, claiming that they don't need logic,
>they are only going to teach.

First, elementary school teaching does not require a degree in each
subject taught.  However, the certification is changing currently to
require specialization - usually either reading/social studies or
math/science or art/music.   More elementary schools will hopefully
be hiring elementary specialists and teaching subjects as teams
with teachers from each specialty on each team.  

Second, high school teachers are required in union states to have
degrees in their subject.  The major is the same number of hours
as the normal major in math, but some courses *may* be different
from the courses a math major not going into teaching would take.

The math teachers at my inner city school in Chicago *all* had
bachelors that included a major in mathematics.  Some of those
were  in applied math, some in theoretical math.  Aside from that,
several of us had masters in mathematics (including me) and
those masters were straight math, not education degrees at all.

There were, imo, 2 out of 15 math teachers on the faculty who
were unqualified.  These two were politically connected to the
administration, so they were not going to be fired despite their
ineptness at teaching.   The math department fought hard to keep
standards up, but we were not always successful.  We still did
flunk kids who didn't meet the standards, but the fact was that
they often took courses in summer school at the local Catholic
school and *passed* with little knowledge and thus got the credit
and graduated.  Or they took the courses in *night school* where
the standards were even less stringent and got the credits that
way.  The honor students and the regular students who worked
at it, did well in the math courses, but their were a great many
kids who graduated without really knowing much math.  I don't
see how you can hold the teachers responsible for that given
the way the system worked.

At my chidren's high school, btw, most of the teachers had
masters degrees or better.  They taught well too, but even there
the political pressure meant that the students in the lower tracks
didn't necessarily learn much mathematics.  Teachers there
were highly qualified for the most part, but there were still some
teachers I would say were not very good.  Most of those were
weeded out though as new teachers and not rehired after a
year or two.  They didn't get tenure.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
DTJ - 16 Jan 2004 02:54 GMT
>>>> Teachers lack sufficient talent and training in their subject
>>>> areas.  There are exceptions - but in most colleges education
>>>> has lower requirements than science or engineering.
>>
>Liberal arts has lower requirements than science or engineering too.

Sigh, teachers get a liberal arts degree.  Can you say redundant?

>ineptness at teaching.   The math department fought hard to keep
>standards up, but we were not always successful.  We still did
>flunk kids who didn't meet the standards, but the fact was that
>they often took courses in summer school at the local Catholic
>school and *passed* with little knowledge and thus got the credit

Bullshit.  Catholic schools are not very good at science, but they
make public school math teachers look like newborn babies.
toto - 16 Jan 2004 05:44 GMT
>>>>> Teachers lack sufficient talent and training in their subject
>>>>> areas.  There are exceptions - but in most colleges education
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Sigh, teachers get a liberal arts degree.  Can you say redundant?

Which means they are no less educated than any other college
major outside of engineering degrees or math-science degrees.

And I got a bachelors in math and a masters in math before
getting my teaching certificate.  Many high school teachers
get subject matter degrees first and certification on top of that.

>>ineptness at teaching.   The math department fought hard to keep
>>standards up, but we were not always successful.  We still did
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Bullshit.  Catholic schools are not very good at science, but they
>make public school math teachers look like newborn babies.

Not in the school I taught in.  Beleive me the catholic school had
a good reputation, but the kids we got didn't know any math.  And
they needed the tuition money so kids who went to summer school
were passed without knowing much at all.

This was an inner city school.  In Pilsen and being from Chicago,
you may know the area.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
dragonlady - 16 Jan 2004 15:21 GMT
> >>>>> Teachers lack sufficient talent and training in their subject
> >>>>> areas.  There are exceptions - but in most colleges education
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Which means they are no less educated than any other college
> major outside of engineering degrees or math-science degrees.

I'm not sure I'd include engineering here.  At least when DH was getting
his degrees, engineering students were exempt from some of the broader,
general requirements, since the engineering classes took up so much
time.  So they ended up with a deeper education *in engineering*, but
without the breadth that I would say it takes to describe someone as
well educated.

meh
Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Charles Soto - 17 Jan 2004 16:10 GMT
> Bullshit.  Catholic schools are not very good at science, but they
> make public school math teachers look like newborn babies.

Yes, and black people are good dancers and mexicans are lazy.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Bownse - 18 Jan 2004 23:13 GMT
>>Bullshit.  Catholic schools are not very good at science, but they
>>make public school math teachers look like newborn babies.
>
> Yes, and black people are good dancers and mexicans are lazy.
> Charles

and it used to be thought that an infinite numbers of monkeys using an
infinite number of keyboards could eventually reproduce all the works of
Shakespear.

The internet disproved this theory.
toto - 15 Jan 2004 05:15 GMT
>And when one of those people have an opportunity to teach, they are
>turned down.  When I was laid off a couple years ago, I looked into
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>3 hours of computer science, but who did take courses in 8th grade
>education.  Wow,  that makes sense.

Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
classes, but they have no use for someone who can only teach
that.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Rosalie B. - 15 Jan 2004 06:09 GMT
>>And when one of those people have an opportunity to teach, they are
>>turned down.  When I was laid off a couple years ago, I looked into
>>teaching.  You would think that someone who actually has 10 years

When my husband retired after 20 years in the military (with two
engineering degrees), he applied to teach math and physics and was
accepted and was very successful.  He did the required 'education'
courses while teaching on a provisional certificate which meant he
could skip student teaching as he would already have 2 years
experience.  This was not uncommon.

I did it the other way.  I had a degree in zoology, and took the
required courses in one year at the local 4 year state college
including a semester of student teaching, and got my certificate and
started teaching right away as a certified teacher.  We both got our
advanced certificates fairly quickly.

You can't just go in and expect them to accept you with open arms -
you have to pay your TEACHING dues first.

>>experience in software development, project management and other
>>managerial positions would have some value in teaching high school
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>classes, but they have no use for someone who can only teach
>that.

My kids took college classes while they were in hs.  One took
calculus, and one took programming (and she took programming in hs
too), and one took graphic art.

grandma Rosalie
Brent P - 15 Jan 2004 06:20 GMT
> Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
> computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
> classes, <SNIP>

Things have gone for the worse then. Back when I was in HS the
the computer classes were computer classes. BASIC and Pascal on
the apple 2E.(obsolete by then,but not by a whole lot) Pascal,
what horrid language, only loved by CS profs and the like. And
a bit of some other now dead programing language... logo or something
like that. Easy classes though.  
P. Tierney - 15 Jan 2004 07:34 GMT
> > Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
> > computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> a bit of some other now dead programing language... logo or something
> like that. Easy classes though.

   How have things "gone for the worse" when schools are
no longer teaching computer languages that you say are
dead and obsolete?

                                                               P. Tierney
Brent P - 15 Jan 2004 15:56 GMT
>> > Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
>> > computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> no longer teaching computer languages that you say are
> dead and obsolete?

Because they are no longer teaching programming at all as stated
by the person I was responding to. DUH. Today they should probably
be teaching C and VB. BASIC isn't obsolete as a learner language
either. Fortran, as old as it is, will still be useful for anyone
going into an engineering / research field and could serve as an
alternative for BASIC.
P. Tierney - 15 Jan 2004 18:39 GMT
> >> > Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
> >> > computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> going into an engineering / research field and could serve as an
> alternative for BASIC.

   Some schools do teach such things, but it isn't necessary for
everyone.  Even the best school can only offer so many things.
A good school district, however, should be able to offer a variety
of study areas, often via "magnets", within a district.

                                                                   P.
Tierney
Brent P - 15 Jan 2004 19:00 GMT
>> >> > Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
>> >> > computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> A good school district, however, should be able to offer a variety
> of study areas, often via "magnets", within a district.

Here you go again making it appear I made arguements I didn't make.
There was no arguement it was required for everyone. I didn't make
the arguement that it wasn't tought anymore either, I just responded
that if it isn't offered any longer then it's a loss, a step down.
P. Tierney - 15 Jan 2004 19:10 GMT
> >> >> > Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
> >> >> > computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Here you go again making it appear I made arguements I didn't make.
> There was no arguement it was required for everyone.

   I didn't claim that you made that argument.  I was adding to
my point.  Relax.

> I didn't make
> the arguement that it wasn't tought anymore either, I just responded
> that if it isn't offered any longer then it's a loss, a step down.

   And as I noted, it is offered.

   Is it offered at every school?  No.  Could it be?  Yes, the
those communities wanted to pay for it, along with the loads
of other things that could potentially be offered that would
be of value.  They cost money.  And like much in American
society, supply and demand is at work.  Those classes/programs
that are cut are ones that people don't sign up for.

                                                               P. Tierney
Ignasi Palou-Rivera - 15 Jan 2004 19:17 GMT
>>> > Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
>>> > computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> going into an engineering / research field and could serve as an
> alternative for BASIC.

If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
writing Excel macros is not real programming.

Signature

Ignasi.

toto - 15 Jan 2004 23:11 GMT
>If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
>writing Excel macros is not real programming.

Unless you are a computer science major or in a specific engineering
field that *needs* programming why would it?  My ds is a chemical
engineer and minored in computers, but his engineering degree did
not require programming.  My husband's years ago didn't require it
either.  I don't think he ever programmed until he began working for
IBM and he learned pretty quickly though this was not today's
languages, but COBOL and RPG II (ugh) and Assembler language
for the old IBM 360s.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 00:35 GMT
>>If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
>>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> not require programming.  My husband's years ago didn't require it
> either.

Where I went to college, ChemE's did more programming than even
the EE's.

> I don't think he ever programmed until he began working for
> IBM and he learned pretty quickly though this was not today's
> languages, but COBOL and RPG II (ugh) and Assembler language
> for the old IBM 360s.  

In other words he went to school before it was required for the
degree.
Ignasi Palou-Rivera - 16 Jan 2004 00:51 GMT
>>>If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
>>>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Where I went to college, ChemE's did more programming than even
> the EE's.

Tell me about it. I'm a ChemE and most of my professional work and
research has been programming in ChemE environments.

Engineering curricula, of any flavor, in the late 70s, 80s, and eraly
90s included quite a bit of programming. Most of the engineers
educated in that era learned quite a bit of FORTRAN!

Signature

Ignasi.

toto - 16 Jan 2004 06:20 GMT
>>>>If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
>>>>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>90s included quite a bit of programming. Most of the engineers
>educated in that era learned quite a bit of FORTRAN!

I learned FORTRAN back in the 60s.  But it wasn't required for the
degree in those days.   I will ask my son if he had to take any
programming courses..  He did take them because he had a
minor in CS, but as far as I know it wasn't required and he certainly
doesn't use it on the job.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 07:57 GMT
> programming courses..  He did take them because he had a
> minor in CS, but as far as I know it wasn't required and he certainly
> doesn't use it on the job.

I don't use anything beyond my senior year and graduate school
manufacturing and design course work. A friend of mine has no
use for his senior level design coursework on the job,  but he
uses the coursework in measurement systems, engineering
experiments and programming.
toto - 16 Jan 2004 06:18 GMT
>>>If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
>>>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Where I went to college, ChemE's did more programming than even
>the EE's.

It wasn't required for his masters at Northwestern either and he isn't
that long out of school.  Probably depends on the school.

>> I don't think he ever programmed until he began working for
>> IBM and he learned pretty quickly though this was not today's
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>In other words he went to school before it was required for the
>degree.

It's still not *necessary* to program, imo.  It may be necessary to
do certain things on a computer, but for most of us programming
is not where it's at.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 07:54 GMT
>>>>If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
>>>>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> It wasn't required for his masters at Northwestern either and he isn't
> that long out of school.  Probably depends on the school.

Programing is undergrad thing. It wasn't required of my masters either.
Well unless you count a homework assignment on CNC programing in one
course, but it was just a different language that what we learned as UGs.

>>> I don't think he ever programmed until he began working for
>>> IBM and he learned pretty quickly though this was not today's
>>> languages, but COBOL and RPG II (ugh) and Assembler language
>>> for the old IBM 360s.  

>>In other words he went to school before it was required for the
>>degree.

> It's still not *necessary* to program, imo.  It may be necessary to
> do certain things on a computer, but for most of us programming
> is not where it's at.

And calculus isn't *necessary* by the same arguement. I'm an engineer
and I haven't had to touch calculus in ages. Product design just doesn't
require it most of the time. Same with alot of things.

This doesn't mean that high schools shouldn't offer calculus, nor
is suitable for not offering programming. (even if it's on acient
apple 2E's still, it's the basics)
Charles Soto - 17 Jan 2004 16:08 GMT
> And calculus isn't *necessary* by the same arguement. I'm an engineer
> and I haven't had to touch calculus in ages. Product design just doesn't
> require it most of the time. Same with alot of things.

Um.  Last I checked, calculus was the basis for describing such nifty
things as surface area of non-simple geometric forms, acceleration,
min/max (efficiency), etc.  I wouldn't hire any engineer who didn't
fundamentally understand the calculus.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Brent P - 17 Jan 2004 18:27 GMT
>> And calculus isn't *necessary* by the same arguement. I'm an engineer
>> and I haven't had to touch calculus in ages. Product design just doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> min/max (efficiency), etc.  I wouldn't hire any engineer who didn't
> fundamentally understand the calculus.

The point was that stuff that is not used on the job is dismissed
as useless. The problem is that everybody is different. I'll guess
for every engineer that uses calculus on a regular basis there is one
that does programming.

As far as surface area,volume, and all that stuff, the cad software
generally does it;)
Banty - 17 Jan 2004 19:19 GMT
>>> And calculus isn't *necessary* by the same arguement. I'm an engineer
>>> and I haven't had to touch calculus in ages. Product design just doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>As far as surface area,volume, and all that stuff, the cad software
>generally does it;)

But there's a difference between doing it every day and knowing it in and out
and being currently conversant with it, and having had at one time enough
knowledge and conversance to be able to think in the right terms.

For example, if called upon to make a Fourier transform, I'd have to pull out
one of my trusty textbooks and do some head-scratching and rust-removal from my
mental mathematical gears.  But the *knowledge* of Fourier transforms have come
into play in my job many times.

Banty
Brent P - 17 Jan 2004 22:46 GMT
>>> Um.  Last I checked, calculus was the basis for describing such nifty
>>> things as surface area of non-simple geometric forms, acceleration,
>>> min/max (efficiency), etc.  I wouldn't hire any engineer who didn't
>>> fundamentally understand the calculus.

>>The point was that stuff that is not used on the job is dismissed
>>as useless. The problem is that everybody is different. I'll guess
>>for every engineer that uses calculus on a regular basis there is one
>>that does programming.

>>As far as surface area,volume, and all that stuff, the cad software
>>generally does it;)

> But there's a difference between doing it every day and knowing it in and out
> and being currently conversant with it, and having had at one time enough
> knowledge and conversance to be able to think in the right terms.

I haven't argued for anything more than the basics of programing, so
that arguement falls rather flat.

> For example, if called upon to make a Fourier transform, I'd have to pull out
> one of my trusty textbooks and do some head-scratching and rust-removal from my
> mental mathematical gears.  But the *knowledge* of Fourier transforms have come
> into play in my job many times.

And if you asked me to start coding fortran, I'd have to pull the book
from the shelf as well.
Charles Soto - 18 Jan 2004 03:45 GMT
> >In article <csoto-650728.10081217012004@news-server-fe-02.texas.rr.com>,
> >Charles
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Banty

Precisely.

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

toto - 18 Jan 2004 00:09 GMT
>> And calculus isn't *necessary* by the same arguement. I'm an engineer
>> and I haven't had to touch calculus in ages. Product design just doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Charles

I agree that understanding the basic concepts is important to an
engineer, but I do wonder how many actually ever calculate these
things themselves once they are working.  It seems to me that
knowing how and what to do would be important, but that they
would be calculated by computer programs already designed.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Charles Soto - 18 Jan 2004 03:34 GMT
> >> And calculus isn't *necessary* by the same arguement. I'm an engineer
> >> and I haven't had to touch calculus in ages. Product design just doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> knowing how and what to do would be important, but that they
> would be calculated by computer programs already designed.

One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
particular result will "look like," in the grand scheme of things.  "Is
this function approaching zero, or is it approaching infinity?"  Knowing
how changes in variables affect the resultant values of functions that
describe a physical reality can lead to insight about the physics of
said reality.  Never mind that 2+2=4...

Charles

Signature

Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores - 18 Jan 2004 03:36 GMT
>One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
>for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>describe a physical reality can lead to insight about the physics of
>said reality.  Never mind that 2+2=4...

Charles, I think you just imploded this housemommy's mind. Stop that.
toto - 18 Jan 2004 09:01 GMT
>>One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
>>for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Charles, I think you just imploded this housemommy's mind. Stop that.

I think you should get a clue.  My Masters degree from Loyola
University is in mathematics.  I choose to teach preschool now,
but that is not the only thing I have done in my life.  And while
it's been a long time since I used calculus I still understand the
concepts involved.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
0tterbot - 18 Jan 2004 14:52 GMT
> >>One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
> >>for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I think you should get a clue.

that implies he is capable of getting one.
kylie
toto - 19 Jan 2004 03:47 GMT
>> >>One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
>> >>for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>that implies he is capable of getting one.
>kylie

You know me, kylie.  I believe that everyone can if they aren't
blinded by their emotional mindset.  I am enjoying this thread
despite a few flames.

I miss the old days, though, when I was hanging out with
some of the best debaters around.  Not many of them are
left on usenet these days.  There were some who could
argue either side of a debate and make you think about the
issues in totally different ways.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
0tterbot - 20 Jan 2004 10:18 GMT
"toto"
> >> I think you should get a clue.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> You know me, kylie.  I believe that everyone can if they aren't
> blinded by their emotional mindset. (snip)

that last part is the clincher.
kylie
Bownse - 18 Jan 2004 23:45 GMT
>>>One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
>>>for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> concepts involved.
> Dorothy

You used to ho for Grand Master Funk?

Whooo YAW!
toto - 19 Jan 2004 09:47 GMT
>>>>One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
>>>>for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>You used to ho for Grand Master Funk?

No.  Did you have to trade sex for your degree?  I guess if you
did, it makes you think everyone was in your situation.  That's
too bad.

>Whooo YAW!

Answer points made.  Ad hominems are the first resort of
those who can't respond to the issues.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 14:30 GMT
>>>>>One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
>>>>>for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> The Outer Limits

What issues?  This is Reeky! Issues aren't allowed here!
toto - 20 Jan 2004 04:40 GMT
>What issues?  This is Reeky! Issues aren't allowed here!

I see, then why answer at all.  Let the thread die if you don't
want to discuss the issues.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Stephen! - 20 Jan 2004 06:22 GMT
> I see, then why answer at all.  Let the thread die if you don't
> want to discuss the issues.

What...  Let you have the last word?

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

toto - 22 Jan 2004 03:05 GMT
>> I see, then why answer at all.  Let the thread die if you don't
>> want to discuss the issues.
>
>What...  Let you have the last word?

I don't care if I have the last word or not frankly.  That's not why
*I* post.

And you could have the last word in your groups and I wouldn't
see it if you cut mk out of the mix.  As long as you answer
and keep mk in, I will answer or not as I wish.  That is the
way usenet works.  If I was a proper troll, I could even sub
to your group and continue there, but I am not and I won't
bother reading what you say when you clip the headers.

As I said, I am interested in the issues.  You will note that
I don't answer flame posts most of the time.  Once in a
while, I do just for the hell of it.  But mostly, flames are
ignored.

I am enjoying the perspective on the subject from regs in
the rec.motorcycle group when they are actually speaking
about the issues.  I state my pov, I don't expect that they
will necessarily agree with it.  If we were all the same, the
world would be mighty boring.

I don't think anyone from the auto group is answering,
though I leave in the xpost to that group because I don't
know that for sure.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
The Real Bev - 22 Jan 2004 03:37 GMT
> I don't think anyone from the auto group is answering,
> though I leave in the xpost to that group because I don't
> know that for sure.

I'm reading it in rec.autos.driving.  Thanks for the URL about the
tests.  I'm too sleepy to read it right now, but there's always
tomorrow.

Signature

Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala,
it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet."           -- Anon.

Stephen! - 23 Jan 2004 16:46 GMT
>>What...  Let you have the last word?
>
> I don't care if I have the last word or not frankly.  That's not why
> *I* post.

Sure it isn't...

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Bownse - 21 Jan 2004 03:00 GMT
>>What issues?  This is Reeky! Issues aren't allowed here!

> I see, then why answer at all.  Let the thread die if you don't
> want to discuss the issues.
> Dorothy

Dead threads aren't allowed either. Didn't you read the memo?  Perhaps a
copy of the DoD FAQ is needed? Want a copy?
Stephen! - 21 Jan 2004 22:32 GMT
Bownse <bownse@swbell.net> wrote in news:HXlPb.2347$tQ4.771350645
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> Dead threads aren't allowed either. Didn't you read the memo?  Perhaps a
> copy of the DoD FAQ is needed? Want a copy?

It's been a couple years since it's been updated...  Certainly there's
something more to be added by now?

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Stephen! - 20 Jan 2004 04:22 GMT
>>>said reality.  Never mind that 2+2=4...
>>
>>Charles, I think you just imploded this housemommy's mind. Stop that.
>
> I think you should get a clue.  My Masters degree from Loyola
> University is in mathematics.

In that case, let me simplify it for you.  1 + 1 = 2...

There...  That better?

Signature

IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

Bownse - 18 Jan 2004 23:30 GMT
> One need not arrive at the same 14 digits one's calculator may print out
> for a given solution, but one must be able to understand just what a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Charles

HS classes in "calculator buttons" is always funny.  I was in both a
trig and calc1 class where the instructors didn't allow calculators AT
ALL for the first x tests (and no programmable calculators ever).  Some
of the students who raised their hands as having already had the
material when in HS lost all the color in the faces when that was said.
It seems that they have learned how to use their calculators instead of
actually understanding the material.

How can you validate the results of your code, CADD app, etc. if you
don't understand the material well enough to initially certify the
application?
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 00:17 GMT
> It seems that they have learned how to use their calculators instead of
> actually understanding the material.

*laff* Back in school I thought I could just program a computer or
calculator to do the work. After I understood it well enough to have
a machine do the work, I usually didn't need the machine unless there
was alot or repetition. But I know what you are talking about, where the
the machine comes pre-programmed.

> How can you validate the results of your code, CADD app, etc. if you
> don't understand the material well enough to initially certify the
> application?

I usually just do a rough calculation in my head ;)
Matthew Russotto - 16 Jan 2004 15:36 GMT
>>>If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
>>>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Where I went to college, ChemE's did more programming than even
>the EE's.

Yep, ChemE, Microbiology, Physics, just about anything that requires
modeling or some novel form of data analysis will require some
programming.  You can't always hire a CS graduate student to do it for
you.

Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Bownse - 16 Jan 2004 23:58 GMT
>>>>If it was only in HS it would be OK, but a lot of undergrad college
>>>>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> programming.  You can't always hire a CS graduate student to do it for
> you.

Don't bet on it. I was going back to school after an extended leave and
was having a hard time with one project in Programming II (pre-req at
the new school that wasn't required at the previous one).  There were
leaflets posted all over campus offering tutor services, so I contacted
no less than 10.  NONE (not one) of them could even grasp the project
enough to help my over my rough spots.  I eventually worked it out for
myself.

Believe me when I tell you that there are a LOT people in the CS program
that are only there because some Counselor suggested it because there
were lots of jobs available in that field.  The dilution of the student
population that actually has "the nack" and are honing it with higher
educations is amazing.
Rosalie B. - 17 Jan 2004 00:49 GMT
>> Yep, ChemE, Microbiology, Physics, just about anything that requires
>> modeling or some novel form of data analysis will require some
>> programming.  You can't always hire a CS graduate student to do it for
>> you.

He said you CAN'T always hire a CS grad.

Isn't that the same as what you are saying?  (I read it the other way
first too)

>Don't bet on it. I was going back to school after an extended leave and
>was having a hard time with one project in Programming II (pre-req at
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>population that actually has "the nack" and are honing it with higher
>educations is amazing.

All my girls did math or science in college.  The oldest was a math
major with a masters from Hopkins and now is in computer security.
The second was an EE major.  

The third was originally a CS major, and she got into the program as
an out of state student (at Virginia Tech) because she did a college
class in computer programming while in HS (and she did HS computer
stuff too).

When she got to college, she found that the CS classes typically were
large and didn't give her the complete assignment until such time as
she'd have to pull an all nighter to make the program work.  She
didn't like that.  They tried to justify it by saying that was the way
it was in the real world.  She switched to a straight math major and
was much happier - there were many more math profs because everyone
was required to take math and she had smaller classes and more
individual attention.

The three girls are now (in order) in computer security, an airline
pilot and a self employed professional horse trainer and judge.

grandma Rosalie
Matthew Russotto - 19 Jan 2004 00:46 GMT
>> Yep, ChemE, Microbiology, Physics, just about anything that requires
>> modeling or some novel form of data analysis will require some
>> programming.  You can't always hire a CS graduate student to do it for
>> you.
>
>Don't bet on it.

I think you missed that word "can't".

>Believe me when I tell you that there are a LOT people in the CS program
>that are only there because some Counselor suggested it because there
>were lots of jobs available in that field.  The dilution of the student
>population that actually has "the nack" and are honing it with higher
>educations is amazing.

That's "knack".  Nobody expects the Spelling Inquisition, especially
not in CS...
Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 13:17 GMT
>>>Yep, ChemE, Microbiology, Physics, just about anything that requires
>>>modeling or some novel form of data analysis will require some
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I think you missed that word "can't".

True.

>>Believe me when I tell you that there are a LOT people in the CS program
>>that are only there because some Counselor suggested it because there
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> That's "knack".  Nobody expects the Spelling Inquisition, especially
> not in CS...

True.

Both points remain valid.
DTJ - 17 Jan 2004 03:43 GMT
>> Because they are no longer teaching programming at all as stated
>> by the person I was responding to. DUH. Today they should probably
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>engineering curricula barely touches any programming anymore. And
>writing Excel macros is not real programming.

SIGH.  This is either not true, or you are making a specious claim.
All colleges that offer a COMPUTER ENGINEERING degree have
significantly more than "bare" bones programming.  A degree in
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DOES NOT REQUIRE EXTENSIVE
KNOWLEDGE OF C++, FORTRAN, or BASIC.  If one desires, they can always
do a double major.  DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Brent P - 17 Jan 2004 04:39 GMT
>>> Because they are no longer teaching programming at all as stated
>>> by the person I was responding to. DUH. Today they should probably
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> KNOWLEDGE OF C++, FORTRAN, or BASIC.  If one desires, they can always
> do a double major.  DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Mechanical engineering does require at least a fortran course (but like
you say it wasn't extensive by any means), or so it did for many years.
Also, depending on what branch of ME you want to go in you'll have to code.
(I had programming assignments in fortran for at least 3 classes) Fluid
mechanics and heat transfer people do alot of coding, but that's more
graduate level stuff.

Where I went to college, the Mechanical and aerospace department had
computers that rivaled what the CS and EE geeks had. CFD (computational
fluid dynamics) required alot of processing power as did the CAD software
for the design people. For years the people who ran the academic
computing on campus were ME and AE people, not CS.

I miss the SGI Indigo^2 I used to be able to use...... was a nice box.
toto - 15 Jan 2004 23:07 GMT
>>> > Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
>>> > computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>going into an engineering / research field and could serve as an
>alternative for BASIC.

Schools are mandated to teach the basic academic subjects and
the other subjects will not be taught when money is tight.  Art and
music and computer programming are all considered *luxuries*
not *necessities* and so will go when budgets are cut.

I may not like it.  You may not like it, but the fact is that the only
thing the schools *must* do is teach the basic academic subjects.
Aside from that since kids are in school 6 hours a day for 180
days, time is limited.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 00:33 GMT
> Schools are mandated to teach the basic academic subjects and
> the other subjects will not be taught when money is tight.  Art and
> music and computer programming are all considered *luxuries*
> not *necessities* and so will go when budgets are cut.

The schools have more than enough billions of dollars. The problem
is most of it seems to be squandered. (see gov roddy's latest speech
(IL) for where I am basing that statement on amung other things)

> I may not like it.  You may not like it, but the fact is that the only
> thing the schools *must* do is teach the basic academic subjects.
> Aside from that since kids are in school 6 hours a day for 180
> days, time is limited.  

I took TWO semesters of programming in HS. 10 semesters of science
classes. 2 semesters of photography, one wasted semester of typing
so I could take programing. And probably some things I've forgotten
(oh yeah, 4 semesters of french) all on top of the 'basics' (8 semesters
each). Alot can be done when kids aren't throttled to slowest one in the
fleet.
toto - 16 Jan 2004 06:16 GMT
>> Schools are mandated to teach the basic academic subjects and
>> the other subjects will not be taught when money is tight.  Art and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>is most of it seems to be squandered. (see gov roddy's latest speech
>(IL) for where I am basing that statement on amung other things)

Sigh...  The schools that are good have much more money than
the schools that are not so good.

Compare $10,000 per student spent at ETHS and New Trier and
the other north suburban districts with $4000 per student spent at
Benito Juarez HS and Clemente HS in Chicago.   Compare also the
students at each school  

The students in the north suburbs come from homes where there
are books, computers, etc.  They come from homes where the
parents take the kids to concerts, plays, sports events, etc.  They
come from homes where the children have all kinds of advantages.  
Yet the district has money and so spends more on these students
than the inner city schools do.  

At my inner school, students often had no books at home other
than the school books we provided them with.  In my inner city
school, kids often couldn't go to the library because it was
dangerous to walk through the neighborhood after school hours.  
At that inner city school, kids often didn't have food at home -
they got free breakfasts and lunches at school and that might
be all they got to eat that day.  At that inner city school, there
were families living in homeless shelters with no place for the
students to do any homework that was assigned.  

The school was on 4 shifts.  It was built for 1500 students
but had 2200 students when I taught there.  Yet we were
expected to teach with less than half the resources when
the students need more resources not less if they have no
home experience that allows them to succeed.  Still we had
kids who did succeed.  The school was open in the evenings
for families.  Teachers stayed and tutored and we got some
colleges nearby to provide some help.  The miracle in that
school, imo, is that we managed to send kids to University
of Chicago on scholarship despite the lack of facilities.  We
didn't even get new textbooks when we needed them.  Yet
we managed.  Did the stats look bad.  You bet.  But we
did send kids on to good colleges, just not a very large
percentage.

And note that teachers put up with all kinds of things that
teachers in the suburbs would never put up with.  We
had to bring our own toilet paper by the end of the year
because the school ran out and the teacher's bathrooms
had none (the student bathrooms probably didn't either,
but the kids didn't have the money to bring their own so
they probably just didn't go to the bathroom at school)
We often paid for our own copying.  We often gave up
lunch and prep periods to tutor and mentor kids.  We
had shared office space - desks were shared by two
teachers (they have no office space now, btw.  I left
over 10 years ago).   The school was 17 years old when
I taught there.  It had a roof that leaked and a boiler that
often did not work so no heat in Chicago winters and
students with jackets and when it rained, the lunch room
had buckets to catch the leaks.  It had no theater for the
drama club.   It had no art rooms.  It had no band and
no football team.  We had a soccer team and a chess
team though.

ETHS has 3 theaters.  New Trier has a large foyer
with a fireplace where kids can sit and look at the
donated art as well as its art wing.  ETHS has an
orchestra, several small instrumental music groups,
several choruses, dance groups, etc.  All of these
contribute to allowing for different kids and different
interests.

>> I may not like it.  You may not like it, but the fact is that the only
>> thing the schools *must* do is teach the basic academic subjects.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>classes. 2 semesters of photography, one wasted semester of typing
>so I could take programing.

Just a comment, here.  Why wasted?  It seems to me that learning to
type is a good thing.  I still type at about 80 words a minute and
that came from my high school typing course.  I didn't enjoy it, but
sometimes you do need to learn something that's basic.

>And probably some things I've forgotten
>(oh yeah, 4 semesters of french) all on top of the 'basics' (8 semesters
>each). Alot can be done when kids aren't throttled to slowest one in the
>fleet.

A lot more can be done *if* you have the money to offer such classes.
See the difference?

My kids both took college courses in high school.  I had a daughter
who did theater and now is a scenic artist.  Her mentor was her
high school drama teacher.  My son is a chemical engineer.  He
graduated with a year of college chemistry, college physics, college
biology and two years of calculus.  Could we have offered those
in the inner city school - nope.  Not enough money.  We did offer
AP calculus, but only a few kids passed the AP test.  Almost all
of the kids at my son's school who took it passed the test and got
college credit for it.  

What you don't get is that it takes money to actually offer the
options.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 07:47 GMT
>>> Schools are mandated to teach the basic academic subjects and
>>> the other subjects will not be taught when money is tight.  Art and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>is most of it seems to be squandered. (see gov roddy's latest speech
>>(IL) for where I am basing that statement on amung other things)

> Sigh...  The schools that are good have much more money than
> the schools that are not so good.

So now you'll argue unfair distribution..... Doesn't change the
fact that there is alot of money spent, and alot of it is squandered.

> Compare $10,000 per student spent at ETHS and New Trier and
> the other north suburban districts with $4000 per student spent at
> Benito Juarez HS and Clemente HS in Chicago.   Compare also the
> students at each school  

> The students in the north suburbs come from homes where there
> are books, computers, etc.  They come from homes where the
> parents take the kids to concerts, plays, sports events, etc.  They
> come from homes where the children have all kinds of advantages.  
> Yet the district has money and so spends more on these students
> than the inner city schools do.  

And the good kids at the inner city schools are probably better more
realistic kids than these spoiled brats up north. I've had the privledge
of encountering these kids out in public on the roads and in parking
lots. And what was that in northbrook? Remember that little tape?

If I had to pick who I wanted to teach or hang out with from the better
students in each environment, I'd pick the pilsen kids. The worst kids
from each would be like asking which hell was preferable.

> At my inner school, students often had no books at home other
> than the school books we provided them with.  In my inner city
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> were families living in homeless shelters with no place for the
> students to do any homework that was assigned.  

All this and what was CPS's budget this past year? How many billions?
Where did it go? CPS is notiorious for waste.

> And note that teachers put up with all kinds of things that
> teachers in the suburbs would never put up with.  We
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> but the kids didn't have the money to bring their own so
> they probably just didn't go to the bathroom at school)

At IIT, people came in off the street and STOLE the toilet
paper. And that's a university.

> We often paid for our own copying.  We often gave up
> lunch and prep periods to tutor and mentor kids.  We
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> no football team.  We had a soccer team and a chess
> team though.

And that argues against money be squandered how? If the money
wasn't squandered, maybe it would be there to fix the roof.
Maybe if it wasn't in chicago and controlled by the city/CPS
the roof repair costs would have been significantly less.
If the money wasn't squandered, maybe the school would have
been built better in the first place instead of the construction
handed off to well connected builders who probably used subpar
materials. (chicago standard assumed) You're supporting my case.
a 17 year old building falling apart like that? What half assed
job was done putting it together in the first place? Even neglected
it should have held up better than that. Maybe if the cost per
square foot wasn't so high the missing rooms could have been
built.

> ETHS has 3 theaters.  New Trier has a large foyer
> with a fireplace where kids can sit and look at the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> contribute to allowing for different kids and different
> interests.

My HS had one smallish theater. I think there was a dingy room
somewhere for the band. I think the jr high had a better band room.
The rest of it is simply beyond my HS experience. I think one of the
teachers did some sort of chorus thing.

>>> I may not like it.  You may not like it, but the fact is that the only
>>> thing the schools *must* do is teach the basic academic subjects.
>>> Aside from that since kids are in school 6 hours a day for 180
>>> days, time is limited.  

>>I took TWO semesters of programming in HS. 10 semesters of science
>>classes. 2 semesters of photography, one wasted semester of typing
>>so I could take programing.

> Just a comment, here.  Why wasted?  It seems to me that learning to
> type is a good thing.  I still type at about 80 words a minute and
> that came from my high school typing course.  I didn't enjoy it, but
> sometimes you do need to learn something that's basic.

A waste of my time entirely in mindless, repetitive excerises that
force comformity to a method of typing that I found unsuitable for
me. And totally unsuitable and useless for programing. The requirement
was dropped before I graduated.

>>And probably some things I've forgotten
>>(oh yeah, 4 semesters of french) all on top of the 'basics' (8 semesters
>>each). Alot can be done when kids aren't throttled to slowest one in the
>>fleet.

> A lot more can be done *if* you have the money to offer such classes.
> See the difference?

They would have had to park us in a room with a teacher anyway.
Our textbooks weren't by any means new. But it's not like newton's
laws have changed in the years since the books were purchased.
I suppose chalk was an expense. Maybe the then 20+ year old equipment
used for the science experiments? It did the job. I'll bet they are
still using the same stuff. probably got new books by now though.
The school building was built in 1964-5 I think. It's still in use.
Although I do have to say, (new?)AC was put in while I was there. That
was nice, considering the tiny windows and many interior class rooms.

So where is the cost exactly?

> My kids both took college courses in high school.

I took 2 AP courses and two courses that didn't make the AP requirement
to be called AP (I suppose it was that money thing). I had no such
option for real college classes.

> I had a daughter
> who did theater and now is a scenic artist.  Her mentor was her
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> of the kids at my son's school who took it passed the test and got
> college credit for it.  

So I am supposed to feel sorry for them because they had the exact
same limitation I did?

BTW, are you familiar with thorton HS? That's harvey BTW, not that
I expect people from the north burbs to understand where harvey is...
I don't know if they still do, but this poor district at one time gave
kids the option to take college course at the community college there.

> What you don't get is that it takes money to actually offer the
> options.  

Obviously CPS paid you well enough to live in an area such as that.

Please explain how it costs more money to teach a difficult subject
than a not so difficult subject? Because that I don't understand at
all. Especially where teacher's salaries are controlled by union
contract. And obviously someone working there did know math up
through calculus so that can't be the reason.

In the future, don't talk to me like I'm some northsuburban raised
privledged person that doesn't know squat about the rest of the area,
I'm not. And in fact, find it insulting.
toto - 16 Jan 2004 08:13 GMT
>You're supporting my case.
>a 17 year old building falling apart like that? What half assed
>job was done putting it together in the first place? Even neglected
>it should have held up better than that. Maybe if the cost per
>square foot wasn't so high the missing rooms could have been
>built.

Most of the older schools are falling apart and the cost of
tearing them down and replacing them is very high.  

The building of this particular school was a political
contract with politically connected contractors getting
the job - because the community wanted a particular
plan and hired people who didn't know anything about
Chicago weather to build it.   The politicians did not
care if the school was built to last because the UIC was
supposed to actually take over the area and oust all the
residents (Urban renewal) so no school would be
necessary in that area.  Big politics.  Even so, with the
infrastructure falling apart, the Chicago schools need
the money to fix them and don't have it.  The elementary
schools in the area have *mobile classrooms* to
accomodate the overflow of students.  The population
of that area and the schools there are growing and new
buildings cost too much.

Note, btw, that houses build new are not always better
constructed than older ones and that's in the private
sector.

As for building extra rooms - unless you build a skyscaper,
in that area, you can't get extra rooms.  And you really
don't want a school built *up*  Clemente was built on that
plan - 8 stories - with escalators in the middle.  It's a
nightmare in terms of passing periods.  And the escalators
are *easily* vandalized or just stopped from running by
the kids who don't want to get to classes and want to cause
trouble.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 16 Jan 2004 17:05 GMT

>>You're supporting my case.
>>a 17 year old building falling apart like that? What half assed
>>job was done putting it together in the first place? Even neglected
>>it should have held up better than that. Maybe if the cost per
>>square foot wasn't so high the missing rooms could have been
>>built.

> Most of the older schools are falling apart

Of course even a well built building can't take more than 25-30 years
of neglect.

> and the cost of
> tearing them down and replacing them is very high.  

Especially given the way things are done in chicago.

> The building of this particular school was a political
> contract with politically connected contractors getting
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> residents (Urban renewal) so no school would be
> necessary in that area.  Big politics.

That's the beauty of chicago, didn't even need to know the
specifics to know something like that was going on :)

>  Even so, with the
> infrastructure falling apart, the Chicago schools need
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> of that area and the schools there are growing and new
> buildings cost too much.

Doesn't mean that people aren't already paying enough taxes to do get
the job done. It's just that the *way* the job has to be done means
costs alot more than it needs to.

> Note, btw, that houses build new are not always better
> constructed than older ones and that's in the private
> sector.

I've argued that point many times. I prefer well kept and restored
older (prior to 1960) buildings myself.

> As for building extra rooms - unless you build a skyscaper,
> in that area, you can't get extra rooms.  And you really
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the kids who don't want to get to classes and want to cause
> trouble.

The city of chicago has no trouble taking people's property and
giving it to developers. Space for a school would at least be something
more in line with what the framers of the constitution had in mind.
toto - 17 Jan 2004 03:16 GMT
>The city of chicago has no trouble taking people's property and
>giving it to developers. Space for a school would at least be something
>more in line with what the framers of the constitution had in mind.

In this case they would be taking Coca Colas property and that
plant provides jobs and tax revenues they would not want to
do away with.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 17 Jan 2004 04:20 GMT
>>The city of chicago has no trouble taking people's property and
>>giving it to developers. Space for a school would at least be something
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> plant provides jobs and tax revenues they would not want to
> do away with.

Well that explains part of it. Of course they could have just located the
school somewhere else where they could take the land.

Oh, btw you might be interested in the 5million dollars of money CPS
could have used squandered on computers that sat in a wearhouse.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0401160190jan16,1,6846543.story?col
l=chi-techtopheds-hed

Generic registration:
username: ctribsux
Passwd:   kma002

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-state16.htm
toto - 18 Jan 2004 00:04 GMT
>>>The city of chicago has no trouble taking people's property and
>>>giving it to developers. Space for a school would at least be something
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-state16.htm

I've seen the story.  I'm not surprised.  That doesn't mean the money
they do get is adequate to educate the kids though.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 18 Jan 2004 09:16 GMT
> I've seen the story.  I'm not surprised.  That doesn't mean the money
> they do get is adequate to educate the kids though.  

Funny, my arguement was that alot of money gets thrown at the problems
only to be squandered. But what is always asked for? More money. More
money that will be fed into the same system and vanish down the hole
with a little leaking out to provide something useful to the students.
P. Tierney - 18 Jan 2004 09:27 GMT
> > I've seen the story.  I'm not surprised.  That doesn't mean the money
> > they do get is adequate to educate the kids though.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> money that will be fed into the same system and vanish down the hole
> with a little leaking out to provide something useful to the students.

   I'm still waiting for a link (from DTK, or anyone) which shows
that high-performing schools often are the ones with low expenditures,
as was claimed by someone in this thread.  It is claimed that the money
doesn't matter, but can it be shown?

   Locally, private schools spend a *lot* of money of facilities
and other things, and have large donation chests from past
graduates.  They spend much more on such things, thus
resulting in much nicer schools.  Their tuition alone outpaces
per-pupil spending in public schools, and this is before
things like alumni donations are considered.

   Now, if they don't need all of that money, then why
don't they cut tuition in half and live like the public
schools do?  They don't, and with good reason.

                                                       P. Tierney
Brent P - 18 Jan 2004 19:52 GMT
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> > I've seen the story.  I'm not surprised.  That doesn't mean the money
>> > they do get is adequate to educate the kids though.

>> Funny, my arguement was that alot of money gets thrown at the problems
>> only to be squandered. But what is always asked for? More money. More
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> as was claimed by someone in this thread.  It is claimed that the money
> doesn't matter, but can it be shown?

And here we go again with the change-the-arguement tatic. I don't feel
a need to produce a cite, link, or anything else for an arguement I
am not making. I have produced two recent (this week's news) cites
regarding the point I made, that there are large amounts of money
being squandered.

Sure, if a school A has $1,000,000 and $400,000 of it is squandered,
it's going to be alot better off than a school that has $600,000 with
$400,000 squandered. Or even one with $600,000 and $240,000 squandered.
P. Tierney - 18 Jan 2004 20:08 GMT
> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> a need to produce a cite, link, or anything else for an arguement I
> am not making.

   Hey genius, it's called *advancing the discussion*.  In no
place, except in your paranoid mind, did I say that you
stated the above.

   However, the points that you and others have made *relates*
to that issue that I asked to be justified.  And no one has stepped
up to the plate to do so.

> I have produced two recent (this week's news) cites
> regarding the point I made, that there are large amounts of money
> being squandered.

  Sure.  Anecdotes.  But if I produced two cites of private
businesses that squandered the same amount of money,
then what does it say about private businesses in general?
Nothing.

                                                   P. Tierney
Brent P - 18 Jan 2004 21:19 GMT
>> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> > as was claimed by someone in this thread.  It is claimed that the money
>> > doesn't matter, but can it be shown?

>> And here we go again with the change-the-arguement tatic. I don't feel
>> a need to produce a cite, link, or anything else for an arguement I
>> am not making.

>     Hey genius, it's called *advancing the discussion*.  

Otherwise known as redirection.

> In no
> place, except in your paranoid mind, did I say that you
> stated the above.

Let's see, you replied to my post, and said you are still waiting
for a link.... hmm... and it's a paranoid leap that this reply
is directed at me? If you had at least cut out the quoted material
and the you-people-have-failed-to-provide language this advancing
the discussion arguement would hold water. Instead what appears
to be is a debate move.

>     However, the points that you and others have made *relates*
> to that issue that I asked to be justified.  And no one has stepped
> up to the plate to do so.

Who's argued that point?

>> I have produced two recent (this week's news) cites
>> regarding the point I made, that there are large amounts of money
>> being squandered.

>    Sure.  Anecdotes.  But if I produced two cites of private
> businesses that squandered the same amount of money,
> then what does it say about private businesses in general?
> Nothing.

Another poor debate tatic surfaces. Wasteful businesses don't make
wasteful schools correct. Go ahead and discuss businesses
that are squandering money all you want for I haven't made any arguement
to contrary. You'll find that I am against taxes being raised in order
to support wasteful habbits of buisness just as I am against for wasteful
habbits of government, schools, park districts, or anything else tax
dollars are sent to.
P. Tierney - 18 Jan 2004 21:56 GMT
> >> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Otherwise known as redirection.

   As opposed to.... repeating the same things again and again?
If one doesn't have the mental ability to delve deeper into a
subject, then I guess that's all that one can do.

> > In no
> > place, except in your paranoid mind, did I say that you
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for a link.... hmm... and it's a paranoid leap that this reply
> is directed at me?

   Note the "from DTK, or anyone" parathetical insert.
Paranoid, at best.  Probably not even that.

> If you had at least cut out the quoted material
> and the you-people-have-failed-to-provide language this advancing
> the discussion arguement would hold water. Instead what appears
> to be is a debate move.

   Why are you so concerned about "winning"?  All you talk
about are "moves" and "tactics".  You never stick with the issue.
Because you can't?

> >     However, the points that you and others have made *relates*
> > to that issue that I asked to be justified.  And no one has stepped
> > up to the plate to do so.
>
> Who's argued that point?

   Read the thread.

> >> I have produced two recent (this week's news) cites
> >> regarding the point I made, that there are large amounts of money
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Another poor debate tatic surfaces. Wasteful businesses don't make
> wasteful schools correct.

   You *cannot* be this stupid.  Okay, let's try again.  Read
*slowly* so that you don't pull a muscle or something....

   You above paragraph is using an "analogy" and drawing a
"parallel"  (see dictionary.com for help on those words).
Be it schools or businesses, the point is that you (or no
one else) would not assume anything general about business
spending based upon two examples.  That would make no
sense.  Therefore, it also would not make sense to do the
same things with regards to schools also based upon two
examples.

   Now, read the above seven or eight times, and maybe
it'll finally sink in.  Amazing.

                                                           P. Tierney
Brent P - 18 Jan 2004 23:59 GMT
>> If you had at least cut out the quoted material
>> and the you-people-have-failed-to-provide language this advancing
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> about are "moves" and "tactics".  You never stick with the issue.
> Because you can't?

I am sticking with the issue. I just refuse to fall for age old usenet
debate tatics.

>> Another poor debate tatic surfaces. Wasteful businesses don't make
>> wasteful schools correct.

>     You *cannot* be this stupid.  Okay, let's try again.  Read
> *slowly* so that you don't pull a muscle or something....

Insult because I see through the tatic.

>     You above paragraph is using an "analogy" and drawing a
> "parallel"  (see dictionary.com for help on those words).
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> same things with regards to schools also based upon two
> examples.

Exactly what I figured it to be. The hypocrite angle because in
the other parallel there's no objection. A tired old tatic of
debate. Problem is that your assumption of not objecting to companies
but only schools fails.

Well here's a clue for you, when it's tax dollars or a monopoly (think
utility company) I object to waste in buisness as well. If it's the
businesses own funds being squandered, I have no right to force them to
do differently just as they have no right to force me not to buy a
competitor's product.

>     Now, read the above seven or eight times, and maybe
> it'll finally sink in.  Amazing.

Can you be a bigger a.shole?
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 03:22 GMT
> >> If you had at least cut out the quoted material
> >> and the you-people-have-failed-to-provide language this advancing
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I am sticking with the issue.

   I agree.  But my issue is schools and solving problems.
Your issue is blaming debate games instead of discussing
and garnering sympathy for your poor-me tales of being
bullied.  That's all that you've stuck with, which is just
as well, since that's all that you seem to know about.

> >> Another poor debate tatic surfaces. Wasteful businesses don't make
> >> wasteful schools correct.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Insult because I see through the tatic.

   I insult because your lack of thinking has been an insult
to the important issues that are being discussed.  You have
not accepted one thing that is contrary to your 20 year old
experience.  Everything is now the way you remember it
then, and if someone says otherwise, they are using a "tactic".
Total lying bullshit.

> >     You above paragraph is using an "analogy" and drawing a
> > "parallel"  (see dictionary.com for help on those words).
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> debate. Problem is that your assumption of not objecting to companies
> but only schools fails.

   It is about *sample size*.  Got it?

> Well here's a clue for you, when it's tax dollars or a monopoly (think
> utility company) I object to waste in buisness as well.

   No, I guess you don't.  It isn't about whether it's right
or wrong for anyone to squander.  It's about *sample size*,
meaning:  do a few examples say anything about the larger
subject?

> >     Now, read the above seven or eight times, and maybe
> > it'll finally sink in.  Amazing.
>
> Can you be a bigger a.shole?

   Your lying was bad enough, but your willing ignorance
is really over the top.  It's not at all hard to understand
why you grew up as you did.

                                                               P. Tierney
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 05:36 GMT
>> I am sticking with the issue.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> bullied.  That's all that you've stuck with, which is just
> as well, since that's all that you seem to know about.

*yawn* Still making stuff up. It's pathetic.

>> >> Another poor debate tatic surfaces. Wasteful businesses don't make
>> >> wasteful schools correct.

>> >     You *cannot* be this stupid.  Okay, let's try again.  Read
>> > *slowly* so that you don't pull a muscle or something....

>> Insult because I see through the tatic.

>     I insult because your lack of thinking has been an insult
> to the important issues that are being discussed.  You have
> not accepted one thing that is contrary to your 20 year old
> experience.  Everything is now the way you remember it
> then, and if someone says otherwise, they are using a "tactic".
> Total lying bullshit.

Another boring strawman falls to the ground.

>> >     You above paragraph is using an "analogy" and drawing a
>> > "parallel"  (see dictionary.com for help on those words).
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> > same things with regards to schools also based upon two
>> > examples.

>> Exactly what I figured it to be. The hypocrite angle because in
>> the other parallel there's no objection. A tired old tatic of
>> debate. Problem is that your assumption of not objecting to companies
>> but only schools fails.

>     It is about *sample size*.  Got it?

Now it's sample size. You act if those two are the only two in
the universe. In chicago, CPS waste is such a common story I am
amazed it's still considered news.

>> Well here's a clue for you, when it's tax dollars or a monopoly (think
>> utility company) I object to waste in buisness as well.

>     No, I guess you don't.  It isn't about whether it's right
> or wrong for anyone to squander.  It's about *sample size*,
> meaning:  do a few examples say anything about the larger
> subject?

Your last post it was the "parallel". You're dance is funny.

P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 07:35 GMT
> >> Exactly what I figured it to be. The hypocrite angle because in
> >> the other parallel there's no objection. A tired old tatic of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Now it's sample size. You act if those two are the only two in
> the universe.

   Only in your limited, narrow mind did I imply such a thing.

> >     No, I guess you don't.  It isn't about whether it's right
> > or wrong for anyone to squander.  It's about *sample size*,
> > meaning:  do a few examples say anything about the larger
> > subject?
>
> Your last post it was the "parallel". You're dance is funny.

   Your lack of intellect isn't.

                                                       P. Tierney
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 15:47 GMT
>     Your lack of intellect isn't.

*yawn*
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 17:57 GMT
> >     Your lack of intellect isn't.
>
> *yawn*

   Y'know, it's not real hard to see why you got beaten up so often.
But no, it's all everyone else's fault.

                                                                   P.
Tierney
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 18:36 GMT
>> >     Your lack of intellect isn't.
>>
>> *yawn*
>
>     Y'know, it's not real hard to see why you got beaten up so often.
> But no, it's all everyone else's fault.

*laff*  You're gonna have to do alot better than that to achieve your
goal.
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 14:04 GMT
>     I insult because your lack of thinking has been an insult
> to the important issues that are being discussed.

Clue: There are NO important discussing being debated in usenet.
Bownse - 18 Jan 2004 23:58 GMT
>    Sure.  Anecdotes.  But if I produced two cites of private
> businesses that squandered the same amount of money,
> then what does it say about private businesses in general?
> Nothing.
>
>                                                     P. Tierney
It says much more than "nothing". It says that private businesses actual
earn their money through their business functions. They can squander it
however they see fit. If they do so well enough they eventually will no
longer exist.  Public schools think they can do so indefinitely without
any repercussions as they can just dip deeper into the taxation
resources; they will exist forever because they don't have the finite
constraints that a private business does.

Oh, outside of taxpayer revolts or several generations of non
(under)-productive serfs to replenish the coffers.
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 03:13 GMT
> >    Sure.  Anecdotes.  But if I produced two cites of private
> > businesses that squandered the same amount of money,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> however they see fit. If they do so well enough they eventually will no
> longer exist.

   The analogy related to how the organizations *function*, not
to the eventual outcome.  And the point was, do a couple of
examples make a trend?

> Public schools think they can do so indefinitely without
> any repercussions as they can just dip deeper into the taxation
> resources;

   That isn't correct.  And everyone knows, school staffs included,
that no publically funded institution has access to unlimited
resources.

                                                               P. Tierney
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 14:03 GMT
>>>   Sure.  Anecdotes.  But if I produced two cites of private
>>>businesses that squandered the same amount of money,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> to the eventual outcome.  And the point was, do a couple of
> examples make a trend?

No it talked about how a business could spend at will and a public
institute couldn't. The difference was that the private company can
spend itself to death and the public on simply goes back to the pork
barrel and roots around for more.

>>Public schools think they can do so indefinitely without
>>any repercussions as they can just dip deeper into the taxation
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>                                                                 P. Tierney

Explain that to the various school systems that keep hiking their tax %
every year while spending the money on band busses instead of books and
supplies.
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 18:09 GMT
> >>>   Sure.  Anecdotes.  But if I produced two cites of private
> >>>businesses that squandered the same amount of money,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> spend itself to death and the public on simply goes back to the pork
> barrel and roots around for more.

   In most places, there isn't anyplace where one will find more.

> >>Public schools think they can do so indefinitely without
> >>any repercussions as they can just dip deeper into the taxation
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Explain that to the various school systems that keep hiking their tax %

   How many "various" places are there?  And how do we know that
any additional money spent is somehow wasted instead of being spent
on things needed?  Books become in need of replacing.  Costs of
various things, such as heat, rise.  Buildings become in need of
repair.  One can't say, without in-depth analysis, that fund
increases may not be needed.  It varies from place to place, of
course, as every place has a different operating budget, and
different needs.

> every year while spending the money on band busses instead of books and
> supplies.

   A bus is a supply, though an expensive one.  And while you
and all would rank books and teaching supplies, probably along
with staff and building keep-up at the top of the funding list,
past that, interpretation comes into play.  Have ten people
put together a list of their top ten funding items past that
four for any given school, and you'll likely get widely varying
priorities.  Determining what is "best" for any given school
isn't at all simple.

                                                       P. Tierney
Bownse - 19 Jan 2004 19:28 GMT
>>>>>  Sure.  Anecdotes.  But if I produced two cites of private
>>>>>businesses that squandered the same amount of money,
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>In most places, there isn't anyplace where one will find more.

Wrong - tax increases disprove this myth.

>>>>Public schools think they can do so indefinitely without
>>>>any repercussions as they can just dip deeper into the taxation
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>>Explain that to the various school systems that keep hiking their tax %

>     How many "various" places are there?  And how do we know that
> any additional money spent is somehow wasted instead of being spent
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> course, as every place has a different operating budget, and
> different needs.

Various as each school district or "unit" that receives funding through
taxation and, by extension, tax hikes.  We know it's wasted because
books go unreplaced (or left to the student to purchase). Building
repairs should be a line item in each 5 year budget and not a surprise
that requires tax hikes. Utilities are also budgetable items and not
unexpected. Heat isn't much of a problem in some states. <g> Population
growth is nothing to be surprised by either. None of this stuff is
rocket science as any average sized business deals with operational
expenses as part of doing business.  Cut the superflous BS when tax
hikes are refused.  Sports/Band/Road trip to Cancun (I kid you not), and
such can just "go away". (see below for how people who "have to have"
something can have it without burdening the overall tax base with their
wish list of pork.

>>every year while spending the money on band busses instead of books and
>>supplies.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> isn't at all simple.
>                                                         P. Tierney

Band (and its associated busses), as well as sports (and their
associated costs) are optional wrt education.

Basic literacy is not being accomplished. Deal with that before allowing
extra curricular activities back into the school system.  Set all such
things out there as self-funded community activities; funded by the
participants and ticket sales.

Clear now?
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 21:44 GMT
> >>>    The analogy related to how the organizations *function*, not
> >>>to the eventual outcome.  And the point was, do a couple of
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Wrong - tax increases disprove this myth.

   How is it a "myth" if tax increases have been defeated
in referendums again and again?  If your district has
successfully passed one recently, then yours is the exception.

> >>>    That isn't correct.  And everyone knows, school staffs included,
> >>>that no publically funded institution has access to unlimited
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> taxation and, by extension, tax hikes.  We know it's wasted because
> books go unreplaced (or left to the student to purchase).

   This still doesn't specify what any additional monies were
spent on.  Without delving into detail, one can only make assumptions,
which are all but meaningless.

> Building
> repairs should be a line item in each 5 year budget and not a surprise
> that requires tax hikes.

   But if frequent repairs, school additions, or new school
construction are seen as being needed five years down the
road, then that might require a hike.

> Utilities are also budgetable items and not
> unexpected. Heat isn't much of a problem in some states. <g>

   Increases in utility costs can not always be expected,
and may strain other items already budgeted.

> Population growth is nothing to be surprised by either.

   Something doesn't have to be a "surprise" to possibly
require budget increases.  The long-term planning that takes
population growth into account may do just that.

> None of this stuff is
> rocket science as any average sized business deals with operational
> expenses as part of doing business.

   Not one bit.  If educational goals are not being accomplished
by the current revenue stream minus current costs, then an
increase in revenue is one option.  In business, same thing.

> >>every year while spending the money on band busses instead of books and
> >>supplies.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Band (and its associated busses), as well as sports (and their
> associated costs) are optional wrt education.

   That's your opinion and that's fine.  And if everyone in
your community agrees with you, then everything should
be wonderful there.  If they do not, then it's up to you to
convince them otherwise, or to just sit around and be
frustrated.  Whatever.

> Basic literacy is not being accomplished. Deal with that before allowing
> extra curricular activities back into the school system.

   Basic literacy is being accomplished where I live.
If it's a problem in your district, then deal with it
on the distrcit level.  Others who have that problem
need to do the same.  The problems of your district
are not the problems of my district.

   Clear now?

                                                                   P.
Tierney
Bownse - 20 Jan 2004 01:42 GMT
>>Wrong - tax increases disprove this myth.

>     How is it a "myth" if tax increases have been defeated
> in referendums again and again?  If your district has
> successfully passed one recently, then yours is the exception.

Passing is a rubber stamp, annual event. :-(
toto - 20 Jan 2004 05:40 GMT
>>>Wrong - tax increases disprove this myth.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Passing is a rubber stamp, annual event. :-(

Sheesh, not in any district I am familiar with.  The referendums
are not passed very often here at all.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
P. Tierney - 20 Jan 2004 06:24 GMT
> >>Wrong - tax increases disprove this myth.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Passing is a rubber stamp, annual event. :-(

   And which district would that be?

                                                               P. Tierney
P. Tierney - 20 Jan 2004 06:30 GMT
> >>Wrong - tax increases disprove this myth.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Passing is a rubber stamp, annual event. :-(

   BTW, I'm sorry that you chose not to respond to the
rest of my points.  Perhaps you misses them.  They are
clipped below:

> >>>    That isn't correct.  And everyone knows, school staffs included,
> >>>that no publically funded institution has access to unlimited
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> taxation and, by extension, tax hikes.  We know it's wasted because
> books go unreplaced (or left to the student to purchase).

   This still doesn't specify what any additional monies were
spent on.  Without delving into detail, one can only make assumptions,
which are all but meaningless.

> Building
> repairs should be a line item in each 5 year budget and not a surprise
> that requires tax hikes.

   But if frequent repairs, school additions, or new school
construction are seen as being needed five years down the
road, then that might require a hike.

> Utilities are also budgetable items and not
> unexpected. Heat isn't much of a problem in some states. <g>

   Increases in utility costs can not always be expected,
and may strain other items already budgeted.

> Population growth is nothing to be surprised by either.

   Something doesn't have to be a "surprise" to possibly
require budget increases.  The long-term planning that takes
population growth into account may do just that.

> None of this stuff is
> rocket science as any average sized business deals with operational
> expenses as part of doing business.

   Not one bit.  If educational goals are not being accomplished
by the current revenue stream minus current costs, then an
increase in revenue is one option.  In business, same thing.

> >>every year while spending the money on band busses instead of books and
> >>supplies.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Band (and its associated busses), as well as sports (and their
> associated costs) are optional wrt education.

   That's your opinion and that's fine.  And if everyone in
your community agrees with you, then everything should
be wonderful there.  If they do not, then it's up to you to
convince them otherwise, or to just sit around and be
frustrated.  Whatever.

> Basic literacy is not being accomplished. Deal with that before allowing
> extra curricular activities back into the school system.

   Basic literacy is being accomplished where I live.
If it's a problem in your district, then deal with it
on the distrcit level.  Others who have that problem
need to do the same.  The problems of your district
are not the problems of my district.

   Clear now?

                                                                   P.
Tierney
toto - 20 Jan 2004 04:26 GMT
>Explain that to the various school systems that keep hiking their tax %
>every year while spending the money on band busses instead of books and
>supplies.

More likely sports uniforms than band busses.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
toto - 20 Jan 2004 04:32 GMT
>No it talked about how a business could spend at will and a public
>institute couldn't. The difference was that the private company can
>spend itself to death and the public on simply goes back to the pork
>barrel and roots around for more.

Speaking of that.  Businesses will raise capital and keep their plants
in repair.  If they don't, they will soon have a problem in terms of
producing their product.

Here's what the schools in the inner cities and rural areas look like,
however when it comes to aging infrastructure and disrepair.
How are schools supposed to raise the capital to repair and
replace their infrastructure given the state of it?  Note also that
schools have a problem doing the repairs because they can't
find new land to build on in many places and they can't just
close the school and tear it down to replace it without making
arrangements to accomodate the students in another school
or rented space.

This is a pdf file.   It's the United States General Accounting Office
report to Congress on the condition of the schools in 1995.  The
money was not appropriated and so conditions have deteriorated
in the 8 years since this report was giving to Congress.

http://www.carpet-health.org/pdf/GAO_Report02.pdf

February 1, 1995

The nation has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in
school infrastructure to create an environment where
children can be properly educated and prepared for the
future. Almost exclusively a state and local responsibility,
this infrastructure requires maintenance and capital
investment. However, public concern is growing that
while laws require children to attend school, some
school buildings may be unsafe or even harmful to
children’s health.

Recently, for example, a federal judge would not allow the
schools in our nation’s capital to open on time until thousands
of life-threatening fire code violations were corrected. Similarly,
noncompliance with asbestos requirements kept over 1,000
New York City schools closed for the first 11 days of the 1993
school year. Although such situations may be well publicized,
little information exists documenting the extent to which the
nation’s schools may lack the appropriate facilities to educate
their students.

*************
Based on estimates by school officials in a national
sample of schools, we project that the nation’s schools
need about $112 billion to repair or upgrade America’s
multibillion dollar investment in facilities to good overall
condition.  Of this, $11 billion (10 percent) is needed
over the next 3 years to comply with federal mandates
that require schools to make all programs accessible to
all students and to remove or correct hazardous substances
such as asbestos, lead in water or paint, materials in
underground storage tanks (UST), and radon or meet other
requirements.  About two-thirds of America’s schools
reported that all buildings were in at least overall adequate
condition, at most needing only some preventive
maintenance or corrective repair. However, about 14
million students attend the remaining one-third of
schools that reported needing extensive repair or
replacement of one or more buildings.  These schools
are distributed nationwide. Also, problems with major
building features, such as plumbing, are widespread even
among those schools reported in at least adequate
condition. Almost 60 percent of America’s schools
reported at least one major building feature in disrepair,
needing to be extensively repaired, overhauled, or replaced.
Most of these schools had multiple problems. In addition,
about half reported at least one unsatisfactory
environmental condition in their schools, such as poor
ventilation, heating or lighting problems, or poor physical
security. Most of these schools also had multiple
unsatisfactory environmental conditions. Some district
officials we spoke to told us that a major factor in the
declining physical condition of the nation’s schools has
been decisions by school districts to defer vital
maintenance and repair expenditures from year to year
due to lack of funds.

**********
On the basis of our survey results, we estimate that the
nation’s schools need $112 billion to complete all repairs,
renovations, and modernizations required to restore
facilities to good overall condition and to comply with
federal mandates. (See fig. 1.) This amount includes $65
billion—about $2.8 million per school—needed by one-third
of schools for which one or more entire building needs
major repairs or replacement. Another 40 percent of
schools (those in adequate or better condition) reported
needing $36 billion—about $1.2 million per school—to
repair or replace one or more building features

**********
New York has extremely diverse school facilities—while
conditions are generally bad, some schools are models
for 21st century learning. The “best” school we saw—a
$151 million state-of-the-art science high school—was
only blocks away from an example of the “worst”—another
high school in a 100-year-old building that had served as
a stable, fire house, factory, and office building. This high
school’s elevators do not work, its interior classrooms
have no windows, it has little ventilation and no air
conditioning, and its heating depends on a fireman’s
stoking the coal furnace by hand.  Overcrowding and
generally poor condition of the school buildings—many
over 100 years old and in need of major renovation and
repair—are New York’s main facilities problems. Since
the fiscal crisis in the 1970s, maintenance and repair of
the city’s school buildings have been largely neglected.
Twenty years of neglect compound problems that could
have been corrected much more cheaply had they been
corrected earlier. As the city seeks the funds for repairing
leaking roofs, plumbing problems that cause sewage to
seep into elementary school classrooms, and ceilings
that have caved in, its school enrollment is dramatically
increasing. After losing more than 10 percent of its
population in the sixties, a vast migration of non-English
speaking residents in the last 3 years has resulted in
overcrowding in 50 percent of New York’s schools. One
school is operating at over 250 percent of capacity.
Because classrooms are unavailable while under repair,
in some cases improvements are postponed. The New
York City schools’ maintenance, repair, and capital
improvement budget is approved annually by the city
council. While the state provides some loan forgiveness,
the city is largely responsible for all of the costs. Each
school is allocated a maintenance and repair budget
based solely on square footage. As a result, schools—
even new schools—frequently cannot repair problems
as they arise, which often leads to costly repairs in the
future. In 1988, the estimated cost of upgrading,
modernizing, and expanding the school system by the
year 2000 was over $17 billion. The total capital backlog
at that time was over $5 billion. The capital plan for fiscal
year 1990 through fiscal year 1994 was funded at $4.3
billion—barely 20 percent of the amount requested.

**********

One Chicago Elementary School principal reports that
"Heat escapes through holes in the roof.  Windows leak.
(the ones that are not boarded up) and let in the cold
winter air so that children must wear winter coats to
class."

In New Orleans, the damage from Formosan termites
has deteriorated the structure of many schools.  In
one elementary school, they even ate the books on the
library shelves as well as the shelves themselves.
This in combination with a leaking roof and rusted
window wall caused so much damage that a large
portion of the 30 year old  school has been condemned.  
The whole school is projected to be closed in one year.

At a Montgomery County, Alabama, elementary school,
a ceiling weakened by leaking water collapsed 40
minutes after the children left for the day.

Water damage from an old (original) boiler steam
heating at a 60 year old junior hig school in Washington
DC has caused such wall deterioration that an entire
wing has been condemned and locked off from use.
Steam damage is also causing lead-based wall paint
to peel.

Raw sewage backs up on the front lawn at a
Montgomery County, Alabama junior high school due
to defective plumbing.

A New York City high school built around the turn of the
century has served as a stable, fire house, factory and
office building.  The school is overcrowded with 580
students, far exceeding the buildings 400 student
capacity.  The building has little ventilation (no vents or
blowers), despite the many inside classrooms, and the
windows cannot be opened, which makes the school
unbearably hot in summer. In the winter heating depends
on a fireman's stoking the coal furnace by hand.

In Ramona, California, where overcrowding is
considered a problem, one elementary school is
composed entierly of portable buildings.  It had neither
a cafeteria nor auditorium and used a single relocatable
room as a library, computer lab, music room and art
room.

[I would imagine the bathrooms were those portapots
you see on construction sites - no running water there
either]

Last year, during a windstorm in Raymond, Washington,
the original windows of an elementary school built in 1925
were blown out, leaving shards of glass stuck in the floor.  
The children happened to be at the other end of the room.  
The wooden school is considered a fire hazard, and
although hallways and staircases can act as chimneys
for smoke and fire, the second floor has only one external
exit.

In rural Grandview, Washington, overcrowded facilities are
a problem At one middle schooo, the original building was
meant to house 450 studends.  Two additions and three
portables have been added to accomodate 700 students.  
The school has 7 staggered lunch periods. The portables
have no lockers nor bathrooms and are cold in the winter
and hot in the spring/summer.

In a high school in Chicago, the classroom floors are in
terrible condition.  Not only are the floors buckling, so
much tile is loose that students cannot walk in all parts
of the school.  The stairs are in poor condition and have
been cited for safety violations.  An outside door has
been chained for 3 years to prevent students from falling
on broken outside steps.  Peeling paint has been cited
as a fire hazard.  Heating problesm result in some rooms
having no heat while other rooms are too warm.  Leaks
in the science labe caused by plumbing problems prevent
the classes from doing experiments.  

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Margaret M. - 20 Jan 2004 09:19 GMT
*snipped 12 KB of non motorcycle related drivel*
> Dorothy

Dorothy, hon, do you have a life?  Where do you find time to type
these lengthy novels?  I barely have time to buzz through a newsgroup,
scan the headers, pop into a few threads and post a sarcastic line or
two.  And *I* don't have a job.  I'm a housewhore.  Do you sleep?
Eat?  Make love?  Shower?  When...for God's sake?
Mag
Matthew Russotto - 20 Jan 2004 15:18 GMT
>Recently, for example, a federal judge would not allow the
>schools in our nation?s capital to open on time until thousands
>of life-threatening fire code violations were corrected.

Sure.  I remember that.  The school district ignored the problem
because they figured they're the school district and no one could
close them down.  So they got worse and worse.  Had little to do with
money (most of which was probably going up the mayor's nose), and a
lot to do with arrogance and mismanagement.
Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Rosalie B. - 20 Jan 2004 17:21 GMT
>>Recently, for example, a federal judge would not allow the
>>schools in our nation’s capital to open on time until thousands
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>money (most of which was probably going up the mayor's nose), and a
>lot to do with arrogance and mismanagement.

This was well after Marion Barry.  

There may well have been mismanagement and arrogance, but I don't
think it was because the school district thought no one could close
them down.  They just didn't physically get it done in time and
thought they could slide.  

The District has lots of problems both with personnel, leadership and
money - not JUST in the schools, but in the police force, the
emergency services, the medical services and hospitals, the water and
sewer departments, the DMV, the roads - just about every area except
parking tickets which they seem to be able to do.  

grandma Rosalie
Matthew Russotto - 20 Jan 2004 22:22 GMT
>x-no-archive:yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>This was well after Marion Barry.  

No, it wasn't.  The _first_ shutdown was 1994, the year of Mayor
Barry's comeback.  The shutdowns continued through the comback
administration.  The lawsuit was filed in 1991, and the problem
existed long before then.

Signature

Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

toto - 19 Jan 2004 03:39 GMT
>> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>it's going to be alot better off than a school that has $600,000 with
>$400,000 squandered. Or even one with $600,000 and $240,000 squandered.

What does one argument have to do with the other?  I am all for having
any money that is squandered back in the school to be spent where it
is needed, but..  note that I don't think that computers is where it's
at in terms of educating kids anyway and that money was given only
for computers and the computers were bought, they just were not
placed in classrooms where they could be used.  So the money was
not *squandered,*  It was spent on exactly what it was supposed to be
spent on.  The fact that the kids did not get the benefit is entirely
different from saying the money was squandered.

Also, while you didn't argue that schools that spent less money were
better that was part of the argument on this thread.  Things are
connected.  We probably should have changed the name of the thread
branch but we didn't so, things can get a bit confusing.

Btw, I am enjoying the participation of those on the other groups,
rec.motorcycles and rec.autos.  It does give some fresh perspectives
and views and so far, I think most of the conversation has been
reasonably civil.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 05:42 GMT
> What does one argument have to do with the other?  I am all for having
> any money that is squandered back in the school to be spent where it
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> spent on.  The fact that the kids did not get the benefit is entirely
> different from saying the money was squandered.

So if they took the money for text books, bought textbooks and burned
them in a fireplace then the money wasn't squandered by your logic.
toto - 19 Jan 2004 09:36 GMT
>> What does one argument have to do with the other?  I am all for having
>> any money that is squandered back in the school to be spent where it
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>So if they took the money for text books, bought textbooks and burned
>them in a fireplace then the money wasn't squandered by your logic.

No, and one of the issues I left over had to do with the fact that our
math department managed to get a grant and buy 4 sets of textbooks
that were excellent for geometry with proofs.  The administration
decided that we were going to teach geometry without proofs (my dd
called that geometry for stones - and the physics without calculus
was physics for trees),  so they dumped the texts we bought and
got new ones that had only informal proofs - that was the last straw
in a long line of things that the adminstration did that made me
decide to stop being a patsy and subsidizing them with my salary.
Luckily, I am in a position of not having to support a family, so I
could have chosen to retire.  I still teach, but in a much nicer
situation and part time so I have time to travel, read, play on the
computer, etc..  and I no longer spend half my salary for copies,
paper, pencils, and other supplies that the school doesn't provide.

That, btw, didn't happen with any teachers at my own kids suburban
school and they got a fantastic education, so it's not all schools
and it's not even all schools in the area I live in.  It's a fact that
no one wants to fund inner city schools and no one wants to address
the problems of incompetent administrators.  Instead, the public wants
to blame teachers.  It doesn't fly, imo.  Having worked in such a
school, I know that the teachers go way above and beyond the call
of duty and that any waste of funds that is occurring is not occurring
because of teacher's salaries or classroom supplies.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 15:57 GMT
>>> What does one argument have to do with the other?  I am all for having
>>> any money that is squandered back in the school to be spent where it
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> No,

Why not, the money went to where it was supposed to go, "The fact that
the kids did not get the benefit is entirely  different from saying the
money was squandered."

> and one of the issues I left over had to do with the fact that our
> math department managed to get a grant and buy 4 sets of textbooks
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> computer, etc..  and I no longer spend half my salary for copies,
> paper, pencils, and other supplies that the school doesn't provide.

Four sets of textbooks purchased, two sets used. That's wasted money.

> That, btw, didn't happen with any teachers at my own kids suburban
> school and they got a fantastic education, so it's not all schools
> and it's not even all schools in the area I live in.

That's nice. But maybe they just have more money so the students
still get everything they need and more but the waste is there.
As the USA declines, we'll see.

> It's a fact that
> no one wants to fund inner city schools and no one wants to address
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> of duty and that any waste of funds that is occurring is not occurring
> because of teacher's salaries or classroom supplies.

Doesn't change the fact that money is still being squandered.
Every example you bring up shows it.
toto - 20 Jan 2004 04:38 GMT
>>>> What does one argument have to do with the other?  I am all for having
>>>> any money that is squandered back in the school to be spent where it
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>Four sets of textbooks purchased, two sets used. That's wasted money.

No sets used of the four classroom sets we bought with grant money
and the administration didn't offer them to other schools, they dumped
them.  Brand new books too.

>> That, btw, didn't happen with any teachers at my own kids suburban
>> school and they got a fantastic education, so it's not all schools
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Doesn't change the fact that money is still being squandered.
>Every example you bring up shows it.

The money was not *squandered* in this case.  It was spent for
books that would have benefited the students if we had been
allowed to keep them.

The administration, however, dumped the books we could have
used without regard to the fact that those texts could have been
offered to other schools if they really didn't want us to use them.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 20 Jan 2004 05:28 GMT
> No sets used of the four classroom sets we bought with grant money
> and the administration didn't offer them to other schools, they dumped
> them.  Brand new books too.

It's waste. If you gave your hard earned money to a charity and it
was used for something like that, would you be willing to give to
that charity again?

>>Doesn't change the fact that money is still being squandered.
>>Every example you bring up shows it.

> The money was not *squandered* in this case.  It was spent for
> books that would have benefited the students if we had been
> allowed to keep them.

You have a truely bizarre definition of waste. Do you buy food
and throw it out immediately when you get it home too?

> The administration, however, dumped the books we could have
> used without regard to the fact that those texts could have been
> offered to other schools if they really didn't want us to use them.

The funds were then squandered. Spent without any benefit what so ever.


toto - 20 Jan 2004 05:43 GMT
>> The money was not *squandered* in this case.  It was spent for
>> books that would have benefited the students if we had been
>> allowed to keep them.
>
>You have a truely bizarre definition of waste. Do you buy food
>and throw it out immediately when you get it home too?

You don't get it.  The money was spent by the teachers who
wrote the grant, but *we* didn't throw the books out, the
administration did.  Thus our spending of the money was
not squandering it.   Their not allowing us to use the resource
we spent it on was wasteful in a different sense than your
words imply.  We would still have spent the money on the
same resource if we had been allowed to use it.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Brent P - 20 Jan 2004 07:43 GMT
>>> The money was not *squandered* in this case.  It was spent for
>>> books that would have benefited the students if we had been
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> words imply.  We would still have spent the money on the
> same resource if we had been allowed to use it.

The money was squandered. I don't care if it was the teachers, the
administration, a mean janitor who thought the book piles untidy,
the governor, the president of the united states who threw the books
out. The money was squandered, wasted, thrown out. No value in
instruction was seen from it.
Bownse - 21 Jan 2004 03:08 GMT
>>>The money was not *squandered* in this case.  It was spent for
>>>books that would have benefited the students if we had been
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> words imply.  We would still have spent the money on the
> same resource if we had been allowed to use it.

Grant provided to the school system for books. Money spent by the school
system that was given the grant. Books not delivered to the classroom.
Money squandered by the school system. The means do not justify the end.
Bownse - 21 Jan 2004 02:59 GMT
>>Doesn't change the fact that money is still being squandered.
>>Every example you bring up shows it.

> The money was not *squandered* in this case.  It was spent for
> books that would have benefited the students *if* we had been
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> --
> Dorothy

Your *if* means that, ultimately, the funding was squandered.
DTJ - 19 Jan 2004 02:09 GMT
>> I've seen the story.  I'm not surprised.  That doesn't mean the money
>> they do get is adequate to educate the kids though.  
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>money that will be fed into the same system and vanish down the hole
>with a little leaking out to provide something useful to the students.

It is amazing how the schools bitch about money.  Our local district
is claiming it is going broke this year unless it gets a 50% increase
in the tax rate, and then it wills till go broke in 2010.  Um, how
about controlling spending?
P. Tierney - 19 Jan 2004 03:40 GMT
> It is amazing how the schools bitch about money.

   Yup.  I hear that the local private schools frequently
solicit donations from their alumni.  Several times a year!
Greedy wasteful bastards!

>  Our local district
> is claiming it is going broke this year unless it gets a 50% increase
> in the tax rate, and then it wills till go broke in 2010.

   Newspaper link?  Surely this was in the paper.

                                                       P. Tierney
toto - 19 Jan 2004 09:40 GMT
>>Funny, my arguement was that alot of money gets thrown at the problems
>>only to be squandered. But what is always asked for? More money. More
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>in the tax rate, and then it wills till go broke in 2010.  Um, how
>about controlling spending?

If the infrastructure is old as it is in Chicago, maintenance on the
buildings are so high that it is a problem.  But building new schools
takes a lot of money in one chunk and the taxpayers are not about
to pay that.  

It's a catch-22.  If we continue in the old buildings, we drain money
that could be used for teaching in repairing boilers that constantly
break down, in putting new roofs on buildings, in repairing windows
and floors.  And that too has to be done.  If we try to build new
schools, we have to find a facility to use in the interim that
probably means renting on top of the amount to tear down the
old school and build the new one or acquiring property on which
to build which is not so easy in a city that is built up.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
Rosalie B. - 19 Jan 2004 14:07 GMT
>>>Funny, my arguement was that alot of money gets thrown at the problems
>>>only to be squandered. But what is always asked for? More money. More
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>in the tax rate, and then it wills till go broke in 2010.  Um, how
>>about controlling spending?

Schools are now mandated to have certain class sizes and it do that
they often must hire more teachers.

>If the infrastructure is old as it is in Chicago, maintenance on the
>buildings are so high that it is a problem.  But building new schools
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>old school and build the new one or acquiring property on which
>to build which is not so easy in a city that is built up.

This is the case in DC too.  Some of the schools have to supply
bottled water because the water in the school is unsafe to drink.
Plus many of the schools are physically falling apart.  The money has
to come from Congress which isn't really interested in the DC children
- any of them that actually live in DC probably send their children to
private schools.

Baltimore has tried the contract school thing and it hasn't worked
very well.

grandma Rosalie
Margaret M. - 19 Jan 2004 21:44 GMT
> x-no-archive:yes

> Schools are now mandated to have certain class sizes and it do
> that they often must hire more teachers.
          *snip quoted text*
> This is the case in DC too.  Some of the schools have to supply
> bottled water because the water in the school is unsafe to drink.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> very well.
> grandma Rosalie

Just curious, but why did you feel the need to archive for posterity?
Doesn't google automatically archive the ng you're posting from?
Mag
Brent P - 19 Jan 2004 21:56 GMT
>> x-no-archive:yes

> Just curious, but why did you feel the need to archive for posterity?
> Doesn't google automatically archive the ng you're posting from?

X-no-archive is used by people to *prevent* archiving.
Margaret M. - 19 Jan 2004 22:29 GMT
>>> x-no-archive:yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> X-no-archive is used by people to *prevent* archiving.

Oops, my bad.  Guess that's what happens when you're coming off pain
meds and have screwy sleep patterns. [read...sleep every other night]
:-)  Thanks for catching that.
Mag
Bownse - 20 Jan 2004 01:40 GMT
>>x-no-archive:yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Doesn't google automatically archive the ng you're posting from?
> Mag

IIRC, x-NO-archive means "do NOT archive if set to 'yes'"
Margaret M. - 20 Jan 2004 02:39 GMT