Independent Thinking

[DRugh]

I am considering what it is to be an independent thinker (a person who
actively questions authority). This topic is important because I doubt
our schools and other training institutions are properly producing
independence. It is possible that instead of producing critical
thinkers who can challenge the status quo, schools are producing
subservient people who unquestionly focus on narrow jobs. Assuming
that this is the case, one way to address this issue is to find
independent thinkers who have an opinion as to how to maintain one's
independence within systemic efforts for taking it away.

DRugh

[Sam Carana]

Good topic! It's a good idea to try and find independent thinkers and keep contact. Welcome to this group, I love to hear more from you!
 

Sam
 

[wla...@yahoo.com.br]

Ahead are exhibited three messages
concerning the experiment led by Dr. David Villeneuve,
described in a paper
published in the journal NATURE (Dec-2004).

FIRST MESSAGE:
TO: DR. DAVID VILLENEUVE
FROM: WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
SUBJECT: In Quantum Mechanics the level 2p overlaps the level s

Dear Dr. Villeneuve
According to Quantum Mechanics the level 2p overlaps the level s.
However the photo obtained in your experiments shows that QM´s
assumption is WRONG (there is NOT overlap between 2p and s).

I would like to say that the form of the orbit 2p obtained in your
photo is a prediction of my theory since 1993, when I have developed a
NEW MODEL OF ELECTROSPHERE (in my model there is not overlap between
the levels p and s).

Other prediction of my theory is that in the levels 1s and 2s each of
the electrons have a well-determined trajectory. Do you think that
your technology will be able to get photos of the levels s ?

Other proposals of my new "QUANTUM RING THEORY" are the following:

PROPOSAL 1) My theory proposes a new hydrogen atom in which the
mechanism for photons EMISSION by the atom is DIFFERENT of the
mechanism for photons ABSORPTION by the atom (the paper will be
published in the upcoming issue of the JOURNAL OF NEW ENERGY)..
In my theory it is shown that the inverse spectrum (spectrum of
absorption) must be explained by considering two DIFFERENT mechanisms
(one mechanism for the emission and another for the absorption).
According to Quantum Mechanics the mechanism of emission is the same of
that for the absorption (that´s why QM is UNABLE to explain the
inverse spectrum).

QUESTION 1: DO YOU THINK THAT WILL YOUR TECHNOLOGY BE ABLE IN THE
FUTURE OF TAKING PHOTOS THAT SHOW US IF THE MECHANISM OF EMISSION IS
DIFFERENT OF THAT FOR ABSORPTION?

PROPOSAL 2) In my new hydrogen atom the electron moves in the
electrosphere through a helical trajectory.

QUESTION 2: DO YOU THINK THAT FROM A SEQUENCE OF PHOTOS WILL YOUR
TECHNOLGY BE ABLE TO SHOW THE HELICAL TRAJECTORY OF THE ELECTRON?

PROPOSAL 3) In my new model of hydrogen atom it is shown that for the
emission the mechanism is the following:
A) The electron stays storing energy by turning about the proton, and
it accumulates a big energy before to jump.
B) Then the electron makes a BIG JUMPING (such Big Jumping is
constituted by several consecutive jumpiness), and after emitting
several photons the electron goes back to store more energy about the
proton.

QUESTION 3: DO YOU THINK WILL YOUR TECHNOLOGY BE ABLE OF TAKING PHOTOS
SHOWING THE MECHANISM OF "BIG JUMPING"?

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

SECOND MESSAGE:
TO: CHRISTY FRAZIER (editor, Infinite Energy)
FROM: WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

SUBJECT: My new model of electrosphere CAN BE CONFIRMED by experiments
in 2005 !!!

c.c: David Villeneuve, Henrik. Stapelfeldt, Hal Fox, Nancy Klenda,
James Horwitz, James Testa, Victor Riecansky, Stephen Ellerin, Marianne
Raymond, Peter N. Jones, Dimitryi. Afonichev, Edmund Storms, Rusi
Taleyarkhan, Jose A. Helayel, Claudio Nassif, Brian Josephson, Gerard
t´Hooft

Dear Christy

In Dec-2004 the journal NATURE has published an article that describes
a fantastic experiment: scientists led by David Villeneuve have
obtained a photo of the electron´s orbit in the level 2p within the
nitrogen molecule.

In July-2004 I have sent you the manuscript of my book "RING THEORY-
Foundations for Cold Fusion".

Please look at the paper No. 20 (entitled "Mechanism for Pauli´s
Exclusion Principle").
In the paper it is proposed a NEW MODEL OF ELECTROSPHERE, in which the
electrons have a well determined trajectory (each orbit is perused by
an electron going through a helical trajectory (see Fig. 4.7 and Fig.
6.3). My model is therefore different of that considered in Quantum
Mechanics, since Heisenberg proposed to banish the concept of
electron´s trajectory in the quantum theory.

But considering the diamagnetism of the nitrogen molecule, in my paper
I show that it can be explained through the following assumption only:
the electrons of the levels 1s and 2s must have a well determined orbit
(otherwise it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the diamagnetism).

Thereby a controversy has been established, as follows:

1) From quantum theory the electrons have not a trajectory within the
electrosphere

2) But the diamagnetism CANNOT EXIST from such a concept of Quantum
Mechanics (that is shown in my paper).

3) Then of course that the theorists up to now have preferred to
neglect my advertise (according which it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the
diamagnetism by keeping the concept according which there are not
trajectories within the atom)

Nevertheless, probably in 2005 such a controversy will be eliminated by
the experiments (they will show if the trajectories exist, or not, into
the electrosphere)

The journal Nature brings a commentary by Henrik Stapelfeldt (Aarhus
University) where he calls our attention to the large possibilities
that now is opened by this new technology.

Stapelfeldt´s opinion encourages me to hope that in 2005 the scientist
will get photos of the levels 1s and 2s within the nitrogen molecule.
Supposing that these new upcoming experiments will confirm that in the
levels 1s and 2s the electrons indeed have a well determined trajectory
(a supposition that we expect from the fact that the diamagnetism is an
existent phenomenon), such a confirmation will imply the following:

1) My new model of electrosphere is CORRECT

2) And therefore the electron moves within the electrosphere in well
determined trajectories

3) Since the Heisenberg´s uncertainty can be conciliated with the
concept of trajectory only by considering the helical trajectory of
elementary particles...

4) ...then it is UNAVOIDABLE the introduction of the helical trajectory
in the concepts of QM.

5) Therefore a new model of hydrogen atom, based on the electron´s
helical trajectory, will be required (working through the new concepts
proposed in my paper No. 4, which would be published in the Journal of
New Energy, in July-2004 ; unfortunately the Editor-in-Chief Hal Fox
has postponed the publication, by alleging missing of funds).

It´s even reasonable to think that these upcoming new experiments may
get photos of the electron´s helical trajectory. In this way perhaps
my new hydrogen atom can be confirmed by experiments in 2005.

Along the years between 1999 and 2004 I used to think that a
confirmation for my theory would have to come from upcoming discoveries
in the field of cold fusion (as for example, from the consideration of
my new model of neutron, and from the consideration of the papers of
mine concerning the new nuclear model proposed in my theory).
Of course that I could never imagine that a confirmation for my theory
could coming from experiments (photos) showing the geometry of the
electron´s orbit, since few years ago nobody could expect a technology
able to supply photos of the electron´s trajectory within the atoms.

>From the facts exposed herein, one easily may realize that 2005 can be
a decisive year for the confirmation of my theory.
I hope that the new experiments to be developed along 2005 will say
"WELCOME" to my book, which I expect shall be published in the
upcoming months.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

PS for HAL FOX (editor, Journal of New Energy): dear friend, in
Jan-2000 I sent you the manuscript of my book. Probably when you read
it in 2000 you did not pay attention to the proposal of mine on the NEW
MODEL OF ELECTROSPHERE. If you kept the manuscript with yourself, you
can verify by yourself what I am saying here. I invite you of going to
look at the paper No 20 (Mechanism for Pauli´s Exclusion Principle),
and to analyze the question concerning the diamagnetism.

THIRD MESSAGE:
TO: DR. MICHAEL ROUKES
FROM: WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

Cc: Hal Fox

I have read your article about the development of the nanotechnology
published in the Scientific American magazine.

In your article you say that it is missing the knowledge of some
fundamental principles for understanding the behavior of the particles.
It is not a surprise, since the available theoretical tool that you
have up to now is the current quantum theory. And although Quantum
Mechanics is tremendous tool, however it is not able to explain some
single phenomena.

For instance, Quantum Mechanics is unable to explain the inverse
spectrum (the spectrum of absorption).
It is a opinion of several scientiists that QM is an incomplete theory.
It is my opinion too, and in the case QM is indeed incomplete, of
course that uou will not be able to understand the fundamental
mechanisms in the field of nanotechnology by trying to understand it
taking an incomplete theory which is even unable to explain a single
phenomenon like the inverse spectrum.

In my opinion, the nanotechnology needs a theory able to explain single
phenomena, like the inverse spectrum.

Since 1991 I am working in a new theory, in order to find a new model
of atom able to explain some phenomena that Quantum Mechanics is unable
to explain.

I discovered a new model of hydrogen atom able to conciliate the
Bohr´s corpuscular model with the Schroedinger´s Equation. I suppose
you may understand the tremendous advantage of this new model, because
it is able to explain at the same time those phenomena that require a
corpuscular model of electron, and those other ones that require a wave
model of electron.

My paper proposing the new hydrogen atom will be published in the
upcoming issue of the Journal of New Energy. The paper is incorporated
to my book QUANTUM RING THEORY, that will be published in 2005 (the
book is a collection of 24 papers of mine).

The reason why Quantum Mechanics is unable to explain the inverse
spectrum is the following: the explanation of such phenomenon requires
a model in which the mechanism for EMISSION of photons must be
DIFFERENT of the mechanism for ABSORPTION of photons. Since in Quantum
Mechanics the mechanism of emission is the same of that for absorption,
this is the reason why QM cannot explain the inverse spectrum.
In my new hydrogen the absorption and the emission have different
mechanisms.

So, I have the strong conviction that a theory unable to explain a
single phenomenon like the inverse spectrum cannot supply to the
researchers a complete background of the fundamental principles that
guide the atom's behavior in some special conditions (as they are now
undertaken in the development of the nanotechnology).

Other phenomenon that Quantum Mechanics is unable to explain is the
diamagnetism. And it is easy to understand why. Indeed, consider a
molecule of iron and a molecule of nitrogen. The magnetism of the iron
and the diamagnetism of the nitrogen are due to the same cause: the
magnetic field produced by the electron's external orbit. However,
there is a fundamental question to be answered:

1) In the iron the micro-magnetic field produced by the electron's
orbit gets alignment with the external macri-magnetic field in which
the iron's molecule is immersed.

2) But in the case of the nitrogen molecule, the nuxei-magnetic field
produced by the electron's orbit gets a direction contrary of that of
the external macro-magnetic field. Why? We would have to expect that
the micro-magnetic field produced within the nitrogen molecule would
have to take the same direction of the external macro-magnetic field,
like happens in the case of the iron molecule.

3) For explaining the behavior of the NITROGEN MOLECULE, it is
indispensable to consider the following:

A) There is an internal orbit that yields a WEAK micro-magnetic field
but with a LONG mechanical arm (with regard to the rotation center of
the molecule). The weak magnetic force together with the long arm
generates a big mechanical momentum, and it makes the molecule to
gyrate.

B) The external electron's orbit is not able of making the molecule
to gyrate, because it has no arm with regard to the center of the
molecule (but this external orbit produces a STRONG micro-magnetic
field). The vector of such strong micro-magnetic field and the vector
of the weak micro-magnetic field have CONTRARY directions..

C) So, the long arm puts the strong micro-magnetic field of the
nitrogen molecule in a direction contrary of that of the external
macro-magnetic field in which the molecule is immersed.

In a paper of mine I show that the explanation for the diamagnetism
requires the concept of well-determined orbits.

At the first glance it seems that the concept of well-determined orbit
is INCOMPATIBLE with the Heisenberg's uncertainty. Nevertheless such
conclusion is wrong. The concept of well-determined orbit is
conciliated with the uncertainty when we consider the helical
trajectory of the elementary particles.
First of all we have realize the following: actually a particle moving
through a helical trajectory does NOT have a well-determined trajectory
(and so in this sense the helical trajectory is COMPATIBLE with the
Heisenberg's uncertainty. Actually such a new concept of trajectory
would have a behavior that remembers the old concept of trajectory
proposed by Feynman, where the electron seems to occupy several places
in the same time).
However by considering that a helical trajectory has a CENTER about
which the electron moves, such a CENTER of the electron's trajectory
peruses a well-determined trajectory (and then in AVERAGE the
electron's motion can be considered as it would be moving through a
well-determined trajectory).

In my paper it is shown that from these concepts it is possible to
explain the diamagnetism, i. e., by considering well-determined orbits
into the nitrogen molecule,

In 1989 Dr. Hans Dehmelt awarded the Nobel Prize with a new technology.
His experiments had shown that, when the electron jumps into the
electrosphere of atoms, it peruses the space between two levels (which
suggests that the electron jumps through well-determined trajectory).
Since the concept of perusing the space within the electrosphere is not
compatible with Quantum Mechanics, the theorists interpreted
Dehmelt's experiments by some considerations trying to keep the
original foundations of QM.

As I said, the electron's helical trajectory cannot be considered as
a well-determined trajectory. However the CENTER of the helical
trajectory describes a well-determined trajectory, and such new way of
considering the electron's motion can explain the Dehmelt's
experiments by a new viewpoint.

But new improvements in Dehmelt's technology are being introduced
nowadays. In the National Research Council of Canada the physicist Dr.
David Villeneuve is developing experiments that I hope will be able to
confirm my theory (the journal Nature published in Dec-2004 a paper
that shows photos of the orbit 2p of the nitrogen molecule).
The first thing that we note in the photo obtained by Dr. Villeneuve is
the fact that the orbit 2p does not penetrate into the level s (as you
know, according to Quantum Mechanics there is an overlapping of about
10% of the orbit 2p on the orbits s).
Such form of the orbit 2p shown by Villeneuve's photo CORROBORATES my
theory (in my new model of electrosphere there is NOT overlapping
between 2p and s). And so you realize that at least the beginning of
the Villeneuve's technology is corroborating my theory (unlike, the
Villeneuve's experiment is showing that something is WRONG with the
model of electrosphere proposed according to Quantum Mechanics). I
expect that more experiments made along 2005 will emphasize such
conclusion, that is, that my theory is CORRECT, and that something is
missing in the model of QM.

Among several new concepts proposed in my new hydrogen atom, I can
mention the contraction of the space into the electrosphere (there is
not such a concept in Quantum Mechanics). On another way, the helical
trajectory has a property that I named ZOOM-EFFECT, according which the
radius of the helical trajectory can change, as follows:

1) The radius of the helical trajectory decreases with the growth of
the electron's speed. An electron with relativistic speed has a
motion that approaches to the Newtonian classical trajectory, because
the radius of the helical trajectory tends to zero.

2) The radius of the helical trajectory depends on the contraction of
the space within the electrosphere.

These two properties due to the Zoom-effect can be responsible for
several behavior that probably the researchers are unable to understand
in the field of nanotechnology.

I think my theory could help you to understand several exotic phenomena
not understood yet. If you have interest in reading my papers, I would
be glad of sending you the following three of them:

1) FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSAL OF A NEW HYDROGEN ATOM,
where the new hydrogen model of atom is proposed.

2) MECHANISM OF SELECTION RULE- where are explained some questions not
answered in the paper above.

3) MECHANISM FOR PAULI'S EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE- where it is shown the
mechanism for the diamagnetism of the nitrogen molecule

I think that you have nothing to lose by reading my papers. First of
all because, if after reading them you conclude that they cannot bring
any help to your understanding of the nano phenomena, you can simply to
forget them.
But if you conclude that my papers have proposals that can help you to
elucidate some fundamental problems risen from the development of the
nanotechnology, that would very interesting for the advancement of your
work.

Kind regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[Abhishek Bhawsar]

this is a question which has been bothering me since i read the novel "Five Point Someone".
for starters this is the novel about the life of 3 friends in the best institute in India - The IITs - indian institute of technology.

these 3 friends are 5 pointers on their GPAs , highest being 10. They are the great thinkers of the institute. still they are looked down upon, they cant manage to get credibility to have their say.

this was fiction but true of life in the best schools all over the world. now talk of fact - me.

topper in high school. got thru best institute of engineeing, fared badly on scores.
wanted to change the world, make it clean. rebelled against the system, against corruption.


and i found out the truth - independent thinkers are not regarded well. in schools, colleges. they are the mavericks and looked down upon. many are forced to change - to adopt to the system. many burn out....

i think even if there is a group on the net/ or on paper/ or anywhere - it will fail - coz there are always guys who want to act cool and want to be a part of cults...

a must read on these lines is ayn rand's "the anthem"

[DRugh]

Yes, you had a similar experience to me. I just finished my PhD and I
did not feel right about my performance at the doctoral defense. I
felt I was a shadow of who I was when I came in. My boldness was
curtailed; I had trouble coming up with creative responses; and simple
questions seemed to come out of nowhere. I know that this is a highly
stressful period but I still was not happy with my performance.

I came across the book, Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt. He writes
about the true purpose of education, and that is to confer idealogy.
The techniques or skills are secondary. Schmidt says that the only way
to counteract the idealogy of the institution is to organize with
others, anchoring yourself with a radical agenda.

This would not be such a big deal, except for the fact that is strikes
at the heart of democracy, and we can not seem to control our country's
foreign policy. If the output of our very best educational
institutions is subservient professionals then that goes a long way in
explaining our current predicaments.

DRugh

[More Sense]

Groups like this could replace many things currently done within the
walls of educational institutions. People can engage in discussions
here, get links for references, ask questions and float ideas.

Why keep all that locked up inside those institutions and force people
to travel to a lecture room, if the content of the lecture could well
be posted at a group like this one?

Deborah

[Sardonic Witt]

THESE groups? Are you nuts?

I like discussing things freely, but there's not exactly a lot of
quality control around here, no?

[Sam Carana]

On 5/31/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

THESE groups? Are you nuts?

I like discussing things freely, but there's not exactly a lot of quality control around here, no?

 

Quality control? Your post smells like a call for censorship and political indoctrination, intended to undermine rather than encourage independent thinking. Groups like this expose the education system for what it is. Groups like this constitue a wake-up call for the education system. Groups like this constitute a quality control shake-up the education system should have had a long time ago. Lecturers are no longer able to promulgate their nonsense within the compounds of their cosy ivery towers, enjoying their high salaries for sitting behind a desk and spending tax-payers money for their own pleasure. Students now can simply question the wisdom of their lecturers by posting a question here and they are likely to get good quality replies, without having to pay school fees first. That's quality and it puts students in control, redefining quality control by putting more control into the hands of students themselves.

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

You are my best point. Your posts are ridiculous drivel, and wouldn't
stand up to simple scrutiny in the classroom, not because the classroom
censors content (it invites questions on every level from my
experience), but because the resulting conversation would blow your
arguments out of the water.

You are not an independent thinker just because you're stubborn. You
are not an independent thinker just because you can't spell very well.

Students make the classroom work. I have never been in a class that
students were not allowed to talk in or participate in the discussions.
Even heady lecturers leave time for questions.

And looking around this forum, it seems you call for censorship and for
political indoctrination far more than those who go into the classroom.
I don't know what all the ins and outs of the most recent dispute you
have with certain members is all about, but I did receive the email and
I see your post in response. You seem to be in favor of stopping people
from speaking when you find them annoying, yet you claim your actions
are better than our school system? Please.

But the part that I find really funny is your statement that these
forums are as good or better as the classroom. There are some good
posts and even some intelligent conversations here, but there's also a
lot of crap that makes no sense.

And by the way, I keep asking you what your educational background is
and you keep not answering me. It would help me to know whether you've
been to university or if you went to a public or private school as a
child (or were home-schooled).

I don't care where you went or who you are, I just want to be reassured
that you have an idea what you are talking about when it comes to
education. If I were hearing a lecture in the classroom, I would know
my teacher's credentials before they started speaking.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/1/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are my best point. Your posts are ridiculous drivel, and wouldn't stand up to simple scrutiny in the classroom, not because the classroom censors content (it invites questions on every level from my experience), but because the resulting conversation would blow your arguments out of the water.

 

Your classroom is extremely limited. For starters, it's hard to allow multiple people to express themselves at the same time. Classrooms thus call for a single speaker, i.e. the teacher, who supposedly knows more than those who are supposed to listen. The scenario is constructed with the very intention to silence people, rather than to allow them to communicate.

 

You are not an independent thinker just because you're stubborn. You are not an independent thinker just because you can't spell very well.

 

And your character attacks show that you're not a thinker at all!

 

Students make the classroom work. I have never been in a class that students were not allowed to talk in or participate in the discussions. Even heady lecturers leave time for questions.

 

Question time?!? It's like the army asking for volunteers! Don't make me laugh!

 

And looking around this forum, it seems you call for censorship and for political indoctrination far more than those who go into the classroom. I don't know what all the ins and outs of the most recent dispute you have with certain members is all about, but I did receive the email and I see your post in response. You seem to be in favor of stopping people from speaking when you find them annoying, yet you claim your actions are better than our school system? Please.

 

That just shows your prejudice and false assumptions. You seem inclined to believe what you think suits your arguments, even if you don't have any and it's against the facts that have been pointed out to you. So much for what you picked up in the school class scenario!

 

But the part that I find really funny is your statement that these
forums are as good or better as the classroom. There are some good posts and even some intelligent conversations here, but there's also a lot of crap that makes no sense.

 

Yes, your posts certainly create another low here. ".. better as the classroom.." and you dare lecture me about proper use of english! The more you resort to personal attacks and the more you jump up when hearing about my ideas, the more people see that I must have a point! Meanwhile, you don't seem to have any ideas that are worthwhile to be discussed, all you bring in are protests, character attacks, false assumptions and prejudice. I suppose you must have picked all this up in your classroom. Anyway, it's probably typical for your background that you seek to defend something so vainly. The fact that you do so without having an argument just proves my point.

 

And by the way, I keep asking you what your educational background is and you keep not answering me. It would help me to know whether you've been to university or if you went to a public or private school as a child (or were home-schooled).

 

Yeah, let's get even more personal here as well, what's your background? Teaching at a primary school in Sardinia? Or are you one of those politicians without ideas, afraid to lose the nice income you get for doing nothing? 

 

I don't care where you went or who you are, I just want to be reassured that you have an idea what you are talking about when it comes to education. If I were hearing a lecture in the classroom, I would know my teacher's credentials before they started speaking.

 

As I thought. The education system is full of people who give each other titles, awards, degrees and envelopes under the table. Isn't it like playing boyscouts, getting another medal every time you help another old lady across the road? No, it isn't! People who rightfully point at the lack of substance in the education system do not deserve a medal, do they? The corruption is built into the system. It has nothing to do with ideas. It feeds on the entry tickets it creates into occupations that are closed shops. It feeds on fabricated nonsense that it preaches to children when they're still young and impressionable, without little regard to what their parents want. It preaches to captive audiences of students who have nowhere else to go, forced as they are by the system to be enslaved by it, yes, a system that is out to make them part of it, by indoctrinating them with the idea that university degrees are more valuable than getting an honest job.

 

But aren't times changing quickly, you rascal, and the Internet is just lifting a little veil of what might await you! You, who are so keen to display your degrees on the wall complete with your smiling face above your name and personal details. Don't think we haven't noticed how quickly you scrambled to hide your own personal details behind a user name. Your educational degrees may well become a greater burden than a criminal record one day. Are you ready for when your ex-students come knocking on your door and demand their schoolfees back? Are you ready for the day when you will be held accountible for the failures of the education system that you defend? And why do you defend this so obviously failed system? Because you earn a nice income from it? Because you believe you that it gives you status? You, with all your degrees, money and books, you cannot see the signs, you cannot hear the winds of change, yet you claim competent to teach others?

 

But let's get back to the topic. Does school teach independent thinking? The obvious answer is that it doesn't, school is out to crush independent thought and instead is set to indoctrinate children with the ideas that the teacher enforces upon them. By contrast, the Internet offers many avenues for children to develop as independent thinkers, which will increasingly expose school for its failure to do so.

 

I am Sam, the one who raises the issues!

[DRugh]

It seems to me that anything that increases the opportunity for
democratic exchanges help to dissolve the heirarchies of our
educational system. It's the heirarchy itself and therefore the system
that encourages subserviance and obediance.

The internet offers one avenue. I like it because we rely less on a
person's credentials as we make up our mind about a subject. The
arguments begin to gain in importance. To use the allegory of
evolution, survival depends less on symbolic authority and more on
rational logic. Consequently, the probability at arriving at a
mutually agreeable solution increases.

Paradoxically, it does not appear that independent thinking can be
accomplished independently of other people. The individual does not
have a chance against the powers of a heirarchial system. Independence
of thought appears to be the exception rather than the rule. So a
non-heirarchial (democratic) organization is necessary to counteract
authority. That is a tough one, isn't it. I don't think humans are
very good at that. One reason may be that from our earliest days of
training, we have been immersed in an environment skewed toward
authority.

[Sardonic Witt]

Blah blah blah ... you use a lot of words to avoid answering simple
questions.

It is you who have charged me with being involved in the education
process or being a politician. It is you who have made some rather
ridiculous assumptions about who I am or how my occupation might
influence my opinion. You say a lot about me, seeing as you don't know
anything about me.

I do not care who you are. All I ask for is reassurance that the guy
who keeps proposing ideas for educational reform has experience with
education. That's all.

You've said a few things which make me think you've never been to
university, so I want to know if you did. Not where, but if.

And I will say this. In none of my classes was I treated the way you've
treated me. I was respected as a person (every student was) and no one
ever called me names the way you have.

Your behavior makes me feel less confident that your conclusion that
these forums can replace education has any merit.

After all, we can't fire you or punish you for prejudice or rudeness,
the way teachers can be fired or punished.

So, kindly tell me if you went to university and if you were educated
in the public or private primary school system.

[zinnic]

" I am Sam, the one who raises the issues"

You are Sam, the one who raises ranting to a fart form!

Your dream--a nation of 'unschooled', undisciplined, independent
thinkers-- my nightmare!

Seriously. Who would regulate this anarchy? Is there a level of
discipline and/or consensus that you would accept? How about
'issuing' some constructive suggestions that one can discuss without
being dismissed (by you) as a co-conspiritor in a corrupt regime?
Else admit that you find it amusing to troll the internet for anyone
who takes your bait.

[zinnic]

I know it is difficult to give up the unbounded freedom of incoherence
in order to accept the discipline of an ideology. Welcome to the real
world!
Do you really believe that by "......anchoring yourself with a radical
agenda." you become an independent thinker rather than "subservient"
to that agenda? There are many ways of changing and "improving' the
status quo but draconian measures, more often than not, destroy rather
than create.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/2/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is you who have charged me with being involved in the education
process or being a politician. It is you who have made some rather
ridiculous assumptions about who I am or how my occupation might influence my opinion. You say a lot about me, seeing as you don't know anything about me.

 

You put yourself up as the protector of the education system and you think that doesn't say anything about you? Either you're part of this system, or you're just attacking me for the sake of it. Either way, I was spot on with my replies.  

I do not care who you are. All I ask for is reassurance that the guy
who keeps proposing ideas for educational reform has experience with education. That's all.

 

So, only schoolteachers are allowed to propose ideas for educational reform? Or who is? And what made you think I was a guy?

You've said a few things which make me think you've never been to
university, so I want to know if you did. Not where, but if.

 

Oh, so it's people with university degrees who were allowed to speak on education, but nobody else? Is that what you are saying?
 

And I will say this. In none of my classes was I treated the way you've treated me. I was respected as a person (every student was) and no one ever called me names the way you have.

 

So, finally feeling the other end of the stick, are you? Must be quite an educational experience for you. And still you don't seem to learn from it.

Your behavior makes me feel less confident ...

 

Yeah, you sure should take back some of that attitude..

.. that your conclusion that these forums can replace education has any merit.

...because, as I said before, these forums are the best thing in terms of education that has happened since the invention of the book. People can read and post messages, search and find answers, learn to communicate and articulate arguments. It empowers users, in contrast to the education system, that is out to humiliate people. Yes, you still have a lot to learn.

After all, we can't fire you or punish you for prejudice or rudeness,
the way teachers can be fired or punished.

 

In your case, you effectively fire yourself for not having anything to say. The more nonsense you post, the more people will start filtering out your messages. Here, people are in control!
 

And don't you start complaining about moderation again! A good moderator does know the difference between people who do have something to say and people who are out to post spam, personal attacks or silly messages without substance. Most irritating are people who keep posting off-topic.

So, kindly tell me if you went to university and if you were educated
in the public or private primary school system.

 

Again, that's none of your business. We're discussing issues here. Decent people don't attack the messenger, but read the message. If you have nothing better to do than to attack the messenger, then your messages don't deserve to be posted here. Stop personally attacking me under the pretence that you had anything to say, because that kind of repetitiveness and off-topic posting deserves to be filtered out by a good moderator. That has nothing to do with censorship, it's all about staying on-topic and staying within the theme of the group! If you prefer to post pest messages, you can start your own group called The Pest.
 

In case you forgot, the topic here is Independent Thinking, something that is alien to the education system. The education system offers little or no help with development of independent thinking. So, stop asking for educational degrees, as if that made anyone more qualified to speak on this topic. The oppressive nature of the education system doesn't allow for, let alone nurture undependent thinking, but is more out to seek and break the will of people when they're still young and at the most impressionable stage of their life, and while they are taken out of their family environment and put in the most vulnerable circumstances.

Yes, the education system takes children away from families by force and keeps them captive in schools that are worse places to be than prison cells. The mental torture is even worse than physical torture and school will go down in history as the worst tormentor ever. School sets one child up against another, in a deliberate effort to nurture hostility as a principle. Anyone with a bit of independent thinking can see that bullying, class difference, punishment, compulsion and coercion are systematically imposed by school - these are effectively the values teached by a system that seeks to mould children into a straitjacket that fits nobody, in a pre-meditated effort to strangle any independent thought and twist innocent and beautiful children into mindless robots. And if you can stay on-topic for a change, we could discuss this in further detail.

Sam

[Abhishek Bhawsar]

Ahem!

I would not contemplate who amongst sam and witt is right and who is wrong..  but dont you think that its getting kinda personal here..

[Sam Carana]

On 6/3/05, Abhishek Bhawsar <bha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahem!

I would not contemplate who amongst sam and witt is right and who is wrong..  but dont you think that its getting kinda personal here..

Good point, Abhishek, but did you realize that there was nothing other than that in Witt's post, while I tried hard to get things back on track?

Also, I take it that you are aware that even your own post was off-topic (hence the Ahem!), but that my post did actually go into considerable length to discuss Independent Thinking.

 

So, I think you'll agree with me as to who is in the wrong here. And, indeed, let's not forget, the topic here is Independent Thinking, which makes my case even more compelling. After all, I do believe that personal attacks are not the best way at all to nurture and encourage Independent Thinking.

 

Disciplinarian schoolmasters may disagree with me, but I am confident that they don't even know what Independent Thinking is. Perhaps that's the reason why Witt has so much trouble staying on track on this topic? Let's not delve into that, but let's keep our focus on Independent Thinking.

 

Groups like this do encourage Independent Thinking more than school can. Good moderation can contribute a lot to make groups function well in this respect, in sharp contrast with the way teachers bully kids around to silence them in class. 
 

Sam

[zinnic]

Example is one of the greatest attributes of a good teacher whether on
the internet or in the classroom. The arrogance and condescension you
exhibit in your posts would not be acceptable in a more structured
learning environment and, indeed, would be detrimental to the
discipline essential for real learning. In the classroom you would be
required to answer questions posed by the 'learners' and your inability
to provide straight forward answers to even simple questions would
reveal your demagoguery.
Stop hiding behind your computer desk. Explain in a general manner how
a schooling system, free of any government control, would operate to
ensure that the poorest and least educated members of our communities
are not left behind.
If you are unable to do so, then I can only conclude that you are an
elitist.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/4/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Example is one of the greatest attributes of a good teacher whether on the internet or in the classroom.

 

Don't tell me that the teacher is supposed to be a role model? An example of what? A guy with a stick in his hands, out to silence people? Don't make me laugh!

The arrogance and condescension you exhibit in your posts would not be acceptable in a more structured learning environment

 

Yet, the arrogance and condescension that you exhibit in your posts is accepted here. Why? Because things are better structured here and people can see who has the better views. School teaches certain values and there is something systametically wrong with those values. As I said earlier, bullying, class difference, punishment, compulsion and coercion are systematically imposed by school. If I expose this while you deny this, then I'll gladly let readers decide who is right and who is wrong.

and, indeed, would be detrimental to the discipline essential for real learning.

 

Real learning? Get real! Real learning doesn't happen much at school at all, doesn't it? In fact, it's the very school discipline that is so detrimental to any learning taking place. Instead, to be able to learn, one must have an open mind without being constantly bullied, suppressed and cut off, one must be able to speak one's mind and follow one's interests, one must be able to float ideas, ask questions, get feedback and review things, all the things that are possible in groups like this, but that are hard to find at school. School is one of the worst environments for someone to read something, concentrate on matters, raise issues, pose questions and get answers.

In the classroom you would be required to answer questions posed by the 'learners' and your inability to provide straight forward answers to even simple questions would reveal your demagoguery. Stop hiding behind your computer desk.

 

Nonsense! Everybody can see that I've been replying to virtually all comments. I've addressed even the most trivial questions.
 

Explain in a general manner how a schooling system, free of any government control, would operate to ensure that the poorest and least educated members of our communities are not left behind. If you are unable to do so, then I can only conclude that you are an elitist.

 

A schooling system? Who needs a schooling system? School itself is the inventor of the class system. And you dare call me an elitist? Just check the figures as to what kind of people go to university to study law and medicine. Just check the proportion of people from a poor background there. Is it higher than the number of poor people in the general population? So, what is this education system effectively doing? Are the poor people who work hard and do an honest job paying taxes that are used to get give the boys in the rich families their nice little studies in creative accounting and business studies? Why should the poor be forced to give up their hard-earned money to pay the bureacrats who set up a system that is constructed to give the rich a lawyer, doctor or politician in the family?

 

I am Sam, I have the answer!

[DRugh]

That is a good description of the heirarchial process imposed on the
citizenship by schools.

Now given that we see what we our a product of, it seems to me that we
need to figure out how to counteract our lengthy indoctrination.
Talking about the system is the first step. Somehow, I don't think
that will change much.

I mean I can maintain lip service to an idea, and then go right into my
daily life behaving completely differently. That is the beauty of the
education we received. It maintains the system because it trains
people to split their behavior depending on the context. It is
training to be deeply hypocritical. 99% of our fellow citizens will
consistenly identify with the institution that they work for, and the
1% is spread out all over the country without a chance to be organized.

So the next step is to decide where you will take a stand, and do not
let the institutions bully you into doing something that is not
ethical.

DRugh

[zinnic]

Pulleeeze! Continued rants about problems in the current system is
non-responsive!
Let me try again!
Explain in a general manner how the 'Educational System' you favor and
propose would operate, free of any government control, to ensure that
the poorest and least educated members of our society are not left
behind.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/5/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Explain in a general manner how the 'Educational System' you favor and propose would operate, free of any government control, to ensure that the poorest and least educated members of our society are not left behind.

Why don't you explain to me, zinnic, how you arrived at the so obviously falsely conclusion that the current education system somehow benefitted anyone, in particular the poor? Your rhetoric that the "least educated members of our society are not left behind" is totally circular. If, in the current system, they are the least educated ones, by your own definition, then wouldn't they gladly bet on any other system (since they are the least educated ones right now) to improve their odds of ending up differently then somewhere at the very bottom?
 

Let's kick out government! It's done a bad job. Government has proven to be not fit to educate people. Presenting political indoctrination as education, twisting figures to make it look as if the poor were better off, enforcing values like bullying and coercion onto kids, it's one big disaster whatever way you look at it.

 

Look around you! Prices of houses are booming. There's a huge demand for bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc. Try to renovate your house and you'll be surprised at what you'll have to pay to get something done. To get it done well, you'll have to pay even more. Why is this the case? Because of this "education" system that was supposed to benefit the poor and that was supposed to deliver skilled and qualified people. As it turns out, school doesn't produce skilled people at all. School-leavers have to undergo massive deprogramming in order to become employable.

 

This situation is most destructive for boys and girls from a poor background who could have earned a high income and learned valuable skills, but are instead forced to sit in classrooms listening to teachers who preach maths. Ask a classroom how many kids do not want to hear about maths and count the fingers. Ask whether they want to earn a honest living and count those fingers again. Then ask who they would trust would return their wallet, if they had left it behind, an accountant, a lawyer, a postman, a carpenter or an electrician?

 

Why do schools insist that everyone should learn mathematical nonsense that they'll never use in their entire life in the first place? Who of all the members in this group here does use any maths on a daily basis anyway, I mean other than primary school maths, which one picks up naturally in the first place even if one never went to school? Well, when was to last time you calculated the root of something? Why should that kind of thing be forced upon people who don't have the slightest interest in it? Isn't forcing these kind of things upon kids creating the very antipathy against it that is so noticable in our rurrent society?

 

We should re-evaluate the education system. The people who claim to be doing this evaluation either seem to be refusing to do so or they are deliberately falsifying the situation. The education system is in deep shit! The "researchers", due to massive conflicts of interest, are a disgrace to the very objectivity and neutrality they claim to uphold.

 

Think about honesty, zinnic, and then come back with further comments!

 

Sam

[zinnic]

Again you hide behind rantings in order to avoid aswering a simple
question. Your repeated presentation of what is wrong with the current
educational system is not at all constructive and seems to
demonstrate that you only get satisfaction from tearing things down.
Surely you recognize that there is infinitely more satisfaction in
creating things?
Give it a try by using the internet to describe what you would
substitute for post-primary school math. Are you advocating streaming
of students into trade schools or a return to the old apprentice
system ?
You claim superiority for the internet over government schools for
developing 'independent minds'. Well get to it. Stop posting your
infinite 'digress' into the evils of government-controlled schooling
and provide a general outline of your alternative system. This will
enable a rational discussion with the possibility of reaching some sort
of understanding.
For example, I agree that compulsory schooling for all students thru 12
th grade is ridiculous and that training in work/study programs would
really benefit many who are not academically inclined. C,mon Sam let's
have something positive!

[Sam Carana]

On 6/6/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Again you hide behind rantings in order to avoid aswering a simple question. Your repeated presentation of what is wrong with the current educational system is not at all constructive and seems to demonstrate that you only get satisfaction from tearing things down. Surely you recognize that there is infinitely more satisfaction in creating things?

 

Constructive? You mean collaborating with a system that is rotten to the core? Instead, what could be more rewarding than stimulating children in becoming creative - the very things the education system is out to kill? Why do you seek to stop me from exposing the way the education system is tearing down the early attempts from children to independent thinking? What do you have to gain by collaborating with the dark side? 

 

Give it a try by using the internet to describe what you would
substitute for post-primary school math. Are you advocating streaming of students into trade schools or  a return to the old apprentice system?

 

The fact that you refer to apprenticeship as a system shows your lust for control over young people. There has been orchestrated lobbying by scientists for decades to prohibit skilled people to take on young apprentices, under the pretence that young people were better off solving silly mathemetical puzzles in classrooms. The background now becomes clearer and clearer. People with skills constitute a challenge for the vacuum that scientist glorify to cement their grip over society. The now obvious result is huge unemployment on the one hand and a huge shortage of skilled people on the other hand. This is in fact the orchestrated work of scientists who have created a society in which young people leave school virtually without skills and with an attitude that is the very opposite of the work ethics that they so desperately needed in order to find work. Even parents who do possess good work ethics and skills are prohibited from passing this on to their own children. Anyone like me who lifts a figner against this horror is attacked with a vigor that illustrates how high the stakes are for the scientists and how hard they will fall.  

Apprentices constitue only one piece of the picture. The Internet is exposing that there are far better ways to find information and get answers to questions, faster, more conveniently and more efficiently than by sitting in a classroom getting bored, bullied and distracted. More importantly, the quality, depth and substance of information available on the Net far outreaches what school has to offer. 

 

All schools are scrambling to install computers. And people who do honest work are supposed to pay for all this, while they are not even allowed to subtract the cost of their kids homecomputer from tax.

All these schemes now becomes exposed. Education is getting a shake-up that is long-overdue. Scientists are taken and shaken off their self-erected pedestal and they are now finally exposed for their role in the cartel that is made up by education and the industrial-military complex.

You  claim superiority for  the internet over government schools for
developing 'independent minds'. Well get to it. Stop posting your
infinite 'digress' into the evils of  government-controlled schooling
and provide a general outline of your alternative system. This will

enable a rational discussion with the possibility of reaching some sort of understanding. For example, I agree that compulsory schooling for all students thru 12th grade is ridiculous and that training in work/study programs would really benefit many who are not academically inclined. C,mon Sam let's have something positive!

 

Good to hear that you do agree. It's indeed ridiculous that school knowingly and deliberately prohibits children to get the skills they need in order to find work. All the time, all these educational reserachers have been sitting on the data and they have been fully aware of the situation. They claim that society should trust them to do educational reserach. Instead, they have betrayed the children who were trusted into their care. Let's start with kicking these taxpayer-funded "researchers" out! Let's kick government out of education altogether, just like separation of State and Church was once advocated by many, but never fully implemented.

But don't expect it will be easy to untangle the web of cronyism and misrepresentation of facts that goes hand in hand with this system. Indeed, churches still work hand-in-glove with populist politicians to protect their tax-free status, which allows churches to continue their predatory targeting of the old and sick, threathening them with hellfire unless they hand over their life-savings. And let's not forget the grip of churches over education, which is funded with the money they prey from their elderly victims in order to indoctrinate the children when they're still young and impressionable, so that they - one day - will similarly hand over their life-savings to the church that "educated" them. 

 

You talk the talk to some extent, zinnic, but how far will you walk the walk with me? You ask for something positive? Why not allow children to develop their talents without indoctrination by the bureaucrats, the socialists, the corrupt politicians and the priests who all feed on the system and who are out to make children conform with the very system that is opposed to any independent thinking? At this very moment, children all over the country are being bullied into submission by a system that is out to break their will and strangle any independent thinking.  

 

I am Sam, that's who I am... 

[zinnic]

Snip ( negativity)

:'You talk the talk to some extent, zinnic, but how far will you walk

the
walk with me? You ask for something positive? Why not allow children to

develop their talents without indoctrination by the bureaucrats, the
socialists, the corrupt politicians and the priests who all feed on the

system and who are out to make children conform with the very system
that is
opposed to any independent thinking? At this very moment, children all
over
the country are being bullied into submission by a system that is out
to
break their will and strangle any independent thinking.
I am Sam, that's who I am... "

Ok Sam! Let us walk the walk! How do you propose that chidren develop
their talents? De novo? By osmosis? By instinct?. Parental guidence?
>From the internet?
What first positive step do you advocate for 'education' once it is
freed from government, church, institutional ,etc control? How will it
be financed?
Do you have any constructive suggestions? Try bouncing a few of your
ideas off your readers. Would that be helpful, or do you insist that
are you Sam who has (all) the aswers?.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/7/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Ok Sam! Let us walk the walk! How do you propose that children develop their talents? De novo? By osmosis? By instinct? Parental guidence? From the internet? What first positive step do  you advocate for 'education' once it is freed from government, church, institutional ,etc control?  How will it be financed? Do you have any constructive suggestions? Try bouncing a few of your ideas off your readers. Would that be helpful, or do you insist that are you Sam who has (all) the aswers?

 

Who needs universities? Much better research is done by companies that specialize in specific areas. People who are interested in learning about a subject are far better off joining one of these companies and learn while working there and getting paid, rather than being forced to pay for substandard education at bureaucratic universities.

 

School is possibly the worst place to go if you want to learn anything. Children now leave school virtually illiterate and uneducated in other respects as well. No skills, deplorable attitude. Yes, kids develop an attitude at school that makes them unemployable. They prefer to roam the streets in gangs, with their classmates. This pack-behavior is deliberately taught at school, where children are packed together in classrooms sorted by age. At school, fools teach the fools! They seek "fun" and have no other ambition than to spend the rest of their lives in nightclubs in the presense of their classmates. They are irresponsible and lack any sense of moral values. They expect to be entertained with luxury and expect others to provide them with all their needs. They believe that hostile behavior is the way to get more of that and that coercing and bullying others is the path to success.

 

By contrast, homeschooling has proven to be more successful than school, despite the huge amounts of money being thrown at schools, despite the huge amounts of money spent on teacher training and the time wasted by teachers who were "educated to educate", despite the legal threats against homeschoolers, despite the fact that homeschooling families are forced to pay twice, first for the education of their own children and then also by paying taxes to fund the school habits of others.

 

While parental guidence goes a long way, homeschooling isn't everything for everyone. Apprentices are similarly discouraged by the system. Self-education is much underrated and the few kids who are successful despite being forced into school often learn more by self-education (either when being bored in class or when making home-work at home) than from listening to the teacher. Teachers provide little guidence. Teachers aren't good role models either. The hypcracy of forcing kids out of their families into the classroom is obvious, and the values that school teaches with all this coercion, bullying and inconsistency are unacceptable.
 

Government involvement in education has proven to be detrimental and it would be far better if families could keep the "education" money the taxman now forcibly takes away from them, and instead spend this money on real education of their own children.
 

School vouchers are a step in the right direction, but in the longer term we should work to kick government out of education altogether.

 

Sam, the one with the plan.

[zinnic]

Aha! So you favor 'companies' over Universities? Without the basic
research of universities, much of what you take for granted could not
have been developed by your"companies".
Give me an example of a "company" that conducts in house basic
research iin which they see no future profit.
Do you think that "companies" initiated investigations in molecular
biology? In information science? Of course not. They jumped on the
bandwagon only after academic research revealed the possibility of
profitable developments. These for-profit companies never fully repay
the debt they owe to our education system.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/8/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Aha! So you favor 'companies' over Universities?

 

I do foresee that, without the support of the predatory education system, most universities will not survive. Some may continue to preach their shameful message, and people like me will continue to expose their shame and warn honest people against their practices. However, I do not suggest that we should privatise education while leaving other sectors unchanged. Reform should take place throughout society.

Without the basic research of universities, much of what you take for granted could not have been developed by your"companies".

 

Basic research? Do you honestly believe that you can fool people into believing that universities had some secret elixer that allowed them - through their exclusive access to "knowledge" - to develop theories that resulted from "basic" research.. research that was so "basic" that it was outside the reach of mere mortals in companies?

 

What's basic about the whole thing is the money that is forcibly taken from honest people and poured down the drain into the hands of these universities that are privileged by the education system over private companies that are much better equipped to do such research.  
 

Give me an example of a "company" that conducts in house basic
research iin which they see  no future profit.

 

Oh, so now it's the profit thing, is it? Research that results in profits is basically evil and therefore should be presented as if it was untrue, while any idiot who did something that doesn't result in anything profitable therefore automatically spoke the "Truth", not? Is that your approach to honesty in research? Is that the message you suggest should be spoonfed to children at school?

Do you think that "companies" initiated investigations in molecular
biology? In information science? Of course not. They jumped on the bandwagon only after academic research revealed the possibility of profitable developments. These for-profit companies never fully repay the debt they owe to our education system.

 

Oh, now it's academic research again, is it? If it's done by universities, then it's somehow true and if it's done elsewhere, it's by definition untrue? Is that your dogma? Does that reflect the quality of the reserach you expect me to pay for?

 

Let's get real! Of all the good and useful thoughts that people have had, all over the world and throughout history, the ideas contemplated at universities are such a tiny part that they are totally insignificant. In fact, universities proportionally produce more totally useless and outright bad ideas. Yet, these high priest in their ivory towers have to gal to appropriate all the ideas from others, without even asking permission, and to sell it (using copyright loopholes) under their own brandname as if they had exclusive access to all this "knowledge". Well, the plot is hereby exposed, the exclusive access is merely a scheme, designed by educational bureaucrats and others who feed on such a system.
 

To further answer this question, I have great respect for people who do things without expecting to get paid. I have even greater respect for people who do things without expecting to get public funding for doing nothing! That is in fact the very problem with the education system. Teachers, lecturers and - sadly - researchers see the education system as a career that brings them power, status and money, rather than that they pursue issues because they were genuinely interested in them.

 

Do I blame all those teachers, lecturers and researchers for that? Only to some extent. The entire education system is designed to beat any independent thinking out of people from a young age and to instead indoctrinate them with the wrong values. So, to some extent, most people are wearing the blindfolds of the system. I am merely lifting the blindfold and showing you a peak of what the future will bring, i.e. a good dose of reality and honesty. Yes, a sense of reality, subtance and honesty is what's so sadly lacking in the education system, to the extent that most "academic research" is so biased that it can be thrown straight into the rubbish bin.

 

Sam

[zinnic]

"Yes, a sense of reality, subtance and honesty is what's so sadly
lacking in the education system, to the extent that most "academic
research"
is so biased that it can be thrown straight into the rubbish bin.
Sam"

You are SO anti-university.
Does your hate encompass the Art, Language and Humanities departments?
Are you a disgruntled student/professor terminated because the quality
of your reasoning was no better than you demostrate in your posts?.
Sam, Sam. Look up the meanings of "reality, substanceand honesty" and,
applying them as a standard, totally tear down and rewrite your posts.

Whilst you are at it, check out the difference in the meanings of
assertion and evidence!

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
> The entire education system is designed to beat any independent
> thinking out of people from a young age and to instead indoctrinate them
> with the wrong values. So, to some extent, most people are wearing the
> blindfolds of the system. I am merely lifting the blindfold and showing you
> a peak of what the future will bring, i.e. a good dose of reality and
> honesty. Yes, a sense of reality, subtance and honesty is what's so sadly
> lacking in the education system, to the extent that most "academic research"
> is so biased that it can be thrown straight into the rubbish bin.
> Sam

What in the world has caused you to be so rabidly opposed to the
education system? I know it has problems, but it is not the monster
that you describe. The only thing you are giving us a 'peek of' is the
mind of a paranoid!

[Sam Carana]

Is or isn't the education system a monster? Good question, goozlefotz! Let's have a look at the facts! The size of the education system is huge and growing. If we only look at the tax-subsidized K-12 system in the US, that alone consumes a budget of over $400 billion/per year.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities/msg/7f9f1c40d0d66e05

 

And for what pusposes are such huge budgets used? How effective are they in educating people? Where is the evidence that this money isn't misappropriated? Who checks whether this money isn't directed into all kind of schemes? The educational bureaucrats check themselves, under the banner of "independence" from politics!

 

Yes, this education system is a closed world-on-its-own that doesn't allow outsiders to scrutinize the conduct of their high priests! If someone like me stands up against this and speaks out, the people who receive the high salaries in the educational bureaucracy jump up. Instead of doing the work they're paid to do, they seek to silence me. But honestly, tell me why shouldn't I expose things like parents being forced to pay for teaching that indoctrinates their children with values that are the very opposite of what the family believes in? If it's clear that families are forced to pay for their own mental torture, then why shouldn't I question the values behind this system? 

 

This education system is a monster that's out to control society at large. Educational bureaucrats control who enters certain occupations, including medical and legal professions. In this way, they ensure that only willing collaborators are appointed to positions of influence. These educational bureaucrats work hand in glove with all the lawyers, doctors, teachers and the like, scheming to further expand their privileges and assert their grip over society.

 

The educational bureaucrats demand further privileges, expanding their copyright advantages and their indemnity against being held to account for their conduct under the banner of independence, objectivity and their own assessment of who was qualified to assess this. Scientists are among the worst offenders, combining this attitude with commercial and military secrecy provisions, in order to escape accountibility for the creation of weapons of mass destruction for the highest bidder. Yes, why shouldn't I suggest a pledge for scientists, somilar to the oath in the medical professions? The military-industrial complex operate as a cartel to escape any scrutiny and hold society at large at ransom, demanding ever more money without even bothering to justify their expenses. They seek to imprison all of us with "security" that we have to pay for, yet never asked for. The current situation, in which it takes just one little spark for the entire world to explode in a rain of nuclear explosions, this is the creation of the very system that controls us, blindfolds us and teaches us that that this was good for us!

 

Why should we question this! Even some very superficial research reveals the extent to which the system is twisting things. All this money is forcibly extracted from honest people under the false pretence that it was to be used for education and that it gave such a good education to our children. Meanwhile, the biggest development in education is the rise of homeschooling. Yes, homeschoolers, who are forced to pay for the school habits of other families on top of educating their own children, are far more successful than what the system delivers after taking all our money, harassing us and denying us access to many occupations. Homeschoolers are the living proof of the deceiptful conduct of these educational bureaucrats!

 

And the epistemologists who are paid high salaries to look into questions of ethics, truth and the substance behind claims of knowledge, they are looking the other way and they are pay lip-service to the system, in sync with the educational researchers, who are paid to research what educational methods were successful. Are they deliberately falsifying their own research, are they deliberately doing the opposite of what they were paid for? You tell me! How is it possible that so much money is spent on "research" in the education system, while it closes its eyes for the obvious?

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/9/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

You are SO anti-university. Does your hate encompass the Art, Language and Humanities departments? Are you a disgruntled student/professor terminated because the quality of your reasoning was no better than you demonstrate in your posts? Sam, Sam. Look up the meanings of "reality, substance and honesty" and, applying them as a standard, totally tear down and rewrite your  posts.

Whilst you are at it, check out the difference in the meanings of
assertion and evidence!

Evidence? University is inherently dishonest, as is self-evident by its own definition. University seeks to indoctrinate people with the wrong political idea that they had exclusive access to (falsely-presumed) universal laws, and they keep up this charade while their own research points to the opposite! University is dishonesty institutionalized! This system demands ever more public funds for spreading the wrong message and it uses the money to silence people like me who take an honest look at things! You, check your own values before you speak to me about honesty, zinnic!
 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

You are so ridiculous. Schools that receive public funding are
answerable to their state legislatures. In addition, there are tons of
federal regulations dictating how federal money can and can't be used.

And how much of this university research do you read, anyway?

And how many "epistemologists" do you know personally? You seem to have
a lot of opinions about what they do and don't do around the office. Do
you have any experience with faculty in that area?

Did you even go to university? If so, what kind?

[Sam Carana]

On 6/9/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are so ridiculous.

 

Your personal attacks show what values you believe in.

Schools that receive public funding are answerable to their state legislatures.

 

State legislation is the root of the problem. There's no state that doesn't require homeschoolers to be registered, tested, monitored, etc. It's a denial of the prior rights of parents to decide what kind of education their children are to get.

 

In addition, there are tons of federal regulations dictating how federal money can and can't be used.

 

And it doesn't work. Money is forcibly taken from homeschoolers to fund the very teachers whose values they oppose. Vouchers would put more honesty into the system, but they still don't give money back to people who do a good job educating their own children at home. This just shows what values are inherent to the system. The system is built on false values of coercion, bullying and subsequent twisting of these acts in lame efforts to hide the full extent of the horror ot causes. Universities are instruments in this plot. That's why they are funded!

Meanwhile, the world gets more dangerous every day as scientists in nation after nation are scheming to put together more weapons of mass destruction. And what do you have to say in reply? Your personal attacks do fit in so well with this system that seeks to silence anyone who points a finger at the obvious.
 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

Pardon me. "Your arguments are so ridiculous." Is that better?

And why did you switch from talking about the universities to primary
school? Can't you stay on topic?

[Sam Carana]

On 6/9/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pardon me. "Your arguments are so ridiculous." Is that better?

 

Your apology is not accepted. You seem set to ridicule yourself, which is a disgrace.  

And why did you switch from talking about the universities to primary school? Can't you stay on topic?

 

Independent thinking doesn't start at university. Your accusation that I was off-topic is yet another silly messages that appears to have no otjher aim than insulting the intelligence of group members. This kind of conduct can only lead to your posts being filtered out by anyone who expects messages with substance. You're not funny and your "wit" isn't appreciated here. Get serious for a change, if you do want to participate in serious discussions!

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Watch out! Sam is starting to foam at the mouth again!

[mwe...@crosscomnational.com]

The argument being carried out right now only supports Sam's
opinions on the matter in that this very discussion, or argument in
this case, group is allowing many different views and opinions, right
or wrong, to be expressed and viewed by the online masses. This can be
viewed as good or bad since the knowledge gained can be true or false.
But on that same note, that is what allows the system to work since
people from all walks of life have a chance to broaden their horizons
using more then one facet. It is the single persons choice whether or
not being in a classroom or discussing things online is more beneficial
to the encouragement of their independant thinking.

Personally, however, I feel that the classroom in many cases,
especially primary education more so than higher education, is the
slaughterhouse to prepare the cow for the meat packing plant.

[Abhishek Bhawsar]

isnt is exactly what "another brick in the wall III" potrays ??
yes i agree, from the very primary school a child is taught to be with the existing system.
a system of predefined rules predefined thinking.
how does one expect independent thinking to creep in ?

[Sardonic Witt]

See, I think these arguments disprove Sam's case. He acts very
dishonestly, so we spend FOREVER sitting on one point, which never gets
resolved.

Then people get kicked out the forum ...

Give me the classroom any day.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/17/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

See, I think these arguments disprove Sam's case. He acts very

dishonestly, ...

 

Personal attack, slander and defamation!

..so we spend FOREVER sitting on one point, which never gets resolved.

 

There's no necessity to resolve anything. Unlike in school, members here are re free to stick to their opinion. Even when it's as silly as yours, you've still been given the opportunity to express yourself and people like me have read it and I;'ve evn taken the time and effort to respond to it. By contrast, the classroom leads to mental lethargy and paralysis making it hard for people to come up with ideas. I and some other members here do raise issues, whereas your message appears to be to attack people for doing aso. You must have been taught to do this at school... 

Then people get kicked out the forum ...

 

Who has been kicked out of this or any other forum? Even if you were more closely moderated at this group (something I strongly support), you're free to start your own group and give it a name that befits your character, as a warning to people who do want to discuss things. 

Give me the classroom any day.

 

If you cannot articulate any arguments, then why make such a nonsense statement? It just indicates that you haven't got any arguments at all, as I've said all along.  

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

Um, calling your behavior dishonest is neither a personal attack, nor
slander, nor defamation. (Isn't slander spoken, btw?)

I don't know you well enough to attack you personally. What damage I'm
a causing to your reputation? I don't even know you.

And I've always been free to speak my mind in class. And people don't
jump on me and try to call me names, call my opinions silly or try to
invent some vast conspiracy to explain why I'm actually somebody else
who you don't think matters.

You strongly support that I *personally* am more closely monitored?
What does this mean?

Here's what I love: Sam makes ridiculous statements "Homeschooling is
obviously better than public school" and provides no support and gets
hostile when someone asks for proof. Then if I say "give me the
classroom any day," I get accused of making a nonsense statement
because I didn't back it up?

[zinnic]

Sam- at the risk of being again labelled as "questionable", may I ask
a crucial question that arises if , and when, 'education' is completely
devoid of government control?

How would you ensure adequate 'education' of the children of
illiterate parents, too poor to afford private school, when free
state-controlled schools are no longer available!
Please do not dismiss this question as a personal attack on you.
Honestly, I am really interested in the mechanism you envisage.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/17/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Um, calling your behavior dishonest is neither a personal attack, nor slander, nor defamation. (Isn't slander spoken, btw?)

 

It is, and the suggestion that it wasn't, adds to it. I call for closer moderation of this person.

I don't know you well enough to attack you personally.

 

Calling someone dishonest is a personal attack.

What damage I'm a causing to your reputation?

 

Again, this adds another insult.

I don't even know you.

 

The more reason not to personally attack me.

And I've always been free to speak my mind in class.

 

Indemnity within the classroom is another example of the undeserved privileges the education system seeks for itself. It reflects some of its many bad habits, such as elitism and lack of responsibility.

And people don't jump on me and try to call me names, call my opinions silly or try to invent some vast conspiracy to explain why I'm actually somebody else who you don't think matters.

 

You've only got yourself to blame for this.

You strongly support that I *personally* am more closely monitored? What does this mean?

 

Insults such as posted in this message violate the terms of groups like this one. This message shouldn't have been posted. 

Here's what I love: Sam makes ridiculous statements "Homeschooling is obviously better than public school" and provides no support...

 

Adding comments like "ridiculous" shows character. Homeschooling is obviously better than public school. Because it's so obvious, no elaboration is needed. The onus is on the education system to justify itself, because it seeks to force kids into school. The onus is not on hostages to justify why they should be free, while the robbers are obviously wrong, even if there was no further support for that than the pointed gun. It is not "ridiculous" to say that the robbers are wrong. As I said, the persistent use of comments like "ridiculous" shows character and adds further reasons for closer moderation.
 

and gets hostile when someone asks for proof.

 

Not hotile. I'm trying to preserve the integrity of this group by calling for closer moderation against someone who is obviously out to sabotage this group.

Then if I say "give me the classroom any day," I get accused of making a nonsense statement because I didn't back it up?

It is nonsense because kids are forced into classrooms, without having a choice. The denial of this simple truth adds further insult to injury. There simply is nothing else in each and every post of this person but insults.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/18/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Sam- at the risk of being again labelled as "questionable",  may I ask a crucial question that arises if, and when, 'education' is completely devoid of government control?

How would you ensure adequate 'education'  of the children of
illiterate parents, too poor to afford private school, when free
state-controlled schools are no longer available!

 

Firstly, we should ask ourselves what kind of education we want for our children. We have the prior right to see that our children get  educated in accordance with what we believe in. But what choice does the system offer? Do we want people to become independent thinkers? What kind of values do we want our children to be taught? That coercion and bullying should be encouraged and that independent, voluntary research should be prohibited? That children should be paraded in front of flags, making pledges to be obedient to an oppressive sytem? That people who speak up against such oppression should be silenced? That it is bad conduct to discuss things among friends? That rulles should be followed without listening to one's consceince?

 

Clearly, there are many things wrong with public school and with the education system in general and I'm not even talking about the many young people who leave public school functionally illiterate. I'm talking about the values that are taught by the system. While some may misguidedly feel comfortable with such values, public school inevitably imposes values on some kids that are the direct opposite of what the family believes in. This is the background of the paralysis of public school, making it hard for anyone to learn anything.

 

One doesn't need degrees to come to the above conclusion. The education system isn't even bothered about such issues, as it is more out to perpetuate itself, to maintain and expand its grip over society, than that it has any concern about the lasting moral and educational damage it inflicts on society at large.

 

You ask me for guarantees, zinnic? The current system guarantees that things will go wrong! The system doesn't ensure any adequate 'education'  of the children of illiterate parents, it offers no guarantees at all and the evidence of the opposite is walking out of the schools all around you. In fact, the education system created those illiterate parents in the first place! If we removed government control, fewer people would be too poor to afford private school, because the "free" state-controlled schools currently make it hard for private schools to financially compete in this market. Once public schools are abolished, good and honest schools will emerge wherever there's a market for it and they will no longer be paralysed by the impossible task of teaching kids who obviously don't want to learn what they so principally oppose. Choice in education will remove this Mexican stand-off and will allow us all to get on with our lives.

 

Let's face it, school isn't a prerequisite for a good education. People can learn far more in apprenticeships and the interest that is nurtured by the experience works as an incentive, as opposed to the paralysis, the bullying and coercion at school. Furthermore, the evidence of the success of homeschooling is overwhelming and the more notable, since it is achieved despite the huge legal and social harassment by the system, without getting financial support, and while homeschooling families are forced to pay taxes to fund the school habits of others on top of their own efforts. Homeschoolers provide the living evidence that most if not all of the money poured into the education system isn't merely wasted, it actually result in a worse educational outcome than if there was no government control at all. Anyone with a genuine interest in this topic should have noticed this.

 

But to get back to my first point, bad values in itself is reason enough to abolish the education system. The fact that the educational bureacrats close their eyes for the success of homeschooling is another testimony of the inherently bad values of the education system. Ask yourself, why do all the bureaucrats that feed on the huge amounts of money poured into education refuse to take notice of the success of homeschooling? Money and power can corrupt, but being taught bad values from a young age is a even greater peril.

 

If a robber points a gun at me, demanding me to hand over the money, rather than to continue my shopping, then it will be obvious to any honest person who is wrong in this picture. Yet, zinnic, it seems to me that you keep questioning what is so obvious in this picture. I know, bankrobbers and teachers are not exactly the same, but there are similarities and the comparison should make it clear that the onus is not on me to provide evidence why I should be allowed to buy my groceries when I'm in the grocery store. Parents have the prior right to ensure that their children get an education that is in accordance with what they believe in, while public school has so obviously failed in so many respects. What is it about the obvious that you do not see, zinnic? 

 

Sam  

[jt]

well, it just so happens that in order to figure rafter length you take
a square root (for the common, not the jack) and it takes two square
roots to figure hip length. of course one need not attend a public
school in order to learn how to do this

[jt]

well, sardonic witt, you may never have been called names or belittled
by your teachers, but I was
and I happen to think that home schooling is the answer

[jt]

are the moderators back logged? I have posted twice but see nothing
though my first post should be more than an hour old
is this normal?

[jt]

also, I wonder why the page reads 'new topic posted' instead of 'reply
posted' when i ATTEMPT to post

[zinnic]

Control freaks hurt everyone, including themselves (from an article by
Lisa Irizarry).
How to spot a control freak:

Picky and critical.
Always needs to be right.
Tells you who you are and what you think.
Implies that you're wrong or inadequate when you don't agree.
FEELS ATTACKED WHEN QUESTIONED.
Does'nt seem to really see or hear you.
Hangs on to a project forever.
Feels most comfortable when in charge.
Winning an argument is more important than finding the best solution.
Not getting what he or she wants is met with anger.

Sam--You score 10/10. I award you an A++ as a control freak.

[jt]

oops boy is my face red sorry so impatient

I really do think home schooling is worth the investment (mainly time)

[Sam Carana]

On 6/19/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Control freaks hurt everyone, including themselves (from an article by Lisa Irizarry). How to spot a control freak:

Picky and critical.
Always needs to be right.
Tells you who you are and what you think.
Implies that you're wrong or inadequate when you don't agree.
FEELS ATTACKED WHEN QUESTIONED.
Does'nt seem to really see or hear you.
Hangs on to a project forever.
Feels most comfortable when in charge.
Winning an argument is more important than finding the best solution.
Not getting what he or she wants is met with anger.

Sam--You score 10/10. I award you an A++ as a control freak.

 

Nonsense, zinnic, I'm not out to control the education of children. The opposite! I'm saying that their parents have the first right to decide how their children are educated.

 

I'm exposing the control freaks, who are in the education system, seeking to indoctrinate and brainwash our beautiful children, in an effort to mould them into robots fitted with a straitjacket that fits nobody, with the aim to create a society of robots that march along - flags raised - singing the government's anthem and poiting gins at anyone who disagrees.

 

Let's be honest, zinnic, and recognize control freaks when we spot them - the education system is full of control reaks who seek ever more control over us and our children!

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

jt wrote:
> also, I wonder why the page reads 'new topic posted' instead of 'reply
> posted' when i ATTEMPT to post

It always says that! Ignore it.

[jt]

well, the individual teachers and administrators need not necessarily
be control freaks. the individuals who created the idea of federal
policies for education are the control freaks

[zinnic]

Nonsense, zinnic, I'm not out to control the education of children. The

opposite! I'm saying that their parents have the first right to decide
how
their children are educated.

I agree!
Do you agree that parents DO NOT have the right to DENY their children
an education?
Again, let me ask you- if parents are illiterate and too poor to pay
taxes, should their children's education be subsidized by other tax
payers?
What mechanism do you recommend if there is to be no government
involvement in the process?

I'm exposing the control freaks, who are in the education system,
seeking
to indoctrinate and brainwash our beautiful children, in an effort to
mould
them into robots fitted with a straitjacket that fits nobody, with the
aim
to create a society of robots that march along - flags raised - singing
the
government's anthem and poiting gins at anyone who disagrees.

You are not exposing anything; you are asserting everything!
Is this 'open' conspiracy in the education system supported by all,
most or a minority of the 'educationalists' ? There must be a
significant 'underground' resistance (by the rank and file) to the
extreme indocrination and brainwashing that you assert (but do not
describe). Or is it your contention that all teachers (trained in
state-controlled colleges) are already brainwashed robots?

Let's be honest, zinnic, and recognize control freaks when we spot
them -
the education system is full of control reaks who seek ever more
control
over us and our children!

I recognize that some homeschoolers may also be control freaks.
Desperately clinging to a fictional right to do as they wish, whether
or not it is in the real interest of the community.

I find your repeated refusal to answer specific questions worrisome.
This is compounded by your several claims that your critics are
deliberately "sabotaging" this group, and your implications that,
therefore, they should be silenced by stricter 'moderation' .

Will you reassure me that you do not regard Epistemology as your own
personal group and that, as one of the 'stricter' moderators, you have
no intention of censoring posts that are critical of your (extreme)
views..

[jt]

damn, 8hours and still my post does not show up

[Sam Carana]

On 6/20/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Do you agree that parents DO NOT have the right to DENY their children an education?

 

Wow, that sounds like a lawyer who constructed a sentence in order to trap people into signing the opposite of what they wanted, zinnic. Whatever you're trying to say, zinnic, government isn't the best way to get there.

Again, let me ask you- if parents are illiterate and too poor to pay
taxes, should their children's education be subsidized by other tax
payers?

 

Education? What education, zinnic? The many years wasted by young people who are institutionalized to grow into a functional illiterate who is unemployable? That type of education? It's nonsense to spend people's hard-earned money on that, zinnic, it's an insult to people's rights and dignity.

 

BTW, people who are to poor to pay taxes are still forced by the system to pay taxes, and that money may well subsequently be wasted within the education system on high salaries for educational bureaucrats who designed these policies in the first place.

What mechanism do you recommend if there is to be no government involvement in the process?

 

Government makes things difficult for any alternatives to public school (such as cheap private schools, self-learning, correspondence schools, tutors, apprenticeships and homeschooling). More generally, government holds back development in society. We could easily have a more properous society in which everyone would be better off and education would be the least of our worries.

Is this  'open' conspiracy  in the education system supported by all, most or a minority of the 'educationalists' ?  There must be a
significant 'underground' resistance (by the rank and file) to the
extreme indocrination and brainwashing that you assert (but do not
describe). Or is it your contention that all teachers (trained in
state-controlled colleges) are already brainwashed robots?

 

Are you now trying to win a debate by seeking to push me into the extremist corner, zinnic, as if I was a lunatic with claims about conspiracies? This is a question of values, zinnic, and it's honesty that's at stake here. People have the first right to decide, especially where it concerns their own children's education. That is not some kind of extremist view, it's an argument first articulated here by Deborah (to give credit where it's due). Ironically, it's supported by any government that I've checked, it's the implementation by the educational bureaucrats who are paid to research these matters that is the problem. My added argument is that competition works better than a monopoly - in many respects, the education system preaches the opposite. Again, that's not an extreme view; experience supports my view.

I recognize  that some homeschoolers may also be control freaks.
Desperately clinging to a fictional right to do as they wish, whether
or not it is in the real interest of the community.

 

I never said that everyone should be forced to do homeschooling.
 

I find your repeated refusal to answer specific questions worrisome.

 

What questions, zinnic? Where have they been specified? I've been posting lengthy replies to all your comments for weeks now, zinnic, splitting out your comments into parts, to ensure each little part receives a full reply. What questions were hidden in your comments that I supposedly overlooked, zinnic? How sincere can you be, when saying you worry that I didn't fully answer any of your questions? I find your attitude worrisome, zinnic. After all my efforts to split things out and spell it out for you, how can you honestly say that I didn't answer your questions?

This is compounded by your several claims that  your critics are
deliberately "sabotaging" this group, and your implications that,
therefore, they should be silenced by stricter 'moderation' .

 

There is a duty upon the groupowner to do so. That's part of the Google terms for these groups. I suspect there is only one person behind the attempts to sabotage this group, who I suspect posts under multiple usernames.

Will you reassure me that you do not regard  Epistemology as your own personal group and that, as one of the 'stricter' moderators, you have no intention of censoring posts that are critical of your (extreme) views..

I welcome both constructive and destructive criticism of my views here, zinnic, but as said, there is a duty upon the groupowner(s) to stop personal attacks, insults, hate messages, offensive language, pressure to reveal personal details, etc. In fact, you have seen some examples of that show up here (without being censored). As said, that's part of the Google terms for these groups and it has nothing to do with my views. Messages posted to this group should be about epistemology.

 

It's a sad fact that some people, after losing a debate, resort to personal attacks. I will continue to call for closer moderation if this occurs. If the groupowner(s) allow me to assist with managing messages, I would feel compelled to stop such personal attacks before they degenerate the enjoyment of this group for other members, in the light of the terms set by Google for these groups. 

 

Nevertheless, I'm not aware that any censorship of views has taken place here, but if you don't want to take my word for it, by all means, post a message with a view, perhaps even an extreme view, to see whether it shows up here or not. Giving your view more substance would be a welcome change, after all your questioning of my views.  

 

Sam

[jt]

the right to do as they wish is not fictional
if there is some federal statute banning home schooling, I haven't
noticed it being enforced(I know home schoolers)

[goozlefotz]

My step daughter home schooled all three of her children - and did an
excellent job. The state (Missouri) requires the kids to take annual
tests to see if they are keeping up. There definitely is no law
against home schooling.

[Sam Carana]

"requires ..annual tests" implies that government claims it has to power to decide whether or not one was allowed to homeschool.

 

Sam

[jt]

that regulation sounded like state not fed to me

[Sam Carana]

Yes, and ..?...

Goozlefotz said: "There definitely is no law against home schooling."

 

Is a state government law not a law?
 

Governments at state, local and federal levels work hand in glove to protect their cartel of power and oppression.

 

Sam
 

[zinnic]

On 6/20/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> Do you agree that parents DO NOT have the right to DENY their children an
> education?

Wow, that sounds like a lawyer who constructed a sentence in order to
trap
people into signing the opposite of what they wanted, zinnic. Whatever
you're trying to say, zinnic, government isn't the best way to get
there.

Sam, there is no trap in my question. I believe that , through one
means or another, ALL children must be provided a basic education in
order that they become 'employable' and capable of advancing themselves
in society.
If parents are allowed to neglect this duty, their children will
become extremely disruptive to society. If government is not to take
responsibility, then what agency will, and how do you propose that it
will be funded? Surely I, and the other members of this group, deserve
an answer from you?

You are subjected to many questions because you advocate drastic
changes that IMO will create far more problems than they solve. I have
seen no "personal attacks, insults, hate messages, offensive language
....etc" in posts to this group that could possibly justify your call
for "closer moderation" and for you (if given a measure of control) to

"feel compelled to stop such personal attacks before they degenerate

the enjoyment of this group for other members".

It is all in your mind Sam. You are the one who keeps referring to
sabotage, governmental brainwashing, agendas etc. You stated previously
that to question your assertions is "questionable" and now it is
apparent that you take any question as a "personal attack".

I agree that "Messages posted to this group should be about
epistemology." Again, you are the one who keeps raising the politics of
free enterprise, homeschooling and the evils of governmental control.
Epistemology involves the discussion and explanation of the scope,
limits and justification of something being known.
Would you start by "explaining" your justification for knowing
(believing) that an unregulated "free enterprise system" will lead to a
"prosperous society" in which Education will be the "least of our
worries". And, presumably, EVERYONE will reach their full potential.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/24/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Sam, there is no trap in my question. I believe that , through one
means or another,  ALL children must be provided a basic education in order that they become 'employable' and capable of advancing themselves in society.

 

Are schools doing this? Are schools doing a better job than homeschoolers? If you make this claim, then please back it up with some references, zinnic, because I see many kids leaving school functionally illiterate and unemployable. Are you saying that school must therefore be prohibited, because of the ones that appear to have failed?

If  parents are allowed to neglect this duty, their children will
become extremely disruptive to society.

 

Parents who don't like spending much time on the education of their children are likely to send their children to school. It seems to me that school is responsible for producing extremely disruptive children. Just enter any classroom and you'll know what I mean. By contrast, enter any home where children are homeschooled and you'll see civilized and well-behaved people.

If government is not to take responsibility, ...

 

Government appears unable or unwilling to take the responsibility. As said, I see many kids leaving school functionally illiterate and unemployable. Should parents thus stop delegating responsibility to school? Is that what you're saying?

..then what agency will, and how do you propose that it will be funded? Surely I, and the other members of this  group, deserve an answer from you?

 

As I said numerous times, parents have the first rights to decide what education their children get.

You are subjected to many questions because you advocate drastic changes ...

 

Firstly, it's Deborah who has articulated the strong argument - here and in other groups - that parents have the first rights to decide what education their children get. But actually, that is what governments all over the world are saying, i.e. that parents have the first rights to decide what education their children get. I didn't make this up. The reform that I propose is to take place gradually and with caution.

..that IMO will create far more problems than they solve.

 

The problems are there and they are huge. Arguing that nothing should change is letting down these kids who turn out functionally illiterate and unemployable. But if you feel you can propose better reform, feel free to do so. Rather than attacking me with empty rhetoric, it would be good if you revealed your proposals instead.

I have seen no  "personal attacks, insults, hate messages, offensive language ....etc" in posts to this group that could possibly justify your call for "closer moderation" and for you (if given a measure of  control) to "feel compelled to stop such personal attacks before they degenerate the enjoyment of this group for other members".

 

Perhaps that's because you haven't seen some of these messages, as they were blocked, as one member claimed had happened. Anyway, it seems to have stopped, I haven't seen the main culprit post here again.

It is all in your mind Sam. You are the one who keeps referring to
sabotage, governmental brainwashing, agendas etc. You stated previously that to question your assertions is "questionable" and now it is apparent that you take any question as a "personal attack".

 

Some questions were indeed questionable. Others ask me questions, should I not be allowed to ask questions back? Public school is not a figment of my imagination, zinnic, is the sad reality enforced on many poor kids who would be better off with better educational alternatives.

I agree that "Messages posted to this group should be about
epistemology." Again, you are the one who keeps raising the politics of free enterprise, homeschooling and the evils of governmental control.

 

I did start a topic called the biggest issues in epistemology. In this topic, I brought up what I do see as big issues, and government control over science is one of them. Furthermore, I see the responsibility of scientists regarding their work on military projects as a big issue in epistemology. Homeschooling was actually brought up mostly by other members. This topic (which is a great topic) wasn't brought up by me either, but it does raise questions about school and shortcomings of the current education system.

Epistemology involves the discussion and explanation of the scope, limits and justification of something being known.
Would you start by "explaining"  your justification for knowing
(believing) that an unregulated "free enterprise system" will lead to a "prosperous society" in which Education will be the "least of our
worries". And, presumably, EVERYONE will reach their full potential.

The key position of scientists in society does call for such a discussion. So, where do scientists end up? Let;s have a look.

 

I see a most urgent need for the military to be split up. Currently, many scientists work in the military-industrial complex without being sufficiently prepared for the ethical issues raised by the possible consequences of their work. Scientists are also called as expert witnesses in court cases and collaborate with police in criminal investigations, which further shows the huge role that scientists play in the way society is controlled by government.

 

Furthermore, we need to look at the role of scientists elsewhere. Scientists form a vital part of the current education system, which is to a large extent under control of the government. The so-called "knowledge" of scientists is often mentioned as a (false) argument why kids should attend school, which is one area where the homeschooling discussion fits in.

 

It all calls up questions about what "knowledge" was, what science is, how scientists should be educated and what should be the role of scientists in society. I cannot think of anything more relevant for epistemologists to look at, but if they are as hesitant as you are to look into such questions, then my suspicions are only confirmed and there is even more reason for me to bring up these issues here.

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Nonsense, zinnic, I'm not out to control the education of children. The
> opposite! I'm saying that their parents have the first right to decide how
> their children are educated.
> I'm exposing the control freaks, who are in the education system, seeking
> to indoctrinate and brainwash our beautiful children, in an effort to mould
> them into robots fitted with a straitjacket that fits nobody, with the aim
> to create a society of robots that march along - flags raised - singing the
> government's anthem and poiting gins at anyone who disagrees.
> Let's be honest, zinnic, and recognize control freaks when we spot them -
> the education system is full of control reaks who seek ever more control
> over us and our children!
>
> Sam

Sam, you really are about the most unrealistic person I have ever dealt
with. Not to mention paranoid. The education system has serious
problems. The military has serious problems. But your approach is
like throwing out the baby with the wash. You simply have not made a
case for rejecting our present system for a vague and unspecified
alternative.
Dave

[jt]

just saying
PROVIDED there is not a double standard, home schooled kids should
provide a
FAVORABLE comparison to public schooled kids, and proving this on a
level playing field such as a standardized test should be considered an
opportunity to vindicate the descision to home school

[Sam Carana]

On 6/25/05, jt <leavingth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

just saying
PROVIDED there is not a double standard, home schooled kids should provide a FAVORABLE comparison to public schooled kids, and proving this on a level playing field such as a standardized test should be considered an opportunity to vindicate the descision to home school

As a matter of fact, many studies indicate that homeschoolers do actually score higher in tests, despite the fact that such tests are typically biased towards the school environment in the first place.
 

But not only is your statement at odds with such tests, it is also at odds with the right of parents to choose the education they want for their children.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/25/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The education system has serious problems.  The military has serious problems.  But your approach is like throwing out the baby with the wash.  You simply have not made a case for rejecting our present system for a vague and unspecified alternative.

The case has been made so many times in so many different areas that it should be clear by now. A monopoly doesn't work well. Splitting up a monopoly is a better solution than regulating a monopoly.
 

Sam

[jt]

i am not in any way at odds with being able to choose the education I
want for my children
i say bring the tests on
and let the numbers speak for themselves

[zinnic]

And do you believe that "splitting up a monopoly " is not a regulation
of that monopopoly? To my knowledge, the only agency that has ever
split up a monpoly is the govrnment! So after all you have said, you
now support governmental intervention? Or how else would you split up
a monoply?

[zinnic]

The case has NOT been made etc. This negative assertion is as valid as
yours until you provide evidence that it is not.
Everyone accepts that a monopoly does not work well, but what agency,
other than government, do you propose be involved in "Splitting up a
monopoly?

[zinnic]

Are schools doing this? Are schools doing a better job than
homeschoolers?
If you make this claim, then please back it up with some references,
zinnic,
because I see many kids leaving school functionally illiterate and
unemployable. Are you saying that school must therefore be prohibited,
because of the ones that appear to have failed?

Yes! Schools are doing a better job of educatiog children whose
parents are incapable (unqualified) of home schooling. Or is it your
position that no schooling is better than your alleged brainwashing by
the state?
Surely you are the one saying that schools must be prohibited? Unlike
you, I would not suggest that anything that is not ideal (perfect)
should be destroyed!

Enter any 'home' where children are neither homeschooled or encouraged
to attend state school and you will not see "well behaved and civilized
people". However, enter homes in which parents our only hope for the
future of a fair and equitable society.
What are we to do with the children of "parents who dont like to spend
much time [or no time] on the education of their children"? If there is
no free state school are they going to be motivated to send their
children to "inexpensive" private schools ?

Government appears unable or unwilling to take the responsibility. As
said,
I see many kids leaving school functionally illiterate and
unemployable.
Should parents thus stop delegating responsibility to school? Is that
what
you're saying?

The system must be improved not destroyed. That is what I am saying.

As I said numerous times, parents have the first rights to decide what
education their children get.

So then I ask again. Do you believe that parents have the right to
deny an education to their children. This a straight forward question
that deserves a straight forward answer .

I know very well that there are problems, and I do advocate changes in
our 'schooling' system. You demand the total eradication of a proven
system that has advanced science and scholarship in the western world
for 1500 years, and advocate its replacement by a cottage industry
involving homeschooling, tutors and apprenticeships, with reliance
on "big business' to conduct any and all research for the benefit of
society.

Governments all over the world are saying what! That they should have
no control over education in their country? Give me one example or, if
you cannot, retract that statement!

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:

> The case has been made so many times in so many different areas that it
> should be clear by now.

Gee, I guess I must be stupid. As far as I can see, you have not made
a case for any of your proposals at all.
Dave

[goozlefotz]

The studies are skewed and not significant because the home schooling
parents are more educated and more conscientious than the general
population. If home schooling were universal, most kids would get
little or no education. This would be especially true if there were no
objective tests required to see who was doing it and who wasn't.

[Sam Carana]

Universal? Who said that homeschooling was the best alternative for everyone? Instead, I clearly mentioned many alternatives, including (but not restricted to) apprenticeships, tutors, online courses, self-study and many combinations of these. Furthermore, vouchers would be a step in the good direction and improve the current situation in which public school inflicts horrific damage on so many kids and their families.

 

What are you trying to say with your "objective tests required to see who was doing it and who wasn't". There are many kids who do attend public school and fail miserably on the very tests that the education system has designed to make it look as if only "qualified" teachers were able to make kids pass such tests. You can test such kids as many times as you want, but the more you keep testing, the more you take valuable time away that should instead be spent on education.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/25/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Sam said:
Are schools doing this? Are schools doing a better job than
homeschoolers? If you make this claim, then please back it up with some references, zinnic, because I see many kids leaving school functionally illiterate and unemployable. Are you saying that school must therefore be prohibited, because of the ones that appear to have failed?

Yes!  ..

 

So, schools that deliver kids who are, say, functionally illiterate, should be closed? Is that what you're saying? What should happen to the education of the kids? Perhaps the parents should be given vouchers, so they could select a better school?

Schools  are doing a better job of educatiog children whose
parents are incapable (unqualified)  of home schooling.

 

What kind of nonsense about "unqualified" homeschooling is this, zinnic? Was there a training program somewhere for homeschooling? It's in your brain, zinnic! Parents who aren't capable of homeschooling their children send them to school, that's the reality. It happens all the time, and vouchers would make life even better for such parents.
 

Or is it your position that no schooling is better than your alleged brainwashing by the state?

 

No school doesn't necessarily mean no education. There are many forms of education that are better, given the circumstances of the family, than school. Homeschooling, tutoring, self-education and apprenticeships are some of the alternatives. Vouchers would furthermore allow parents to select the school they prefer, if families don't like the brainwashing by the state. Such teachings shouldn't be enforced upon families who believe in the exact opposite!

Surely you are the one saying that schools must be prohibited?  Unlike you, I would  not suggest that anything that is not ideal (perfect) should be destroyed!

 

I see vouchers as a step in the right direction, but eventually I believe that government should be removed from education altogether.

Enter any 'home' where children are neither homeschooled or encouraged to attend state school and you will not see "well behaved and civilized people". However, enter homes in which parents our only hope for the future of a fair and equitable society.
What are we to do with the children of "parents who dont like to spend much time [or no time] on the education of their children"? If there is no free state school are they going to be motivated to send their children to "inexpensive" private schools ?

 

Again, I see vouchers as a step in the right direction, but eventually I believe that government should be removed from education altogether.
 

Government appears unable or unwilling to take the responsibility. As said, I see many kids leaving school functionally illiterate and
unemployable. Should parents thus stop delegating responsibility to school? Is that what you're saying?

The system must be improved not destroyed. That is what I am saying.

 

And I see vouchers as a step in the right direction, but eventually I believe that government should be removed from education altogether. Furthermore, there are many alternatives to school, including, but not restricyted to apprenticeships, learning while working, self-education, tutoring, online courses and all kinds of combinations of these.

As I said numerous times, parents have the first rights to decide what education their children get.

So then I ask again.  Do you believe that parents have the right to
deny an education to their children. This a straight forward question that deserves a straight forward answer .

 

Didn't I give a strait enough answer? The answer is no!

 

I know very well that there are problems, and I do advocate changes in our  'schooling' system. You demand the total eradication of a proven system that has advanced science and scholarship in the western world for 1500 years, ...

 

No, I support the introduction of vouchers as a step in the right direction. That's not a destruction of a proven system, it's the gradual improvement of a system that has proven to have failed. The current education system has held back intelligent discussions for centuries, but public school is a more recent example of its many failed experiments.

 

...and advocate its replacement by a cottage industry involving  homeschooling, tutors and apprenticeships, with reliance on "big business' to conduct any and all research for the benefit of society.

 

Schools need not be replaced. Vouchers will ensure that schools will exist on merit, rather than for purposes of political indoctrination with statist dogmas. Eventually, all government involvement with education should end, which makes it even more important to ensure that schools are complemented by good alternatives. The assumption that school was the only type of education that was better for every kid is simply wrong. But removing government from education should be done gradually and as part of a package of reform measures.

 

Furthemore, I never said that only "Big Business" should do all research. As discussed earlier in this group, Einstein completed his major work while he was kept out of the "research" environment of universities. It was only after universities decided they could use him to advance their political influence that Einstein was invited. Universities simply are not the best places for research to take place. Some research can be far better done at home. Other research can be better done in enterprises. But universities are the worst places for research.

 

Governments all over the world are saying what! That they should have no control over education in their country? Give me one example or, if you cannot, retract that statement!

 

For starters, read the Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/25/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

And do you believe that "splitting up a monopoly " is not a regulation of that monopopoly? To my knowledge, the only agency that has ever split up a monpoly is the govrnment!  So after all you have said, you now support governmental intervention? Or  how else would you split up a monoply?

Splitting up government operations does indeed imply political decisions. That doesn't imply I supported government regulation in principle. It's just a change of the already existing regulation that I advocate, leading to ever less regulation. 

 

Companies that dominate a certain sector of the market will split up by themselves. From the perspective of investors, monopolies and mergers often don't make sense but it's government regulations that make it hard for them to do otherwise. Investors in unregulated areas will not want their business to be a monopoly, because it makes more sense to split things up.

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Splitting up government operations does indeed imply political decisions.
> That doesn't imply I supported government regulation in principle. It's just
> a change of the already existing regulation that I advocate, leading to ever
> less regulation.
> Companies that dominate a certain sector of the market will split up by
> themselves. From the perspective of investors, monopolies and mergers often
> don't make sense but it's government regulations that make it hard for them
> to do otherwise. Investors in unregulated areas will not want their business
> to be a monopoly, because it makes more sense to split things up.
> Sam

He has you, Sam! You say all these things should be changed, yet give
no mechanism for implementing the changes. As the conversation has
proceeded, you have made more twists and turns than any snake, trying
to support your untenable position. More and more you look like a fool
who is too stupid to admit his idiocy.

[goozlefotz]

I found Sam's messiah:

FRIEDMAN NIGHT By William F. Buckley Jr.
Fri Jun 24, 8:05 PM ET

The other night in New York there was a great money-raising party in
honor of Milton and Rose Friedman. Those present were true believers,
and Milton Friedman is their nativity. That is true in a general sense,
since he is the author of definitive studies of the monetary system,
and is the American fons et origo of libertarian enterprise. He
received a Nobel Prize, endowed the University of Chicago and then the
Hoover Institution with his afflatus, and promises his disciples to
live forever, along with his brilliant and decorative wife, Rose. He
has made a flying start on this guarantee since he is 93 years old, and
he and Rose have been married for 67 years.

The Friedman Foundation, which was the evening's beneficiary, is
devoted to advancing the prospects of school choice. This is a very
live movement, born 50 years ago in an essay on the subject by Milton
Friedman. There are school-choice programs of various kinds ongoing in
several states, briefly described in the literature distributed at the
hotel along with the meal (it would have been tempting to write, in
lieu of a meal). The beneficiaries of school choice would include
students who use the voucher; students who remain in government schools
(these would improve on facing competition); employers (who would find
literate graduates applying for jobs); educational entrepreneurs (who
would invest in new and innovative schooling); and taxpayers --
inasmuch as school choice would bring reduced expenses.

The evening was star-studded. We had a tape of Alan Greenspan, who
hailed Friedman's work even as, later in the evening, Friedman would
hail the work of Alan Greenspan. George Shultz was on screen to name
Friedman the single most important human being of our time, a tribute
that ended in song. Henry Kissinger was physically present and gave a
brief glowing talk about the importance of Friedman as an international
symbol.

There came then, moderated by ABC's John Stossel, questions and
answers.

Here Milton Friedman says some things that require faith. He compares
the performance of Catholic schools and public schools in New York
City. The Catholic schools (only one-half of whose students are
Catholic) cost half as much per student as the public schools and send
almost twice as many graduates on to college.

Moreover -- a point very dear to Milton's heart -- the very act of
submitting to public schooling tames young spirits to associate public
enterprises with correct social enterprise. It is a contaminating
experience, he holds -- a breeding ground of budget allocations by
political bodies, submission to cartels of union-bound teachers, and a
spiritual acclimation to a norm which, far from being competitive,
encourages the kind of mediocrity that is associated with corporate
goals set by remote agencies.

On nothing are the Friedmans more emphatic than that school choice
would help poorer students. Competition inevitably encourages quality,
and students who are free to opt for alternative schooling would flock
to do so, as they have done in experiments in Chicago and Milwaukee,
and are expected to do in Arizona and Utah. Non-Catholic blacks fight
to get their children accepted in Catholic schools in Chicago, where a
premium is placed on work and on reading and writing. The principal
opponents of change are the same unions that Gov. Schwarzenegger is
fighting with in California, seeking to maintain their hold on the
teachers' victims -- the students.

Rose and Milton Friedman have committed their entire estate to their
foundation, which currently lists assets of more than $4 million.
Everything Milton touches has the feel of his optimism, and Wednesday's
event was no exception. Dinner chairman Charles Brunie announced that
the dinner had generated $993,000 in contributions. Whereupon a guest
raised his hand and said, "Count me in for $7,000," making it a
million-dollar affair.

[Sam Carana]

I don't see Milton and Rose Friedman as messiahs, goozlefotz. They may have worked out some very good steps in the right direction, but I doubt whether they fully agree with the wider picture as I see it, such as the urgent need to split up the military. Given Milton's age, I think we can excuse Milton for not going into discussion about that here. Anyway, thanks for posting that, goozlefotz!
 

Sam
 

On 6/26/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Sam Carana]

On 6/26/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There's no need for such language, goozlefotz! My ideas speak for themselves and they will be accepted on their merits, not because some zealous schoolteacher spoonfeeds kids with his political bias. I'm not selecting any specific mechanism to change society. It will happen because my views will get accepted across the board, i.e. in politics, education, the media, etc. People will acknowledge that it makes sense, while the foul language in your reponses doesn't make sense.

 

Sam

[zinnic]

sam- you again raise the urgent need to split up the military. I feel
unable to discuss this issue because I honestly do not have the
faintest idea what you are proposing. The military (national defence
forces as opposed to home security) is already split into the Airforce,
Army, Navy and Marines. How could these arms of our defense be furthur
split, and how do you propose that they compete with each other to make
National defence more efficient?
Are you using the word 'military' to encompass the whole
political/military/industrial complex? If so , then that is a different
matter and well worthy of discussion.

[zinnic]

Sam says--

"I'm not selecting any specific mechanism to change society. It will
happen because my views will get accepted across the board, i.e. in
politics, education, the media, etc. "

Sam- I know you are not religious, but this response seems almost
Messianic!
Whatever you do...don't let facts shake your Faith.

[zinnic]

Splitting up government operations does indeed imply political
decisions.
That doesn't imply I supported government regulation in principle. It's
just
a change of the already existing regulation that I advocate, leading to
ever
less regulation.

But "ever less regulation" will not continue. There will always be a
requirement for some regulation in spite of your lack of support "in
principle".

Companies that dominate a certain sector of the market will split up by
themselves.

And voluntarily give up the profits they are reaping? Sam-what Planet
do you live on?

>From the perspective of investors, monopolies and mergers often don't
make sense but it's government regulations that make it hard for them
to do otherwise.

And on your Planet up is down, and government regulations force
businesses to merge into monopolies?

Investors in unregulated areas will not want their business to be a
monopoly, because it makes more sense to split things up.

Do "investors" on your planet believe that" it makes more sense to
split things up" so that they can decrease their own dividends?.
Sam,- on my Planet, human nature is so different!

[Sam Carana]

On 6/28/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

sam- you again raise the urgent need to split up the military. I feel
unable to discuss this issue because I honestly do not have the
faintest idea what you are proposing. The military (national defence
forces as opposed to home security) is already split into the Airforce, Army, Navy and Marines.

 

That's just a functional subdivision of something that remains under one single control.

How could these arms of our defense be furthur split, ...

 

As said above, the current functional subdivision isn't much of a split. What I mean is more structural separation.

and how do you propose that they compete with each other ....

 

Structural separation implies they'll have to operate in competition with each other.

...to make National defence more efficient?

 

The security services we choose are chosen firstly because they provide the level of security we feel comfortable with. Competition will ensure that service levels will improve, which will benefit the overall security of all of us.

Are you using  the word 'military'  to encompass the whole
political/military/industrial complex? If so , then that is a different
matter and well worthy of discussion.

There should be competition in security services, just like there should be competition in manufacturing and other industries that may supply to providers of security services.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/28/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Splitting up government operations does indeed imply political
decisions. That doesn't imply I supported government regulation in principle. It's just a change of the already existing regulation that I advocate, leading to ever less regulation.

But "ever less regulation" will not continue. There will always be a
requirement for some regulation in spite of your lack of support "in
principle".

 

When things are going OK, there needs to be no regulation. Even when things don't go as well as one likes, regulation isn't necessarily the best solution.

 

Companies that dominate a certain sector of the market will split up by themselves.

And voluntarily give up the profits they are reaping? Sam-what Planet do you live on?

 

Splitting up will result in more financial benefits for investors.

 

From the perspective of investors, monopolies and mergers often don't make sense but it's government regulations that make it hard for them to do otherwise.

 

And on your Planet up is down, and government regulations force
businesses to merge into  monopolies?

Government isn't very good in preventing monopolies, because it's practice of licensing and privileging some does create monopolies. Government isn't against monopolies in principle, it's one huge monopoly itself. That's the problem.

 

Investors in unregulated areas will not want their business to be a
monopoly, because it makes more sense to split things up.
 

Do "investors" on your planet believe that" it makes more sense to
split things up" so that they can decrease their own dividends?.
Sam,- on my Planet,  human nature is so different!

 

It is in investors own financial benefit to avoid monopolies. The reason why they don't act upon this is that government makes it hard to do so. Your derogatory comments are not helpful.
 

Sam

[zinnic]

Sam, I am disparaging your assertions! Your manner of throwing out
generalities as if they are cogent facts simply frustrates me. Let me
'answer' your last post with some equally invalid general assertions .

For things to go OK, regulation is necessary.
Regulation is the best solution.
Splitting up will result in less financial benefits for investors.
Government prevents monopolies by issuing licenses for competitors to
operate.
It is in investors own financial interest to support a monopoly for
their own businesses (but not for other businesses).

These, together with your assertions, represent a childish "tis so,
tis'nt so" altercation that neither informs nor advances a discussion
of Government regulation.

Government is a monopoly? What is it you want? Two Governments with
competing Military, Senates, Houses of Representatives and Executive
branches?

I presume that you do not go so far as to advocate NO Government.
I suspect you support only a Government that will grant you, and a few
others, the freedom to act as YOU see fit, whilst denying others the
freedom to do whatever YOU deem unfit.

Sam, your posts burgeon with the intolerance and the self-righteousness
that I usually expect from a religious crusader! (BTW, do you interpret
this critiscm as "foul language"?)

[Sam Carana]

On 6/29/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Sam, I am disparaging your assertions! Your manner of throwing out generalities as if they are cogent facts simply frustrates me. Let me 'answer' your last post with some equally invalid general assertions .

For things to go OK, regulation is necessary.
Regulation is the best solution.
Splitting up will result in less financial benefits for investors.
Government prevents monopolies by issuing licenses for competitors to operate.
It is in investors own financial interest to support a monopoly for
their own businesses (but not for other businesses).

These, together with your assertions, represent a childish "tis so,
tis'nt so" altercation that neither informs nor advances a discussion
of  Government regulation.

 

Indeed, if you make statements like the above, then you do not advance discussion much at all. Such statements obviously don't make much sense, they are indeed "invalid general assertions". But the fact that the opposite is an invalid general assertion doesn't imply that my view was therefore invalid. No way, Jose! What I say, on the other hand, does make sense. That's the difference!
 

Government is a monopoly? What is it you want? Two Governments with competing Military, Senates, Houses of Representatives and Executive branches?

 

I advocate structural reform. I see no reason why we should be denied the benefits of competition in security services. It doesn't make sense to say that all grocery shops or fast food outlets should be owned and operated by government bureaucrats. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to say that government should have monopoly control over security services.
 

I presume that you do not go so far as to advocate NO Government.

 

We'll see how things go...

I suspect you support only a Government that will grant you, and a few others, the freedom to act as YOU see fit, whilst denying others the freedom to do whatever YOU deem unfit.

 

Nonsense, that would be outright dictatorship, which is the opposite of what I propose.
 

Sam, your posts burgeon with the intolerance and the self-righteousness that I usually expect from a religious crusader! (BTW, do you interpret this critiscm as "foul language"?)

Not foul language, but remarks like "childish" are unneccessarily insulting. Resorting to insults rather than arguments is usually an indication that people lack argument. It also doesn't make any sense to describe my view as intolerant, as I advocate that people can make decisions, i.e. the opposite of what happens now when government denies people opportunities to decide. 

 

Sam

[zinnic]

You totally miss the point (deliberate?) that a single exception
invalidates the sweeping generalities that you apparently regard as
evidence.
Is it your considered (and honest) claim that there are NO exceptions
to the assertions you made in your previous post?.

You advocate a structural change that will de-monopolize Government.
Describe one change whereby 'competition' would improve the efficiency
of the Military's role in national defence.
Don't try to cloud the issue with "Security services, grocery shops and
fast food outlets". Even you must concede that they are conspicuously
irrelevant to your claim that the Military and the National Government
be 'de-monopolized'.

Sam, you are so thin-skinned ! Do you find it hot in the kitchen?
Let me retract "childish" and, in place, "assert" that your claims
are 'naive, unsophisticated and totally lacking in moderation'.

[Sam Carana]

You seem to be saying that nothing should be changed. In this case, it's about the military, but it seems that you are making the sweeping generalization that nothing should be changed without your permission. Is there a deeper philosophy behind this position? I can follow that anyone who looks at ways to improve the military will disagree with anyone who doesn't want any changes, but why do you call someone who happens to disagree with you "naive, unsophisticated and totally lacking in moderation"? 

 

I'm trying hard to see if there was a deeper philosophy behind your position. Why should everything remain as it is? Is there some substance behind this statement, or is it just sophistry aimed to polish up your ego? Don't you understand that it sounds like you are saying that your statements were "true" just because you made them? Are you saying that I, just for having a different view, was therefore "naive, unsophisticated and totally lacking in moderation"? How sophisticated is that rhetoric? Isn't that an example of the very sophistry that would make any genuine sophist look unsophisticated?

 

If we apply your rhetoric to your own statements, then a single exception would invalidate the sweeping generalizations implied in the statements that you are making, and you are making them, btw, without seemingly bothering to provide supporting evidence. It looks like you are saying that you should be allowed to freely make sweeping generalizations just because you made them, while I wasn't allowed to express my view on things. Well, if that's what you are saying, zinnic, then I can only conclude that I strongly disagree with that kind of rhetoric. I don't have to call you names, I can simply tell you that I disagree, without resorting to personal attacks on the integrity of the person who happens to have a different view. Instead, I'm always keen to hear people out, so if there is some substance behind your view, feel encouraged to explain yourself.

 

Sam
 

On 6/30/05, zinnic < zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

You totally miss the point (deliberate?) that a single exception
invalidates the sweeping generalities that you apparently regard as evidence. Is it your considered (and honest) claim that there are NO exceptions to the assertions you made in your previous post?.

You advocate a structural change that will de-monopolize Government. Describe one change whereby 'competition'  would improve the efficiency of the Military's role in national defence. Don't try to cloud the issue with "Security services, grocery shops and fast food outlets". Even you must concede that they are conspicuously irrelevant to your claim that the Military and the National Government be 'de-monopolized'.

Sam, you are so thin-skinned! Do you find it hot in the kitchen?

[goozlefotz]

Sam is a nut case. I have had more lucid conversations with a parrot.
He keeps repeating the same generalizations and gets miffed if one asks
for detailed proposals. If he wants to turn things upside down, it is
up to him to show this is to be done in detail. He will not do that
because he has no idea how to implement his silly nonsense. So he
repeats it... and repeats it...

[zinnic]

Huh? I ask a question about change and you claim that I am saying
"nothing should be changed" ...without my permission!
You have gone beyond immoderation. J'accuse, you are intellectually
dishonest. Desperation over your inability to answer challenging
questions, in no way excuses you. You should be ashamed! I am done with
you!

[Sam Carana]

In conclusion, Goozlefotz theory is that everything should remain untouched and the moment people reject this fantasy world and proposes changes, Goozlefotz starts to insult them, because ... that could turn Goozelfotz's dreamworld upside down and Goozelfotz needs more detail before allowing that to happen.

 

Well, Goozlefotz, you haven't given sufficient details for me to allow you to live in your dreamworld, so I'll wake you up. If that turns your dreamworld upside down, then you better stand up straight, rather than trying to keep your head below your feet.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

So, security services should remain a monopoly, always and everywhere? That's quite a big claim! Was that assertion some kind of god-given dogma that nobody was allowed to challenge? And anyone who does, even when carefully suggesting that perhaps a little change might be something worthwhile considering, was therefore intellectually dishonest? The dogma that security services should always be provided by a monopoly should go unchallenged, and anyone who disagrees should be insulted for daring to take such a position?

 

Nice work, zinnic! Hypocrisy? Intellectual dishonesty? Actually, such terms are too good for the kind of rhetoric that you've just posted here. Hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty still result from some kind of logic, although it is obviously false logic, but what you're saying now doesn't even follow any logic, it just doesn't make any sense at all! Look in the mirror one more time, zinnic, and tell me what you see!

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
> In conclusion, Goozlefotz theory is that everything should remain untouched
> and the moment people reject this fantasy world and proposes changes,
> Goozlefotz starts to insult them, because ... that could turn Goozelfotz's
> dreamworld upside down and Goozelfotz needs more detail before allowing that
> to happen.
> Well, Goozlefotz, you haven't given sufficient details for me to allow you
> to live in your dreamworld, so I'll wake you up. If that turns your
> dreamworld upside down, then you better stand up straight, rather than
> trying to keep your head below your feet.
> Sam

Is this nonsense worth answering? I think not!

[Sam Carana]

Did I ask a question? No, so your comment is obviously nonsense. Furthermore, it's inconsistent nonsense, because you do reply while making the impression that you shouldn't.

 

Yet, I do take the time to comment on such inconsistent nonsense, not to give such nonsense any credibility, but because even the darkest mind can be enlightened when the veil of their errors is lifted. Open your eyes, goozlefotz, and look into the real world, even if it differs from your fantasy!

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Did I ask a question? No, so your comment is obviously nonsense.
> Furthermore, it's inconsistent nonsense, because you do reply while making
> the impression that you shouldn't.
> Yet, I do take the time to comment on such inconsistent nonsense, not to
> give such nonsense any credibility, but because even the darkest mind can be
> enlightened when the veil of their errors is lifted. Open your eyes,
> goozlefotz, and look into the real world, even if it differs from your
> fantasy!
> Sam

I, for one, am waiting for Sam to flesh out his ephemeral ideas so that
we have the opportunity to evaluate his proposals, if he has any. I am
both a retired Navy officer and an engineer. I think I have the
ability to make worthwhile comments on actual proposals for change.
But, no proposals have been made. Sam says I want everything to remain
as it is. Apparently he thinks there are only two possibilities: Do
things his way (whatever that is) or keep the status quo. Actually,
the possibilities are endless. So, I call on him to tell us how his
ideas would be implemented or to admit he really has no ideas at all.

[goozlefotz]

Don't abandon me, Zinnic! I need a frame of reference in dealing with
this guy!

[Sam Carana]

On 7/2/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I, for one, am waiting for Sam to flesh out his ephemeral ideas so that we have the opportunity to evaluate his proposals, if he has any.  I am both a retired Navy officer and an engineer.  I think I have the ability to make worthwhile comments on actual proposals for change. But, no proposals have been made.  

 

I wasn't specific about my gender, but I did clarify that security services shouldn't be provided by a monopoly. Instead, customers of suppliers of security services should be able to choose which services they want from which suppliers. As a step in the right direction, the military should be split up structurally, so that the separate pieces will compete with each other in all areas. I have said things along those lines repeatedly and it's silly to act as if this wasn't the case, because a little searching through the messages in this group alone would quickly prove the opposite.

 

Sam says I want everything to remain as it is.  Apparently he thinks there are only two possibilities: Do things his way (whatever that is) or keep the status quo.  Actually, the possibilities are endless.  So, I call on him to tell us how his ideas would be implemented or to admit he really has no ideas at all.

Apparently, the possibilities are not that endless, given Goozlefotz's strong opposition against my views. Goozlefotz seems to argue that no change should happen regarding the monopoly position of the military. That's a pretty strong statement, that excludes many possibilities. It raises the question why we weren't allowed to consider improvements in the area of security services.

 

If it's Goozlefotz's position that the world wasn't allowed to turn with the rhetoric that such "change" would turn Goozlefotz's world "upside down" and "thus" required to be fully described and explained to Goozlefotz first, and subsequently being assessed and approved by Goozlefotz, before such turning could take place, then it makes sense to ignore Goozlefotz opinion! Perhaps Goozlefotz has been a navy officer for too long.
 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Please edit all of my posts related to Sam, changing "he" to
"he/she/it". Thank you.