K12 (World Wide Whitewash)
BradGuth
Whitewash)
Public and private schools are in fact web censored (aka whitewashed),
perhaps more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
along with this ruse.
I see “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as do
most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded or
blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
I bet teachers or their assistance staff would get fired if caught
reading Usenet/newsgroups.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Rowley
companies / corporations / government offices where I know people who
work are doing it to.. IMO, you get what you get... it's up to the
people providing the access to determine what they provide.
Not really anything new - k12 school libraries don't stock every book
know to man, just the ones the powers-that-be feel appropriate for their
students...
Martin
BradGuth wrote:
> K12, public and private schools are fully WWW censored (World Wide
> Whitewash)
>
> Public and private schools are in fact web censored (aka whitewashed),
> perhaps more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
> country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
> severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
> whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
> along with this ruse.
>
> I see �Internet4Classrooms� has their Google search disabled, as do
> most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded or
> blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
> and here I�d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
>
> I bet teachers or their assistance staff would get fired if caught
> reading Usenet/newsgroups.
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�
BradGuth
> It's not just education that is filtering internet access.. Most
> companies / corporations / government offices where I know people who
> work are doing it to.. IMO, you get what you get... it's up to the
> people providing the access to determine what they provide.
>
> Not really anything new - k12 school libraries don't stock every book
> know to man, just the ones the powers-that-be feel appropriate for their
> students...
>
> Martin
>
> BradGuth wrote:
> > K12, public and private schools are fully WWW censored (World Wide
> > Whitewash)
>
> > Public and private schools are in fact web censored (aka whitewashed),
> > perhaps more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
> > country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
> > severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
> > whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
> > along with this ruse.
>
> > most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded or
> > blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
>
> > I bet teachers or their assistance staff would get fired if caught
> > reading Usenet/newsgroups.
>
Even Google can afford to send out individually customized pages in
order to include/exclude whatever is instructed by those in charge
(most often it takes a kosher mindset to be one of those in charge).
Key word/phrase detection is one of the most basic capabilities of
what internet and intranet servers have to work with, so it's
relatively simple to detect and thus robo moderate/exclude/replace on
the fly, so to speak.
~ BG
BradGuth
censored.
This Usenet/newsgroup could always have been the WWT (World Wide
Truth) internet of public information exchange, whereas these Usenet/
newsgroups and blogs as having their say and otherwise sharing the
best available truths. Instead, what we have is this “World Wide
Whitewash” that’s anything but open and honest or much less equally
accessible to everyone.
Our public and private schools are in fact web censored (meaning
whitewashed and/or V-chip moderated to suit those in charge), perhaps
more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
along with this ruse.
I see that “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as
do most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded
or blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
I bet teachers or their staff of assistances would get severely
reprimanded or even fired if caught reading or much less sharing
information from these public Usenet/newsgroups.
Google for example can technically well afford to send out
individually customized home and search pages in order to include/
exclude whatever is instructed by those in charge (most often it takes
a kosher mindset and a certain political bias in order to become one
of those in charge).
Key word/phrase detection is one of the most basic capabilities of
what internet and intranet servers always have to work with, so it's a
relatively simple task to selectively detect and thus robo moderate/
exclude/replace or to push whatever context to the top or bottom of
the stack while on the fly, so to speak.
Students and the public in general need to become smarter than their
peers, and otherwise brave enough to read between those lines in order
to filter out all the usual mainstream formulated infomercials and
their carefully orchestrated hype, and otherwise search for the best
available truths via information that’s often outside of whatever
their usual internet server or local intranet provider has to offer.
It’s called digging and investigative study/research that’s usually
going to become a whole lot closer to uncovering the truth than
whatever our mainstream media and faith-based moderated government has
to say.
BradGuth
censored.
This Usenet/newsgroup could always have been the WWT (World Wide
Truth) internet of public information exchange, whereas these Usenet/
newsgroups and blogs as having their say and otherwise sharing the
best available truths. Instead, what we have is this “World Wide
Whitewash” that’s anything but open and honest or much less equally
accessible to everyone.
Our public and private schools are in fact web censored (meaning
whitewashed and/or V-chip moderated to suit those in charge), perhaps
more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
along with this ruse.
I see that “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as
do most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded
or blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
I bet teachers or their staff of assistants would get severely
reprimanded or even fired if caught reading or much less sharing
information from these public Usenet/newsgroups.
Google for example can technically well afford to send out
individually customized home and search pages in order to include/
exclude whatever is instructed by those in charge (most often it takes
a kosher mindset and a certain political bias in order to become one
of those in charge).
Key word/phrase detection is one of the most basic capabilities of
what internet and intranet servers always have to work with, so it's a
relatively simple task to selectively detect and thus robo moderate/
exclude/replace or to push whatever context to the top or bottom of
the stack while on the fly, so to speak.
Students and the public in general need to become smarter than their
peers, and otherwise brave enough to read between those lines in order
to filter out all the usual mainstream formulated infomercials and
their carefully orchestrated hype, and otherwise search for the best
available truths via information that’s often outside of whatever
their usual internet server or local intranet provider has to offer.
It’s called digging and investigative study/research that’s usually
going to become a whole lot closer to uncovering the truth than
whatever our mainstream media and faith-based moderated government has
to say.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Rowley
>snippage<
>
> I bet teachers or their staff of assistances would get severely
> reprimanded or even fired if caught reading or much less sharing
> information from these public Usenet/newsgroups.
>
>snippage<
My guess is that most (going to guess 95%+/-) of the k12 teachers
currently teaching don't even know that there are public Usenet /
newsgroups... I can only remember one university that had their students
do an assignment where they checked out any of the teacher newsgroups,
and even then it was just a handful that did.
Add to that, that these days there has been a steep decline in
participation - especially after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo
got most ISPs to drop access to the Usenet due to finding some child
porn pictures in a handful of the binary groups..
Nowadays about the only thing that gets posted to any of these teacher /
education newsgroups are political / religious cross-postings from other
unrelated groups.
Martin
BradGuth
I too find that many/most adults and their kids or students are
entirely dumbfounded or rather uneducated about Usenet/newsgroups, and
either too afraid or peer pressured to ever look/search into such
archives or active topics, including similar private author blogs that
are perhaps somehow taboo because there might be a few bad words,
nasty phrases or alternative interpretations to deal with. They
usually have no idea whatsoever that Usenet/newsgroups is truly world
wide publishing with few limits, or that it even exist for the general
public (perhaps because it's not commercialized to death like most
everything else).
The fact that 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroup contributors are phony/bogus
or simply clowning around because that's their faith-based or
political ulterior motivated job, means that 0.1% of us are the real
honest to god thing, that can be trusted and easily verified as such.
I find it relatively easy to identify those as Usenet/newsgroup
insiders as having ulterior motives and hidden agendas, as well as
seldom honest intentions of ever constructively contributing or much
less helping another soul, because it's relatively easy to identify
their previous actions. This doesn't mean that every word from a
given spook/mole needs to be ignored, whereas instead selective
information can be extracted and even sometimes used against them. (I
call it returning the topic/author stalking and bashing favor with all
the love and affection that I can muster)
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>K12, public and private schools are fully WWW (World Wide Whitewash)
>censored.
Good for them.
>I see that �Internet4Classrooms� has their Google search disabled, as
>do most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded
>or blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
>and here I�d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
What does communism have to do with it?
>I bet teachers or their staff of assistances would get severely
>reprimanded or even fired if caught reading or much less sharing
>information from these public Usenet/newsgroups.
Not likely.
>Google for example can technically well afford to send out
>individually customized home and search pages
Google wants to make money. It needs to include advertising. The
schools don't want advertising, so whether Google *could* do it, they
have no reason to do so.
Besides which, that would just be changing who is doing the censoring.
Why bother? Those parents who want their kids to freely roam the
Internet can do so from home, or from the public library.
>Students and the public in general need to become smarter than their
>peers,
If you stop to think about that sentence for 5 seconds, you'll realize
how nonsensical it is
>and otherwise brave enough to read between those lines in order
>to filter out all the usual mainstream formulated infomercials and
>their carefully orchestrated hype, and otherwise search for the best
>available truths via information that�s often outside of whatever
>their usual internet server or local intranet provider has to offer.
Why bother?
>It�s called digging and investigative study/research that�s usually
>going to become a whole lot closer to uncovering the truth than
>whatever our mainstream media and faith-based moderated government has
>to say.
You make the false presumption that more than a couple of percent of
the population is interested in uncovering any "truth" that
contradicts their preconceived notions.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
BradGuth
Your systematic obfuscation and denials are noted.
K12, public and private schools are fully WWW (World Wide Whitewash)
censored.
This Usenet/newsgroup could always have been the WWT (World Wide
Truth) internet of public information exchange, whereas these Usenet/
newsgroups and blogs as having their say and otherwise sharing the
best available truths. Instead, what we have is this “World Wide
Whitewash” that’s anything but open and honest or much less equally
accessible to everyone.
Our public and private schools are in fact web censored (meaning
whitewashed and/or V-chip moderated to suit those in charge), perhaps
more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
along with this ruse.
I see that “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as
do most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded
or blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
I bet teachers or their staff of assistants would get severely
reprimanded or even fired if caught reading or much less sharing
information from these public Usenet/newsgroups.
Google for example can technically well afford to send out
individually customized home and search pages in order to include/
exclude whatever is instructed by those in charge (most often it takes
a kosher mindset and a certain political bias in order to become one
of those in charge).
Key word/phrase detection is one of the most basic capabilities of
what internet and intranet servers always have to work with, so it's a
relatively simple task to selectively detect and thus robo moderate/
exclude/replace or to push whatever context to the top or bottom of
the stack while on the fly, so to speak.
Students and the public in general need to become smarter than their
peers, and otherwise brave enough to read between those lines in order
to filter out all the usual mainstream formulated infomercials and
their carefully orchestrated hype, and otherwise search for the best
available truths via information that’s often outside of whatever
their usual internet server or local intranet provider has to offer.
It’s called digging and investigative study/research that’s usually
going to become a whole lot closer to uncovering the truth than
whatever our mainstream media and faith-based moderated government has
to say.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
bcon1
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8e60d23-d42b-4458...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�
BradGuth
> "From misc.education.science" Thank U. android
Why did you bother to rename this topic?
K12, public and private schools are fully WWW (World Wide Whitewash)
censored.
This Usenet/newsgroup could always have been the WWT (World Wide
Truth) internet of public information exchange, whereas these Usenet/
newsgroups and blogs as having their say and otherwise sharing the
best available truths. Instead, what we have is this “World Wide
Whitewash” that’s anything but open and honest or much less equally
accessible to everyone.
Our public and private schools are in fact web censored (meaning
whitewashed and/or V-chip moderated to suit those in charge), perhaps
more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
along with this ruse.
I see that “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as
do most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded
or blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
I bet teachers or their staff of assistants would get severely
reprimanded or even fired if caught reading or much less sharing
information from these public Usenet/newsgroups.
Google for example can technically well afford to send out
individually customized home and search pages in order to include/
exclude whatever is instructed by those in charge (most often it takes
a kosher mindset and a certain political bias in order to become one
of those in charge).
Key word/phrase detection is one of the most basic capabilities of
what internet and intranet servers always have to work with, so it's a
relatively simple task to selectively detect and thus robo moderate/
exclude/replace or to push whatever context to the top or bottom of
the stack while on the fly, so to speak.
Students and the public in general need to become smarter than their
peers, and otherwise brave enough to read between those lines in order
to filter out all the usual mainstream formulated infomercials and
their carefully orchestrated hype, and otherwise search for the best
available truths via information that’s often outside of whatever
their usual internet server or local intranet provider has to offer.
It’s called digging and investigative study/research that’s usually
going to become a whole lot closer to uncovering the truth than
whatever our mainstream media and faith-based moderated government has
to say.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Rowley
> On Jan 5, 4:28 am, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>BradGuth wrote:
>>
>> >snippage<
>>
>>
>>
>>>I bet teachers or their staff of assistances would get severely
>>>reprimanded or even fired if caught reading or much less sharing
>>>information from these public Usenet/newsgroups.
>>
>> >snippage<
>>
>>My guess is that most (going to guess 95%+/-) of the k12 teachers
>>currently teaching don't even know that there are public Usenet /
>>newsgroups... I can only remember one university that had their students
>>do an assignment where they checked out any of the teacher newsgroups,
>>and even then it was just a handful that did.
>>
>>Add to that, that these days there has been a steep decline in
>>participation - especially after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo
>>got most ISPs to drop access to the Usenet due to finding some child
>>porn pictures in a handful of the binary groups..
>>
>>Nowadays about the only thing that gets posted to any of these teacher /
>>education newsgroups are political / religious cross-postings from other
>>unrelated groups.
>>
>>Martin
>
>
> I too find that many/most adults and their kids or students are
> entirely dumbfounded or rather uneducated about Usenet/newsgroups,
Usenet / newsgroups are (or were) primarily the domain of geeks.. people
who have an interest in technology and don't have issues with figuring
out how to do something on their own... The majority of everybody else
tend to ignore something unless it's mainstream and easy to use...
> and
> either too afraid or peer pressured to ever look/search into such
> archives or active topics, including similar private author blogs that
> are perhaps somehow taboo because there might be a few bad words,
Doubtful, my take on it is that "they" simply aren't interested in such
things... and add to that having to put forth the effort in finding such
things themselves - it's no wonder that stuff like that gets ignored.
> nasty phrases or alternative interpretations to deal with. They
> usually have no idea whatsoever that Usenet/newsgroups is truly world
> wide publishing with few limits, or that it even exist for the general
> public (perhaps because it's not commercialized to death like most
> everything else).
The usenet use to be a pretty neat place to be... but over the past
decade it's grown stale and obsolete.... Some of the groups I use to
participate in had a huge following with tons of posts each day... Now
those groups are empty... with most of those people have migrated to
online forums or social networking sites...
There still are a few groups that are somewhat active, but even those
are losing people...
> The fact that 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroup contributors are phony/bogus
> or simply clowning around because that's their faith-based or
> political ulterior motivated job, means that 0.1% of us are the real
> honest to god thing, that can be trusted and easily verified as such.
Most I see that 0.1% doing is playing solitaire... without other people
to talk with, visiting these groups is somewhat pointless...
Martin
BradGuth
ago.
>
> > and
> > either too afraid or peer pressured to ever look/search into such
> > archives or active topics, including similar private author blogs that
> > are perhaps somehow taboo because there might be a few bad words,
>
> Doubtful, my take on it is that "they" simply aren't interested in such
> things... and add to that having to put forth the effort in finding such
> things themselves - it's no wonder that stuff like that gets ignored.
It's as hard to use as searching for anything else, as well as easier
to interact with. But otherwise you are correct, in that if it's not
commercially packaged and served like sugared-up baby formula, it's
not going to fly.
>
> > nasty phrases or alternative interpretations to deal with. They
> > usually have no idea whatsoever that Usenet/newsgroups is truly world
> > wide publishing with few limits, or that it even exist for the general
> > public (perhaps because it's not commercialized to death like most
> > everything else).
>
> The usenet use to be a pretty neat place to be... but over the past
> decade it's grown stale and obsolete.... Some of the groups I use to
> participate in had a huge following with tons of posts each day... Now
> those groups are empty... with most of those people have migrated to
> online forums or social networking sites...
And why haven't you mentioned all those mainstream brown-nosed clowns
and pesky faith-based rusemasters, as saturated throughout usenet?
>
> There still are a few groups that are somewhat active, but even those
> are losing people...
But not losing their standby army of all those status quo or bust
kinds of brown-nosed clowns, that apparently you see nothing wrong
with.
>
> > The fact that 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroup contributors are phony/bogus
> > or simply clowning around because that's their faith-based or
> > political ulterior motivated job, means that 0.1% of us are the real
> > honest to god thing, that can be trusted and easily verified as such.
>
> Most I see that 0.1% doing is playing solitaire... without other people
> to talk with, visiting these groups is somewhat pointless...
>
> Martin
As dull and pointless as with yourself, none the less.
Obviously you've misses the intent or focus of this topic, or rather
intentionally obfuscated/excluded anything that would have been
positive or constructive..
Bob LeChevalier
>K12, public and private schools are fully WWW (World Wide Whitewash)
>censored.
Our society has always believed in censorship to keep unwanted stuff
from our kids. That is a right that parents have, and the schools
have the obligation to support that right when they act in loco
parentis.
>This Usenet/newsgroup could always have been the WWT (World Wide
>Truth) internet of public information exchange, whereas these Usenet/
>newsgroups and blogs as having their say and otherwise sharing the
>best available truths. Instead, what we have is this �World Wide
>Whitewash� that�s anything but open and honest or much less equally
>accessible to everyone.
So what?
>Our public and private schools are in fact web censored (meaning
>whitewashed and/or V-chip moderated to suit those in charge)
You mean, to suit "parents". That is what the V-chip is all about too
- parental control.
>more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
>country.
If you had half a clue, you wouldn't compare with China.
>Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
>severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
>whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
>along with this ruse.
So?
>I see that �Internet4Classrooms� has their Google search disabled, as
>do most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded
>or blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
>and here I�d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
Nothing to do with communism
[remaining repeated tripe deleted]
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 5, 1:25�pm, "bcon1" <bc...@telus.net> wrote:
>> "From misc.education.science" Thank U. android
>
>Why did you bother to rename this topic?
Free speech. Ever heard of it?
Your repetition of tripe is boring.
Grow up.
Pubkeybreaker
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >K12, public and private schools are fully WWW (World Wide Whitewash)
> >censored.
>
> Our society has always believed in censorship to keep unwanted stuff
> from our kids. That is a right that parents have, and the schools
> have the obligation to support that right when they act in loco
> parentis.
And when different parents disagree on what should be censored? Then
what?
I may want something censored that you demand is made available. And
vice-versa.
We are a country that is built on principles that guarantee RIGHTS for
everyone,
even when it is rights for a minority that go against the wishes of
the majority.
This principle is sometimes broken, but that does not make it OK to do
so.
(I could name one very striking example, but it is irrelevant for this
discussion)
It is therefore not OK to simply respond to my questions with (say)
"If the majority wants it censored, then it is OK".
The old hackneyed phrase "you can't get a little bit pregnant"
applies.
Once you allow even a little censorship you "open the floodgates".
I want NO censorship except for material that minors are not allowed
to view by law.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 6, 4:38�am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >K12, public and private schools are fully WWW (World Wide Whitewash)
>> >censored.
>>
>> Our society has always believed in censorship to keep unwanted stuff
>> from our kids. �That is a right that parents have, and the schools
>> have the obligation to support that right when they act in loco
>> parentis.
>
>And when different parents disagree on what should be censored? Then
>what?
Then they censor it all (which I think is what Guth's issue is),
except where the site has been reviewed for relevance to the
curriculum.
>I may want something censored that you demand is made available. And
>vice-versa.
That is why most people access the Internet outside of school.
>We are a country that is built on principles that guarantee RIGHTS for
>everyone, even when it is rights for a minority that go against the wishes of
>the majority.
Children do not have a right of Internet access, much less a right to
read what they choose on the Internet.
>Once you allow even a little censorship you "open the floodgates".
We allow a lot of censorship of materials made available to children.
>I want NO censorship except for material that minors are not allowed
>to view by law.
That's nice.
The rest of the country apparently doesn't agree with you.
And of course there is no censorship at all when the parents provide
Internet access to their kids.
Rowley
MUI, Google bought the Deja View "deja.com" Usenet archives and pretty
much used that to jump start their groups...
I think that is around the time that the Usenet started dying... People
could use Google Groups as an alternative to using the Usenet... Plus,
more people started migrating away from AOL and WebTV, both of which
actively promoted the Usenet to their customers.
Nowadays, most of the activity is concentrated around sites like MySpace
& Facebook...
>
>>>and
>>>either too afraid or peer pressured to ever look/search into such
>>>archives or active topics, including similar private author blogs that
>>>are perhaps somehow taboo because there might be a few bad words,
>>
>>Doubtful, my take on it is that "they" simply aren't interested in such
>>things... and add to that having to put forth the effort in finding such
>>things themselves - it's no wonder that stuff like that gets ignored.
>
> It's as hard to use as searching for anything else, as well as easier
> to interact with. But otherwise you are correct, in that if it's not
> commercially packaged and served like sugared-up baby formula, it's
> not going to fly.
That's true for just about everything.. or at least it is IMO with most
Americans..
>
>>>nasty phrases or alternative interpretations to deal with. They
>>>usually have no idea whatsoever that Usenet/newsgroups is truly world
>>>wide publishing with few limits, or that it even exist for the general
>>>public (perhaps because it's not commercialized to death like most
>>>everything else).
>>
>>The usenet use to be a pretty neat place to be... but over the past
>>decade it's grown stale and obsolete.... Some of the groups I use to
>>participate in had a huge following with tons of posts each day... Now
>>those groups are empty... with most of those people have migrated to
>>online forums or social networking sites...
>
> And why haven't you mentioned all those mainstream brown-nosed clowns
> and pesky faith-based rusemasters, as saturated throughout usenet?
The Usenet is / was made up of all sorts of communities.. People with
all sorts of interests.. that is one of the things that made it a neat
place to be - you could find people who had the same interests as you,
no matter what that might be.. I think that is why there still are some
pockets of communities here...
>
>>There still are a few groups that are somewhat active, but even those
>>are losing people...
>
> But not losing their standby army of all those status quo or bust
> kinds of brown-nosed clowns, that apparently you see nothing wrong
> with.
Anytime you build a bridge, it not surprising that it might attract a
few trolls.. You are always going to find people who's only delight is
in tormenting other people... But there are also people who feel that
anyone who disagrees with them are some sort of enemy to vanquish...
That can turn people off and cause some of them to quit participating...
Problem is these days there seems to be a higher ratio of those sort of
people that there does people who just want to talk with other people..
>
>>>The fact that 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroup contributors are phony/bogus
>>>or simply clowning around because that's their faith-based or
>>>political ulterior motivated job, means that 0.1% of us are the real
>>>honest to god thing, that can be trusted and easily verified as such.
>>
>>Most I see that 0.1% doing is playing solitaire... without other people
>>to talk with, visiting these groups is somewhat pointless...
>>
>>Martin
>
>
> As dull and pointless as with yourself, none the less.
Eh, take what I say as you will... I've got no real interest in the
subject, just passing the time....
>
> Obviously you've misses the intent or focus of this topic, or rather
> intentionally obfuscated/excluded anything that would have been
> positive or constructive..
There was an intent? I thought the focus of your post was that there was
censorship happening on the web... I agreed - there is.. not just in
schools but a lot of other places as well... and then it thread got a
bit rambling... which usually happens when there are just a couple
people responding...
Martin
Pubkeybreaker
> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 6, 4:38 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's nice.
> The rest of the country apparently doesn't agree with you.
Thus we have the "tyranny of the majority".
BradGuth
Hired infomercial spewing thugs (E terrorists) in the form of faith-
based and political special interest cabals, plus always Big Energy
and Global Corporate Greed Incorporated (usually offshore and/or
government protected) have their trusty army of brown-nosed clowns,
rusemasters and otherwise mainstream status quo enforcers on
sufficient retainers, and/or as having been brainwashed into acting/
reacting out of fear and otherwise exactly as programmed, is what
these public Usenet/newsgroups are saturated with.
In other words, regardless of the Usenet/newsgroup, you can't mention
anything mainstream corrective or the least bit contrary to their
preferred and usually public funded media communicated hype, without
getting yourself systematically topic/author stalked and bashed for
all it's worth.
Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
to only suck and blow at their end of this story. So, expect
everything to get much worse, a whole lot more spendy and otherwise
more potentially lethal as these unpoliced rusemasters continue to
distort and block the truth in order to profit at the ongoing trauma
and demise of others.
On the other hand, you could help by getting involved and doing
something constructive/positive, instead of just watching as our
mainstream good ship, USS LOLLIPOP, sinks out of sight.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>Hired infomercial spewing thugs (E terrorists) in the form of faith-
>based and political special interest cabals, plus always Big Energy
>and Global Corporate Greed Incorporated (usually offshore and/or
>government protected) have their trusty army of brown-nosed clowns,
>rusemasters and otherwise mainstream status quo enforcers on
>sufficient retainers, and/or as having been brainwashed into acting/
>reacting out of fear and otherwise exactly as programmed, is what
>these public Usenet/newsgroups are saturated with.
>
>In other words, regardless of the Usenet/newsgroup, you can't mention
>anything mainstream corrective or the least bit contrary to their
>preferred and usually public funded media communicated hype, without
>getting yourself systematically topic/author stalked and bashed for
>all it's worth.
Translation: Everyone who has a clue thinks that what he writes is a
bunch of crap, therefore they must be agents pr servants of evil
powers.
>Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
>stealth media censorship,
Hint: it is called "mainstream" because most accept it.
>as well as our public funded education
which is intended to teach "mainstream" thought
Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap. The existence of a
mainstream is so that most people don't end up wasting 90% of their
time distracted by crap.
The purpose of Brad Guth, on the other hand, is to try to raise the
90% up to 100%.
>as these unpoliced rusemasters continue to
>distort and block the truth in order to profit at the ongoing trauma
>and demise of others.
Here is complaining about censorship on one hand, and on the other
trying to have those he disagrees with "policed" (i.e. censored).
>On the other hand, you could help by getting involved and doing
>something constructive/positive, instead of just watching as our
>mainstream good ship, USS LOLLIPOP, sinks out of sight.
If one wanted to do that, one wouldn't be wasting time on Usenet.
Bob LeChevalier
You are free to set up an alternate private school in which kids have
entirely unrestricted Internet access. If parents approve of this
alternative, even a minority of them, you should have no trouble.
Or if you are referring to the tyranny of the "majority=adults", you
are absolutely correct, and the corrective measure for those who
object is to "grow up", at which point they can form the minority of
the majority that might choose your private school that does not
censor the Internet for kids.
Rowley
> major snippage<
>
>
> Hired infomercial spewing thugs (E terrorists) in the form of faith-
> based and political special interest cabals, plus always Big Energy
> and Global Corporate Greed Incorporated (usually offshore and/or
> government protected) have their trusty army of brown-nosed clowns,
> rusemasters and otherwise mainstream status quo enforcers on
> sufficient retainers, and/or as having been brainwashed into acting/
> reacting out of fear and otherwise exactly as programmed, is what
> these public Usenet/newsgroups are saturated with.
Turning my head and looking right, now looking left.. I really don't see
any of those people here in the group I'm in, I think there are just
about three or four of us left here - keep in mind you've cross-posted
this thread to five groups....
But given that I think I've seen less than a dozen people posting in the
past year or so, "saturated" might be a relative term...
> In other words, regardless of the Usenet/newsgroup, you can't mention
> anything mainstream corrective or the least bit contrary to their
> preferred and usually public funded media communicated hype, without
> getting yourself systematically topic/author stalked and bashed for
> all it's worth.
Bashed is in the eye of the beholder.. least here on the usenet, the
only thing people get bashed with is words...
> Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
> stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
> to only suck and blow at their end of this story.
What's not to allow on the usenet? It's pretty much an abandoned place
since all of the major ISPs dropped carrying it.
> So, expect
> everything to get much worse, a whole lot more spendy and otherwise
> more potentially lethal as these unpoliced rusemasters continue to
> distort and block the truth in order to profit at the ongoing trauma
> and demise of others.
Eh, I've been expecting the worst for most of my life...
> On the other hand, you could help by getting involved and doing
> something constructive/positive, instead of just watching as our
> mainstream good ship, USS LOLLIPOP, sinks out of sight.
Sounds like too much work to me - better you go ahead and start the
revolution without me..
Martin
>
> ~ BG
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > major snippage<
>
> > Hired infomercial spewing thugs (E terrorists) in the form of faith-
> > based and political special interest cabals, plus always Big Energy
> > and Global Corporate Greed Incorporated (usually offshore and/or
> > government protected) have their trusty army of brown-nosed clowns,
> > rusemasters and otherwise mainstream status quo enforcers on
> > sufficient retainers, and/or as having been brainwashed into acting/
> > reacting out of fear and otherwise exactly as programmed, is what
> > these public Usenet/newsgroups are saturated with.
>
> Turning my head and looking right, now looking left.. I really don't see
> any of those people here in the group I'm in, I think there are just
> about three or four of us left here - keep in mind you've cross-posted
> this thread to five groups....
>
> But given that I think I've seen less than a dozen people posting in the
> past year or so, "saturated" might be a relative term...
One unpoliced brown-nosed clown is one too many.
>
> > In other words, regardless of the Usenet/newsgroup, you can't mention
> > anything mainstream corrective or the least bit contrary to their
> > preferred and usually public funded media communicated hype, without
> > getting yourself systematically topic/author stalked and bashed for
> > all it's worth.
>
> Bashed is in the eye of the beholder.. least here on the usenet, the
> only thing people get bashed with is words...
Such words either lead to or restrict the actions of those in
authority.
>
> > Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
> > stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
> > to only suck and blow at their end of this story.
>
> What's not to allow on the usenet? It's pretty much an abandoned place
> since all of the major ISPs dropped carrying it.
Have it your passive and the usual I-don't-care way.
>
> > So, expect
> > everything to get much worse, a whole lot more spendy and otherwise
> > more potentially lethal as these unpoliced rusemasters continue to
> > distort and block the truth in order to profit at the ongoing trauma
> > and demise of others.
>
> Eh, I've been expecting the worst for most of my life...
>
> > On the other hand, you could help by getting involved and doing
> > something constructive/positive, instead of just watching as our
> > mainstream good ship, USS LOLLIPOP, sinks out of sight.
>
> Sounds like too much work to me - better you go ahead and start the
> revolution without me..
>
> Martin
That kind of selective obfuscation and transference is exactly what
ZNRs and their army of brown-nosed minions want to see happen.
Perhaps you have chosen well.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 7, 4:29�pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But given that I think I've seen less than a dozen people posting in the
>> past year or so, "saturated" might be a relative term...
>
>One unpoliced brown-nosed clown is one too many.
One unpoliced self-absorbed nutcase is one too many. Alas, there are
hordes like you afflicting Usenet with their ignorant opinions.
>> Bashed is in the eye of the beholder.. least here on the usenet, the
>> only thing people get bashed with is words...
>
>Such words either lead to or restrict the actions of those in
>authority.
Those in authority can, and generally do, totally ignore Usenet, no
matter how many words are posted. Their actions are totally
unaffected by your words, or our words bashing you and yours, for that
matter.
Rowley
> On Jan 7, 4:29 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>BradGuth wrote:
>>
>>>major snippage<
>>
>>>Hired infomercial spewing thugs (E terrorists) in the form of faith-
>>>based and political special interest cabals, plus always Big Energy
>>>and Global Corporate Greed Incorporated (usually offshore and/or
>>>government protected) have their trusty army of brown-nosed clowns,
>>>rusemasters and otherwise mainstream status quo enforcers on
>>>sufficient retainers, and/or as having been brainwashed into acting/
>>>reacting out of fear and otherwise exactly as programmed, is what
>>>these public Usenet/newsgroups are saturated with.
>>
>>Turning my head and looking right, now looking left.. I really don't see
>>any of those people here in the group I'm in, I think there are just
>>about three or four of us left here - keep in mind you've cross-posted
>>this thread to five groups....
>>
>>But given that I think I've seen less than a dozen people posting in the
>>past year or so, "saturated" might be a relative term...
>
>
> One unpoliced brown-nosed clown is one too many.
There is somewhere around 6,692,030,277 people in the world today, and
about 200+/- or so (IMO) of them who actively make use of the Usenet..
Having one or two people you don't like is an acceptable statistic..
I was always told that it would be sort of boring if everybody you know
thought the same as yourself..
Think of all the hollywood blockbusters - most of them deal with the
conflict between good and evil, think how dull movies would be if there
wasn't that conflict.
>
>>>In other words, regardless of the Usenet/newsgroup, you can't mention
>>>anything mainstream corrective or the least bit contrary to their
>>>preferred and usually public funded media communicated hype, without
>>>getting yourself systematically topic/author stalked and bashed for
>>>all it's worth.
>>
>>Bashed is in the eye of the beholder.. least here on the usenet, the
>>only thing people get bashed with is words...
>
>
> Such words either lead to or restrict the actions of those in
> authority.
Give me an example of when / where that happened? Something that took
place here on the Usenet, recently... or historically..
>
>>>Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
>>>stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
>>>to only suck and blow at their end of this story.
>>
>>What's not to allow on the usenet? It's pretty much an abandoned place
>>since all of the major ISPs dropped carrying it.
>
>
> Have it your passive and the usual I-don't-care way.
Hmm.. this discussion is being xposted across a couple groups, and I
might not be seeing all the responses that you're getting.. but from the
few that I have seen (besides my own) - I don't really see any that
couldn't be taken in a "so what?" kind of way..
>
>>>So, expect
>>>everything to get much worse, a whole lot more spendy and otherwise
>>>more potentially lethal as these unpoliced rusemasters continue to
>>>distort and block the truth in order to profit at the ongoing trauma
>>>and demise of others.
>>
>>Eh, I've been expecting the worst for most of my life...
>>
>>
>>>On the other hand, you could help by getting involved and doing
>>>something constructive/positive, instead of just watching as our
>>>mainstream good ship, USS LOLLIPOP, sinks out of sight.
>>
>>Sounds like too much work to me - better you go ahead and start the
>>revolution without me..
>>
>>Martin
>
>
> That kind of selective obfuscation and transference is exactly what
> ZNRs and their army of brown-nosed minions want to see happen.
> Perhaps you have chosen well.
Time will tell...
Martin
> ~ BG
>
BradGuth
> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 6, 11:19 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 6, 4:38 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's nice.
> >> The rest of the country apparently doesn't agree with you.
>
> >Thus we have the "tyranny of the majority".
>
> You are free to set up an alternate private school in which kids have
> entirely unrestricted Internet access. If parents approve of this
> alternative, even a minority of them, you should have no trouble.
Unrestricted doesn't have to mean a freaking bloody free-for-all.
Instructed use and class projects that'll include their reading and
using internet posted science plus related public discussions is
simply not nearly as bad as what's about to happen to those kids.
>
> Or if you are referring to the tyranny of the "majority=adults", you
> are absolutely correct, and the corrective measure for those who
> object is to "grow up", at which point they can form the minority of
> the majority that might choose your private school that does not
> censor the Internet for kids.
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
Your transference is otherwise noted. Good luck with that.
~ BG
BradGuth
Your less than 5th transference and subsequent excuse is noted.
~ BG
BradGuth
>
> Think of all the hollywood blockbusters - most of them deal with the
> conflict between good and evil, think how dull movies would be if there
> wasn't that conflict.
>
>
>
> >>>In other words, regardless of the Usenet/newsgroup, you can't mention
> >>>anything mainstream corrective or the least bit contrary to their
> >>>preferred and usually public funded media communicated hype, without
> >>>getting yourself systematically topic/author stalked and bashed for
> >>>all it's worth.
>
> >>Bashed is in the eye of the beholder.. least here on the usenet, the
> >>only thing people get bashed with is words...
>
> > Such words either lead to or restrict the actions of those in
> > authority.
>
> Give me an example of when / where that happened? Something that took
> place here on the Usenet, recently... or historically..
Usenet/newsgroups is published as a global medium, and technically
accessible to most all of those "6,692,030,277 people". Thousands and
perhaps even millions more read than contribute (except our k12 is
banished).
>
> >>>Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
> >>>stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
> >>>to only suck and blow at their end of this story.
>
> >>What's not to allow on the usenet? It's pretty much an abandoned place
> >>since all of the major ISPs dropped carrying it.
>
> > Have it your passive and the usual I-don't-care way.
>
> Hmm.. this discussion is being xposted across a couple groups, and I
> might not be seeing all the responses that you're getting.. but from the
> few that I have seen (besides my own) - I don't really see any that
> couldn't be taken in a "so what?" kind of way..
Then so what, change nothing, complain about nothing and die knowing
your contribution was worth less than the dirt covering your coffin.
>
> >>>So, expect
> >>>everything to get much worse, a whole lot more spendy and otherwise
> >>>more potentially lethal as these unpoliced rusemasters continue to
> >>>distort and block the truth in order to profit at the ongoing trauma
> >>>and demise of others.
>
> >>Eh, I've been expecting the worst for most of my life...
>
> >>>On the other hand, you could help by getting involved and doing
> >>>something constructive/positive, instead of just watching as our
> >>>mainstream good ship, USS LOLLIPOP, sinks out of sight.
>
> >>Sounds like too much work to me - better you go ahead and start the
> >>revolution without me..
>
> >>Martin
>
> > That kind of selective obfuscation and transference is exactly what
> > ZNRs and their army of brown-nosed minions want to see happen.
> > Perhaps you have chosen well.
>
> Time will tell...
>
> Martin
>
> > ~ BG
Time has already told, but "so what".
~ BG
BradGuth
Again, your less than 5th grade transference is noted for the brown-
nose clown that it represents.
~ BG
Rowley
I don't see it - that there are "Thousands and perhaps even millions.."
of people who lurk on the Usenet reading what other people have
posted... That might have beeen the case in the late 90's / early
2000's, but nowadays it's pretty much a ghost town.
Then again, my experiences have mainly been in english speaking groups -
with the occasional ESL person dropping in at times... I've never really
bothered to check out what sort of Usenet groups there might be for say
France or Spain or Italy... maybe you're right and my POV is too narrow
and there are people in other parts of the world who are actively using
the Usenet in their countries..
>
>
>>>>>Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
>>>>>stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
>>>>>to only suck and blow at their end of this story.
>>
>>>>What's not to allow on the usenet? It's pretty much an abandoned place
>>>>since all of the major ISPs dropped carrying it.
>>
>>>Have it your passive and the usual I-don't-care way.
>>
>>Hmm.. this discussion is being xposted across a couple groups, and I
>>might not be seeing all the responses that you're getting.. but from the
>>few that I have seen (besides my own) - I don't really see any that
>>couldn't be taken in a "so what?" kind of way..
>
> Then so what, change nothing, complain about nothing and die knowing
> your contribution was worth less than the dirt covering your coffin.
Problem with that statement, is that it's you that is doing the
complaining not me... The impression that I get is you want more people
to complain, but you really haven't given anyone a real reason to do
that...
K~12 internet gets censored - sure, but I see that there are legitimate
reasons for doing that. You don't...
>
>>>>>So, expect
>>>>>everything to get much worse, a whole lot more spendy and otherwise
>>>>>more potentially lethal as these unpoliced rusemasters continue to
>>>>>distort and block the truth in order to profit at the ongoing trauma
>>>>>and demise of others.
>>
>>>>Eh, I've been expecting the worst for most of my life...
>>
>>>>>On the other hand, you could help by getting involved and doing
>>>>>something constructive/positive, instead of just watching as our
>>>>>mainstream good ship, USS LOLLIPOP, sinks out of sight.
>>
>>>>Sounds like too much work to me - better you go ahead and start the
>>>>revolution without me..
>>
>>>>Martin
>>
>>>That kind of selective obfuscation and transference is exactly what
>>>ZNRs and their army of brown-nosed minions want to see happen.
>>>Perhaps you have chosen well.
>>
>>Time will tell...
>>
>>Martin
>>
>>
>>> ~ BG
>
>
> Time has already told, but "so what".
Then why cry over spilt milk?
Martin
>
> ~ BG
>
BradGuth
don't read, and to what extent or not they comprehend the context of
whatever these public Usenet/newsgroups have to offer, that are free
to anyone that can find them and extract as much knowledge and wisdom
as they care to take. There's no law saying anyone has to read
anything, much less understand whatever they read.
>
> Then again, my experiences have mainly been in english speaking groups -
> with the occasional ESL person dropping in at times... I've never really
> bothered to check out what sort of Usenet groups there might be for say
> France or Spain or Italy... maybe you're right and my POV is too narrow
> and there are people in other parts of the world who are actively using
> the Usenet in their countries..
Google even makes other languages readable to those of us without a
second or third language skill, but again there's no law requiring
anyone to utilize such.
>
> >>>>>Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
> >>>>>stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
> >>>>>to only suck and blow at their end of this story.
>
> >>>>What's not to allow on the usenet? It's pretty much an abandoned place
> >>>>since all of the major ISPs dropped carrying it.
>
> >>>Have it your passive and the usual I-don't-care way.
>
> >>Hmm.. this discussion is being xposted across a couple groups, and I
> >>might not be seeing all the responses that you're getting.. but from the
> >>few that I have seen (besides my own) - I don't really see any that
> >>couldn't be taken in a "so what?" kind of way..
>
> > Then so what, change nothing, complain about nothing and die knowing
> > your contribution was worth less than the dirt covering your coffin.
>
> Problem with that statement, is that it's you that is doing the
> complaining not me... The impression that I get is you want more people
> to complain, but you really haven't given anyone a real reason to do
> that...
I simply want more people to get involved and/or to contribute,
whereas obviously that excludes those like yourself that obviously
like the past, present and future exactly as shitty as it is.
>
> K~12 internet gets censored - sure, but I see that there are legitimate
> reasons for doing that. You don't...
Not the way its being done, although Hitler, Stalin, Zionists and the
Pope would agree with you and not me.
>
> >>>>>So, expect
> >>>>>everything to get much worse, a whole lot more spendy and otherwise
> >>>>>more potentially lethal as these unpoliced rusemasters continue to
> >>>>>distort and block the truth in order to profit at the ongoing trauma
> >>>>>and demise of others.
>
> >>>>Eh, I've been expecting the worst for most of my life...
>
> >>>>>On the other hand, you could help by getting involved and doing
> >>>>>something constructive/positive, instead of just watching as our
> >>>>>mainstream good ship, USS LOLLIPOP, sinks out of sight.
>
> >>>>Sounds like too much work to me - better you go ahead and start the
> >>>>revolution without me..
>
> >>>>Martin
>
> >>>That kind of selective obfuscation and transference is exactly what
> >>>ZNRs and their army of brown-nosed minions want to see happen.
> >>>Perhaps you have chosen well.
>
> >>Time will tell...
>
> >>Martin
>
> >>> ~ BG
>
> > Time has already told, but "so what".
>
> Then why cry over spilt milk?
>
> Martin
The milk of life and freedom from religious, government and corporate
greed and systematic ethnic/caste oppression has been and continues to
be spilled, mostly because of folks exactly like yourself that really
do not care.
~ BG
Rowley
Good to know that I'm not breaking any laws right at this moment...
>
>>Then again, my experiences have mainly been in english speaking groups -
>>with the occasional ESL person dropping in at times... I've never really
>>bothered to check out what sort of Usenet groups there might be for say
>>France or Spain or Italy... maybe you're right and my POV is too narrow
>>and there are people in other parts of the world who are actively using
>>the Usenet in their countries..
>
> Google even makes other languages readable to those of us without a
> second or third language skill, but again there's no law requiring
> anyone to utilize such.
Are you assuming that most people use Google to access the Usenet?
>>>>>>>Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
>>>>>>>stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
>>>>>>>to only suck and blow at their end of this story.
>>
>>>>>>What's not to allow on the usenet? It's pretty much an abandoned place
>>>>>>since all of the major ISPs dropped carrying it.
>>
>>>>>Have it your passive and the usual I-don't-care way.
>>
>>>>Hmm.. this discussion is being xposted across a couple groups, and I
>>>>might not be seeing all the responses that you're getting.. but from the
>>>>few that I have seen (besides my own) - I don't really see any that
>>>>couldn't be taken in a "so what?" kind of way..
>>
>>>Then so what, change nothing, complain about nothing and die knowing
>>>your contribution was worth less than the dirt covering your coffin.
>>
>>Problem with that statement, is that it's you that is doing the
>>complaining not me... The impression that I get is you want more people
>>to complain, but you really haven't given anyone a real reason to do
>>that...
>
> I simply want more people to get involved and/or to contribute,
> whereas obviously that excludes those like yourself that obviously
> like the past, present and future exactly as shitty as it is.
Well.. I will say this about your efforts, you are very dedicated in
your quest. You have certainly spending a lot to time and effort in just
talking about this to me. And I'm just one person.
>>K~12 internet gets censored - sure, but I see that there are legitimate
>>reasons for doing that. You don't...
>
> Not the way its being done, although Hitler, Stalin, Zionists and the
> Pope would agree with you and not me.
So you're ok with censorship if it's done in some method that you
approve of?
So some people are apathetic - what would you say the majority of
population is? apathetic or not? What about all those silent people who
read the Usenet, but do not participate? What is their story?
Martin
> ~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>Instructed use and class projects that'll include their reading and
>using internet posted science plus related public discussions is
>simply not nearly as bad as what's about to happen to those kids.
It won't raise test scores, and NCLB requires higher test scores.
BradGuth
majority have been using the Google Groups version of Usenet/
newsgroups. It's like TWITTER on steroids, except without the context
limitations or all the usual bandwidth sucking graphics, as well as
other languages can be accommodated on the fly, so to speak.
>
> >>>>>>>Obviously you don't have any problem with allowing this form of
> >>>>>>>stealth media censorship, as well as our public funded education tends
> >>>>>>>to only suck and blow at their end of this story.
>
> >>>>>>What's not to allow on the usenet? It's pretty much an abandoned place
> >>>>>>since all of the major ISPs dropped carrying it.
>
> >>>>>Have it your passive and the usual I-don't-care way.
>
> >>>>Hmm.. this discussion is being xposted across a couple groups, and I
> >>>>might not be seeing all the responses that you're getting.. but from the
> >>>>few that I have seen (besides my own) - I don't really see any that
> >>>>couldn't be taken in a "so what?" kind of way..
>
> >>>Then so what, change nothing, complain about nothing and die knowing
> >>>your contribution was worth less than the dirt covering your coffin.
>
> >>Problem with that statement, is that it's you that is doing the
> >>complaining not me... The impression that I get is you want more people
> >>to complain, but you really haven't given anyone a real reason to do
> >>that...
>
> > I simply want more people to get involved and/or to contribute,
> > whereas obviously that excludes those like yourself that obviously
> > like the past, present and future exactly as shitty as it is.
>
> Well.. I will say this about your efforts, you are very dedicated in
> your quest. You have certainly spending a lot to time and effort in just
> talking about this to me. And I'm just one person.
For every one person that contributes is a good enough indication that
perhaps at least another thousand are reading whatever we have to say
to one another. It's called an audience of unlimited capacity.
>
> >>K~12 internet gets censored - sure, but I see that there are legitimate
> >>reasons for doing that. You don't...
>
> > Not the way its being done, although Hitler, Stalin, Zionists and the
> > Pope would agree with you and not me.
>
> So you're ok with censorship if it's done in some method that you
> approve of?
Of course, because I'm not the insensitive bigot or faith-based goon
like the other 99.9% apparently are.
The vast majority of public (I'm speaking global) are frankly scared
to death of learning the whole truth and nothing but the truth, unless
it's pretty much exactly the same as they already believe it to be.
Of those which only read and never contribute, at least we can provide
our independent interpretations and otherwise entertainment of some
value that's outside the usual cozy mainstream status quo box that
most hide themselves within.
However, fear begets fear, whereas learning truths as based upon
interpreting from the best available evidence could be a little too
traumatizing for those already deathly afraid of their own shadow.
~ BG
BradGuth
Your love of the mainstream status quo is taken for granted.
The fact that you don't want kids to get any taste of the real world
is also noted, as similar to how those ZNRs did it, and essentially
they had the exact same excuses.
NCLB test scores for parrots is quite different than actually
learning, but then you already know that.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>Your love of the mainstream status quo is taken for granted.
"Love"?
Not hardly.
Acceptance of reality - definitely something I am into.
>The fact that you don't want kids to get any taste of the real world
>is also noted,
Why would you note something that I did not say.
It is up to parents to decide what if any taste of the real world that
their kids get. But of course the Internet is not the "real world"
but rather the virtual world, and especially Usenet isn't the
slightest bit "real".
>NCLB test scores for parrots is quite different than actually
>learning, but then you already know that.
I am fully aware of that. But at least at present, it seems that the
primary purposes of our school system consist of babysitting for
parents who want or need to MAKE MONEY FAST!!! and getting high NCLB
test scores.
I may wish it were otherwise, but I accept reality. (And what I would
wish for does NOT include having kids learn by reading Usenet (as if
most kids would have the slightest interest in Usenet).
BradGuth
Where are all those supposedly bright K12 kids?
How are these K12 kids supposed to learn of anything the least bit new
or improved, if always excluded or systematically mainstream banished
away from whatever the real world has to offer?
Nowadays parents have very little influence or control over whatever
their kids decide to do or accomplish (especially internet related),
whereas peer pressure and the highly commercialized market controls
the vast majority of whatever these supposedly educated minds have to
work with.
btw; why and/or how were you assigned to my topic?
You obviously don't feel any need for K12 students to experience or
much less interact with another outside opinion or interpretation,
other than your own that sees nothing whatsoever wrong with the past,
present or future of whatever your mainstream status quo has to offer.
(I think Hitler and a few others had pretty much the same policy)
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 17, 5:46 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am fully aware of that. But at least at present, it seems that the
>> primary purposes of our school system consist of babysitting for
>> parents who want or need to MAKE MONEY FAST!!! and getting high NCLB
>> test scores.
>>
>> I may wish it were otherwise, but I accept reality. (And what I would
>> wish for does NOT include having kids learn by reading Usenet (as if
>> most kids would have the slightest interest in Usenet).
>
Doing something more useful with their time than reading Usenet.
>How are these K12 kids supposed to learn of anything the least bit new
>or improved, if always excluded or systematically mainstream banished
>away from whatever the real world has to offer?
Your antecedent is false. Usenet is not the real world.
As for how they are supposed learn, here are some good role models. I
doubt that any of them spend time on Usenet.
http://www.tjhsst.edu/
http://www.societyforscience.org/Page.aspx?pid=366
>Nowadays parents have very little influence or control over whatever
>their kids decide to do or accomplish (especially internet related),
Maybe they should do a better job of parenting then.
>whereas peer pressure and the highly commercialized market controls
>the vast majority of whatever these supposedly educated minds have to
>work with.
Then obviously the schools don't need to provide access to Usenet.
Peers and the commercialized market will do so.
>btw; why and/or how were you assigned to my topic?
Assigned???
You posted idiocy to the education groups, and you got me in response.
Your choice, not my assignment. Go find somewhere else to blather.
>You obviously don't feel any need for K12 students to experience or
>much less interact with another outside opinion or interpretation,
Obviously you have no clue as to what I feel.
My kids had no trouble getting access to outside opinions and
interpretations. They did not, however, read Usenet, and they
hopefully spent time on the curriculum while at school, since the bulk
of their time outside of school was spent on outside opinions.
>other than your own that sees nothing whatsoever wrong with the past,
>present or future of whatever your mainstream status quo has to offer.
You continue to fail in mind-reading.
I may see plenty wrong, but that does not mean that I think Usenet
blathering by people like you is the solution to anything.
>(I think Hitler and a few others had pretty much the same policy)
Maybe you need to try thinking more adroitly. It is rather obvious
that Hitler did not approve of the status quo, since he is responsible
for killing tens of millions in order to try to change it.
BradGuth
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 5:46 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am fully aware of that. But at least at present, it seems that the
> >> primary purposes of our school system consist of babysitting for
> >> parents who want or need to MAKE MONEY FAST!!! and getting high NCLB
> >> test scores.
>
> >> I may wish it were otherwise, but I accept reality. (And what I would
> >> wish for does NOT include having kids learn by reading Usenet (as if
> >> most kids would have the slightest interest in Usenet).
>
> >Where are all those supposedly brightK12kids?
>
> Doing something more useful with their time than reading Usenet.
>
> >or improved, if always excluded or systematically mainstream banished
> >away from whatever the real world has to offer?
>
> Your antecedent is false. Usenet is not the real world.
>
> As for how they are supposed learn, here are some good role models. I
>
> >Nowadays parents have very little influence or control over whatever
> >their kids decide to do or accomplish (especially internet related),
>
> Maybe they should do a better job of parenting then.
>
> >whereas peer pressure and the highly commercialized market controls
> >the vast majority of whatever these supposedly educated minds have to
> >work with.
>
> Then obviously the schools don't need to provide access to Usenet.
> Peers and the commercialized market will do so.
>
> >btw; why and/or how were you assigned to my topic?
>
> Assigned???
>
> You posted idiocy to the education groups, and you got me in response.
> Your choice, not my assignment. Go find somewhere else to blather.
>
> >much less interact with another outside opinion or interpretation,
>
> Obviously you have no clue as to what I feel.
>
> My kids had no trouble getting access to outside opinions and
> interpretations. They did not, however, read Usenet, and they
> hopefully spent time on the curriculum while at school, since the bulk
> of their time outside of school was spent on outside opinions.
>
> >other than your own that sees nothing whatsoever wrong with the past,
> >present or future of whatever your mainstream status quo has to offer.
>
> You continue to fail in mind-reading.
>
> I may see plenty wrong, but that does not mean that I think Usenet
> blathering by people like you is the solution to anything.
>
> >(I think Hitler and a few others had pretty much the same policy)
>
> Maybe you need to try thinking more adroitly. It is rather obvious
> that Hitler did not approve of the status quo, since he is responsible
> for killing tens of millions in order to try to change it.
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
Your motives and mindset is perfectly clear, as is your less than
honest context that includes a great deal of transference.
btw, at the unfortunate era of Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-
masters, he was made to be the status quo, or else.
~ BG
BradGuth
> K12, public and private schools are fully WWW censored (World Wide
> Whitewash)
>
> Public and private schools are in fact web censored (aka whitewashed),
> perhaps more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
> country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
> severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
> whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
> along with this ruse.
>
> I see “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as do
> most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded or
> blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
> and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
>
> I bet teachers or their assistance staff would get fired if caught
> reading Usenet/newsgroups.
>
> BradGuth, Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”
An example of K12 being systematically excluded/banished away from the
real world, by peer pressure and the systematic institutional
commercialisation of the internet, that which mainstream authority
wants to see it(blogs and Usenet/newsgroups) have zero public
publishing rights and otherwise as little freedom of access by their
K12 community.
Here once again, Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-masters would see
nothing wrong with the mindset and authority of folks exactly like Bob
LeChevalier. This is what made it possible for these bad guys to get
away with so much and for so long, and to make it seem as though it
was the only right path of logic to follow.
By way of systematic obfuscation and using as much transference for
their tactical infowar is clearly what's going down as the mainstream
policy and intent to hide, cloak or banish as much truth as possible.
Individuals openly doing investigative research and deductively
thinking is simply not K12 allowed.
honest but carefully scripted context that includes a great deal of
transference.
btw, the unfortunate era of Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-
masters, he was made to be the status quo, or else.
Is there any doubt as to the motives, means and opportunity of
mainstream authority?
All it would take is a couple words of advise from a teacher or parent
in order to get their kids to read and/or contribute to these Usenet/
newsgroups (aka Google Groups, which by the way is also NOVA).
Investigative reading is not just for adults.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Bob LeChevalier
>An example of K12 being systematically excluded/banished away from the
>real world, by peer pressure and the systematic institutional
>commercialisation of the internet, that which mainstream authority
>wants to see it(blogs and Usenet/newsgroups) have zero public
>publishing rights and otherwise as little freedom of access by their
>K12 community.
I'd ask you to translate that into English, but I don't really care.
>Here once again, Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-masters
His what?
>would see nothing wrong with the mindset and authority of folks exactly like Bob
>LeChevalier.
I'm sure Hitler would have seen plenty wrong with my mindset. As for
authority, I have none and want none.
>This is what made it possible for these bad guys to get
>away with so much and for so long, and to make it seem as though it
>was the only right path of logic to follow.
Except that they didn't make it "seem" so. As is evidenced by the
fact that they lost.
>By way of systematic obfuscation and using as much transference for
>their tactical infowar is clearly what's going down as the mainstream
>policy and intent to hide, cloak or banish as much truth as possible.
More gobbledygook that doesn't really need to be translated into
English, because it came from your keyboard.
>Individuals openly doing investigative research and deductively
>thinking is simply not K12 allowed.
He posts this AFTER my cite of the Intel Science competition, which
actively promotes precisely "investigative research and deductively
thinking".
Usenet does not consist of "investigative research and deductively
thinking".
Mostly it consists of ignorant fools like you blathering about idiocy.
BradGuth
This Google/NOVA version of Usenet/newsgroups is kind of like an e-
version of the "New York Times" that's fully reader interactive, in
that you not only get to search out as well as pick and choose
whatever topic or subtopics and replies within, but then you can also
directly question the authors and/or give it your best two cents
worth, so that the whole world knows what you think in spite of
whatever everyone else thinks.
The problems with most commercial and private publications and their
nifty websites is somewhat similar to conventional newsprint
restrictions, in that you are locked out of any direct interactions,
plus often forced to accept a significant gauntlet of their
advertisements (mostly involving some form of extracting your loot and/
or private information) and otherwise saturated with various peer and
government infomercials that are often annoyingly taking up the vast
majority of each page in a very data throughput consuming bandwidth
kind of way that drags everything about the internet down to its
knees, if not involving span issues that'll flood your email as well
as implanting spyware/spermware/malware into your PC or MAC at the
same time (the best or most benevolent of which are merely cookies
that report your every move to folks that you would not trust with
taking out your garbage).
Usenet/newsgroups is free of most such negative background issues or
bandwidth hogging format issues, of primarily text having no direct
graphics interface other than external links that you can optionally
view or ignore. In other words, there's nothing that requires you to
search for or having to read anything that's the least bit upsetting
or nonsensical to your mindset. Usenet is however intellectually huge
and extremely diverse, with context that covers most any topic or
subtopic that you can think of, as well as including most every
conceivable opinion plus many that'll seem downright weird or out of
this world, of which you can proceed to read, ignore or directly
interact with as much as you like.
Those claiming Usenet/newsgroups (similar to personal Google Groups)
is not representing the real world are in fact fearing of what
knowledge, truths and/or secrets can be openly disclosed and talked
about. Of course this public global accessible medium is saturated
with mainstream clowns as having ulterior motives and hidden agendas
(namely mainstream damage-control or call it anti-revisionism), in
that topic/author stalking and bashing is the true name of their game,
to such an extent that you have to become good at sorting out those
individuals that are usually contributing under bogus/phony names
because of who they really are and/or represent can't risk being
exposed for whoever or whatever they truly represent.
To exclude/banish or peer pressure k12+ kids away from the Usenet/
newsgroups would be the exact same thing as banishing free speech and
otherwise book burnings and/or the closing of all public libraries and
outlawing whatever open news/publication stands, allowing K12+ access
to only faith-based government approved information that's usually
infomercial and eyecandy saturated to suit is what members of the
mainstream status quo would like to see nothing short of that policy.
Those with the most at risk are obviously the exact same as those into
topic/author stalking and bashing for all they can muster, as well as
insisting that K12s need not bother exploring anything outside of
their cozy LeapFrog certified box that's government and faith-based
approved.
~ BG
BradGuth
> K12, public and private schools are fully WWW censored (World Wide
> Whitewash)
>
> Public and private schools are in fact web censored (aka whitewashed),
> perhaps more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
> country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
> severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
> whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
> along with this ruse.
>
> I see “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as do
> most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded or
> blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
> and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
>
> I bet teachers or their assistance staff would get fired if caught
> reading Usenet/newsgroups.
>
This Google/NOVA version of Usenet/newsgroups is kind of like an e-
version of the "New York Times" that's fully reader interactive, in
that you not only get to search out as well as pick and choose
whatever topic or subtopics and replies within, but then you can also
directly question the authors and/or give it your best two cents
worth, so that the whole world knows what you think in spite of
whatever everyone else thinks.
The problems with most commercial and private publications and their
nifty websites is somewhat similar to conventional newsprint
restrictions, in that you are locked out of any direct interactions,
plus often forced to accept a significant gauntlet of their
advertisements (mostly involving some form of intent toward extracting
your hard earned loot and/or private information) and otherwise
saturated with various peer and government infomercials that are often
annoyingly taking up the vast majority of each page, in a very data
intensive throughput consuming bandwidth kind of way that drags
everything about the internet down to its knees, if not involving spam
issues that'll flood your email as well as implanting spyware/
spermware/malware into your PC or MAC at the same time (the best or
most benevolent of which are merely cookies that report your every
move to folks that you would not trust with taking out your garbage).
Usenet/newsgroups is free of most such negative background issues or
those pesky bandwidth hogging format issues, whereas instead Usenet/
newsgroups is primarily text having no direct graphics interface other
~ BG
An example of K12s being systematically excluded/banished away from
the real world, by peer pressure and the systematic institutional
commercialisation of the internet, that which mainstream authority
wants to see its blogs and Usenet/newsgroups have zero public
publishing rights, and otherwise as little freedom of access by their
K12 community.
Here once again, Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-masters would see
nothing wrong with the mindset and authority of folks exactly like Bob
LeChevalier. After all, this is what made it possible for these bad
guys and their partners in crimes against humanity to get away with so
much and for so long, and to make it all seem as though it was the
only right path of logic to follow.
By way of systematic obfuscation and using as much transference for
their tactical infowars is clearly what's going down as the mainstream
policy and intent to hide, cloak or banish as much truth as possible.
Individuals openly doing investigative research and deductively
thinking by way of merely connecting those mostly public funded dots
btw, that unfortunate era of Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-
masters, whereas he was made to be the status quo, or else. Much the
same as we were made to believe Muslims had WMD coming out their ears.
Is there any further doubt as to the motives, means and opportunity of
mainstream authority that stipulates "Usenet is not the real world"?
All it would take is a couple friendly words of advise or direction
from a teacher or parent in order to get their kids and young adults
to read and/or contribute to these Usenet/newsgroups (aka Google
Groups, which by the way is also NOVA). Investigative reading and
subsequent deductive learning is not just for adults, but then I'm not
a puppet warlord or some special-interest minion that's working on
behalf of some faith-based or political group/cable that has ulterior
motives.
BradGuth
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >An example of K12 being systematically excluded/banished away from the
> >real world, by peer pressure and the systematic institutional
> >wants to see it(blogs and Usenet/newsgroups) have zero public
> >publishing rights and otherwise as little freedom of access by their
> >K12 community.
>
> I'd ask you to translate that into English, but I don't really care.
most every which way, and there's often substantial collateral damage
that's hard to fix (kinda like GW Bush taking us into Iraq, and then
playing that part of being the global nation building wizard of Oz).
Because I'm a good sport, I'll try to revise that part of my reply.
>
> >Here once again, Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-masters
>
> His what?
Are you suggesting that those Zionists that had the best available
education, a terrific network of global communications as good as any,
and having their faith-based fingers into just about everything that
mattered (including science, physics and banking) did not know exactly
what their puppet warlord was doing from the very get go?
>
> >would see nothing wrong with the mindset and authority of folks exactly like Bob
> >LeChevalier.
>
> I'm sure Hitler would have seen plenty wrong with my mindset. As for
> authority, I have none and want none.
But you directly influence and/or orchestrate what your kids and
perhaps even what their friends do on the internet, that is unless you
trusted them explicitly to always do the mature right thing without
any V-chip or adult supervised filtering.
>
> >This is what made it possible for these bad guys to get
> >away with so much and for so long, and to make it seem as though it
> >was the only right path of logic to follow.
>
> Except that they didn't make it "seem" so. As is evidenced by the
> fact that they lost.
Stalin or rather poor Russians saved our butts, as well as did a few
others. If it weren't for the horrific price others had to pay with
their lives and resources, we'd be speaking German and likely Jewish
to boot.
>
> >By way of systematic obfuscation and using as much transference for
> >their tactical infowar is clearly what's going down as the mainstream
> >policy and intent to hide, cloak or banish as much truth as possible.
>
> More gobbledygook that doesn't really need to be translated into
> English, because it came from your keyboard.
If you say so. Apparently you think mainstream government and their
faith-based puppet-masters never tell us lies or exclude any of the
facts. Aren't you special.
>
> >Individuals openly doing investigative research and deductively
> >thinking is simply not K12 allowed.
>
> He posts this AFTER my cite of the Intel Science competition, which
> actively promotes precisely "investigative research and deductively
> thinking".
That tells us nothing as to what parts of the internet they searched,
and/or were allowed to incorporate into their final reports. I saw
nothing that suggested anything that wasn't fully NASA or of their
peer approved context to begin with. Was this a parrot science
contest?
Was anything revised or uncovered as new and improved information? (I
don't think so)
>
> Usenet does not consist of "investigative research and deductively
> thinking".
>
> Mostly it consists of ignorant fools like you blathering about idiocy.
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
If you are referring to yourself, than by all means you've hit that
nail squarely on the mainstream status quo head.
There's nothing stopping the whole truth and nothing but the truth
from getting posted and ranted or argued to death on this public
internet (including Usenet/newsgroups). Try to remember that nearly
100% of our NASA and DARPA is invested into utilizing this internet as
their PR and infomercial realm of publishing and archiving our public
funded information, though not that everything is made available, such
as our LRO mission is sharing perhaps 0.1% of its data, of which if
we're lucky we'll eventually get access to upwards of 10% without
having to invoke the "freedom of information act" in order to extract
further data the hard way.
~ BG
BradGuth
> K12, public and private schools are fully WWW censored (World Wide
> Whitewash)
>
> Public and private schools are in fact web censored (aka whitewashed),
> perhaps more so right here in the USA than in China or most any other
> country. Even universities are moderated to death and otherwise
> severely limited as to students accessing the full public scope of
> whatever Yahoo and Google has to offer, and no doubt MSN plays right
> along with this ruse.
>
> I see “Internet4Classrooms” has their Google search disabled, as do
> most every public and private school www-page, as having excluded or
> blocked internet access to otherwise public accessible information,
> and here I’d thought communism was a dead horse. (think again)
>
> I bet teachers or their assistance staff would get fired if caught
> reading Usenet/newsgroups.
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Exactly how taboo/off-limits is the public internet to the majority of
K12s?
This Google/NOVA version of Usenet/newsgroups is kind of like an e-
version of the "New York Times" plus access to any number of research
and science journals (w/o graphics) that's fully reader interactive,
in that you not only get to search out as well as pick and choose
whatever topic or subtopics and replies within your interest or
expertise to ponder, but then you can also directly question these
authors and/or give it your best two cents worth, so that the whole
world knows what you think in spite of whatever everyone else thinks.
It's sort of like TWITTER on steroids, because it can run a hundred
fold faster and offers access to multi-terabytes of archived
information (including your own private newsgroups), accessible from
most any ISP in the world.
The often biased related problems with most commercial and private
publications and their nifty websites is somewhat similar to
conventional newsprint or radio/televised media restrictions, in that
you are pretty much locked out of any direct interactions, plus often
forced to accept a significant gauntlet of their advertisements
(mostly involving some form of intent toward extracting your hard
earned loot and/or private information) and otherwise saturated with
various peer and government infomercials that are often annoyingly
taking up the vast majority of each page, as well as in a very data
intensive throughput consuming bandwidth kind of way that drags
everything about the internet down to its knees, if not involving spam
issues that'll just as likely flood your email as well as implanting
spyware/spermware/malware into your PC or MAC at the same time (the
best or most benevolent of which are merely cookie bots that report
your every move to folks that you would not likely trust with taking
out your garbage).
Usenet/newsgroups is free of most such negative or hidden background
issues, as well as involving none of those pesky bandwidth hogging
format issues, whereas instead Usenet/newsgroups is primarily text and
numerical data having no direct graphics interface other than external
links that you can optionally view or ignore. In other words, there's
nothing that requires you to search for or having to read through
anything that's the least bit upsetting or nonsensical to your
mindset. Google Usenet is however intellectually huge and extremely
diverse, with context that covers most any topic or subtopic that you
can think of, as well as including most every conceivable opinion plus
many that'll seem downright weird or out of this world, of which you
can proceed to read, ignore or directly interact with as much as you
like.
Those claiming Usenet/newsgroups (similar to personal Google Groups or
privately posted web/blog pages) is not representing the real world
are in fact fearing of what kinds of shared knowledge, truths and/or
secrets can be openly disclosed and talked about. Of course this
public global accessible medium is always saturated with mainstream
clowns having ulterior motives and hidden agendas (namely mainstream
damage-control or call it anti-revisionism), in that topic/author
stalking and bashing is the true name of their game, to such an extent
that you have to become resourceful at navigating and sorting out
those individuals that are usually contributing a great deal of flack
and transference under bogus/phony names, because of who they really
are and/or represent can't risk being exposed for whoever or whatever
they truly represent.
To exclude/banish, shun or peer pressure k12+ kids and young adults
away from the Usenet/newsgroups would be the exact same thing as
banishing free speech, and otherwise the sanctioning of book burnings
and/or the closing of all public libraries as well as outlawing
whatever open news/publication stands would become the same as
restricting K12s access to only the most faith-based and government
approved information that's usually infomercial and eyecandy saturated
to suit, as well as obfuscating/excluding whatever bits of information
or evidence that doesn't quite fit or add up, is exactly what members
of this mainstream status quo would like to see nothing short of
enforcing that moderation policy, so that our K12s never ask those
forbidden questions or get too depressed because of discovering that
adults have been telling lies by way of obfuscation and transference,
and having been getting away with so much that the upcoming
generations get to pay for (some with their lives), just so that the
few rich and powerful may continue living large.
Those with the most at risk are obviously the exact same as those into
topic/author stalking and bashing for all they can muster, as well as
insisting that K12s need not bother exploring anything outside of
their cozy LeapFrog certified box that's government and faith-based
approved for young impressionable minds.
An example of K12s being systematically excluded/banished away from
the real world, by peer pressure and the systematic institutional
commercialization of the internet, that which mainstream authority
wants to see its various blogs and Usenet/newsgroups have zero public
publishing rights, and otherwise as little freedom of access by their
K12 community as possible.
Here once again, Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-masters would see
nothing wrong with the mindset and authority of folks exactly like Bob
LeChevalier. After all, this is what made it possible for these bad
guys and their partners in crimes against humanity to get away with so
much, and for so long, and to make it all seem as though it was the
only right path of logic for Germans and other Third Reich to follow.
By way of systematic obfuscation and using as much transference for
their tactical infowars, is clearly what's going down as the
mainstream policy and intent to hide, cloak or banish as much of the
whole truth as possible. Individuals openly doing investigative
research and deductively thinking by way of merely connecting those
mostly public funded dots, is simply not K12 allowed or otherwise
encouraged.
On Jan 21, 4:58 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 5:46 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am fully aware of that. But at least at present, it seems that the
> >> primary purposes of our school system consist of babysitting for
> >> parents who want or need to MAKE MONEY FAST!!! and getting high NCLB
> >> test scores.
>
> >> I may wish it were otherwise, but I accept reality. (And what I would
> >> wish for does NOT include having kids learn by reading Usenet (as if
> >> most kids would have the slightest interest in Usenet).
>
> >Where are all those supposedly bright K12 kids?
>
> Doing something more useful with their time than reading Usenet.
>
> >How are these K12 kids supposed to learn of anything the least bit new
> >or improved, if always excluded or systematically mainstream banished
> >away from whatever the real world has to offer?
>
> Your antecedent is false. Usenet is not the real world.
>
> As for how they are supposed learn, here are some good role models. I
> doubt that any of them spend time on Usenet.
> http://www.tjhsst.edu/
> http://www.societyforscience.org/Page.aspx?pid=366
>
> >Nowadays parents have very little influence or control over whatever
> >their kids decide to do or accomplish (especially internet related),
>
> Maybe they should do a better job of parenting then.
>
> >whereas peer pressure and the highly commercialized market controls
> >the vast majority of whatever these supposedly educated minds have to
> >work with.
>
> Then obviously the schools don't need to provide access to Usenet.
> Peers and the commercialized market will do so.
>
> >btw; why and/or how were you assigned to my topic?
>
> Assigned???
>
> You posted idiocy to the education groups, and you got me in response.
> Your choice, not my assignment. Go find somewhere else to blather.
>
> >You obviously don't feel any need for K12 students to experience or
> >much less interact with another outside opinion or interpretation,
>
> Obviously you have no clue as to what I feel.
>
> My kids had no trouble getting access to outside opinions and
> interpretations. They did not, however, read Usenet, and they
> hopefully spent time on the curriculum while at school, since the bulk
> of their time outside of school was spent on outside opinions.
>
> >other than your own that sees nothing whatsoever wrong with the past,
> >present or future of whatever your mainstream status quo has to offer.
>
> You continue to fail in mind-reading.
>
> I may see plenty wrong, but that does not mean that I think Usenet
> blathering by people like you is the solution to anything.
>
> >(I think Hitler and a few others had pretty much the same policy)
>
> Maybe you need to try thinking more adroitly. It is rather obvious
> that Hitler did not approve of the status quo, since he is responsible
> for killing tens of millions in order to try to change it.
>
> lojbab
> ---
: Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
: loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
Your motives and mindset is perfectly clear (especially by your having
excluded alt.astro) as is your less than honest but carefully scripted
context that includes a great deal of transference that's seemingly
intended to make yourself appear wise and superior to others that take
exception to the mainstream status quo that you see little if anything
wrong with, but obviously isn't working all that favorably for most of
us.
btw, that unfortunate era of Hitler and his Zionist Nazi puppet-
masters, whereas he was made to be the status quo, or else. Much the
same as we were made to believe Muslims were spposedly dastardly and
had WMD coming out their ears.
Is there any further doubt as to the motives, means and opportunity of
mainstream authority that stipulates "Usenet is not the real world"?
All it would take is a couple friendly words of advise or direction
from a teacher or parent in order to get their kids and young adults
to read and/or contribute to these Usenet/newsgroups (aka Google
Groups, which by the way is also NOVA). Investigative reading and
subsequent deductive learning is not just for adults, but then I'm not
a puppet warlord or some special-interest minion that's working on
behalf of some faith-based or political group/cable that has hidden
agendas and ulterior motives.
In spite of what our history and social study textbooks have to say
that's not entirely bogus or incorrect, there's also a great many
mistakes, errors or ulterior motivated actions that our government and
its faith-based puppet-masters have managed to obfuscate/exclude, and
remain as mainstream enforced so as to insure that such public records
can't be easily revised or much less shared with our K12s.
Plagiarism used to be frowned upon, although now it's expected that
our K12 parrots only following in the exact footsteps of others,
agreeing with their every public funded word as to the interpretation
of such public funded science. Unfortunately, most of our public
funded science is not getting connected to any other public or private
funded science, and therefore each module of science is stand alone,
and often so specialized in that it too becomes an island with no
bridges or dot-connecting allowed.
There's nothing stopping the whole truth and nothing but the truth
from getting posted and ranted or argued to death on this public
internet (including within the Google Groups realm of Usenet/
newsgroups). Try to remember that nearly 100% of our NASA and DARPA
is invested into utilizing this internet as their PR and infomercial
realm of publishing and archiving our public funded information,
though not that everything is made available, such as our LRO mission
is thus far sharing perhaps 0.1% of its data, of which if we're lucky
we'll eventually get access to upwards of 10% without having to invoke
the "freedom of information act" in order to extract further data the
hard way, whereas often it's those little excluded tidbits of data
that are the real science that needs to get published.
In other words, the general public gets to know next to nothing about
all the truly dark and scary stuff of our frail terrestrial
environment and of those in charge of it, or even all that much about
the positive/constructive aspects of fully utilizing our moon(Selene)
and its L1, or for that matter about an extremely nearby planet like
Venus that indicates a rather high level of potential for hosting
intelligent other life and otherwise being extremely raw element
invaluable (similar or likely a whole lot better value than our
moon). But then you probably don't care how much our government and
its many agencies have been lying to us, so what's the difference?
BradGuth
I noticed how you are in charge of Google/NOVA Groups, and the way
your inactive stuff gets listed above others.
Tell us about your NWO Lojban language.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>I noticed how you are in charge of Google/NOVA Groups,
I have no idea what NOVA Groups are, and I rarely look at Google
Groups. I do *Usenet*, which is the real thing.
>and the way your inactive stuff gets listed above others.
I have no idea what you are talking about. What "inactive stuff"?
>Tell us about your NWO Lojban language.
What does NWO mean? It has nothing to do with Lojban, I am sure.
www.lojban.org has more than anyone could possibly want to know.
Jeffrey Turner
> BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I noticed how you are in charge of Google/NOVA Groups,
>
> I have no idea what NOVA Groups are, and I rarely look at Google
> Groups. I do *Usenet*, which is the real thing.
>
>> and the way your inactive stuff gets listed above others.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. What "inactive stuff"?
>
>> Tell us about your NWO Lojban language.
>
> What does NWO mean?
I believe it stands for "New World Order," some mythical rearrangement
of power relations that will disenfranchise the writer. These days that
writer is typically a wingnut deluded about their current or past
control over American and/or world affairs.
--Jeff
--
Is man one of God's blunders or
is God one of man's?
--Friedrich Nietzsche
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I noticed how you are in charge of Google/NOVA Groups,
>>
>> I have no idea what NOVA Groups are, and I rarely look at Google
>> Groups. I do *Usenet*, which is the real thing.
>>
>>> and the way your inactive stuff gets listed above others.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about. What "inactive stuff"?
>>
>>> Tell us about your NWO Lojban language.
>>
>> What does NWO mean?
>
>I believe it stands for "New World Order," some mythical rearrangement
>of power relations that will disenfranchise the writer. These days that
>writer is typically a wingnut deluded about their current or past
>control over American and/or world affairs.
I wonder why he thinks Lojban would be at all relevant to his
delusionary power struggle. Among the relatively few Lojbanists who
mention their political slant, a large proportion tend to be
libertarians.
BradGuth
(Google/NOVA) version of Usenet/newsgroups within their grasp.
On Jan 31, 10:47 am, jughead <oldcoot7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Addendum:
>
> Carson wrote..
>
> > The pseudoscientist, on the other hand, begins with what they believe
> > is an absolute fact. Rather than trying to confirm, they instead
> > reinterpret existing information to fit their fact. This often leads
> > to more and more layers of additional assumed facts to prop up the
> > initial presumed idea, unable or refusing to acknowledge that perhaps
> > the initial idea is wrong.
> > Do you see the difference here?
>
: Let's take an example of just such a scenario. Start out with the
pre-
: held axiom: "There is no spatial medium. Space is a universally-
: isotropic 'void', invariant from the instant of emergence from the
Big
: Bang." What is this axiom going to require in terms of belief?
:
: Well, it will require 'messenger particles', "photons" lifted
entirely
: out of original context as in the PE effect, and they have to
somehow
: 'know' to fly at exactly c at all times, and they have to be
available
: in unlimited quantities on demand to carry the total EM output of a
: quasar for example. Concerning gravity, gravity can only be
explained
: by citing *descriptions of its effects*, or yet-to-be-discovered
: 'gravitons', or as a 'fictitious force'. Yet there is no explanation
: of how *descriptions of effects* or imaginary 'exchange particles'
or
: fictitious forces actually power the gravity which powers
supernovae,
: hypernovae and quasars. The excessive lensing of far-distant
galaxies
: calls for invention of "dark matter" to explain the excessive
lensing
: (as well as the non-Keplerian rotation of spiral galaxies). The
: perceived "ever-accelerating expansion" of the universe requires
: invention of "dark energy" to drive the perceived expansion. In
short,
: the 'No medium' belief requires "adding epicycles", kludge upon
kludge
: using perfectly good Math, to keep the belief propped up. As such,
the
: 'No medium' belief is no different in its functional dynamic than
: geocentrism. Pseudoscience at its best.
Very nicely put. Too bad that's not what our K12s and college
students are being systematically brainwashed with.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>An example of what K12s are missing by not having Google Groups /
>(Google/NOVA) version of Usenet/newsgroups within their grasp.
They are missing absolutely nothing of import, since nothing in that
blather is part of any state curriculum.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Among the relatively few Lojbanists who
> mention their political slant, a large proportion tend to be
> libertarians.
I'll try not to hold that against your language.
BradGuth
NWO is just another one of my loose cannons that I like to use. (it
got your attention)
Meanwhile k12s are still nowhere to be found. Do you think that's
just happenstance or perhaps by accident?
Perhaps keeping K12s away from your Lojban language is just
unavoidable collateral damage of how Google Groups and Usenet/
newsgroups functions best.
~ BG
BradGuth
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I noticed how you are in charge of Google/NOVA Groups,
>
> I have no idea what NOVA Groups are, and I rarely look at Google
> Groups. I do *Usenet*, which is the real thing.
Google owns NOVA, and Google provides Usenet/newsgroups that pretty
much user friendly.
>
> >and the way your inactive stuff gets listed above others.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. What "inactive stuff"?
When I search for my name, it's your "Brad Guth blathers repeatedly"
that shows up no matters what. That's a neat trick, so you must have
friends in high places that you don't even know about.
~ BG
BradGuth
If you and the Third Reich say so.
I guess your state run brainwashing gets the green light every time.
~ BG
Jeffrey Turner
>
> When I search for my name, it's your "Brad Guth blathers repeatedly"
> that shows up no matters what. That's a neat trick, so you must have
> friends in high places that you don't even know about.
I can't believe he's the only one who ever commented on it.
BradGuth
Why do spooks and moles of mainstream damage-control always have those
silly signature quotes?
It seems rather obvious code like.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>NWO is just another one of my loose cannons that I like to use. (it
>got your attention)
No more than any other sort of clueless blather that you post.
>Meanwhile k12s are still nowhere to be found.
Try your local school, where they belong.
>Do you think that's just happenstance or perhaps by accident?
Since it is a silly question, I think it is idiocy on your part.
>Perhaps keeping K12s away from your Lojban language is just
>unavoidable collateral damage of how Google Groups and Usenet/
>newsgroups functions best.
Except of course that k12 students (generally high schoolers) who are
interested seem to pop up in the Lojban community surprisingly often,
considering how little interest most students have in foreign
languages these days.
I certainly wouldn't expect them to find about the language on Usenet.
If I wanted to reach teens, Facebook would be a more likely way (and
kids have no trouble spending time on Facebook, regardless of whether
schools allow access from school).
BradGuth
Your transference is noted. No wonder your Lojban hasn't gotten very
far.
What in Lojban language means "dumbfounded"? or how about a Lojban
phrase for "snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return"?
Is there a proper Lojban word or phrase for obfuscation?
What you say about Usenet has to apply to mainstream media, including
the NYT. In other words, you strongly favor mainstream censorship
(the exact opposite of freedom of speech)
Is there a Lojban word for hypocrite or hypocrisy?
Google Groups and thus also Usenet/newsgroups is Facebook and Twitter
on steroids as of more than a decade ago. You're making it sound as
though K12s are too snookered and dumbfounded (as well as in need of
eyecandy and interactive animations) to use this open public medium
that's global and context unlimited.
Facebook and Twitter are each moderated, and they can be selectively
banished or taken down at any time, just the way Hitler and the NWO
that's run by ZNRs would have it, and perhaps your Lojban should fit
right in.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 28, 12:29�pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I noticed how you are in charge of Google/NOVA Groups,
>>
>> I have no idea what NOVA Groups are, and I rarely look at Google
>> Groups. �I do *Usenet*, which is the real thing.
>
>Google owns NOVA,
So what? I still don't know what NOVA groups are.
>and Google provides Usenet/newsgroups that pretty much user friendly.
No it doesn't. Forte Agent provides Usenet in a user friendly manner.
Google provides something more like a chatroom, but that includes
Usenet archives, in a web-based interface that is quite UNfriendly,
especially to people who know how to use a *real* newsreader. Google
jumbles the newsgroups together in a manner that misleads users as to
how Usenet actually works.
The archives search is reasonably fast, in the absence of a good
alternative, but searching Usenet archives isn't generally the best
way to find something useful.
>> >and the way your inactive stuff gets listed above others.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about. �What "inactive stuff"?
>
>When I search for my name, it's your "Brad Guth blathers repeatedly"
>that shows up no matters what.
Maybe you should stop being so narcissistic, or quit blathering. Then
you won't see such things.
I just looked, and it is down around 8th on the list. And I suspect
that the only reason it even appears is because you crossposted your
crap to so many groups, and when I answer you, I have to cut out some
of the cross-posts, so to Google my posts may appear to be a different
thread, with my post at the head (this is especially true when I cut
out the first group, which may have been sci.astro, as the least
relevant group among those you posted to). Thus it is my post that
you see, and not whatever post actually started the thread. An
example of how Google mungs the concept of Usenet newsgroups, and in
this case loses the thread, while at the same time encouraging massive
crossposting to irrelevant groups because you don't normally see the
disruption to other discussions caused by such crossposting.
Of course, the RIGHT thing to do is not to cross-post at all unless it
they really are relevant.
>That's a neat trick, so you must have friends in high places that you don't even know about.
I doubt it.
I just have an ISP that refuses to support massive crossposting, and
thus is more responsible than Google.
Bob LeChevalier
>I guess your state run brainwashing gets the green light every time.
The state teaches the state curriculum. If you want to call that
"brainwashing", that is your privilege, but the parents and the
taxpayers (aka "we the people") think that is what our tax dollars
should go for. Feel free to pay for your own kid to go somewhere
else, if you think the public schools educate inappropriately. but
don't expect our tax dollars to pay for your weird alternative version
of education, whatever it may be.
Bob LeChevalier
>Your transference is noted. No wonder your Lojban hasn't gotten very
>far.
No wonder you keep beating your three wives several times a day.
>What in Lojban language means "dumbfounded"? or how about a Lojban
>phrase for "snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return"?
"me la Brad Gut" of course.
>Is there a proper Lojban word or phrase for obfuscation?
"me la Brad Gut" of course.
>What you say about Usenet has to apply to mainstream media, including
>the NYT. In other words, you strongly favor mainstream censorship
>(the exact opposite of freedom of speech)
I don't favor any kind of censorship. But I also don't favor schools
being the avenue of circumventing parental decisions on the matter
with respect to their own children. Nor do I favor the use of tax
dollars to *promote* what you call "non-mainstream" views.
>Is there a Lojban word for hypocrite or hypocrisy?
"me la Brad Gut" of course.
>Google Groups and thus also Usenet/newsgroups is Facebook and Twitter
>on steroids as of more than a decade ago.
The kids don't think so.
I certainly don't think so; I avoid Google groups like the plague.
>You're making it sound as
>though K12s are too snookered and dumbfounded (as well as in need of
>eyecandy and interactive animations)
quite possibly. Or maybe they just prefer to do something
specifically aimed at their purposes in using the net.
>to use this open public medium that's global and context unlimited.
Most people simply don't care, and most may not WANT "global and
context unlimited", whatever you mean by such an expression. Kids
tend to want to keep in touch with their friends, and not to be
bothered by the likes of you.
And the schools are not the place for such nonsense in any event, and
parents have the right to make decisions about the sort of access that
their kids will have, outside of what is needed to teach the
state-mandated curriculum.
>Facebook and Twitter are each moderated,
I don't much care.
>and they can be selectively banished or taken down at any time, just the way Hitler and the NWO
>that's run by ZNRs would have it,
The whole Internet could in theory be taken down. Just look at China.
>and perhaps your Lojban should fit right in.
Lojban would be irrelevant to any such decision.
Brad Guth
Intellectual openness is only weird and scary to those at risk of
losing authority and those multiple public funded benefits.
Obviously you think there's nothing wrong with the past, present or
future that's going down the nearest toilet. Perhaps you should run
as our next republican President and resident warlord, so that you can
show us how global domination is and mainstream obfuscation supposed
to be done. At least your new language could then be public funded
and forced upon everyone.
btw, I agree that this dysfunctional planet needs a global language,
and yours could be just as good as any. In the mean time we could all
use an implanted translator that works on the fly, so to speak.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Your transference is noted. No wonder your Lojban hasn't gotten very
> >far.
>
> No wonder you keep beating your three wives several times a day.
>
> >What in Lojban language means "dumbfounded"? or how about a Lojban
> >phrase for "snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return"?
>
>
> >Is there a proper Lojban word or phrase for obfuscation?
>
>
> >What you say about Usenet has to apply to mainstream media, including
> >the NYT. In other words, you strongly favor mainstream censorship
> >(the exact opposite of freedom of speech)
>
> I don't favor any kind of censorship. But I also don't favor schools
> being the avenue of circumventing parental decisions on the matter
> with respect to their own children. Nor do I favor the use of tax
> dollars to *promote* what you call "non-mainstream" views.
>
> >Is there a Lojban word for hypocrite or hypocrisy?
>
Usenet/newsgroups and as many privately created and moderated groups
as you like is hardly insignificant, much less irrelevant to anyone
with basic intelligence and the required open mindset that obviously
you and many others seem to lack.
Our public funded education is turning out generations of socialized
parrots that either can't or wouldn't dare deductively think for
themselves, but that seems fine and dandy by your standards.
Conversing with real people and deductively connecting dots is
obviously not something you think students of any generation need to
bother with. Your "not the place for such nonsense" is a clear
mainstream policy of what any dictator would admire. It's no wonder
those of you in charge of what we should or should not do with our
personal and formal educational time and limited resources, seem to
have this nation headed into the nearest toilet.
Stealth censorship via exclusion, denial, obfuscation, omission or
just peer pressure and fear of social banishment as to dare interact
outside of parrot protocol is what seems to prove my point, better
than supporting yours. But then I'd like to make the future
collectively better, which obviously you'd care less no matters how
bad things get, that is as long as your quality of life isn't
negatively affected.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>On Feb 2, 10:28�am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I guess your state run brainwashing gets the green light every time.
>>
>> The state teaches the state curriculum. �If you want to call that
>> "brainwashing", that is your privilege, but the parents and the
>> taxpayers �(aka "we the people") think that is what our tax dollars
>> should go for. �Feel free to pay for your own kid to go somewhere
>> else, if you think the public schools educate inappropriately. �but
>> don't expect our tax dollars to pay for your weird alternative version
>> of education, whatever it may be.
>>
>> lojbab
>> ---
>> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>> loj...@lojban.org � Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
>Intellectual openness is only weird and scary to those at risk of
>losing authority and those multiple public funded benefits.
>
>Obviously you think there's nothing wrong with the past, present or
>future
I think that there is plenty wrong. But Usenet isn't the solution to
any problem.
>that's going down the nearest toilet.
Your posts for example. Prime flush material.
>Perhaps you should run as our next republican President
I'm not a Republican (nor a Democrat).
>At least your new language could then be public funded and forced upon everyone.
Why would I want either public funding or forcing any language on
anyone?
>btw, I agree that this dysfunctional planet needs a global language,
I don't.
Bob LeChevalier
>Usenet/newsgroups and as many privately created and moderated groups
>as you like is hardly insignificant,
Of course they are.
>Our public funded education is turning out generations of socialized
>parrots
which is precisely what their parents want them to turn out, and what
the taxpayers are paying for them to turn out.
>that either can't or wouldn't dare deductively think for
>themselves, but that seems fine and dandy by your standards.
My standards are irrelevant. The state standards, approved by the
elected representatives of the voting populace are what matters.
>Conversing with real people and deductively connecting dots is
>obviously not something you think students of any generation need to
>bother with.
Wrong. Sounds like a good idea to me. But I don't expect government
to pay for it, and parents expect their kids NOT to be allowed to
freely converse with perverts.
>Your "not the place for such nonsense" is a clear mainstream policy of what any dictator would admire.
No. Merely what any Board of Education would admire.
>It's no wonder
>those of you in charge of what we should or should not do with our
>personal and formal educational time and limited resources,
Public school time isn't personal time. It is a time required by law
to be spent at a public institution teaching the state curriculum.
>seem to have this nation headed into the nearest toilet.
No, that is just your brain that is toilet-obsessed.
>But then I'd like to make the future
>collectively better, which obviously you'd care less no matters how
>bad things get, that is as long as your quality of life isn't
>negatively affected.
What I care is irrelevant. The schools are about what the public
collectively can agree on.
Brad Guth
You make a pretty darn good parrot yourself, passive and easy to
please with a cracker. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
Anyone can come up with excuses, including parrots that are only
supposed to poop in their cage.
How many seconds in front of a given K12 class would it take to inform
students of the Usenet/newsgroup world? I could do it in less than 10
seconds, and along with a handout could embellish it within 10
minutes.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I guess your state run brainwashing gets the green light every time.
>
> >> The state teaches the state curriculum. If you want to call that
> >> "brainwashing", that is your privilege, but the parents and the
> >> taxpayers (aka "we the people") think that is what our tax dollars
> >> should go for. Feel free to pay for your own kid to go somewhere
> >> else, if you think the public schools educate inappropriately. but
> >> don't expect our tax dollars to pay for your weird alternative version
> >> of education, whatever it may be.
>
> >> lojbab
> >> ---
> >> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> >> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
> >Intellectual openness is only weird and scary to those at risk of
> >losing authority and those multiple public funded benefits.
>
> >Obviously you think there's nothing wrong with the past, present or
> >future
>
> I think that there is plenty wrong. But Usenet isn't the solution to
> any problem.
I never suggested it was. Why are you getting so defensive and
otherwise naysay?
I don't have any problems with folks that don't bother to read or
listen to the news, as long as they're not telling me whatever I can
or can not do.
>
> >that's going down the nearest toilet.
>
> Your posts for example. Prime flush material.
Your personal transference noted.
>
> >Perhaps you should run as our next republican President
>
> I'm not a Republican (nor a Democrat).
In that case, the next parrot president can take us into WW3, and
you'll have to love every precious minute of it.
>
> >At least your new language could then be public funded and forced upon everyone.
>
> Why would I want either public funding or forcing any language on
> anyone?
>
> >btw, I agree that this dysfunctional planet needs a global language,
>
> I don't.
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
In that obviously bipolar case of denial; so what's the difference?
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>How many seconds in front of a given K12 class would it take to inform
>students of the Usenet/newsgroup world?
The same could be said of any number of other, far more educational,
resources.
That isn't the job of the schools.
Bob LeChevalier
>> >Intellectual openness is only weird and scary to those at risk of
>> >losing authority and those multiple public funded benefits.
>>
>> >Obviously you think there's nothing wrong with the past, present or
>> >future
>>
>> I think that there is plenty wrong. �But Usenet isn't the solution to
>> any problem.
>
>I never suggested it was. Why are you getting so defensive and
>otherwise naysay?
Well you for some reason think that Usenet is relevant to k12
education, I made the possibly fallacious assumption that you were
still writing in support of that idea.
>I don't have any problems with folks that don't bother to read or
>listen to the news, as long as they're not telling me whatever I can
>or can not do.
How is what people tell you to do, or not to do, relevant to k12
education. Are you a k12 student?
If you are, then you get to do what your parents or guardians tell you
to do, whether they read or listen to the news or not. And if you
don't, the consequences are up to them.
>> >Perhaps you should run as our next republican President
>>
>> I'm not a Republican (nor a Democrat).
>
>In that case, the next parrot president can take us into WW3, and
>you'll have to love every precious minute of it.
If it happened, I doubt if I'd live long enough to love anything.
>> >At least your new language could then be public funded and forced upon everyone.
>>
>> Why would I want either public funding or forcing any language on
>> anyone?
>>
>> >btw, I agree that this dysfunctional planet needs a global language,
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> lojbab
>> ---
>> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>> loj...@lojban.org � Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
>In that obviously bipolar case of denial; so what's the difference?
Denial of what?
Lojban has nothing to do with "global language".
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Lojban+Introductory+Brochure
Brad Guth
Your lack of comprehension as to the intent of this topic is noted,
but then what parrot or second generation parrot needs comprehension.
Are you also in favor of abolishing all other printed forms of news
and information that isn't government approved?
Usenet for K12 is just another option. Obviously you'd rather K12s as
parrots not bother.
~ BG
Brad Guth
In other words, your K12 for parrots need not bother with anything
that might be less biased, informative or challenging (aka thought
provoking), not to mention free for the taking.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 28, 12:29 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I noticed how you are in charge of Google/NOVA Groups,
>
> >> I have no idea what NOVA Groups are, and I rarely look at Google
> >> Groups. I do *Usenet*, which is the real thing.
>
> >Google owns NOVA,
>
> So what? I still don't know what NOVA groups are.
>
> >and Google provides Usenet/newsgroups that pretty much user friendly.
>
> No it doesn't. Forte Agent provides Usenet in a user friendly manner.
> Google provides something more like a chatroom, but that includes
> Usenet archives, in a web-based interface that is quite UNfriendly,
> especially to people who know how to use a *real* newsreader. Google
> jumbles the newsgroups together in a manner that misleads users as to
> how Usenet actually works.
>
> The archives search is reasonably fast, in the absence of a good
> alternative, but searching Usenet archives isn't generally the best
> way to find something useful.
If mainstream parrots don't know how to selectively search, then
perhaps they need to learn something new.
A maximum of 5 newsgroups is hardly massive crossposting.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>In other words, your K12 for parrots need not bother with anything
>that might be less biased, informative or challenging (aka thought
>provoking), not to mention free for the taking.
If that is what the elected officials decide, then not only they
"needn't bother", but "they shouldn't".
Government schools are run by the government, for purposes decided by
the elected officials of that government. This isn't that hard a
concept, except apparently for the likes of you.
Bob LeChevalier
>Your lack of comprehension as to the intent of this topic is noted,
If you cannot write clearly as to the topic, blame only yourself.
>Are you also in favor of abolishing all other printed forms of news
>and information that isn't government approved?
Absolutely not, for the general populace. Indeed, I tend towards the
opposite.
But for the k12 classroom, it is up to the school officials, and for
kids in general, it is up to their parents.
>Usenet for K12 is just another option.
Not one worth considering for very long. Parents can do it outside of
school if they wish.
>Obviously you'd rather K12s as parrots not bother.
Until they learn what the state requires them to learn, (which is not
limited to parrotable stuff), other stuff is a non-priority. Such is
common sense.
Bob LeChevalier
>> The archives search is reasonably fast, in the absence of a good
>> alternative, but searching Usenet archives isn't generally the best
>> way to find something useful.
>
>If mainstream parrots don't know how to selectively search, then
>perhaps they need to learn something new.
Learning to search Usenet is way down the list of things anyone
"needs" to learn.
>A maximum of 5 newsgroups is hardly massive crossposting.
More than ONE is "massive crossposting", unless the post is
specifically on-topic in each of them. And only rarely should a topic
be started in multiple newsgroups. Start in one, and add others as
they become relevant. The fewer you add, the better you look. In
almost 20 years, I think the number of times I have started a thread
in even two newsgroups could be counted on one hand.
My ISP considers more than 4 newsgroups to be excessive crossposting,
and rejects any such message. I have no argument with this.
Brad Guth
> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Your lack of comprehension as to the intent of this topic is noted,
>
> If you cannot write clearly as to the topic, blame only yourself.
>
> >Are you also in favor of abolishing all other printed forms of news
> >and information that isn't government approved?
>
> Absolutely not, for the general populace. Indeed, I tend towards the
> opposite.
>
> kids in general, it is up to their parents.
>
>
> Not one worth considering for very long. Parents can do it outside of
> school if they wish.
>
> >Obviously you'd rather K12s as parrots not bother.
>
> Until they learn what the state requires them to learn, (which is not
> limited to parrotable stuff), other stuff is a non-priority. Such is
> common sense.
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
K12s have home, school and in between access to all sorts of approved
mainstream media saturated hype, crime, violence and smut news stories
that they can't possibly interact with, meaning they can't ask the
author(s) any questions nor can they contribute their interpretations,
much less get any feedback that's specific to their interest or
developing expertise.
Extremely violent and/or reckless/insensitive movies, video games and
even LeapFrog puts all sorts of silly and illogical notions into these
mostly public funded K12 parrot heads, and apparently you and most
others think that method of brainwash is perfectly fine and dandy as
is. (I'm sure Hitler would have agreed)
If I didn't know any better, one might think you are one of the truly
bad guys cloaked as an "artificial linguist; genealogist". However, I
agree that common sense or logic as based upon deductive reasoning is
almost missing entirely from k12s parrot mindset that's getting pretty
much fused by the end of 5th grade, and otherwise terminal by the end
of 9th grade.
If schools and parents as a direct byproducts of those very same
schools fail to break this thick ice, so to speak, then it's nothing
but mainstream status quo until the last pair of dysfunctional human
parrots remain on Earth.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 2, 10:23 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> The archives search is reasonably fast, in the absence of a good
> >> alternative, but searching Usenet archives isn't generally the best
> >> way to find something useful.
>
> >If mainstream parrots don't know how to selectively search, then
> >perhaps they need to learn something new.
>
> Learning to search Usenet is way down the list of things anyone
> "needs" to learn.
There we go. Hand out those white canes, solid ear muffs and blinders
to all of these pathetic K12 parrots that you must consider as
supposedly educated. Instead those k12 parrots get to survive by
using the trial and error or copycat methods that are mainstream
approved.
>
> >A maximum of 5 newsgroups is hardly massive crossposting.
>
> More than ONE is "massive crossposting", unless the post is
> specifically on-topic in each of them. And only rarely should a topic
> be started in multiple newsgroups. Start in one, and add others as
> they become relevant. The fewer you add, the better you look. In
> almost 20 years, I think the number of times I have started a thread
> in even two newsgroups could be counted on one hand.
>
> My ISP considers more than 4 newsgroups to be excessive crossposting,
> and rejects any such message. I have no argument with this.
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
I would only post in a single newsgroup if there was enough feedback.
Unfortunately, most Usenet contributors are doing their best at trying
to lord/domonate throughout whatever given newsgroup (especially
obvious in moderated groups), and this tactic of their topic/author
stalking and bashing as well as just clowning around is thereby made a
whole lot easier, as well as methods of ignoring or banishment against
whomever is what also works to their advantage.
You are clearly an exception to the rule. If 90% or even 10% of
contributors were like yourself, there wouldn't be a problem, whereas
instead it's more like 0.1% if any, and thus far no K12s anywhere in
sight.
~ BG
Brad Guth
That's exactly what Hitler said. Gee whiz, what a weird coincidence.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
Cite please.
Hint: Hitler didn't much go for elected officials making decisions,
once he took power.
Bob LeChevalier
>K12s have home, school and in between access to all sorts of approved
>mainstream media saturated hype, crime, violence and smut news stories
>that they can't possibly interact with,
That depends on their parents' decisions.
>meaning they can't ask the author(s) any questions
Of course they can. Again subject to their parents' decisions. People
have been writing letters to authors long before there was an
Internet.
>nor can they contribute their interpretations,
Why would anyone (but them) care what their interpretations are? They
are as-yet-uneducated kids, lacking in maturity and responsibility.
Of course, they can in fact contribute their interpretations, if their
parents' approve.
>much less get any feedback that's specific to their interest or
>developing expertise.
They are kids. They don't have "expertise". And until they turn 18,
their "interests" are subsidiary to what the state requires them to
learn, and what their parents require them to study. (And then their
interests are subsidiary to those of the employer who pays them and/or
the university professor that grades them or signs off on their
thesis, but that is another issue unrelated to K12.)
>Extremely violent and/or reckless/insensitive movies, video games and
>even LeapFrog puts all sorts of silly and illogical notions into these
>mostly public funded K12 parrot heads
Only if their parents allow such
>and apparently you and most
>others think that method of brainwash is perfectly fine and dandy as
>is
If the parents think so, then my opinion is irrelevant.
>(I'm sure Hitler would have agreed)
Your constant invocation of Hitler shows that you have no actual clue
what he said and thought, and suggest that you are using him as a
universal bogeyman in opposition to your weirdo ideology.
>If I didn't know any better,
You don't seem to know anything.
>one might think you are one of the truly bad guys
I suspect that your concept of "truly bad guys" is as juvenile as your
opinions.
>However, I agree that common sense or logic as based upon deductive reasoning is
>almost missing entirely from k12s
Your postings show that common sense is entirely missing from you.
Deductive logic is worthless if based on incorrect assumptions
>parrot mindset that's getting pretty
>much fused by the end of 5th grade, and otherwise terminal by the end
>of 9th grade.
The country is doing just fine despite the vast majority of the people
completing 9th grade. That you failed and dropped out before 5th
grade and therefore "think" that you have something other than a
"parrot mindset" is your problem, not ours.
>If schools and parents as a direct byproducts of those very same
>schools fail to break this thick ice, so to speak, then it's nothing
>but mainstream status quo
Good.
>until the last pair of dysfunctional human parrots
Better "dysfunctional human parrots" than "idiotic self-centered Brad
Guthites".
Bob LeChevalier
>On Feb 22, 1:41�am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 2, 10:23�am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> The archives search is reasonably fast, in the absence of a good
>> >> alternative, but searching Usenet archives isn't generally the best
>> >> way to find something useful.
>>
>> >If mainstream parrots don't know how to selectively search, then
>> >perhaps they need to learn something new.
>>
>> Learning to search Usenet is way down the list of things anyone
>> "needs" to learn.
>
>There we go. Hand out those white canes, solid ear muffs and blinders
>to all of these pathetic K12 parrots that you must consider as
>supposedly educated.
A K12 student is NOT educated. That is why s/he is in school. After
K12 is finished, they MIGHT be educated, though these days a college
degree is a better evidence for education.
>Instead those k12 parrots get to survive by
>using the trial and error or copycat methods that are mainstream
>approved.
Mainstream approval is a good thing. It gets you paid, when your boss
or your customers approve.
>> >A maximum of 5 newsgroups is hardly massive crossposting.
>>
>> More than ONE is "massive crossposting", unless the post is
>> specifically on-topic in each of them. �And only rarely should a topic
>> be started in multiple newsgroups. �Start in one, and add others as
>> they become relevant. �The fewer you add, the better you look. �In
>> almost 20 years, I think the number of times I have started a thread
>> in even two newsgroups could be counted on one hand.
>>
>> My ISP considers more than 4 newsgroups to be excessive crossposting,
>> and rejects any such message. �I have no argument with this.
>>
>> lojbab
>> ---
>> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>> loj...@lojban.org � Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
>I would only post in a single newsgroup if there was enough feedback.
That is because you don't really understand what Usenet is about. Your
ilk crossposting in search of more "feedback" is why people are
leaving Usenet. They don't WANT to see your off-topic crap. If they
want to discuss the space program, they go to a space group. If they
want to discuss the philosophy of Brad Guth, they would go to a group
about Brad Guth.
Nowadays of course, there is so much off-topic crap in some newsgroups
that they don't hardly have a topic anymore. And those with interest
and expertise have generally moved to more restrictive forums that
keep your ilk out, and/or don't allow for crossposting.
>Unfortunately, most Usenet contributors are doing their best at trying
>to lord/domonate throughout whatever given newsgroup (especially
>obvious in moderated groups), and this tactic of their topic/author
>stalking and bashing as well as just clowning around is thereby made a
>whole lot easier, as well as methods of ignoring or banishment against
>whomever is what also works to their advantage.
Yawn.
>You are clearly an exception to the rule. If 90% or even 10% of
>contributors were like yourself, there wouldn't be a problem,
Instead, more are like you.
>whereas
>instead it's more like 0.1% if any, and thus far no K12s anywhere in
>sight.
That is because spammers killed the k12.newsgroups long ago, because
they couldn't keep your ilk off.
Brad Guth
> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >K12s have home, school and in between access to all sorts of approved
> >mainstream media saturated hype, crime, violence and smut news stories
> >that they can't possibly interact with,
>
> That depends on their parents' decisions.
>
> >meaning they can't ask the author(s) any questions
>
> Of course they can. Again subject to their parents' decisions. People
> have been writing letters to authors long before there was an
> Internet.
>
> >nor can they contribute their interpretations,
>
> Why would anyone (but them) care what their interpretations are? They
> are as-yet-uneducated kids, lacking in maturity and responsibility.
>
> Of course, they can in fact contribute their interpretations, if their
> parents' approve.
>
> >much less get any feedback that's specific to their interest or
> >developing expertise.
>
> They are kids. They don't have "expertise". And until they turn 18,
> their "interests" are subsidiary to what the state requires them to
> learn, and what their parents require them to study. (And then their
> interests are subsidiary to those of the employer who pays them and/or
> the university professor that grades them or signs off on their
> thesis, but that is another issue unrelated toK12.)
>
> >Extremely violent and/or reckless/insensitive movies, video games and
> >even LeapFrog puts all sorts of silly and illogical notions into these
Gee whiz, with you and your k12 parrots in charge we'd be all set to
go by now, speaking German and otherwise being Jewish.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 22, 1:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 2, 10:23 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> The archives search is reasonably fast, in the absence of a good
> >> >> alternative, but searching Usenet archives isn't generally the best
> >> >> way to find something useful.
>
> >> >If mainstream parrots don't know how to selectively search, then
> >> >perhaps they need to learn something new.
>
> >> Learning to search Usenet is way down the list of things anyone
> >> "needs" to learn.
>
> >There we go. Hand out those white canes, solid ear muffs and blinders
> >supposedly educated.
>
> AK12student is NOT educated. That is why s/he is in school. AfterK12is finished, they MIGHT be educated, though these days a college
> degree is a better evidence for education.
>
> >using the trial and error or copycat methods that are mainstream
> >approved.
>
> Mainstream approval is a good thing. It gets you paid, when your boss
> or your customers approve.
>
>
>
> >> >A maximum of 5 newsgroups is hardly massive crossposting.
>
> >> More than ONE is "massive crossposting", unless the post is
> >> specifically on-topic in each of them. And only rarely should a topic
> >> be started in multiple newsgroups. Start in one, and add others as
> >> they become relevant. The fewer you add, the better you look. In
> >> almost 20 years, I think the number of times I have started a thread
> >> in even two newsgroups could be counted on one hand.
>
> >> My ISP considers more than 4 newsgroups to be excessive crossposting,
> >> and rejects any such message. I have no argument with this.
>
> >> lojbab
> >> ---
> >> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> >> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
> >I would only post in a single newsgroup if there was enough feedback.
>
> That is because you don't really understand what Usenet is about.
> Your ilk crossposting in search of more "feedback" is why people are
> leaving Usenet. They don't WANT to see your off-topic crap. If they
> want to discuss the space program, they go to a space group. If they
> want to discuss the philosophy of BradGuth, they would go to a group
> about BradGuth.
I have my own group, but folks like yourself would never bother.
>
> Nowadays of course, there is so much off-topic crap in some newsgroups
> that they don't hardly have a topic anymore. And those with interest
> and expertise have generally moved to more restrictive forums that
> keep your ilk out, and/or don't allow for crossposting.
Is there a silly law that you have to read everything that gets
posted?
Do you have to read each and every word published within each and
every day in the NYT?
>
> >Unfortunately, most Usenet contributors are doing their best at trying
> >to lord/domonate throughout whatever given newsgroup (especially
> >obvious in moderated groups), and this tactic of their topic/author
> >stalking and bashing as well as just clowning around is thereby made a
> >whole lot easier, as well as methods of ignoring or banishment against
> >whomever is what also works to their advantage.
>
> Yawn.
>
> >You are clearly an exception to the rule. If 90% or even 10% of
> >contributors were like yourself, there wouldn't be a problem,
>
> Instead, more are like you.
>
> >whereas
> >instead it's more like 0.1% if any, and thus far no K12s anywhere in
> >sight.
>
> That is because spammers killed the k12.newsgroups long ago, because
> they couldn't keep your ilk off.
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
Your transference and personal desire to be more like a loyal minion
brown-nosing authority, because it's the failsafe parrot thing to be
doing, is noted. It certainly hasn't worked so far, but good luck
with that policy of yours.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Exactly, and thus you know what I mean. Hitler had a lot of educated
help, of the brown-nosed parrot kind.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
Let's find out.
I said
>Government schools are run by the government, for purposes decided by
>the elected officials of that government.
You said
>That's exactly what Hitler said.
You therefore "mean" that you don't have a cite for something you
claimed that Hitler said. In other words, you lied.
Is that what you meant - that you were lying?
>Hitler had a lot of educated help,
Your evidence is lacking that he had such.
>of the brown-nosed parrot kind.
By your definition, every leader of whatever political stripe has lots
of "brown-nosed parrot kind", since 99% of the world fits that
definition.
Thus you've said nothing.
Bob LeChevalier
>Gee whiz, with you and your k12 parrots in charge we'd be all set to
>go by now, speaking German and otherwise being Jewish.
I have no idea what you mean by that, except that it sounds vaguely
anti-Semitic. Either that or you are trying to again invoke Hitler
(losing the argument every time you do so, of course).
Nothing I said had anything to do with Germany or any religion.
Bob LeChevalier
>Your transference and personal desire to be more like a loyal minion
>brown-nosing authority,
"Minions" aren't "authority", idiot.
>because it's the failsafe parrot thing to be doing, is noted. It certainly hasn't worked so far, but good luck
>with that policy of yours.
We're only the richest and most powerful nation on earth, but you
think "it hasn't worked so far".
Poor widdle Braddie apparently wants something other than what the
rest of us want. Go find a desert island that you can share with all
those who agree with you.
Brad Guth
If you say so. Pretending is so much fun, isn't it.
~ BG
Brad Guth
As I said before, with you and others of your brown-nosed parrot kind,
Hitler almost became our global dictator, and the Jewish faith almost
became the one and only accepted religion.
~ BG
Brad Guth
I said, that without K12 social/political and faith-based parrots like
yourself and whatever next generation of little mainstream morons that
offers only more of the same, the likes of any faith-based puppet
warlords like Hitler or even GW Bush wouldn't have stood any chance in
hell.
Apparently you favor the mainstream status quo of bogus/phony science,
as well as mainstream infowar disinformation and whatever obfuscating
and/or lies upon lies about Muslim WND or anything else that gets in
our way, that supposedly makes this nation so freaking great and
powerful. The matter of fact that this nation is in debt for
generations to come doesn't seem to bother you in the least bit, even
if it involves WW3.
Two thirds of this nation is now public state/federal funded to some
major extent, and this too you see absolutely nothing wrong with
endorsing an bigger government. If that isn't our parrots-on-ice
follies (metaphorically speaking), then perhaps nothing is.
Your K12 parrot approved solutions to all of this is??? (that's right,
you have proposed no solutions, as in none whatsoever)
How about we start off by cutting your state and federal funded
income, retirement and benefits in half for the next decade? (you got
any problem with that?)
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Bob LeChevalier
>I said, that without K12 social/political and faith-based parrots like
>yourself and whatever next generation of little mainstream morons that
>offers only more of the same, the likes of any faith-based puppet
>warlords like Hitler or even GW Bush wouldn't have stood any chance in
>hell.
You say all kinds of crap.
You provide no *evidence* that you have even the slightest clue.
>Apparently you favor the mainstream status quo
I do.
>of bogus/phony science,
If you can do better science, do so. On YOUR nickel until you prove
it, not mine.
>as well as mainstream infowar disinformation and whatever obfuscating
>and/or lies upon lies about Muslim WND or anything else that gets in
>our way, that supposedly makes this nation so freaking great and
>powerful. The matter of fact that this nation is in debt for
>generations to come doesn't seem to bother you in the least bit, even
>if it involves WW3.
Actually, it does bother me. I favor tax increases. Of course, I
know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they will be
approved.
>Two thirds of this nation is now public state/federal funded to some
>major extent,
Pulling another statistic out of your ass, I see.
>and this too you see absolutely nothing wrong with
>endorsing an bigger government.
"We the people" want the government bennies. Unless we decide to give
some up, we have to pay more for them.
>Your K12 parrot approved solutions to all of this is???
K12 students don't vote, and have no power to achieve any solutions
until they grow up, and only then if they have mastered the "status
quo"
>(that's right, you have proposed no solutions, as in none whatsoever)
Maybe because there aren't any that have any chance of serious
consideration.
Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE.
>How about we start off by cutting your state and federal funded
>income, retirement and benefits in half for the next decade? (you got
>any problem with that?)
Let me know when you have the votes. Until then, you are spouting hot
air.
(Hint: I don't receive government income.)
Bob LeChevalier
>As I said before,
lots of unsupported and unsupportable crap.
>with you and others of your brown-nosed parrot kind,
>Hitler almost became our global dictator, and the Jewish faith almost
>became the one and only accepted religion.
Those are two mutually contradictory claims, neither of which has
anything to do with reality.
Brad Guth
> >yourself and whatever next generation of little mainstream morons that
> >offers only more of the same, the likes of any faith-based puppet
> >warlords like Hitler or even GW Bush wouldn't have stood any chance in
> >hell.
>
> You say all kinds of crap.
I rest my case. Parrots tend to understand only crackers and crap.
>
> You provide no *evidence* that you have even the slightest clue.
Parrots can't possibly interpret anything deductively or otherwise,
because they never interact with anything other than another parrot.
I provide evidence and parrots systematically ignore it because I'm
not a government qualified parrot. Of course you wouldn't understand
any of this because of that same parrot approved mindset of yours.
>
> >Apparently you favor the mainstream status quo
>
> I do.
>
> >of bogus/phony science,
>
> If you can do better science, do so. On YOUR nickel until you prove
> it, not mine.
But you and your parrots wouldn't possibly know better science, and
couldn't possibly appreciate it's greater good or benefit for others,
because you are all K12 mutant parrots so afraid of your own shadows.
>
> >as well as mainstream infowar disinformation and whatever obfuscating
> >and/or lies upon lies about Muslim WND or anything else that gets in
> >our way, that supposedly makes this nation so freaking great and
> >powerful. The matter of fact that this nation is in debt for
> >generations to come doesn't seem to bother you in the least bit, even
> >if it involves WW3.
>
> Actually, it does bother me. I favor tax increases. Of course, I
> know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they will be
> approved.
There have been and will continue to be tax increases (mostly hidden),
because our government and its dependents are growing exponentially.
>
> >Two thirds of this nation is now public state/federal funded to some
> >major extent,
>
> Pulling another statistic out of your ass, I see.
>
> >and this too you see absolutely nothing wrong with
> >endorsing an bigger government.
>
> "We the people" want the government bennies. Unless we decide to give
> some up, we have to pay more for them.
>
> >YourK12parrot approved solutions to all of this is???
>
> K12students don't vote, and have no power to achieve any solutions
> until they grow up, and only then if they have mastered the "status
> quo"
>
> >(that's right, you have proposed no solutions, as in none whatsoever)
>
> Maybe because there aren't any that have any chance of serious
> consideration.
>
> Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE.
Remaining parrot like and passive is certainly not going to ever
change anything, at least not for the greater good. Unlike you, I
have multiple ideas that could have been and should have been
implemented decades ago. But then as long as our K12 parrots and
brown-nosed other graduates are in charge, as you say "there aren't
any that have any chance of serious consideration", so why bother.
>
> >How about we start off by cutting your state and federal funded
> >income, retirement and benefits in half for the next decade? (you got
> >any problem with that?)
>
> Let me know when you have the votes. Until then, you are spouting hot
> air.
>
> (Hint: I don't receive government income.)
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
Then you're part of the third that has been self employed or working
for a purely private company that never receives state or federal
contract loot, paying for your own way plus having been paying for
everything else we see or hear about. How does it feel being used by
two thirds of our nation that's bankrupt or worse off and still living
large?
btw, we're paying multiple compounded taxes upon taxes on most
everything as is, and most of those hard earned dollars benefit the
other two thirds. Taxes are especially nowadays cloaked as various
licenses, usage fees, assessments and of course local school and
community levies that only a minority manage to establish and get
their hands on (with few strings attached).
Your 12K status quo and the subsequent mainstream of parrots is
exactly what got this nation bankrupted and so often hated as is, not
to mention into bogus wars and of course their having created 911 plus
everything since. Way to go there, Bob. I thought you said that no
state or federal loot ever came your way. (are you really sure about
that?)
~ BG
Brad Guth
As I said, without a good supply of those government approved parrots
(many becoming brown-nosed clowns), the likes of Hitler, GW Bush, Dick
Cheney and Kissinger would have been screwed.
~ BG
Bob LeChevalier
>On Feb 24, 6:10锟絘m, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I said, that withoutK12social/political and faith-based parrots like
>> >yourself and whatever next generation of little mainstream morons that
>> >offers only more of the same, the likes of any faith-based puppet
>> >warlords like Hitler or even GW Bush wouldn't have stood any chance in
>> >hell.
>>
>> You say all kinds of crap.
>
>I rest my case. Parrots tend to understand only crackers and crap.
>
>> You provide no *evidence* that you have even the slightest clue.
>
>Parrots can't possibly interpret anything deductively or otherwise,
>because they never interact with anything other than another parrot.
Therefore you must be a parrot, since I am interacting with you.
See what "deductive logic" does with nonsense!
>I provide evidence
I've never seen anything.
>and parrots systematically ignore it because I'm
>not a government qualified parrot.
You're not qualified by any sort of recognized institution, public or
private. And your postings demonstrate your lack of qualification.
>> >Apparently you favor the mainstream status quo
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> >of bogus/phony science,
>>
>> If you can do better science, do so. 锟絆n YOUR nickel until you prove
>> it, not mine.
>
>But you and your parrots wouldn't possibly know better science,
"Good science" is what scientists say is "good science". Until you
can pass peer review, your opinions are worthless.
>> Actually, it does bother me. 锟絀 favor tax increases. 锟絆f course, I
>> know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they will be
>> approved.
>
>There have been and will continue to be tax increases (mostly hidden),
>because our government and its dependents are growing exponentially.
It's a very small exponent, then.
>> >(that's right, you have proposed no solutions, as in none whatsoever)
>>
>> Maybe because there aren't any that have any chance of serious
>> consideration.
>>
>> Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE.
>
>Remaining parrot like and passive is certainly not going to ever
>change anything,
So what? If I wanted to change something, I wouldn't be posting to
Usenet.
>at least not for the greater good.
What YOU think is the "greater good", and what the "greater" majority
things is the "greater good" probably have little in common. Why
should we want you to be able to "change things for the greater good"?
>Unlike you, I
>have multiple ideas that could have been and should have been
>implemented decades ago.
I have lots of such ideas too, but they couldn't have been implemented
because "we the people" by and large prefer the status quo.
>But then as long as our K12 parrots and
>brown-nosed other graduates are in charge,
Which will continue so long as we remain a democratic nation.
>as you say "there aren't
>any that have any chance of serious consideration", so why bother.
Do you see me bothering?
>> Let me know when you have the votes. 锟経ntil then, you are spouting hot
>> air.
>>
>> (Hint: I don't receive government income.)
>
>Then you're part of the third that has been self employed or working
>for a purely private company that never receives state or federal
>contract loot,
No. I am part of the large minority that is not in the labor market.
>paying for your own way
I am not in debt.
>plus having been paying for everything else we see or hear about. How does it feel being used by
>two thirds of our nation that's bankrupt or worse off and still living
>large?
Good.
It is good to be well enough off that others can "use" me.
>btw, we're paying multiple compounded taxes upon taxes on most
>everything as is,
And yet we pay far less than most of Europe. We could have a budget
surplus this year and STILL be paying less than most of Europe.
>and most of those hard earned dollars benefit the other two thirds.
So what? I don't have a problem with others benefiting from my
relative wealth, so long as it is done democratically.
It sure beats the alternatives.
>Your 12K status quo and the subsequent mainstream of parrots is
>exactly what got this nation bankrupted and so often hated as is, not
>to mention into bogus wars and of course their having created 911 plus
>everything since.
I see. You are another 911 conspiracy theorist, too. What a maroon!
lojbab
Brad Guth
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 24, 6:10 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I said, that withoutK12social/political and faith-based parrots like
> >> >yourself and whatever next generation of little mainstream morons that
> >> >offers only more of the same, the likes of any faith-based puppet
> >> >warlords like Hitler or even GW Bush wouldn't have stood any chance in
> >> >hell.
>
> >> You say all kinds of crap.
>
> >I rest my case. Parrots tend to understand only crackers and crap.
>
> >> You provide no *evidence* that you have even the slightest clue.
>
> >Parrots can't possibly interpret anything deductively or otherwise,
> >because they never interact with anything other than another parrot.
>
> Therefore you must be a parrot, since I am interacting with you.
>
> See what "deductive logic" does with nonsense!
>
> >I provide evidence
>
> I've never seen anything.
>
> >and parrots systematically ignore it because I'm
> >not a government qualified parrot.
>
> You're not qualified by any sort of recognized institution, public or
> private. And your postings demonstrate your lack of qualification.
>
> >> >Apparently you favor the mainstream status quo
>
> >> I do.
>
> >> >of bogus/phony science,
>
> >> it, not mine.
>
> >But you and your parrots wouldn't possibly know better science,
>
> "Good science" is what scientists say is "good science". Until you
> can pass peer review, your opinions are worthless.
>
You are a perpetual obfuscater that's in denial, but then aren't all
parrots.
~ BG