Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
Parse Tree
often a failed attempt can be instructive to the teacher, instead.
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:gPkba.3475$4q6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> It still seems to be better than outright telling someone something. And
> often a failed attempt can be instructive to the teacher, instead.
Doesn't seem to have worked too well for Brenda.
Still, I guess she might have learned something from it all, she just isn't
ready to admit it yet.
P
Brenda G. Kent
> Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> From: "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension>
> Reply to: [1] "Parse Tree"
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:36:49 -0500
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
>
>It still seems to be better than outright telling someone something. And
>often a failed attempt can be instructive to the teacher, instead.
****bingo....
It's been used for eons in many cultures though and has been incredibly
successful. Unfortunately many folks who get ravened don't really
understand what is happenning but they DO eventually learn. Too many
believe it is a case of a teacher standing there ...giving
instruction..and getting a result from a student....that's not the way she
be....it's a long process for some...and very short for others...depends
on that "ah-hah!" factor in the ravened. Some get it quicker than others.
What I find funny is those who put down a very ancient teaching method
which is a cornerstone of shamanism cuz...they still don't get it.
:)
Brenda
ps. I often don't just tell someone something because it is like looking
up the answers in the back of the book....too easy and does not really
teach you the process.
t_naismith
> It's been used for eons in many cultures though and has been incredibly
> successful.
In several cultures, there have been individuals who were called _Sacred
Clowns_ and who were considered to have a certain unintentional _medicine_.
Blenda's conception of "ravening" does not appear in the stories of the
Nations nor in mythologies, as she describes it to be. Further, her attempt
to justify the petty vindictive course she is on via such justifications
harms the actual traditions misused so abominably.
> Unfortunately many folks who get ravened don't really
> understand what is happenning but they DO eventually learn.
This is an outrageous presumption. There was no such "ravening".
Blenda does not employ it to _teach_. The only thing she accomplished was
to emphasize her compulsion to lie.
> Too many
> believe it is a case of a teacher standing there ...giving
> instruction..and getting a result from a student....
This is an invalid assumption. There was no "ravening", therefore there
was no "student/teacher" process occurring.
> ...that's not the way she
> be....it's a long process for some...and very short for others...depends
> on that "ah-hah!" factor in the ravened. Some get it quicker than others.
The sheer arrogance contained in these laughable statements aside, (to
imply that others are slower-witted than Blenda!), there is a further
presumption claimed here. That Blenda _called upon Raven_ and "She" did
this as a lesson for others. Bullshite. The process vaguely referred to as
"ravening" would more aptly be called "Coyote-ing" and even then, Blenda did
not engage in it.
> What I find funny is those who put down a very ancient teaching method
> which is a cornerstone of shamanism cuz...they still don't get it.
> :)
>
What is even more amusing, in a twisted sort of way, is the claim that
simple vengence on Blenda's part is somehow drawn from her dimly
misunderstood conception of "ancient teaching methods".
> B****a
>
> ps. I often don't just tell someone something because it is like looking
> up the answers in the back of the book....too easy and does not really
> teach you the process.
Not so. You are not any form of _teacher_ and are therefore incapable
of engaging in the process of teaching, even in most mundane senses of the
word, (let alone any esoteric sense). Is this part of the way your cult of
pseudo-Quaker-"witch" mind-washes others?
Trevor (Falcon Eye) N.
Parse Tree
news:3e6e...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
Exactly. It has very specific places of use, namely things that are matters
of fact.
Phoenix
> >
> > From: "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension>
> > Reply to: [1] "Parse Tree"
> > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:36:49 -0500
> > Organization: Bell Sympatico
> > Newsgroups:
> > [2] alt.pagan,
> > [3] alt.religion.wicca
> > Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> >
> >It still seems to be better than outright telling someone something. And
> >often a failed attempt can be instructive to the teacher, instead.
>
> ****bingo....
Yes, BINGO, Brenda.. you are still a liar regardless of all your spewage.
I have also heard a rumor that you are in fact Willy..
hehehehehehehe....
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
So, you're now telling us that lies are "matters of fact"?
Perhaps Brenda is a sock of yours? :-)
P
Parse Tree
news:Joxba.122262$If5.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
No, I was talking about the looking answers in the back of the book sort of
instruction. Just telling someone something outright doesn't work in all
cases. But it is somewhat useful for certain matters of fact.
kate
There you go again, changing the history of your 'ravening' bullshit. What
happened to the "...it was a vision that came to me as a child..." ? Ancient
teaching method.............I've asked and there's no such thing that any NA
I've talked to has ever heard of.
kate
"Phoenix" <phoe...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Joxba.122262$If5.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
She's a liar, plain and simple. If she's a sock, I'll eat my shoes. She's
just certifiable.
kate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
kate
Who would support such an outrageous Liar but someone she made up? Willy
does fit the bill!! Think I'll call Willy 'Brenda' from now on. *har*
kate
>
>
>
>
>
>
Parse Tree
news:b4lptt$215aub$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de...
> "B****a G. Kent" presumes:
>
> > Unfortunately many folks who get ravened don't really
> > understand what is happenning but they DO eventually learn.
>
> This is an outrageous presumption. There was no such "ravening".
> Blenda does not employ it to _teach_. The only thing she accomplished was
> to emphasize her compulsion to lie.
Nonagon, are you Brenda? How else could you know if she employed it to
teach or not? Even if she did not do it in fact, she could certainly think
that she did. So the only rational conclusion is that you somehow are
inside her mind, and from this I must conclude that you are the same
individual.
> > Too many
> > believe it is a case of a teacher standing there ...giving
> > instruction..and getting a result from a student....
>
> This is an invalid assumption. There was no "ravening", therefore
there
> was no "student/teacher" process occurring.
Actually, she said that many thought it to be that way, and they are wrong.
Clearly you are in agreement that ravening does not involve a teacher
standing there giving instruction.
> > B****a
> >
> > ps. I often don't just tell someone something because it is like
looking
> > up the answers in the back of the book....too easy and does not really
> > teach you the process.
>
> Not so. You are not any form of _teacher_ and are therefore incapable
> of engaging in the process of teaching, even in most mundane senses of the
> word, (let alone any esoteric sense).
Please explain what you mean by 'esoteric sense'. A teacher is someone who
teaches. Unless you're suggesting that Brenda is a Mormon, which really has
no contextual relation to anything at all.
> Is this part of the way your cult of
> pseudo-Quaker-"witch" mind-washes others?
There is no better way to mind-wash someone than to have them read your
posts. After 50 pages of them, they'll have no choice but to lose any
rational thought.
t_naismith
>
> "t_naismith" wrote:
>
>
> > "B****a" presumes:
> >
> > > Unfortunately many folks who get ravened don't really
> > > understand what is happenning but they DO eventually learn.
> >
> > This is an outrageous presumption. There was no such "ravening".
> > Blenda does not employ it to _teach_. The only thing she accomplished
was
> > to emphasize her compulsion to lie.
>
> teach or not?
Are you a nutbag? Even Brenda isn't Brenda; she thinks she's
_onewitheverything_.
There was no "ravening" attempted, teaching tool or no, merely her lies
in disguise.
Disregarding her disproven claims to the contrary, since there was no
"ravening", there was no _teaching_.
> Even if she did not do it in fact, she could certainly think
> that she did.
She and you are welcome to any number of irrationalities you two wish to
embrace, such embraces do nothing to lend validity to lies.
They are self-delusions. Much like your own self-image.
> So the only rational conclusion is that you somehow are
> inside her mind, and from this I must conclude that you are the same
> individual.
>
That conclusion never approaches rationality, it took the goat-trail of
sophistry to the stagnant pond of a known liar such as Blenda.
> > > Too many
> > > believe it is a case of a teacher standing there ...giving
> > > instruction..and getting a result from a student....
> >
> > This is an invalid assumption. There was no "ravening", therefore
> there
> > was no "student/teacher" process occurring.
>
> Actually, she said that many thought it to be that way, and they are
wrong.
Her opinions are baseless. She can bleat about others being wrong
without backing up that bland assertion all she wishes. Others have
delineated what actually occurred, which is not as her cover-up lies would
have it.
> Clearly you are in agreement that ravening does not involve a teacher
> standing there giving instruction.
>
There was no "ravening". There was no _teacher_. There was only
Blenda's vindictive and failed ploy and her subsequently weak attempts to
_explain_ why she lied. If the instruction was intended to convey
techniques and methodologies of lying, it was poorly conceived and executed.
She would have done better to turn to you for such _instruction_.
> > > B****a
> > >
> > > ps. I often don't just tell someone something because it is like
> looking
> > > up the answers in the back of the book....too easy and does not really
> > > teach you the process.
> >
> > Not so. You are not any form of _teacher_ and are therefore
incapable
> > of engaging in the process of teaching, even in most mundane senses of
the
> > word, (let alone any esoteric sense).
>
> Please explain what you mean by 'esoteric sense'. A teacher is someone
who
> teaches.
That's very simplistic but, not very informative. These NGs sometimes
deal with conveying concepts of an esoteric nature, (along with a large
amount of mundane/everyday things). Teaching, in an esoteric sense, would
therefore refer to both methods and content which vary, mostly, with the
mundane sense of the process of teaching.
> Unless you're suggesting that Brenda is a Mormon, which really has
> no contextual relation to anything at all.
>
She refers to herself as a Quaker and a witch; thus compounding
misnomers.
Although it wouldn't surprise a great many here were she to claim
Mormonism among her _isms_.
> > Is this part of the way your cult of
> > pseudo-Quaker-"witch" mind-washes others?
>
> There is no better way to mind-wash someone than to have them read your
> posts.
I disagree. Having to watch any performances by Dominic Mon..onucleosis
or Paul Walker is guaranteed to flatline the watcher long before anything
posted here would.
> After 50 pages of them, they'll have no choice but to lose any
> rational thought.
>
While you present compelling evidence that this is what happened when
you read "50 pages" of my posts, your plea of irrationality won't get you
aquitted.
Either you've read sufficient numbers of my posts to have lost any
ability of rational thought that you may have allegedly possessed or, you
have not read
and replied to the same number of posted pages and arrived here with
your irrationality virginally intact. Which is it?
Trevor (destroyer of diversionary tactics)
Brenda G. Kent
anymore...because you insult...without end.
There is only fighting in you...no wanting to discuss...no wanting to
share...no wanting to love....just insult and ego. I will check every now
and then..as I do Kate. I hope you can rid yourself of this need to
insult.
with love,
Brenda
Parse Tree
> "Parse Tree" babbled:
> >
> > "t_naismith" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > "B****a" presumes:
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately many folks who get ravened don't really
> > > > understand what is happenning but they DO eventually learn.
> > >
> > > This is an outrageous presumption. There was no such "ravening".
> > > Blenda does not employ it to _teach_. The only thing she accomplished
> was
> > > to emphasize her compulsion to lie.
> >
> > are you Brenda? How else could you know if she employed it to
> > teach or not?
>
> Are you a nutbag? Even Brenda isn't Brenda; she thinks she's
> _onewitheverything_.
Standard pantheist belief. It's no more 'idiotic' than the belief that
magick is sentient, which has been expressed by numerous people in ARW.
> There was no "ravening" attempted, teaching tool or no, merely her
lies
> in disguise.
Are you Brenda? How else can you know that she attempted it or not?
It's particularly odd since she claims to have done it.
> Disregarding her disproven claims to the contrary, since there was no
> "ravening", there was no _teaching_.
Except there was ravening at least attempted by the only source that has any
credibility in that matter.
> > Even if she did not do it in fact, she could certainly think
> > that she did.
>
> She and you are welcome to any number of irrationalities you two wish
to
> embrace, such embraces do nothing to lend validity to lies.
> They are self-delusions. Much like your own self-image.
You're clearly a moron. There is no self delusion in that respect. If I
think I like Dominic Monaghan, then if someone says I don't actually think I
like him, and it's a self delusion, then they are seriously retarded. The
question was not whether Brenda ravened, it was whether she THINKS that she
ravened. There can be no self delusion in that respect.
> > So the only rational conclusion is that you somehow are
> > inside her mind, and from this I must conclude that you are the same
> > individual.
> >
> That conclusion never approaches rationality, it took the goat-trail
of
> sophistry to the stagnant pond of a known liar such as Blenda.
No, it seems you're stating you know Brenda's thoughts moreso than Brenda.
Clearly that must be only possible conclusion.
> > > > Too many
> > > > believe it is a case of a teacher standing there ...giving
> > > > instruction..and getting a result from a student....
> > >
> > > This is an invalid assumption. There was no "ravening", therefore
> > there
> > > was no "student/teacher" process occurring.
> >
> > Actually, she said that many thought it to be that way, and they are
> wrong.
>
> Her opinions are baseless. She can bleat about others being wrong
> without backing up that bland assertion all she wishes. Others have
> delineated what actually occurred, which is not as her cover-up lies would
> have it.
> > Clearly you are in agreement that ravening does not involve a teacher
> > standing there giving instruction.
> >
> There was no "ravening". There was no _teacher_. There was only
> Blenda's vindictive and failed ploy and her subsequently weak attempts to
> _explain_ why she lied. If the instruction was intended to convey
> techniques and methodologies of lying, it was poorly conceived and
executed.
> She would have done better to turn to you for such _instruction_.
All would do better to turn to me. I have a lot more success educating
people than most on this group. Just look at the vast majority, who have
never learned a single thing. Look at Kate. She hasn't grown,
intellectually, for over a year. In fact, she's diminished. Not only is
her mind closed, but she won't associate with anyone whose mind is not
closed.
> > > > B****a
> > > >
> > > > ps. I often don't just tell someone something because it is like
> > looking
> > > > up the answers in the back of the book....too easy and does not
really
> > > > teach you the process.
> > >
> > > Not so. You are not any form of _teacher_ and are therefore
> incapable
> > > of engaging in the process of teaching, even in most mundane senses of
> the
> > > word, (let alone any esoteric sense).
> >
> > Please explain what you mean by 'esoteric sense'. A teacher is someone
> who
> > teaches.
>
> That's very simplistic but, not very informative.
Actually, it's quite informative. You're just trying to play word games.
Unfortunately you suck at them.
> These NGs sometimes
> deal with conveying concepts of an esoteric nature, (along with a large
> amount of mundane/everyday things). Teaching, in an esoteric sense, would
> therefore refer to both methods and content which vary, mostly, with the
> mundane sense of the process of teaching.
Congratulations on your meaningless babble that doesn't convey any actual
content.
> > > Is this part of the way your cult of
> > > pseudo-Quaker-"witch" mind-washes others?
> >
> > There is no better way to mind-wash someone than to have them read your
> > posts.
>
> I disagree. Having to watch any performances by Dominic
Mon..onucleosis
> or Paul Walker is guaranteed to flatline the watcher long before anything
> posted here would.
You're an idiot. Those sorts of attacks don't injure me in any way. They
just make you look like a moron. Both Lord of the Rings movies were
nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Most people think they were quite
good, and they were critically acclaimed. If you didn't like the movie, and
expect it to be a popular sentiment, then you are seriously deluded.
> > After 50 pages of them, they'll have no choice but to lose any
> > rational thought.
> >
> While you present compelling evidence that this is what happened when
> you read "50 pages" of my posts, your plea of irrationality won't get you
> aquitted.
> Either you've read sufficient numbers of my posts to have lost any
> ability of rational thought that you may have allegedly possessed or, you
> have not read
> and replied to the same number of posted pages and arrived here with
> your irrationality virginally intact. Which is it?
That would be clever, except I am not a normal person. Those sorts of
things don't work on me, since I work with pure reason, and am not inhibited
like the rest of you.
Jesika
myself. And yet you do anyway. You just don't want to admit that your
knowledge is limited at best. I believe THAT is why you didn't answer
DayaLi.
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3e70...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> From: "Jesika" <nigh...@tds.net>
> Reply to: [1] "Jesika"
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:26:22 GMT
> Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> [5] <3e70...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
>
>Well then by this standard, you shouldn't be replying to Jani, Kate, or
>myself. And yet you do anyway. You just don't want to admit that your
>knowledge is limited at best. I believe THAT is why you didn't answer
>DayaLi.
***I do when I think you may have changed and thanks for admitting that
you insult by the way. I never give up on folks entirely as I know that
change can be a very slow process. I know my knowledge is limited..I have
never said it was'nt. I never read the Dayali question about Christianity
because I got tired of the insults...they are a waste of a chance at
learning. If you believe it is otherwise...fine with me.
I would hate to think anyone on this newsgroup *thinks* they know it all.
Blessings
Brenda
ps. simple process really ...stop insulting people and I will answer
your questions as best I can. I am not here to one-up everyone or compete
in contests ...I am here to receive knowledge and to give knowledge
period.
>
Jesika
I never said I didn't insult people. I take responsibility for the things I
do and say.
At any rate, why should I change because YOU don't like me? Frankly, I'm
quite happy with myself. You're rather condescending, Brenda, whether or not
you care to admit it. Care for examples? I'd be happy to oblige... oh
wait... I've ALREADY given examples, which you, conveniently, seem to have
ignored.
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> From: "Jesika" <nigh...@tds.net>
> Reply to: [1] "Jesika"
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:11:57 GMT
> Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5] <3e70...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
>
>
***Good.
>
>At any rate, why should I change because YOU don't like me? Frankly, I'm
>quite happy with myself. You're rather condescending, Brenda, whether or not
>you care to admit it. Care for examples? I'd be happy to oblige... oh
>wait... I've ALREADY given examples, which you, conveniently, seem to have
>ignored.
****why should you change? no one is saying you have to ..but if you want
a discussion with me or answer to a question..that is my price...kindness
and no insults. Glad that you are happy with yourself. Rather
condescending? that's your opinion..and mine is that you are rather
insulting...so there you be. Ignored? ofcouse..you insult.
see ya
Brenda
Phoenix
You have no knowledge that I require, Brenda, and even if you did it would
be unacceptable, due to your history of telling untruths.
P
Jesika
So your 'wisdom', as you would call it, comes at a price, Miss Sunshine? I
would think this would be something you would do out of kindness alone. And
as for my insulting you, ha, I only insult you because you offend me. You
offend me by insulting my parents. Repeatedly. That's an offense not soon
forgiven, Brenda. If ever. And you ARE condescending. Otherwise, why would
so many people point that out to you time and time again?
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> From: "Jesika" <nigh...@tds.net>
> Reply to: [1] "Jesika"
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 04:09:31 GMT
> Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>
>So your 'wisdom', as you would call it, comes at a price, Miss Sunshine? I
>would think this would be something you would do out of kindness alone. And
>as for my insulting you, ha, I only insult you because you offend me. You
>offend me by insulting my parents. Repeatedly. That's an offense not soon
>forgiven, Brenda. If ever. And you ARE condescending. Otherwise, why would
>so many people point that out to you time and time again?
***No..my answering most letters to people are usually because they are
not insulting me. If you are kind..you will get it back in kind. I offend
you? then don't read my posts. I beg to differ on the insulting your
parents thing...I feel that you insult them by your lack of manners. Why
would so many people point that out? because they don't like me...it's
easy and they let their emotions dictate their responses to me and their
addiction to my posts. I have'nt folded...I'm not leaving..and I see
through the bullshit...and that bothers them because they pose too much
and too often as well as lie. What's your point in telling me I
condescend? what purpose does it serve? does it feed voll? heh.
I can't respect your opinion when you insult and tell me to shut up when
you ask for everyones opinion. I can't respect you when you brown nose to
others. When you want to be friends with me..then let me know by personal
email....if you don't..then stop reading my posts.
Blessings
Brenda
Jani
with another question and pretends she's being socratic. I suppose it makes
a break from outright lying.
Jani
"Jesika" <nigh...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:2I6ca.3714$ES3.3...@kent.svc.tds.net...
kate
You Are condescending Brenda. It's why alt.native wanted you gone, partly.
The purpose it serves, is to maybe help you understand that if you didn't
talk down to people and pretend that you belong everywhere, have done
everything, that you may be treated differently. I don't expect you to ever
understand that.
You deny everything and anything anyone says to you, then turn around and
tell them that their 'ego' is too big to admit they're wrong.
You did insult her using her parents.
Our emotions have nothing to do with pointing out your lies when you tell
them. It's to show that you do lie and to make others aware of this.
You flatter yourself when you say we don't like you. It's what you do we
don't like and won't stand for.
You flatter yourself when you say we're addicted to your posts.
You demean yourself when you accuse independent posters of 'brown-nosing'.
You flatter yourself when you say you see through the bullshit when it's
your bullshit that We see through.
You demean yourself when you condescend to telling anyone that you'll
respect their opinion.
No one's going to stop reading your posts because they don't want to be your
'friend'. I read them because of exactly what you did to Jesika and Jani.
And others.
You're vindictive, vengeful and arrogant. Under this cover of love and
light, you're not a nice person, and I think there are plenty of people who
see that.
No one in their right mind will e-mail you, because you tend to put their
e-mail, or references to it, on this ng to use against them.
And yes, they're reindeer antlers.
kate
Jesika
You were the one that said you answered questions, 'for a price'. Stop
lying, Brenda. It's tiresom. And now I'M insulting my parents?!! You need to
seek psychiatric help, Brenda. Someone else told me that they could 'see
through bullshit', Brenda, and you know what I said to them? 'You're so
surrounded by your own bullshit, that I would be surprised if there's even a
person in there anymore.' I say the same to you, Brenda. I never asked for
your respect, and I don't want it. Your respect is worth SHIT to me. In
fact, it's worth LESS than shit. And just because I don't like you, doesn't
mean I won't read your posts, and you can't TELL me not to. In fact, I'm
going to continue to read and reply to your posts, just out of spite,
shitgobbler.
THE Cast Iron Bitch
OK for bwennnnnduhhhhhh to be a hypocrite, becuase bwennnnnduhhhhhh is only
wavening. 9_9 Whatever you have to tell yourself to relegate the screaming
to your nocturnal hours......
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3e70...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
Njygaard
wrote:
> am not here to one-up everyone or compete
>in contests ...I am here to receive knowledge and to give knowledge
>period.
Cool. What'cha wanna know? The orbital period of a cesium atom? How to
live a virtuous life? The meaning of "slood"? The question to the
answer about the meaning of life, the universe and everything? How to
chant the ancient spellsongs of the norse? What time it is in Hong
Kong? How many atoms there are in the universe? What green smells
like? The first thing Cicero junior did when he got to Greece, and
what his father thought about it? How to correctly perform the rite of
hljutablót? What Jean-Jaques Rosseau thought about women? How monsieur
Guilliotine died? What I would like to do to the filthy beastlike
creature which designed the common CD-cover? The five tastes of the
east? The story of king Håkon the Good and the Trønders? Five ways to
save electricity and the environment? What Jesus would do had he
encountered a brass band with three dwarf tuba players and an
epileptic clown who wanted to kick his ass and paint it blue for
reasons unknown to mortal man?
So, c'mon. Ask me. Anything. Doesn't have to be one of those
questions. Ask, and the sum of human knowledge shall be increased by a
small fraction.
...
}!{
}!{
;;..waltzes and twirls in........;;
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:Wo6ca.5876$4q6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
;;........spinning, spinning.....plops down on a mushroom to
listen.........a bit dizzy from all that twirling........;;
;;...........hears this and starts feeling a bit.............urgy........;;
;;.........ewwww.....mononucleosis.........urp......flat
liners.............aarrrrrrrrrrrrggggggg.............;;
>
> You're an idiot. Those sorts of attacks don't injure me in any way. They
> just make you look like a moron. Both Lord of the Rings movies were
> nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Most people think they were
quite
> good, and they were critically acclaimed. If you didn't like the movie,
and
> expect it to be a popular sentiment, then you are seriously deluded.
>
> > > After 50 pages of them, they'll have no choice but to lose any
> > > rational thought.
> > >
> > While you present compelling evidence that this is what happened
when
> > you read "50 pages" of my posts, your plea of irrationality won't get
you
> > aquitted.
> > Either you've read sufficient numbers of my posts to have lost any
> > ability of rational thought that you may have allegedly possessed or,
you
> > have not read
> > and replied to the same number of posted pages and arrived here with
> > your irrationality virginally intact. Which is it?
>
> That would be clever, except I am not a normal person. Those sorts of
> things don't work on me, since I work with pure reason, and am not
inhibited
> like the rest of you.
;;...Chudder pulls back her hair and........upchucks an uninhibited, gory
mass of tumor on Parse Tree's shoes......fluuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrp.........;;
;;.........flitters away, dripping, splattering and sparkling.........;;
}!{
Brett
news:3cp37vg0rr8d4u694...@4ax.com...
players and an
> epileptic clown who wanted to kick his ass and paint it blue for reasons
unknown to mortal man?
Now THAT I would like an answer to!
And What Would Buddha Do...if he was watching that happen.
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> Reply to: [1] Njygaard
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:36:47 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>On 13 Mar 2003 13:55:59 -0800, wt...@victoria.tc.ca (Brenda G. Kent)
>
>> am not here to one-up everyone or compete
>>in contests ...I am here to receive knowledge and to give knowledge
>>period.
>
>Cool. What'cha wanna know? The orbital period of a cesium atom? How to
>live a virtuous life? The meaning of "slood"? The question to the
>answer about the meaning of life, the universe and everything? How to
>chant the ancient spellsongs of the norse? What time it is in Hong
>Kong? How many atoms there are in the universe? What green smells
>like? The first thing Cicero junior did when he got to Greece, and
>what his father thought about it? How to correctly perform the rite of
>hljutablót? What Jean-Jaques Rosseau thought about women? How monsieur
>Guilliotine died? What I would like to do to the filthy beastlike
>creature which designed the common CD-cover? The five tastes of the
>east? The story of king Håkon the Good and the Trønders? Five ways to
>encountered a brass band with three dwarf tuba players and an
>epileptic clown who wanted to kick his ass and paint it blue for
>reasons unknown to mortal man?
>
Bren.
Kell
<wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
I hope you will come down from your Ivory Tower located on ignorant
White Bread Mountain and understand that Uranus is a planet, and not
the center of the Universe.
>
> with love,
Nice- you the verb "to love". Do you know how?
> Brenda
Parse Tree
news:b4sqv...@enews3.newsguy.com...
I love you too, sweetie.
root
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> It still seems to be better than outright telling someone something. And
> often a failed attempt can be instructive to the teacher, instead.
>
Problem is, 'ravening' is a bit of a limiting term for what is actually
happening - of which we can only really catch glimpses of, now and again -
though some more than others.
golwg
Matthew
janet
Of course it does.
The way to truth (which is the point of teaching, after all) rarely if ever
lies through falsehood.
It may lie in questioning, in challenging, etc.
I can't for the life of me imagine how it can lie in untruth.
I've asked this before and never had an answer.
I'd be interested in one - by what mechanism does teaching falsehood lead to
truth?
--
janet
mwcnbf
http://66.246.16.46/forums/index.php
Jani
closely at the agenda of anyone fool enough to hang around with them.
Same general principle as David's reverse scrying, really ..
Jani
"janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de...
Joseph
janet wrote:
> Sorry - just going on the title here.
>
> Of course it does.
>
> The way to truth (which is the point of teaching, after all) rarely if ever
> lies through falsehood.
>
> It may lie in questioning, in challenging, etc.
>
> I can't for the life of me imagine how it can lie in untruth.
>
> I've asked this before and never had an answer.
>
> I'd be interested in one - by what mechanism does teaching falsehood lead to
> truth?
That's an easy one, many people lie about themselves until such time as
they are exposed and then people have learned that they have been lied to.
Ever hear of "snipe hunting"? The ever famous "sky hook" or the equally
distinguished "monopole magnet"? People learn from what these things
represent, in the same way people have learned about purchasing large bridges
in Brooklyn.
Teaching "Truth" through lies seems to be a particular hazard of the
religious, philosophical and mystical branches of learning. Even the mundane
aspect of ordinary public school's curiculum teach certain questionable ideas
as "Truth"
Remember Tom Paxton' "what did you learn in school to day?
What did you learn in school today, dearl ittel boy of mine?
I learned that Washington never told a lie.
I learned that soldiers seldom die.
I learned that everybody's free.
And that's what the teacher said to me.
I learned that policemen are my friends.
I learned that justice never ends.
I learned that murderes die for their crimes.
Even if we make a mistake sometimes.
I learned our government must be strong.
It's always right and never wrong.
Our leaders are the finest men.
And we elect them again and again.
I learned that war is not so bad.
I learned of the great ones we have had.
We fought in Germany and in France.
And someday I might get my chance.
Thats what i learned in schoold today. Thats what i learned in
school.
To get a bit more existential, define "Truth". There's an old saying
about vice in the service of virtue, and that a "Truth" can enslave and a "lie"
liberate. Are you familiar with the procrustean bed of convention? Many
people accept "lies" as "Truth" in that they never bother to examine what
passes for "Truth" and which is, at best, little more than convention and
convenience. To do so they would have to start thinking for themselves and most
people would prefer to parrot a party line and accept uncritically what they
are told by those who either loudly proclaim there superiority or are accepted
as such out of a desperate need by some to believe someone or something.
ARW is a text book example of falsehood leading to "Truth" the liars here
expose themselves with every post they make and its only a matter of course
that they stand revealed in their own perfidious. parataxic, prevarication.
Even if they never realize it themselves, others do and that's enough.
>
>
> --
> janet
> mwcnbf
> http://66.246.16.46/forums/index.php
--
Joseph ( That old Son of a Witch ) Count de Money.
t_naismith
"Jesika" <nigh...@tds.net> isn't buying it:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Well then by this standard, you shouldn't be replying to Jani, Kate,
or
> >> >myself. And yet you do anyway. You just don't want to admit that your
> >> >knowledge is limited at best. I believe THAT is why you didn't answer
> >> >DayaLi.
> >>
> >>
> >> ***I do when I think you may have changed and thanks for admitting that
> >> you insult by the way.
Telling another that you will respond only if they behave in a certain
way, (which you think you can specify), is insulting, Blenda. When will
your condescension end?
> > >I never give up on folks entirely as I know that
> >> change can be a very slow process.
In your case, any change is so incremently slow as to be on the scale of
the sea, wearing away a stone wall.
> >>I know my knowledge is limited..I have
> >> never said it was'nt.
What ever you know appears to be extremely limited.
> >>I never read the Dayali question about Christianity
> >> because I got tired of the insults...they are a waste of a chance at
> >> learning.
Bahahaha. If you didn't read Dayali's question, how do you know it was
regarding christianity? Hide and not-seeking?
> >>If you believe it is otherwise...fine with me.
The word of Blenda, a known compulsive liar carries much weight. Whoops,
a gnat just carried off the weight of your _integrity_, Blenda! Quickly
now, catch it with a web of lies before it gets away!
> >> I would hate to think anyone on this newsgroup *thinks* they know it
all.
"Main Entry: 1it
Pronunciation: 'it, &t
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hit -- more at HE
Date: before 12th century
1 : that one -- used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a
verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing ...
2 -- used as subject of an impersonal verb that expresses a condition or
action without reference to an agent ...
3 a -- used as anticipatory subject or object of a verb <it is necessary to
repeat the whole thing> -- often used to shift emphasis to a part of a
statement other than the subject - b -- used with many verbs as a direct
object with little or no meaning ...
4 -- used to refer to an explicit or implicit state of affairs or
circumstances ...
5 : a crucial or climactic point."
... that's about it.
> >> Blendings
> >> Blenda
> >> ps. simple process really ...stop insulting people and I will answer
> >> your questions as best I can.
Counter-offer: Cease lying and folks may cease indicating your lies.
> >>I am not here to one-up everyone or compete
> >> in contests ...
No, you are here to serve as an example of how _not_ to be, for others.
> >>I am here to receive knowledge and to give knowledge
> >> period.
> >>
Since you are not really a student and only grasp at the pretense of
_teaching_, your statement is inherently false.
> >I do not have, and have never had, any trouble admitting to the things I
do.
> >I never said I didn't insult people. I take responsibility for the things
I
> >do and say.
>
> ***Good.
>
She is unlikely to need either your approval of disapproval, you
ego-stacker.
> >
> >At any rate, why should I change because YOU don't like me? Frankly, I'm
> >quite happy with myself. You're rather condescending, Brenda, whether or
not
> >you care to admit it. Care for examples? I'd be happy to oblige... oh
> >wait... I've ALREADY given examples, which you, conveniently, seem to
have
> >ignored.
>
Excellent points. Let's watch Blenda hop about dodging them ...
>
> ****why should you change? no one is saying you have to ..but if you want
> a discussion with me or answer to a question..that is my price...kindness
> and no insults. Glad that you are happy with yourself. Rather
> condescending? that's your opinion..and mine is that you are rather
> insulting...so there you be. Ignored? ofcouse..you insult.
>
Here's a biscuit for predictability, Blenda. ::soggy biscuit::
> see ya
Chow, ciao then
Trevor (Falcon Eye)
janet
> That's an easy one, many people lie about themselves until such
> time as they are exposed and then people have learned that they have
> been lied to.
>
That's not about teaching, though.
>
>
> Ever hear of "snipe hunting"? The ever famous "sky hook" or the
> equally distinguished "monopole magnet"? People learn from what
> these things represent, in the same way people have learned about
> purchasing large bridges in Brooklyn.
>
> Teaching "Truth" through lies seems to be a particular hazard of
> the religious, philosophical and mystical branches of learning.
Really?
Why? And in what way?
Even
> the mundane aspect of ordinary public school's curiculum teach
> certain questionable ideas as "Truth"
>
> []
> To get a bit more existential, define "Truth".
Grin.... this is me. I do that all the time.
There's an old
> saying about vice in the service of virtue, and that a "Truth" can
> enslave and a "lie" liberate.
Situational ethics and the end justifying the means.
Not my way, but...
I still don't see how it relates to teaching, though.
Are you familiar with the procrustean
> bed of convention? Many people accept "lies" as "Truth" in that they
> never bother to examine what passes for "Truth" and which is, at
> best, little more than convention and convenience. To do so they
> would have to start thinking for themselves and most people would
> prefer to parrot a party line and accept uncritically what they are
> told by those who either loudly proclaim there superiority or are
> accepted as such out of a desperate need by some to believe someone
> or something.
Nodding
I agree (which is why I do what I do, partly) but it still doesn't really
answer my question...
>
> ARW is a text book example of falsehood leading to "Truth" the
> liars here expose themselves with every post they make and its only a
> matter of course that they stand revealed in their own perfidious.
> parataxic, prevarication. Even if they never realize it themselves,
> others do and that's enough.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> janet
>> mwcnbf
>> http://66.246.16.46/forums/index.php
--
janet
mwcnbf
http://66.246.16.46/forums/index.php
Joseph
Parse Tree
"janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Of course it does.
>
> The way to truth (which is the point of teaching, after all) rarely if
ever
> lies through falsehood.
>
> It may lie in questioning, in challenging, etc.
>
> I can't for the life of me imagine how it can lie in untruth.
>
> I've asked this before and never had an answer.
>
> I'd be interested in one - by what mechanism does teaching falsehood lead
to
> truth?
Sometimes it takes a lie to force a person to confront the truth. It can
also be socratic in nature.
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> Reply to: [1] "janet"
> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:38:10 -0000
> Organization: ntl News Service
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [6] <b4lptt$215aub$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [7] <IfFba.5229$VT.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [8] <b4q03p$230u1s$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [9] <Wo6ca.5876$4q6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [10] <b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de>
> [11] <3E72ECAB...@pacbell.net>
***snip
>>
>> ARW is a text book example of falsehood leading to "Truth" the
>> liars here expose themselves with every post they make and its only a
>> matter of course that they stand revealed in their own perfidious.
>> parataxic, prevarication. Even if they never realize it themselves,
>> others do and that's enough.
>>
****enough for what?
The Bible
teaches many things to many people....some people take
it literally and think that there was a tree in the garden of Eden and a
snake etc. Some take the words as a metaphor to other meanings...deeper
truths. Would the original words be lie if the second people took it
metaphorically and the first literally? Which part would be lie? which
part truth?
Is not the Bible and many other books and teachings in alignment with
koans? in other words....have many meanings to many people and when a
person reaches a certain level of understanding...it finally makes sense?
Blessings
Brenda
>>> janet
>>> mwcnbf
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> Reply to: [1] "Parse Tree"
> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:40:34 -0500
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5] <3e6e...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
> [6] <b4lptt$215aub$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [7] <IfFba.5229$VT.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [8] <b4q03p$230u1s$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [9] <Wo6ca.5876$4q6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [10] <b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de>
>
>
*****Parse...you're a star!
:)
Brenda
Joseph
Brenda G. Kent wrote:
good save, but i have to cry foul! even in crazy wisdom there is volition,
intent and results and one cant be blind to what one is possibly misjudging
or purposfully erring in, but will, never the less, act upon the perception
one has, and even giving ARW the benifit of the doubt its not crazy enough
to then qualify for it.
> >>> janet
> >>> mwcnbf
Jani
difference between unpacking meaning and spluttering out whatever lie
happens to come into your head.
Jani
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3e73...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
Parse Tree
Of course, telling someone outright tends to be low, too. Maybe 5%, if I'm
lucky.
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QoUca.2157$g45.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Jani
only caught part of the altruism thread, but it looked as if you were both
stuck on definition of terms.
Jani
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:UHUca.8681$4q6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Parse Tree
there's so much more than is necessary because English doesn't have a great
deal of precision.
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZjVca.2180$Eh3.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Jani
just get lost in the closed circle of the semantics (generic "you" btw).
Jani
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:3qVca.8783$4q6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Parse Tree
most part, if they understand, they can unravel on their own. It's not my
place to tell them where exactly I've played a game with a word, or what has
to be done in order to unravel any contradictions. If they can't realize
the limitation of the language, then they're too grounded in it. Given
something not expressible in words they know, they'll panic and falter.
Those people don't interest me.
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3SVca.2206$ZD2.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Jani
language can be so different that the same roughly-translated meaning in one
can have far more to unpack in another. Trying to force 'honour' and 'giri'
into the same "fit", for example, is almost impossible.
Jani
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:4%Vca.8829$4q6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
t_naismith
"Jani" wrote:
> Yes, but Parse's methodology *works a lot of the time. There's a big
> difference between unpacking meaning and spluttering out whatever lie
> happens to come into your head.
>
> Jani
>
Jani
:)
Jani
"t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b51k9t$251qfq$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de...
t_naismith
T
"Jani" wrote:
> Go and wash your mouth out, *now. That was cruel and unnecessary
punishment :)
>
> Jani
>
janet
I'd be very interested in seeing where Socrates ever used a lie to teach....
questions, yes, but lies?
THE Cast Iron Bitch
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3SVca.2206$ZD2.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Jani
Jani
"t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b51m54$24d911$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de...
janet
> Had Lacan inflicted on you lately? *shudder*
>
Stop that this instant.
Sheesh.
:)
Parse Tree
respectively. However, the French and the German have diminished incredibly
due to lack of use. I'm going to take a course in French and see if I can
revive some of it. Oh well.
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MHWca.2238$666.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Parse Tree
Considering Socrates never wrote anything, all we have of him are second
hand accounts.
"The Socratic method of reasoning and instruction was by a series of
questions leading the one to whom they were addressed to perceive and admit
what was true or false in doctrine, or right or wrong in conduct." From
Dictionary.com
Now, with lies, perhaps someone can lead someone to something that they see
as untrue. From there, they can unravel the path and determine what was
truth, and what was falsehood. Analytically, too, which is often the point.
Jani
Jani
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:vu6da.258$sK6....@news20.bellglobal.com...
janet
> "janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:AOZca.139$ae7....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> Parse Tree wrote:
>>> "janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de...
>>>> Sorry - just going on the title here.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it does.
>>>>
>>>> The way to truth (which is the point of teaching, after all) rarely
>>>> if ever lies through falsehood.
>>>>
>>>> It may lie in questioning, in challenging, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I can't for the life of me imagine how it can lie in untruth.
>>>>
>>>> I've asked this before and never had an answer.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in one - by what mechanism does teaching
>>>> falsehood lead to truth?
>>>
>>> Sometimes it takes a lie to force a person to confront the truth.
>>> It can also be socratic in nature.
>>
>> I'd be very interested in seeing where Socrates ever used a lie to
>> teach.... questions, yes, but lies?
>
> Considering Socrates never wrote anything, all we have of him are
> second hand accounts.
>
Nodding - and some of those are questioned...
> "The Socratic method of reasoning and instruction was by a series of
> questions leading the one to whom they were addressed to perceive and
> admit what was true or false in doctrine, or right or wrong in
> conduct." From Dictionary.com
Yup
But that's about questions, not about lies
>
> Now, with lies, perhaps someone can lead someone to something that
> they see as untrue. From there, they can unravel the path and
> determine what was truth, and what was falsehood. Analytically, too,
> which is often the point.
Hmmm....
Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating something
is true when it is not.
Questioning, yes - that I'm happy with... :}
Dallas Vinson
something
> is true when it is not.
I'm new to this group, but other than the US History books, I am not
familiar with anyone teaching from the standpoint of lies.
The History books teach lies, by teaching our kids that Columbus discoverd
America, when it is a proven fact the the vikings were here long before he
was.
-Lonewolf Webweaver
-Cullman, AL.
Parse Tree
> Parse Tree wrote:
> > "janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:AOZca.139$ae7....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >> Parse Tree wrote:
> >>> "janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de...
> >>>> Sorry - just going on the title here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course it does.
> >>>>
> >>>> The way to truth (which is the point of teaching, after all) rarely
> >>>> if ever lies through falsehood.
> >>>>
> >>>> It may lie in questioning, in challenging, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't for the life of me imagine how it can lie in untruth.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've asked this before and never had an answer.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd be interested in one - by what mechanism does teaching
> >>>> falsehood lead to truth?
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes it takes a lie to force a person to confront the truth.
> >>> It can also be socratic in nature.
> >>
> >> I'd be very interested in seeing where Socrates ever used a lie to
> >> teach.... questions, yes, but lies?
> >
> > they see as untrue. From there, they can unravel the path and
> > determine what was truth, and what was falsehood. Analytically, too,
> > which is often the point.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
something
> is true when it is not.
I think that's a VERY important thing to do. People have to be ready and
willing to question the information that they are given. The best and
easiest way is to feed them lies. Trust should NEVER replace critical
thinking and analysis.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> > Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
> something
> > is true when it is not.
>
> I'm new to this group, but other than the US History books, I am not
> familiar with anyone teaching from the standpoint of lies.
Welcome to the group. There are examples that do exist of teaching
without telling the truth (which could be considered a lie). The few
times I have seen gaps offered, the intent was to warn (after the gap
explained) the student not to take what is written as the one truth.
The idea of gaps appears to be to try to get a student to think for
themselves.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Dallas Vinson
> without telling the truth (which could be considered a lie). The few
> times I have seen gaps offered, the intent was to warn (after the gap
> explained) the student not to take what is written as the one truth.
> The idea of gaps appears to be to try to get a student to think for
> themselves.
Gaps (or omissions) are different, I don't consider that to be a lie.
Telling someone something contrary to what is truth, that is a lie. I like
the omission method of teaching as it makes the student have to study and
research to discover the truth, rather than having it just handed to them,
and taking it as truth because that's what they were told.
-Lonewolf
Parse Tree
news:x98da.8270$a9....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
That's why you lie, so that they learn to not take it as truth because
Lonewolf Webweaver
> that's what they were told.
Yes, but then you also end up with kids that will never trust anybody
because the people they are SUPPOSED to trust lie to them.
-LoneWolf
Lonewolf Webweaver
> that's what they were told.
Yes, but then you also end up with kids that will never trust anybody
Parse Tree
news:Ntcda.66513$955....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
You're not SUPPOSED to trust anyone. It is helpful to trust certain people,
but there is no SUPPOSED to element about it.
They should always be applying their critical thinking skills, even to
things told to them by people they trust.
Lonewolf Webweaver
people,
> but there is no SUPPOSED to element about it.
>
> They should always be applying their critical thinking skills, even to
> things told to them by people they trust.
That is an awfully pesamistic attitude. It is always better to look for the
good in people, then to expect the worst out of them. It's attitudes like
that that are the reason that our society is in the state it is in right
now.
-LoneWolf
theoneflasehaddock
Yes, your attitude is fucking great. Everyone should be a fucking
optimist like you. It's obviously all us pessimists thinking bad
thoughts about things that are ruining the fucking world. I suppose I'm
a bad person because I don't trust you immediately after reading your
post. It's us people with critical thinking skills that make everything
bad. Nothing is bad at first, until we see it. For example, if we didn't
use our critical thinking skills to realize you are a fucking moron,
then you obviously wouldn't be. It's OUR fault, not yours. We're to
blame for everything that happens to society.
--
theoneflasehaddock
Offender of the Faith.
A reel Troll.
Damn grass-gropin, tree-huggin, elf-suckin, dandelion-eatin,
pacifistic, new-age, massmedia, oppositionally-defiant,
counter-culture, wannabe fluffybunnies anyhow....
Don't like my postings? post and whine about it.
(J00 HAVVE VIOLATE D YOUR TERMMS OF ZERVICE (KEEYWERD: TOSSAQ))
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> From: "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension>
> Reply to: [1] "Parse Tree"
> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:56:53 -0500
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5] <3e6e...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
> [6] <b4lptt$215aub$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [7] <IfFba.5229$VT.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [8] <b4q03p$230u1s$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [9] <Wo6ca.5876$4q6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [10] <b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de>
> [12] <AOZca.139$ae7....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
> [13] <iy6da.259$sK6....@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [14] <N17da.1311$yA.201757@newsfep2-gui>
> [15] <r17da.49981$jh7....@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com>
> [16] <3E7504...@dmcom.ne>[17] news:Ntcda.66513$955....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
>> > That's why you lie, so that they learn to not take it as truth because
>> > that's what they were told.
>>
>> Yes, but then you also end up with kids that will never trust anybody
>> because the people they are SUPPOSED to trust lie to them.
>
>but there is no SUPPOSED to element about it.
>
>They should always be applying their critical thinking skills, even to
>things told to them by people they trust.
***yes I had to find out that Santa did not really exist when I stayed up
and saw my parents get the gifts under the tree......the lesson of giving
and light that connected to the season was not lost on me however. I never
did consider my parents as lieing slitches...but then that's just me.
Brenda
Parse Tree
No, it's attitudes like yours that are the cause of society's present state.
You shirk your responsibility to THINK, and this society goes down the
crapper.
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> Reply to: [1] "Lonewolf Webweaver"
> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:14:07 -0600
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5] <3e6e...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
> [6] <b4lptt$215aub$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [7] <IfFba.5229$VT.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [8] <b4q03p$230u1s$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [9] <Wo6ca.5876$4q6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [10] <b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de>
> [11] <oGQca.1768$Kg1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [12] <AOZca.139$ae7....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
> [13] <iy6da.259$sK6....@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [14] <N17da.1311$yA.201757@newsfep2-gui>
> [15] <r17da.49981$jh7....@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com>
> [16] <3E7504...@dmcom.ne
>
>people,
>> but there is no SUPPOSED to element about it.
>>
>> They should always be applying their critical thinking skills, even to
>> things told to them by people they trust.
>
>That is an awfully pesamistic attitude. It is always better to look for the
>good in people, then to expect the worst out of them. It's attitudes like
>that that are the reason that our society is in the state it is in right
>now.
>
****not so really.....I think a child should use his/her brain and not be
automatons towards any adults. I don't think that Parse is saying distrust
people or look for the bad..but to use your own brain and power and don't
just hand it over to every soft spoken,lolly-laden adult that comes your
way. I may be wrong in regards to Parse....but I never saw it as
pessimistic. Teach a child to trust his gut instincts and to know what a
gut instinct feels like seems appropo to me.
Brenda
theoneflasehaddock
What, you mean we should just go around believing everything that is
said? You mean, if you say you have a brain, I'm not supposed to realize
you are lying, and nearly die laughing because it is such an obvious lie?
You are the dumbest thing to pass this way since Armadillo Fluffnuts
went a-whoring for netkooks.
(X-posted to alt.usenet.kooks separetly, since my server won't allow
auk-arw x-posts)
Parse Tree
Exactly! Even people who care for you will use deception for any number of
reasons. It could be for teaching, or protecting your from the truth, or
maybe even to promote their own agenda. Your friend Joe may use you in
order to save the trees, which he may love even more, for instance. Always
be thinking, always be aware.
Aunty Kreist
>From: "janet" janet.al...@ntlworld.com
>Date: 3/16/2003 7:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <AOZca.139$ae7....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Didn't you ever see Willard? Socrates lied and pretended to be Willard's
friend....taught him a lesson or two. <g>
Love, Aunty xxx
An apology for the devil: it must be remembered that we have heard one side of
the case. God has written all the books.
Samuel Butler
janet
[]
>> Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
>> something is true when it is not.
>
> I think that's a VERY important thing to do. People have to be ready
> and willing to question the information that they are given. The
> best and easiest way is to feed them lies. Trust should NEVER
> replace critical thinking and analysis.
I agree with the last, but not with the rest - this may be something we have
to agree to disagree about....
(It could be because I'm thinking of teaching mainly in two areas, as well-
the formal sector and the faith based one).
>
>> Questioning, yes - that I'm happy with... :}
--
janet
mwcnbf
http://66.246.16.46/forums/index.php
janet
(Just a point - not all teaching is to children..... I'm not carping, I'm
expanding the field a bit). :)
>
> -LoneWolf
janet
> Dallas Vinson wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
>>> something is true when it is not.
>>
>> I'm new to this group, but other than the US History books, I am not
>> familiar with anyone teaching from the standpoint of lies.
>
> Welcome to the group. There are examples that do exist of teaching
> without telling the truth (which could be considered a lie).
Grin - I would not consider it so.
To me, a lie is a deliberate untruth to someone who has a right to the
truth.
The few
> times I have seen gaps offered, the intent was to warn (after the gap
> explained) the student not to take what is written as the one truth.
> The idea of gaps appears to be to try to get a student to think for
> themselves.
Now that I understand.
I also understand giving students two entirely different explanations,
preferably from the literature of the field, and then letting them loose...
:>
Parse Tree
> Parse Tree wrote:
> > "janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:N17da.1311$yA.201757@newsfep2-gui...
> []
> >> Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
> >> something is true when it is not.
> >
> > I think that's a VERY important thing to do. People have to be ready
> > and willing to question the information that they are given. The
> > best and easiest way is to feed them lies. Trust should NEVER
> > replace critical thinking and analysis.
>
>
> I agree with the last, but not with the rest - this may be something we
have
> to agree to disagree about....
>
> (It could be because I'm thinking of teaching mainly in two areas, as
well-
> the formal sector and the faith based one).
Explain how telling someone facts only can improve their ability to
distinguish between truth and falsehood. Explain how it can make them
critically examine the facts they are given, instead of building false faith
in your constant dispensation of 'absolute truth'.
Parse Tree
> ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
> > Dallas Vinson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
> >>> something is true when it is not.
> >>
> >> I'm new to this group, but other than the US History books, I am not
> >> familiar with anyone teaching from the standpoint of lies.
> >
> > Welcome to the group. There are examples that do exist of teaching
> > without telling the truth (which could be considered a lie).
>
> Grin - I would not consider it so.
>
> To me, a lie is a deliberate untruth to someone who has a right to the
> truth.
I've never heard that expressed before. A right to the truth?
janet
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:Hlfda.533$sK6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Yes - as an example, back in the mists of time, I was silly enough to be a
youth leader. If a parent had phoned me about *their* child and asked a
question (as sometimes happened) then I felt they had a right to an answer.
If a parent had phoned and asked the same question about someone else's
child, I'd quite possibly have wanted more justification for answering.
Or now, if a student were to ask me, "How did so and so do in that paper?"
I'd not answer - they have no right to know. However, if so and so asks,
they probably do have a right to know how they themselves did (we don't have
a policy of releasing all marks at one time, fwiw).
I'm not saying that I'd be right to say, "I've not marked them yet" - though
some would argue that would be acceptable. "I've no idea" might be
acceptable, but it's a cop out - what I should say is, "I can't discuss
someone else's marks!".
I digress. There are times one has the right to the truth about certain
situations. I feel I have a right to the truth about my health, and that of
my children, though that right diminishes as they age (it becomes theirs,
and theirs to choose what they pass on to me).
I'd make a further argument that everyone has the right to the tools with
which to FIND the truth in the largest sense, that is, the Truth, but that
may be a different argument...? (My lot does state that everyone has a
right to education and the right to freedom of religion, which go into that,
though...).
janet
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:Pkfda.532$sK6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:w0fda.23$a82...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > Parse Tree wrote:
> > > "janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:N17da.1311$yA.201757@newsfep2-gui...
> > []
> > >> Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
> > >> something is true when it is not.
> > >
> > > I think that's a VERY important thing to do. People have to be ready
> > > and willing to question the information that they are given. The
> > > best and easiest way is to feed them lies. Trust should NEVER
> > > replace critical thinking and analysis.
> >
> >
> > I agree with the last, but not with the rest - this may be something we
> have
> > to agree to disagree about....
> >
> > (It could be because I'm thinking of teaching mainly in two areas, as
> well-
> > the formal sector and the faith based one).
>
> Explain how telling someone facts only can improve their ability to
> distinguish between truth and falsehood.
I won't - because I never said I would tell someone only facts.
That is a terribly transmissionist view of education and learning, "I know
this - I tell you - now you know this".
Yeruck. Not on, for me.
Rather, the process of teaching is for me one of laying out ideas, asking
questions, pointing out resources and helping people get on with it.
Sure, I give information - dates, writings, etc. But that is the
*framework*, not the finished article.
Explain how it can make them
> critically examine the facts they are given, instead of building false
faith
> in your constant dispensation of 'absolute truth'.
I can't explain it cause I wouldn't do it.
Even when teaching "factual" things, I'm no good at transmitting that kind
of information - oh, sure, I give it, but then I want people to question the
sources, question me, question the value of what they have learned.
A *lot* of what I do is about undermining certainties - not so that students
will join me (though of course I think my beliefs are right - I'd not hold
them otherwise) (1) but so that they will hold THEIRS, and know why they
hold them.
(1)Saying that, my beliefs are malleable - the movement within the framework
is constant. :)
Parse Tree
So how will they learn that some things are untrue if they're never given
information that is untrue?
> Explain how it can make them
> > critically examine the facts they are given, instead of building false
> faith
> > in your constant dispensation of 'absolute truth'.
>
> I can't explain it cause I wouldn't do it.
>
> Even when teaching "factual" things, I'm no good at transmitting that kind
> of information - oh, sure, I give it, but then I want people to question
the
> sources, question me, question the value of what they have learned.
But why would they do that if they haven't been given a case of when such an
act is necessary?
It's like telling someone to do something without giving ample justification
for why that is necessary. It's like telling people to wash their hands
with soap A, without explaining what soap A does, or taking medicine B.
Parse Tree
>
> "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> news:Hlfda.533$sK6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "janet" <janet.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:y0fda.24$a82...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
> > > > Dallas Vinson wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
> > > >>> something is true when it is not.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm new to this group, but other than the US History books, I am
not
> > > >> familiar with anyone teaching from the standpoint of lies.
> > > >
> > > > Welcome to the group. There are examples that do exist of teaching
> > > > without telling the truth (which could be considered a lie).
> > >
> > > Grin - I would not consider it so.
> > >
> > > To me, a lie is a deliberate untruth to someone who has a right to the
> > > truth.
> >
> > I've never heard that expressed before. A right to the truth?
> >
>
> Yes - as an example, back in the mists of time, I was silly enough to be a
> youth leader. If a parent had phoned me about *their* child and asked a
> question (as sometimes happened) then I felt they had a right to an
answer.
Why? Do they own that child?
> If a parent had phoned and asked the same question about someone else's
> child, I'd quite possibly have wanted more justification for answering.
Do you therefore think that not telling someone something is 'lying',
provided they have a right to know?
> Or now, if a student were to ask me, "How did so and so do in that paper?"
> I'd not answer - they have no right to know. However, if so and so asks,
> they probably do have a right to know how they themselves did (we don't
have
> a policy of releasing all marks at one time, fwiw).
>
> I'm not saying that I'd be right to say, "I've not marked them yet" -
though
> some would argue that would be acceptable. "I've no idea" might be
> acceptable, but it's a cop out - what I should say is, "I can't discuss
> someone else's marks!".
>
> I digress. There are times one has the right to the truth about certain
> situations. I feel I have a right to the truth about my health, and that
of
> my children, though that right diminishes as they age (it becomes theirs,
> and theirs to choose what they pass on to me).
At what age? Since health care is free in Canada, I think the age is when
the child is capable of going to the doctor on their own.
> I'd make a further argument that everyone has the right to the tools with
> which to FIND the truth in the largest sense, that is, the Truth, but that
> may be a different argument...? (My lot does state that everyone has a
> right to education and the right to freedom of religion, which go into
that,
> though...).
I don't support a freedom of religion, because not only does that include
freedom of belief, but also freedom of action, which is not acceptable. In
addition, people are unable to recognize the fact that freedom of religion,
just like freedom of speech, doesn't mean that you can openly have a
religion and not suffer the consequences for that.
janet
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:uBoda.995$lQ4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
By the time they get to me, they've had more than enough of that...
But "true" is a difficult term here - what version of history is true?
When I say I would not teach by lies, I mean I would not say, "Giddens said
this" when he clearly did not.
Often the best way to find something is untrue is to look at alternative
explanations...
>
> > Explain how it can make them
> > > critically examine the facts they are given, instead of building false
> > faith
> > > in your constant dispensation of 'absolute truth'.
> >
> > I can't explain it cause I wouldn't do it.
> >
> > Even when teaching "factual" things, I'm no good at transmitting that
kind
> > of information - oh, sure, I give it, but then I want people to question
> the
> > sources, question me, question the value of what they have learned.
>
> But why would they do that if they haven't been given a case of when such
an
> act is necessary?
>
They're on a university campus - which rather assumes that they are there to
learn....
And if they walk into my classroom they are warned. :>
> It's like telling someone to do something without giving ample
justification
> for why that is necessary. It's like telling people to wash their hands
> with soap A, without explaining what soap A does, or taking medicine B.
>
--
janet
mwcnbf
http://66.246.16.46/forums/index.php
>
janet
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:oFoda.998$lQ4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
No.
However, they have a responsiblity to and for him/her.
>
> > If a parent had phoned and asked the same question about someone else's
> > child, I'd quite possibly have wanted more justification for answering.
>
> Do you therefore think that not telling someone something is 'lying',
> provided they have a right to know?
I think it might be.
I know I have phoned parents back after having that out with myself and
said, "I do know the answer to that question...".
>
> > Or now, if a student were to ask me, "How did so and so do in that
paper?"
> > I'd not answer - they have no right to know. However, if so and so
asks,
> > they probably do have a right to know how they themselves did (we don't
> have
> > a policy of releasing all marks at one time, fwiw).
> >
> > I'm not saying that I'd be right to say, "I've not marked them yet" -
> though
> > some would argue that would be acceptable. "I've no idea" might be
> > acceptable, but it's a cop out - what I should say is, "I can't discuss
> > someone else's marks!".
> >
> > I digress. There are times one has the right to the truth about certain
> > situations. I feel I have a right to the truth about my health, and
that
> of
> > my children, though that right diminishes as they age (it becomes
theirs,
> > and theirs to choose what they pass on to me).
>
> At what age? Since health care is free in Canada, I think the age is when
> the child is capable of going to the doctor on their own.
(I'm in the UK).
At what age is a difficult one - I think it probably depends on the child.
Certainly if I as a parent say, "You can go on your own", I can hardly
expect to be taken completely into their confidence about the result.
I would hope that they would talk to me about whatever is bothering them,
but that is their choice. ATM, I offer to go or not, as they prefer.
>
> > I'd make a further argument that everyone has the right to the tools
with
> > which to FIND the truth in the largest sense, that is, the Truth, but
that
> > may be a different argument...? (My lot does state that everyone has a
> > right to education and the right to freedom of religion, which go into
> that,
> > though...).
>
> I don't support a freedom of religion, because not only does that include
> freedom of belief, but also freedom of action, which is not acceptable.
I can see that....
In
> addition, people are unable to recognize the fact that freedom of
religion,
> just like freedom of speech, doesn't mean that you can openly have a
> religion and not suffer the consequences for that.
Nodding, again - another issue I tackle with students. :)
In reality, only one person in any given society can ever be "totally"
free - so freedom is a balance.
Will Dockery
Truth changes over time and vice versa.
Will
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_ofisis
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message news:<Hlfda.533$sK6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Will Dockery
> I don't support a freedom of religion, because not only does that include
> freedom of belief, but also freedom of action, which is not acceptable.
I can see that....
In
> addition, people are unable to recognize the fact that freedom of
religion,
> just like freedom of speech, doesn't mean that you can openly have a
> religion and not suffer the consequences for that.
Nodding, again - another issue I tackle with students. :)
In reality, only one person in any given society can ever be "totally"
free - so freedom is a balance.
janet
mwcnbf
http://66.246.16.46/forums/index.php
Hmmmmmmmm? Personally, I'd rather have a Liar than a Fascist.
Will
Brenda G. Kent
> Re: Ravening seems to have a very high failure rate
>
> Reply to: [1] "Parse Tree"
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:01:38 -0500
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.pagan,
> [3] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [4] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5] <3e6e...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
> [6] <b4lptt$215aub$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [7] <IfFba.5229$VT.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [8] <b4q03p$230u1s$1...@ID-140581.news.dfncis.de>
> [9] <Wo6ca.5876$4q6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [10] <b4ul4m$2406np$1...@ID-176608.news.dfncis.de>
> [11] <oGQca.1768$Kg1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [12] <AOZca.139$ae7....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
> [13] <iy6da.259$sK6....@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [14] <N17da.1311$yA.201757@newsfep2-gui>
> [15] <r17da.49981$jh7....@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com>
> [16] <3E7504...@dmcom.ne
>
>> ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
>> > Dallas Vinson wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Perhaps, but I am still uneasy about "teaching" with lies, stating
>> >>> something is true when it is not.
>> >>
>> >> I'm new to this group, but other than the US History books, I am not
>> >> familiar with anyone teaching from the standpoint of lies.
>> >
>> > Welcome to the group. There are examples that do exist of teaching
>> > without telling the truth (which could be considered a lie).
>>
>> Grin - I would not consider it so.
>>
>> To me, a lie is a deliberate untruth to someone who has a right to the
>> truth.
>
****the *lie* as you call it is not the point of the teaching..perhaps
that is where we have a problem..the point is who do you give your power
to? do you see power in those older than you and not in yourself? do you
see power in your teachers..but not in yourself? do you swallow everything
someone tells you because of a charisma or glamour that they have used on
you? or do you question everything with the power that you have? If you
feel that the wisdom is there and that you are not without it but that
you just have to align yourselves to it.....how better than to work on
opening that door with *advice* from your teachers (which are everything
in this world)...but not answers. THat power is within you and when anyone
says to you..."listen just to me...you don't know..I know...I have the
answers...." as a way to challenge you to wake up! stop believing what
just is spoon fed to you and use your own brain and instinct...that is not
a negative thing but a thing of love. INfact it is a very deep love
because they risk being called *liar* by those that don't understand
yet...to give a great gift to you. NOt wanted....understood...but the sad
need to keep harping on how someone has fooled you and to not trust them
is to a lesson in patience for me...so I thank her.
Brenda
janet
"Will Dockery" <williamabr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cdcfeb.03031...@posting.google.com...
I have no idea what that means, but I'll explain what I meant.
Say I have total, complete freedom. ABSOLUTE freedom.
That would mean that everyone I came into contact with would have to do what
I want them to do - that's what I mean about only one person having complete
freedom.
In general, societal freedom is a limited freedom - balanced by the freedoms
and rights of others.
Parse Tree
Can you give an example?
> > > Explain how it can make them
> > > > critically examine the facts they are given, instead of building
false
> > > faith
> > > > in your constant dispensation of 'absolute truth'.
> > >
> > > I can't explain it cause I wouldn't do it.
> > >
> > > Even when teaching "factual" things, I'm no good at transmitting that
> kind
> > > of information - oh, sure, I give it, but then I want people to
question
> > the
> > > sources, question me, question the value of what they have learned.
> >
> > But why would they do that if they haven't been given a case of when
such
> an
> > act is necessary?
> >
>
> They're on a university campus - which rather assumes that they are there
to
> learn....
>
> And if they walk into my classroom they are warned. :>
I'm guessing that if they're in university, they should already have
critical thinking skills. My apologies, I thought you taught elementary
school.
Parse Tree
And they're in university?
> > > If a parent had phoned and asked the same question about someone
else's
> > > child, I'd quite possibly have wanted more justification for
answering.
> >
> > Do you therefore think that not telling someone something is 'lying',
> > provided they have a right to know?
>
> I think it might be.
>
> I know I have phoned parents back after having that out with myself and
> said, "I do know the answer to that question...".
Gosh. I have no problems with telling lies. I can imagine having a problem
with that though, but not lies by omission. That's simply too many steps
away.
Ack! I thought you were in the US, my apologies again.
> At what age is a difficult one - I think it probably depends on the child.
>
> Certainly if I as a parent say, "You can go on your own", I can hardly
> expect to be taken completely into their confidence about the result.
>
> I would hope that they would talk to me about whatever is bothering them,
> but that is their choice. ATM, I offer to go or not, as they prefer.
Do you teach university level students? I wouldn't think there would be any
doubt in that respect.
> In
> > addition, people are unable to recognize the fact that freedom of
> religion,
> > just like freedom of speech, doesn't mean that you can openly have a
> > religion and not suffer the consequences for that.
>
> Nodding, again - another issue I tackle with students. :)
>
> In reality, only one person in any given society can ever be "totally"
> free - so freedom is a balance.
That's very true. I don't think most people realize that, though.
janet
(have snipped headers - it's us)
> > > > > > []
[]
(P T Said)
> > > > > Explain how telling someone facts only can improve their ability
to
> > > > > distinguish between truth and falsehood.
> > > >
facts.
> > > >
> > > > That is a terribly transmissionist view of education and learning,
"I
> > know
> > > > this - I tell you - now you know this".
> > > >
> > > > Yeruck. Not on, for me.
> > > >
> > > > Rather, the process of teaching is for me one of laying out ideas,
> > asking
> > > > questions, pointing out resources and helping people get on with it.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I give information - dates, writings, etc. But that is the
> > > > *framework*, not the finished article.
> > >
> > > So how will they learn that some things are untrue if they're never
> given
> > > information that is untrue?
> >
> > By the time they get to me, they've had more than enough of that...
> >
> > But "true" is a difficult term here - what version of history is true?
> >
> > When I say I would not teach by lies, I mean I would not say, "Giddens
> said
> > this" when he clearly did not.
> >
> > Often the best way to find something is untrue is to look at alternative
> > explanations...
>
> Can you give an example?
>
Women in this country earn 80% of what men earn
Why?
1. They aren't worth more
2. Dual labour market theory
3. Reserve army of labour theory
4. Sticky carpets and glass ceilings
5. Gendered jobs --> pay inequality
And so on...
I would not say, "This is why" - not my job. I'd present each one as fairly
as I could, with references and so on....
There are times I will happily say, "Scholars in the field no longer accept
this, but you need to know..."
Grin - no problems. I have neither the talent nor the patience to teach
children - but have the highest respect for those who do.
In theory, it's the job of university here to instill/allow students to
learn criticality - that's what makes Higher Education different from
anything else.
But since I teach mainly mature students, you're right. A lot of them, most
of them, have those skills when they walk in.
The difference is that they are often not used to applying them to different
areas - that's where I come in and it's a great thing to be able to do. :)
janet
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:DYpda.3136$544.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
They are now - they weren't then. They were between (IIRC) about 13 and 19
then- all of them still living at home. (THEIR homes, not mine, though at
times I wondered...). :}
>
> > > > If a parent had phoned and asked the same question about someone
> else's
> > > > child, I'd quite possibly have wanted more justification for
> answering.
> > >
> > > Do you therefore think that not telling someone something is 'lying',
> > > provided they have a right to know?
> >
> > I think it might be.
> >
> > I know I have phoned parents back after having that out with myself and
> > said, "I do know the answer to that question...".
>
> Gosh. I have no problems with telling lies. I can imagine having a
problem
> with that though, but not lies by omission. That's simply too many steps
> away.
Grin - see, I do have a problem telling lies.
On a surface level, I'm simply no good at it.
On a more basic level - it's completely abhorrent to everything I beleive
in.
[]
> > > > I digress. There are times one has the right to the truth about
> certain
> > > > situations. I feel I have a right to the truth about my health, and
> > that
> > > of
> > > > my children, though that right diminishes as they age (it becomes
> > theirs,
> > > > and theirs to choose what they pass on to me).
> > >
> > > At what age? Since health care is free in Canada, I think the age is
> when
> > > the child is capable of going to the doctor on their own.
> >
> > (I'm in the UK).
>
> Ack! I thought you were in the US, my apologies again.
Don't worry - I'm an American, I just live here cause I've been here 20
years and married an Englishman and that kind of thing. :)
>
> > At what age is a difficult one - I think it probably depends on the
child.
> >
> > Certainly if I as a parent say, "You can go on your own", I can hardly
> > expect to be taken completely into their confidence about the result.
> >
> > I would hope that they would talk to me about whatever is bothering
them,
> > but that is their choice. ATM, I offer to go or not, as they prefer.
>
> Do you teach university level students? I wouldn't think there would be
any
> doubt in that respect.
Sorry, I was talking about my own kids here - teenagers.
My students range in age from mid 20s to late 80s (and there are older ones
around, I've just not had them in my classes. I would like to, though -
think how much we could all learn!).
>
>
> > In
> > > addition, people are unable to recognize the fact that freedom of
> > religion,
> > > just like freedom of speech, doesn't mean that you can openly have a
> > > religion and not suffer the consequences for that.
> >
> > Nodding, again - another issue I tackle with students. :)
> >
> > In reality, only one person in any given society can ever be "totally"
> > free - so freedom is a balance.
>
> That's very true. I don't think most people realize that, though.
Grin - now you see why I teach. :)
Jani
to your continual lying and disrespect about those who have a damn sight
more wisdom and integrity than you do. I believe the people on AN had much
the same objection, and they were not "fooled", either.
Jani
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3e76...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
Talesin
1. to devour greedily 2 : DESPOIL <men... raven the earth, destroying its
resources -- New Yorker>
intransitive senses
1 : to feed greedily 2 : to prowl for food :
Now SHUT UP ABOUT IT!
jayzus keerist on a pogo stick
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
"From small things. . . comes great power"
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
Get your daily Dragon: http://www.pendragonsloft.blogspot.com/
© 2003 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
Jani
Jani
"Talesin" <the_wi...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pYwda.18584$ZW4.4...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
ren
wrote:
>You people don't even know what the word MEANS!
>
>1. to devour greedily 2 : DESPOIL <men... raven the earth, destroying its
>resources -- New Yorker>
>intransitive senses
>1 : to feed greedily 2 : to prowl for food :
>
>Now SHUT UP ABOUT IT!
>
>jayzus keerist on a pogo stick
Now Talesin is a good example of someone who has been ravin' and
ravin' and ravin'.