ABCTE Adds Missouri to states using their certification
The_Carpathia
Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah, as the 8th state to use the
ABCTE certification for teacher certification. They require a 60 hour
(only) classroom teaching requirement, which is less than the amount
required by Florida and other states.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/05/01/92845moxgrteachercertification_ap.html?levelId=1000&rale2=KQE5d7nM%2FXAYPsVRXwnFWYRqIIX2bhy1%2BKNA5buLAWGegsFpgXDqNgzw%2FaQd%2B%2BGs0SMTaI4jLGV2%0AUEL6asgoqj5M8TedylhpFKr1PsMxom5lABWlfYE5qh2r5t1O5h1bnl6t7YmGv%2BdjJVY3kL1ti6w4%0AWdpxNZXwKv8o5rTZEIU2zVvG0wutOS5lOoqvCiwGdBVY%2ByuszoyO08d5n%2F1cuVdtnMhkrENK1nkF%0AnIxDzKuo7XZ6XX3t1IVx9zQ8zkbluq%2FYEhd1uWiRyCP5rtNQlNUR5NpugIBfeASSdN3uja4Oi9Le%0AYDFjRC9CQS4S3zWJpfoENeGLxi8ramC018o%2FmuH%2F0EURqRTtkcgj%2Ba7TUJQeYmNFXnHsAYYg%2BOmb%0AOqvMNcztvEH5lt4%2B3OCj%2BvO831s9poYBSvNcyXJfTSjmSJn9kv%2BmFN0nRKCc44vD%2Bwk%2FA1MZcjaM%0AwPgpt0APWcbq69jBJTCa798pHMR8i%2FmXcQqZJcLv%2FMLX3kg9NmauPZcuuq%2FYEhd1uWiRyCP5rtNQ%0AlGQmorKkjSeKUGn2RmsxT%2FZiPADH6%2BFquOoRm%2F%2F5CeGAn7Wm4FxnoJ7FPvwtWnIzHmI8AMfr4Wq4%0A6hGb%2F%2FkJ4YBdhxsakm3yXhexM7SwWz6kVI2zBGZWBWNW6EcvM0Mhz%2F0bJOLSyIHoGvXT14wy5yKq%0A%2BH51Ovox2T0BGNeBh5Y2tp7rBOdxpNCsn66TXtxUVshzijKoReiuoTlEABGqQKxkaAlIG387tjZn%0A3hGJxndYSc6bVRv2%2BHGmAE5GC82ob1g%2BkCV6dXqHh3V1sl%2BNFkt8SPY5khM4Yad%2BDdiHV7CbFw5T%0AzRAGAU%2BYINjwISdE0duQCI1RuMtAFpkqK4hJXBd6D%2FqPMwZoNo5hVq1XaqdFmfbJYYI9zA%2BK5jNF%0ATe1jKw%3D%3D
I, myself, have completed the requirements for ABCTE's testing, and I
can tell you that they are the hardest that I have seen. The multi-
subject exam had MANY college level questions for an Elementary
Education teaching requirement (which I thought was stupid), and the
teacher knowledge test had an essay section that was not found in
comparable state tests (again, I thought this stupid...are we testing
writing ability or teacher knowledge...though, the questions did test
teacher knowledge). In fact, an outside firm has found ABCTE's tests
harder than Praxis.
I won't be relying on ABCTE for my teacher qualification, though, as I
have taken college classes at a NCATE approved education program for
Elementary Education, and they satisfy the same state requirements
that ABCTE does; however, it will go on my resume. Also, it has given
me experience with this test. If, in the future, I am a principal
hiring someone with ABCTE, I won't doubt they know their stuff, while
college classes, alone, could lead to that doubt.
Kenneth Clifton
Bob LeChevalier
>Missouri just joined Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire,
>Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah, as the 8th state to use the
>ABCTE certification for teacher certification. They require a 60 hour
>(only) classroom teaching requirement, which is less than the amount
>required by Florida and other states.
>http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/05/01/92845moxgrteachercertification_ap.html?levelId=1000&rale2=KQE5d7nM%2FXAYPsVRXwnFWYRqIIX2bhy1%2BKNA5buLAWGegsFpgXDqNgzw%2FaQd%2B%2BGs0SMTaI4jLGV2%0AUEL6asgoqj5M8TedylhpFKr1PsMxom5lABWlfYE5qh2r5t1O5h1bnl6t7YmGv%2BdjJVY3kL1ti6w4%0AWdpxNZXwKv8o5rTZEIU2zVvG0wutOS5lOoqvCiwGdBVY%2ByuszoyO08d5n%2F1cuVdtnMhkrENK1nkF%0AnIxDzKuo7XZ6XX3t1IVx9zQ8zkbluq%2FYEhd1uWiRyCP5rtNQlNUR5NpugIBfeASSdN3uja4Oi9Le%0AYDFjRC9CQS4S3zWJpfoENeGLxi8ramC018o%2FmuH%2F0EURqRTtkcgj%2Ba7TUJQeYmNFXnHsAYYg%2BOmb%0AOqvMNcztvEH5lt4%2B3OCj%2BvO831s9poYBSvNcyXJfTSjmSJn9kv%2BmFN0nRKCc44vD%2Bwk%2FA1MZcjaM%0AwPgpt0APWcbq69jBJTCa798pHMR8i%2FmXcQqZJcLv%2FMLX3kg9NmauPZcuuq%2FYEhd1uWiRyCP5rtNQ%0AlGQmorKkjSeKUGn2RmsxT%2FZiPADH6%2BFquOoRm%2F%2F5CeGAn7Wm4FxnoJ7FPvwtWnIzHmI8AMfr4Wq4%0A6hGb%2F%2FkJ4YBdhxsakm3yXhexM7SwWz6kVI2zBGZWBWNW6EcvM0Mhz%2F0bJOLSyIHoGvXT14wy5yKq%0A%2BH51Ovox2T0BGNeBh5Y2tp7rBOdxpNCsn66TXtxUVshzijKoReiuoTlEABGqQKxkaAlIG387tjZn%0A3hGJxndYSc6bVRv2%2BHGmAE5GC82ob1g%2BkCV6dXqHh3
V
>1sl%2BNFkt8SPY5khM4Yad%2BDdiHV7CbFw5T%0AzRAGAU%2BYINjwISdE0duQCI1RuMtAFpkqK4hJXBd6D%2FqPMwZoNo5hVq1XaqdFmfbJYYI9zA%2BK5jNF%0ATe1jKw%3D%3D
You missed the big gotcha:
>It also prohibits people from teaching early childhood, elementary and
> special education if their only certification is from the American
> Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence.
So you wouldn't be able to teach there with only ABCTE.
>I, myself, have completed the requirements for ABCTE's testing, and I
>can tell you that they are the hardest that I have seen.
For a dimwit like you, that isn't saying much.
>The multi-subject exam had MANY college level questions for an Elementary
>Education teaching requirement (which I thought was stupid)
That is because YOU are stupid.
Also because you probably haven't a clue what 'college-level' is,
since your "college education" was a joke.
>and the teacher knowledge test had an essay section that was not found in
>comparable state tests
Depends on the state.
>(again, I thought this stupid.
That is because you are stupid.
>...are we testing writing ability or teacher knowledge.
Yes to both. If you don't know how to write coherently, how can you
possibly teach others to do so?
>>..though, the questions did test
>teacher knowledge). In fact, an outside firm has found ABCTE's tests
>harder than Praxis.
That isn't saying much.
>If, in the future, I am a principal hiring someone with ABCTE,
[Guffaw] Ambitious, aren't we? Haven't even gotten in the classroom
and you are a principal wannabe.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
cck...@gmail.com
couldn't pass the ABCTE OR the Praxis!
hehe
On May 2, 12:36 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Missouri just joined Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire,
> >Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah, as the 8th state to use the
> >ABCTE certification for teacher certification. They require a 60 hour
> >(only) classroom teaching requirement, which is less than the amount
> >required by Florida and other states.
> >http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/05/01/92845moxgrteachercertifi...
Bob LeChevalier
>What a nasty reply!
A nasty reply to a thoroughly obnoxious poster.
>It shows that you are just jealous,
Of Kennie the Wonder Dunce? Not hardly.
Any system that would certify him for anything but a sweatshirt with
sleeves that don't end deserves insult.
>and probably couldn't pass the ABCTE OR the Praxis!
Since I couldn't handle a classroom full of kids, I wouldn't try. But
since I seldom scored below 95th percentile on any standardized test
that I took while in school, I rather suspect you are wrong.
The_Carpathia
> cck...@gmail.com wrote:
> >What a nasty reply!
>
> A nasty reply to a thoroughly obnoxious poster.
>
> >It shows that you are just jealous,
>
> Of Kennie the Wonder Dunce? Not hardly.
>
> Any system that would certify him for anything but a sweatshirt with
> sleeves that don't end deserves insult.
>
> >and probably couldn't pass the ABCTE OR the Praxis!
>
> Since I couldn't handle a classroom full of kids, I wouldn't try. But
> since I seldom scored below 95th percentile on any standardized test
> that I took while in school, I rather suspect you are wrong.
>
I like the suggestion of the last poster, Bob. Go try to pass the
ABCTE exam (proven to the harder than the Praxis by an outside firm)
or, even, Praxis. ABCTE's exams were the hardest that I'd ever taken,
and I, also, test very highly (got nearly a perfect score on the ASVAB
going into the military...an aptitude test, if you know what that
means). There were many college level questions in both the subject
areas and teaching areas (not to mention a teacher essay question).
If you can't pass the tests, you shouldn't be giving advice on
education (I passed with distinguished level for the multi-subject
exam).
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
Fore warning, though, only 40 percent pass the teacher knowledge test,
that make the attempt. So, if I were you, I'd bring my A-game.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Cary Kittrell
> What a nasty reply! It shows that you are just jealous, and probably
> couldn't pass the ABCTE OR the Praxis!
Bob?
Oh, I wouldn't bet anything important on that if I were you.
-- cary
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> In article <562be151-91e7-45d7-997f-d62db13b1...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> cck...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > What a nasty reply! It shows that you are just jealous, and probably
> > couldn't pass the ABCTE OR the Praxis!
>
> Bob?
>
> Oh, I wouldn't bet anything important on that if I were you.
>
> -- cary
Then, let's see it. Come on, Bob. Take the test. Until you prove
yourself in such an assessment, your theories on education are without
credential...just as your theories on religion are, as well. Using
Bob's theories of authority without foundation, I guess I could claim
to be an expert on language.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>> Since I couldn't handle a classroom full of kids, I wouldn't try. But
>> since I seldom scored below 95th percentile on any standardized test
>> that I took while in school, I rather suspect you are wrong.
>
>I like the suggestion of the last poster, Bob.
You gonna pay for it?
>ABCTE's exams were the hardest that I'd ever taken,
You attended Falwell U, so that says little.
>and I, also, test very highly (got nearly a perfect score on the ASVAB
>going into the military...an aptitude test, if you know what that
>means).
It doesn't mean very much.
>There were many college level questions in both the subject areas and teaching areas
One would hope so, since the course is supposed to equate to a 4 year
or 5 year college degree in qualification. ALL of the questions
should be college level.
>If you can't pass the tests, you shouldn't be giving advice on
>education
I don't usually give advice on education.
I do state my opinion on education. The qualifications for that are a
warm body and a means of expressing myself.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jun 16, 11:18 am, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> In article <562be151-91e7-45d7-997f-d62db13b1...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> cck...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> > What a nasty reply! It shows that you are just jealous, and probably
>> > couldn't pass the ABCTE OR the Praxis!
>>
>> Bob?
>>
>> Oh, I wouldn't bet anything important on that if I were you.
>>
>> -- cary
>
>Then, let's see it. Come on, Bob. Take the test. Until you prove
>yourself in such an assessment, your theories on education are without
>credential...
What theories are those? Unlike you, I don't have any theories. I am
pretty good at poking holes in YOUR theories though, which shows how
little value your so-called qualifications are.
>just as your theories on religion are,
I don't have those either. I'm the one who thinks that theology is a
waste of time.
>Using
>Bob's theories of authority without foundation, I guess I could claim
>to be an expert on language.
And linguists would laugh at you as much as I do.
(Hint, I am wise enough NOT to claim to be an expert on language.)
Cary Kittrell
If you can walk the walk, then why not?
My impression -- and I am willing to be corrected -- is that Bob has
no formal training in linguistics, but is self-taught.
As are many of us in this group, on a wide variety of subjects.
-- cary
The_Carpathia
And...according to you on the "weather experts" denying Global Warming
thread...one isn't an authority without training (thus, you and Bob
have no authority to speak on religion...or Hawkins for that
matter...and Bob cannot be an authority on teaching).
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jun 17, 9:12 am, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> In article <29704f4e-f816-412b-84f4-90488156b...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > On Jun 16, 11:18 am, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> > > In article <562be151-91e7-45d7-997f-d62db13b1...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> cck...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> > > > What a nasty reply! It shows that you are just jealous, and probably
>> > > > couldn't pass the ABCTE OR the Praxis!
>>
>> > > Bob?
>>
>> > > Oh, I wouldn't bet anything important on that if I were you.
>>
>> > > -- cary
>>
>> > Then, let's see it. Come on, Bob. Take the test. Until you prove
>> > yourself in such an assessment, your theories on education are without
>> > credential...just as your theories on religion are, as well. Using
>> > Bob's theories of authority without foundation, I guess I could claim
>> > to be an expert on language.
>>
>> If you can walk the walk, then why not?
>>
>> My impression -- and I am willing to be corrected -- is that Bob has
>> no formal training in linguistics, but is self-taught.
>>
>> As are many of us in this group, on a wide variety of subjects.
>
>thread...one isn't an authority without training (thus, you and Bob
>have no authority to speak on religion.
We don't claim "authority", and in any event, religion isn't science.
>Bob cannot be an authority on teaching).
I've never claimed to be. I've claimed that you aren't an authority
on *anything* and an ignoramus on *everything*.
Cary Kittrell
> On Jun 17, 9:12=A0am, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > In article <29704f4e-f816-412b-84f4-90488156b...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups=
> .com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 16, 11:18 am, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> oups.com> cck...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > > > > What a nasty reply! It shows that you are just jealous, and probabl=
> y
> > > > > couldn't pass the ABCTE OR the Praxis!
> >
> > > > Bob?
> >
> > > > Oh, I wouldn't bet anything important on that if I were you.
> >
> > > > -- cary
> >
> ve
> > > yourself in such an assessment, your theories on education are without
> > > Bob's theories of authority without foundation, I guess I could claim
> > > to be an expert on language.
> >
> > If you can walk the walk, then why not?
> >
> > My impression -- and I am willing to be corrected -- is that Bob has
> > no formal training in linguistics, but is self-taught.
> >
> > As are many of us in this group, on a wide variety of subjects.
> >
> > -- cary
>
> And...according to you on the "weather experts" denying Global Warming
> thread...one isn't an authority without training (thus, you and Bob
> have no authority to speak on religion...or Hawkins for that
> matter...and Bob cannot be an authority on teaching).
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
This is...what, the fifth time I've asked you: who is "Hawkins"?
-- cary
The_Carpathia
Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
religion, education, or me.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
>religion, education, or me.
Correct, for once.
But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
I also show respect for others that are worthy of that respect. You
are thoroughly unrespectable.
But indeed that need not mean very much to you. A lot of people
(indeed the vast majority) go through life without being respected on
Usenet. But most of them don't go through life being laughed at on
Usenet either.
Cary Kittrell
>
> The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
> >religion, education, or me.
>
> Correct, for once.
>
> But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
> ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
Your disinclination to drag in the occult to "explain" perfectly mundane
events doesn't hurt either.
-- cary
Wide Eyed in Wonder
On Jun 19, 3:53 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
> >religion, education, or me.
>
> Correct, for once.
>
> But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
> ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
>
So, areas in which you post without evidence (religion, education,
etc) are opinions without authority?
>
> But indeed that need not mean very much to you. A lot of people
> (indeed the vast majority) go through life without being respected on
> Usenet. But most of them don't go through life being laughed at on
> Usenet either.
I laugh at you almost daily...
However, that comment still didn't answer my post. You claimed the
weather experts were unqualified to speak on global warming, since
their training wasn't in the field. However, you claim authority to
speak on a WIDE spectrum of topics, for which you have no training.
So, take your pick. Either you (and the weather experts) are
qualified to speak your opinions without subject-specific authority,
or you are both unqualified to be an authority. Which is it?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
> >religion, education, or me.
>
> Correct, for once.
>
> But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
> ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
>
So, in areas that you are presenting no evidence...religion,
education, etc...for your claims, your words are not authoritative.
>
> But indeed that need not mean very much to you. A lot of people
> (indeed the vast majority) go through life without being respected on
> Usenet. But most of them don't go through life being laughed at on
> Usenet either.
>
I laugh at you almost daily.
However, that comment still didn't answer my post. You claimed the
The_Carpathia
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
> >religion, education, or me.
>
> Correct, for once.
>
> But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
> ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
The evidence for this in this post is absent, as is the "evidence" for
most of your comments. However, I will be watching in the future for
lack of evidence to ping you as being unfounded opinion. By the way,
I didn't know that direct data from NASA and NOAA about temperature
reduction was spin-doctored. Do you want to show me data that says
May was warm, at all, in the troposphere? I'll leave room for it
here...
Surely, you have evidence for your education theories and opinions
that you have pumped out on these boards...evidence that was posted at
the time of your posted opinion?
How about evidence for your religious opinions? Do you have any?
That would make you unqualified, then, by your own standards.
>
> I also show respect for others that are worthy of that respect. You
> are thoroughly unrespectable.
Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Respect doesn't mean
qualification.
>
> But indeed that need not mean very much to you. A lot of people
> (indeed the vast majority) go through life without being respected on
> Usenet. But most of them don't go through life being laughed at on
> Usenet either.
>
I laugh at you, almost daily.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jun 19, 3:53 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
>> >religion, education, or me.
>>
>> Correct, for once.
>>
>> But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
>> ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
>> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
>> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
>
>The evidence for this in this post is absent, as is the "evidence" for
>most of your comments.
I didn't say that I provided the evidence "in this post". And since I
have absolutely no interest in your respect, I feel no need to provide
such to you.
>However, I will be watching in the future for lack of evidence to ping you as being unfounded opinion.
This is nothing new.
I have on occasion had an unfounded opinion, of course. I did not
make a universal claim about every statement that I have ever made.
>By the way,
>I didn't know that direct data from NASA and NOAA about temperature
>reduction was spin-doctored.
Your reporting of that data was certainly spin-doctored, as evidenced
by Cary's several posts pointing out to you that your sudden "cold
snap" resulted in the 13th warmest month on record for the indicated
month.
>Do you want to show me data that says May was warm, at all, in the troposphere?
I don't care whether May was warm in the troposphere. It isn't
relevant, by itself, to claims about global warming.
>Surely, you have evidence for your education theories
Which education theories?
>and opinions that you have pumped out on these boards...evidence that was posted at
>the time of your posted opinion?
I've posted lots of data, usually in answer to a claim showing
ignorance about that data.
>How about evidence for your religious opinions?
*There is no evidence* for religious opinions. That is the nature of
religion.
>Do you have any? That would make you unqualified, then, by your own standards.
Those who respect my opinion, do so for a reason.
>> I also show respect for others that are worthy of that respect. You
>> are thoroughly unrespectable.
>
>Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Respect doesn't mean
>qualification.
Qualification is one basis for respect.
>> But indeed that need not mean very much to you. A lot of people
>> (indeed the vast majority) go through life without being respected on
>> Usenet. But most of them don't go through life being laughed at on
>> Usenet either.
>
>I laugh at you, almost daily.
>
>However, that comment still didn't answer my post. You claimed the
>weather experts were unqualified to speak on global warming,
Did I? I think that was another poster. YOU are unqualified to
"speak on global warming", and you are unqualified to even READ about
global warming, since you have repeatedly evidenced a total lack of
reading comprehension
>However, you claim authority to speak on a WIDE spectrum of topics,
I repeat for the nth time, that I have never claimed "authority".
>Either you (and the weather experts) are
>qualified to speak your opinions without subject-specific authority,
Everyone is qualified to speak their opinions, if they can speak. That
does not mean that those opinions are correct. In your case, since
you don't even understand the opinions of the "weather experts", there
is little likelihood that anything you say will be correct more often
than a stopped watch is correct as to the time of day.
>or you are both unqualified to be an authority.
I don't claim to be an authority. I have no opinion on the authority
status of any particular "weather expert". (Actually, the father of
one of my childhood friends was a Weather Service meteorologist, and
incidentally was instrumental in my becoming a Christian - and he
taught me some meteorology as well. I am moderately aware of his
basis for authority as a meteorologist, but since he is dead, I have
no idea as to what he would think about global warming.)
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
>> >religion, education, or me.
>>
>> Correct, for once.
>>
>> But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
>> ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
>> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
>> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
>
>So, in areas that you are presenting no evidence...religion,
>education, etc...for your claims, your words are not authoritative.
For the umpteenth time, I have not claimed that my words are
authoritative. I don't consider that to be a relevant attribute of a
Usenet post.
>I laugh at you almost daily.
I laugh at you every time I read one of your posts. But I pity your
daughter, who has been miseducated by you (since you are incapable of
anything but miseducation).
>However, that comment still didn't answer my post. You claimed the
>weather experts were unqualified to speak on global warming, since
>their training wasn't in the field.
Cite please, to where I said that.
>However, you claim authority to speak on a WIDE spectrum of topics,
I do not claim such authority, and in fact have repeatedly told you
that I claim no such authority.
Larry Hewitt
"The_Carpathia" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6322c72-69f2-4a48...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
The passage rate is so low becaue of the quality of the test takers.
The ABCTE is taken by people who could not pass college courses.
Larry
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 19, 3:53 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
> >> >religion, education, or me.
>
> >> Correct, for once.
>
> >> But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
> >> ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
> >> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
> >> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
>
> >The evidence for this in this post is absent, as is the "evidence" for
> >most of your comments.
>
> I didn't say that I provided the evidence "in this post". And since I
> have absolutely no interest in your respect, I feel no need to provide
> such to you.
>
You said...directly above...that you back your opinions with
supporting evidence. Your opinions about me are, however, without
evidence.
> >However, I will be watching in the future for lack of evidence to ping you as being unfounded opinion.
>
> This is nothing new.
>
> I have on occasion had an unfounded opinion, of course. I did not
> make a universal claim about every statement that I have ever made.
>
"I present supporting evidence that is consistent with my opinion" -
your claim...now, if that doesn't mean all of the time but only a few
times, I have met that requirement, as well.
> >By the way,
> >I didn't know that direct data from NASA and NOAA about temperature
> >reduction was spin-doctored.
>
> Your reporting of that data was certainly spin-doctored, as evidenced
> by Cary's several posts pointing out to you that your sudden "cold
> snap" resulted in the 13th warmest month on record for the indicated
> month.
>
I left that alone because I thought it was so self-evident to be
confirming my theory...but neither of you, apparently, picked up on
it. So, I posted a reply to Cary about that, recently, in another
thread. If it was the 13th warmest year on record last year and is
the 1st coldest (in the troposphere) May on record this year, you
don't see that as a HUGE drop in temperature? Further to go from the
13th warmest year on record to being nearly on the century average
line, now, is further evidence of this drop...all without any
reduction of air pollution.
> >Do you want to show me data that says May was warm, at all, in the troposphere?
>
> I don't care whether May was warm in the troposphere. It isn't
> relevant, by itself, to claims about global warming.
>
So, when the temperature goes up, it's proof of Global Warming, but a
temperature drop is not relevant? I didn't realize that a huge
temperature drop is part of the warming of the planet. Next, you'll
be telling me that light is a part of the cycle of darkness, food
scarcity is part of feeding the hungry, or such. However, I have to
ask...where is your source for your claim that a temperature drop from
the 14th warmest year to the coldest May on record is not relevant to
Global Warming (remember, you don't rely on your own opinions without
"evidence" from experts. So, where is the cite that founds your claim
from experts in this post? Or, are you admitting that you are just
making it all up?
> >Surely, you have evidence for your education theories
>
> Which education theories?
>
> >and opinions that you have pumped out on these boards...evidence that was posted at
> >the time of your posted opinion?
>
> I've posted lots of data, usually in answer to a claim showing
> ignorance about that data.
>
...a claim posted without evidence.
> >How about evidence for your religious opinions?
>
> *There is no evidence* for religious opinions. That is the nature of
> religion.
>
YOU said that you don't post opinions without "evidence" to back you
up...you said that is what separates your posts from mine (a claim
without expert sources to back you up). You HAVE made many posts
about religion. You don't have training in the field, while I do.
You don't post "evidence" with your posts, even as I post Scripture
quotes and links to back my claims. So, upon what is your authority
in the field based? Now, I KNOW you will (as you have before) attack
my school as being unqualified as a fundamentalist school (a false
claim without evidence), even though my school has full accreditation
and many awards. So, I'll give you a heads up. If you attack my
school's credentials to teach religion, I will require "evidence" on
your part that your opinions are founded. Otherwise, your opinions
are just unqualified (without training) opinions without "evidence" or
support.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Evidence for your claim is lacking. Indeed, I passed both tests AFTER
having established qualification to teach through college courses
(didn't need ABCTE but did it anyway) at an NCATE approved school.
Further, you cannot even get into ABCTE without a college degree (ALL
ABCTE certificate holders are college graduates).
Indeed, according to a breakdown of ABCTE alumni from 2006, 40 percent
of ABCTE graduates hold advanced degrees.
I guess you didn't do research before reaching absolute
conclusions...very telling.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jun 19, 4:54 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 19, 3:53 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >Since you are not an authority, your opinion means very little...about
>> >> >religion, education, or me.
>>
>> >> Correct, for once.
>>
>> >> But my opinion is, however, respected by others, whereas yours is
>> >> ridiculed. Why would that be? Because I present supporting evidence
>> >> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
>> >> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
>>
>> >The evidence for this in this post is absent, as is the "evidence" for
>> >most of your comments.
>>
>> I didn't say that I provided the evidence "in this post". And since I
>> have absolutely no interest in your respect, I feel no need to provide
>> such to you.
>
>You said...directly above...that you back your opinions with
>supporting evidence. Your opinions about me are, however, without
>evidence.
On the contrary, they are supported by almost every one of your
idiotic posts.
>> >However, I will be watching in the future for lack of evidence to ping you as being unfounded opinion.
>>
>> This is nothing new.
>>
>> I have on occasion had an unfounded opinion, of course. I did not
>> make a universal claim about every statement that I have ever made.
>
>"I present supporting evidence that is consistent with my opinion" -
>your claim...now, if that doesn't mean all of the time but only a few
>times, I have met that requirement, as well.
The full statement I made is
>> Because I present supporting evidence
>> that is consistent with my opinion, makes sense, and hasn't been
>> spin-doctored to the point of being nonsense.
You don't meet the other condition. You rarely understand the
"evidence" that you cite, and usually misrepresent it.
In the meantime, my statement was an indication of why my opinions
seem to be respected. I provide sufficient support for my opinions to
satisfies others, whose respect I value. By contrast, you very rarely
satisfy anyone other than yourself with the nonsense you post, and are
not respected by anyone from what I can tell.
>> Your reporting of that data was certainly spin-doctored, as evidenced
>> by Cary's several posts pointing out to you that your sudden "cold
>> snap" resulted in the 13th warmest month on record for the indicated
>> month.
>
>I left that alone because I thought it was so self-evident to be
>confirming my theory
You again don't know what a "theory" is, so stop misusing the word.
>So, I posted a reply to Cary about that, recently, in another
>thread. If it was the 13th warmest year on record last year and is
>the 1st coldest (in the troposphere) May on record this year, you
>don't see that as a HUGE drop in temperature?
I don't care. You are cherry picking data in order to support your
conclusion, one which contradicts the opinion of most people who are
actually trained to look at that data, as well as the common sense of
the rest of us, who are merely intelligent and well-informed unlike
you.
>Further to go from the
>13th warmest year on record to being nearly on the century average
>line, now, is further evidence of this drop.
No.
>> >Do you want to show me data that says May was warm, at all, in the troposphere?
>>
>> I don't care whether May was warm in the troposphere. It isn't
>> relevant, by itself, to claims about global warming.
>
>So, when the temperature goes up, it's proof of Global Warming,
No.
When average temperature show a pattern of rising lasting for multiple
decades, and this is supported by rapid melting of glaciers and the
ice cap, continuing over decades, then it is proof of global warming.
The only question is the degree to which man is causing this warming
vs some completely natural explanation.
>but a temperature drop is not relevant?
Not just a year.
>I didn't realize that a huge temperature drop is part of the warming of the planet.
You don't realize a lot of things.
>However, I have to
>ask...where is your source for your claim that a temperature drop from
>the 14th warmest year to the coldest May on record is not relevant to
>Global Warming
common sense, and the definition of global warming.
>(remember, you don't rely on your own opinions without "evidence" from experts.
Others have provided plenty of cites about global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
is a good starting summary, with a nice chart in the upper right that
shows the long term trend (and you can see a few times where there was
a one year drop, but the trend over many years has continued upwards.
In the meantime, it is you vs. "These basic conclusions have been
endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of
science, including all of the national academies of science of the
major industrialized countries."
Now who do you think people are going to believe?
>> >and opinions that you have pumped out on these boards...evidence that was posted at
>> >the time of your posted opinion?
>>
>> I've posted lots of data, usually in answer to a claim showing
>> ignorance about that data.
>
>...a claim posted without evidence.
Now you are being silly. But then you usually are.
>> >How about evidence for your religious opinions?
>>
>> *There is no evidence* for religious opinions. That is the nature of
>> religion.
>
>YOU said that you don't post opinions without "evidence" to back you
>up.
That is not what I said.
>You HAVE made many posts about religion.
Almost all of which are poking holes in someone else's opinion.
> You don't have training in the field, while I do.
Your training is worthless.
>You don't post "evidence" with your posts, even as I post Scripture
>quotes and links to back my claims.
But the relevance of those is based on your worthless
misinterpretation of them.
>So, upon what is your authority in the field based?
I repeat yet again, that I have never claimed "authority". "Authority"
is irrelevant
>Now, I KNOW you will (as you have before) attack
>my school as being unqualified as a fundamentalist school (a false
>claim without evidence),
I have in fact provided evidence, including quotes from their college
catalog showing the Mickey Mouse level of some of the classes that are
taught there.
>even though my school has full accreditation and many awards.
Accreditation is meaningless, since the standards for accreditation
(which I also have quoted a reference to) have nothing to do with
quality of education as opposed to enforcing orthodoxy.
> So, I'll give you a heads up. If you attack my
>school's credentials to teach religion, I will require "evidence" on
>your part that your opinions are founded.
You can "require" anything you want, and I will continue to post what
I want.
I don't give a damn whether YOU are convinced, because your opinion is
worthless and has earned absolutely no respect in all the years that
you've posted.
>Otherwise, your opinions
>are just unqualified (without training) opinions without "evidence" or
>support.
Your unsupported opinion about my opinion is incorrect, irrelevant,
and uninteresting.
The_Carpathia
> >> Your reporting of that data was certainly spin-doctored, as evidenced
> >> by Cary's several posts pointing out to you that your sudden "cold
> >> snap" resulted in the 13th warmest month on record for the indicated
> >> month.
>
> >I left that alone because I thought it was so self-evident to be
> >confirming my theory
> >thread. If it was the 13th warmest year on record last year and is
> >the 1st coldest (in the troposphere) May on record this year, you
> >don't see that as a HUGE drop in temperature?
>
> I don't care. You are cherry picking data in order to support your
> conclusion, one which contradicts the opinion of most people who are
> actually trained to look at that data, as well as the common sense of
> the rest of us, who are merely intelligent and well-informed unlike
> you.
Oh..the "data" is getting in the way of their "opinion?" And, you
think we should ignore the data to support the "opinions" and
"conclusions" of those we like best (there is experts on both sides)?
How scientific...not. The fact that you reject the data ("I don't
care") shows you to be a non-scientist, as a scientist would never do
that. Further, and this is the important one, it shows that you
aren't actually posting "evidence" but "unsupported opinion," since
you choose to deny any evidence (data) that gets in your way.
Indeed, your decision to give preference to "interpretation" over
"data" is very much like the Catholic decisions to give preference to
church interpretation over direct reading of the Scriptures. So, do
you think we should listen to those with Bible degrees and those in
church positions over individual interpretations? Or, should we be
able to read and post the climate data for ourselves? Take your pick.
>
> >Further to go from the
> >13th warmest year on record to being nearly on the century average
> >line, now, is further evidence of this drop.
>
> No.
>
Cite...evidence?
> >> >Do you want to show me data that says May was warm, at all, in the troposphere?
>
> >> I don't care whether May was warm in the troposphere. It isn't
> >> relevant, by itself, to claims about global warming.
>
> >So, when the temperature goes up, it's proof of Global Warming,
>
> No.
>
> When average temperature show a pattern of rising lasting for multiple
> decades, and this is supported by rapid melting of glaciers and the
> ice cap, continuing over decades, then it is proof of global warming.
> The only question is the degree to which man is causing this warming
> vs some completely natural explanation.
>
Yet, it is dropped, now, to a level almost equal to the century
average. Even assuming your statement (above) were true, which even
some of the global warming doubters in my story suggested, a natural
causation of a rise could lead to a natural drop, as well...a CYCLE
that would drop on it's own...as we are seeing, now.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
> is a good starting summary, with a nice chart in the upper right that
> shows the long term trend (and you can see a few times where there was
> a one year drop, but the trend over many years has continued upwards.
>
> In the meantime, it is you vs. "These basic conclusions have been
> endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of
> science, including all of the national academies of science of the
> major industrialized countries."
>
> >> >How about evidence for your religious opinions?
>
> >> *There is no evidence* for religious opinions. That is the nature of
> >> religion.
>
Do you have evidence for that claim?
> > You don't have training in the field, while I do.
>
> Your training is worthless.
>
Cite? Evidence?
> >You don't post "evidence" with your posts, even as I post Scripture
> >quotes and links to back my claims.
>
> But the relevance of those is based on your worthless
> misinterpretation of them.
>
Evidence?
> >So, upon what is your authority in the field based?
>
> >Now, I KNOW you will (as you have before) attack
> >my school as being unqualified as a fundamentalist school (a false
> >claim without evidence),
>
> I have in fact provided evidence, including quotes from their college
> catalog showing the Mickey Mouse level of some of the classes that are
> taught there.
The catalog called them Mickey Mouse courses? Indeed, the catalog
points to NUMEROUS certifications, awards, and recognitions that the
school has achieved. Further, the degree is recognized fully by every
academic accrediting board possible for their fields. NONE of them
have denied them accreditation. However, you STILL haven't provided
evidence that the school isn't worthy from "experts" which was the
standard YOU set. YOU said your posts are backed by evidence from
experts. Where is that evidence for these claims?
>
> >even though my school has full accreditation and many awards.
>
> Accreditation is meaningless, since the standards for accreditation
> (which I also have quoted a reference to) have nothing to do with
> quality of education as opposed to enforcing orthodoxy.
>
Accreditation is recognition from those in the field. I'd bet that
Christian churches would more willingly recognize my training over
your lack, and I would get hired for a church job as pastor, while you
MAY be allowed to sweep their floor.
> > So, I'll give you a heads up. If you attack my
> >school's credentials to teach religion, I will require "evidence" on
> >your part that your opinions are founded.
>
> You can "require" anything you want, and I will continue to post what
> I want.
>
> I don't give a damn whether YOU are convinced, because your opinion is
> worthless and has earned absolutely no respect in all the years that
> you've posted.
And this is important to authority on a subject how? I'd wager that
Dawkins has no respect in the religious community...as you would have
none either. So, that disqualifies you both...right?
>
> >Otherwise, your opinions
> >are just unqualified (without training) opinions without "evidence" or
> >support.
>
> Your unsupported opinion about my opinion is incorrect, irrelevant,
> and uninteresting.
I could quote your last sentence verbatum back to yourself.
BTW, my bio...
http://www.geocities.com/writingken/bio.html
...yeah, I'm totally unqualified regardless of training or
awards...right? You, without any such awards (and from a very
questionable school, yourself) have very little room to talk.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jun 20, 8:56 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> Your reporting of that data was certainly spin-doctored, as evidenced
>> >> by Cary's several posts pointing out to you that your sudden "cold
>> >> snap" resulted in the 13th warmest month on record for the indicated
>> >> month.
>>
>> >I left that alone because I thought it was so self-evident to be
>> >confirming my theory
>> >So, I posted a reply to Cary about that, recently, in another
>> >thread. If it was the 13th warmest year on record last year and is
>> >the 1st coldest (in the troposphere) May on record this year, you
>> >don't see that as a HUGE drop in temperature?
>>
>> I don't care. You are cherry picking data in order to support your
>> conclusion, one which contradicts the opinion of most people who are
>> actually trained to look at that data, as well as the common sense of
>> the rest of us, who are merely intelligent and well-informed unlike
>> you.
>
>Oh..the "data" is getting in the way of their "opinion?"
No. You are clueless to understand the data, as well as the issue,
and therefore misrepresent both.
>And, you think we should ignore the data to support the "opinions" and
>"conclusions" of those we like best (there is experts on both sides)?
No there are NOT experts on both sides. You have misrepresented what
the experts say.
>How scientific...not.
"Scientific" has nothing to do with experts. It has to do with
*science*, a topic you are clueless about.
>The fact that you reject the data ("I don't care")
"I don't care" does not mean that I reject the data. It means that I
don't care.
>shows you to be a non-scientist, as a scientist would never do
>that.
You have no clue as to what a scientist would do.
>So, do
>you think we should listen to those with Bible degrees and those in
>church positions over individual interpretations?
I don't care what you do. With regard to religion, all choices are
equally good or bad.
>Or, should we be able to read and post the climate data for ourselves?
You can read and post whatever you wish. But since you don't
understand the issue or the science or the data, everything you post
is stupidity.
Science is NOT religion, specifically in that it is NOT the case that
everyone's opinion is equal.
>> >Further to go from the
>> >13th warmest year on record to being nearly on the century average
>> >line, now, is further evidence of this drop.
>>
>> No.
>
>Cite...evidence?
See the wikipedia page.
>> >So, when the temperature goes up, it's proof of Global Warming,
>>
>> No.
>>
>> When average temperature show a pattern of rising lasting for multiple
>> decades, and this is supported by rapid melting of glaciers and the
>> ice cap, continuing over decades, then it is proof of global warming.
>> The only question is the degree to which man is causing this warming
>> vs some completely natural explanation.
>
>Yet, it is dropped, now, to a level almost equal to the century
>average.
That is not in evidence. Let it continue for 10 years, and maybe you
will start to have the beginnings of a case.
>Even assuming your statement (above) were true, which even
>some of the global warming doubters in my story suggested,
As others have pointed out, you misrepresent what they say. They are
not "global warming doubters"
>a natural
>causation of a rise could lead to a natural drop, as well...a CYCLE
>that would drop on it's own...as we are seeing, now.
We are seeing no such thing.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>> is a good starting summary, with a nice chart in the upper right that
>> shows the long term trend (and you can see a few times where there was
>> a one year drop, but the trend over many years has continued upwards.
>>
>> In the meantime, it is you vs. "These basic conclusions have been
>> endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of
>> science, including all of the national academies of science of the
>> major industrialized countries."
And that statement is the bottom line. You have zero credibility on
Usenet, much less in science. Meanwhile "all of the national academies
of science of the major industrialized countries" have lots of
credibility in science, and indeed your favorite word, they have
"authority".
>> >> >How about evidence for your religious opinions?
>>
>> >> *There is no evidence* for religious opinions. That is the nature of
>> >> religion.
>
>Do you have evidence for that claim?
There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim about religion.
>> > You don't have training in the field, while I do.
>>
>> Your training is worthless.
>
>Cite? Evidence?
There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim about religion.
>> >You don't post "evidence" with your posts, even as I post Scripture
>> >quotes and links to back my claims.
>>
>> But the relevance of those is based on your worthless
>> misinterpretation of them.
>
>Evidence?
There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim about religion.
>> >So, upon what is your authority in the field based?
>>
>> >Now, I KNOW you will (as you have before) attack
>> >my school as being unqualified as a fundamentalist school (a false
>> >claim without evidence),
>>
>> I have in fact provided evidence, including quotes from their college
>> catalog showing the Mickey Mouse level of some of the classes that are
>> taught there.
>
>The catalog called them Mickey Mouse courses?
The catalog SHOWED them to be Mickey Mouse courses.
>Further, the degree is recognized fully by every
>academic accrediting board possible for their fields.
But since
There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim about religion.
that recognition is utterly meaningless.
>> >even though my school has full accreditation and many awards.
>>
>> Accreditation is meaningless, since the standards for accreditation
>> (which I also have quoted a reference to) have nothing to do with
>> quality of education as opposed to enforcing orthodoxy.
>
>Accreditation is recognition from those in the field.
No.
>I'd bet that
>Christian churches would more willingly recognize my training over
>your lack,
That's their error, and their problem.
>and I would get hired for a church job as pastor, while you
>MAY be allowed to sweep their floor.
Why would I want to?
I have everything I need to start my own church if I wanted, including
a minister's license that gives me the right to use the title
"Reverend". At one time I was interested in doing so, though not
these days.
>> > So, I'll give you a heads up. If you attack my
>> >school's credentials to teach religion, I will require "evidence" on
>> >your part that your opinions are founded.
>>
>> You can "require" anything you want, and I will continue to post what
>> I want.
>>
>> I don't give a damn whether YOU are convinced, because your opinion is
>> worthless and has earned absolutely no respect in all the years that
>> you've posted.
>
>And this is important to authority on a subject how?
NOTHING on Usenet is important to "authority". In science,
publication in peer-reviewed journals is the only source of authority.
>I'd wager that Dawkins has no respect in the religious community.
There is no "the religious community". Religion is not the exclusive
province of any subgroup.
>BTW, my bio...
>http://www.geocities.com/writingken/bio.html
is bullshit.
>...yeah, I'm totally unqualified regardless of training or
>awards...right?
You are not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so in
science you are totally unqualified.
In Usenet (which is not science, but I can choose to apply the same
standards if I wish), you have utterly failed the peer-review test of
gaining the respect of other posters, who do not accept YOU as being a
peer, as opposed to the idiot that you are. I will continue to do my
best to make sure that this is the case as long as you persist in
posting nonsense to the education newsgroups.
The_Carpathia
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 20, 8:56 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> Your reporting of that data was certainly spin-doctored, as evidenced
> >> >> by Cary's several posts pointing out to you that your sudden "cold
> >> >> snap" resulted in the 13th warmest month on record for the indicated
> >> >> month.
>
> >> >I left that alone because I thought it was so self-evident to be
> >> >confirming my theory
> >> >So, I posted a reply to Cary about that, recently, in another
> >> >thread. If it was the 13th warmest year on record last year and is
> >> >the 1st coldest (in the troposphere) May on record this year, you
> >> >don't see that as a HUGE drop in temperature?
>
> >> I don't care. You are cherry picking data in order to support your
> >> conclusion, one which contradicts the opinion of most people who are
> >> actually trained to look at that data, as well as the common sense of
> >> the rest of us, who are merely intelligent and well-informed unlike
> >> you.
>
> >Oh..the "data" is getting in the way of their "opinion?"
>
> No. You are clueless to understand the data, as well as the issue,
> and therefore misrepresent both.
>
> >And, you think we should ignore the data to support the "opinions" and
> >"conclusions" of those we like best (there is experts on both sides)?
>
> No there are NOT experts on both sides. You have misrepresented what
> the experts say.
There are certainly MANY experts that are in agreement with the
current data and against Global Warming, but you are useless in that
area of debate, since you just disqualify anyone as an expert that
disagrees with you.
>
> >How scientific...not.
>
> "Scientific" has nothing to do with experts. It has to do with
> *science*, a topic you are clueless about.
>
I have many awards in science, college education in science, and
more. However, we are not here to discuss my qualification but your
rejection of data for opinion.
> >The fact that you reject the data ("I don't care")
>
> "I don't care" does not mean that I reject the data. It means that I
> don't care.
>
...about the data.
> >shows you to be a non-scientist, as a scientist would never do
> >that.
>
> You have no clue as to what a scientist would do.
>
Do you understand the Scientific method, probability, or re-testing
theories upon the presentation of new data?
> >So, do
> >you think we should listen to those with Bible degrees and those in
> >church positions over individual interpretations?
>
> I don't care what you do. With regard to religion, all choices are
> equally good or bad.
>
Cite? Where is the expert foundation for that opinion (certainly, by
confession, it is not you)?
> >Or, should we be able to read and post the climate data for ourselves?
>
> You can read and post whatever you wish. But since you don't
> understand the issue or the science or the data, everything you post
> is stupidity.
>
Where is your expert cited foundation for your opinionated claims
about me, or do you admit they are unqualified opinion?
By the way, I love your "EVERYTHING YOU POST" comment. Really? What
are the chances that EVERYTHING I've posted is false? You have agreed
with me on some occasions, so I guess you agree with stupidity. Or,
do you admit you make claims that are exaggerations?
> Science is NOT religion, specifically in that it is NOT the case that
> everyone's opinion is equal.
>
Authority is authority.
> >> >Further to go from the
> >> >13th warmest year on record to being nearly on the century average
> >> >line, now, is further evidence of this drop.
>
> >> No.
>
> >Cite...evidence?
>
> See the wikipedia page.
>
The Wikipedia page doesn't say anything about that drop from the 13th
warmest year to the coldest year, nor does it say that such a dramatic
drop is part of Global Warming. So, cite? Evidence?
> >> When average temperature show a pattern of rising lasting for multiple
> >> decades, and this is supported by rapid melting of glaciers and the
> >> ice cap, continuing over decades, then it is proof of global warming.
> >> The only question is the degree to which man is causing this warming
> >> vs some completely natural explanation.
>
> >Yet, it is dropped, now, to a level almost equal to the century
> >average.
>
> That is not in evidence. Let it continue for 10 years, and maybe you
> will start to have the beginnings of a case.
>
It most certainly IS in evidence. The links that I provided have data
about the aberration from the century average (showing you probably
didn't even go to see the data). That data is running (every month)
within a very small decimal of the century data, right now. In fact,
the way it is dropping, it will probably drop below that line within
the next few months. So, your opinion here is not only unfounded, is
is wrong by the evidence I provided.
See links below for scientific expert opinions on the Global Cooling.
> >a natural
> >causation of a rise could lead to a natural drop, as well...a CYCLE
> >that would drop on it's own...as we are seeing, now.
>
> We are seeing no such thing.
You are certain that the current year-long drop (without any drop in
pollution levels) is NOT part of a downward cycle...how? Where is
your evidence that it is not...after all, you are speaking in absolute
language, not probability.
See links below about what many scientists are really saying about it.
> And that statement is the bottom line. You have zero credibility on
> Usenet, much less in science. Meanwhile "all of the national academies
> of science of the major industrialized countries" have lots of
> credibility in science, and indeed your favorite word, they have
> "authority".
ALL of the national academies of science? So, if the academy is one
about astronomy, it is saying that? What about the academies dealing
with archaelology? Surely, the academies dealing with evolution are
issuing data confirming Global Warming...right? Meanwhile, the
national meteorology conference is raising deep questions about the
data, as I posted.
Here's some more posts on data...
-An article from earlier this year talking about the drop in global
temperature data...
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
-An article about famed hurricane forcaster William Gray saying the
temperatures will drop for 10 years....
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080304113132.aspx
-A story about Canadian scientists predicting Global Cooling...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/02/08/canadian-scientists-fear-global-cooling
-A British story (from last month) about data and conclusions from
Nature showing Global Cooling...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0982254220080509
-Another climate expert predicts Global Cooling...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557209/2008-The-year-world-cool-down.html
-A New York Times story referencing many scientists saying we are
entering a Global Cooling phase.
However, since everything I post is stupidity, all of these sources
are stupid, also...right?
>
> >> >> >How about evidence for your religious opinions?
>
> >> >> *There is no evidence* for religious opinions. That is the nature of
> >> >> religion.
>
> >Do you have evidence for that claim?
>
> There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim about religion.
>
Including that one?
> >> > You don't have training in the field, while I do.
>
> >> Your training is worthless.
>
> >Cite? Evidence?
>
> There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim about religion.
>
Including that one?
> >> >You don't post "evidence" with your posts, even as I post Scripture
> >> >quotes and links to back my claims.
>
> >> But the relevance of those is based on your worthless
> >> misinterpretation of them.
>
> >Evidence?
>
> There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim about religion.
>
Including that one?
> >> >So, upon what is your authority in the field based?
>
> >> >Now, I KNOW you will (as you have before) attack
> >> >my school as being unqualified as a fundamentalist school (a false
> >> >claim without evidence),
>
> >> I have in fact provided evidence, including quotes from their college
> >> catalog showing the Mickey Mouse level of some of the classes that are
> >> taught there.
>
> >The catalog called them Mickey Mouse courses?
>
> The catalog SHOWED them to be Mickey Mouse courses.
>
Cite please.
> >Further, the degree is recognized fully by every
> >academic accrediting board possible for their fields.
>
> But since
> There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim
Including that one?
>
> >> >even though my school has full accreditation and many awards.
>
> >> Accreditation is meaningless, since the standards for accreditation
> >> (which I also have quoted a reference to) have nothing to do with
> >> quality of education as opposed to enforcing orthodoxy.
>
> >Accreditation is recognition from those in the field.
>
> No.
>
> >I'd bet that
> >Christian churches would more willingly recognize my training over
> >your lack,
>
> That's their error, and their problem.
>
And, yet, it shows authority in the field, and you wouldn't be
accepted by that authority.
> >and I would get hired for a church job as pastor, while you
> >MAY be allowed to sweep their floor.
>
> Why would I want to?
>
> I have everything I need to start my own church if I wanted, including
> a minister's license that gives me the right to use the title
> "Reverend". At one time I was interested in doing so, though not
> these days.
I thought you said there is no authority in religion. Who, then, gave
you this license and of what value is it over anyone else?
That being said, you starting your own church in rejection of existing
ones doesn't give you accreditation from them. I could start my own
scientific organization (without training), but that wouldn't give me
authority in science...right?
> >I'd wager that Dawkins has no respect in the religious community.
>
> There is no "the religious community". Religion is not the exclusive
> province of any subgroup.
Get a dictionary. Look up religious and community. It would be the
community of those that are religious. Do you think Dawkins or you
would be welcomed there?
> >BTW, my bio...
> >http://www.geocities.com/writingken/bio.html
>
> is bullshit.
>
I'd bet you didn't even go see it. Go check it out.
> >...yeah, I'm totally unqualified regardless of training or
> >awards...right?
>
> You are not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so in
> science you are totally unqualified.
Well, I did win the state science fair (1st place...twice..ironically
in environmental science)...which you would've seen, if you had
actually gone to the site.
However, my comment wasn't exclusive to science. You claimed I had NO
authority (in any subject), even though my bio lists awards and
training in many areas. If you are going to reject my training and
awards in those areas, you have to reject all training and awards as
qualification for anyone to speak on anything. If my college training
in the various subjects is not good enough, neither is the college
training of others. If my awards in those subjects are not good
enough, neither is the awards of others to establish authority.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:iv5o549t2cdte9519...@4ax.com...
I must say that if this is an indication of your abilities I would not want
you to teach my children.
Your very first sentence is a run on sentence.
Your use of an ellipsis in the second sentence is inappropriate. No
punctuation or separation is required.
You overuse commas as in " Then, I went to college, where I was" and
inappropriately separate lists in sentences with ellipses or colons.
"Being discharged", the lead in the 5th pargraph should not be separated by
a comma. It is also not grammatically correct and should have been Having
been discharged, once discharged, upon discharge, or similar. Discharge is
an event, not a state of being.
Home schooled is not hyphenated. The word "then" in the last sentence in
that paragraph should not be separated by commas.
" Activities, awards, and college courses in various areas:" is a sentence
fragment A full sentence is needed as a lead for the list that follows
since the list is not formatted to be the end of the sentence fragment.
As an aside, Intro to Computers is not a science course college courses in
history, economics, psychology, and sociology are not "social studies", and
news reporting is not "English". They are categorized under their specific
subjects such as History, Journalism, or Economics.
I'll give you a free lesson.
EVERYTHING a teacher does in public will be scrutinzed by parents. ANYTHING
put out in public will be used to assess your ability to teach, rightly or
wrongly. You must be very sure that EVRYTHING you write for public
distribution is professional and grammatically correct or parents will take
note of your errors, even to
the point of talking to your principal.
My district even goes so far as to discourage tis teachers from posting on
the net. Teachers do not have private lives.
Larry
Bob LeChevalier
>> >And, you think we should ignore the data to support the "opinions" and
>> >"conclusions" of those we like best (there is experts on both sides)?
>>
>> No there are NOT experts on both sides. You have misrepresented what
>> the experts say.
>
>There are certainly MANY experts that are in agreement with the
>current data and against Global Warming,
No there aren't. There are SOME experts that are unconvinced that
human activity is the cause of global warming, but they aren't denying
that global warming exists.
>but you are useless in that
>area of debate, since you just disqualify anyone as an expert that
>disagrees with you.
If they aren't published in a peer-reviewed journal in the field of
climatology, then they are not an "expert".
>I have many awards in science,
You are utterly ignorant in science as demonstrated by your posting
history.
>college education in science,
Your education was in religion at Falwell U, whose science classes are
a joke.
>> >shows you to be a non-scientist, as a scientist would never do
>> >that.
>>
>> You have no clue as to what a scientist would do.
>
>Do you understand the Scientific method, probability, or re-testing
>theories upon the presentation of new data?
You certainly don't.
>By the way, I love your "EVERYTHING YOU POST" comment. Really? What
>are the chances that EVERYTHING I've posted is false?
In your case, pretty damned high.
The explanation is simple. For something you post to be "true", it
must be ENTIRELY true. I may agree with one sentence in your forest
of nonsense, but your post is still false.
>> Science is NOT religion, specifically in that it is NOT the case that
>> everyone's opinion is equal.
>
>Authority is authority.
Wrong.
>> >> >Further to go from the
>> >> >13th warmest year on record to being nearly on the century average
>> >> >line, now, is further evidence of this drop.
>>
>> >> No.
>>
>> >Cite...evidence?
>>
>> See the wikipedia page.
>
>The Wikipedia page doesn't say anything about that drop from the 13th
>warmest year to the coldest year, nor does it say that such a dramatic
>drop is part of Global Warming.
It defines global warming in such a way, that NOTHING that happens in
just one year matters with respect to that definition. But you
apparently didn't understand what it said, or you wouldn't still be
making that silly argument.
>> >> When average temperature show a pattern of rising lasting for multiple
>> >> decades, and this is supported by rapid melting of glaciers and the
>> >> ice cap, continuing over decades, then it is proof of global warming.
>> >> The only question is the degree to which man is causing this warming
>> >> vs some completely natural explanation.
>>
>> >Yet, it is dropped, now, to a level almost equal to the century
>> >average.
>>
>> That is not in evidence. Let it continue for 10 years, and maybe you
>> will start to have the beginnings of a case.
>
>It most certainly IS in evidence.
Nope.
>The links that I provided have data
>about the aberration from the century average (showing you probably
>didn't even go to see the data).
It isn't relevant.
>That data is running (every month)
>within a very small decimal of the century data, right now.
It isn't relevant.
>In fact, the way it is dropping, it will probably drop below that line within
>the next few months.
Your prognostication history is rather poor. Your knowledge is less.
>> And that statement is the bottom line. You have zero credibility on
>> Usenet, much less in science. Meanwhile "all of the national academies
>> of science of the major industrialized countries" have lots of
>> credibility in science, and indeed your favorite word, they have
>> "authority".
>
>ALL of the national academies of science?
That is what the cite said. I didn't check them, but I'll take their
word over yours. Heck, I would even take George W Bush's word over
yours, and I don't place much stock in his word.
>So, if the academy is one about astronomy, it is saying that?
Do you have any clue what a "national academy of science" is?
>Here's some more posts on data...
>-An article from earlier this year talking about the drop in global
>temperature data...
>http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
A blog written by someone who might be just as clueless as you, for
all we know.
>-An article about famed hurricane forcaster William Gray saying the
>temperatures will drop for 10 years....
>http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080304113132.aspx
Misrepresentation of his opinions. Gray accepts that global warming
has occurred. He thinks that there will be a cooling cycle which he
compares to the 1940-1970 period, but since the temperature is
significantly higher than it was in 1940, a similar cooling would not
in fact alleviate global warming (see that chart in the wikipedia
article on global warming which you have been ignoring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
<Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number
< of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics
< showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period
< of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when
< the earth warmed.[3]
<
<Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't
< question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of
< this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to
< keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the
< globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the
< middle '70s."[5]
The article also notes that Gray has failed to pass peer-review in the
field of global warming research.
>-A story about Canadian scientists predicting Global Cooling...
>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/02/08/canadian-scientists-fear-global-cooling
Actually, it names one such scientist. Here is what that scientist
has been circulating in response to that article:
http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/04/11/the-coming-environmental-fascism/
(and elsewhere)
<Oh, one follow-up to this:
<Various incarnations of the article quoted in the original post have
< been circling around the conservative blogosphere…enough, in fact, to
< elicit a personal email from Kenneth Tapping himself (the quoted
< scientist). Here it is:
<
<“The article is rubbish.
<
<I believe that global climate change is the biggest problem facing us
< today. As yet we have no idea of exactly how serious it can get or
< where the tipping point may be.
<
<The lateness of the start of the solar activity cycle is not yet
< enough to be something to worry about. However, even if we were to go
< into another minimum, and the Sun dims for a few decades, as it did
< during the Maunder Minimum, it could reduce the problem for a while,
< but things will come back worse when the cycle starts again.
<
<We are looking at the downside of the freedom of the web. Its freedom
< extends to bad information being circulated.
<
<Regards,
<
<Ken”
>-A British story (from last month) about data and conclusions from
>Nature showing Global Cooling...
>http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0982254220080509
Of course you didn't actually READ the Nature article (actually just a
letter),
http://npg.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf
(which apparently is only making a prediction about the next 10 years,
and is predicting flat temperatures, not "global cooling")
just a selective journalistic riff on the article. And even your
article shows the flaws:
<The original Nature article's lead author, Leibniz Institute's Noel
< Keenlyside, acknowledged on Friday that recent data showed much more
< warming that he had forecast through 2007,
Oops. The letter barely gets printed and the author has to
acknowledge that his predictions are already wrong.
>-Another climate expert predicts Global Cooling...
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557209/2008-The-year-world-cool-down.html
No. He predicted no such thing.
<Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organisation's secretary
< general, said La Nina was expected to continue into the summer,
< depressing global temperatures by a fraction of a degree.
<
<But he said temperatures in 2008 would still be well above average for
< the last 100 years.
a one year dip but *still be well above average* is NOT "Global
Cooling:
>However, since everything I post is stupidity,
Yep.
>all of these sources are stupid, also...right?
Some of them are, and some of them, your misrepresentations are
stupid.
>> >Do you have evidence for that claim?
>>
>> There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY claim about religion.
>
>Including that one?
In that case it could be argued that an absence of evidence might
itself be evidence, but I don't make such a claim. I just laugh at
idiots like you who try to pretend that there is.
>> >The catalog called them Mickey Mouse courses?
>>
>> The catalog SHOWED them to be Mickey Mouse courses.
>
>Cite please.
Go read the earlier post, which IIRC you tried to ignore.
>> >I'd bet that
>> >Christian churches would more willingly recognize my training over
>> >your lack,
>>
>> That's their error, and their problem.
>
>And, yet, it shows authority in the field,
No.
>and you wouldn't be accepted by that authority.
Do you accept the Pope's authority? He has a helluva lot more
theological training than you will ever get. Would the Pope accept
you as an authority? Not a chance in hell.
I don't accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, but I would take
ANYTHING the Pope says as being more authoritative than anything you
say, and probably more authoritative than any so-called "scholar" at
Falwell U.
But yet I don't consider the Pope to be an "authority" on religion,
just on HIS religion.
>> I have everything I need to start my own church if I wanted, including
>> a minister's license that gives me the right to use the title
>> "Reverend". At one time I was interested in doing so, though not
>> these days.
>
>I thought you said there is no authority in religion.
There isn't. Anyone can set up a church and issue minister's licenses
which will be just as valid as mine ... and yours.
> Who, then, gave you this license
The American Fellowship Church
>and of what value is it over anyone else?
I have legally officiated two marriages, which I could not have done
without such a license. But since anyone could get a license,
including a dipshit like you or an atheist like cary, that doesn't
mean much in terms of religious authority.
>That being said, you starting your own church in rejection of existing
>ones doesn't give you accreditation from them.
It would be accredited by the denomination that gave me the license.
And that accreditation would be just as meaningful as yours (not
very).
>I could start my own
>scientific organization (without training), but that wouldn't give me
>authority in science...right?
Correct. Science is not religion.
>> >I'd wager that Dawkins has no respect in the religious community.
>>
>> There is no "the religious community". Religion is not the exclusive
>> province of any subgroup.
>
>Get a dictionary. Look up religious and community. It would be the
>community of those that are religious. Do you think Dawkins or you
>would be welcomed there?
I am religious, and I welcome myself, so obviously so.
>> >BTW, my bio...
>> >http://www.geocities.com/writingken/bio.html
>>
>> is bullshit.
>
>I'd bet you didn't even go see it.
Several times previously.
>> You are not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so in
>> science you are totally unqualified.
>
>Well, I did win the state science fair
Whoopie. (Not that I believe you).
>However, my comment wasn't exclusive to science. You claimed I had NO
>authority (in any subject),
Correct.
>If you are going to reject my training and
>awards in those areas, you have to reject all training and awards as
>qualification for anyone to speak on anything.
That does not follow. I reject yours because you have been
demonstrably incompetent in EVERY single topic that you've posted on
(the demonstration has been the responses by myself and others to your
drivel).
>If my college training
>in the various subjects is not good enough, neither is the college
>training of others.
Others were trained by a real school.
But you are more or less correct. College training is NOT enough to
make one an authority in the sciences. It takes a solid record of
peer-reviewed publication in the field being discussed to be
considered an authority in science, and even then, such authorities
may be (and are) legitimately questioned, though not by idiots like
you.
>If my awards in those subjects are not good
>enough, neither is the awards of others to establish authority.
Very few awards establish authority.
Bob LeChevalier
>I'll give you a free lesson.
>
>EVERYTHING a teacher does in public will be scrutinzed by parents. ANYTHING
>put out in public will be used to assess your ability to teach, rightly or
>wrongly. You must be very sure that EVRYTHING you write for public
>distribution is professional and grammatically correct or parents will take
>note of your errors, even to
>the point of talking to your principal.
>
>My district even goes so far as to discourage tis teachers from posting on
>the net. Teachers do not have private lives.
If Kennie manages to get hired (I hope not for the sake of Florida's
kids), I predict that he'll try something like this, and hope he meets
the same fate (only more quickly)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/teacher.cross/?iref=mpstoryview
The_Carpathia
> >college education in science,
>
> Your education was in religion at Falwell U, whose science classes are
> a joke.
My science classes weren't taken at Liberty, which I have told you
before. Now, not only do you not do research before stating
absolutes, but you don't even recall prior posts directly to you. Any
facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to be
ignored, your opinions are stated as absolutes without research (often
wrong), attack the statements of others with training and experience
(such as myself on religion and education...while lacking any training
or experience of your own), and you make superlative statements that
cannot be true (all, never, no, etc), showing a lack of interest in
truth. That pretty much sums up our whole conflict here...so I'll let
that cover it all. Indeed, I'll just use this response to your future
posts, since I'm sure it will serve the purpose just fine.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> I must say that if this is an indication of your abilities I would not want
> you to teach my children.
>
>
The comma should be inside the end of your quote, here. Pargraph
isn't a word, paragraph is a word.
> a comma. It is also not grammatically correct and should have been Having
> been discharged, once discharged, upon discharge, or similar. Discharge is
> an event, not a state of being.
>
There is no quotes around your revised quote. Without the quote, you
have a capitalization that is incorrect.
> Home schooled is not hyphenated.
It is an accepted option of the term that Scholastic uses in their
literature.
>
> " Activities, awards, and college courses in various areas:" is a sentence
> fragment A full sentence is needed as a lead for the list that follows
> since the list is not formatted to be the end of the sentence fragment.
It is a heading, obviously.
>
> As an aside, Intro to Computers is not a science course college courses in
This is lacking a comma, or it is a run-on sentence. Further computer
science courses (especially those that include programming language)
count as science courses in college; however, I'll note your claim
that computer study isn't a science. I'm sure they will love that on
this board.
> history, economics, psychology, and sociology are not "social studies",
All are included within the area and are essentials of any Social
Studies Education program in teacher colleges.
>and
> news reporting is not "English". They are categorized under their specific
> subjects such as History, Journalism, or Economics.
>
It is a writing course that, again, serves English requirements.
However, I'll note your claim that journalism isn't an English course.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
> >I'll give you a free lesson.
>
> >EVERYTHING a teacher does in public will be scrutinzed by parents. ANYTHING
> >put out in public will be used to assess your ability to teach, rightly or
> >wrongly. You must be very sure that EVRYTHING you write for public
> >distribution is professional and grammatically correct or parents will take
> >note of your errors, even to
> >the point of talking to your principal.
>
> >My district even goes so far as to discourage tis teachers from posting on
> >the net. Teachers do not have private lives.
>
> If Kennie manages to get hired (I hope not for the sake of Florida's
> kids), I predict that he'll try something like this, and hope he meets
> the same fate (only more quickly)http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/teacher.cross/?iref=mpstoryview
>
Any facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to
The_Carpathia
with Bob's lack of training over my accredited education. So, do you
think we should drop degree requirements to teach in schools?
On Jun 22, 7:16 am, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 9:16 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
>
> > I must say that if this is an indication of your abilities I would not want
> > you to teach my children.
>
> > "Being discharged", the lead in the 5th pargraph should not be separated by
>
> The comma should be inside the end of your quote, here. Pargraph
> isn't a word, paragraph is a word.
Typo...meant to have a "but" after the comma.
>
> > a comma. It is also not grammatically correct and should have been Having
> > been discharged, once discharged, upon discharge, or similar. Discharge is
> > an event, not a state of being.
>
> There is no quotes around your revised quote. Without the quote, you
> have a capitalization that is incorrect.
>
I should've used "are" not "is."
> > Home schooled is not hyphenated.
>
> It is an accepted option of the term that Scholastic uses in their
> literature.
>
>
>
> > " Activities, awards, and college courses in various areas:" is a sentence
> > fragment A full sentence is needed as a lead for the list that follows
> > since the list is not formatted to be the end of the sentence fragment.
>
> It is a heading, obviously.
>
>
>
> > As an aside, Intro to Computers is not a science course college courses in
>
> This is lacking a comma, or it is a run-on sentence. Further computer
> science courses (especially those that include programming language)
> count as science courses in college; however, I'll note your claim
> that computer study isn't a science. I'm sure they will love that on
> this board.
>
> > history, economics, psychology, and sociology are not "social studies",
>
> All are included within the area and are essentials of any Social
> Studies Education program in teacher colleges.
>
> >and
> > news reporting is not "English". They are categorized under their specific
> > subjects such as History, Journalism, or Economics.
>
> It is a writing course that, again, serves English requirements.
> However, I'll note your claim that journalism isn't an English course.
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
----
Your resume lists one pathetic science course --- a general physical science
course that, in my experience with colleges, would be no more than a
freshman survey course for those who need prep for a real science course.
My alma mater, for ex, requires a minimum of 2 science courses (choose one
life science, one from physical science, or one from earth science), 1 of
which must have an associated lab, for graduation None are survey courses,
but real science courses. If the course is intro level then 2 semesters of
the course are required to meet the single course requirement ( that is,
both pHYS 101 and 102 together count as one) . For ALL degrees.
A brief survey of a half dozen universities in the region shows this to be
the minimum.
I went to the liberty u web site to confirm. For a BS in religion --- now
that's an oxymoron for you!! --- a single "natural science" survey course is
required. This is the least that I have ever seen at any university. Heck,
even my local community college requires more for an AA.
And since I am a mathematician I went off the board to check those
requirements.
Liberty requires 1 math course and it does not have to be calculus. Every
other university I checked requires a calculus course for graduation.
You keep asking why we think your degree is worthless. Well the lack of
basic course work --- degrees require only 1 each from math, science,
history, humanities, and social science is one reason.
But the other is that theology based courses are pass/fail.
South Carolina public universities, for ex., allow only two courses to be
taken pass/fail require a minimum "B" average in most majors to graduate.
Pass/fail is worthless.
One last insult. If you were to try to transfer to Winthrop UNiv with a
Falwell U degree you would enter as a sophomore. Not one of the pass/fail
courses would transfer and the other course fulfill most of the freshman
requirements .
Okay, one more insult. I now see why your resume is so heavily loaded with
high school stuff --- your "college" experience is rather thin.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
On Jun 21, 9:16 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
> I must say that if this is an indication of your abilities I would not
> want
> you to teach my children.
>
>
> "Being discharged", the lead in the 5th pargraph should not be separated
> by
The comma should be inside the end of your quote, here.
----No. A comma should only be included within the quotation marks if it is
part of the quotation. It is forbidden to modify a quotation in any way,
even if the quotation contains an error.
Pargraph
isn't a word, paragraph is a word.
---Oooooh. Caught a typo. Goody for you.
> a comma. It is also not grammatically correct and should have been Having
> been discharged, once discharged, upon discharge, or similar. Discharge is
> an event, not a state of being.
>
There is no quotes around your revised quote.
---The cardinality does not match in the phrase "is no quotes". It should be
"are no quotes".
The phrase is a list of options obviously not intended to be a direct
replacement for your error, thus not requiring delineation by quotation
marks.
---
Without the quote, you
have a capitalization that is incorrect.
[[[[
--- Oooh, you caught another typo in an extemporaneous writing.
> Home schooled is not hyphenated.
It is an accepted option of the term that Scholastic uses in their
literature.
---- Then they are incorrect, too.
>
> " Activities, awards, and college courses in various areas:" is a sentence
> fragment A full sentence is needed as a lead for the list that follows
> since the list is not formatted to be the end of the sentence fragment.
It is a heading, obviously.
--- Obviously it obviously is not. If it was intended to be a heading it
should have been made clear. To be clear something similar to include,
follow, comprise, consist of, etc. should have been used.
>
> As an aside, Intro to Computers is not a science course college courses in
This is lacking a comma, or it is a run-on sentence.
---- It is an editing error. The last 3 words should not have been included.
Further computer
science courses (especially those that include programming language)
count as science courses in college; however, I'll note your claim
that computer study isn't a science. I'm sure they will love that on
this board.
--- Actually, no.
In every other university that I have experience with computer courses are
in their own division, most especially those that teach a programming
language. And never have I seen a "comp sci" course saisfy a science
requirement.
And you obviously have no idea what the definition of "science" is.
Languages, whether English, French, Latin, or C++ are not sciences, but duh,
languages.
> history, economics, psychology, and sociology are not "social studies",
All are included within the area and are essentials of any Social
Studies Education program in teacher colleges.
--- Again, no.
"Social Studies" is a primary education concept.
Teachers colleges, like all colleges, have History, Economics or Businesss,
Psychology, and Sociology departments independent from every other
department. Each department is responsible for setting curricula, course
offerings, passing requirements, etc. for all students taking their courses.
Of course, they accept input from other departments.
>and
> news reporting is not "English". They are categorized under their specific
> subjects such as History, Journalism, or Economics.
>
It is a writing course that, again, serves English requirements.
However, I'll note your claim that journalism isn't an English course.
----Once more, no. News writing is separate and distinct from English
Composition. Even my local community college separates out "news writing"
into journalism. News writing requires different skills from English
composition and follows different rules from literature writing.
Perhaps this explains you diffculties --- you never had a proper college
level composition course.
Go ahead and find more errors in this extemporaneous piece.
You either were exceptionally lazy to not take the time and trouble to
proofread your permanent, formal writing piece or you lacked the knowledge
required to properly proof it.
Take your pick.
Larry
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
I also have to say that I find it no coincidence that you would side
with Bob's lack of training over my accredited education. So, do you
think we should drop degree requirements to teach in schools?
----Abolutely not.
If you had been paying atentio to my prior posts you would know that I think
that degrees in education are far more valuable than shortcuts like ABCTE.
AS for lack of training, I was ana ccredited teacher, so I know what
training is required. You don't have it, buddy. You woudl fall, even with
your "graduate" course in education, at least 21 credits short of a degree
in Education from my alma mater, ignoring the student teaching requirements.
FWIW, the spring semester senior year student teaching courses are another
14 credits, and 6 more come in the fall semester.
AS I noted in another post, even with your Falwell U degree you would be a
sophomore at Winthrop, no matter your major. And I posted a link to prove
it.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
"Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:gO6dnUkfE6W...@comporium.net...
>
> "The_Carpathia" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:be75fcb8-22f7-4fe4...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 22, 1:02 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >college education in science,
>>
>> Your education was in religion at Falwell U, whose science classes are
>> a joke.
>
> My science classes weren't taken at Liberty, which I have told you
> before. Now, not only do you not do research before stating
> absolutes, but you don't even recall prior posts directly to you. Any
> facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to be
> ignored, your opinions are stated as absolutes without research (often
> wrong), attack the statements of others with training and experience
> (such as myself on religion and education...while lacking any training
> or experience of your own), and you make superlative statements that
> cannot be true (all, never, no, etc), showing a lack of interest in
> truth. That pretty much sums up our whole conflict here...so I'll let
> that cover it all. Indeed, I'll just use this response to your future
> posts, since I'm sure it will serve the purpose just fine.
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
>
I used your resume as ny guide.
You list attendance at two colleges, Liberty and Western Governors. You
state that at Western Governors you took education classes.
So, tell me, where did you take your "physical science" course?
BTW, did you graduate from Western Governors?
Larry
Larry Hewitt
Western Governors?
You have got be kiddung.
AN online, non-profit "university"?
Sheesh.
But I'm confused. Their web site says their graduate education program is
for already accredited teachers.
You ain't.
You also say your graduate course work was in elementary education.
Western Governors does not offer a graduate program in elementary education.
And none of their programs teach the course you list you have taken in
education --- they are undergraduate courses nexxessary for the
accreditation needed for entry in their graduate program.
And, incidentally, none of the graduate education rogrms have a "physical
science" course.
http://www.wgu.edu/education/master_education_mathematics.asp
OTOH, such a course fulfills a graduation requirement at Falwell U. So what
did you take there to fulfill that requirement if it wasn't physical
science?
So where did you take it?
Larry
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jun 22, 1:02 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >college education in science,
>>
>> Your education was in religion at Falwell U, whose science classes are
>> a joke.
>
>My science classes weren't taken at Liberty, which I have told you
>before.
Whereever you took them, they were worthless jokes because in fact you
have repeatedly demonstrated that don't know any science.
>showing a lack of interest in truth.
I have no interest in YOUR truth, which has no relationship to that of
anyone else, except possibly the hive mind of Falwell U graduates (and
I suspect you are an embarrassment to them as well)
Bob LeChevalier
>> As an aside, Intro to Computers is not a science course college courses in
>
>This is lacking a comma, or it is a run-on sentence. Further computer
>science courses (especially those that include programming language)
>count as science courses in college; however, I'll note your claim
>that computer study isn't a science. I'm sure they will love that on
>this board.
Computer study is not a science, and is not likely considered to be
one by anyone in the field.
Some computer science classes might be considered mathematics, but
mathematics isn't considered a science either - it is a tool used in
science, as are computers.
The_Carpathia
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3df938cb-d14e-42fa...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> I also have to say that I find it no coincidence that you would side
> with Bob's lack of training over my accredited education. So, do you
> think we should drop degree requirements to teach in schools?
>
> ----Abolutely not.
>
> If you had been paying atentio to my prior posts you would know that I think
> that degrees in education are far more valuable than shortcuts like ABCTE.
>
> AS for lack of training, I was ana ccredited teacher, so I know what
> training is required. You don't have it, buddy. You woudl fall, even with
> your "graduate" course in education, at least 21 credits short of a degree
> in Education from my alma mater, ignoring the student teaching requirements.
> FWIW, the spring semester senior year student teaching courses are another
> 14 credits, and 6 more come in the fall semester.
>
> AS I noted in another post, even with your Falwell U degree you would be a
> sophomore at Winthrop, no matter your major. And I posted a link to prove
> it.
>
> Larry
>
(4 spelling errors in your above text and more acknowledged)
A> I have a statement of eligibility, right now, that says you are
wrong, as the state of Florida accepted my college training as
satisfaction of college courses required for teaching (fully
qualified, right now...NO additional training required). That SOE is
BEFORE they process my ABCTE, which wasn't required but done just for
kicks.
B> I didn't attend a university called Falwell U, and my University
degree is fully accepted and accredited. Indeed, Liberty continues to
rack up the academic honors (recently beat Harvard for top Debate
team...again). Their law school graduates have a higher passage
percentage of 1st time takers than most other law schools. Etc. My
degree is accepted everywhere that any other degree is accepted...and
honored...even with YOUR criticism.
C> Though unneeded, ABCTE is nothing to kid about. The test is
harder than Praxis (by outside organization review), you must have a
degree to even get into the school, the US Dept. of Education accepts
it as satisfying Highly Qualified requirements, and hiring principals
report being very satisfied by their graduates.
All of that being said, I STILL acknowledge that you sided with Bob's
lack of training over my training, while demanding that Education have
a college degree requirement. I am trained (college trained) in
Education, while Bob is not. He says I have no more authority than he
does. You, hypocritically, agree.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
No need. YOU are the one that claimed my internet typing disqualifies
me from teaching; so, apparently, we both are disqualified.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> As an aside, Intro to Computers is not a science course college courses in
>
> >This is lacking a comma, or it is a run-on sentence. Further computer
> >science courses (especially those that include programming language)
> >count as science courses in college; however, I'll note your claim
> >that computer study isn't a science. I'm sure they will love that on
> >this board.
>
> Computer study is not a science, and is not likely considered to be
> one by anyone in the field.
>
> Some computer science classes might be considered mathematics, but
> mathematics isn't considered a science either - it is a tool used in
> science, as are computers.
Got it. You know more than the high school and college officials at
the schools I have attended. How dare I challenge your wisdom.
Any facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to
be ignored, your opinions are stated as absolutes without research
(often wrong), attack the statements of others with training and
experience (such as myself on religion and education...while lacking
any training or experience of your own), and you make superlative
statements that cannot be true (all, never, no, etc), showing a lack
of interest in truth. That pretty much sums up our whole conflict
The_Carpathia
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> A brief survey of a half dozen universities in the region shows this to be
> the minimum.
>
> I went to the liberty u web site to confirm. For a BS in religion --- now
> that's an oxymoron for you!! --- a single "natural science" survey course is
> required. This is the least that I have ever seen at any university. Heck,
> even my local community college requires more for an AA.
>
> And since I am a mathematician I went off the board to check those
> requirements.
>
> Liberty requires 1 math course and it does not have to be calculus. Every
> other university I checked requires a calculus course for graduation.
>
> You keep asking why we think your degree is worthless. Well the lack of
> basic course work --- degrees require only 1 each from math, science,
> history, humanities, and social science is one reason.
>
> But the other is that theology based courses are pass/fail.
>
> South Carolina public universities, for ex., allow only two courses to be
> taken pass/fail require a minimum "B" average in most majors to graduate.
> Pass/fail is worthless.
>
> One last insult. If you were to try to transfer to Winthrop UNiv with a
> Falwell U degree you would enter as a sophomore. Not one of the pass/fail
> courses would transfer and the other course fulfill most of the freshman
> requirements .
>
> Okay, one more insult. I now see why your resume is so heavily loaded with
> high school stuff --- your "college" experience is rather thin.
> Larry
Almost every single statement you made is completely false. I have NO
pass fail courses in my Liberty transcript...not one. You have edited
my bio page, so you know I have MANY subject area awards and courses
in a diverse spread. Indeed, I was ONE course (Geography) away from
satisfying social study education course specialization requirements
to teach. Your blatant rejection of the fully accredited religious
training as foundation for religious qualification shows your explicit
bias. It appears, I can use this response for you, as well...
The_Carpathia
> "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote in message
>
> news:GrKdnXVoZtX...@comporium.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote in message
> >news:gO6dnUkfE6W...@comporium.net...
>
> >> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
NCATE approved and NEA approved. Enough said.
The_Carpathia
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 22, 1:02 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >college education in science,
>
> >> Your education was in religion at Falwell U, whose science classes are
> >> a joke.
>
> >My science classes weren't taken at Liberty, which I have told you
> >before.
>
> Whereever you took them, they were worthless jokes because in fact you
> have repeatedly demonstrated that don't know any science.
>
> >showing a lack of interest in truth.
>
> I have no interest in YOUR truth, which has no relationship to that of
> anyone else, except possibly the hive mind of Falwell U graduates (and
> I suspect you are an embarrassment to them as well)
Any facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to
be ignored, your opinions are stated as absolutes without research
(often wrong), attack the statements of others with training and
experience (such as myself on religion and education...while lacking
any training or experience of your own), and you make superlative
statements that cannot be true (all, never, no, etc), showing a lack
of interest in truth. That pretty much sums up our whole conflict
Larry Hewitt
On Jun 22, 12:01 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3df938cb-d14e-42fa...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> I also have to say that I find it no coincidence that you would side
> with Bob's lack of training over my accredited education. So, do you
> think we should drop degree requirements to teach in schools?
>
> ----Abolutely not.
>
> If you had been paying atentio to my prior posts you would know that I
> think
> that degrees in education are far more valuable than shortcuts like ABCTE.
>
> AS for lack of training, I was ana ccredited teacher, so I know what
> training is required. You don't have it, buddy. You woudl fall, even with
> your "graduate" course in education, at least 21 credits short of a degree
> in Education from my alma mater, ignoring the student teaching
> requirements.
> FWIW, the spring semester senior year student teaching courses are another
> 14 credits, and 6 more come in the fall semester.
>
> AS I noted in another post, even with your Falwell U degree you would be a
> sophomore at Winthrop, no matter your major. And I posted a link to prove
> it.
>
> Larry
>
(4 spelling errors in your above text and more acknowledged)
---- Ah, typos.
The last refuge of the grammatically challenged. And they are pointed out in
a sentence fragment.
A> I have a statement of eligibility, right now, that says you are
wrong, as the state of Florida accepted my college training as
satisfaction of college courses required for teaching (fully
qualified, right now...NO additional training required).
--- Much to the detriment of future public school children.
And actually, no,.
What the state of Florida acknowledged is that you have a degree from an
accredited university, not that you have completed the course work that a
teaching college would require for graduation,
That SOE is
BEFORE they process my ABCTE, which wasn't required but done just for
kicks.
---- Of course, the degree is the first requirement. Without one they will
not talk to you.
B> I didn't attend a university called Falwell U, and my University
degree is fully accepted and accredited.
--- Which if meaningless about the quality of your educaton.
Do you understand what accreditation means?
Indeed, Liberty continues to
rack up the academic honors (recently beat Harvard for top Debate
team...again).
---Big whoop. Debate team is not an academic honor.
Their law school graduates have a higher passage
percentage of 1st time takers than most other law schools.
---Got a cite?
The Libery school of law ddn't even get ABA accreditation until 2/13/04
http://www.moralmajority.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14
Etc. My
degree is accepted everywhere that any other degree is accepted...and
honored...even with YOUR criticism.
--- Acceted, yes. Honored, no.
I stand by my statement that, outside of your specifically religious
pass/fail classes your degree will place you as a frist semester sophomre in
any Sae University in South Carolina, or any other state, for that matter.
I stand by my statement that no other University will accept striclty
pass/fail in a major --- if they acept _any_ pass/fail in the major.
And unless you want to amenf you CV that you posted, I stand by my statement
that your education fails to meet minimum standards for graduation from any
teaching university. And I posted links to prove ot. Did you read them, or
were you too embarrqassed?
C> Though unneeded, ABCTE is nothing to kid about. The test is
harder than Praxis (by outside organization review),
---- ABCTE propaganda.
you must have a
degree to even get into the school,
A basc requirement for getting any teaching job, not a requirement from
ABCTE. Why would they accept a an applicant who _cannot_ get they job they
are trasining for? That weould be fraud.
the US Dept. of Education accepts
it as satisfying Highly Qualified requirements, and hiring principals
report being very satisfied by their graduates.
--- More ABCTE propaganda.
In fact, as I have posted, oppostition to ABCTE is broad based. And no one
seems to be able to post data about graduates.
Part of the problem is the program is new --- in South Carolinal for ex, the
program has not been in place a year, yet.
But part of the problem is that graduates do nt seem to be hired in large
numbers.
All of that being said, I STILL acknowledge that you sided with Bob's
lack of training over my training, while demanding that Education have
a college degree requirement.
--- And agin you are wrong, I do not place myself as an authority, but I am
a certified teacher with classroom experience.
I am trained (college trained) in
Education, while Bob is not.
--- But I am, and I repeat: in my School of AEducation you posted
qualifications would place you as a sophomore. Follow the links already
given to confirm this.
He says I have no more authority than he
does. You, hypocritically, agree.
=== Which is true. None of us are an authority. But well all have varying
experiences, and my experience tells me you are woefully uprepared to teach.
Larry
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
--- I made no such claim.
I said that the quality of one specific post would cast doubt in your
parents about your ability to teach.
And I feel compelled to point out that ran away from the main point of the
post, sucking your thimb, again.
Larry
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Cary Kittrell
> On Jun 22, 1:08=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> > "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
> > >I'll give you a free lesson.
> >
> ING
> > >put out in public will be used to assess your ability to teach, rightly =
> or
> > >wrongly. You must be very sure that EVRYTHING you write for public
> ake
> > >note of your =A0errors, even to
> > >the point of talking to your principal.
> >
> on
> > >the net. Teachers do not have private lives.
> >
> > If Kennie manages to get hired (I hope not for the sake of Florida's
> > kids), I predict that he'll try something like this, and hope he meets
> .cross/?iref=3Dmpstoryview
> >
>
> Any facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to
> be ignored, your opinions are stated as absolutes without research
> (often wrong), attack the statements of others with training and
> experience (such as myself on religion and education...while lacking
> any training or experience of your own), and you make superlative
> statements that cannot be true (all, never, no, etc), showing a lack
> of interest in truth. That pretty much sums up our whole conflict
> here...so I'll let that cover it all. Indeed, I'll just use this
> response to your future posts, since I'm sure it will serve the
> purpose just fine.
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
Yeah, that'll last...
-- cary
Larry Hewitt
On Jun 22, 11:09 am, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:be75fcb8-22f7-4fe4...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 22, 1:02 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> > >college education in science,
>
> > Your education was in religion at Falwell U, whose science classes are
> > a joke.
>
> My science classes weren't taken at Liberty, which I have told you
> before.
---So where were they taken?
All that I have posted comes from the official Liberty web site.
And Liberty requires a science course for graduation.
Now, not only do you not do research before stating
> absolutes, but you don't even recall prior posts directly to you.
--- Actually, as stated many times, I did.
And I posted the links to show it.
Any
> facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to be
> ignored, your opinions are stated as absolutes without research (often
> wrong), attack the statements of others with training and experience
--You are the one who is posting unsupport ed facts.
> (such as myself on religion and education...while lacking any training
> or experience of your own), and you make superlative statements that
> cannot be true (all, never, no, etc), showing a lack of interest in
> truth. That pretty much sums up our whole conflict here...so I'll let
> that cover it all. Indeed, I'll just use this response to your future
> posts, since I'm sure it will serve the purpose just fine.
>
So where did you take these courses?
Your CV posts attendence at two colleges, Falwell U and WGU.
You say the course was not taken at Falwell.
WGU, as I posted, does not offer a science course in the program you claim
to have taken.
So where?
Larry
Larry Hewitt
--- So, did you graduate?
Larry
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>NCATE approved and NEA approved. Enough said.
>
>Any facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to
>be ignored, your opinions are stated as absolutes without research
>(often wrong), attack the statements of others with training and
>experience (such as myself on religion and education...while lacking
>any training or experience of your own), and you make superlative
>statements that cannot be true (all, never, no, etc), showing a lack
>of interest in truth. That pretty much sums up our whole conflict
>here...so I'll let that cover it all. Indeed, I'll just use this
>response to your future posts, since I'm sure it will serve the
>purpose just fine.
Hey dodo, you used your canned response to me in response to Larry
Hewitt, who I've never met (I did spend 3 days in South Carolina about
25 years ago). I don't know his credentials, and I doubt whether you
do or not, so your canned response just makes you look stupider, if
that is possible.
Cary Kittrell
But you are me are FNC are Larriee and we are all together...
-- cary
The_Carpathia
I completed all the Graduate courses I needed for certification.
Yes. The state of Florida accepted my transcript in place of the
college courses required for teaching.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> Almost every single statement you made is completely false. I have NO
> pass fail courses in my Liberty transcript...not one. You have edited
> my bio page, so you know I have MANY subject area awards and courses
> in a diverse spread. Indeed, I was ONE course (Geography) away from
> satisfying social study education course specialization requirements
> to teach. Your blatant rejection of the fully accredited religious
> training as foundation for religious qualification shows your explicit
> bias. It appears, I can use this response for you, as well...
>
Try answering these comments, Larry. Your statements made about
Liberty and myself are completely false.
> Any facts that get in the way of your conclusions are just details to
> be ignored, your opinions are stated as absolutes without research
> (often wrong), attack the statements of others with training and
> experience (such as myself on religion and education...while lacking
> any training or experience of your own), and you make superlative
> statements that cannot be true (all, never, no, etc), showing a lack
> of interest in truth. That pretty much sums up our whole conflict
> here...so I'll let that cover it all. Indeed, I'll just use this
> response to your future posts, since I'm sure it will serve the
> purpose just fine.
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
---Typical evasion.
SO, you did not graduate.
And none of hte courses were required for certification --- all you needed
was your Falwell U degree. Certification does not require ---or even
accept --- graduate level courses short of a degree. You either have a
degree in education, whether bachelors, masters, or phd, or you complete an
alternate pathway like PACE or ABCTE.
So, care to come clean?
Larry
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
On Jun 23, 11:23 am, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
> Almost every single statement you made is completely false. I have NO
> pass fail courses in my Liberty transcript...not one. You have edited
> my bio page, so you know I have MANY subject area awards and courses
> in a diverse spread. Indeed, I was ONE course (Geography) away from
> satisfying social study education course specialization requirements
> to teach. Your blatant rejection of the fully accredited religious
> training as foundation for religious qualification shows your explicit
> bias. It appears, I can use this response for you, as well...
>
Try answering these comments, Larry. Your statements made about
Liberty and myself are completely false.
--- Ok.
1. A religious major is absolutely no foundation for a job teaching in a
publc school. In fact, many states, including mine, will not accept a BS in
religion as qualification for the state (IN SC its is called PACE)
admission. FWIW, not just religion, but other majors are either limited or
prohibited because the subject matter of hte major doees not mesh with
either curriculum or need. A major in ancinet languiags, f. ex, is also not
accepted.
2. The Falwell U website --- I attached a link in a previous post --- says
that ALL courses in the major you claim are pass/fail.
3. The subject area awards were in HS. What a joke. You are he only ---
self rpofessed --- college graduate I have met in 30 years of business and
education who puts HS "acheivements" on their resume.
4. And I have done nothing to suggest that a degree in religion is
insuffiucient prep for a religious career, or even teaching in a religious
school. I have stated, explicitly and adamantly, that it is insufficient
prep for a job teaching puplic school.
5. Your posted resume, nor anypost in the NGs that I have seen, do not
support your claim that you were one course away from a social studies
certification. In fact, your posted resume, as I have repeatedly stated and
provided a link to support, would grant you first ssemester sophomore status
at my alma mater.
So, I met your challenge, now it is your turn to meet mine.
Your CV seems to morph to meet the needs of your rant of the day. You claim
"social studies" courses that are not listed, science course that are not
listed, course taken at universities not listed andother statements that,
without at least specific details, I can assume are nothing more than
embellishments. SO, are you willing to fillout your CV and answer where you
got the science credits yo claim, the social studies credits, etc?
Larry
The_Carpathia
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:405589f9-ead8-49ff...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 11:23 am, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
>
> > Almost every single statement you made is completely false. I have NO
> > pass fail courses in my Liberty transcript...not one. You have edited
> > my bio page, so you know I have MANY subject area awards and courses
> > in a diverse spread. Indeed, I was ONE course (Geography) away from
> > satisfying social study education course specialization requirements
> > to teach. Your blatant rejection of the fully accredited religious
> > training as foundation for religious qualification shows your explicit
> > bias. It appears, I can use this response for you, as well...
>
> Try answering these comments, Larry. Your statements made about
> Liberty and myself are completely false.
>
> --- Ok.
> 1. A religious major is absolutely no foundation for a job teaching in a
> publc school. In fact, many states, including mine, will not accept a BS in
> religion as qualification for the state (IN SC its is called PACE)
> admission. FWIW, not just religion, but other majors are either limited or
> prohibited because the subject matter of hte major doees not mesh with
> either curriculum or need. A major in ancinet languiags, f. ex, is also not
> accepted.
As I said above, I have substantial non-religious coursework that
would be accepted.
>
> 2. The Falwell U website --- I attached a link in a previous post --- says
> that ALL courses in the major you claim are pass/fail.
>
This is absolutely false, and I provided direct witness testimony to
the reverse. I have a religion degree from Liberty without a single
pass-fail course.
> 3. The subject area awards were in HS. What a joke. You are he only ---
> self rpofessed --- college graduate I have met in 30 years of business and
> education who puts HS "acheivements" on their resume.
>
False but irrelevant. They are awards in the content areas.
> 4. And I have done nothing to suggest that a degree in religion is
> insuffiucient prep for a religious career, or even teaching in a religious
> school. I have stated, explicitly and adamantly, that it is insufficient
> prep for a job teaching puplic school.
>
Thanks for the rejection of Bob's view that a Religion degree doesn't
give me religious authority. Now, carry the same over with my
Education training to teaching, since my claim for teaching authority
wasn't ever stated to be based on a religion degree but Education
training in college and ABCTE.
> 5. Your posted resume, nor anypost in the NGs that I have seen, do not
> support your claim that you were one course away from a social studies
> certification. In fact, your posted resume, as I have repeatedly stated and
> provided a link to support, would grant you first ssemester sophomore status
> at my alma mater.
>
First, it is not a resume, nor has it been called a resume by me.
Second, I've taken US History, Irish History, Russia History, Modern
Western Civilization, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Psychology,
Sociology, US Government, Development of Political Though, Ancient and
Modern, and US Diplomatic History. Third, your claim from your alma
mater is unsource.
Your anti-religious bias is still evident.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
Do you understand how post-bacc courses work? A post-bacc degree
doesn't end in a degree. Do you disqualify all teacher professional
development courses (of which WGU would satisfy) taken by teachers
that do not end in a degree? I'm beginning to think you don't
understand much, at all, about the education system.
> And none of hte courses were required for certification --- all you needed
> was your Falwell U degree. Certification does not require ---or even
> accept --- graduate level courses short of a degree. You either have a
> degree in education, whether bachelors, masters, or phd, or you complete an
> alternate pathway like PACE or ABCTE.
>
Your absolute pride and confirmation of my statements about you is
evident, here. 1. I didn't go to a school called Falwell U (anti-
religious prejudice and discrimination evident). 2. My education
courses were required by the state of Florida for teacher training.
3. The state of Florida DID accept these courses for this requirement
(removing the requirement of teacher courses from my prior statement
of eligibility).
However, (and here is where your pride is evident) you claim to know
MORE than the state of Florida about what they will accept. Indeed,
EVERY state in the US accepts college courses in professional
development taken by teachers, without that course resulting in a
degree.
> So, care to come clean?
>
It appears you need to come clean about your lack of knowledge about
how the education system in any state (including your own) works.
What education coursework did you say you had taken in college?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> One last insult. If you were to try to transfer to Winthrop UNiv with a
> Falwell U degree you would enter as a sophomore. Not one of the pass/fail
> courses would transfer and the other course fulfill most of the freshman
> requirements .
One more note on this point. Winthrop's own website says you are
wrong. On their graduate admissions page...
http://www.winthrop.edu/graduate-studies/admission_requirements_us.htm
...it says you need a degree from a regionally accredited school for
entrance, an accreditation Liberty holds. Thus, if I were at all
interested, my Liberty degree would get me entrance to the graduate
school at your own Alma Matter.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
--- And as I have repeatedly said, you would have sophomore status in a
non-religious college.
>
> 2. The Falwell U website --- I attached a link in a previous post --- says
> that ALL courses in the major you claim are pass/fail.
>
This is absolutely false, and I provided direct witness testimony to
the reverse. I have a religion degree from Liberty without a single
pass-fail course.
Again, according to the Falwell U website that I posted a linl to
previously, ALL religion courxes in the major that you claim are pass/fail.
Your "direct witness" evidence is worthless.
> 3. The subject area awards were in HS. What a joke. You are he only ---
> self rpofessed --- college graduate I have met in 30 years of business and
> education who puts HS "acheivements" on their resume.
>
False but irrelevant. They are awards in the content areas.
True and critical.
A "social; studies" award in 10th grade is meaningless for assessing
ability to teach.
> 4. And I have done nothing to suggest that a degree in religion is
> insuffiucient prep for a religious career, or even teaching in a religious
> school. I have stated, explicitly and adamantly, that it is insufficient
> prep for a job teaching puplic school.
>
Thanks for the rejection of Bob's view that a Religion degree doesn't
give me religious authority.
--- I said no such thing. A degree does not cenvey authority, it implies
education. It says nothing about the quality ofthe education (a concept you
seem to be incapable of comprehending), nor does it convey ability.
Take education, for example.
A typical college degree in eleentary education is sufficient to teach
elementary school, but not high school. You complained in the past about
having to take calulus to teach public school math. Well, here's why. A
subject is not thoroughly understood until it has been thoroughly
investigate. Math before calculus does not even touch fundamental concepts,
let alone impart an understanding of those concepts. One cannot teach, for
example, trigonamtry without a fundamental understanding of he calculus of a
circle.
So a BS in math is required to teaach HS math.
And this is insufficient to teach first and second year math in college,
instead a master
's degree is required. You cannot teach clulus unless you have investigated
topology and modern algebra. You cannot teach informal proofs until you hae
conquered formal proofs.
Continuing, you cannot teach grad school without a phd, and post grad work.
Once you have gotten to this level maybe, jist maybe, your peers will judge
you t be an authority on a subject. But probably not. Few really are
authorites.
So this piddling little Falewll U degree in preaching is worthless in
conveying gravoitas and authority. Get back to me after you can read ancient
languages adn have read the literature inits original form, after you ahve
actually researched the material yourself instead of been spoonfed the party
line.
--
Now, carry the same over with my
Education training to teaching, since my claim for teaching authority
wasn't ever stated to be based on a religion degree but Education
training in college and ABCTE.
--- I stand by my assessment, based on my experience and training, that your
degree and hte ABCTE training are, at best, marginal qualification for
teaching. And until you have been in fromt of a classroom for a few years
you certainly are not an authoriy on teaching.
> 5. Your posted resume, nor anypost in the NGs that I have seen, do not
> support your claim that you were one course away from a social studies
> certification. In fact, your posted resume, as I have repeatedly stated
> and
> provided a link to support, would grant you first ssemester sophomore
> status
> at my alma mater.
>
First, it is not a resume, nor has it been called a resume by me.
Second, I've taken US History, Irish History, Russia History, Modern
Western Civilization, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Psychology,
Sociology, US Government, Development of Political Though, Ancient and
Modern, and US Diplomatic History. Third, your claim from your alma
mater is unsource.
000 Wrong. I posted the link, but, as usual, you refused to follow it
because it makes you look foolish.
Look it up.
Your anti-religious bias is still evident.
---
No, it is youir religions nias that is showing.
AS I have stated, I have no concerns about you teaching in a religious
school, and you may, in fat, be a good teacher of religion.
Once again I challenge you. Once again you CV has morphed to meet a neew
challenge. But, as expected, you avoided my challenge despite my accepting
yours.
Your online CV mentions nothing about these course yyou just listed, and
other courses you claim to have taken.
The two universities you claim to have attended do not teach these course in
the programs you claim to have taken.
So where did you take them>
Larry
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
--- Absolutely. I have taken many post BS courses, some to get my teaching
certifiacte, soem in required continuing ed, some for the fun of it, and
some as a way to get my MM (masters mathematics).
A post-bacc degree
doesn't end in a degree.
--- Nonsense statement How can a degree not be a degree.
Do you disqualify all teacher professional
development courses (of which WGU would satisfy) taken by teachers
that do not end in a degree?
--- Nope, having taken them nyself. But that is not the point. You calim
that your WGU course work helped satify education requirements for ABCTE.
But _only_ a degree is required, and you Falwell U degree, according to you,
was sufficient.
When I, for ex., went for certifacation by grad courses were not
considered.
I'm beginning to think you don't
understand much, at all, about the education system.
---I understadn far more than you do,being a certified teacher.
> And none of hte courses were required for certification --- all you needed
> was your Falwell U degree. Certification does not require ---or even
> accept --- graduate level courses short of a degree. You either have a
> degree in education, whether bachelors, masters, or phd, or you complete
> an
> alternate pathway like PACE or ABCTE.
>
Your absolute pride and confirmation of my statements about you is
evident, here. 1. I didn't go to a school called Falwell U (anti-
religious prejudice and discrimination evident).
--- Not anti-religious. Antte Falwell U, which is little more than a degree
factory.
2. My education
courses were required by the state of Florida for teacher training.
--- No they are not. ABCTE fulfills the requirement.
3. The state of Florida DID accept these courses for this requirement
(removing the requirement of teacher courses from my prior statement
of eligibility).
However, (and here is where your pride is evident) you claim to know
MORE than the state of Florida about what they will accept. Indeed,
EVERY state in the US accepts college courses in professional
development taken by teachers, without that course resulting in a
degree.
Only POST certification.
Larry
Cary Kittrell
> On Jun 21, 9:16=A0pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
> > =A0I must say that if this is an indication of your abilities I would not=
> want
> > you to teach my children.
> >
> >
> by
>
> The comma should be inside the end of your quote, here. Pargraph
> isn't a word, paragraph is a word.
>
> s
> > an event, not a state of being.
> >
>
> have a capitalization that is incorrect.
>
>
> It is an accepted option of the term that Scholastic uses in their
> literature.
>
> >
> e
> > fragment =A0 A full sentence is needed as a lead for the list that follow=
> s
> > since the list =A0is not formatted to be the end of the sentence fragment=
> .
>
> It is a heading, obviously.
>
> >
> n
>
> This is lacking a comma, or it is a run-on sentence. Further computer
> science courses (especially those that include programming language)
"Include programming languages"? I find it hard to imagine any actual
computer science course which doesn't involve one or more languages.
Off the top of my head, here are some of those I've worked in
at a level which I would consider competent:
C
MIX
APL
SNOBOL
LISP
Motorola asssembler
Icon
csh
ladder diagram notation
Pascal
FORTRAN
Delta Tau's proprietary language
I'm not counting others I've played with, such as Basic <spit>
or ALGOL68 (yum). And I'm sure I've forgotten some.
> count as science courses in college; however, I'll note your claim
> that computer study isn't a science. I'm sure they will love that on
> this board.
Um, I fail to see your point. I've got 27 credit hours in Computer
Science (University of Arizona, straight As). I took these purely
for fun, although later I wandered into a programming job which I've
been at for 25 years now.
Those are my credentials -- and *I* consider that idea that
computer science is "science" to be totally silly.
"Science" is an attempt to understand the world we have been
handed (whether by the gods or otherwise). Computers and
their uses are not a feature of the natural world. Playing
with them is not science, although theory of computation
is certainly a vital part of mathematics, particularly
20th century mathematics (Turing, Church, et. al)
If your schools were willing to accept computer courses
as qualifying for credits in science, so be it. But
computer science is not science, and that rather presumptuous
phrase has amused me from the first time I heard it.
-- cary
>
> > history, economics, psychology, and sociology are not "social studies", =
> =A0
>
> All are included within the area and are essentials of any Social
> Studies Education program in teacher colleges.
>
> >and
> > news reporting is not "English". They are categorized under their specifi=
> c
> > subjects =A0such as History, Journalism, or Economics.
> >
>
> It is a writing course that, again, serves English requirements.
> However, I'll note your claim that journalism isn't an English course.
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
http://www.winthrop.edu/graduate-studies/admission_requirements_us.htm
Once again you lie, both overtly and by omission.
I said nothing about graduate admission, I said, in essence, that you BS is
equivalent to a year and a half at Winthrop, and because you navigated away
from the link I provided, you should know that.
Second, the omission.
A BS is but a tiny requirement fro admission in a Winthrop Grad program.
You must also have a minimum test score from the GRE, GMAT, MAT, or PRAXIS
exams ( you need the PRAXIS adn the GRE to get into the school of
education), have demonstrated adequate academic preparation in their
proposed area of study (you cannot), having not taken the undergrad
requirements, and here is the killer for you, approval of the college in
which the student's area of specialization is located.
Winthrop doe snot offer a MS in religion. I'd love to see you founder in any
of their other grad programs. They require, depending on the major, as amny
as 66 credits in the najor. I for,ex., needed 63 credits in math to
graduate.
Larry
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com