Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #450022 > unrolled thread
| Started by | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-02 06:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-05-05 19:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 328 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-02 06:54 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-02 16:42 +0200
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 09:28 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-02 11:08 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-02 08:16 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-02 17:17 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-02 15:08 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-02 22:43 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-02 19:28 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 17:31 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-03 19:21 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 17:05 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-03 21:42 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 19:02 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 08:03 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 03:18 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 20:27 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 03:55 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 20:57 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 04:13 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 21:19 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 09:19 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:28 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 09:05 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-03 21:33 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 18:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 03:21 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 08:04 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 16:05 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 09:07 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 16:20 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 09:33 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 22:00 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-02 17:11 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-03 01:03 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-02 18:15 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-03 01:24 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-02 18:33 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-03 01:45 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-02 18:54 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-03 07:13 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 10:54 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-03 11:40 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 10:30 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-03 09:08 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-03 08:22 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 10:53 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-03 19:22 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-03 21:33 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 19:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 03:23 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 20:28 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 04:00 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 21:02 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 09:06 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 08:05 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 10:36 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 03:25 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 20:29 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 04:02 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 21:07 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 04:21 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 21:25 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 09:06 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-04 05:49 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 09:37 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:28 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-04 10:32 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 08:35 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 15:57 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 09:06 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 10:29 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 10:03 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:00 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 10:27 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:18 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 11:53 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 13:37 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:03 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 13:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:36 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:44 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:54 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 17:22 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 09:06 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 09:52 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 10:32 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 10:39 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 12:00 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:12 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 11:19 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 12:40 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 12:11 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 13:43 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 12:55 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 14:20 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 14:03 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 14:37 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 14:50 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 14:51 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-06 22:24 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 15:33 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-06 22:37 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 15:45 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-06 22:52 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-05-06 22:59 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 16:02 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-05-06 23:04 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 16:06 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-05-06 23:20 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 16:23 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-05-06 23:38 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 21:17 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 16:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 08:45 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:38 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 12:11 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 11:25 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-05 13:43 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 07:07 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-05 15:29 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 10:19 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-05 19:47 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:06 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-05 21:16 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 15:54 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-05 23:24 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 17:30 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-06 12:42 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-06 11:18 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 09:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 09:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 09:56 -0700
What's useful to Michael Glasser is very, -very- different... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-06 10:27 -0700
Re: What's useful to Michael Glasser is very, -very- different... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 10:43 -0700
Re: What's useful to Michael Glasser is very, -very- different... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 10:54 -0700
Re: What's useful to Michael Glasser is very, -very- different... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 12:12 -0600
Re: What's useful to Michael Glasser is very, -very- different... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 11:22 -0700
Re: What's useful to Michael Glasser is very, -very- different... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 12:41 -0600
Re: What's useful to Michael Glasser is very, -very- different... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 12:12 -0700
Re: What's useful to Michael Glasser is very, -very- different... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 11:23 -0700
Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-06 11:39 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 11:57 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 13:16 -0600
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 12:20 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 14:01 -0600
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 14:26 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 09:28 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:06 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:16 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:25 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:30 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:37 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:48 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:54 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 11:08 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 11:19 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 12:07 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 12:37 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:08 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 13:44 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:25 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 11:27 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 11:37 -0700
BrownEyed "Cuba, North Korea and Nepal" appear to be your ideal. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-06 13:15 -0700
Re: BrownEyed "Cuba, North Korea and Nepal" appear to be your ideal. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 13:18 -0700
Re: BrownEyed "Cuba, North Korea and Nepal" appear to be your ideal. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 13:32 -0700
Re: BrownEyed "Cuba, North Korea and Nepal" appear to be your ideal. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 14:35 -0700
Re: BrownEyed "Cuba, North Korea and Nepal" appear to be your ideal. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 14:41 -0700
Re: BrownEyed "Cuba, North Korea and Nepal" appear to be your ideal. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 14:49 -0700
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 12:58 -0600
Re: Is BlueEyed Norway your "more equal, low-carbon" ideal ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 12:15 -0700
"CrackHead" is a pejorative -- it might be natural. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-06 13:34 -0700
Re: "CrackHead" is a pejorative -- it might be natural. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 14:37 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 09:41 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-06 11:11 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 09:46 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-06 11:00 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 09:45 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-06 10:52 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 09:44 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:35 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 10:41 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 19:17 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 13:08 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:16 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:42 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:46 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:49 -0600
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 09:09 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 09:55 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 10:40 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 10:49 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-06 11:25 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 07:09 -0700
MainStream Media worships BlueEyed Norway. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-05 09:04 -0700
Re: MainStream Media worships BlueEyed Norway. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-05 12:36 -0400
Re: MainStream Media worships BlueEyed Norway. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 10:42 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-07 07:25 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:15 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:40 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-07 17:23 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:29 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-07 15:20 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 12:40 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 12:45 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 03:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 17:40 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-05-07 04:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 04:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-07 09:48 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 08:50 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:18 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:44 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 07:02 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 15:58 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 09:09 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 09:19 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 10:13 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 09:13 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 09:26 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 16:57 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 10:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 13:50 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 11:07 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 12:37 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 14:28 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 13:39 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 17:14 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 14:45 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 12:55 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 12:22 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 12:59 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 13:40 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 13:58 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 19:05 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 19:53 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 07:04 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 08:00 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 08:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 08:29 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 08:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 09:44 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:23 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 10:27 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 11:12 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 11:41 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 12:16 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 13:51 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 14:03 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 14:11 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 14:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 16:30 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 17:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 17:37 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 18:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 19:55 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 20:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 20:38 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 20:39 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 08:10 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-10 09:21 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 09:28 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-10 09:33 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 09:45 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-10 10:09 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-10 10:54 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 20:50 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 20:02 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 17:29 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:25 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-09 07:16 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 07:40 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-09 08:20 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 09:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 11:47 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 09:49 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 17:18 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 10:19 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 12:29 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 12:59 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 02:05 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 12:41 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 17:49 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 11:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 13:07 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 11:17 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 18:20 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 11:23 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 13:28 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 18:43 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 17:10 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 14:14 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 14:34 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 12:56 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 14:31 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 13:42 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 18:55 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 17:20 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 14:47 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 17:16 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 14:45 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 14:28 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 11:01 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-08 15:33 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-09 08:00 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 07:33 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 09:24 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 09:44 -0700
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:28 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 08:09 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:28 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-03 17:27 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-03 07:12 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-03 11:46 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-02 16:37 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-03 19:31 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-03 19:58 -0500
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 03:27 +0000
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-04 05:49 -0400
Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-05 19:10 -0500
Page 5 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 17 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl6h1cFpkh2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450535 |
On 5/5/18 12:37 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On 2018-05-05 18:53:52 +0000, Snit said: > >> On 5/5/18 11:14 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 11:27:38 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 5/5/18 9:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> ...>>> SCOTUS should hear it this fall according to the article: >>>>>>> "Because of the Supreme Court's crowded spring calendar, it may not >>>>>>> hear the Bakke case until next fall. Its decision could shape the >>>>>>> nation's employment and university-admissions policies for years to >>>>>>> come." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/affirmative-action-reverse-discrimination-645648> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, I understand the arguments against it AND am against it >>>>>> myself. >>>>> >>>>> I see this as a textbook example of owl's point. Why are you >>>>> against it? >>>> >>>> I am against affirmative action because as noble as I think the goals >>>> are, I think it goes about it incorrectly. >>> >>> Is this the correct way: >>> >>> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-got-into-stuyvesant-and-new-yorks-other-elite-public-high-schools-1520465259> >>> >> >> Article is behind a pay wall... > > I don't pay and I can see it. Maybe they have a quota I have already gone over? > Anyway, the breakdown is as I mentioned: > > "The majority of accepted students at Stuyvesant High School, for > example, are Asian. Offers for next fall went to 10 students who are > black, 27 who are Latino, 151 who are white and 613 who are Asian." > > And the reason is: > > "Admission is determined by scores on a single exam, called the > Specialized High Schools Admissions Test. Some educators object to > judging teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for applications > to include measures such as grades. Others say a single exam is the most > objective method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ excellence, > they say." OK. Different ways of judging merit. I tend to agree with a broader approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or quotas or the like. >>> On this next statement you indicate that it is (focusing on >>> individuals): >>> >>>> Quota focus on groups of >>>> people based on color or ethnicity over focusing on individuals. >>> >>> How are such quotas not a form of discrimination? >> >> I have repeatedly said I am NOT for them, > > This isn't about you, it's about whether or not it *is* discrimination > (which was owl's point you commented... that I addressed). I have covered the topic in some depth... not sure what else there is to say on it. Meanwhile you refuse to answer this question in any direct way: Do you recognize that blacks generally face many challenges based on the color of their skin that you and I do not, again based merely on the color of our skin? What we do know of your views on race is: * You were bothered when a college used a black man as an example of healthy masculinity * You are OK with judging people by color when it works against blacks but not when it works for them. * You made absurd comments with clear racial overtones about Obama being in the area when Jobs died. As I noted, it is not hard to see where -- in general -- you stand on the question of racism and equal rights. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c95f4f0-0dbe-4997-8ef6-f959d0843015@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450539 |
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:04:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/5/18 12:37 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On 2018-05-05 18:53:52 +0000, Snit said: > > > >> On 5/5/18 11:14 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 11:27:38 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 5/5/18 9:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>> ...>>> SCOTUS should hear it this fall according to the article: > >>>>>>> "Because of the Supreme Court's crowded spring calendar, it may not > >>>>>>> hear the Bakke case until next fall. Its decision could shape the > >>>>>>> nation's employment and university-admissions policies for years to > >>>>>>> come." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/affirmative-action-reverse-discrimination-645648> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> As I said, I understand the arguments against it AND am against it > >>>>>> myself. > >>>>> > >>>>> I see this as a textbook example of owl's point. Why are you > >>>>> against it? > >>>> > >>>> I am against affirmative action because as noble as I think the goals > >>>> are, I think it goes about it incorrectly. > >>> > >>> Is this the correct way: > >>> > >>> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-got-into-stuyvesant-and-new-yorks-other-elite-public-high-schools-1520465259> > >>> > >> > >> Article is behind a pay wall... > > > > I don't pay and I can see it. > > Maybe they have a quota I have already gone over? > > > Anyway, the breakdown is as I mentioned: > > > > "The majority of accepted students at Stuyvesant High School, for > > example, are Asian. Offers for next fall went to 10 students who are > > black, 27 who are Latino, 151 who are white and 613 who are Asian." > > > > And the reason is: > > > > "Admission is determined by scores on a single exam, called the > > Specialized High Schools Admissions Test. Some educators object to > > judging teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for applications > > to include measures such as grades. Others say a single exam is the most > > objective method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ excellence, > > they say." > > OK. Different ways of judging merit. Above, you just stated "focusing on individuals" over quotas. What Stuy is doing is *all* about "focusing on individuals". > I tend to agree with a broader > approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or > quotas or the like. It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. You have a better way to focus on individual merit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl6iuoFq1flU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450546 |
On 5/5/18 1:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>> Anyway, the breakdown is as I mentioned: >>> >>> "The majority of accepted students at Stuyvesant High School, for >>> example, are Asian. Offers for next fall went to 10 students who are >>> black, 27 who are Latino, 151 who are white and 613 who are Asian." >>> >>> And the reason is: >>> >>> "Admission is determined by scores on a single exam, called the >>> Specialized High Schools Admissions Test. Some educators object to >>> judging teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for applications >>> to include measures such as grades. Others say a single exam is the most >>> objective method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ excellence, >>> they say." >> >> OK. Different ways of judging merit. > > Above, you just stated "focusing on individuals" over quotas. > What Stuy is doing is *all* about "focusing on individuals". I will give you the benefit of the doubt, for now, that you really are merely lost on what is being said and are not just trolling. Yes: I want to focus on the qualifications of the individual but I think there are better ways to do so than with a single test. >> I tend to agree with a broader >> approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or >> quotas or the like. > > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. You have a > better way to focus on individual merit? A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 14:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pcl53p$dav$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #450548 |
On 2018-05-05 20:36:39 +0000, Snit said: > On 5/5/18 1:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>>> Anyway, the breakdown is as I mentioned: >>>> >>>> "The majority of accepted students at Stuyvesant High School, for >>>> example, are Asian. Offers for next fall went to 10 students who are >>>> black, 27 who are Latino, 151 who are white and 613 who are Asian." >>>> >>>> And the reason is: >>>> >>>> "Admission is determined by scores on a single exam, called the >>>> Specialized High Schools Admissions Test. Some educators object to >>>> judging teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for applications >>>> to include measures such as grades. Others say a single exam is the most >>>> objective method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ excellence, >>>> they say." >>> >>> OK. Different ways of judging merit. >> >> Above, you just stated "focusing on individuals" over quotas. >> What Stuy is doing is *all* about "focusing on individuals". > > I will give you the benefit of the doubt, for now, that you really are > merely lost on what is being said and are not just trolling. > > Yes: I want to focus on the qualifications of the individual but I > think there are better ways to do so than with a single test. > >>> I tend to agree with a broader >>> approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or >>> quotas or the like. >> >> It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. You have a >> better way to focus on individual merit? > > A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure. It "is" not, or 'may not' be? Do you know what their standards are or what is on that test? You're speaking like you do... so let's hear it where it can't possibly be included in the test (the only way for your statement to be valid).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl6jvuFq8pmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450551 |
On 5/5/18 1:44 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On 2018-05-05 20:36:39 +0000, Snit said: > >> On 5/5/18 1:20 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >> >>>>> Anyway, the breakdown is as I mentioned: >>>>> >>>>> "The majority of accepted students at Stuyvesant High School, for >>>>> example, are Asian. Offers for next fall went to 10 students who are >>>>> black, 27 who are Latino, 151 who are white and 613 who are Asian." >>>>> >>>>> And the reason is: >>>>> >>>>> "Admission is determined by scores on a single exam, called the >>>>> Specialized High Schools Admissions Test. Some educators object to >>>>> judging teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for applications >>>>> to include measures such as grades. Others say a single exam is the >>>>> most >>>>> objective method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ excellence, >>>>> they say." >>>> >>>> OK. Different ways of judging merit. >>> >>> Above, you just stated "focusing on individuals" over quotas. >>> What Stuy is doing is *all* about "focusing on individuals". >> >> I will give you the benefit of the doubt, for now, that you really are >> merely lost on what is being said and are not just trolling. >> >> Yes: I want to focus on the qualifications of the individual but I >> think there are better ways to do so than with a single test. >> >>>> I tend to agree with a broader >>>> approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or >>>> quotas or the like. >>> >>> It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. You have a >>> better way to focus on individual merit? >> >> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure. > > It "is" not, or 'may not' be? A single test IS NOT a very good measure of someone's capabilities and qualifications? > Do you know what their standards are or what is on that test? > > You're speaking like you do... so let's hear it where it can't possibly > be included in the test (the only way for your statement to be valid). What "it" do you mean? And why is this unnamed "it" the only reason why a single test cannot be a very good measure of someone's capabilities and qualifications? Here, maybe this will help you (though, frankly, it is clear you have gone into troll mode): let us make an analogy with science... a single study can be valuable, but it can also be flawed. If the study is like most and has a 95% confidence level we EXPECT there to be a 5% chance its conclusions are wrong, and that is without even accounting for bias, dishonesty, human error, etc. To be confidence of the science we should look at a broader range of studies that use different methodologies and are conducted by different people. Seriously, though, even with giving you a fresh chance today, you are going into troll mode where you will soon, it is likely, not be worth my time. You are back to your misrepresentation, word twisting, blaming me for your own failings, insults, obsessing over me and how your poor behavior should be seen as my fault, etc. On this new (to me) Usenet client I have not blocked you or set you to auto-read. I am giving you chance after chance. There are times you show effect to rise up and meet the challenge of being a reasonable human... but when you get insecure or whatever you blow it. Try harder. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl706pFsohtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450554 |
On 5/5/18 2:33 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>>> Yes: I want to focus on the qualifications of the individual but I >>>> think there are better ways to do so than with a single test. >>>> >>>>>> I tend to agree with a broader >>>>>> approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or >>>>>> quotas or the like. >>>>> >>>>> It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. You >>>>> have a >>>>> better way to focus on individual merit? >>>> >>>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good >>>> measure. >>> >>> It "is" not, or 'may not' be? >> >> A single test IS NOT a very good measure of someone's capabilities and >> qualifications? > > That would obviously depend on the test, wouldn't it? While tests can be better or worse than others, nope. What would make you think a single test is a good indication of someone's capabilities and qualifications... esp. compared to longer term, broader data? >>> Do you know what their standards are or what is on that test? >>> >>> You're speaking like you do... so let's hear it where it can't >>> possibly be included in the test (the only way for your statement to >>> be valid). >> >> What "it" do you mean? > > Why can't you read? Geezus, it was two short sentences... Level of interest in your games: none. You have no point. Got it. You are arguing to argue and making absurd points just to get attention. >> And why is this unnamed "it" > > It's only "unnamed" if you've completely dumped the context. Unlike you, > I didn't do that so I have a 'name', it's called: > > 'Snit's reasons why a single exam "is not a very good measure" for > Stuyvesant High School to determine admissions'. You are making some unnamed assumption about something that cannot be in a test or which you think I cannot be in a test or... who the hell knows what. You refuse to say and are just playing games. OK. >> the only reason why a single test cannot be a very good measure of >> someone's capabilities and qualifications? >> >> Here, maybe this will help you (though, frankly, it is clear you have >> gone into troll mode): let us make an analogy with science... a single >> study can be valuable, but it can also be flawed. If the study is like >> most and has a 95% confidence level we EXPECT there to be a 5% chance >> its conclusions are wrong, and that is without even accounting for >> bias, dishonesty, human error, etc. To be confidence of the science we >> should look at a broader range of studies that use different >> methodologies and are conducted by different people. > > You're comparing a scientific study with an admissions test. I noting a similarity in reliability. Sure. And you show no understanding of it. > This makes > sense to you, especailly given that you don't know anything about the > test? The specifics of the test, or study in the analogy, are not relevant to the point. This proves you are completely missing the point. Fair enough. > You're arguing that their test "is" not a very good measure, that > they must be leaving things out in the determination regarding > "someone's capabilities and qualifications" and your reply is a goofy > analogy. They are leaving out more than that test, by definition, just as a single study leaves out more than that study. ... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68237f59-a617-488e-a551-835cd06c5ac9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450564 |
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:22:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/5/18 2:33 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>>> Yes: I want to focus on the qualifications of the individual but I > >>>> think there are better ways to do so than with a single test. > >>>> > >>>>>> I tend to agree with a broader > >>>>>> approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or > >>>>>> quotas or the like. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. You > >>>>> have a > >>>>> better way to focus on individual merit? > >>>> > >>>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good > >>>> measure. > >>> > >>> It "is" not, or 'may not' be? > >> > >> A single test IS NOT a very good measure of someone's capabilities and > >> qualifications? > > > > That would obviously depend on the test, wouldn't it? > > While tests can be better or worse than others, nope. It's not a black ops program, fool, it's a high school entrance exam. > What would make > you think a single test is a good indication of someone's capabilities > and qualifications... esp. compared to longer term, broader data? They're not concerned if little Johnny can tap dance or if Suzy's kitchen skills rival Julia Childs'. They're one of the top high schools in the nation, Crackhead, I think they know what they're doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 09:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl8q5vFafveU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450599 |
On 5/6/18 9:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:22:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/5/18 2:33 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>>>>> Yes: I want to focus on the qualifications of the individual but I >>>>>> think there are better ways to do so than with a single test. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I tend to agree with a broader >>>>>>>> approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or >>>>>>>> quotas or the like. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. You >>>>>>> have a >>>>>>> better way to focus on individual merit? >>>>>> >>>>>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good >>>>>> measure. >>>>> >>>>> It "is" not, or 'may not' be? >>>> >>>> A single test IS NOT a very good measure of someone's capabilities and >>>> qualifications? >>> >>> That would obviously depend on the test, wouldn't it? >> >> While tests can be better or worse than others, nope. > > It's not a black ops program, fool, it's a high school entrance exam. Lovely straw man. >> What would make >> you think a single test is a good indication of someone's capabilities >> and qualifications... esp. compared to longer term, broader data? > > They're not concerned if little Johnny can tap dance or if Suzy's > kitchen skills rival Julia Childs'. They're one of the top high schools > in the nation, Crackhead, I think they know what they're doing. Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. No matter how well that exam is constructed it shows a snapshot of a single moment in time... the time of the test. You do not know of the person being tested was sick that day, or had a pet or parent die, you do not know if they had breakfast or if they are at their best or their worst. You do not know if they have test anxiety which limits their ability to do such tests but still do very well in the real world. It is not a complex point... nor one any reasonable person would argue against. But you do. Now a reasonable person might point out that while a single test is not ideal it is often the best we can do -- and it is far from lacking in value even with all of its weaknesses. But you did not bring up such points. You did not even show you understood what was being said. Then, elsewhere you blame me for the reading comprehension challenges you demonstrate here, and you accuse me of playing the games you cannot stop engaging in. Once again you are blaming me for all that is wrong with your life, and all that is wrong with you. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58cb1283-14c7-4cc3-91e6-cc64176adef2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450608 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:52:21 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/6/18 9:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:22:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/5/18 2:33 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> ... > >>>>>> Yes: I want to focus on the qualifications of the individual but I > >>>>>> think there are better ways to do so than with a single test. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I tend to agree with a broader > >>>>>>>> approach than a single test but that has nothing to do with race or > >>>>>>>> quotas or the like. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. You > >>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>> better way to focus on individual merit? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good > >>>>>> measure. > >>>>> > >>>>> It "is" not, or 'may not' be? > >>>> > >>>> A single test IS NOT a very good measure of someone's capabilities and > >>>> qualifications? > >>> > >>> That would obviously depend on the test, wouldn't it? > >> > >> While tests can be better or worse than others, nope. > > > > It's not a black ops program, fool, it's a high school entrance exam. > > Lovely straw man. > > >> What would make > >> you think a single test is a good indication of someone's capabilities > >> and qualifications... esp. compared to longer term, broader data? > > > > They're not concerned if little Johnny can tap dance or if Suzy's > > kitchen skills rival Julia Childs'. They're one of the top high schools > > in the nation, Crackhead, I think they know what they're doing. > > Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam > tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. > No matter how > well that exam is constructed it shows a snapshot of a single moment in > time... the time of the test. And your answer is to conduct exhaustive rounds of testing for over 28 thousand applicants and growing... every year! LOL! When would they have time to, you know, teach? Given what their academic standards are, another thing you don't know, it's not possible for you to say how "good" a "measure" it is. The test could be a better judge than every other means they've tried, which may explain why the other 8 specialized high schools adopted the test used at Stuy, which is one of the best high schools in the nation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl8sudFb3qaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450613 |
On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam >> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. > > They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, > there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if > someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they > missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the students, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. >> No matter how >> well that exam is constructed it shows a snapshot of a single moment in >> time... the time of the test. > > And your answer is to conduct exhaustive rounds of testing for over > 28 thousand applicants and growing... every year! LOL! When would > they have time to, you know, teach? Given how I never suggested using class time for things other than teaching, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. > Given what their academic standards are, another thing you don't know, > it's not possible for you to say how "good" a "measure" it is. Note you snipped the confounding factors and reasons I did offer. You have no response to them. This is a fine example of you trolling. > The test could > be a better judge than every other means they've tried, which may explain > why the other 8 specialized high schools adopted the test used at Stuy, > which is one of the best high schools in the nation. Given how I never suggested that this test might not be a very good test, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 12:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pcnfs9$gsv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #450614 |
On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: > On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... >>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam >>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. >> >> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, >> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if >> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they >> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. > > Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the students, > this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. (snip crap) >> The test could >> be a better judge than every other means they've tried, which may explain >> why the other 8 specialized high schools adopted the test used at Stuy, >> which is one of the best high schools in the nation. > > Given how I never suggested that this test might not be a very good > test, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. You said it "is" not a "good measure", of course, you ended your statement with a question mark but it was a question you responded to. Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they are 'measuring'. This is common sense, which is undoubtedly why you're having the trouble you do. Who *hasn't* seen this kind of silliness from you? Would prolonged research into the inner workings of their mind be a better "measure" of their "capabilities and qualifications"? There's really no way to answer that because, again, we don't know what's on the test *and* we don't know what they're testing for other than meeting some apparently higher standard they have. You're obviously one of those pinheads who believes more testing is *always* better... but it isn't always better, sometimes it's just... more. That you can't say *what* is missing when limited to 1 high school entrance exam should tell anyone all they need to know about your 'view' on this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16291fa0-d30e-48ca-8d92-e7c1a76b4de9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450622 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:00:44 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: > > > On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > ... > >>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam > >>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. > >> > >> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, > >> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if > >> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they > >> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. > > > > Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the students, > > this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. > > So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. > > (snip crap) > > >> The test could > >> be a better judge than every other means they've tried, which may explain > >> why the other 8 specialized high schools adopted the test used at Stuy, > >> which is one of the best high schools in the nation. > > > > Given how I never suggested that this test might not be a very good > > test, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. > > You said it "is" not a "good measure", of course, you ended your > statement with a question mark but it was a question you responded to. > Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't > possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they are > 'measuring'. This is common sense, which is undoubtedly why you're > having the trouble you d... See: I quoted examples of chrisv showing off insecurity -- trolling multiple groups, etc. His response: to troll Manfred. Manfred pwns chrisv in every way possible. Things change. Could be the ubiquity of a website is getting a little dated. Linux offers the least choice. So chrisv changed his story to posting about his business. Richard Stallman is a false advocate's biggest fear. Sandman blames chrisv for what others do. Here is a list of names Jonas Eklundh has admitted he attributes to chrisv "Cactus Pete", "Donald", "Donald Miller", "Horace McSwain", "Hymen", "meat", "Mike Weaver", "Modena IV Drid", "Omar Murad Asfour", "Rhino Plastee", "Soapy", "SopwithCamel", "Sunny Day", "Takuya Saitoh", "The Letter Q", "tmelmosfire", "zevon". -- One Smart Penny! http://www.5z8.info/myspace-of-sex_q7q7zl_instant-purchase https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012978552519 http://www.5z8.info/-php-deactivate_phishing_filter-48-_e3m8dt_malicious-cookie Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl8vacFbkvmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450622 |
On 5/6/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: > >> On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam >>>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. >>> >>> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, >>> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if >>> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they >>> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. >> >> Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the >> students, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. > > So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. I noted the excellent example of your reading comprehension challenges which lead you to ask an irrelevant question filled with false assumptions. And the irony is you did not even understand that! Wow... your lack of comprehension has layers. LOL! > (snip crap) > >>> The test could >>> be a better judge than every other means they've tried, which may >>> explain >>> why the other 8 specialized high schools adopted the test used at Stuy, >>> which is one of the best high schools in the nation. >> >> Given how I never suggested that this test might not be a very good >> test, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. > > You said it "is" not a "good measure", As far as I see, I used the term "good measure" only once in this discussion, and that was in response to you: ----- > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. > You have a better way to focus on individual merit? A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure. ----- I corrected noted a single test is not a good measure COMPARED to broader information. In the context of the discussion, this would include what YOU quoted from the source you used: "They are pushing for applications to include measures such as grades." Grades. But from there you jumped to the idea of psychological evaluations. Your failure to understand what you read is amazing! ... > Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't > possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they are > 'measuring'. Remember, you snipped the reasons why a single test is not as good of a measure as a broader view. ... > Would prolonged research into the inner workings of their mind Given how nobody has suggested "prolonged research" this is another fine example of your failure to understand what you read. > You're obviously one of those > pinheads who believes more testing is *always* better Given how I have not suggested more testing (and in fact am against it), this is another fine example of your failure to understand what you read. For what it is worth, and since you bring up to the topic of more testing, I will share with you how I see the added testing in schools: the analogy I use is like grilling chicken. I know it takes about 25 minutes per side for me to grill chicken thighs/leg. When I am doing this I check the temperature at the END of the process and only open the grill once during the actual cooking, and that is to flip the chicken (and sometimes add a glaze or whatever). I do NOT test repeatedly during the process, and if I did it would harm the process -- making it take longer and reducing the quality of the final product. It is much the same, in my view, with testing. When they stop the education process to toss in more and more testing they are not only reducing education time, they are harming the quality of the education. Your conclusion about my views, based on your own failure to understand what I wrote and the very context YOU presented (which included the measure of grades but not of other testing), lead you to a conclusion that was the exact opposite of reality. Your reading comprehension issues... they lead you to such a failure. And in response: you will snip. You will NEVER face your challenge here. But remember, you have at least one family member watching this conversation, reading it and understanding how poorly you can understand what you read. I post as much for their benefit, by their request, as I do for you. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 12:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pcni6s$21m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #450626 |
On 2018-05-06 18:19:56 +0000, Snit said: > On 5/6/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: >> >>> On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> ... >>>>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam >>>>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. >>>> >>>> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, >>>> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if >>>> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they >>>> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. >>> >>> Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the students, >>> this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. >> >> So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. > > I noted ... nothing that was pertinent to the question of *what* would be missing from their exam that *they* need to make *their* student assessments... something you *still* haven't provided. > >> (snip crap) >> >>>> The test could >>>> be a better judge than every other means they've tried, which may explain >>>> why the other 8 specialized high schools adopted the test used at Stuy, >>>> which is one of the best high schools in the nation. >>> >>> Given how I never suggested that this test might not be a very good >>> test, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. >> >> You said it "is" not a "good measure", > > As far as I see, I used the term "good measure" only once in this discussion, > and that was in response to you: > > ----- > > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. > > You have a better way to focus on individual merit? > A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure. > ----- > > I corrected noted a single test is not a good measure COMPARED to > broader information. And I'm *still* wondering why didn't you provide this missing information when I originally asked you for it. > >> Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't >> possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they are >> 'measuring'. > > Remember, you snipped the reasons why a single test is not as good of a > measure as a broader view. Remember, you *still* haven't provided the particulars of this claim as it applies to what they're looking for. (snip BS)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl92bvFcb23U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450634 |
On 5/6/18 11:40 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2018-05-06 18:19:56 +0000, Snit said:
>
>> On 5/6/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam
>>>>>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view.
>>>>>
>>>>> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications,
>>>>> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if
>>>>> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they
>>>>> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list.
>>>>
>>>> Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the
>>>> students, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension.
>>>
>>> So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK.
>>
>> I noted the excellent example of your reading comprehension
>> challenges which lead you to ask an irrelevant question filled with
>> false assumptions.
>>
>> And the irony is you did not even understand that!
>>
>> Wow... your lack of comprehension has layers. LOL!
>
> .... nothing that was pertinent to the question of *what* would be
> missing from their exam that *they* need to make *their* student
> assessments... something you *still* haven't provided.
What would be missing would be the broader data, not from a single day
and test. This was noted at the start of the conversation:
-----
| "Admission is determined by scores on a single
| exam, called the Specialized High Schools
| Admissions Test. Some educators object to judging
| teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for
| applications to include measures such as grades.
| Others say a single exam is the most objective
| method. Changing it would threaten the schools’
| excellence, they say."
OK. Different ways of judging merit. I tend to agree
with a broader approach than a single test but that
has nothing to do with race or quotas or the like.
-----
Notice in response to YOUR quoting about the measures such as grades I
noted I agree with the broader approach.
...
>>> You said it "is" not a "good measure",
>>
>> As far as I see, I used the term "good measure" only once in this
>> discussion,
>
>> and that was in response to you:
>>
>> -----
>> > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence.
>> > You have a better way to focus on individual merit?
>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure.
>> -----
>>
>> I corrected noted a single test is not a good measure COMPARED to
>> broader information. In the context of the discussion, this would
>> include what YOU quoted from the source you used:
>>
>> "They are pushing for applications to include measures such as
>> grades."
>>
>> Grades. But from there you jumped to the idea of psychological
>> evaluations.
>>
>> Your failure to understand what you read is amazing!
>
> And I'm *still* wondering why didn't you provide this missing
> information when I originally asked you for it.
YOU provided at least some of the context you call "missing" (grades,
specifically, though I leave open the door to other measures).
>>> Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't
>>> possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they
>>> are 'measuring'.
>>
>> Remember, you snipped the reasons why a single test is not as good of
>> a measure as a broader view.
>
> Remember, you *still* haven't provided the particulars of this claim as
> it applies to what they're looking for.
You are complaining I did not provide what you snipped. How amazingly
dishonest of you! Or maybe just ignorant... maybe you really fail to
understand even this.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 13:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pcnls6$rpk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #450640 |
On 2018-05-06 19:11:58 +0000, Snit said: > On 5/6/18 11:40 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On 2018-05-06 18:19:56 +0000, Snit said: >> >>> On 5/6/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: >>>> >>>>> On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam >>>>>>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. >>>>>> >>>>>> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, >>>>>> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if >>>>>> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they >>>>>> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. >>>>> >>>>> Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the students, >>>>> this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. >>>> >>>> So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. >>> >>> I noted the excellent example of your reading comprehension >>> challenges which lead you to ask an irrelevant question filled with >>> false assumptions. >>> >>> And the irony is you did not even understand that! >>> >>> Wow... your lack of comprehension has layers. LOL! >> >> .... nothing that was pertinent to the question of *what* would be >> missing from their exam that *they* need to make *their* student >> assessments... something you *still* haven't provided. > > What would be missing would be the broader data, not from a single day > and test. This was noted at the start of the conversation: > > ----- > | "Admission is determined by scores on a single > | exam, called the Specialized High Schools > | Admissions Test. Some educators object to judging > | teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for > | applications to include measures such as grades. > | Others say a single exam is the most objective > | method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ > | excellence, they say." > > OK. Different ways of judging merit. I tend to agree > with a broader approach than a single test but that > has nothing to do with race or quotas or the like. > ----- > Notice in response to YOUR quoting about the measures such as grades I > noted I agree with the broader approach. > > ... > >>>> You said it "is" not a "good measure", >>> >>> As far as I see, I used the term "good measure" only once in this discussion, >> >>> and that was in response to you: >>> >>> ----- >>> > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. >>> > You have a better way to focus on individual merit? >>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure. >>> ----- >>> >>> I corrected noted a single test is not a good measure COMPARED to >>> broader information. In the context of the discussion, this would >>> include what YOU quoted from the source you used: >>> >>> "They are pushing for applications to include measures such as >>> grades." >>> >>> Grades. But from there you jumped to the idea of psychological >>> evaluations. >>> >>> Your failure to understand what you read is amazing! >> >> And I'm *still* wondering why didn't you provide this missing >> information when I originally asked you for it. > > YOU provided at least some of the context you call "missing" (grades, > specifically, though I leave open the door to other measures). So explain it. How are grades going to better provide what they're looking for (another thing you don't know)? Why do you suppose it was made into N.Y. law that 8 of these 9 specialized high schools can use *only* the SHSAT "to determine admission"? I guess they should've talked to the inactive 'teacher' from podunk AZ first <eyeroll>. > >>>> Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't >>>> possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they are >>>> 'measuring'. >>> >>> Remember, you snipped the reasons why a single test is not as good of a >>> measure as a broader view. >> >> Remember, you *still* haven't provided the particulars of this claim as >> it applies to what they're looking for. > > You are complaining I did not provide what you snipped. You didn't "provide" anything but your usual BS. The closest you came was above... which you parroted from me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl94u9Fct5gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450640 |
On 5/6/18 12:11 PM, Snit wrote: > On 5/6/18 11:40 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On 2018-05-06 18:19:56 +0000, Snit said: >> >>> On 5/6/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: >>>> >>>>> On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam >>>>>>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. >>>>>> >>>>>> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, >>>>>> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if >>>>>> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they >>>>>> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. >>>>> >>>>> Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the >>>>> students, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. >>>> >>>> So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. >>> >>> I noted the excellent example of your reading comprehension >>> challenges which lead you to ask an irrelevant question filled with >>> false assumptions. >>> >>> And the irony is you did not even understand that! >>> >>> Wow... your lack of comprehension has layers. LOL! >> >> .... nothing that was pertinent to the question of *what* would be >> missing from their exam that *they* need to make *their* student >> assessments... something you *still* haven't provided. > > What would be missing would be the broader data, not from a single day > and test. This was noted at the start of the conversation: > > ----- > | "Admission is determined by scores on a single > | exam, called the Specialized High Schools > | Admissions Test. Some educators object to judging > | teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for > | applications to include measures such as grades. > | Others say a single exam is the most objective > | method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ > | excellence, they say." > > OK. Different ways of judging merit. I tend to agree > with a broader approach than a single test but that > has nothing to do with race or quotas or the like. > ----- > Notice in response to YOUR quoting about the measures such as grades I > noted I agree with the broader approach. > > .... > >>>> You said it "is" not a "good measure", >>> >>> As far as I see, I used the term "good measure" only once in this >>> discussion, >> >>> and that was in response to you: >>> >>> ----- >>> > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. >>> > You have a better way to focus on individual merit? >>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good >>> measure. >>> ----- >>> >>> I corrected noted a single test is not a good measure COMPARED to >>> broader information. In the context of the discussion, this would >>> include what YOU quoted from the source you used: >>> >>> "They are pushing for applications to include measures such as >>> grades." >>> >>> Grades. But from there you jumped to the idea of psychological >>> evaluations. >>> >>> Your failure to understand what you read is amazing! >> >> And I'm *still* wondering why didn't you provide this missing >> information when I originally asked you for it. > > YOU provided at least some of the context you call "missing" (grades, > specifically, though I leave open the door to other measures). > >>>> Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't >>>> possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they >>>> are 'measuring'. >>> >>> Remember, you snipped the reasons why a single test is not as good of >>> a measure as a broader view. >> >> Remember, you *still* haven't provided the particulars of this claim >> as it applies to what they're looking for. > > You are complaining I did not provide what you snipped. How amazingly > dishonest of you! Or maybe just ignorant... maybe you really fail to > understand even this. > > > You responded with snipping and whining incoherently that I, like you, do not know the specifics of what they are looking for and have not talked with them. LOL! You get more pathetic as you realize how lost you are. OK, do you have anything of VALUE to add, or are you in your cry mode now? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 14:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pcno1o$aqn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #450646 |
On 2018-05-06 19:55:53 +0000, Snit said: > On 5/6/18 12:11 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 5/6/18 11:40 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On 2018-05-06 18:19:56 +0000, Snit said: >>> >>>> On 5/6/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam >>>>>>>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, >>>>>>> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if >>>>>>> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they >>>>>>> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the students, >>>>>> this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. >>>>> >>>>> So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. >>>> >>>> I noted the excellent example of your reading comprehension >>>> challenges which lead you to ask an irrelevant question filled with >>>> false assumptions. >>>> >>>> And the irony is you did not even understand that! >>>> >>>> Wow... your lack of comprehension has layers. LOL! >>> >>> .... nothing that was pertinent to the question of *what* would be >>> missing from their exam that *they* need to make *their* student >>> assessments... something you *still* haven't provided. >> >> What would be missing would be the broader data, not from a single day >> and test. This was noted at the start of the conversation: >> >> ----- >> | "Admission is determined by scores on a single >> | exam, called the Specialized High Schools >> | Admissions Test. Some educators object to judging >> | teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for >> | applications to include measures such as grades. >> | Others say a single exam is the most objective >> | method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ >> | excellence, they say." >> >> OK. Different ways of judging merit. I tend to agree >> with a broader approach than a single test but that >> has nothing to do with race or quotas or the like. >> ----- >> Notice in response to YOUR quoting about the measures such as grades I >> noted I agree with the broader approach. >> >> .... >> >>>>> You said it "is" not a "good measure", >>>> >>>> As far as I see, I used the term "good measure" only once in this discussion, >>> >>>> and that was in response to you: >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. >>>> > You have a better way to focus on individual merit? >>>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> I corrected noted a single test is not a good measure COMPARED to >>>> broader information. In the context of the discussion, this would >>>> include what YOU quoted from the source you used: >>>> >>>> "They are pushing for applications to include measures such as >>>> grades." >>>> >>>> Grades. But from there you jumped to the idea of psychological >>>> evaluations. >>>> >>>> Your failure to understand what you read is amazing! >>> >>> And I'm *still* wondering why didn't you provide this missing >>> information when I originally asked you for it. >> >> YOU provided at least some of the context you call "missing" (grades, >> specifically, though I leave open the door to other measures). >> >>>>> Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't >>>>> possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they are >>>>> 'measuring'. >>>> >>>> Remember, you snipped the reasons why a single test is not as good of a >>>> measure as a broader view. >>> >>> Remember, you *still* haven't provided the particulars of this claim as >>> it applies to what they're looking for. >> >> You are complaining I did not provide what you snipped. How amazingly >> dishonest of you! Or maybe just ignorant... maybe you really fail to >> understand even this. >> >> >> > You responded with snipping So you're not going to explain it? Gee, what a shock. I'm trying to see where you went off the rails, clearly here: "You're speaking like you do... so let's hear it where it can't possibly be included in the test (the only way for your statement to be valid)." Of course, you got stumped on the "it" in that statement, so it's not a shock that the word "included" woulda thrown you. No matter, there were several places you dropped the ball.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff7a4644-5737-41d2-b823-7d34256504fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450651 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:20:11 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On 2018-05-06 19:55:53 +0000, Snit said: > > > On 5/6/18 12:11 PM, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/6/18 11:40 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On 2018-05-06 18:19:56 +0000, Snit said: > >>> > >>>> On 5/6/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam > >>>>>>>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, > >>>>>>> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if > >>>>>>> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they > >>>>>>> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the students, > >>>>>> this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. > >>>> > >>>> I noted the excellent example of your reading comprehension > >>>> challenges which lead you to ask an irrelevant question filled with > >>>> false assumptions. > >>>> > >>>> And the irony is you did not even understand that! > >>>> > >>>> Wow... your lack of comprehension has layers. LOL! > >>> > >>> .... nothing that was pertinent to the question of *what* would be > >>> missing from their exam that *they* need to make *their* student > >>> assessments... something you *still* haven't provided. > >> > >> What would be missing would be the broader data, not from a single day > >> and test. This was noted at the start of the conversation: > >> > >> ----- > >> | "Admission is determined by scores on a single > >> | exam, called the Specialized High Schools > >> | Admissions Test. Some educators object to judging > >> | teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for > >> | applications to include measures such as grades. > >> | Others say a single exam is the most objective > >> | method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ > >> | excellence, they say." > >> > >> OK. Different ways of judging merit. I tend to agree > >> with a broader approach than a single test but that > >> has nothing to do with race or quotas or the like. > >> ----- > >> Notice in response to YOUR quoting about the measures such as grades I > >> noted I agree with the broader approach. > >> > >> .... > >> > >>>>> You said it "is" not a "good measure", > >>>> > >>>> As far as I see, I used the term "good measure" only once in this discussion, > >>> > >>>> and that was in response to you: > >>>> > >>>> ----- > >>>> > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. > >>>> > You have a better way to focus on individual merit? > >>>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good measure. > >>>> ----- > >>>> > >>>> I corrected noted a single test is not a good measure COMPARED to > >>>> broader information. In the context of the discussion, this would > >>>> include what YOU quo... Now Takuya Saitoh on the other end of the game doesn't matter. All that matters is The Holy Ghost gets to deliver the attack. So how to win? Don't pay attention the nonsense. Reason isn't part of ruse and never was. Just look at your attempts and look at Takuya Saitoh's, there is nothing for us to learn from a mindless moron like The Holy Ghost. But so be it, let him keep making an imbecile of himself. It is not like anyone believes him. Your system will crawl while downloading the mass of flood posts. And it takes a long time. Right now there are too many "bugs are acceptable" Cinnamon users and not enough users with the patience to help the people with bricked PCs. Run a background investigation on The Holy Ghost and you will see that he was in gaol for a long time. Anyone know what for? The sites don't go into that level of specificity and legal records from his jurisdiction have to be subpoenaed. The Holy Ghost's posts are nothing but an incomprehensible word salad. What did The Holy Ghost have to say about this miraculous, years long string of oddities? Most of the time he would try to push the advocates to believe they're real people who just happened to have unexplained agreement with him. And he expected people to believe this! -- Live on Kickstarter!! https://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/tzMH39QmAmU Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl9asgFe6bvU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450646 |
On 5/6/18 12:55 PM, Snit wrote: > On 5/6/18 12:11 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 5/6/18 11:40 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On 2018-05-06 18:19:56 +0000, Snit said: >>> >>>> On 5/6/18 11:00 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On 2018-05-06 17:39:24 +0000, Snit said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/6/18 10:32 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Are you actively and purposely missing the point that a single exam >>>>>>>> tells you a lot less about a person than a broader view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They only need to know the person's academic qualifications, >>>>>>> there's no need for a complete psychological examination; if >>>>>>> someone screws up enough due to some personality trait they >>>>>>> missed, there are plenty of kids on the wait list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given how I never asked for a psychological evaluation of the >>>>>> students, this is a fine example of your poor reading comprehension. >>>>> >>>>> So you're simply afraid to answer the question I asked, OK. >>>> >>>> I noted the excellent example of your reading comprehension >>>> challenges which lead you to ask an irrelevant question filled with >>>> false assumptions. >>>> >>>> And the irony is you did not even understand that! >>>> >>>> Wow... your lack of comprehension has layers. LOL! >>> >>> .... nothing that was pertinent to the question of *what* would be >>> missing from their exam that *they* need to make *their* student >>> assessments... something you *still* haven't provided. >> >> What would be missing would be the broader data, not from a single day >> and test. This was noted at the start of the conversation: >> >> ----- >> | "Admission is determined by scores on a single >> | exam, called the Specialized High Schools >> | Admissions Test. Some educators object to judging >> | teenagers by a single score. They are pushing for >> | applications to include measures such as grades. >> | Others say a single exam is the most objective >> | method. Changing it would threaten the schools’ >> | excellence, they say." >> >> OK. Different ways of judging merit. I tend to agree >> with a broader approach than a single test but that >> has nothing to do with race or quotas or the like. >> ----- >> Notice in response to YOUR quoting about the measures such as grades I >> noted I agree with the broader approach. >> >> .... >> >>>>> You said it "is" not a "good measure", >>>> >>>> As far as I see, I used the term "good measure" only once in this >>>> discussion, >>> >>>> and that was in response to you: >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> > It's pass or fail as based on their standards of excellence. >>>> > You have a better way to focus on individual merit? >>>> A broader view of their work... a single test is not a very good >>>> measure. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> I corrected noted a single test is not a good measure COMPARED to >>>> broader information. In the context of the discussion, this would >>>> include what YOU quoted from the source you used: >>>> >>>> "They are pushing for applications to include measures such as >>>> grades." >>>> >>>> Grades. But from there you jumped to the idea of psychological >>>> evaluations. >>>> >>>> Your failure to understand what you read is amazing! >>> >>> And I'm *still* wondering why didn't you provide this missing >>> information when I originally asked you for it. >> >> YOU provided at least some of the context you call "missing" (grades, >> specifically, though I leave open the door to other measures). >> >>>>> Again, being that you have no idea *what* is in the test, you can't >>>>> possibly know if it's a "good measure" with respect to *what* they >>>>> are 'measuring'. >>>> >>>> Remember, you snipped the reasons why a single test is not as good >>>> of a measure as a broader view. >>> >>> Remember, you *still* haven't provided the particulars of this claim >>> as it applies to what they're looking for. >> >> You are complaining I did not provide what you snipped. How amazingly >> dishonest of you! Or maybe just ignorant... maybe you really fail to >> understand even this. >> >> >> > You responded with snipping and whining incoherently that I, like you, > do not know the specifics of what they are looking for and have not > talked with them. > > LOL! > > You get more pathetic as you realize how lost you are. > > OK, do you have anything of VALUE to add, or are you in your cry mode now? > You again responded with snipping and repeating your nonsense about how I said something else should be in a test when I said nothing of the kind. You are demanding I explain to you something you believe based on your own failure to understand what you read. It is amazing how bent out of shape you get over that. Soon you will insist I am "running" in not backing a position I never suggested I had. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web