NO cunt, here's what I meant, which you AGAIN misrepresented.
IF I choose to respond with solutions, YOU will lie and misrepresent them, because that is your SOP.
By making the response YOU JUST MADE, you proved my concern about your willingness to lie and misrepresent correct, and did EXACTLY what I knew you would had I chose to answer your previous question.
Again, I respond and you put words in my mouth, because you have no argument, no facts to refute me, and no debate skills apart from logical fallacies and lies.
That "In other words..." shit may work for you on others, but you're simply too easy to predict for that childish garbage to work on me.
"As a non-mathematician, is it a practice for you to make snide remarks that bear little or no relation whatsoever to the meaning of the person to whom you're responding?"
Yes, and it was easy.
At least he was honest enough to admit it though, most in that position would hide their bias.
"Ahh, so until we can say for sure what is causing the ozone hole, we shouldn't bother trying to do anything about it, correct?"
No, NOT correct. That actually a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) and it doesn't surprise me at all you would resort to it.
"Even if we are simply eliminating one of our pollutants?"
And replacing it with a pollutant that requires MORE ENERGY (thus increasing emissions) and is a far worse greenhouse gas.
But you didn't know tha tdid you? You drew conclusions without all the fact didn't you? You are exactly what I said you were.
"I'm sure you'll say the same thing about global warming"
It doesn't matter what I'd say, you would lie and misrepresent my position like you have in the last two posts. What I think is apparently irrelevant to to you.
"Clearly we should sit on our hands and let the world fry - at least we'll know that we couldn't definitely say for sure that it was our fault! (I'm not sure who we'd be saying it to...)"
Hey look another straw man. How fucking stupid are you that you cant be bothered to avoid such obvious logical fallacies?
Are you so juvenile and pathetic that your entire argument boils down to misrepresenting what I say? Because that's all you've done so far, and you have yet to provide a single valid counter point.
In fact the sum total of your argument has been, essentially "BUT WHAT IF WE DON'T!!!!". Not much at all really.
Get back to me when you get out of middle school, or learn why your arguments are garbage. Hint: It has to do with you lying and using straw men.
"Psychological effects produce religious practices"
I think when you look at it from that viewpoint it moots all of your objections.
"So now that we know that this scientific study has no religious or "spiritual" value whatsoever"
No, we do NOT know that, YOU are positing that, and you are providing nothing but a dubious list of "facts" to "prove" your point. I have already demonstrated (easily) why you are wrong, so I must assume your rush to judgment stems from an overactive desire to defend your religion.
You think modding me troll makes you less pathetic
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 0, Troll
"I like how you let the post sit at +5 all weekend so the people who want to make sure your loser ass gets fired stop paying attention, then you come in and mod it down sunday night so no one will have to answer the question.
You're a pathetic fucking loser dawson."
You're still a pathetic fucking loser dawson. Keep censoring people because you hate that they're right, while pretending you're anti censorship.
The people here are morons, did you think this was news?
"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..."
Well, you post like you're brain dead, and reason like you're brain dead, so by your logic you're brain dead. It must be nice for you to finally be right about something.
"'Quality time' has, ever since the term was coined, been applied exclusively to time spent by the parents interacting in games, reading, discussions, watching TV together, hobbies, etc..."
First of all, no it hasn't and redefining something because you were shown to be wrong is pathetic, you disgust me for being that petty and small.
Second, baking is a hobby so you were both making up a new definition, then using said definition to PROVE YOURSELF WRONG.
Give up loser, you're just making yourself look even more like an imbecile now.
"Your single point of data has convinced me that, at no point in American history has any church"
No no no you stupid cunt, that's not what you said or implied, so save that shit you said
"Can't teach about sex; have to force a religious minority's views that sexual knowledge leads to lunchroom orgies. Can'tteach evolution; churches might write angry letters! Can't teach history from any kind of personal viewpoint"
you stupid sack, so stop trying to back peddle once you're shown to be a liar.
"You teach science, you say? I pity your students."
You shouldn't, I taught them the skills necessary to sniff out lying back peddling, spinning, propaganda spewing morons like you and how to deal with them. I suppose you thought got an education like yours when you said that you pity them?
And by the was ignoramus, even if I only have one data point, you have none. Of course, you were too fucking stupid to realize I worked with three or four dozen other teachers who all were allowed to teach the things you claim they can't, so not only do I have my data point, I have theirs too.
And you still have nothing but your moronic opinion.
You were someones child right? I pity your parents.
KDawson, you're a pathetic fuck
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I like how you let the post sit at +5 all weekend so the people who want to make sure your loser ass gets fired stop paying attention, then you come in and mod it down sunday night so no one will have to answer the question.
You're a pathetic fucking loser dawson.
Re:Why haven't you fired Kdawson yet?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1
"but is the difference between gifted and non-gifted so great that we can label them as such?"
It's a continuum. The most gifted are certainly far enough above the norm to be classed as such.
"A child clever in math may be stupid in philosophy, for example."
That's not how being gifted works. It's not ability in a particular subject, so your example doesn't apply.
"gifted and non-gifted sounds ridiculous"
No one says "non-gifted", so I suspect it would sound ridiculous since it's never used.
"I think there are no non-gifted people"
With all due respect, what you think is irrelevant, and you've already shown you don't have much experience with the topic. Might I suggest you educate yourself a bit before you form an opinion?
"I think it's social reasons that lead to the separation of gifted vs non-gifted people."
None of the selection criteria used to determine which children are gifted have anything to do with "social reasons" so I can't see how you'd think this if you had done your research.
I strongly suggest you learn more about the subject. You have some serious misconceptions that you need to address, because as it is, you're so far off the reality of the situation that you sound very ignorant.
Perhaps your reading comprehension need help
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: -1, Troll
But I clearly asked about his editing, and didn't mention his politics.
So I guess what you're trying to say is that only rightwing fucktards have a problem with bad editing? Why wouldn't leftwing fucktards have a problem with bad editing?
"You are offtopic. We are talking about ozone depletion caused by CFC pollution, not about snails, flowers, or bunnies."
No I'm not. And I wasn't talking about snails, flowers or bunnies, I was talking about the unintended consequences of acting on incomplete scientific data to influence the environment.
Exactly like they did with the CFC/ozone hole situation.
I realize it takes a certain level of intelligence to get this, but it appears you're having a problem, so kindly get someone smarter than you (perhaps one of those snails or a flower) to explain it to you.
"Looks like you need help with your reading comprehension skills, as my post clearly indicated speculation on future events."
Guy, you can fuck off because no it didn't. I like how you tried to turn your flamebait into "specualtion" after I and others called you on it, but no dice. You were making declarative statements so save that "speculation" garbage for someone else.
"Of course the term "conviction" doesn't apply to civil cases"
Except age discrimination is both a civil AND criminal act. Get it now? Criminal means "conviction". Get that too?
Anything else you want me to show you you're wrong about little fella?
Re:Why haven't you fired Kdawson yet?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
"Also, what do you plan to do about the obnoxious fuckwitted flame-baiting bastards "
He lets you post AC, isn't that enough?
Why haven't you fired Kdawson yet?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Ok, that was a little antagonistic, but in all seriousness, why do you allow the kind of unprofessional editing that Kdawson engages in?
"but it seems to me that a constant exposure to continuous reinforcement might impair their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations."
You would be wrong about this assumption. The important criteria are contingency and contiguity. In addition, I have seen no research that indicates a deficit in "their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations."
This idea, in fact, goes directly against the fundamental principles behind behavioral psychology.
What you actually hear is people wondering why you and those like you think the information changes depending on the method used to introduce it.
"Did someone replace the young geeky visionaries that fight for modern approach to modern problems with 70 year old bags overnight?"
NEWSFLASH, EDUCATION IS NOT A MODERN PROBLEM, IT IS A PROBLEM. NO part of that problem requires (read that REQUIRES) a "modern" solution. Solutions exist already, and those solutions have not been proven ineffective or even less effective that your modern ones. Your baseless assumption that modern is better is both inaccurate and biased.
As a former teacher (and a damned good one) I have to say you have no idea WTF you're babbling about. Your post makes it clear that you're more interested in ranting against something than actually analyzing the discussion.
Well, you could wait until they're actually convicted of something, that's one way.
What's with you people and your obvious desire to hate on Google? Is it really that hard to avoid making dubious claims of "evil" behavior until the case is actually made?
You still can't discriminate if Florida. I know this from personal experience (dealt with a ton of ADA claims in a previous job) so, no, even in Florida age discrimination is illegal.
The difference is, you don't have to give cause. So you could fire someone, give no reason, and the onus would be on them to make a case for discrimination.
"Is it really true that there are gifted and non-gifted people when it comes to school?"
Yes.
"They are simply not approached in a way that allows them to shift their interest to the subjects at school."
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with being gifted.
Giftedness has some equivalence with athletic ability. Some people have extraordinary reaction times, or muscle strength, or flexibility. It is possible to gain a similar level as those people through intense training, but the difference is that the gifted do not need intense training, their natural aptitude places them at a higher baseline to start and gives them a greater peak level than those with less aptitude.
Your definition of "giftedness" appears to have no relation to what it actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
"In other words..."
NO cunt, here's what I meant, which you AGAIN misrepresented.
IF I choose to respond with solutions, YOU will lie and misrepresent them, because that is your SOP.
By making the response YOU JUST MADE, you proved my concern about your willingness to lie and misrepresent correct, and did EXACTLY what I knew you would had I chose to answer your previous question.
Again, I respond and you put words in my mouth, because you have no argument, no facts to refute me, and no debate skills apart from logical fallacies and lies.
That "In other words..." shit may work for you on others, but you're simply too easy to predict for that childish garbage to work on me.
Thanks for proving my point, good job.
I think the time to ask my opinion for solutions was before you chose to lie and misrepresent my position.
"As a non-mathematician, is it a practice for you to make snide remarks that bear little or no relation whatsoever to the meaning of the person to whom you're responding?"
Yes, and it was easy.
At least he was honest enough to admit it though, most in that position would hide their bias.
"Ahh, so until we can say for sure what is causing the ozone hole, we shouldn't bother trying to do anything about it, correct?"
No, NOT correct. That actually a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) and it doesn't surprise me at all you would resort to it.
"Even if we are simply eliminating one of our pollutants?"
And replacing it with a pollutant that requires MORE ENERGY (thus increasing emissions) and is a far worse greenhouse gas.
But you didn't know tha tdid you? You drew conclusions without all the fact didn't you? You are exactly what I said you were.
"I'm sure you'll say the same thing about global warming"
It doesn't matter what I'd say, you would lie and misrepresent my position like you have in the last two posts. What I think is apparently irrelevant to to you.
"Clearly we should sit on our hands and let the world fry - at least we'll know that we couldn't definitely say for sure that it was our fault! (I'm not sure who we'd be saying it to...)"
Hey look another straw man. How fucking stupid are you that you cant be bothered to avoid such obvious logical fallacies?
Are you so juvenile and pathetic that your entire argument boils down to misrepresenting what I say? Because that's all you've done so far, and you have yet to provide a single valid counter point.
In fact the sum total of your argument has been, essentially "BUT WHAT IF WE DON'T!!!!". Not much at all really.
Get back to me when you get out of middle school, or learn why your arguments are garbage. Hint: It has to do with you lying and using straw men.
"Psychological effects produce religious practices"
I think when you look at it from that viewpoint it moots all of your objections.
"So now that we know that this scientific study has no religious or "spiritual" value whatsoever"
No, we do NOT know that, YOU are positing that, and you are providing nothing but a dubious list of "facts" to "prove" your point. I have already demonstrated (easily) why you are wrong, so I must assume your rush to judgment stems from an overactive desire to defend your religion.
"I like how you let the post sit at +5 all weekend so the people who want to make sure your loser ass gets fired stop paying attention, then you come in and mod it down sunday night so no one will have to answer the question.
You're a pathetic fucking loser dawson."
You're still a pathetic fucking loser dawson. Keep censoring people because you hate that they're right, while pretending you're anti censorship.
"Oh please. It didn't stop 99% of people here..."
The people here are morons, did you think this was news?
"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..."
Well, you post like you're brain dead, and reason like you're brain dead, so by your logic you're brain dead. It must be nice for you to finally be right about something.
"'Quality time' has, ever since the term was coined, been applied exclusively to time spent by the parents interacting in games, reading, discussions, watching TV together, hobbies, etc..."
First of all, no it hasn't and redefining something because you were shown to be wrong is pathetic, you disgust me for being that petty and small.
Second, baking is a hobby so you were both making up a new definition, then using said definition to PROVE YOURSELF WRONG.
Give up loser, you're just making yourself look even more like an imbecile now.
"You're right."
You should have stopped there.
"Your single point of data has convinced me that, at no point in American history has any church"
No no no you stupid cunt, that's not what you said or implied, so save that shit you said
"Can't teach about sex; have to force a religious minority's views that sexual knowledge leads to lunchroom orgies. Can'tteach evolution; churches might write angry letters! Can't teach history from any kind of personal viewpoint"
you stupid sack, so stop trying to back peddle once you're shown to be a liar.
"You teach science, you say? I pity your students."
You shouldn't, I taught them the skills necessary to sniff out lying back peddling, spinning, propaganda spewing morons like you and how to deal with them. I suppose you thought got an education like yours when you said that you pity them?
And by the was ignoramus, even if I only have one data point, you have none. Of course, you were too fucking stupid to realize I worked with three or four dozen other teachers who all were allowed to teach the things you claim they can't, so not only do I have my data point, I have theirs too.
And you still have nothing but your moronic opinion.
You were someones child right? I pity your parents.
I like how you let the post sit at +5 all weekend so the people who want to make sure your loser ass gets fired stop paying attention, then you come in and mod it down sunday night so no one will have to answer the question.
You're a pathetic fucking loser dawson.
I appreciate the backup, thanks.
"but is the difference between gifted and non-gifted so great that we can label them as such?"
It's a continuum. The most gifted are certainly far enough above the norm to be classed as such.
"A child clever in math may be stupid in philosophy, for example."
That's not how being gifted works. It's not ability in a particular subject, so your example doesn't apply.
"gifted and non-gifted sounds ridiculous"
No one says "non-gifted", so I suspect it would sound ridiculous since it's never used.
"I think there are no non-gifted people"
With all due respect, what you think is irrelevant, and you've already shown you don't have much experience with the topic. Might I suggest you educate yourself a bit before you form an opinion?
"I think it's social reasons that lead to the separation of gifted vs non-gifted people."
None of the selection criteria used to determine which children are gifted have anything to do with "social reasons" so I can't see how you'd think this if you had done your research.
I strongly suggest you learn more about the subject. You have some serious misconceptions that you need to address, because as it is, you're so far off the reality of the situation that you sound very ignorant.
But I clearly asked about his editing, and didn't mention his politics.
So I guess what you're trying to say is that only rightwing fucktards have a problem with bad editing? Why wouldn't leftwing fucktards have a problem with bad editing?
"You are offtopic. We are talking about ozone depletion caused by CFC pollution, not about snails, flowers, or bunnies."
No I'm not. And I wasn't talking about snails, flowers or bunnies, I was talking about the unintended consequences of acting on incomplete scientific data to influence the environment.
Exactly like they did with the CFC/ozone hole situation.
I realize it takes a certain level of intelligence to get this, but it appears you're having a problem, so kindly get someone smarter than you (perhaps one of those snails or a flower) to explain it to you.
"Looks like you need help with your reading comprehension skills, as my post clearly indicated speculation on future events."
Guy, you can fuck off because no it didn't. I like how you tried to turn your flamebait into "specualtion" after I and others called you on it, but no dice. You were making declarative statements so save that "speculation" garbage for someone else.
"Of course the term "conviction" doesn't apply to civil cases"
Except age discrimination is both a civil AND criminal act. Get it now? Criminal means "conviction". Get that too?
Anything else you want me to show you you're wrong about little fella?
"Also, what do you plan to do about the obnoxious fuckwitted flame-baiting bastards "
He lets you post AC, isn't that enough?
Ok, that was a little antagonistic, but in all seriousness, why do you allow the kind of unprofessional editing that Kdawson engages in?
"but it seems to me that a constant exposure to continuous reinforcement might impair their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations."
You would be wrong about this assumption. The important criteria are contingency and contiguity. In addition, I have seen no research that indicates a deficit in "their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations."
This idea, in fact, goes directly against the fundamental principles behind behavioral psychology.
What you actually hear is people wondering why you and those like you think the information changes depending on the method used to introduce it.
"Did someone replace the young geeky visionaries that fight for modern approach to modern problems with 70 year old bags overnight?"
NEWSFLASH, EDUCATION IS NOT A MODERN PROBLEM, IT IS A PROBLEM. NO part of that problem requires (read that REQUIRES) a "modern" solution. Solutions exist already, and those solutions have not been proven ineffective or even less effective that your modern ones. Your baseless assumption that modern is better is both inaccurate and biased.
As a former teacher (and a damned good one) I have to say you have no idea WTF you're babbling about. Your post makes it clear that you're more interested in ranting against something than actually analyzing the discussion.
"My space users are also building websites."
Sure they are, just like interior decorators are building houses.
"I don't see how you can avoid it."
Well, you could wait until they're actually convicted of something, that's one way.
What's with you people and your obvious desire to hate on Google? Is it really that hard to avoid making dubious claims of "evil" behavior until the case is actually made?
You still can't discriminate if Florida. I know this from personal experience (dealt with a ton of ADA claims in a previous job) so, no, even in Florida age discrimination is illegal.
The difference is, you don't have to give cause. So you could fire someone, give no reason, and the onus would be on them to make a case for discrimination.
"Looks like in the future slashdotters will be able to refer to Google as 'convicted discriminator' in each and every Google story."
I suspect that Google would actually have to be convicted first.
I guess that minor detail eluded you in your eagerness to rush to judgment.
I guess "until proven in a court of law" doesn't apply when you want to trot out a snide cut at Google, huh?
"Is it really true that there are gifted and non-gifted people when it comes to school?"
Yes.
"They are simply not approached in a way that allows them to shift their interest to the subjects at school."
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with being gifted.
Giftedness has some equivalence with athletic ability. Some people have extraordinary reaction times, or muscle strength, or flexibility. It is possible to gain a similar level as those people through intense training, but the difference is that the gifted do not need intense training, their natural aptitude places them at a higher baseline to start and gives them a greater peak level than those with less aptitude.
Your definition of "giftedness" appears to have no relation to what it actually is.