Here in the Seattle area, we are getting mass transit
at $100,000,000 per mile.
It will carry 1/2 of one percent of the traffic.
It has been calculated that if it is always full of people going to
work, it would still be cheaper to send them pay checks, forever, than
to build the mass transit.

It took but seconds of research to discover gasp that
"conservatives" and Sunday Fundies have huge problems with
actual numbers. Is this a learned trait or one that just evolved?
The result of generations of "home schooling" and genetic
effects?

Cliff, you are a moron. Clark's statement was an accurate reflection of the
truth regarding the proposed light rail project in Seattle. Your "answer"
could have just as well have come out your ass.

The problem with the project referenced is not that it's publicly funded,
but rather that it's a colossal waste of money, does not solve the problem
addressed, does not go where people want to go, and instead is designed to
line the pockets of rich construction interests, big labor interests, big
finance interests, and their purchased politicos. It's billions of dollars
wasted that could have paid for, say, treatment for you to overcome your
profound mental debility.

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven. Of course this is to be
expected, given the demonstrated greater personal commitment to the child's
education and the lack of wasteful distractions such as simply trying to
keep order.

But of course you can't grasp any of this. Is this a learned trait or just
congenital results of being born with your head in your anus?

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:44:19 GMT,
"Steve........................................ ..."
wrote:

Here in the Seattle area, we are getting mass transit
at $100,000,000 per mile.
It will carry 1/2 of one percent of the traffic.
It has been calculated that if it is always full of people going to
work, it would still be cheaper to send them pay checks, forever, than
to build the mass transit.

It took but seconds of research to discover gasp that
"conservatives" and Sunday Fundies have huge problems with
actual numbers. Is this a learned trait or one that just evolved?
The result of generations of "home schooling" and genetic
effects?

Cliff, you are a moron. Clark's statement was an accurate reflection of the
truth regarding the proposed light rail project in Seattle. Your "answer"
could have just as well have come out your ass.

The problem with the project referenced is not that it's publicly funded,
but rather that it's a colossal waste of money, does not solve the problem
addressed, does not go where people want to go, and instead is designed to
line the pockets of rich construction interests, big labor interests, big
finance interests, and their purchased politicos. It's billions of dollars
wasted that could have paid for, say, treatment for you to overcome your
profound mental debility.

Not enough $$$.

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven. Of course this is to be
expected, given the demonstrated greater personal commitment to the child's
education and the lack of wasteful distractions such as simply trying to
keep order.

But of course you can't grasp any of this. Is this a learned trait or just
congenital results of being born with your head in your anus?

Government schools.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:01:27 GMT, "Jeff Lowe"
wrote:


"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:07:36 -0700, Gary wrote:

Poor lil Fundie Cruz Mike... Still suffering from your life long
fundie meltdown...

Tried, Convicted, Condemend by Jeff Lowe for libel:
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that
conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or
representation published without just cause and tending to expose
another to public contempt

Mike: It would seem you have a severe reading comprehension problem. You
made the statement that Gary was seduced by a priest and molested. You made
this as a statement of fact. Do you know this to be true? I suspect that you
have no knowledge and in fact created this out of the whole cloth in an
attempt to disparage him.
BTW, Does the phrase "Thou shall not bear false witness" have any meaning
for you? It is a lot easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk,
isn't it?



I think Gary admitted that in the past... was I mistaken?

Did I say that after or before Gary went on another one of his
tirades? Are you one of Gary's sheeple? You sheeple are all the
same.. never thinking on your own... are you now attmepting to
slander or libel me in front of this goupd with you "bible Thumper"
quotes... God your friend when you need his words to insult and
condemn or attack others... Jeff Sheeple... stealer of words in
times of convience...

Later,
Mike

Tried, Convicted, Condemned by Jeff Lowe for libel:
Libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that
conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or
representation published without just cause and tending to expose
another to public contempt

"Steve........................................ ..." wrote
in message news97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...
Here in the Seattle area, we are getting mass transit
at $100,000,000 per mile.
It will carry 1/2 of one percent of the traffic.
It has been calculated that if it is always full of people going to
work, it would still be cheaper to send them pay checks, forever, than
to build the mass transit.

It took but seconds of research to discover gasp that
"conservatives" and Sunday Fundies have huge problems with
actual numbers. Is this a learned trait or one that just evolved?
The result of generations of "home schooling" and genetic
effects?

Cliff, you are a moron. Clark's statement was an accurate reflection of
the
truth regarding the proposed light rail project in Seattle. Your "answer"
could have just as well have come out your ass.

The problem with the project referenced is not that it's publicly funded,
but rather that it's a colossal waste of money, does not solve the problem
addressed, does not go where people want to go, and instead is designed to
line the pockets of rich construction interests, big labor interests, big
finance interests, and their purchased politicos. It's billions of dollars
wasted that could have paid for, say, treatment for you to overcome your
profound mental debility.


Despite having the usual opponents and proponents, the light rail project in
Portland has gone over fairly well--the trains are generally near full, and
the line has undergone continual expansion throughout the years.

Lotsa folks bitched about it at first, I venture at least some of those
folks now ride it on a daily basis.

When looking at cost, one should also look at the cost of building new
freeways to serve the same area--while I have no figures, $100,000,000 /
Mile might not be all that unreasonable. While there is no doubt freeways
can carry more people, the sad fact is they often simply do not fit in where
there is the greatest need to transit people between two areas, and the
fixed points between.

While the costly main lines in dense areas must be put in first, later
running of extensions into outlying areas generally is less costly as rail
can often be placed within existing right of ways, timberlands etc.

Where folks can drive a few blocks and park in a secure lot, and you can
buzz them to work from 20 miles away consistantly in a 30 minute uneventfull
trip and without chance traffic jam to a point within a few blocks of their
workplace, at a cost of a few dollars a day, ridership will usually rapidly
increase.

But you still have to start *somewhere*..........

While anyone who has been there recently would likely agree there are
serious transportation issues in the Seattle area, few are able to come up
with viable ideas to remedy them.

What would you suggest be done about the problem instead, and have you taken
your ideas to those that might have a chance at implementing them ?

I personally think we need more bicycle paths, and a surcharge on vehicle
registration if one is employed over say......five miles from their
home--but hey, I live out in the sticks and walk to work when the weather is
nice, so its really not my problem--and so I really feel no compelling need
to work towards solving it........Nor do I feel my tax dollars should be
spent in solving a problem I had no hand in creating and that is in an area
I only visit on an infrequent basis........

Good luck,

--

SVL

It looks like the costs went up again for this thing...the Light rail
was voted upon at about $ 14,000 per foot and by the numbers given here
it's up to almost $ 19,000 per foot.

The problem for this project is that every neighborhood and special
interest lobbied to get the route through their neighborhood with
glorious castles of train stations. What could have been a fairly cheap
project generally using existing railbeds and less expensive routes has
turned into a "glory" monument for every little neighborhood boss.

Of course the real problem is that the transportation plan is not about
getting people "around" the area, it's about getting people into and out
of downtown. Basically, the rail becomes a subsidy of sorts to the
downtown core in order to increase business density. I personally
support a better distribution of job location rather than just moving
people in and out of downtown.

Just as a proposal here....for the amount of people (percent) that
something like this rail would carry, wouldn't it be better to invest in
telecommuting solutions for those who would be able to work as such? It
would be a LOT cheaper to work with business to encourage them to work
out ways for (appropriate) employees to telecommute rather than pay
through the nose to move them in and out of downtown areas. In Seattle,
there are HUGE numbers of people doing things like graphic design,
programming, data entry, etc for which most days are spent locked in an
office at a terminal anyway. Although most of us don't work in the
center of a city, as an example, how much of the programming and design
could you actually do at home rather than sitting at a desk in your
office? 10%? that would be 10% less traffic in one swoop which has a
far greater impact than the 1/2% this rail is slated to carry.

Budget for solutions to keep people from needing to commute daily is
essentially zero.

Koz

PrecisionMachinisT wrote:

"Steve........................................... " wrote
in message news97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...


Here in the Seattle area, we are getting mass transit
at $100,000,000 per mile.
It will carry 1/2 of one percent of the traffic.
It has been calculated that if it is always full of people going to
work, it would still be cheaper to send them pay checks, forever, than
to build the mass transit.


It took but seconds of research to discover gasp that
"conservatives" and Sunday Fundies have huge problems with
actual numbers. Is this a learned trait or one that just evolved?
The result of generations of "home schooling" and genetic
effects?


Cliff, you are a moron. Clark's statement was an accurate reflection of


the


truth regarding the proposed light rail project in Seattle. Your "answer"
could have just as well have come out your ass.

The problem with the project referenced is not that it's publicly funded,
but rather that it's a colossal waste of money, does not solve the problem
addressed, does not go where people want to go, and instead is designed to
line the pockets of rich construction interests, big labor interests, big
finance interests, and their purchased politicos. It's billions of dollars
wasted that could have paid for, say, treatment for you to overcome your
profound mental debility.




Despite having the usual opponents and proponents, the light rail project in
Portland has gone over fairly well--the trains are generally near full, and
the line has undergone continual expansion throughout the years.

Lotsa folks bitched about it at first, I venture at least some of those
folks now ride it on a daily basis.

When looking at cost, one should also look at the cost of building new
freeways to serve the same area--while I have no figures, $100,000,000 /
Mile might not be all that unreasonable. While there is no doubt freeways
can carry more people, the sad fact is they often simply do not fit in where
there is the greatest need to transit people between two areas, and the
fixed points between.

While the costly main lines in dense areas must be put in first, later
running of extensions into outlying areas generally is less costly as rail
can often be placed within existing right of ways, timberlands etc.

Where folks can drive a few blocks and park in a secure lot, and you can
buzz them to work from 20 miles away consistantly in a 30 minute uneventfull
trip and without chance traffic jam to a point within a few blocks of their
workplace, at a cost of a few dollars a day, ridership will usually rapidly
increase.

But you still have to start *somewhere*..........

While anyone who has been there recently would likely agree there are
serious transportation issues in the Seattle area, few are able to come up
with viable ideas to remedy them.

What would you suggest be done about the problem instead, and have you taken
your ideas to those that might have a chance at implementing them ?

I personally think we need more bicycle paths, and a surcharge on vehicle
registration if one is employed over say......five miles from their
home--but hey, I live out in the sticks and walk to work when the weather is
nice, so its really not my problem--and so I really feel no compelling need
to work towards solving it........Nor do I feel my tax dollars should be
spent in solving a problem I had no hand in creating and that is in an area
I only visit on an infrequent basis........

Good luck,

Jeff Lowe wrote:

Mike: It would seem you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Yes, he certainly does.


You
made the statement that Gary was seduced by a priest and molested. You made
this as a statement of fact.

Do you know this to be true?

He knows this is NOT true.


I suspect that you
have no knowledge and in fact created this out of the whole cloth in an
attempt to disparage him.

Correct. He's one of them lying lil middle eastern
fundamentalists...


BTW, Does the phrase "Thou shall not bear false witness" have any meaning
for you?

Them fundies are always telling people what to do but they're too
good to follow their own ignorant middle eastern souperstitions...


It is a lot easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk,
isn't it?

He ONLY wants his manipulative ignorant middle eastern christian
superstitions to be forced on OTHER people. He's too good to need it
forced on him...


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:01:27 GMT, "Jeff Lowe"
wrote:

Mike: It would seem you have a severe reading comprehension problem. You
made the statement that Gary was seduced by a priest and molested. You made
this as a statement of fact. Do you know this to be true? I suspect that you
have no knowledge and in fact created this out of the whole cloth in an
attempt to disparage him.
BTW, Does the phrase "Thou shall not bear false witness" have any meaning
for you? It is a lot easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk,
isn't it?


I think Gary admitted that in the past...

Wrong. You've made that accusation before and you were told it is
a pure fabrication of your ignorant middle eastern souperstitious
fundie scrambled brain...


was I mistaken?

Not "mistaken", just lying. Common practice for you manipulative
ignorant middle eastern christian souperstition cult members...


Did I say that after or before Gary went on another one of his
tirades?

Who's "tirade"? LOL... Mr. Fundie Meltdown the Tirade king...
Toward how many people or groups of people have you shown pure middle
eastern souperstitious bigotry?


Are you one of Gary's sheeple?

I don't have any sheeple. Nobody follows me, but when someone
tries I tell them to think for themselves, as I've done here many
times. You OTOH are pure superstitious SHEEPLE, you follow a bunch of
dead middle eastern camp fire story plagiarizers. Fine for you but
you have no right to force your ignorance on ANYONE else...


God your friend when you need his words

Who's words? Got foorp? Guess what Souperstitious Fundie Boy!
Those are the words of a handful of extremely IGNORANT dead
manipulative superstitious middle eastern camp fire story
plagiarizers...


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:15:44 -0700, Gary wrote:

Take your middle eastern
fundamentalism back to the middle east... We don't need your ignorant
middle eastern superstitions...


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" FAG)

Tried, Convicted, Condemned by Jeff Lowe for libel:
Libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that
conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or
representation published without just cause and tending to expose
another to public contempt

Wrong Fundie Boy Mike... Look closely at the definition... See
that word in the "unjustly"? You DO spew manipulative ignorant
middle eastern christian souperstitions... You ARE a manipulative
ignorant middle eastern fundamentalist... You DO try to force YOUR
ignorant middle eastern superstitions on other people... In fact,
your Talibanish attempts at forcing your ignorant middle eastern
superstitions on other people is the ONLY reason I even replied to one
of your posts... DUH, Fundie Cruz Mike! Go sit in a closet with your
ignorant middle eastern imaginary friends...


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

Clark Magnuson wrote:

The trick is getting as much free will as possible.

"The trick"?


Often those who look to God get more.

LOL... Thanks, a good laugh is ALWAYS appreciated...


My mind, sex drive, tired feet, and emotions vote on everything.
Fear of God gives my mind a working majority.

You fear your imaginary friend?


A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of
atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

A society that teaches the endless lies, bigotry & oppression of
middle eastern christian superstitions as fact will breed another
generation of murdering fundamentalist terrorist jackals that will
destroy the society. It is Talibanian.


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

Clark Magnuson wrote:

A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of
atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

A society that teaches the endless lies, bigotry & oppression of
middle eastern christian superstitions as fact will breed another
generation of murdering fundamentalist terrorist jackals that will
destroy the society. It is Talibanian.


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:44:19 GMT,
"Steve........................................ ..."
wrote:

Here in the Seattle area, we are getting mass transit
at $100,000,000 per mile.
It will carry 1/2 of one percent of the traffic.
It has been calculated that if it is always full of people going to
work, it would still be cheaper to send them pay checks, forever, than
to build the mass transit.

It took but seconds of research to discover gasp that
"conservatives" and Sunday Fundies have huge problems with
actual numbers. Is this a learned trait or one that just evolved?
The result of generations of "home schooling" and genetic
effects?

Cliff, you are a moron. Clark's statement was an accurate reflection of the
truth regarding the proposed light rail project in Seattle. Your "answer"
could have just as well have come out your ass.


Tried, Convicted, Condemned by Jeff Lowe for libel:
Libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that
conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or
representation published without just cause and tending to expose
another to public contempt

Careful there Steve.. get Cliff's undies in a knot of that comment..

Later,
Mike

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:44:19 GMT,
"Steve........................................ ..."
wrote:

Here in the Seattle area, we are getting mass transit
at $100,000,000 per mile.
It will carry 1/2 of one percent of the traffic.
It has been calculated that if it is always full of people going to
work, it would still be cheaper to send them pay checks, forever, than
to build the mass transit.

It took but seconds of research to discover gasp that
"conservatives" and Sunday Fundies have huge problems with
actual numbers. Is this a learned trait or one that just evolved?
The result of generations of "home schooling" and genetic
effects?

Cliff, you are a moron. Clark's statement was an accurate reflection of the
truth regarding the proposed light rail project in Seattle. Your "answer"
could have just as well have come out your ass.

The problem with the project referenced is not that it's publicly funded,
but rather that it's a colossal waste of money, does not solve the problem
addressed, does not go where people want to go, and instead is designed to
line the pockets of rich construction interests, big labor interests, big
finance interests, and their purchased politicos. It's billions of dollars
wasted that could have paid for, say, treatment for you to overcome your
profound mental debility.


this deserves special attention..:

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven. Of course this is to be
expected, given the demonstrated greater personal commitment to the child's
education and the lack of wasteful distractions such as simply trying to
keep order.

But of course you can't grasp any of this. Is this a learned trait or just
congenital results of being born with your head in your anus?


Steve the reason Cliffy takes swipes at home-schoolers and such is
because he is a mindless Sheeple... he is a follower, he is part of
the school of fish, he is the herded... and the guilt, the sadness,
the insecurities that come from living and being a sheeplike, mindless
and lead around by others is overwhelming and more and more difficult
for him to deal with every day... so when ever he can.. he must
attack, he must insult, he must attempt to exasperate those who would
take their own road, follow their own conscience, and lead their own
lives... Cliff is a sheeple.. and is ashamed.

Later,
Mike

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of
ordinary Americans" -- Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today
Yes.. we must make more sheeple.. Cliff must flourish in the great
herd of sheeple controlled and governed by the vast left wing...LOL

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:20:38 -0700, Gary wrote:

Jeff Lowe wrote:

Mike: It would seem you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Yes, he certainly does.


You
made the statement that Gary was seduced by a priest and molested. You made
this as a statement of fact.

Do you know this to be true?

He knows this is NOT true.


I'm sorry Gary.. I thought you had confessed several months ago that
you were seduced by a priest as a teenager and were bitter as a
result..

Please accept my apologies.


Later,
Mike

Tried, Convicted, Condemned by Jeff Lowe for libel:
Libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that
conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or
representation published without just cause and tending to expose
another to public contempt

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:44:19 GMT,
"Steve........................................ ..."
wrote:

,; Here in the Seattle area, we are getting mass transit
,; at $100,000,000 per mile.
,; It will carry 1/2 of one percent of the traffic.
,; It has been calculated that if it is always full of people going to
,; work, it would still be cheaper to send them pay checks, forever, than
,; to build the mass transit.
,;
,; It took but seconds of research to discover gasp that
,; "conservatives" and Sunday Fundies have huge problems with
,; actual numbers. Is this a learned trait or one that just evolved?
,; The result of generations of "home schooling" and genetic
,; effects?
,;
,;Cliff, you are a moron. Clark's statement was an accurate reflection of the
,;truth regarding the proposed light rail project in Seattle. Your "answer"
,;could have just as well have come out your ass.
,;
,;The problem with the project referenced is not that it's publicly funded,
,;but rather that it's a colossal waste of money, does not solve the problem
,;addressed, does not go where people want to go, and instead is designed to
,;line the pockets of rich construction interests, big labor interests, big
,;finance interests, and their purchased politicos. It's billions of dollars
,;wasted that could have paid for, say, treatment for you to overcome your
,;profound mental debility.
,;
,;As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
,;education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
,;accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
,;per day than government schools accomplish in seven. Of course this is to be
,;expected, given the demonstrated greater personal commitment to the child's
,;education and the lack of wasteful distractions such as simply trying to
,;keep order.

How would you compare the "measurable educational results" of home
schoolers with those who went to a public school and received
comparable attention from the parents?

My point is that if you send your kids to public school for 12+ years
and then look at amazement at what happened you deserve what you got.

I sent mine to public school and monitored the education process as it
took place. I supplemented the stuff dished out by teachers who didn't
quite make it to med school and grabbed a couple educations courses so
they could leave college mad and get a teacher's job and spent their
careers bitching about the lack of pay. I also learned to get out of
the way at the end of the day when the kids were let out and the
teachers blasted out the driveway.

I understood that at least some of the administrators understood that
they had some real ass holes on the staff but couldn't fire them
because they hadn't yet had sexual relations with a student. I learned
to find out who they were and how to avoid having my kids in their
class.

In addition I remember the "hard ass teachers" I disliked at the time
because they kept me after school because I didn't live up to my
potential in class. It was not that I had necessarily misbehaved which
I did occasionally (well rarely as I recall) but she thought I could
do better. School was out at 4 PM and I spent more than a few days up
to 5 PM because that "hard ass" teacher demanded that I read and
understood the science project because she knew I could understand it
but didn't because of various distractions which at the time were far
more important.

I benefited from those teachers but unfortunately they were all dead
before I understood their dedication to their profession and could
express my gratitude for whipping my ass into a rather profitable
profession. What is even more unfortunate is that they couldn't also
appreciate what that "hard ass" attitude did for my kids. My kids went
to public school but their wasn't a day went by that their homework
wasn't monitored, handed in on time, and represented their own work no
matter how many times they had to go back and redo it. My kids learned
that when I reviewed math homework with 50 problems and said "There is
one wrong answer" it was time to check their work. They knew better
than to ask which problem was wrong. Their were disappointments but
they learned to deal with them. This world is not necessarily fair and
there are times when you just have to dig deeper and try harder. Home
schoolers miss much of that.

The school system will never be a forum where you can dump your kids
like it was a baby sitter. As long as there is a tenure system you
will get what you deserve but that does not mean that you can't beat
the system and get your kids through successfully.

Your home schooled kids may get to college and not have ever learned
how to deal with adverse situations. I saw more than a few who went
wild once out from under control of a parent.

,;
,;But of course you can't grasp any of this. Is this a learned trait or just
,;congenital results of being born with your head in your anus?

The above comment is about what I would expect from someone with this
attitude. It does however give a pretty good profile of what I would
describe as the typical "home schooler".

The most serious problem with Clark is that he's a power-mad,
pompous tinhorn dictator-in-training. And he has scant respect
for the Constitutionally protected, inalienable rights of the
common American citizen. He's particularly bad about the 2nd
amendment, but don't worry, he'd ignore the other nine as well
if he could.

"...to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic..." Those are some of the words in the
oath he took as an officer. He is not doing as he swore an
oath to do, and would prefer NOT to do so, as HE is an enemy
of that very Constitution. By rights, he should be tried and
hanged for TREASON.

CJ

"Steve........................................ ..." wrote in message news:D97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven.


That's a crock of smelly ****.

In article , Don Wilkins says...

... My kids went
to public school but their wasn't a day went by that their homework
wasn't monitored, handed in on time, and represented their own work no
matter how many times they had to go back and redo it. My kids learned
that when I reviewed math homework with 50 problems and said "There is
one wrong answer" it was time to check their work. They knew better
than to ask which problem was wrong. Their were disappointments but
they learned to deal with them. This world is not necessarily fair and
there are times when you just have to dig deeper and try harder. Home
schoolers miss much of that.

Don this may not be what you want to hear, but
it sounds to me like your kids *were* home schooled.

Yes maybe they spent a few hours a day in class, away
from home - but what they really needed they got at
home.

I took the liberty of changing the thread name, I always
thought it was silly to inject personal barbs that way.
Obviously that was not directed at you, Don.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Steve........................................ ..." wrote
in message news97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven.


Always some kind of conspiracy, it seems.........

You sure the "dark truth" is that *nothing* is being buried, and all those
Christians calling for home schooling arent just putting up a smoke screen
to cover their own failings ???

How about some cites ??? This is *your* claim, after all...........


--

SVL

"You can take your kids out of public schooling and keep them as stupid as
you like--the world needs lots more pizza delivery drivers and janitors and
clergymen and abortion clinic bombers........and.......and......so
on......."

"Do the rest of us a favor and just take them in for home schooling and then
shut your trap."

Sounds to me like they had parents who gave a damn, encouraged their child,
and set a level of expectation that they personally followed up on. I
suspect that THAT is the common thread between home schooled children who
excel and public school children who excel rather than one educational
system vs. another.

Robert

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Don Wilkins
says...

... My kids went
to public school but their wasn't a day went by that their homework
wasn't monitored, handed in on time, and represented their own work no
matter how many times they had to go back and redo it. My kids learned
that when I reviewed math homework with 50 problems and said "There is
one wrong answer" it was time to check their work. They knew better
than to ask which problem was wrong. Their were disappointments but
they learned to deal with them. This world is not necessarily fair and
there are times when you just have to dig deeper and try harder. Home
schoolers miss much of that.

Don this may not be what you want to hear, but
it sounds to me like your kids *were* home schooled.

Yes maybe they spent a few hours a day in class, away
from home - but what they really needed they got at
home.

I took the liberty of changing the thread name, I always
thought it was silly to inject personal barbs that way.
Obviously that was not directed at you, Don.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:16:07 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

keep order.

But of course you can't grasp any of this. Is this a learned trait or just
congenital results of being born with your head in your anus?


Steve the reason Cliffy takes swipes at home-schoolers and such is
because he is a mindless Sheeple... he is a follower, he is part of
the school of fish, he is the herded... and the guilt, the sadness,
the insecurities that come from living and being a sheeplike, mindless
and lead around by others is overwhelming and more and more difficult
for him to deal with every day... so when ever he can.. he must
attack, he must insult, he must attempt to exasperate those who would
take their own road, follow their own conscience, and lead their own
lives... Cliff is a sheeple.. and is ashamed.

Later,
Mike

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Though to be fair..I think your conclusion is wrong.

Cliff is simply a prick.


Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:12:20 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Steve........................................... " wrote
in message news97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven.


Always some kind of conspiracy, it seems.........

You sure the "dark truth" is that *nothing* is being buried, and all those
Christians calling for home schooling arent just putting up a smoke screen
to cover their own failings ???

How about some cites ??? This is *your* claim, after all...........

http://www.ericfacility.net/database.../ed435709.html
http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/29home.h18
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issue...schooling.html

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "


Gunner



"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

A city wide blackout at Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to misc.survivalism the following:

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "

I heard a comment from a rep of a private college, which matriculates a lot
of home-schoolers. Seems that Home Schooled kids do well in every j\subject
but one, which varies from family to family. (Meaning, the home schooled child
is most likely weak in the subject their parents are weak in: math, history,
cybernetics, etc.)


Gunner

--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:17:57 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to misc.survivalism the following:

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "

I heard a comment from a rep of a private college, which matriculates a lot
of home-schoolers. Seems that Home Schooled kids do well in every j\subject
but one, which varies from family to family. (Meaning, the home schooled child
is most likely weak in the subject their parents are weak in: math, history,
cybernetics, etc.)


How many subjects were the public school kids weak in?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

... Seems that Home Schooled kids do well in every j\subject
but one, which varies from family to family. (Meaning, the home schooled child
is most likely weak in the subject their parents are weak in: math, history,
cybernetics, etc.)

For me that would have been Gym! :^)

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:17:57 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to misc.survivalism the following:

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "

I heard a comment from a rep of a private college, which matriculates a lot
of home-schoolers. Seems that Home Schooled kids do well in every j\subject
but one, which varies from family to family. (Meaning, the home schooled child
is most likely weak in the subject their parents are weak in: math, history,
cybernetics, etc.)


How many subjects were the public school kids weak in?

Gunner

Hey! No Fair!!!

Public school teachers really aren't required to know actual subjects.
They concentrate in "education" theory and union dues. That might
explain a lot.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:12:20 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Steve........................................... "
wrote
in message news97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three
hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven.


Always some kind of conspiracy, it seems.........

You sure the "dark truth" is that *nothing* is being buried, and all
those
Christians calling for home schooling arent just putting up a smoke
screen
to cover their own failings ???

How about some cites ??? This is *your* claim, after all...........

http://www.ericfacility.net/database.../ed435709.html


This one is based only on a group of families that had contracted to take
the Iowa test and demographics indicate this group to be well above average
income...........

"It should be noted that it was not possible within the parameters of this
study to evaluate whether this sample is truly representative of the entire
population of home school students. Noting that the press had reported the
results as if the sample had been random, Welner and Welner (1999) correctly
cautioned that the results may not be an accurate portrayal of the home
school population".



http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/29home.h18


"Mr. Rudner emphasized that although the home schoolers performed well above
the national median on commonly used tests, the study does not prove that
home schooling is superior to private or public education."

"Home schoolers' median scores across grade level and subject area typically
fell in the 70th to 80th percentile. Almost 25 percent of the home schoolers
were studying one or more grades above normal for their age."

"But the study does not compare the home schoolers' test scores with those
of children from similar families who are in public or private schools."


http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/



"Because this was not a controlled experiment, the study does not
demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools and
the results must be interpreted with caution."


http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issue...schooling.html



About the same as the others above, and based on the same studies or
apparently upon results results of paid-for, voluntary testing....



Until tests are mandatorily administered to ALL the home-schooled,
regardless of demographics, and scores are compared with those children in
the public schools, such studies are pretty much meaningless.

None of the above studies take into account the home schooled kids who were
not tested, which, by the way, seem likely to constitute the vast majority.

--



SVL

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics

Can you find any better cites?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:46:41 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


Until tests are mandatorily administered to ALL the home-schooled,
regardless of demographics, and scores are compared with those children in
the public schools, such studies are pretty much meaningless.

None of the above studies take into account the home schooled kids who were
not tested, which, by the way, seem likely to constitute the vast majority.

--



SVL



Tell you what..why not take the 15 minutes or so and find the cites
that condem home schooling and present them for us.

The question is..given a tiny sampling of cites presented here, is
there any reason to believe that homeschooling is inferior to public
school? Not counting the non exposure to drive by shootings, drugs,
MTV peer pressure, etc etc

Post something and lets look at it.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost exclusively
are not.

Yes, but how does that fact prove that home schooling is
detrimental to children?

Another case of lying with statistics.

I don't know of any laws against "disfunctional families and
illiterate, impoverished families" home schooling. They
don't, but that's because of the combination of not wanting
to and not being able to. If you dropped the "disfunctional
families and illiterate, impoverished families" from the
comparison, the results would probably be about equal
between the home schooled and publicly schooled children.
No one knows and no one can know, because the computation
can't be done.

The usual slam against home schoolers is that THEY are the
disfunctional, illiterate families and that home schooling
somehow damages their children. All the stats show is that
home schooling doesn't damage their children - at least not
academically. The only apparent damage done is to the
financial health and political power of public education.
THAT is what fires up the school boards and teachers' unions
- not the welfare of the children. (My opinion, of course.)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families
are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost
exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics

Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.

As in the case above. That one is self-evident. The people who home-school
their kids have enough going for them that one family member is capable and
can take the time. Kids from poor single-parent families don't have that
luxury, and they do correspondlingly badly in school. Those cites are all
over Christendom.

Ed Huntress

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families
are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost
exclusively
are not.

Yes, but how does that fact prove that home schooling is
detrimental to children?

The assertion was not that home schooling is detrimental. It was that it was
superior. And that is not supported by the facts, Robert, because there is
no control on the groups being compared.


Another case of lying with statistics.

I don't know of any laws against "disfunctional families and
illiterate, impoverished families" home schooling.

Robert, I think you've just hit bottom in the reality department. g How
are illiterate parent(s) in dysfunctional families going to home-school
their kids? They're lucky to get them dressed and out the door.

They
don't, but that's because of the combination of not wanting
to and not being able to.

Ah, yeah, no kidding.

If you dropped the "disfunctional
families and illiterate, impoverished families" from the
comparison, the results would probably be about equal
between the home schooled and publicly schooled children.

I see no reason to believe that's the case. Do you have facts, or just
speculations?

No one knows and no one can know, because the computation
can't be done.

Of course it can. You can take a slice of socio-economic profile from each
and compare them. It isn't easy, and I doubt if anyone has both the money
and the motivation to do it, but don't say it can't be done. That's the kind
of analysis that's done all the time in economics.

One of the things you have to do is normalize for class size. What's the
average class size in home-schooling? Take comparable-sized classes in
public schools and compare them. You can mathematically adjust for class
sizes based on samples. BTW, one of my wife's classes contains four
students. My son is in an AP History class with seven. So there are some
small classes to compare.


The usual slam against home schoolers is that THEY are the
disfunctional, illiterate families and that home schooling
somehow damages their children. All the stats show is that
home schooling doesn't damage their children - at least not
academically. The only apparent damage done is to the
financial health and political power of public education.
THAT is what fires up the school boards and teachers' unions
- not the welfare of the children. (My opinion, of course.)

There's much more to it than that. The premises of public education date
back a little over a century. It was something that was necessary for the
public good. Times have changed, and it's time to re-examine the premises.

But that's not what the argument is about. It's about an entrenched
bureaucracy in conflict with a philosophy of bitter, resentful malcontents.
There is no real argument, in other words, because they aren't honestly
addressing the same things. Neither does either side acknowledge or examine
the real premises of public education, nor their status in a changed world.

Ed Huntress

Santa Cruz Mike wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:20:38 -0700, Gary wrote:

Jeff Lowe wrote:

Mike: It would seem you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Yes, he certainly does.


You
made the statement that Gary was seduced by a priest and molested. You made
this as a statement of fact.

Do you know this to be true?

He knows this is NOT true.

I'm sorry Gary.. I thought you had confessed several months ago that
you were seduced by a priest as a teenager and were bitter as a
result..

You thought you thought? Hmmm, seems we have a serious problem
here... Middle eastern fundies don't think, that aint allowed by your
souperstitions...


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

"Steve........................................ ..." wrote in message news:D97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...
Here in the Seattle area, we are getting mass transit
at $100,000,000 per mile.
It will carry 1/2 of one percent of the traffic.
It has been calculated that if it is always full of people going to
work, it would still be cheaper to send them pay checks, forever, than
to build the mass transit.

It took but seconds of research to discover gasp that
"conservatives" and Sunday Fundies have huge problems with
actual numbers. Is this a learned trait or one that just evolved?
The result of generations of "home schooling" and genetic
effects?

Cliff, you are a moron. Clark's statement was an accurate reflection of the
truth regarding the proposed light rail project in Seattle. Your "answer"
could have just as well have come out your ass.

Which answer? I'm guessing Clark's claim came out of his.
Did YOU do a quick search on the numbers cited by various folks
with agendas & axes to grind?
They varied all over the place.

"Reflection" of the truth? As in distorted as in rippled & jumbled?

Have any actual hard numbers and *exactly* what for?

The problem with the project referenced is not that it's publicly funded,
but rather that it's a colossal waste of money, does not solve the problem
addressed, does not go where people want to go, and instead is designed to
line the pockets of rich construction interests, big labor interests, big
finance interests, and their purchased politicos. It's billions of dollars
wasted that could have paid for, say, treatment for you to overcome your
profound mental debility.

Sounds very much like you should consider Lithium.

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven.

Once you do several hours of bible study and remove the sciences
and most academics?

Face the facts: most parents would flunk themselves. And you expect
THEM to do the teaching of subjects most of them have but a vague
grasp of?

Not that that was the subject of my post .... I guess you missed
the rest of the thread(s) before jumping to conclusions. "Home schooled"
were you? Due to continued ejection from the Catholic schools?

Of course this is to be
expected, given the demonstrated greater personal commitment to the child's
education and the lack of wasteful distractions such as simply trying to
keep order.

And I expect you have guns too. That's bound to help keep order, right?

But of course you can't grasp any of this. Is this a learned trait or just
congenital results of being born with your head in your anus?

End effect of listening to thumpers? You get a lot of them over there?
And the general run-of-the-mill conservative anti-science, anti-education
(education is a liberal concept, after all ... some places even let
girls & minorities have a little) folks?
--
Cliff

Ed Huntress wrote:

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics.

Somebody else already made this point, yet it seems some people
wish to claim that THEIR altar does not lie...


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:12:20 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Steve.......................................... ." wrote
in message news97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven.


Always some kind of conspiracy, it seems.........

You sure the "dark truth" is that *nothing* is being buried, and all those
Christians calling for home schooling arent just putting up a smoke screen
to cover their own failings ???

How about some cites ??? This is *your* claim, after all...........

http://www.ericfacility.net/database.../ed435709.html
http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/29home.h18
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issue...schooling.html

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Nice to see that all of my kids did better than the average home
schooled kid. God only knows how they would have done if home
schooled. Cringe.
Sue

Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "


Gunner



"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:12:19 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:17:57 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to misc.survivalism the following:

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "

I heard a comment from a rep of a private college, which matriculates a lot
of home-schoolers. Seems that Home Schooled kids do well in every j\subject
but one, which varies from family to family. (Meaning, the home schooled child
is most likely weak in the subject their parents are weak in: math, history,
cybernetics, etc.)


How many subjects were the public school kids weak in?

Gunner, you cut me up :^)!

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

In article , Gunner says...

The question is..given a tiny sampling of cites presented here, is
there any reason to believe that homeschooling is inferior to public
school?

Umm, gunner, the homeschool crowd selects for the brightest
parents. If you say that *all* the kids should be home
schooled, you are ignoring the simple fact that most kids
would learn zero at home if you relied on only the parents
to do the instruction.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , John Flanagan says...

How many subjects were the public school kids weak in?

Gunner, you cut me up :^)!

The real question is, how many of the kids would wind up
selling crack on the streets all day, if homeschooling were
required of *all* parents!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:56:04 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


There's much more to it than that. The premises of public education date
back a little over a century. It was something that was necessary for the
public good. Times have changed, and it's time to re-examine the premises.

But that's not what the argument is about. It's about an entrenched
bureaucracy in conflict with a philosophy of bitter, resentful malcontents.
There is no real argument, in other words, because they aren't honestly
addressing the same things. Neither does either side acknowledge or examine
the real premises of public education, nor their status in a changed world.

Ed Huntress

Bitter resentful malcontents? Hummm thats an interesting description
of people who want a better education for their kids, away from rape,
murder, drugs and the planned demise of personal responsiblity.

Is this why most teachers and politicians send their children to
private schools? Because they are bitter resentful malcontents?

Interesting

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas