General rules, Bob Jones University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University)

Freshman and sophomore residence hall students must sign out before leaving campus; students with junior and senior privileges may leave without signing out between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.. Curfew is at 10:25 p.m., and residence hall students must be in their own rooms and quiet at 11 p.m. Lights must be out by midnight.

Each student is provided with a filtered e-mail account. Using unfiltered Internet access via computer, mobile phone, or satellite phone is prohibited for residence hall students. The university provides content-filtered Internet access for student use that blocks pornography, "lurid violence," racial hate, and other "objectionable content." Internet filters also block Wikipedia in the dorms (but not the library), as well as some blogs and all chat groups and other forms of "unmoderated expression."

DVD/VCRs are not allowed in residence halls; DVD players on computers cannot be used for watching films. Televisions may be used only as monitors to play video games.

Residence hall students are forbidden to go to movie theaters or, when visiting local homes, to watch any films with a rating higher than a G rating.

Residence hall students are not permitted to play, use, or own video games that are rated T, M, or Ao or that include profanity, sensual or suggestive dress, rock music, graphic violence, or demonic themes.

Students may not listen to country, jazz, New Age, rock, rap, or contemporary Christian music.

Residence hall students are permitted to work off-campus only until 10:25 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends, and students may not solicit door-to-door without a retail license or permission from the dean of students.

The University will not allow anything displaying the logos of Abercrombie & Fitch or its subsidiary Hollister to be "worn, carried, or displayed" on campus even if the logos are covered because these companies have "shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions."

(Also, until 2000, interracial dating was forbidden)

Odd. Why contemporary Christian music? Too liberal?

(I can sympathize about the rap though. Offensive noise.)

They're way off with the bans on rock, rap and country but all the others are fair game.

But seriously: what the fuck?

The university enrolls approximately 4,200 students representing every state and 50 foreign countries and employs a staff of 1450.
Again: what the fuck? "Yes please, here's my money - violate me."

I see that they don't allow DVDs but do allow video games. This is all seriously messed up.

Why is this surprising? Bob Jones university isn't public and it's run by a right wing, ultra orthodox, christian fundamentalist Nazi.

~String

The surprise is that 4,200 knowledge-hungry students from 50 countries should enrol there.

But actually, thinking about it... there doesn't seem anything to do there but study.

So I now admire their dedication.

The surprise is that 4,200 knowledge-hungry students from 50 countries should enrol there.

But actually, thinking about it... there doesn't seem anything to do there but study.

So I now admire their dedication.

There are Christian crazies from all over. It's not surprising that some of them have been duped into forking out money to be made into little soldiers for the Christian church.

~String

I went to a strict christian school in St. Louis, and we visited BJU...and it's just like that. Couples can't hold hands, and must sit 6 inches apart. I got in trouble for having a "billy idol" cassette tape in my walkman.

I went to a strict Christian school in St. Louis, and we visited BJU...and it's just like that. Couples can't hold hands, and must sit 6 inches apart. I got in trouble for having a "billy idol" cassette tape in my Walkman.

OMG! My brother and I went to a private Baptist school for a couple years (I, um... got kicked out) and he got paddled for bringing in a Bruce Springsteen tape and refusing to throw it away.

That was before my very vocal mother had died and she nearly ripped the head off the teacher.

Those were good times.

~String

I object to everything, WTH? VCR, DVDs, curfew?

Billy Lewis and Bruce Springsteen are the agents of the devil.

Fellas, I know where I'm going during Open Day week '08.

Are you going to carry a boom box filled with the devil's music? And not just Springsteen, but Elton John too?

Can you take some photos or maybe a vid?

Must be a liberal conspiracy to control education, eh?

Must be a liberal conspiracy to control education, eh?

There's no conspiracy-- a conspiracy, for the most part, is coordinated and done sub rosa. The polarization of education is an unfortunate side effect of our society. But let's face it, the only place you'll find a seriously conservative education is in private universities, run by right-wing nuts who are as equally whacked off their gourds as the left-wing ones who run the vast majority of all "other" universities.

~String

grab a mp3 go to abc stores buy sum of those christian music cd's and chuck it in ur mp3 and bob's ur uncle so to speak fairdinkum it works for me i listen to what i want when i want

am i the only on who sees the irony of an ultraconservative university whose name shortens to BJU

The polarization of education is an unfortunate side effect of our society.

Okay. Sure. I mean, I suppose I could pick an argument, but it's obscure and, for now, well beside the point.

But let's face it, the only place you'll find a seriously conservative education is in private universities

And there's a reason for that, you know.

... run by right-wing nuts who are as equally whacked off their gourds as the left-wing ones who run the vast majority of all "other" universities

It is this sort of vomitous spew that ruins what could have been an otherwise-useful point when you make it so clear that your intentions have nothing to do with learning, rational consideration, or even general human progress. Because even if you absolutely insist on pretending that the majority of college administrators and professors are irredeemable, drooling burnouts, at least they are attempting to deal with reality. Now, you may take issue with how sharply John the Suspected Liberal condemns this or that traditionally-praised aspect of history, but I think you're smart enough to understand that there is a difference between--

• Presenting history in accord with the historical record, and,
• Presenting history in order to support a myth, despite the historical record

Examples? Columbus is the obvious one. Southern Reconstruction is another. Imagine the fights college students are going to have in twenty years about the whole 9/11-Saddam thing. In any of those cases, the historical record suggests against the "conservative" argument. Conservatives were upset when revisionism led scholars to tell the Columbus story according to the record--including his diaries--instead of ladling out the myth once a year. The myth of Southern Reconstruction, you know, the one about the lazy Negros, the horrible northern carpetbaggers, and the poor, beleaguered, noble South raped by the injustice of equality? The one that depends on the notion that blacks are inherently lazy and corrupt? The one that ignores quick progress made by blacks in order to pretend that the degradation brought on by Jim Crow laws actually reflected the natural state of the inferior Negro? Oh, sorry, my bad. I forgot, you've already rejected that discussion (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1610434&postcount=35).

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you can tell the difference between the "liberal bias" of denouncing slavery in American history as contradictory to expressed American cultural values and deliberately constructing a history curriculum that ignores the existence of a majority of the world in order to support that history only runs six-thousand years back to the time when IHVH created the world and Universe in six days, only to rest on the seventh.

• • •

String, I would ask you to consider an analogy about "academic diversity". Imagine you're in a class discussing the Book of Job.

(1) Should the Book of Job be treated as a primary historical source document?
(2) Does the teaching reflect what the Book of Job actually says?

Here we have two questions of academic diversity that are, in fact, important to our considerations. The first one involves a technical distinction that is sometimes lost on conservatives. The Book of Job can be treated as a primary source document, just not as an historical source document. Anthropology? Theology? Sure. But even when you're holding a millennia-old, crumbling manuscript in your hand, it's not a primary historical source document in the way, say, Columbus' diary would.

Yet some would--and do--include the Bible among the materials suppressed by "liberal" conspiracies because the book is not treated as a legitimate historical or scientific source.

The second question involves a dicier aspect of historical argument. Generally speaking, the story of the Book of Job is told inaccurately compared to the text. A number of metaphorical presuppositions must be accepted at the outset, and abandoned immediately thereafter. For instance, if we look at the idea the general description that "Satan convinces God to test Job, and Job passes", there are a few things wrong with that basic summary. In the first place, Satan did not convince God of anything. God made a boast, and Satan made the obvious point. From that point on, God was game. Secondly, God does not test Job. When Satan says, "Put out your hand and take all that he has," God's response is, "Um ... er ... you do it."

Now, here the story gets sticky, because if someone points out that God did test Job, that makes Satan an instrument of God, which, technically, it is. But this reality doesn't mesh well with the popular theology of religion as behavior-control. The Satan recorded in archaeology, anthropology, history, and the Old Testament is considerably different from the one modern Christians scare their children by. Nor, historically, has this idea harmonized with the bizarre assertion that "God is good". (Itself a long discussion we can have if you wish.) But modern Christians really need their Job to be about a test of faith, and it works best this way.

Which is strange in and of itself, because Job's "faith" is what most of us would count as knowledge. Seriously: if, one day, you said something nasty about "God", and immediately after the sky came down and chewed you a new asshole, wouldn't you at least pay attention? So, in the end, the story people tell isn't really reflected in the text of Job. How, then, should you teach it? Should you teach what the text says, or respect the diversity of people who insist that we pretend it says something else?

You may not like the liberal outcome of academic inquiry, and certainly some folks simply get it wrong, but there really is a reason why "liberal" values align so frequently with alleged "enlightenment". And that is because "liberal" values depend on the ongoing process of "enlightenment". Conservative values, inherently and historically, do not. Remember that the last time a conservative value depended on enlightenment, said value was considered liberal at the time.

Mary Shelly once listened to her father's friend describe how British doctors tried to reanimate the corpses of executed prisoners by charging them with massive amounts of electricity. And while our modern outlooks might think of such an experiment as barbaric to the point of macabre, it was a very enlightened outlook in its day.

Your rush to make sure that, no matter what the issue is, liberals "get their fair share" of abuse reminds us what is important to you. I would only urge you to reconsider that if you define the terms for consideration a little more faithfully to reality, the world won't seem so damnably scary.

• • •

One more, just because your opinion is important to my understanding of what your opinion actually is. About the only thing I'm sure of right now is that you're really really frightened by some myth of liberalism that doesn't seem to have much connection with reality.

What if you were teaching about marriage? Tell me about ideological diversity in education, please. After all, there is a school that says marital customs were, originally, about labor division and resource management; others say it was a proprietary custom; a recent and supportable thesis put forth by Stephanie Coontz suggests that marriage has always been about the attainment of in-laws. And then there are those who want to make a political and religious issue out of it. So let's look at Coontz's thesis. (Sort of.)

Coontz tends against proprietary and resource theories. While those aspects were certainly part of early human partnerships, the formality of marriage seems to be, in history, more about joining groups together--e.g., gaining political and economic alliances through the extension of family (the attainment of in-laws). And you're welcome to go read through her book; it's fascinating. I don't claim to represent it perfectly for our general purposes today.

Because on the other side of your classroom, I would like you to imagine a modern (conservative) traditionalist. He wants to focus on the tradition of marriage, yet the evidence suggests a few things about this outlook on "tradition". First, the period of "traditional marriage" idealized by American traditionalists is all of approximately fifteen years. Secondly, that period does not represent any specific tradition, but rather a phase of an evolving human relationship; the idea of marrying for romantic love was, into the latter half of the twentieth century, controversial, and hardly traditional during the Long Decade (1947-62). And we should also consider that recent studies of materials coming available in the last couple decades suggest that the women, at least, were quite dissatisfied with their condition during that period.

Now, here's the problem I'm having with your outlook on the "education conspiracy" in general: The traditionalist's outlook is not reflected in the historical record. Despite this, describing the institution of marriage within civilized society could be seen as a process that victimizes conservatives. After all, that teaching will undermine the assertion of "tradition" while suggesting with little room for question that the period was harmful to the majority of its participants.

So what to do? The record disagrees with what the conservative wants to believe. Therefore, it must be a liberal bias.

Yeah, one of the American Idol finalists went to this school, til they kicked him out for singing some of the songs he did. Apparently he wasn't 'their kind of Christian' anymore.

Good grief. It is astounding that people would even want to attend this university. Funny but sad at the same time.

Residence hall students are forbidden to go to movie theaters or, when visiting local homes, to watch any films with a rating higher than a G rating.

:bugeye:

How in the hell would they even police this?

am i the only on who sees the irony of an ultraconservative university whose name shortens to BJU

Nnnnope.

....
:bugeye:

How in the hell would they even police this?

Holier than Thou Christians love nothing more than tattling on each other. They see it as doing God's work.

Ugh... here goes.

(and, mind you, this is WAY against my better judgment)

• Presenting history in accord with the historical record, and,
• Presenting history in order to support a myth, despite the historical record

Examples? Columbus is the obvious one.

Fine, I'll take a stab.

So, having been to college and heard the liberal (and, indeed, the very much "factually" correct) history on Columbus, there was one thing itching me, that liberals usually leave out-- each person must be judged by the time they were/are in.

Indeed, my history professor didn't fail to mention the fact that Columbus was a product of his time and WASN'T some blood thirsty Mengele, but did drone ON and ON about how horrible he was for doing the things he did and how it shouldn't have happened and how truly guilty modern people must be for celebrating his contributions to our society due to the terrible genocide he caused.

The problem is, where do you draw the historical line of guilt? When? There isn't a human being who doesn't have ancestors who did horrific things. Every single one of us is the descendant of people who raped, exterminated and pillaged other people. Conservatives believe WHOLEHEARTEDLY that people do, indeed, need to be shown the unvarnished truth of history. But they do believe that history needs to be put in perspective. The Europeans did it best, because the Europeans got there first. And that's about it.

I don't know a conservative that doesn't think that the destruction of Native American tribes was a bloody affair and should never be repeated-- this isn't revisionist history or liberal slant: it's truth.

From my uber-liberal professor, I heard how noble and "of the Earth" the Native Americans were (in contrast to Europeans), how superior "in many ways" their culture was, how they had a true communal society (in contrast to Europeans), and how the destruction of their way of life was not just a blow to the Native Americans, but a blow to the whole Earth.

Which brings up the unbiased look at the history of Columbus and the Native Americans which must be looked at individually and not in their collision with each other.

First you have to know that Columbus was educated from the earliest parts of his life that white people were the only humans, and that everybody else was somehow sub-human. It's not that he wanted to cause wickedness and harm to "other" people, it's just that he was an industrious skipper waiting for a job. The Spanish hired him to sail and he did. When he got to the new world, he judged the Native Americans through the eyes that he had been given. The man, was no better, or worse than the millions of people and thousands of conquers that came before him. My professor posited the notion that Columbus was no different than the administrators of concentration camps who wished to exterminate the Jews, which to me was outrageous. The true test of one's moral awareness is in how they treat the information of their actions (in my company, it's called "the light of day" test): do they hide them and shy away from that information or mater-of-factly acknowledge the information and accept it as a part of normal reality. The Nazis went to great lengths to hide their actions, which shows that they did, indeed, know they were doing harm; whereas with Columbus, it was matter-of-factly. No, this doesn't make it better. But the world that Columbus lived in and the world that the Nazis lived in were to very different places and one cannot easily or responsibly place the two in the same boat. For Columbus (and forever before him) it was accepted practice, for conquering armies to vanquish their conquered peoples, especially those viewed as sub-human. In Germany's time, that concept had been debunked and was only revived(and hidden) in order to serve the genocidal purposes of the Nazis to expand into the territory of its neighbors.

The other thing that non-liberals have issue with, and that liberals always fail to mention, is that Native Americans weren't some uber-peaceful people living off the bounty of Mother Earth, but were as vicious and genocidal as every other society on Earth (i.e. the Europeans). The ONLY thing that stopped them from invading, conquering and exterminating other cultures (like ALL cultures did) were two things: technology and infrastructure. The reason why the Native Americans were so "of the Earth" and "communal" had nothing to do with their unbending nobility but everything to do with the very simplest of things: their level of social and technological evolution. One need only look at the archaeological finds of Europe, Asia and Australia to see that the nobility of the Native American was not so much to do with his intrinsic culture, but more to do with the sophistication of his society. The sacrifice that comes with a complex society, is the loss of the small community and passionate "fear" and worship of Mother Earth.

Suppose for a minute that the cultures of Europe and Africa were eons behind the Americas, you can be certain that one day, the "Indians" would have done to Europe exactly what the Europeans did to the Americas. Would it be horrible? Hell yes. But would it be some travesty that should be beaten over the heads of all "reds" for all eternity? No.

Cultures come and go. I guess I'm lucky that I am from one of the survivors, but, I don't regret any of the actions that brought me here. If it wasn't me, then someone else would be the "survivor". I can learn the lessons of history, judge their actions by the times they lived in; but I would never be so foolish as to judge them with my contemporary morality and bemoan my existence.

If I have to lament every tribe that has been killed to bring me here, I'd be spilling a lot of water over an unbending truth: living is messy business.

• Anyway, I'm pretty sure you can tell the difference between the "liberal bias" of denouncing slavery in American history as contradictory to expressed American cultural values and deliberately constructing a history curriculum that ignores the existence of a majority of the world in order to support that history only runs six-thousand years back to the time when IHVH created the world and Universe in six days, only to rest on the seventh.

I know of no "conservative" who denies the horrific nature of slavery. Also, I'm an agnostic, so I have no clue why you bring up the whole creation thing. I'm pretty sure that the universe exploded from a singularity about 15 billion years back, and I think that fact should be taught in schools.

• • •

[indent]• String, I would ask you to consider an analogy about "academic diversity". Imagine you're in a class discussing the Book of Job.

I was going to quote the whole thing, but again, I don't know how to respond, because I'm not a Christian, and again, I know of no non-liberal who would object to what you said.

Do I need to reiterate that fact over and over?

Tiassa... I know you love to type and I think that you invent reasons to write about. I have made it a point not to even respond to your quixotic posts, but what the hell are you after here? I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I'm some evil mutant who doesn't like extremists. One can have a truly objective view of history, see the horrible things that happened (in all directions) and still believe that white people, men, etcetera, don't have to hang their heads in shame over the fact that they are white and male or that they are proud of existing and that they revere white men of the past who may (or may not) have done some bad things.

[indent]• Now, here the story gets sticky, because if someone points out that God [i]did test Job, that makes Satan an instrument of God, which, technically, it is. But this reality doesn't mesh well with the popular theology of religion as behavior-control. The Satan recorded in archeology, anthropology, history, and the Old Testament is considerably different from the one modern Christians scare their children by. Nor, historically, has this idea harmonized with the bizarre assertion that "God is good". (Itself a long discussion we can have if you wish.) But modern Christians really need their Job to be about a test of faith, and it works best this way.

Now this part I like. I can almost forgive you for boring me to tears up till now. I've never used that particular argument against my born again brother, which, I will do the next time I see him.

I'll pay you all due credit when I do.

• Which is strange in and of itself, because Job's "faith" is what most of us would count as knowledge. Seriously: if, one day, you said something nasty about "God", and immediately after the sky came down and chewed you a new asshole, wouldn't you [i]at least pay attention? So, in the end, the story people tell isn't really reflected in the text of Job. How, then, should you teach it? Should you teach what the text says, or respect the diversity of people who insist that we pretend it says something else?

You teach: (a) what the text says and then (b) what it has meant to the vast majority of the people and even show how it came to mean what it did for people and explore the roots of that subtle evolution.

You know, Tiassa, it IS possible to show something for what it is while paying respect to the values of all people.

• You may not like the liberal outcome of academic inquiry, and certainly some folks simply get it wrong, but there really [i]is a reason why "liberal" values align so frequently with alleged "enlightenment". And that is because "liberal" values depend on the ongoing process of "enlightenment". Conservative values, inherently and historically, do not. Remember that the last time a conservative value depended on enlightenment, said value was considered liberal at the time.

Ahhh. Shit. It just hit me. You have no clue what non-liberals want in education. It has never been about hiding the truth or showing a glossed over history. It's always been about respecting the significance of the story/individual. One can, indeed, tell the truth about history, while exploring the truth of its significance to society.

In other words, it's okay to teach that Washington was a slave owner and that he did not "chop down a cherry tree and later admit to doing it out of some passionate dedication to the truth." What a teacher can do is show how great a leader Washington was, but how utterly human and "of his time" he was. What I hear from liberals is non stop sputum about historical figures and how they should be reviled. Again, Tiassa, it's not about telling a history that supports some conservative myth, over the truth, it's about telling all of it and then putting it in perspective, and MAYBE, exploring why the myth is so important to society.

[indent]• What if you were teaching about marriage? Tell me about ideological diversity in education, please. After all, there is a school that says marital customs were, originally, about labor division and resource management; others say it was a proprietary custom; a recent and supportable thesis put forth by Stephanie Coontz suggests that marriage has always been about the attainment of in-laws. And then there are those who want to make a political and religious issue out of it. So let's look at Coontz's thesis. (Sort of.)

Damned if her book is sitting on my shelf right now (saw her in an interview). As a gay man who would like to get married one day, it caught my eye. After I finish The Looming Tower. I promise.

Anyway, the short answer is, I'd teach people what marriage has meant throughout the ages, how it has changed, where our current model comes from, and why the current model is so important to us now. That's not liberal or conservative, it's just good education.

~String

So, having been to college and heard the liberal (and, indeed, the very much "factually" correct) history on Columbus, there was one thing itching me, that liberals usually leave out-- each person must be judged by the time they were/are in.

I would disagree with singling liberals out for this. After all, we're also the ones who insist on looking at the time and circumstances surrounding current events, as well. Part of the Columbus flap, as I recall, was the magnitude of the indictment. I understand it was a kick in the sac for unyielding, patriotic Americans, but it's the record. What struck me during that period was that apparently these folks, and they're not alone, actually need the myth to justify their nearly religious identity politic. The idea that Columbus was a murderous thug is appropriately mitigated given the period and prevailing ideology. However, even the most devoted supporters of the myth can't knock down what we got from Columbus himself. Conservatives made it about "trashing" a "hero". And that's where things got a little embarrassing. Because calling a mass-murderer a hero is a bit different from acknowledging that he lived in a certain time and amid certain ideas.

Indeed, my history professor didn't fail to mention the fact that Columbus was a product of his time and WASN'T some blood thirsty Mengele, but did drone ON and ON about how horrible he was for doing the things he did and how it shouldn't have happened and how truly guilty modern people must be for celebrating his contributions to our society due to the terrible genocide he caused.

It's generally considered a fair argument if it's not about Americans. Columbus was pretty twisted, but the greater offense of the modern day was insisting that a mass murderer was, in fact, a hero. He's responsible for as many as a half-million deaths, and that's before we start crucifying him for his influence over subsequent generations. His attitudes were repugnant. Consider that Cabeza de Vaca came from similar ideas and similar times. How did he manage to figure it out eventually? (Well, actually, after getting knocked off his high horse and spending a decade lost, he returned to Spain with newfound humility that allowed him to look at indigenous American tribes as human beings.)

The problem is, where do you draw the historical line of guilt? When?

These are tougher questions. If, culturally, we did not hold theft and murder in such negative regard, we wouldn't be bothering with these questions. There has, over the years, been a struggle between facts and values. We saw it come up in a recent discussion about, coincidentally, liberal bias at universities. It was not that a professor was a conservative that presented challenges, but rather that his thesis demands a huge leap in values to accommodate the facts.

Imagine a simple difference:

• My client did not murder the victim. My client has a verified alibi.

• My client did not murder the victim. He killed her in self-defense.

• My client did not murder the victim. It is acceptable to kill people who don't give you what you want.

Now, if we were on a jury, you and I--I'm guessing--would acquit if the first assertion was true. And, depending on the circumstances, we might even agree one way or the other on the second. But would we acquit the defendant according to the third argument? Because this is the sort of leap involved in asserting that, as the thesis has it, the Vietnam War could have been won. It's like saying we could win in Iraq by nuking the place. Sure, it's probably true, but diversity does not demand that we automatically set aside such social virtues as we've staked our cultural identity on.

However, that leap is relative to the question of where and when to draw the line. At what point does history lose its active influence? Consider American tribes. One can make a reasonable case that the "oppression" and "genocide" are over. To the other, though, the U.S. cancels or reneges on its treaties with the tribes whenever it feels like it.

Conservatives believe WHOLEHEARTEDLY that people do, indeed, need to be shown the unvarnished truth of history. But they do believe that history needs to be put in perspective. The Europeans did it best, because the Europeans got there first. And that's about it.

There is an apparent disconnection, then, between the "unvarnished truth of history" and societal values. We think murder, theft, and genocide are horrible. Except, of course, when it was our predecessors in the historical lineage that led through white Europe to the United States of America. The Europeans did it best because they were the best at killing and stealing. And this is fine. This is history. I don't see why we need to sugarcoat it and pretend that this historical lineage somehow justifies what we would condemn in other stories.

My problem with the conservative outlook on history is that, in attempting to justify its sentimental devotions, it justifies a whole lot of evil. I mean, I think we can agree that what happened on 9/11 was wrong. If, however, I pull together the underlying themes of various conservative political arguments, the common aspect is a convenient displacement of moral or ethical standards, a redefinition of justice that would, if applied equally and consistently to all peoples on the Earth, provide a compelling argument for the propriety of that awful day.

Yes. I reject this. And part of what I'm always looking for is the way out for conservatives. Of course, why should I worry about what the conservatives don't seem to want?

I don't know a conservative that doesn't think that the destruction of Native American tribes was a bloody affair and should never be repeated-- this isn't revisionist history or liberal slant: it's truth.

Yet we still must combat errors in the general historical outlook. That it was a bloody affair that should never be repeated is as morally-neutral a statement as one can manage. Should I take it to mean that you don't know a conservative who actually thinks that biological warfare, attempted genocide, and Manifest Destiny were wrong? Why would I make that leap? Your point loses its impact, however, in part because you're making an abstract point that doesn't come up much. There are still those who think the Manhattan Island sale was legitimate (the payment went to people who did not hold the land), that scalping was a savage practice of savage tribes (it was introduced by Europeans, who paid bounties for scalps), and pretend the continent was empty (it was, of course, empty after paying someone to kill everyone in that portion of the land, or after visiting epidemics upon tribes).

From my uber-liberal professor, I heard how noble and "of the Earth" the Native Americans were (in contrast to Europeans), how superior "in many ways" their culture was, how they had a true communal society (in contrast to Europeans), and how the destruction of their way of life was not just a blow to the Native Americans, but a blow to the whole Earth.

I do miss those days when it wasn't a thought crime to note that the current global-consumerist combine was only one possibility. The thing about communal societies is a tricky point in American society. On the one hand, we identified ourselves as a Christian nation in order to rebuke Communism, while to the other, the central tenet most American Christians fear about Communism and communal societies is, in fact, part of Christ's ministry. So yes, the loss of broad communalism does hurt.

First you have to know that Columbus was educated from the earliest parts of his life that white people were the only humans, and that everybody else was somehow sub-human. It's not that he wanted to cause wickedness and harm to "other" people, it's just that he was an industrious skipper waiting for a job. The Spanish hired him to sail and he did. When he got to the new world, he judged the Native Americans through the eyes that he had been given.

Cabeza de Vaca was a Spaniard who met the people face to face, and when he returned to Spain he challenged the prevailing ideology.

No, Columbus is not Hitler, but the idea that we should give a national holiday to a butcher does seem absurd. We don't need to condemn him. Just stop holding him up as some sort of hero. And stop telling that stupid story about how it happened. The actual history we have from the record is fascinating enough, and only suffers for the heavy injections of romantic jingoism.

The other thing that non-liberals have issue with, and that liberals always fail to mention, is that Native Americans weren't some uber-peaceful people living off the bounty of Mother Earth, but were as vicious and genocidal as every other society on Earth (i.e. the Europeans). The ONLY thing that stopped them from invading, conquering and exterminating other cultures (like ALL cultures did) were two things: technology and infrastructure

That's actually an irresponsible argument, but I understand why you put certain weight on it. In the first place, we cannot know what various tribes would have done. Perhaps they would have imploded when their size demanded a settling of ethical and moral values. Perhaps the "good guys" among them would have prevailed. We cannot know. However, in looking to other examples, I feel as if you're making the "homicide bomber" mistake. (In the rush to popularize the phrase "homicide bomber" to indicate Palestinian terrorists, both FOX News and the government of Israel failed to recognize that the words also include American pilots, Israeli soldiers, &c. By focusing on "homicide vs. suicide", Sharon and FOX made it about politics instead of reality. Where the term "suicide bomber" indicated an act in which the perpetrator intentionally destroyed himself, the phrase "homicide bomber" was openly and specifically introduced to the discussion in order to call the suicide bombers murderers. Pure aesthetics, with little or no consideration of the implications.)

Not everyone who kills or goes to war does so for the same reasons. Yeah, there is a difference between pointing at the enemy camp and saying, "There is your next meal; go and win it", and saying, "I'm going to kill this entire village for the Glory of God!"

So as long as we treat history as an amusement to fit onto a diner placemat, I understand why it looks so unfair to some.

One need only look at the archaeological finds of Europe, Asia and Australia to see that the nobility of the Native American was not so much to do with his intrinsic culture, but more to do with the sophistication of his society. The sacrifice that comes with a complex society, is the loss of the small community and passionate "fear" and worship of Mother Earth.

A strong point, but not definitive. That this is the way it has been done does not mean it is the only way. Or, as the Sufis ask, "Is the best we have the best that we can do?"

Suppose for a minute that the cultures of Europe and Africa were eons behind the Americas, you can be certain that one day, the "Indians" would have done to Europe exactly what the Europeans did to the Americas. Would it be horrible? Hell yes. But would it be some travesty that should be beaten over the heads of all "reds" for all eternity? No.

Imagine one day, someone actually managed to take over the United States. And imagine that, by some means, the people had been conditioned in such a manner that they would accept it. Now, the argument of the Israelis about the Palestinians, of the Americans about just about anyone else, is that if folks would just accept the new conditions, they might find them better than the former. This assertion reaches after what is, essentially, an idyll. Because if that happens, and the people do accept it, and their lot actually gets better, we will have achieved the idyll in question. However, that doesn't happen. At least, it hasn't so far. So the question is in part when the process itself is over. And then there is the question of when its effects are over.

Cultures come and go. I guess I'm lucky that I am from one of the survivors, but, I don't regret any of the actions that brought me here. If it wasn't me, then someone else would be the "survivor".

And we may as well get down and pray to God in thanksgiving for that. I understand what you're saying, but we certainly can't leave it at that. As you note:

I can learn the lessons of history, judge their actions by the times they lived in; but I would never be so foolish as to judge them with my contemporary morality and bemoan my existence.

I'll take your word about learning the lessons of history. The whole "white racist" disagreement we're having starts with a rejection of one of those lessons. Or, at least, as I see it.

And I do think you're looking at the Columbus issue at least slightly wrongly. I would encourage you to understand that it's not about condemning through contemporary eyes. The mythic Columbus and the national holiday, also, are judgments through contemporary eyes.

If I have to lament every tribe that has been killed to bring me here, I'd be spilling a lot of water over an unbending truth: living is messy business.

My question is to what degree consistency, integrity, decency, honor, and other such concepts are important to human beings.

I know of no "conservative" who denies the horrific nature of slavery.

I like the quotes around the word "conservative", in large part because it reminds me of Christians disqualifying one another from "Christianity" in order to not account for difficult theology. You know, some say Catholics aren't Christian; some say Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian; some say Mormons aren't Christian. So, maybe they're just not "your kind" of conservative.

Also, I'm an agnostic, so I have no clue why you bring up the whole creation thing. I'm pretty sure that the universe exploded from a singularity about 15 billion years back, and I think that fact should be taught in schools.

It was a contrast in the form of what some accusations of "liberal bias" actually equal.

I was going to quote the whole thing, but again, I don't know how to respond, because I'm not a Christian, and again, I know of no non-liberal who would object to what you said.

I'll put it into three quick points:

(1) It doesn't matter that you're not a Christian.
(2) Does diversity mean that insupportable theses deserve equal time?
(3) Just how exclusively are you casting conservatives? (See prior point about "your kind" of conservative.)

Okay, the underlying question--and I am amused that conservatives generally stop understanding when we reach the underlying question--is one of what is appropriate.

Would you, as whoever you are and choose to be, teach what is written in the text, or teach a conventional myth that doesn't reflect the text of the story? If your job was to teach the contents of the Bible, would you teach what is there, or what the local reverend wants you to believe?

Now then, if your answer is that you would teach the text of the Bible, the question becomes whether or not you are oppressing others by not teaching diverse viewpoints.

We come back to whether the theory is illegitimate because of a political label or because of what it actually says.

(Remember, if you're teaching the Book of Job from the perspective that it says one thing, and people are supposed to believe something else, you're still oppressing someone's viewpoint. Er, rather, at least according to the conservative arguments I've encountered in this most recent string of discussions about politics and education. Is it biased to point out, even indirectly, that "what they believe" is different from the record?)

I'm not a conservative.

I actually don't accept this, based on the evidence you've put forward. Your primary departure from conservatives pertains to a specific aspect of your personal identity. Aside from that, it's pretty hard to tell the difference, since you spend most of your time complaining about liberals.

One can have a truly objective view of history, see the horrible things that happened (in all directions) and still believe that white people, men, etcetera, don't have to hang their heads in shame over the fact that they are white and male or that they are proud of existing and that they revere white men of the past who may (or may not) have done some bad things.

A truly objective view of history is not impossible, but is nearly useless. Some things are "right" and some things are "wrong". And the whole time conservatives have been denouncing moral relativism, they've been missing the point. Right and wrong are conditional. The complaint that liberals and relativists have done away with morality is only partially accurate. We've done away with fixed morality, but we've asserted that there is proper behavior. Instead of helping figure out what the rules are in any remotely scientific manner, though, conservatives and religionists have only panicked that the loss of their simple ideas of right and wrong means that right and wrong don't exist anymore.

Nobody has to hang their heads in shame for simply being a white male. This exaggeration is your own. It would explain a lot, though, if white males are hanging their heads. It would explain the rush to pretend that the past has no effect on today.

Of course, we are once again at the question of where and when to draw the line. If you ever want to have that discussion, I'm game.

Now this part I like. I can almost forgive you for boring me to tears up till now. I've never used that particular argument against my born again brother, which, I will do the next time I see him.

I'll pay you all due credit when I do.

I'm glad I could be of help, but I would suggest that you might actually hurt your standing in that argument by raising an argument put forward by someone you so loathe and distrust.

Really. I'm happy to be of help, but is it the mere convenience of this point that makes it valid? Or have I somehow broken through that dense shield around your hidden heart?

You teach: (a) what the text says and then (b) what it has meant to the vast majority of the people and even show how it came to mean what it did for people and explore the roots of that subtle evolution.

You know, Tiassa, it IS possible to show something for what it is while paying respect to the values of all people.

Interesting you should say that. Because I agree. It's just that we have different definitions.

You have no clue what non-liberals want in education. It has never been about hiding the truth or showing a glossed over history. It's always been about respecting the significance of the story/individual. One can, indeed, tell the truth about history, while exploring the truth of its significance to society.

I love that phrase, "what non-liberals want in education." Because it's not about principles, as you would have it. If it was about principles, the rhetoric would match up better with those principles.

Recent examples of "what non-liberals want in education" include:

• Young-earth creationism as a science
• Abstinence education in lieu of sex education
• The virtues of oppressive and miserable traditions ("traditional" marriage)
• Why crimes against humanity are good things (came up in a recent topic)
• White people must be exonerated of any responsibility in ongoing processes (part of our discussion here)

This is what I'm hearing from conservatives.

What I hear from liberals is non stop sputum about historical figures and how they should be reviled.

This is sort of a "news-cycle" problem. If you only focus on the most apparent and politically-motivated discussions, you'll never get deeper than the politics.

Again, Tiassa, it's not about telling a history that supports some conservative myth, over the truth, it's about telling all of it and then putting it in perspective, and MAYBE, exploring why the myth is so important to society.

It's a noble idea. I wish I could believe it. Self-identifying conservatives, however, fail that process. I agree that exploring the myth of Columbus or the myth of Southern Reconstruction would be fascinating, but conservatives are already complaining that too many of their heroes and cherished ideas are being attacked by liberals. I can't imagine that such explorations of myth would be complimentary to the ideology that has evolved by exploiting myths for dishonest gain.

Damned if her book is sitting on my shelf right now (saw her in an interview).

I hope you find it enjoyable. And enlightening. She actually put to bed a couple of liberal myths (resource management, proprietary possession) about marriage.

Anyway, the short answer is, I'd teach people what marriage has meant throughout the ages, how it has changed, where our current model comes from, and why the current model is so important to us now. That's not liberal or conservative, it's just good education.

So then, when you teach the class, teach the history, what will you say to the parent who protests that you're victimizing conservatives? For instance, when you examine the Long Decade, and you make the point that despite its seeming glamour, many were unhappy, felt stifled to the edges of their lives, you'll be pointing out (indirectly, coincidentally) that the "traditional" marriage said parent might advocate against gay marriage made people miserable. In exploring the development of the tradition, you'll be examining how the Long Decade is an aberration, and perhaps the culmination of an historical cycle. And in doing so, you'd be attacking "traditional" marriage as "untraditional".

And when someone comes in and complains that you're biased against marriage and Christians, tradition and America itself, it won't be a liberal unless it's a neurotic provocateur treating life as if it was an internet discussion board.

But what will you say to that parent? What do you owe academic diversity?

Lastly, I would ask you to distinguish between the device and the detail. You might disagree with my detail, but if you transplant the device, you'll find people can make any argument about being oppressed that they want. And that's part of my point.

Almost any time you put, for instance, the anthropologic and religious together, you will create a potential platform for the religionist to complain. Because as much as we might agree about certain ways to teach certain subjects, we will offend someone.

We both know there are problems in education. We both know there are problems in society. But the lack of diversity perceived by conservatives does not help. People are diverse. Not everyone and everything you disagree with is liberal. Some of it simply is.

I think, String, that if you go back and read the Clive Barker excerpt I posted in the white racism topic (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1609001&postcount=11), you might find in it a reflection of yourself.

Now, your life story is your own, so I won't speculate on outcomes. But I would ask you to think about the history of your identity. Some of the people involved in those aspects are gone. And yet those aspects still affect your assertion and perceptions of identity. Thus, did your story begin at birth? Did someone else's story end with their death? When and where to draw the line is a difficult question. Arbitrary points suffice for wildly-fantastic novels about magic carpets that don't fly. But they don't for history. This is a practical matter, because we both know that the people we disagree with just aren't going to simply get it one day and quit being pains in the ass.

When a man dies, a library burns. It's an old saying. In the present discussion, though, it should suffice to say that the burning of a library does not erase from memory the stories that are known. Thus, while some secrets die with our last breath, other aspects of ourselves continue to affect people's identification, classification, and decisions.

We should draw the lines because they're the best and most accurate we can figure, not because they're the most comfortable or mythically satisfying.

I actually don't accept this, based on the evidence you've put forward. Your primary departure from conservatives pertains to a specific aspect of your personal identity. Aside from that, it's pretty hard to tell the difference, since you spend most of your time complaining about liberals.

Really?

You mean, my solid opposition to the entirity of the current administration, vacuous foreign policy, it's misguided social endeavors (no child left behind) and, worst of all, its obsession with making "God" the central theme of everthing it does? Or my belief in a woman's right to choose? Or in my opposition to the USA invading Iraq now (or back in 1992)? Or (of course) the whole gay thing? Or in my beliefe that the USA should keep "God" totally out of schools, keep REAL science as a cornerstone of education, and not try to foist patriotism on children by forcing them to mindlessly recite a pledge of alegence to a colored peice of cloth?

Yes. I'm horifically conservative. Of course, that lable suits your purpose, so... sure, I'm a conservative.

~String

Good grief. It is astounding that people would even want to attend this university. Funny but sad at the same time.


:bugeye:

How in the hell would they even police this?

christians love to spy and tattle on other people it seems to me.

Really?

You mean, my solid opposition to the entirity of the current administration, vacuous foreign policy, it's misguided social endeavors (no child left behind) and, worst of all, its obsession with making "God" the central theme of everthing it does? Or my belief in a woman's right to choose? Or in my opposition to the USA invading Iraq now (or back in 1992)? Or (of course) the whole gay thing? Or in my beliefe that the USA should keep "God" totally out of schools, keep REAL science as a cornerstone of education, and not try to foist patriotism on children by forcing them to mindlessly recite a pledge of alegence to a colored peice of cloth?

Really. When you plead your case by deviating on selfish grounds or echoing conservative positions, you don't help yourself much. Nor does your obsessive focus on evil liberalism while arguing on behalf of conservatives help.

Furthermore, I consider you generally dishonest, and there's nothing much I can do about that except ignore your conduct and pretend you're a decent fellow.

You consider everyone who doesn't agree with you "dishonest," which is patently ridiculous.

You're also fond of practicing the most foolish form of guilt by association, in that if someone "echoes" a conservative position, they are, per your shaky definition, a conservative. Again, you're behaving ridiculously. I know you live in a world of absolutes, but I am certain you'd admit the prospect that people can have conservative views and liberal views that are determined not by some predisposition toward ideology. In my mind, the best people, those who are actually the most objective and the most interested in making an informed decision, are the ones who address each issue specifically before rendering an opinion that can be placed on the political spectrum. However, you seem to function just the opposite. You've bought into Marxism (or some watered down version of it) and you approach each and every issue from this ideology, seeing the issue entirely from that perspective. Ridiculous...

I don't consider you dishonest, Tiassa. I consider you a close-minded person who is likely something approaching a zealot. And you will disparage or attempt to destroy anyone who stands in the way of your self-perceived path to your ideological heaven.

Glad to see the opinion on Tiassa is general. "Dishonest". What a charlatan's rhyme.

Really. When you plead your case by deviating on selfish grounds or echoing conservative positions, you don't help yourself much. Nor does your obsessive focus on evil liberalism while arguing on behalf of conservatives help.

Yes, yes, Tiassa, all I attack liberalism, and all conservatives are selfish... so by your twisted syllogism, I'm a selfish conservative. I know the simple answer is impossible to someone who labors endlessly over unreadable long posts, but the truth is: I'm very much a moderate (though, compared to you Tiassa, isn't anybody right wing? So I get where you're coming from).

You asked why we all had such a preoccupation with you. I suggest you scroll back to the beginning of this entire thread and read your prissy entrance herein and the language you chose to use. It was condescending from the start. Of COURSE we deserved to be put in our place by you, Tiassa, our delusions begged your menstrual tantrums, as a way of making the universe right again..

Furthermore, I consider you generally dishonest, and there's nothing much I can do about that except ignore your conduct and pretend you're a decent fellow.

I'm a decent fellow. If ignoring my conduct helps put your tender mind at rest, then more power to you.

~String

You asked why we all had such a preoccupation with you. I suggest you scroll back to the beginning of this entire thread and read your prissy entrance herein and the language you chose to use. It was condescending from the start.

But Tiassa thinks he's better that anyone else ...of course his posts will be condescending. How else could someone who is so fuckin' smart be able to even communicate with all us lowly, ignorant peons? :D

And I'm still convinced that Tiassa and Fraggle are paid for their posts by the number of words! How can anyone find the time to type up such long, involved, usually-convoluted posts?

Baron Max

I don't know, but I grow tired of it.

You asked why we all had such a preoccupation with you. I suggest you scroll back to the beginning of this entire thread and read your prissy entrance herein and the language you chose to use.

Wow.

Must be a liberal conspiracy to control education, eh? (#1610296/14 (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1610296&postcount=14))

I mean, I'm sorry my prissy, condescending language wasn't politically-correct enough to meet your standard. Maybe next time I should come out with a one-liner about Nazis?

Anyway, I'm sorry I hurt your feeling so much. Next time I'll remember that the reason to not make the obvious joke.

To each his own. But this criticism of Tiassa strongly reminds me of Salieri's "too many notes!". There really aren't that many words in Tiassa's posts, by comparison with other common things we read, like a page from a book. But it seems like for some people, there is a customary quota of thought, word, and intellectual effort. Beyond that limit, it's considered arrogant, superior, and insulting to tread. Is this not just anti-intellectualism? I know that people's appetite for words varies widely. I have friends who hardly ever read anything at all, and others who devour fat books in a sitting. Is this huffy exchange really just about too many words?

I get a lot out of Tiassa's posts. Sometimes I don't agree, or don't have the time or inclination to follow where he offers to take us, but even in those instances it can't cause me insult. Maybe Tiassa hits raw nerves I just don't possess somehow- for instance when he takes out precious myths and rolls them around, examining them critically. I like that. It seems as if you, countezero and Baron Max find that activity arrogant around here.

Is it just too many notes? That's as vacuous a criticism as banning certain music at university. "You pompous son of a bitch" sounds more convincing. Play on, T.

Anyway, I'm sorry I hurt your feeling so much. Next time I'll remember that the reason to not make the obvious joke.

Thank you. It's nice to hear a concession from you. I know how tough that was for you.

I especially appreciate the fact that you kept your post to under 146,000 words. I realize that, that must have been an extremely painful experience for someone who has so much free time and is as obsessed with boring the rest of us to tears.

You've grown up so much these past few days, and that hasn't gone unnoticed.

~String

To each his own. But this criticism of Tiassa strongly reminds me of Salieri's "too many notes!". There really aren't that many words in Tiassa's posts, by comparison with other common things we read, like a page from a book.

Yes, but we're not reading books (and the like) here, we're reading posts on a what is essentially a chat site. Now that doesn't require a person be brief, but brevity does help. As for me, my overall problem with the ridiculous length of the posts is not the fact that they are long, but the fact that I think they are largely obfuscations that often do little more than attack people, wander off into the rough and have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. In other words, long is fine if long is relevant. Often, with the member in question, it isn't.

But it seems like for some people, there is a customary quota of thought, word, and intellectual effort. Beyond that limit, it's considered arrogant, superior, and insulting to tread. Is this not just anti-intellectualism ... I know that people's appetite for words varies widely. I have friends who hardly ever read anything at all, and others who devour fat books in a sitting. Is this huffy exchange really just about too many words?

No, it's mostly about manners. This is the second thread the same person has been intentionally insulting in nearly as many days. Personally, having been on the end of such intellectual thuggery, I'm sick of seeing it and I intend to call attention to it whenever I see it.

Sometimes I don't agree, or don't have the time or inclination to follow where he offers to take us, but even in those instances it can't cause me insult. Maybe Tiassa hits raw nerves I just don't possess somehow

I think your lovable appreciation of the situation comes from the fact that you DO agree with Tiassa the majority of the time. And I also think it comes from the fact that you apparently fail to notice the distinction between hitting "raw nerves" and been intentionally vile and insulting to people because you don't agree with them (something you have willfully engaged in yourself).

Tiassa please use small words and short sentences; we do not come here to read!!! :D

And please don't challenge- we do not come here to think twice.

And I'm still convinced that Tiassa and Fraggle are paid for their posts by the number of words! How can anyone find the time to type up such long, involved, usually-convoluted posts?
Baron Max
Please don't throw Fraggle under the bus with Tiassa.

Fraggle's posts may be long, but that's all they have in common with Tiassa's. Fraggle's posts are on point, interesting, and free of personal insults.

Reading Tiassa's posts is like reading the Unibomber's manifesto.
http://www.thecourier.com/graphics/unabomber.gif
The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7] http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm
Tell me that doesn't sound like Tiassa!

hype:

!". There really aren't that many words in Tiassa's posts,


Not in comparison to a set of encyclopaedias, I guess...

I have nothing against long posts, as long as they are concise. I thoroughly enjoy Satyr's and Lou Natics posts, despite the fact that they were often quite lengthy. Tiassa's posts are just crap. Quite a few members on this forum post crap, but Tiassa is far worse, because his crap isn't restricted by a word limit.

On the plus side, Tiassa's posts make a good laxative. When I feel the urge to shit, but am unable to due to constipation, I read Tiassa's drivel. Hey presto, my colon is cleansed.

Edit: And I agree with Madan. Fraggle's posts are actually interesting and relevant, despite being lengthy.

Tiassa please use small words and short sentences; we do not come here to read!!! :D

Yes, SAM, we come here to read, just not idiotic temper-tantrums about the joys of liberalism and the EEEEEEVILS of conservatives. Moreover, I can only assume that your request for small words was done in truth since we know how difficult it is for you to digest complex concepts that don't end in: "it's all the USA's fault."

Hold tight, the world's pharmaceutical corporations are bound to be fairly close to a pill that treats your nightmarish obsession with the USA.

~String

Hold tight, the world's pharmaceutical corporations are bound to be fairly close to a pill that treats your nightmarish obsession with the USA.

Yes, it's called Ron Paul. It's still in its experimental changes though, so it may or may not be released into the market by 2008. ;)

Yes, SAM, we come here to read, just not idiotic temper-tantrums...

~String

Then you're in the wrong forum, aren't you?:p

Ahhh... referring to your junior sidekick-in-liberal-nonsense, SAM.

What does S.A.M. have to do with this?

Then you're in the wrong forum, aren't you?:p

Indeed. What was I thinking.

What does S.A.M. have to do with this?

Nothing, Tiassa. Nothing at all.

~String

Indeed. What was I thinking.



Heh, we'll get to you, just you wait. ;)

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

Nothing, Tiassa. Nothing at all.

Then what was post #50 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1614792&postcount=50) about?

And what's up with this growing habit of yours to go out of your way to post nonsense?

Like in #30 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1613506&postcount=30) when you wrote, "I suggest you scroll back to the beginning of this entire thread and read your prissy entrance herein and the language you chose to use."

I did go back. And I looked over my entry to the topic, and the one thing it seems you won't do is explain how that line qualifies as "prissy" and "condescending".

In fact, you became even more prissy and condescending, yourself:

• You've grown up so much these past few days, and that hasn't gone unnoticed.

(Too bad we can't say the same for you.)

• Next time, make sure to spread it out in very, VERY long paragraphs that tell us basically nothing except that you have no life outside this forum.

(I've noticed that you've sort of hit a wall when it comes to addressing issues.)

• Ahhh... referring to your junior sidekick-in-liberal-nonsense, SAM ....

(Huh? What? Oh, right. Never mind. You're not going to explain that one, either.)

• Let me congratulate you on your brevity. You were almost tolerable and actually readable this time.

(Well, I tried to use as short of words as possible, so as not to confuse you. It seemed the only courteous thing to do, all things considered.)

• Nice to see that you CAN change.

(What have I changed? Like I said, I hadn't realized how delicate you were. If you can toughen up a bit, hopefully mature a little, maybe I'll take the kid gloves off.)

Mod fight!

Tiassa's still a mod? ;)

Then what was post #50 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1614792&postcount=50) about?

And what's up with this growing habit of yours to go out of your way to post nonsense?

Like in #30 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1613506&postcount=30) when you wrote, "I suggest you scroll back to the beginning of this entire thread and read your prissy entrance herein and the language you chose to use."

I did go back. And I looked over my entry to the topic, and the one thing it seems you won't do is explain how that line qualifies as "prissy" and "condescending".

In fact, you became even more prissy and condescending, yourself:

• You've grown up so much these past few days, and that hasn't gone unnoticed.

(Too bad we can't say the same for you.)

• Next time, make sure to spread it out in very, VERY long paragraphs that tell us basically nothing except that you have no life outside this forum.

(I've noticed that you've sort of hit a wall when it comes to addressing issues.)

• Ahhh... referring to your junior sidekick-in-liberal-nonsense, SAM ....

(Huh? What? Oh, right. Never mind. You're not going to explain that one, either.)

• Let me congratulate you on your brevity. You were almost tolerable and actually readable this time.

(Well, I tried to use as short of words as possible, so as not to confuse you. It seemed the only courteous thing to do, all things considered.)

• Nice to see that you CAN change.

(What have I changed? Like I said, I hadn't realized how delicate you were. If you can toughen up a bit, hopefully mature a little, maybe I'll take the kid gloves off.)


Yesssss...

He shoots. He SCORES! Another yawn-fest from Tiassa.

Keep 'em coming!

~String

You call this an university , I thought they were meant to broaden your mind not CLOSE it, Wtf ?
strip it of its title immediately. And people wonder why some American colllege students are that stupid.

You call this an university , I thought they were meant to broaden your mind not CLOSE it, Wtf ?
strip it of its title immediately. And people wonder why some American colllege students are that stupid.

it is not accredited

Yeah, I'm glad, I thought my opinion of you guys couldn't sink any lower. But I'm sure I'll turn around once i finally get to go there (not likely due to "security") and marvel at all the consumerism there.

You call this an university , I thought they were meant to broaden your mind not CLOSE it, Wtf ?
strip it of its title immediately. And people wonder why some American colllege students are that stupid.

Actually, American universities run circles around the rest of the world.

Various ratings have come out, but from what I've read, the most respected rating systems has come from an extensive study out of Jiao Tong University in China, which ranked the top 100 universities in the world:

Top 500 World Universities (1-100) (http://www.arwu.org/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm)

1 Harvard Univ
Americas 1 USA
2 Univ Cambridge
Europe 1 UK
3 Stanford Univ
Americas 2 USA
4 Univ California - Berkeley
Americas 3 USA
5 Massachusetts Inst Tech (MIT)
Americas 4 USA
6 California Inst Tech
Americas 5 USA
7 Columbia Univ
Americas 6 USA
8 Princeton Univ
Americas 7 USA
9 Univ Chicago
Americas 8 USA
10 Univ Oxford
Europe 2 UK
11 Yale Univ
Americas 9 USA
12 Cornell Univ
Americas 10 USA
13 Univ California - San Diego
Americas 11 USA
14 Univ California - Los Angeles
Americas 12 USA
15 Univ Pennsylvania
Americas 13 USA
16 Univ Wisconsin - Madison
Americas 14 USA
17 Univ Washington - Seattle
Americas 15 USA
18 Univ California - San Francisco
Americas 16 USA
19 Johns Hopkins Univ
Americas 17 USA
20 Tokyo Univ
Asia/Pac 1 Japan
21 Univ Michigan - Ann Arbor
Americas 18 USA
22 Kyoto Univ
Asia/Pac 2 Japan
23 Imperial Coll London
Europe 3 UK
24 Univ Toronto
Americas 19 Canada
25 Univ Illinois - Urbana Champaign
Americas 20 USA
26 Univ Coll London
Europe 4 UK
27 Swiss Fed Inst Tech - Zurich
Europe 5 Switzerland
28 Washington Univ - St. Louis
Americas 21 USA
29 New York Univ
Americas 22 USA
30 Rockefeller Univ
Americas 23 USA
31 Northwestern Univ
Americas 24 USA
32 Duke Univ
Americas 25 USA
32 Univ Minnesota - Twin Cities
Americas 25 USA
34 Univ California - Santa Barbara
Americas 27 USA
35 Univ Colorado - Boulder
Americas 28 USA
36 Univ Texas - Austin
Americas 29 USA
37 Univ British Columbia
Americas 30 Canada
38 Univ Texas Southwestern Med Center
Americas 31 USA
39 Pennsylvania State Univ - Univ Park
Americas 32 USA
39 Vanderbilt Univ
Americas 32 USA
41 Univ California - Davis
Americas 34 USA
41 Univ Utrecht
Europe 6 Netherlands
43 Rutgers State Univ - New Brunswick
Americas 35 USA
43 Univ Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh
Americas 35 USA
45 Karolinska Inst Stockholm
Europe 7 Sweden
46 Univ Paris 06
Europe 8 France
47 Univ California - Irvine
Americas 37 USA
47 Univ Edinburgh
Europe 9 UK
47 Univ Maryland - Coll Park
Americas 37 USA
50 Univ Southern California
Americas 39 USA
51 Univ Munich
Europe 10 Germany
52 Tech Univ Munich
Europe 11 Germany
53 Univ Manchester
Europe 12 UK
54 Carnegie Mellon Univ
Americas 40 USA
55 Univ North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Americas 41 USA
56 Australian Natl Univ
Asia/Pac 3 Australia
57 Univ Copenhagen
Europe 13 Denmark
57 Univ Florida
Americas 42 USA
57 Univ Zurich
Europe 13 Switzerland
60 Uppsala Univ
Europe 15 Sweden
61 Univ Paris 11
Europe 16 France
62 Osaka Univ
Asia/Pac 4 Japan
63 Ohio State Univ - Columbus
Americas 43 USA
64 Univ Bristol
Europe 17 UK
65 Univ Rochester
Americas 44 USA
65 Univ Sheffield
Europe 18 UK
67 McGill Univ
Americas 45 Canada
67 Moscow State Univ
Europe 19 Russia
69 Case Western Reserve Univ
Americas 46 USA
69 Univ Oslo
Europe 20 Norway
71 Univ Heidelberg
Europe 21 Germany
72 Univ Leiden
Europe 22 Netherlands
73 Tohoku Univ
Asia/Pac 5 Japan
73 Univ Arizona
Americas 47 USA
75 Purdue Univ - West Lafayette
Americas 48 USA
76 Univ Helsinki
Europe 23 Finland
77 Michigan State Univ
Americas 49 USA
78 Hebrew Univ Jerusalem
Asia/Pac 6 Israel
78 Rice Univ
Americas 50 USA
80 Boston Univ
Americas 51 USA
80 King's Coll London
Europe 24 UK
82 Univ Melbourne
Asia/Pac 7 Australia
83 Univ Nottingham
Europe 25 UK
84 Univ Goettingen
Europe 26 Germany
85 Univ Vienna
Europe 27 Austria
86 Brown Univ
Americas 52 USA
87 Indiana Univ - Bloomington
Americas 53 USA
87 Univ Basel
Europe 28 Switzerland
89 Texas A&M Univ - Coll Station
Americas 54 USA
90 McMaster Univ
Americas 55 Canada
90 Univ Freiburg
Europe 29 Germany
92 Univ Strasbourg 1
Europe 30 France
93 Ecole Normale Super Paris
Europe 31 France
93 Stockholm Univ
Europe 31 Sweden
93 Tokyo Inst Tech
Asia/Pac 8 Japan
93 Univ Utah
Americas 56 USA
97 Univ Roma - La Sapienza
Europe 33 Italy
98 Univ Birmingham
Europe 34 UK
99 Lund Univ
Europe 35 Sweden
100 Tufts Univ
Americas 57 USA

~String

Excessively personal arguments deleted.

i think its a good idea, religion should be kept out of schools all together, except for teachings.