Maybe you can set your newsreader to filter out the threads that are
unappealing, or that have the words "constitution", "9/11", and the
like. I wish I could, but that inability has forced me to learn to
ignore the superfluous. Some of the replies in the thread you're
referring to seem to be below high school level debate quality, so I
think you're being overly complimentary! It's just talk....about very
important things. Tom (who was plumbing most of the day).
John wrote:
> Or High School debating?
Well, first off you have to consider the problem with traditional
education (which you probably haven't realized since you're still in
the High School system). The problem is that it takes a long time to
really 'learn' anything. Sure, a teacher can throw stuff at you for
1/hr. a day over the course of a semester (3-4 months), but can any of
us really say we fully know a topic after such a short time span?
Knowing enough to make an 'A' on the test is not the same thing in a
topic such as woodworking in comparison to a skilled woodworker who's
been practicing or running a business for 20 years, nor is it close to
a lawyer who's been practicing after gaining his degree for 20 with a
corporation or firm. And really, that's what you're looking at. High
School is a good career stepping stone. Debate is a good platform to
begin learning how to construct a reasonable arguement, wood shop is a
good platform to begin learning wood.
In my experience I think there are way too many lawyers but an infinite
possibility of career options for wood workers. Learning about wood
can really teach you about the world, put you in touch with
science/engineering as well as art. Also, learning the rudiments of
debating skills may be nice 30 years down the road if you practice law
but learning to work with wood is a skill you could use to put yourself
through college- even law school, if you disagree with me and happen to
think there aren't enough lawyers out there.
That said, I'd go with the wood working any day of the week, but, don't
expect to learn all you need (much less want) to know in high school.
Best of luck
Thanks, but perhaps "forced" was too strong a word. And the phrase "I
wish I could", also. I don't really mind ignoring the ignorable at all.
Tom (blissfully ignorant of computers, newsreaders, etc.) J.
Clarke wrote:
> "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Maybe you can set your newsreader to filter out the threads that are
> > unappealing, or that have the words "constitution", "9/11", and the
> > like. I wish I could, but that inability has forced me to learn to
> > ignore the superfluous. Some of the replies in the thread you're
> > referring to seem to be below high school level debate quality, so I
> > think you're being overly complimentary! It's just talk....about very
> > important things. Tom (who was plumbing most of the day).
>
> You might want to look at Hamster--it's a bit of a pain to set up but once
> it's up you can filter on nearly anything, and since it's a news proxy and
> not a newsreader it works with _any_ newsreader, even one on a different
> machine running a different architecture.
In article <[email protected]>, John
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Or High School debating?
>
Y'know, if you weren't using webtv you could find software to filter
the stuff you don't want to see. Failing that, there's a word...
"ignore" that you could look up. You may find it useful.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, first off you have to consider the problem with traditional
> education (which you probably haven't realized since you're still in
> the High School system).
There's that, and there's also the issue that most things that are worth
knowing you can't learn by sitting in a classroom listening to a teacher who
has never done them drone on.
> The problem is that it takes a long time to
> really 'learn' anything. Sure, a teacher can throw stuff at you for
> 1/hr. a day over the course of a semester (3-4 months), but can any of
> us really say we fully know a topic after such a short time span?
> Knowing enough to make an 'A' on the test is not the same thing in a
> topic such as woodworking in comparison to a skilled woodworker who's
> been practicing or running a business for 20 years, nor is it close to
> a lawyer who's been practicing after gaining his degree for 20 with a
> corporation or firm. And really, that's what you're looking at. High
> School is a good career stepping stone. Debate is a good platform to
> begin learning how to construct a reasonable arguement, wood shop is a
> good platform to begin learning wood.
>
> In my experience I think there are way too many lawyers but an infinite
> possibility of career options for wood workers. Learning about wood
> can really teach you about the world, put you in touch with
> science/engineering as well as art. Also, learning the rudiments of
> debating skills may be nice 30 years down the road if you practice law
> but learning to work with wood is a skill you could use to put yourself
> through college- even law school, if you disagree with me and happen to
> think there aren't enough lawyers out there.
In interpersonal relations a lathe and a 3 foot long ash turning square
beats debating skills every time <grin>.
> That said, I'd go with the wood working any day of the week, but, don't
> expect to learn all you need (much less want) to know in high school.
That applies to just about everyting except maintaining your sanity while
sitting quietly in a stultifying atmosphere and resisting the urge to _kill_
the idiots who are forcing you to sit there--that high school teaches in
abundance.
"tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Maybe you can set your newsreader to filter out the threads that are
> unappealing, or that have the words "constitution", "9/11", and the
> like. I wish I could, but that inability has forced me to learn to
> ignore the superfluous. Some of the replies in the thread you're
> referring to seem to be below high school level debate quality, so I
> think you're being overly complimentary! It's just talk....about very
> important things. Tom (who was plumbing most of the day).
You might want to look at Hamster--it's a bit of a pain to set up but once
it's up you can filter on nearly anything, and since it's a news proxy and
not a newsreader it works with _any_ newsreader, even one on a different
machine running a different architecture.
On 12 Nov 2006 12:06:26 -0800, "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks, but perhaps "forced" was too strong a word. And the phrase "I
>wish I could", also. I don't really mind ignoring the ignorable at all.
I don't rely on my newsreader to filter anything for me. I pull all
the new available headers and only mark those threads I care about for
retrieval. If there's an ongoing thread that I care about, I have it
automatically watched for, but for the most part, I never see anything
I don't want to see, I just get what I think I'll be interested in.
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:33:26 -0600, [email protected] (John) wrote:
>Or High School debating?
How about rec.pedantic.debates? <G>
Personally, I just use the "kill (or ignore) thread" when a thread is
completely dead to me, or "skip to next thread" if it's got promise. I
don't bother with kill files as even the nit pickers occasionally post
something of value to me.
Killing a thread means I'll never see it again.