Teacher Warns Student Could Be Arrested For...Student Speaks

[Phatscotty]

Politics should stay out of the classroom just the same as religion.

gee, how would they teach political science? Or any current events class?

I knew there would be one. BigBallinStalin....it's perfectly okay to talk about religion in religion classes, and politics in political classes. One might even say....that's where those subjects belong.

Please find your common sense soon

[BigBallinStalin]

Politics should stay out of the classroom just the same as religion.

gee, how would they teach political science? Or any current events class?

I knew there would be one. BigBallinStalin....it's perfectly okay to talk about religion in religion classes, and politics in political classes. One might even say....that's where those subjects belong.

Please find your common sense soon

Hey, if you make sense first, then people won't have to rip out their eyeballs while trying to read your crap.

[Phatscotty]

Politics should stay out of the classroom just the same as religion.

gee, how would they teach political science? Or any current events class?

I knew there would be one. BigBallinStalin....it's perfectly okay to talk about religion in religion classes, and politics in political classes. One might even say....that's where those subjects belong.

Please find your common sense soon

Hey, if you make sense first, then people won't have to rip out their eyeballs while trying to read your crap.

Oops, did I forget to point out the things that are obvious givens.... Perhaps the dumb one is the one who reads my statement to treat politics in our school that same way we treat religion to mean I want all religious courses and political courses terminated in all schools around the country. That's just an insane interpretation, and that was your interpretation.

Add this to your list of reasons why I am dumb and you are smart.

[BigBallinStalin]

I see what you mean. By "keep X and Y out of classrooms," you meant "don't keep X and Y out of classrooms."

DERR MAKES CENTS! DERD.

[Phatscotty]

That's cool, I enjoyed your interpretation that I meant to ban all political and religious classes in all universities, rather than public school should treat politics the same way they treat religion.

I almost forgot to add "public" when I was talking about schools. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I was saying religious schools should not be able to talk about religion. See, you are making me post better already in that I anticipate the stupidity in the responses better.

Let's put this baby to rest in cave-man terms. ya know how public schools treat religion? They should treat politics the same way.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's no need to get fussy when you typed something that you didn't mean to type.

[Woodruff]

Politics should stay out of the classroom just the same as religion.

gee, how would they teach political science? Or any current events class?

I knew there would be one. BigBallinStalin....it's perfectly okay to talk about religion in religion classes, and politics in political classes. One might even say....that's where those subjects belong.

Please find your common sense soon

Hey, if you make sense first, then people won't have to rip out their eyeballs while trying to read your crap.

Oops, did I forget to point out the things that are obvious givens.... Perhaps the dumb one is the one who reads my statement to treat politics in our school that same way we treat religion to mean I want all religious courses and political courses terminated in all schools around the country. That's just an insane interpretation, and that was your interpretation.

Perhaps instead of treating issues with your typical generalizations and innuendo and bullshit, you could use words that explicitly mean what you want them to mean. You know...that whole communication thing. In other words, you failed here because you didn't at all say what you apparently want to claim you meant. The failure was on the sender in this case, not on the reader. And finally, to take a turn from what I typically say...LEARN HOW TO WRITE or WORK ON YOUR WRITING SKILLS.

[thegreekdog]

Regarding all the above responses, either Phatscotty was trolling, or he was being really stupid again.

I have been told directly by two moderators that Phatscotty does not troll. For what it's worth, I was told the same thing by the same two about pimpdave back in the day. Which is why they should remove the guidelines regarding trolling in these fora, for they clearly have no interest in doing anything about it: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=171522

EDIT: I've also been told by King Achilles that complaining about the moderation in such a manner DOES constitute trolling. Which explains why I keep disappearing for three-month sleep-with-the-fishes time.

Hey, like I told you before, you come up with some tangible evidence that Phatscotty does not actually believe what he types and is, in fact, trolling, we'll consider it. Consistency and proof are more important than "this poster annoys me." Sorry.

[Woodruff]

Regarding all the above responses, either Phatscotty was trolling, or he was being really stupid again.

I have been told directly by two moderators that Phatscotty does not troll. For what it's worth, I was told the same thing by the same two about pimpdave back in the day. Which is why they should remove the guidelines regarding trolling in these fora, for they clearly have no interest in doing anything about it: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=171522

EDIT: I've also been told by King Achilles that complaining about the moderation in such a manner DOES constitute trolling. Which explains why I keep disappearing for three-month sleep-with-the-fishes time.

Hey, like I told you before, you come up with some tangible evidence that Phatscotty does not actually believe what he types and is, in fact, trolling, we'll consider it. Consistency and proof are more important than "this poster annoys me." Sorry.

Continuously (to the point of being nearly 100%) ignoring (as it outright refusing to respond or acknowledge) points that directly counter his statements must fall under trolling, and certainly has nothing at all to do with "actually believing what he types". In those rare instances in which he does respond or acknowledge the point made, he simply claims that what he stated wasn't what he actually meant (as in this thread). This sort of thing must fall under any reasonable definition of "trolling", and I would absolutely consider it "tangible evidence". I'm far from the only one to think so of either of the two individuals I named. To not consider it to be tangible evidence is to essentially admit that there IS NO definition for trolling and as such, no one can be punished for it...ergo, get rid of the rule as it is useless.

[AAFitz]

That's cool, I enjoyed your interpretation that I meant to ban all political and religious classes in all universities, rather than public school should treat politics the same way they treat religion.

I almost forgot to add "public" when I was talking about schools. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I was saying religious schools should not be able to talk about religion. See, you are making me post better already in that I anticipate the stupidity in the responses better.

Let's put this baby to rest in cave-man terms. ya know how public schools treat religion? They should treat politics the same way.

I think you mean, how public schools, are supposed to treat religion.

[Phatscotty]

Tool Parabola bonus music!

[Woodruff]

Tool Parabola bonus music!

Do you ever think for yourself?

[Phatscotty]

Tool Parabola bonus music!

Do you ever think for yourself?

Yes, and....less publicly. I thought that might make you happy?

no????

Besides, I have always been about showing a broad array of differing views, examples, evidence. It's never been all about what I think. As for Woodruff, every response you make to me, the word "you" appears at least 20 times, and it's usually the case that the responses have nothing to do with the issue.

You are personally hounding the ever loving shit out of me!

Back on topic...


Does this belong in a classroom? At this age?

[Woodruff]

Tool Parabola bonus music!

Do you ever think for yourself?

Yes, and....less publicly.

Well that last part has been obvious for quite some time.

Besides, I have always been about showing a broad array of differing views, examples, evidence.

Really? I haven't ever gleaned that from your posts, no.

It's never been all about what I think.

I don't recall seeing very many objective posts from you, no.

As for Woodruff, every response you make to me, the word "you" appears at least 20 times, and it's usually the case that the responses have nothing to do with the issue.

You've taught me that you're not going to bother responding to my posts with a rational, objective view, so why would I bother? You've taught me that very well, Phatscotty.

You are personally hounding the ever loving shit out of me!

I like to point out hypocritical bastards. It brings me joy. You bring me joy, Phatscotty.

Back on topic...Does this belong in a classroom? At this age?

I had a LOT of trouble understanding much in the video...about all I could catch was a very repetitive "Barack Hussein Obama". I'll presume from your typical position that this was praise of Obama? How dare they!

[Neoteny]

Does this belong in a classroom? At this age?

Well, they're pretty young, and the bit is simplistic, repetitive, and irritating as f*ck, so I think it's appropriate for that age group. When they're older, maybe eleventh or twelfth grade, they could probably handle something more technically difficult, like Beowulf, but with the original piece modified by a "find and replace" switching out "Beowulf" with "Obama," and "Grendel" with "the Constitution."

[thegreekdog]

Regarding all the above responses, either Phatscotty was trolling, or he was being really stupid again.

I have been told directly by two moderators that Phatscotty does not troll. For what it's worth, I was told the same thing by the same two about pimpdave back in the day. Which is why they should remove the guidelines regarding trolling in these fora, for they clearly have no interest in doing anything about it: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=171522

EDIT: I've also been told by King Achilles that complaining about the moderation in such a manner DOES constitute trolling. Which explains why I keep disappearing for three-month sleep-with-the-fishes time.

Hey, like I told you before, you come up with some tangible evidence that Phatscotty does not actually believe what he types and is, in fact, trolling, we'll consider it. Consistency and proof are more important than "this poster annoys me." Sorry.

Continuously (to the point of being nearly 100%) ignoring (as it outright refusing to respond or acknowledge) points that directly counter his statements must fall under trolling, and certainly has nothing at all to do with "actually believing what he types". In those rare instances in which he does respond or acknowledge the point made, he simply claims that what he stated wasn't what he actually meant (as in this thread). This sort of thing must fall under any reasonable definition of "trolling", and I would absolutely consider it "tangible evidence". I'm far from the only one to think so of either of the two individuals I named. To not consider it to be tangible evidence is to essentially admit that there IS NO definition for trolling and as such, no one can be punished for it...ergo, get rid of the rule as it is useless.

Okay, let's apply the rule that "continuously ignoring points that directly counter his statements" is trolling. In the past week, I can think of the following people who are guilty of trolling: Woodruff, thegreekdog, Player57832, natty_dread. And those are just the people who have ignored my points that countered their arguments (or where I haven't responded to theirs).

Just because you don't like someone or like their posting style does not mean we can ban that person. Again, sorry.

[Woodruff]

Continuously (to the point of being nearly 100%) ignoring (as it outright refusing to respond or acknowledge) points that directly counter his statements must fall under trolling, and certainly has nothing at all to do with "actually believing what he types". In those rare instances in which he does respond or acknowledge the point made, he simply claims that what he stated wasn't what he actually meant (as in this thread). This sort of thing must fall under any reasonable definition of "trolling", and I would absolutely consider it "tangible evidence". I'm far from the only one to think so of either of the two individuals I named. To not consider it to be tangible evidence is to essentially admit that there IS NO definition for trolling and as such, no one can be punished for it...ergo, get rid of the rule as it is useless.

Okay, let's apply the rule that "continuously ignoring points that directly counter his statements" is trolling. In the past week, I can think of the following people who are guilty of trolling: Woodruff, thegreekdog, Player57832, natty_dread. And those are just the people who have ignored my points that countered their arguments (or where I haven't responded to theirs).

1. Individual instances do not equate to a continuous process. I'm quite sure everyone (usually unintentionally) ignores points that counter their arguments. But to do so as a rule is a very different situation.

2. I'm quite curious where you believe I have ignored points you've made that countered an argument of mine in the last week (particularly given that I was absent from the site from the 29th through the 2nd).

Just because you don't like someone or like their posting style does not mean we can ban that person.

I agree with this completely. It is thoroughly irrelevant to my point.

[thegreekdog]

. Individual instances do not equate to a continuous process. I'm quite sure everyone (usually unintentionally) ignores points that counter their arguments. But to do so as a rule is a very different situation.

There are many users (I would say most) whose repoitoire of argument styles includes ignoring other peoples' arguments (including mine). It's not something I would like to discipline (without speaking for any of the other moderators) because it involves a lot more subjectivity than I'm comfortable with. Further, I don't believe Phatscotty believes he's ignoring arguments.

2. I'm quite curious where you believe I have ignored points you've made that countered an argument of mine in the last week (particularly given that I was absent from the site from the 29th through the 2nd).

You posted an article about Scott Walker. I responded. You did not respond.

I agree with this completely. It is thoroughly irrelevant to my point.

Actually, it's not. It is thoroughly relevant. If it wasn't relevant, you would call for the banning of others. The person that comes right to the top of my head is Player. I think you should either stop responding to Phatscotty's posts or ignore him if he bothers you that much.

[Woodruff]

. Individual instances do not equate to a continuous process. I'm quite sure everyone (usually unintentionally) ignores points that counter their arguments. But to do so as a rule is a very different situation.

There are many users (I would say most) whose repoitoire of argument styles includes ignoring other peoples' arguments (including mine). It's not something I would like to discipline (without speaking for any of the other moderators) because it involves a lot more subjectivity than I'm comfortable with. Further, I don't believe Phatscotty believes he's ignoring arguments.

You don't? I don't believe Phatscotty would ADMIT that he's ignoring arguments. I don't see how he could possibly believe that he isn't, however, unless he's mentally unstable. It simply happens far too often.

2. I'm quite curious where you believe I have ignored points you've made that countered an argument of mine in the last week (particularly given that I was absent from the site from the 29th through the 2nd).

You posted an article about Scott Walker. I responded. You did not respond.

You're right, though it wasn't on purpose. I don't even remember seeing your post there and had to do a search to find it. I have now responded, and I appreciate you pointing it out. As I said, everyone missing a post occasionally...that doesn't even remotely compare to Phatscotty's constant rate of doing so.

I agree with this completely. It is thoroughly irrelevant to my point.

Actually, it's not. It is thoroughly relevant. If it wasn't relevant, you would call for the banning of others. The person that comes right to the top of my head is Player. I think you should either stop responding to Phatscotty's posts or ignore him if he bothers you that much.

Bringing up PLAYER actually supports my point. PLAYER annoys the heck out of me, with how ungodly wordy she is (this coming from me, also fairly wordy). But I do believe she argues things from an honest standpoint, and that's what is important to me. Natty Dread is another poster who tends to annoy me...he comes across as frighteningly extreme in some of his stances. But again, I believe he argues things from an honest standpoint.

I do not believe that Phatscotty tends to do so. I do not believe pimpdave tends to do so (thus my previous months-long attempts to get him removed for trolling). You have essentially made my point.

And I won't ignore Phatscotty's posts, because I do not believe in allowing ignorance, dishonesty nor hypocricy to spread. I believe in putting a spotlight on them.

[thegreekdog]

Interesting take. I find little difference between a natty_dread post (like the one in Out of the Closet where he ignores BBS's points by calling him a trolling) and a Phatscotty post of a video that doesn't remotely respond to a point. I find little difference between Player ignoring any salient points I make and responding to something she perceives I typed and a Phatscotty post where he responds with some misjudged message about the Constitution, states' rights, and individual liberties. I certainly don't find any to be violative of any rules.

Again, that's me. Others may tend to agree with you and not me. Let me also say that I appreciate you not accusing me of siding with Phatscotty because of political agreements. While I agree with Phatscotty's ultimate conclusions on a number of issues, we take very different paths to get there.

[Woodruff]

Interesting take. I find little difference between a natty_dread post (like the one in Out of the Closet where he ignores BBS's points by calling him a trolling) and a Phatscotty post of a video that doesn't remotely respond to a point. I find little difference between Player ignoring any salient points I make and responding to something she perceives I typed and a Phatscotty post where he responds with some misjudged message about the Constitution, states' rights, and individual liberties.

Again, to me it has far more to do with volume of occurrence than it does with individual instances. To me, that makes a tremendous difference.

Let me also say that I appreciate you not accusing me of siding with Phatscotty because of political agreements. While I agree with Phatscotty's ultimate conclusions on a number of issues, we take very different paths to get there.

Yes, you've made it quite clear to me that while you tend to agree with his positions, you don't agree with his methods. So it's easy for me to believe you're not just taking this position because "he's one of you guys!". (Though I do wish you'd call him out more often on those aspects. <evil smile>)

[thegreekdog]

From my perspective, it appears that Phatscotty makes an effort when he does respond. It's a poor effort, but I do not think it's done purposefully. I don't think he reads a measured, appropriate response and says to himself "I'm going to respond with this Glenn Beck video to be annoying." I think he honestly believes that people will watch the Glenn Beck video and agree with him. If he wanted to troll, why would he take the time to post a video or some ridiculously long article or whatever?

Contrast to one of my responses to an argument from a few months ago (that still bothers me). I simply typed "Meh" and moved on. Clearly I was not spending the time to think up an appropriate answer. What I should have done (and usually do) is just not go back in.

On volume - I'm not convinced that volume turns something from nonviolative of the rules to violating the rules (with some exceptions - like typing "f*ck" 47 times in a thread or posting the same picture 50 times in the same post).

[Woodruff]

If he wanted to troll, why would he take the time to post a video or some ridiculously long article or whatever?

For the same reason all trolls do...to elicit a negative reaction.

On volume - I'm not convinced that volume turns something from nonviolative of the rules to violating the rules (with some exceptions - like typing "f*ck" 47 times in a thread or posting the same picture 50 times in the same post).

Fair enough...that's your perspective, and I can't really argue with that as it's opinion. To me, it makes all the difference as it shows clear intent.

[BigBallinStalin]

Interesting take. I find little difference between a natty_dread post (like the one in Out of the Closet where he ignores BBS's points by calling him a trolling) and a Phatscotty post of a video that doesn't remotely respond to a point. I find little difference between Player ignoring any salient points I make and responding to something she perceives I typed and a Phatscotty post where he responds with some misjudged message about the Constitution, states' rights, and individual liberties. I certainly don't find any to be violative of any rules.

Again, that's me. Others may tend to agree with you and not me. Let me also say that I appreciate you not accusing me of siding with Phatscotty because of political agreements. While I agree with Phatscotty's ultimate conclusions on a number of issues, we take very different paths to get there.

I think you're trolling. BAN HIM!

[thegreekdog]

I think Woodruff and I have derailed this thread enough. We can discuss in the related suggestions thread.