From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:50:26 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov16.192156.14510@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: In <1992Nov13.004832.24209@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>: >Not at all.  I just didn't know what you meant by "good citizen".
>: 
>: Then why were you claiming that I "introduced the term".

>You introduced the term INTO THIS DISCUSSION.  Are you this dense in real life?

And you had no clue as to what it could possibly mean, even though you
now say you've heard it before?  Are words always this mutable for
you, John, or is it just here when you are trying to play rhetorical
games? 

>: >See how easy that was?  It didn't even take up "volumes".  Why couldn't you
>: >have just done this to begin with?
>: 
>: Because, since it is absolutely a simplistic and incomplete definition
>: (which is why it didn't take up volumes), we will now probably see
>: dozens of notes asking "Well, what about X?" and nitpicking about this
>: or that or the other.  See what dealing with this group does?

>Well then you're anal-retentive as well as dense.  You're so worried about
>being asked to explain your opinions that you only want to commit yourself
>enough to tell somebody they're WRONG and to go read a book.  That really
>facilitates conversation.

As does all the flame-bait you're working so hard to put in.  What's
the matter, John -- run out of other rhetorical tricks, so now you
have to try this one?

>: I know what you're 'trying to point out'.  That's why I didn't want to
>: even get into it, since philosophers have spent LIFETIMES studying
>: this sort of thing.

>Sigh.  Life would be so much easier if we just accepted Fred's opinion as 
>gospel.

Or if you pulled your head out and quit playing games.

>: I think the fundamental difference is that you see school as 'real
>: life', rather than as part of the learning and training for it.

>And you have a narrow definition of what "real life" is allowed to be.

Cute statement, but what does it mean?  Is it based on ANYTHING but
rhetorical smoke and mirrors?  I didn't think so.

>: The
>: idea behind school is to TRY and prepare people with some of the
>: skills they are likely to need.  Given the odds, they aren't likely to
>: need football skills, WHICH IS WHY IT ISN'T PART OF THE CURRICULUM.

>Some people like to play longshots.  The odds of me winning the Lotto are
>16 million-to-1, and yet I bought a few tickets anyway.  You better start
>guarding that 7-11.

Yes, but we generally don't let CHILDREN make those kinds of decisions
(about playing longshots) until they have enough experience to make
their own decisions.  That's why we have schools, among other things.

>: >would just ignore the teacher and daydream.  Especially if the teacher evicted
>: >anyone who was being disruptive.
>: 
>: She can't do that.  Then they wouldn't be able to play football.

>Of course before no pass-no play, there was a lot less pressure on her to 
>put up with disruptive behavior.  Thanks a lot, Fred.

Well, not really, because there was still a certain amount of heat
from the coaches.  But anyway, I prefer that education be a bit more
honest than that.  If we follow your ideas, what we wind up with is
the Texas school system -- which is so bad it is being used as an
argument by people to justify why they think we need 'private school
choice'.  

>: >                                                    And there are a lot of
>: >things that are easier than studying and mastering the material.
>: 
>: Until you get caught.

>Let's see...if I fail, there's no way I can play football.  If I study hard and
>pass a class I have no interest in, I will get to play football.  If I cheat,
>I'll probably get to play football.  The worst that can happen is that they
>won't let me play football which is what they're doing NOW.  Sounds like it's
>worth a try.

Interesting view into the way YOUR mind works.

>: >No, I said that they are not taught in high school.  Maybe you need to read
>: >more carefully.
>: 
>: And maybe you do.  I also said quite explicitly that they ARE taught
>: in at least some high schools.

>Yeah, and before that you lied about what I wrote to bolster your argument.  
>Nice try.

How can I lie about what you wrote when I include what I'm resonding
to in the article.  Another nice rhetorical trick.  You really should
get into politics -- when in doubt, ACCUSE.

>: I suspect you're quite wrong about what 'most other states' have, at
>: least insofar as what sorts of policies the schools use.  Shall we run
>: a little poll of the people here and see just who has experience with
>: it and who doesn't, and then look at the state of the schools in those
>: states?

>Fine.  I'm all for fact-finding.

>: Schools I've had experience with in both Kansas and Colorado
>: effectively had 'no pass/no play' rules

>What do you mean "effectively"?  Was it enforced by the school or not?  This
>makes a big difference in my book.

I mean it was enforced by the school, but I have no idea if it was
offially state law or not -- but every school I ever heard of did it
that way, and schools that had ineligible players in a game
automatically lost that game when it came to light (so it was at least
the policy of the high school athletic league).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics