| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2003 07:29:49 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
(K C) wrote:
:|The other week, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the
:|Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice about his liberty and law
:|monument,
Liberty and law monument? Not quite
More correct would be vote getting for personal/political gain monument.
:|which was threatened to be moved based on the same Ten
:|Commandments
Was moved as per ruing of a Federal Judge based on law.
:|on it that hang in the Supreme Court's chambers. In
:|doing so, they may have thought they would just ignore it and let it
:|go away without having to step into the controversy.
In doing so they made the proper decision. This was not a matter of life
and death, etc.
:|However, in
:|doing so, it has brought increased heat on it as it is now seen that
:|other states are challenging monuments nationwide on the same basis.
Cases have been taken to courts across the nation in recent years
regarding the Ten Commandments. In every case but one the courts have
rules against the Ten Commandments being placed on, being left on or in
public buildings or public lands.
:|So, instead of having to decide one Alabama case and set precedence
:|for the nation, it has, instead, waited to have a dozen or so seperate
:|cases come to it on the same arguement that says that if you are a
:|government official, you do not have the freedom of religion that any
:|other citizen has.
Duh,
(1) The USSC has refused to accept several Ten Commandment cases in recent
years. There really is no controversy. The USSC has over a 1000 cases
submitted to it each year. It actually accepts less than a hundred of those
cases and it is required by law to accept certain cases, thus cutting down
even more on the number of other cases it can take.
(2) The court tends to take cases that have some valid legal importance.
This case doesn't have any such importance. This particular case of all
cases have no importance and has far too much baggage connected to it. A
religious outfit trying to make money and a judge trying to win fame and
political gain. Not the type of baggage the court is likely to want to be
associated with.
(3) The court tends to accept cases that has a checker board record,
meaning a case that several courts have ruled differently on across the
nation. The rulings on the ten Commandments have been quite consistent.
It also comes from those that want to stop any
(4) What they turned down was a request to stop the movement of the "rock"
not a request for appeal. Moore can still file an appeal to the next
higher Federal Court. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals if my memory serves
me right. There are precise ways of appealing things and they do have to be
followed.
:|free exercise of religion in the view of others, which is no free
:|exercise whatsoever.
Free exercise of religion does not give the right to violate law or the
Constitution. Free exercise of religion is absolute only in the area of
belief, not in the area of action on those beliefs.
:|In a way it is a good thing, though, considering that within the next
:|few years the court will get more religious friendly,
[Translation: friendly towards giving his religion special treatment and
consideration at the expense of all others]
:|seeing that some
:|of the justices that rule against religion will be retiring and
:|replaced by George Bush.
Ahhh, so its not about law, not about the Constitution with you, its all
politics?
Well, do know and understand that if we wish to reduce it to crass
politics, things do go in cycles and that which is gained today can be
taken away tomorrow.
Also, don't count your chickens before they hatch.
(1) Bush is nearing the end of his first term in office and no USSC justice
as retired, died, etc yet.
Since the new USSC term begins in October, if one were planning on retiring
they probably would have said so already, thus giving people time to get
the process begun on his replacement.
(2) Bush may not get re-elected. If the economy remains as it is (A hell of
a lot of people lost a hell of a lot of money in retirement, stocks, etc
between September 2000 and March 2001 and most have not gotten much, if any
of that back. Some of those people are very upset), Americans keep getting
killed in Iraq, more and more revelations about the dishonest crap put out
to get us involved in that war, the memory of the 2000 election, the
deficit keeps hitting record highs, etc, he might not get re-elected.
(3) There is this nasty reality that a fair number of USSC Justices don't
stay true to the party philosophy of those who appointed them.
:|So, when those flurry of anti-religious
:|cases come,
I haven't seen any court cases that were anti-religion. I have seen cases
that were anti give a particular religion special treatment and
consideration at the expense of all others cases. These get ruled
unconstitutional as well they should be. Oh my, your beliefs must have been
associated with one of those cases,. Now I understand (grin)
:|they will be met by a court that understands that a
:|monument dedicated to religion in general or all religions
Unconstitutional, remember this:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
EVEN IF YOU DO AWAY WITH #5 WHICH is what Rehnquist
has been working to accomplish for 30 years, you still all the other
elements which would be and are still good law.
************************************
:|KC (author and internet missionary) Internet troll and nutcase.
.
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
01 Sep 2003 06:18:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:29:49 -0400, wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
:|The other week, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the
:|Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice about his liberty and law
:|monument,
Liberty and law monument? Not quite
More correct would be vote getting for personal/political gain monument.
:|which was threatened to be moved based on the same Ten
:|Commandments
Was moved as per ruing of a Federal Judge based on law.
:|on it that hang in the Supreme Court's chambers. In
:|doing so, they may have thought they would just ignore it and let it
:|go away without having to step into the controversy.
In doing so they made the proper decision. This was not a matter of life
and death, etc.
:|However, in
:|doing so, it has brought increased heat on it as it is now seen that
:|other states are challenging monuments nationwide on the same basis.
Cases have been taken to courts across the nation in recent years
regarding the Ten Commandments. In every case but one the courts have
rules against the Ten Commandments being placed on, being left on or in
public buildings or public lands.
:|So, instead of having to decide one Alabama case and set precedence
:|for the nation, it has, instead, waited to have a dozen or so seperate
:|cases come to it on the same arguement that says that if you are a
:|government official, you do not have the freedom of religion that any
:|other citizen has.
Duh,
(1) The USSC has refused to accept several Ten Commandment cases in recent
years. There really is no controversy. The USSC has over a 1000 cases
submitted to it each year. It actually accepts less than a hundred of those
cases and it is required by law to accept certain cases, thus cutting down
even more on the number of other cases it can take.
(2) The court tends to take cases that have some valid legal importance.
This case doesn't have any such importance. This particular case of all
cases have no importance and has far too much baggage connected to it. A
religious outfit trying to make money and a judge trying to win fame and
political gain. Not the type of baggage the court is likely to want to be
associated with.
(3) The court tends to accept cases that has a checker board record,
meaning a case that several courts have ruled differently on across the
nation. The rulings on the ten Commandments have been quite consistent.
It also comes from those that want to stop any
(4) What they turned down was a request to stop the movement of the "rock"
not a request for appeal. Moore can still file an appeal to the next
higher Federal Court. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals if my memory serves
me right. There are precise ways of appealing things and they do have to be
followed.
:|free exercise of religion in the view of others, which is no free
:|exercise whatsoever.
Free exercise of religion does not give the right to violate law or the
Constitution. Free exercise of religion is absolute only in the area of
belief, not in the area of action on those beliefs.
:|In a way it is a good thing, though, considering that within the next
:|few years the court will get more religious friendly,
[Translation: friendly towards giving his religion special treatment and
consideration at the expense of all others]
:|seeing that some
:|of the justices that rule against religion will be retiring and
:|replaced by George Bush.
Ahhh, so its not about law, not about the Constitution with you, its all
politics?
Well, do know and understand that if we wish to reduce it to crass
politics, things do go in cycles and that which is gained today can be
taken away tomorrow.
Also, don't count your chickens before they hatch.
(1) Bush is nearing the end of his first term in office and no USSC justice
as retired, died, etc yet.
Since the new USSC term begins in October, if one were planning on retiring
they probably would have said so already, thus giving people time to get
the process begun on his replacement.
(2) Bush may not get re-elected. If the economy remains as it is (A hell of
a lot of people lost a hell of a lot of money in retirement, stocks, etc
between September 2000 and March 2001 and most have not gotten much, if any
of that back. Some of those people are very upset), Americans keep getting
killed in Iraq, more and more revelations about the dishonest crap put out
to get us involved in that war, the memory of the 2000 election, the
deficit keeps hitting record highs, etc, he might not get re-elected.
(3) There is this nasty reality that a fair number of USSC Justices don't
stay true to the party philosophy of those who appointed them.
:|So, when those flurry of anti-religious
:|cases come,
I haven't seen any court cases that were anti-religion. I have seen cases
that were anti give a particular religion special treatment and
consideration at the expense of all others cases. These get ruled
unconstitutional as well they should be. Oh my, your beliefs must have been
associated with one of those cases,. Now I understand (grin)
:|they will be met by a court that understands that a
:|monument dedicated to religion in general or all religions
Unconstitutional, remember this:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
EVEN IF YOU DO AWAY WITH #5 WHICH is what Rehnquist
has been working to accomplish for 30 years, you still all the other
elements which would be and are still good law.
************************************
:|KC (author and internet missionary) Internet troll and nutcase.
In...
U.S. Supreme Court
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
EPPERSON ET AL. v. ARKANSAS.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. 7.
Argued October 16, 1968.
Decided November 12, 1968.
"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in
matters of religious theory, doctrine, [393 U.S. 97, 104] and
practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of
no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or
religious theory against another or even against the militant
opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between
religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
Get that....between religion and nonreligion...it continues.
"As early as 1872, this Court said: "The law knows no heresy, and is
committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect."
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728. This has been the interpretation
of the great First Amendment which this Court has applied in the many
and subtle problems which the ferment of our national life has
presented for decision within the Amendment's broad command."
The court has said that evolution cannot be banned from classrooms in
the Scopes trial and the Arkansas trial; however, it did not say that
creation thought must be removed. IN FACT, it holds that non-religion
cannot be forced upon the religious.
In other words, atheism cannot be imposed upon the religious by the
SAME barrier that keeps the religious from imposing religion on the
non-religious. So, how does one accomplish this? If all religion is
forbidden in federal places, it is imposing non-religion. So, some
religion must be allowed. But the current belief of the left is that
freedom of religion means that a religious person can only be free in
their own house of worship (not true freedom) and not in front of
anyone that objects.
What this means is that their definition of religious freedom must be
wrong, as it imposes non-religion (unconstitutional).
That means that I can be exposed to religion in general or other
religions without it being imposed upon me (isn't that was liberalism
was supposed to be all about..diversity).
Therefore, having government chaplains, IN God We Trust on money, the
Ten Commandments in the courthouse as a historical foundation of our
law (it is truely that even if the left wants to censor it), and such
are not imposing religion on non-believers any more than federal
studies on intra-species evolution imposes atheism or Greek
Mythologies imposes Pantheism.
All of these intolerant oversensative leftists need to get off their
high horse and realize we live in a society of differences and all of
those differences are part of our heritage, not just those they,
themselves, accept.
KC (author and internet missionary)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
01 Sep 2003 09:15:56 PM |
|
|
(K C) :
All of these intolerant oversensative leftists need to get off their
high horse and realize we live in a society of differences and all of
those differences are part of our heritage, not just those they,
themselves, accept.
I think Moore would object to you calling him a leftist.
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
\| Pastor Frank Ontheway
M. Clark Duke32
CaptainKIRKusa1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
01 Sep 2003 10:16:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 21:15:56 -0500, Jesus Christ wrote
(in message <Xns93E9E299E68B8fart@206.172.150.13>):
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) :
All of these intolerant oversensative leftists need to get off their
high horse and realize we live in a society of differences and all of
those differences are part of our heritage, not just those they,
themselves, accept.
I think Moore would object to you calling him a leftist.
You're probably correct but Judge Judy, oops, Judge Roy is so emotional and
such a sensitive middle-aged man.
I think we should all prey for him, as it seems likely that he is going
through "male menopause" and his change of life is a little moore than he can
handle.
Gray Shockley
----------------------------------------------
No misspelled wiords in my text
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
01 Sep 2003 11:45:34 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
The court has said that evolution cannot be banned from classrooms in
the Scopes trial and the Arkansas trial; however, it did not say that
creation thought must be removed. IN FACT, it holds that non-religion
cannot be forced upon the religious.
In other words, atheism cannot be imposed upon the religious by the
SAME barrier that keeps the religious from imposing religion on the
non-religious. So, how does one accomplish this? If all religion is
forbidden in federal places, it is imposing non-religion.
Only if all places are federal places.
But in fact it is false the religion is forbidden in federal places.
So, some religion must be allowed.
But it cannot be supported or endorsed by the government.
But the current belief of the left is that
freedom of religion means that a religious person can only be free in
their own house of worship (not true freedom) and not in front of
anyone that objects.
Strawman. False.
Therefore, having government chaplains,
is government support of religion, especially if it doesn't allow an
atheist as chaplain.
IN God We Trust on money,
Not neutral between religion and non-religion, or even among the
religions of the world.
the
Ten Commandments in the courthouse as a historical foundation of our
law (it is truely that even if the left wants to censor it), and such
are not imposing religion on non-believers any more than federal
studies on intra-species evolution imposes atheism or Greek
Mythologies imposes Pantheism.
They constitute non-neutral support of a PARTICULAR form of religion.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 12:11:42 AM |
|
|
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
The court has said that evolution cannot be banned from classrooms in
the Scopes trial
No it didn't. The jury in the Scopes trial was asked to determine
whether Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution or not. They found
him guilty. Interesting trial. You should read up on it someday.
and the Arkansas trial; however, it did not say that
creation thought must be removed.
You can think it all you want. You can think about what you're
going to have for dinner and what it would be like to french
kiss Britney Speares too.
IN FACT, it holds that non-religion
cannot be forced upon the religious.
In other words, atheism cannot be imposed upon the religious by the
SAME barrier that keeps the religious from imposing religion on the
non-religious. So, how does one accomplish this?
By not telling students god does not exist.
But the current belief of the left is that
freedom of religion means that a religious person can only be free in
their own house of worship (not true freedom) and not in front of
anyone that objects.
Well that's a silly lie. Who do you think is dumb enough to believe
that?
Ten Commandments in the courthouse as a historical foundation of our
law (it is truely that even if the left wants to censor it),
Which of our laws are based on the 10 commandments?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 04:36:14 AM |
|
|
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote:
:|You can think it all you want. You can think about what you're
:|going to have for dinner and what it would be like to french
:|kiss Britney Speares too.
Yuck!!!! Heheheheheheeh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 02:44:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:11:42 -0700, Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org>
wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
The court has said that evolution cannot be banned from classrooms in
the Scopes trial
No it didn't. The jury in the Scopes trial was asked to determine
whether Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution or not. They found
him guilty. Interesting trial. You should read up on it someday.
The Supreme Court ruling is not as you say. Did you read the
ruling...I doubt it. It's not a tech manual that you study in your
work.
and the Arkansas trial; however, it did not say that
creation thought must be removed.
You can think it all you want. You can think about what you're
going to have for dinner and what it would be like to french
kiss Britney Speares too.
IN FACT, it holds that non-religion
cannot be forced upon the religious.
In other words, atheism cannot be imposed upon the religious by the
SAME barrier that keeps the religious from imposing religion on the
non-religious. So, how does one accomplish this?
By not telling students god does not exist.
That's what you really want...isn't it.
But the current belief of the left is that
freedom of religion means that a religious person can only be free in
their own house of worship (not true freedom) and not in front of
anyone that objects.
Well that's a silly lie. Who do you think is dumb enough to believe
that?
Ten Commandments in the courthouse as a historical foundation of our
law (it is truely that even if the left wants to censor it),
Which of our laws are based on the 10 commandments?
All of them. We began, without laws, by basing our laws upon existing
morals of the land. Where do you think those morals came from? The
religion of the people inhabiting the land. Not that I expect a
techie like yourself to understand history or law.
KC (author and internet missionary)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seamus Ma Cleriec" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
03 Sep 2003 01:14:30 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote in message news:<3f54f2be.6565906@news.athenanews.com>...>
All of them. We began, without laws, by basing our laws upon existing
morals of the land. Where do you think those morals came from? The
religion of the people inhabiting the land. Not that I expect a
techie like yourself to understand history or law.
KC (author and internet missionary)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
Obviously you don't even *know* your history, much less *understand*
it ....
*Actually* - US law is based upon English Law which is ...
based upon an amalgamation of *pagan* Roman Law and *pagan* Germanic
Tribal Law. Throw in some Enlightment philosophers (primarily Deists
and Atheists) and you have pretty much the whole of our legal
tradition and philosophy.
To say that law is *based* upon the 10 commandments ignores the fact
that law existed/exists prior to and outside of the Judeo-Christian
tradition.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 04:02:42 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:11:42 -0700, Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org>
wrote:
(K C) wrote:
The court has said that evolution cannot be banned from classrooms in
the Scopes trial
No it didn't. The jury in the Scopes trial was asked to determine
whether Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution or not. They found
him guilty. Interesting trial. You should read up on it someday.
The Supreme Court ruling is not as you say. Did you read the
ruling...I doubt it. It's not a tech manual that you study in your
work.
Yes, we have read it. You either haven't or you are incapable of
understanding it.
And Joni is not a "techie".
IN FACT, it holds that non-religion
cannot be forced upon the religious.
In other words, atheism cannot be imposed upon the religious by the
SAME barrier that keeps the religious from imposing religion on the
non-religious. So, how does one accomplish this?
By not telling students god does not exist.
That's what you really want...isn't it.
Since she did not say that she wanted it, why would you presume to be
a mind reader and conclude this?
Ten Commandments in the courthouse as a historical foundation of our
law (it is truely that even if the left wants to censor it),
Which of our laws are based on the 10 commandments?
All of them. We began, without laws,
We did not begin without laws. The law in this country began as the
common and statutory law of England, of which we were a part.
by basing our laws upon existing morals of the land.
Laws are not necessarily based on morals.
Where do you think those morals came from?
Various places.
The religion of the people inhabiting the land.
Morals need not be derived from religion.
Not that I expect a techie like yourself to understand history or law.
When you show yourself to have *half* the knowledge of history or law
that Joni has, your comment will be worth considering.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 04:48:44 PM |
|
|
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:11:42 -0700, Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org>
wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
The court has said that evolution cannot be banned from classrooms in
the Scopes trial
No it didn't. The jury in the Scopes trial was asked to determine
whether Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution or not. They found
him guilty. Interesting trial. You should read up on it someday.
The Supreme Court ruling is not as you say. Did you read the
ruling...I doubt it. It's not a tech manual that you study in your
work.
LOL. The SC ruling overturned the fine because it determined a jury alone
can impose a fine not the judge. It appears YOU are the one who
either did not read it or did not understand it.
IN FACT, it holds that non-religion
cannot be forced upon the religious.
In other words, atheism cannot be imposed upon the religious by the
SAME barrier that keeps the religious from imposing religion on the
non-religious. So, how does one accomplish this?
By not telling students god does not exist.
That's what you really want...isn't it.
I've never said to anyone that god does not exist. That's simply
what ignorant folks believe those who oppose religious
indoctrination in schools want. Unlike you, I believe in
religious freedom. Government-sanctioned religion is not
religious freedom.
Ten Commandments in the courthouse as a historical foundation of our
law (it is truely that even if the left wants to censor it),
Which of our laws are based on the 10 commandments?
All of them. We began, without laws,
Uhm, please provide some evidence that all of our laws are based
on the 10 commandments.
But first you should probably try to dig up some evidence that
we began without laws.
Where do you think those morals came from?
You don't really think morality began with the 10
commandments do you? Oh, you couldn't be that dumb!
Many of the commandments are borrowed from elsewhere!!
Not that I expect a techie like yourself to understand history or law.
When did I become a techie? And when did you, who can't even read
and understand the Scopes appeal demonstrate any understanding
of history or law? LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 05:02:16 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309021440140.4716-100000@lab.oregonvos.net>,
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:11:42 -0700, Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org>
wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
The court has said that evolution cannot be banned from classrooms in
the Scopes trial
No it didn't. The jury in the Scopes trial was asked to determine
whether Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution or not. They found
him guilty. Interesting trial. You should read up on it someday.
The Supreme Court ruling is not as you say. Did you read the
ruling...I doubt it. It's not a tech manual that you study in your
work.
LOL. The SC ruling overturned the fine because it determined a jury alone
can impose a fine not the judge. It appears YOU are the one who
either did not read it or did not understand it.
I'm sorry to interject, especially if this was in the part of the post
that is implied here but not quoted. (I'm reading this from
alt.atheism, and don't have access to the original post).
The above could be read as saying that the Supreme Court ->of the
United States<- ruled in the Scopes trial. As I recall, the
remand on the grounds you mention was made by the Tennessee Supreme
Court. Since the case was remanded, and it was never retried, Scopes
v. Tennessee never reached the Supreme Court.
Again, my apologies if this would have been clear from full
context. Better safe than sorry.
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 09:48:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Arturo Magidin wrote:
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote:
LOL. The SC ruling overturned the fine because it determined a jury alone
can impose a fine not the judge. It appears YOU are the one who
either did not read it or did not understand it.
I'm sorry to interject,
Not a problem. Isn't usenet all about interjecting?
;-)
especially if this was in the part of the post
that is implied here but not quoted. (I'm reading this from
alt.atheism, and don't have access to the original post).
The above could be read as saying that the Supreme Court ->of the
United States<- ruled in the Scopes trial. As I recall, the
remand on the grounds you mention was made by the Tennessee Supreme
Court. Since the case was remanded, and it was never retried, Scopes
v. Tennessee never reached the Supreme Court.
Absolutely correct.
KC hasn't a clue about much of anything, as evidenced by his posts.
I am sure Joni knows that, it just wasn't evident from her post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 10:06:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Arturo Magidin wrote:
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote:
LOL. The SC ruling overturned the fine because it determined a jury alone
can impose a fine not the judge. It appears YOU are the one who
either did not read it or did not understand it.
I'm sorry to interject,
Not a problem. Isn't usenet all about interjecting?
;-)
especially if this was in the part of the post
that is implied here but not quoted. (I'm reading this from
alt.atheism, and don't have access to the original post).
The above could be read as saying that the Supreme Court ->of the
United States<- ruled in the Scopes trial. As I recall, the
remand on the grounds you mention was made by the Tennessee Supreme
Court. Since the case was remanded, and it was never retried, Scopes
v. Tennessee never reached the Supreme Court.
Absolutely correct.
KC hasn't a clue about much of anything, as evidenced by his posts.
I am sure Joni knows that, it just wasn't evident from her post.
Yup. I considered for a moment that maybe KC didn't know but
I gave him the benefit of the doubt. And I think since I
demonstrated some evidence of having read (and understood)
the case, one might figure I also understood which court
was involved.
But no biggie.
Now that I think about it tho... since KC had no clue what
the outcome of the case was maybe he really did have the
wrong SC in mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
03 Sep 2003 11:42:32 AM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309022004060.25182-100000@lab.oregonvos.net>,
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Arturo Magidin wrote:
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote:
LOL. The SC ruling overturned the fine because it determined a jury alone
can impose a fine not the judge. It appears YOU are the one who
either did not read it or did not understand it.
I'm sorry to interject,
Not a problem. Isn't usenet all about interjecting?
;-)
especially if this was in the part of the post
that is implied here but not quoted. (I'm reading this from
alt.atheism, and don't have access to the original post).
The above could be read as saying that the Supreme Court ->of the
United States<- ruled in the Scopes trial. As I recall, the
remand on the grounds you mention was made by the Tennessee Supreme
Court. Since the case was remanded, and it was never retried, Scopes
v. Tennessee never reached the Supreme Court.
Absolutely correct.
KC hasn't a clue about much of anything, as evidenced by his posts.
I am sure Joni knows that, it just wasn't evident from her post.
Yup. I considered for a moment that maybe KC didn't know but
I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
It was certainly not my intention to insinuate you were unaware of
this. Like I said, it was a matter of impression, and at the time I
could not see the original context (having seen it, I do think it is
unclear whether or not KC meant to refer to the SCOTUS or to the SC of
Tennessee). I just wanted to clarify it.
Sorry if it seemed like I was questioning your familiarity with the
case.
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 09:43:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joni Rathbun wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
The Supreme Court ruling is not as you say. Did you read the
ruling...I doubt it. It's not a tech manual that you study in your
work.
LOL. The SC ruling overturned the fine
The Tennessee Supreme Court, that is.
because it determined a jury alone
can impose a fine not the judge. It appears YOU are the one who
either did not read it or did not understand it.
That is amazing!!!
KC not understand something?
How can that be????????????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
02 Sep 2003 10:04:58 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 21:43:49 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote
(in message <Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902214219.5352G-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>):
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joni Rathbun wrote:
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
The Supreme Court ruling is not as you say. Did you read the
ruling...I doubt it. It's not a tech manual that you study in your
work.
LOL. The SC ruling overturned the fine
The Tennessee Supreme Court, that is.
because it determined a jury alone
can impose a fine not the judge. It appears YOU are the one who
either did not read it or did not understand it.
That is amazing!!!
KC not understand something?
How can that be????????????????
Who knows? He's been to college and was in the Army so he should know just
about everything.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take
command. Very often, that individual is crazy. -Author Unk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision mistake |
03 Sep 2003 06:49:23 AM |
|
|
Gray Shockley <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
That is amazing!!!
KC not understand something?
How can that be????????????????
Who knows? He's been to college and was in the Army so he should know just
about everything.
You forgot "and he's not a 'techie'". Apparently going to college and
being in the Army makes one know just about everything UNLESS they are
a techie. Otherwise how could he insult you (who has been to college)
but think that he is better qualified than you.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 10:57:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 6:49:23 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in message <a6lblv859icl3igjrv62lpnutr4r3ieuq9@4ax.com>):
Gray Shockley <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
That is amazing!!!
KC not understand something?
How can that be????????????????
Who knows? He's been to college and was in the Army so he should know just
about everything.
You forgot "and he's not a 'techie'". Apparently going to college and
being in the Army makes one know just about everything UNLESS they are
a techie. Otherwise how could he insult you (who has been to college)
but think that he is better qualified than you.
lojbab
I dunni. Maybe he considers a B.A. and a smidgin of grad school in philosophy
to be "techie".
[I didn't have a "related minor because I had an "extended major" - 48 hours
in philosophy rather than the "normal B.A." requirement of 30 semester
hours.]
However, my "unrelated minor" was in Social Work and nearly all of it
[including the actual experiences] was dealing with learning disabilities of
children.
Darn that "techie" education. I spent all that money just to be a "techie".
[sigh]
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 01:01:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:57:08 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 6:49:23 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in message <a6lblv859icl3igjrv62lpnutr4r3ieuq9@4ax.com>):
Gray Shockley <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
That is amazing!!!
KC not understand something?
How can that be????????????????
Who knows? He's been to college and was in the Army so he should know just
about everything.
You forgot "and he's not a 'techie'". Apparently going to college and
being in the Army makes one know just about everything UNLESS they are
a techie. Otherwise how could he insult you (who has been to college)
but think that he is better qualified than you.
lojbab
I dunni. Maybe he considers a B.A. and a smidgin of grad school in philosophy
to be "techie".
[I didn't have a "related minor because I had an "extended major" - 48 hours
in philosophy rather than the "normal B.A." requirement of 30 semester
hours.]
However, my "unrelated minor" was in Social Work and nearly all of it
[including the actual experiences] was dealing with learning disabilities of
children.
Darn that "techie" education. I spent all that money just to be a "techie".
[sigh]
My point was that you don't work in the field. However, if we are
comparing academics. I have senior level work in literature, history,
political science, math, religion and business. I also have articles
and works published in many of those areas (with a published religious
book - 777 Things You Can Do In Heaven). Does that make me an expert
in history, literature, political science, math, religion and
business.....oh by the way, I have a diploma from NRI for computer
programming. Does that make me a tech expert too?
KC (author and internet missionary)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 03:01:52 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
:|My point was that you don't work in the field. However, if we are
:|comparing academics. I have senior level work in literature, history,
:|political science, math, religion and business. I also have articles
:|and works published in many of those areas (with a published religious
:|book - 777 Things You Can Do In Heaven). Does that make me an expert
:|in history, literature, political science, math, religion and
:|business.....
Based on your posts you are far from being an expert or even very
knowledgable with regards to American history, especially pertaining to
church state separation and the founding era.
:|KC (author and internet missionary) internet troll and nut case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 03:23:02 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:11iclvct4vq7vae8kp48pdr9nt9jqsq2fa@4ax.com...
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
Based on your posts you are far from being an expert or even very
knowledgable with regards to American history, especially pertaining to
church state separation and the founding era.
Like you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 11:30:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:23:02 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:11iclvct4vq7vae8kp48pdr9nt9jqsq2fa@4ax.com...
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote:
Based on your posts you are far from being an expert or even very
knowledgable with regards to American history, especially pertaining to
church state separation and the founding era.
Like you do.
Speaking of sleaze, Buttmaster
Explain this to him........
Make him laugh
---------------------------------------------------
ladies use my tongue for your pleasure
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=
63j187%24nji%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=226>
swm very oral will orally worship any female that wishes to be worshipped.
will kiss and lick your feet and butt .
might be wiling to be your toilet paper if you
are that aggressive
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 02:15:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 18:01:11 GMT, (K C) wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:57:08 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 6:49:23 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in message <a6lblv859icl3igjrv62lpnutr4r3ieuq9@4ax.com>):
Gray Shockley <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
That is amazing!!!
KC not understand something?
How can that be????????????????
Who knows? He's been to college and was in the Army so he should know just
about everything.
You forgot "and he's not a 'techie'". Apparently going to college and
being in the Army makes one know just about everything UNLESS they are
a techie. Otherwise how could he insult you (who has been to college)
but think that he is better qualified than you.
lojbab
I dunni. Maybe he considers a B.A. and a smidgin of grad school in philosophy
to be "techie".
[I didn't have a "related minor because I had an "extended major" - 48 hours
in philosophy rather than the "normal B.A." requirement of 30 semester
hours.]
However, my "unrelated minor" was in Social Work and nearly all of it
[including the actual experiences] was dealing with learning disabilities of
children.
Darn that "techie" education. I spent all that money just to be a "techie".
[sigh]
My point was that you don't work in the field. However, if we are
comparing academics. I have senior level work in literature, history,
political science, math, religion and business. I also have articles
and works published in many of those areas (with a published religious
book - 777 Things You Can Do In Heaven).
Hey, I checked out your site for 777 Things You Can Do In Heaven.
Kewl. But I didn't see anywhere on the site about the 72 virgins. Do
you get the 72 virgins in your heaven, too?
Does that make me an expert
in history, literature, political science, math, religion and
business.....oh by the way, I have a diploma from NRI for computer
programming. Does that make me a tech expert too?
From the Nuclear Research Institute in the Czech Republic? Hmmm...
I doubt it. What languages did they teach you?
Or was that the National Reasearch Institute in Papua New Guinea? I
bet they use Python.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 01:17:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:57:08 -0500, Gray Shockley
I dunni. Maybe he considers a B.A. and a smidgin of grad school in philosophy
to be "techie".
[I didn't have a "related minor because I had an "extended major" - 48 hours
in philosophy rather than the "normal B.A." requirement of 30 semester
hours.]
However, my "unrelated minor" was in Social Work and nearly all of it
[including the actual experiences] was dealing with learning disabilities of
children.
Darn that "techie" education. I spent all that money just to be a "techie".
[sigh]
My point was that you don't work in the field.
Please answer the following questions. (You still haven't answered the
question about what qualifications are necessary to be a homeschooling
teacher. I see you haven't used that designator any more.) Here are some
more questions for you to ignore:
What field would that be?
Are you?
However, if we are comparing academics. I have senior level work
Senior level work? What the blazes does that mean? Sr. in H.S.? Sr. in
college? WHAT?
In a comparison of "academics," folks usually include degrees earned. I
see none in this most interesting CV.
in literature, history, political science, math, religion and business. I also have articles
and works published in many of those areas (with a published religious
book - 777 Things You Can Do In Heaven).
By what experience do you have any idea about what activities can be done
in heaven? Oh, but you usually speak of things you know nothing about, so
I guess writing such a book is in keeping with your usual habits.
Does that make me an expert
in history, literature, political science, math, religion and
business.....
Probably not.
oh by the way, I have a diploma from NRI for computer
programming. Does that make me a tech expert too?
KC (author and internet missionary)
Internet missionary? That is a hoot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 01:43:23 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.1030903131145.24343A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> writes:
<
<On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
<
{...}
<
<> KC (author and internet missionary)
<
<Internet missionary? That is a hoot.
<
Actually...I think it's an interesting idea. Probably at least as
fruitful as any other.
However, any good missionary (and I've known some) learns early that
you can't simply wade ashore and heavy-handedly begin proclaiming
The Truth to the unfortunate and benighted heathens, expecting
them to fall at your feet in awe and wonder. Sanctimony and
condecension in particular will end you up in the Usenet
stewpot faster any other way you can behave around us
net.unwashed.indigenes.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 01:25:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:17:24 -0500, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:57:08 -0500, Gray Shockley
I dunni. Maybe he considers a B.A. and a smidgin of grad school in philosophy
to be "techie".
[I didn't have a "related minor because I had an "extended major" - 48 hours
in philosophy rather than the "normal B.A." requirement of 30 semester
hours.]
However, my "unrelated minor" was in Social Work and nearly all of it
[including the actual experiences] was dealing with learning disabilities of
children.
Darn that "techie" education. I spent all that money just to be a "techie".
[sigh]
My point was that you don't work in the field.
Please answer the following questions. (You still haven't answered the
question about what qualifications are necessary to be a homeschooling
teacher. I see you haven't used that designator any more.) Here are some
more questions for you to ignore:
What field would that be?
Are you?
I homeschool currently, yes. My degree, to answer your below question
is Bachelor of Liberal Studies, but I have enough credits for a
History Degree, Sociology Minor, Pschology minor, Business Minor,
Polical Science minor, religious minor, or a literature minor. Many
of those courses in the minor areas are upper level college credits.
I CHOSE the BLS degree to be well rounded for homeschooling
education...the very thing you seek to attack.
However, if we are comparing academics. I have senior level work
Senior level work? What the blazes does that mean? Sr. in H.S.? Sr. in
college? WHAT?
In a comparison of "academics," folks usually include degrees earned. I
see none in this most interesting CV.
in literature, history, political science, math, religion and business. I also have articles
and works published in many of those areas (with a published religious
book - 777 Things You Can Do In Heaven).
By what experience do you have any idea about what activities can be done
in heaven? Oh, but you usually speak of things you know nothing about, so
I guess writing such a book is in keeping with your usual habits.
Does that make me an expert
in history, literature, political science, math, religion and
business.....
Probably not.
oh by the way, I have a diploma from NRI for computer
programming. Does that make me a tech expert too?
KC (author and internet missionary)
Internet missionary? That is a hoot.
KC (author and internet missionary)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 01:34:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
cs:
Please answer the following questions. (You still haven't answered the
question about what qualifications are necessary to be a homeschooling
teacher. I see you haven't used that designator any more.) Here are some
more questions for you to ignore:
What field would that be?
Are you?
I homeschool currently, yes.
You were chastizing others because they were not qualified in the field of
homeschooling?
Incredible.
(You do know that my question "what field" was a direct reference to your
comment, right?)
My degree, to answer your below question
is Bachelor of Liberal Studies, but I have enough credits for a
History Degree, Sociology Minor, Pschology minor, Business Minor,
Polical Science minor, religious minor, or a literature minor. Many
of those courses in the minor areas are upper level college credits.
I CHOSE the BLS degree to be well rounded for homeschooling
education...the very thing you seek to attack.
You haven't answered my question, have you? What qualifications are
necessary for being a home schooling teacher? Or are you
suggesting everyone who home schools should have a BLS degree?
Any evidence you have that I seek to attack homeschooling education would
be necessary unless you want folks to think you are again speaking of what
you do no know.
By what experience do you have any idea about what activities can be done
in heaven? Oh, but you usually speak of things you know nothing about, so
I guess writing such a book is in keeping with your usual habits.
Does that make me an expert
in history, literature, political science, math, religion and
business.....
Probably not.
KC (author and internet missionary)
Internet missionary? That is a hoot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 01:38:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:34:49 -0500, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
cs:
Please answer the following questions. (You still haven't answered the
question about what qualifications are necessary to be a homeschooling
teacher. I see you haven't used that designator any more.) Here are some
more questions for you to ignore:
What field would that be?
Are you?
I homeschool currently, yes.
You were chastizing others because they were not qualified in the field of
homeschooling?
False information. I didn't chastize anyone for being unqualified to
homeschool. I simply said that I realized I was an equal authority.
But I doubt you researched it well enough.
Incredible.
(You do know that my question "what field" was a direct reference to your
comment, right?)
My degree, to answer your below question
is Bachelor of Liberal Studies, but I have enough credits for a
History Degree, Sociology Minor, Pschology minor, Business Minor,
Polical Science minor, religious minor, or a literature minor. Many
of those courses in the minor areas are upper level college credits.
I CHOSE the BLS degree to be well rounded for homeschooling
education...the very thing you seek to attack.
You haven't answered my question, have you? What qualifications are
necessary for being a home schooling teacher? Or are you
suggesting everyone who home schools should have a BLS degree?
Changing your arguement huh? You were questioning MY qualifications
as homeschool teacher..not everyones. As for what I see as the needed
qualification to homeschool, see my other response to you.
Any evidence you have that I seek to attack homeschooling education would
be necessary unless you want folks to think you are again speaking of what
you do no know.
By what experience do you have any idea about what activities can be done
in heaven? Oh, but you usually speak of things you know nothing about, so
I guess writing such a book is in keeping with your usual habits.
Does that make me an expert
in history, literature, political science, math, religion and
business.....
Probably not.
KC (author and internet missionary)
Internet missionary? That is a hoot.
KC (author and internet missionary)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 01:58:49 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
False information. I didn't chastize anyone for being unqualified to
homeschool. I simply said that I realized I was an equal authority.
No. You are an ignorant *****.
My degree, to answer your below question
is Bachelor of Liberal Studies, but I have enough credits for a
History Degree, Sociology Minor, Pschology minor, Business Minor,
Polical Science minor, religious minor, or a literature minor. Many
of those courses in the minor areas are upper level college credits.
I CHOSE the BLS degree to be well rounded for homeschooling
education...the very thing you seek to attack.
You haven't answered my question, have you? What qualifications are
necessary for being a home schooling teacher? Or are you
suggesting everyone who home schools should have a BLS degree?
Changing your arguement huh? You were questioning MY qualifications
as homeschool teacher..not everyones.
That is because you display awesome levels of ignorance, and a reading
comprehension level that should not graduate from high school.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme C.'s non-decision miss stake |
03 Sep 2003 02:15:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:38:19 -0500, K C wrote
(in message <3f563492.15703781@news.athenanews.com>):
False information. I didn't chastize anyone for being unqualified to
homeschool. I simply said that I realized I was an equal authority.
But I doubt you researched it well enough.
--------------------------------------------------------
Here for a year or so I have posted things on here to be argued with
by Bob, Joni and Gray about homeschooling, religion and such. All the
time I thought I was debating with another instructor. I wasn't.
Just in case others out there want to know,
Bob LeChevalier and Gray Shockley are technology related buffs that,
as far as I can see, have no link to instruction.
Joni Rathbun is a Media technology specialist. She is the closest to
being education related, but she, as well, is just a technology buff.
I thought that others on this group might be interested in knowing
this.
--------------------------------------------------------
Having a little problem, Kennie?
It's all in your head.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
