And yet rob should have previewed his own comment saying not to preview.

More than anything I hate when I submit a comment and it says my submit word was wrong when it wasn’t. Then I hit the back button and my comment is gone. My best friend is highlight, right click and copy. I recommend everyone get in the habit of doing that.

Yes, I should sign in before I post to bypass the need for a submit word but I’m afraid I’ll forget to log out. Then it looks like I’m here as much as I really am. That can’t be good.

I really do type phonetically.  I hear a voice in my head (presumably mine) and just type.  Thus, “you’re” is sometimes used for “your”, and other sounds-like-words.

Honestly, more than a few times i wish there was an Edit button, especially when i forget to use a verb in my sentences.  But, to be even more honest, i often take pleasure in reading others’ imperfections.

(And i really, really do wish you could disable emoticons.  By no means is my winking happy face anywhere near that garish thing. It’s far more twisted.)

Why the hell would you logout? I never logout. It only shows you as here when the webbrowser is pointing an SEB page.

Rob, I plan to replace the smilies someday.

Very well then. I’ll try it your way and stay logged in.

But if I get a trophy for member with most hours logged in, I’m referring you back to your reply.

This isn’t the site my member is most often logged into.

And how the hell do I know my member name isn’t showing up when my browser doesn’t have this page open if I can only see it when my browser is pointing here? You could be trying to win a Webby Award for most members logged on. And then you’ll brag about it.

What others do with their members should be none of my business.

Brock, i think this whole logout habit is somewhat OCD’ish.  Like, do you turn off the stove and iron eight times before leaving the house each day?

I used to do that, too (logout).

But, then i got these cool little pills.

Just logout, sit back, and enjoy the ride.
Worst case, my graphs showing your activity on this site will be skewed.

.rob adams- who needs verbs?  This sentence no verb.

elwed- vielleicht später.  Viel später.

Brock-

And how the hell do I know my member name isn’t showing up when my browser doesn’t have this page open if I can only see it when my browser is pointing here?

We’ll let you know.  What’s your member’s name?

If you can catch me ironing .rob, I’ll iron your stuff for a month. The stove doesn’t get used that much either. I keep forgetting to turn the oven off and often have a killer utility bill at the end of the month.

Well zilch, it’s Woody. Wood for short (Don’t say it!). You see Wood much on here?

What’s veal splatter?

rob: And, just so you know, you’re genetically enhanced grandchildren want need no preview.

wot?

Wood for short (Don’t say it!)

Gosh darn it!  Spoilsport!

nowiser- yeah, interestingly young people are drawn to passionate optimism, although they are entertained by quick-witted cynicism.  They’re always the 1st to let me know when they think I’m too cynical…which they have been doing frequently this last week as I’ve been overwhelmed with so much to do.

zilch- I guess I operate under the assumption that all writers are *indirectly* writing about “ultimate good”

I guess I operate under the assumption that all writers are *indirectly* writing about “ultimate good�

Ellie- This is a major difference between the doctrinal and the scientific approach.  Doctrine, whether it be religious, political, or philosophical, is prescriptive, teleological, and often proscriptive.  Science, done right, is descriptive.  Darwin was a scientist.

You may think I am picking nits here, saying there’s a difference between saying “not much” (or writing “only indirectly”) about ultimate good and saying “nothing at all” about it.  But this is precisely the salient point:  evolution teaches us that everything evolves. Not just organisms, but free will, meaning, good and bad, all develop from the bottom up.  Four billion years ago, there was no good and bad, no free will, no meaning, on Earth.  Now there is.

interestingly young people are drawn to passionate optimism

They’re also pretty vulnerable to people who claim to know what they’re talking about, and have the rhetorical skills to present themselves as authorities.  For the same reason that I don’t like it when some of my more liberal colleagues push their political agendas in their classrooms, I can’t help but twitch at the thought of you ‘molding’ impressionable young minds.

You’ve demonstrated repeatedly, on this site alone, that you have little regard for facts, and that you’re willing to present yourself as an authority on subjects that you haven’t adequately researched.  I cringe when I imagine you in front of a classroom, holding forth on how blacks commit felonies at a proportionately higher rate (Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that blacks are arrested for and convicted of felonies at a proportionately higher rate?  I can almost hear you dismissing the distinction as ‘semantics’ already), or that class action suits don’t require actual plaintiffs. Or that Clinton is responsible for 911.  Or that Nietzsche espoused fascism, but Socrates was the very soul of enlightenment.  You say that you’ve thought “a lot” about philosophy. 

I contend that you would be better served by thinking well.

You can call it passionate optimism if you want, but I cannot help but see it in an entirely different light—more along the lines of the “passionate intensity” that Yeats spoke of.  You’re an educated woman, I’m sure you know -exactly- what I mean.

*shrug*

I’m wasting my breath, aren’t I?  Engaging in the equivalent of proselytizing to the atheists.

no, it’s not a waste, nowiser.  I am interested to know more of your background as a minister, in what church, & why no longer if you want to e-mail it to me.  Thanks to your patience, I know that the NAACP suit was a class-action, & not a mere complaint.  I would NEVER say that Clinton is responsible for 9/11.  Those 19 men are already dead.  What I’ve posted on this site about that is how frustrated I am that anyone could return to that mindset which I feel was appropriate for Clinton’s time, entirely dangerous now.  If Clinton had been more on top of terrorism, he would have been voted out because domestic issues were the focus.  It would only postpone 9/11.

Socrates & Neitzsche are nowhere in my curriculum, I stick to the LA textbook.  I generally tell people who haven’t read the things I have that lots of really smart people disagree with me that Neitzsche’s ideas are unintentional foundations for facism because I see the core as narcisistic, & Socrates was almost as pivotal as Jesus, but unfortunately his ideas are also an unintentional foundation for socialism & communism.

I teach semantics of language to ESL students, telling them that the power of language is vital for them to master so they aren’t taken advantage of by people with less morals than themselves…& most of the politics I include deals with illegal immigration, in which the students who disagree seem to respect me more than those who don’t.  In my regular LA classroom, the same thing seems to happen.  For example, you’re right, if I were to approach that figure on black felons, I would dismiss it as semantics personally, but the way I present it to students is that that’s because I trust our justice system to be mostly fair.  I tell them that many intelligent people who don’t trust our justice system, see it very differently, & leave them to decide.

I’m more discouraged by students who are more interested in passing notes or leaving for the restroom to tag their gang’s name & encouraged by students who can think enough to disagree with me.  As for students who will fall for all my opinions- I know that they are young & it will only last until a pretty person with different opinions comes along.

Whoops, mixed you up w/ decrepitold fool, thanx for the detailed bio!

zilch-I just don’t find science or the scientific method a reliable source of knowledge, most especially not as the only way.  So I will constantly take science & see it through a lens you will probably find loony

ellie- Not much I can say about that attitude, except that I sure hope you don’t ever teach science.

I would dismiss it as semantics personally, but the way I present it to students is that. . . I tell them that many intelligent people. . . see it very differently, & leave them to decide

I find that very encouraging.  It means that I could at least share space with you as a teacher, even if I strongly disagree with your philosophy.

zilch - as they say, there’s death, taxes, & ellie will never teach science

Darwin forfend!

nowiser, I’m glad to work with teachers like you as well.  What bothers me are the assholes there collecting a paycheck to hand out worksheets & ignore the kids.  I tend to change the focus to the underlying assumptions.  Because while the facts & my opinions change, the underlying assumptions are our foundations.  That our country is good, that our justice system seeks justice, etc. or that most authority figures & institutions in our country are selfish & corrupt.

I nominate this statement for the “Most Stupid Comment on SEB” award…

“...I just don’t find science or the scientific method a reliable source of knowledge…“

ellie on 11/26/04 at 01:50

(uh, no offense meant eh lass)

Try using it to prove you love your kids, or to figure out how to discipline them, or where to live, or which friends to trust.

Those are weak counter-examples.

If your kids need proof that you love them, then you might as well use the scientific method to find a way.

The last three are amenable to be tackled by the scientific method, as your use of “figure out how to ...“ implies.

nomination for the least educative or persuasive comment goes to guess who.  I feel so much more encouraged to explore & form my opinions with your help now.

I guess y’all are just lucky enough to have never said anything incompletely.  I just think that relying only on scientific knowledge is problematic at best.  Although it seems to serve you well in being able to lord your intelligence over the rest of us.