From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate on
A Human Being <justahumanbeing1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> > "A Human Being" <justahumanbeing1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and
> > >deansgate wrote:
> >
> > >> Yes, it does, and they don't constantly bang on about the inferiority of
> > >> other nations, professions and how a whole continent doesn't understand
> > >> the meaning of wealth, etc. If they did it here in r.t.e. they'd be
> > >> treated the same way as Mixi.
> > >
> > >Are you the owner of r.t.e and the people who post here your slaves who
> > >must do your bidding and express only the opinions you like ? Is this a
> > >place where people are free to air their views? Or like a nanny state
> > >is this a nanny controlled group where every view uttered should be
> > >politically correct ?
> > >Strange that you are against negative behaviour and indulge in it
> > >yourself.
> >
> > This post has been composed by somebody with no sense of irony but who
> > can be hilariously funny.
>
> I reserve my jokes for people who know me well . Otherwise it creates
> misunderstandings.

Was that your first attempt at irony?

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate on
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and
> deansgate writes:
>
> > If they did it here in r.t.e. they'd be treated the same way as Mixi.
>
> r.t.e. means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Well you should feel at home then.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
From: JohnT on

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7vjed29cavmqiucu4j7t4fn4p7pb0r3ncs(a)4ax.com...
> David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and
> deansgate writes:
>
>> If they did it here in r.t.e. they'd be treated the same way as Mixi.
>
> r.t.e. means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

At last something we can agree about!

JohnT


From: Hatunen on
On 7 Aug 2006 02:18:28 -0700, "A Human Being"
<justahumanbeing1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On 6 Aug 2006 01:58:43 -0700, "A Human Being"
>> <justahumanbeing1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Hatunen wrote:
>>
>> >> How much are you willing to pay a second grade teacher?
>> >
>> >Much more than what they get now, enough to make it all worthwhile and
>> >keep them interested in teaching . A society's future depends on the
>> >people who take care of its basic needs - teachers, health
>> >professionals, builders and the like , even the refuge collectors. I
>> >rate them much higher than Madonna or the basketball players.
>>
>> I didn't ask what society was willing to pay; I asked what YOU
>> were willing to pay.
>
>I did answer and I gave the reason why.

Please read the paragraph above which starts "much more than they
get now.." and tell me how that says how much you are willing to
pay. How much more is "much more"?
>
>> >>You will
>> >> do they paying, after all, through your taxes. Are you willing to
>> >> pay that teacher $100,000 a year, quadrupling your taxes?
>> >
>> >If the govt spent the money wisely and a lot of wasteful practices were
>> >curbed, the teachers could get much better salaries without an increase
>> >in taxation. But the problem in a nanny state is that the population is
>> >not free to have their say and affect the govt's decisions. They lost
>> >that freedom quite a while ago.
>
>> You're evading the question:
>
>I am not. You expect me to give a straight yes or no reply to a
>complicated problem. It seems the ultimate aim of the question was just
>to corner the person you are discussing with and not understand the
>situation and where the solution lay.

You're the one giving simplistic answers like they ought to get
paid more. I'm asking you to put your figurative money where your
figurative mouth is.

>> are you willing to quadruple your taxes
>>so that public school teachers can earn, say, $100,000 per
>> year?
>
>No, I cannot afford to quadruple my taxes

Ah. Of course.

>but I am willing to pay the
>teachers I am in direct contact with more for their efforts than they
>get now provided the money goes to them directly.

How much can you pay them? $200 a year? A thouand dollars? Can
you get them anywhere close to a good salary? What would you
consider a good salary for a second grade teacher? For a high
school math teacher? Would you pay a high school math teacher
more thatn a high school geography teacher?

This is the problem. Everyone says teachers ought to get more,
but no one wants to foot the bill. In the USA teachers are
largely paid through local property taxes and attempts by schools
to raise those taxes, which generally requires a ballot issue,
are almost universally met by failure.

But keep on talking the talk and I'll keep asking why you don't
walk the walk.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:13:52 +0100, The Reid
<dontuse(a)fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:

>Following up to Hatunen
>
>>>It can be seen as a stylised version of warfare. In that sense it
>>>serves a very useful purpose.
>>
>>When has sport ever stopped a war?
>
>I think you are taking that way too literally. It doesn't work by
>shouting "hey, lets play football instead" as the planes take
>off.

So, give a figurative explanation.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *