fm-
It wouldn't be for my benefit if you changed it.It's a stupid statement anyway.
But you're just being obtuse.You know what I meant.It's okay for men but not for women is what your last post is avoiding admitting-that's all.I can't say I blame you.
If you Google The Sunday Times and click on Culture magazine and look for the article The Life Of Brian you'll see a tentative description of a woman who did as your sig suggests.By tentative I mean the steam and sweat are excluded for reasons of decorum.Extended euphemism I suppose.ST readers are a trifle delicate.
wande-
I don't think many of the 48000 plus viewers of this thread will be particularly impressed with that.After all it is little more than a tongue pull out and about as original and as easy although hardly as sweet.
Most of them must know by now who are the bunnies.
spendius, maybe i also should stop using disclaimers
wande wrote-
Quote:spendius, maybe i also should stop using disclaimers
Suit yourself wande old chum.I don't mind one way or the other.I'm allahkeefic as the Arabs say.
You might get these school marms you keep quoting to shift the needle into the next groove.Have you not noticed that it's stuck.
spendi,
I am always happy to see school marms supporting each other (it's good for our children's education).
wande-
I just caught ten minutes of Intolerable Cruelty whilst I was drying off after my soak.It looks good.
"Let the record show that the witness identified the Silly Man." was one of the bits of dialouge I caught.
Are school marms there anything like the defendent.The scientific aspects of intelligent design.
wande-
Would you be so kind and explain that for me.I think I understand it but I'm not entirely sure.
Quote:* The changes made to science standards are based on the belief that evolutionary science is based on an atheistic philosophy.
particularly.
Who are these board members?
spendi,
The Kansas education board members who effected the change in science education standards are considered political conservatives. The changes they made regarding evolution education are based on an assumption that evolutionary theory is "atheistic". The board members relied on advice given by the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute's agenda regarding evolution education is, in their own words, "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
wande-
Which changes?
I got mixed up with the changes as I expect the kids will be.
I also asked who are making these decisions.I wondered if they are capable of understanding the issues or are they simply repeating mantras which they feel allow them to bask in that most mysterious cachet often associated in the vulgar mind with scientific erudation gleaned from self improvement programmes on the television appliance or from a casual half-hour with Professor Dawkins, the popular entertainer.
spendi,
The changes in Kansas are confusing to kids and adults alike. The Kansas Board of Education has changed the guidelines for teaching evolution at least three times in the last six years.
The change I referred to was the revision passed by the board in November 2005.
Various seats on the board are contested in Kansas statewide elections every two years. The next election will be in November 2006.
The members of Boards of Education typically stand to general election, spendi, with in some instances the Office of Governor also appoining some members apart from those elected from and by the populace. Board members need have no qualification beyond political apptitude and good fortune to qualify for the position. Of particular note is that a consortium of qualified individuals - the educators themselves - stand in defiant opposition to the attempt by some Boards of Education to impose what, despite their convoluted obfuscatiion, amounts to Fundementalist Christianity on the public education system. The ID-iot crowd has pushed the issue into the polling places, the legislatures, and the courthouses of The Nation, and are getting their figurative asses handed to them every time push comes to shove. Eventually, they'll be forced to acknowledge the simple fact they have nothing with which to push, and they will be shoved into the obscurity of the background of the collective social consciosness. At the rate they're going, the ID-iots are managing only to hasten their own marginalization and resultant isolation. In this, I wish them godspeed.
Fair enough timber and well said.
The arrangement you describe sounds a bit fishy.
Why are they not all elected?
But I have to go away just now on important business.
Given that school districts are funded partially out of state tax revenues, and partially out of property tax levies, the commonest system makes political sense, if not educational sense. The voters who approve levies on their own property feel, not unnaturally, that they should therefore have some control over the decision-making body for their school district. At the same time, given that state governments provide, usually, a sum based upon a capitation of students in the district, and therefore the lion's share of operating funds, they feel they should have some control as well.
As the great Anglo-American politician, Winston Churchill, observed--democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others which have been tried.
By heck- writing skills are improving around here.
But we still need to clarify what timber means by "political aptitude".
And why voters feel the need to "have some control over the decision making body for their school district" when they haven't the faintest idea of what the world will be like when their kids mature if such it is they eventually do.
Are the elected members of the boards chosen "en bloc" or does it go by districts.
For some real history,a boozing partner has a large copper coin from the early 19th century which depicts Napoleon on the heads side, as is entirely predictable.This coin has had some work done on it,presumably with the point of a knife,which suggests,by its elaboration,a degree of acute boredom and cynicism,and is not actually,when studied,all that complimentary to the great Emperor.
I think people who only focus on the history of great men are probably from that section of the population,thankfully not too large,who believe that they,by rights,ought to be great men themselves.
wandeljw wrote:WISCONSIN UPDATE
Quote:Bill banning intelligent design draws national notice
(By Judith Davidoff, Wisconsin Capital Times, February 16, 2006)
Religious conservatives around the country are up in arms over a Wisconsin bill that would ban the teaching of intelligent design as science in the state's public schools.
Attie said the Baptist Press and other critics are misrepresenting the bill as banning intelligent design and creationism from the classroom. "We're not planning to do that at all," he said. In fact, Attie said, the bill provides an opportunity to fully explore the question of what is science and how it should be defined. "We see this as a wonderful teaching moment," Attie added.
Can you locate a copy of the Bill itself. There seems to be some disagreement on what it actually does/says.
