Where is balance? -- Re: Academic priorities
|
From: Bernd Felsche on 3 May 2005 22:54 rpl <plinnane3REMOVE(a)NOSPAMyahoo.com> writes: >Larry Elmore wrote: >> A high court in rapidly self-emasculating England has ruled that a >> butter-knife is indeed a dangerous offensive weapon... >Well, given rising cholesterol awareness, I'm not surprised. Which cholesterol? The stuff you eat or the stuff your body makes if you don't eat it? "Proof" that cholesterol has much to do with health is fairly slim and largely based on post hoc fallacy; much like obesity being causing arthritis... -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread!
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 3 May 2005 23:30 (I hope I've got the attribution right. If not, I apologize in advance) > > Sander Vesik wrote: > > > In comp.arch Marco S Hyman <marc(a)snafu.org> wrote: > > > > >> > > >>It wasn't that long ago when it was not uncommon for children from about > > >>10 years old and up to bring weapons to school, rifles shotguns that were > > >>stored in the school gun rack or cloak room during school hours. The > > > > > > > > > I'm really glad I never have lived and am never going to live anywhere > > > where such could happen, never mind be considered the norm. Why? Because the kids were trusted? Because firearms were regarded as being like any other implement? -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 4 May 2005 03:00 >>>>>It wasn't that long ago when it was not uncommon for children from about >>>>>10 years old and up to bring weapons to school, rifles shotguns that were >>>>>stored in the school gun rack or cloak room during school hours. The >>>> >>>>I'm really glad I never have lived and am never going to live anywhere >>>>where such could happen, never mind be considered the norm. > > Why? Because the kids were trusted? Because firearms were regarded > as being like any other implement? Two reasons: one, hereabouts, one doesn't regard a firearm as a normal implement - but that is a different discussion. Second, I have a ten-year old, and I definitely wouldn't trust him with a firearm of any kind with- out close supervision. But then, we don't trust sixteen-year-olds with driving a car, either. Jan
From: Kelly Hall on 4 May 2005 03:01 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > (I hope I've got the attribution right. If not, I apologize in advance) > >>>Sander Vesik wrote: >>> >>>>In comp.arch Marco S Hyman <marc(a)snafu.org> wrote: >>> >>>>>It wasn't that long ago when it was not uncommon for children from about >>>>>10 years old and up to bring weapons to school, rifles shotguns that were >>>>>stored in the school gun rack or cloak room during school hours. The >>>> >>>> >>>>I'm really glad I never have lived and am never going to live anywhere >>>>where such could happen, never mind be considered the norm. > > > Why? Because the kids were trusted? Because firearms were regarded > as being like any other implement? I remember spending a week in 7th grade being lectured firearm safety. On Friday, we all went to the gyms to fire a few rounds of .22 to demonstrate what we'd learned. All students were required to attend and pass. Frankly, we were all eager to learn - it was a lot more fun (and useful) than diagramming sentences. That would have been fall 1976 or spring 1977 and I would have been 11 or 12. Has the world changed so much since then? Kelly
From: Brian Inglis on 4 May 2005 03:09
On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:31:42 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, Larry Elmore <ljelmore_(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Casper H.S. Dik wrote: >> "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads(a)alum.mit.edu> writes: >> >>>>? I'm not familiar with what you mean by "zero tolerance", but given a >>>>"check-in" procedure, I see no problems. >> >>>"Zero tolerance" means "zero thinking" -- the administration claims NOT to have any >>>responsibility, becuase all judgement has been taken out of the process. So when >>>a butter knife is found in the open back of apick-up truck, the Honors Senior >>>who drove (his Mother's truck) to school is suspended, and put into a diversion >>>program for juvenile delinquents with violence problems. Justification: "Zero >>>Tolerance" >> >> And a butter knife isn't even a knife; it has "knife" in its name but that >> doesn't make it a knife in the sense of "dangerous object with sharp edge >> or point". > >A high court in rapidly self-emasculating England has ruled that a >butter-knife is indeed a dangerous offensive weapon... My wife was required to put a set of butter knives (don't ask -- I don't remember!) into checked luggage just pre-9/11. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis(a)CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply |