jazzer

Clearly you haven't met enough Yanks.

Not. Can you say NATO?

And suddenly the libs do. Nice deflection, something you cons are so good at.

Odd that the Conservatives are now in second place behind the Liberals: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...anada-poll.html Keep up the good work Stephen. Now that they're behind, we'll hear the cons say, "we don't believe in polls."

I'll add crime.

Scott, you used these words: foolish unidimensional closedmindedness and humanist conceit of atheism. Take out the word humanist and you have components of many organized religions, the worst of all IMV are the evangelicals. I certainly would not expose my kids to the likes of Fred Phelps for instance, or any of the major fundamentalists. I rather have them study Darwin than pollute their minds with a belief system based on myths.

Some definitions of hubris: - the most common form of tragic flaw, usually ascribed to excessive pride or arrogance - an act of excessive pride; a shortcoming or fatal flaw - An arrogance due to excessive pride and an insolence toward others Now think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker......., and I'd even throw in the bishop in our diocese. Atheism holds no monopoly on hubris.

Some might say the same of organized religion.

And this justifies her sentence how?

How do you improve students with 30+ in a classroom? Individual attention, whether through aids or a diagnostic-prescriptive approach will only enhance the academic experience, not the other way around. I taught that way, both in the classroom and in teaching music. Many others have proven the effectiveness of such a teaching method.

That's what aids are for. Or in some cases, the teacher divides the classroom up according to learning levels. There he/she can spend the time where most aptly needed. It can be done, and it is where the teacher earns their money. If the class is going to be divided according to learning levels, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? If a student requires an aide, doesn't that say something about the nature of this whole thing? We simply cannot make everyone equal no matter how hard we try. Unfortunately, what we CAN do is drag down the majority to the level of the minority, and that's what appears to be happening in schools. I frankly don't care how hard a life the teacher has trying to ride herd over academic anarchy, but I do care about the result on the kids, and if a teacher is spending huge amounts of time on one or two kids, the rest HAVE to suffer in their education. Totally disagree. When I was student teaching, my teacher taught me the diagnostic prescriptive method, where classes are divided, in her case, into three distinct levels of learning. She was aptly able to manage all levels, but it required a little extra effort. No one suffered. She spent much of her time with those with learning disabilities and expected the smarter students to work independently. She was available at all times for any problems that came up. She taught ALL her classes this way and was very successful. She proved and measured her success with outake and intake assessments. Again, every student got their academic needs met in her classroom.

That's what aids are for. Or in some cases, the teacher divides the classroom up according to learning levels. There he/she can spend the time where most aptly needed. It can be done, and it is where the teacher earns their money.

That in itself is quite a ridiculous statement. Most parents introduce their children to religion because it's their own belief, not to impose the dogma. Mormons, J.W's and catholics (to name a few) are encouraged to raise their children in their faith. Speaking as a catholic, I was highly expected to engage our sons in catechism and other dogma. And being raised Mormon I attended primary and had a great deal of exposure to LDS teachings. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can limit the child and young adult.

I wonder if those people who say there is no documentation will shrivel up and die of embarrassment. Just like MacKay is now. Every freakin' political show today said that Dion and Layton were quoting Hansard and MacKay remained rooted to his seat because what can he say? Nothing. And the silence is deafening.

this might answer the question "This has been a very emotional, trying decision to make. But I went to the Parrsboro legion on Saturday night to (provincial attorney general) Murray Scott’s lobster dinner. I think I’ve gone to 12 of these consecutively and I’ve always spoken. And I felt so uncomfortable that I said to my wife, I hope they don’t ask me to speak. On the way home, I thought to myself, I don’t want to spend the rest of my career not being able to look people in the eye or speak to my people." http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/839632.html Right on. Seems to me there were plenty of folks on this forum saying the constituents who voted for Emerson should have realized they were voting for the man, not the party. Now we have the party outing the man for voting for his constituents.