Medical Forum / General / Alternative / January 2006
Rich Shewmaker Is So Predictable
|
|
Thread rating:  |
JanD - 22 Jan 2006 21:35 GMT "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
> "JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote in message > news:d%RAf.717734$x96.288543@attbi_s72... >> >> <rms1@my-deja.com> wrote >>> >>> trewth_seeker@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> It's obvious, without any help from "organized medicine", to anyone who >>>> isn't a moron that Trudeau is a conman, scam artist, and all-around >>>> liar-for-profit. >>> >>> Yes. Trudeau has absolutely no medical or scientific training. He >>> admits to his own drive for financial profit. He's a convicted >>> criminal. Like other frauds, he claims "conspiracy theory" as an >>> explanation for his claims, which are unsubstantiated by any legitimate >>> means. Trudeau = flithy lucre. >> >> rms1@my-deja.com posting history favorite word=bigot > > I doubt that your incomplete sentence I could care less what you doubt.
Trudeau = flithy lucre.
IS *SELECTIVELY* noticing on the part of YOU, Rich Shewmaker, insulter and harasser.
[snip
but you seem incapable of learning it.
JanD wrote on Sat. 21, 12:34 PM
> (Prediction, watch this thread turn into trashing *Jan*)
> --Rich Proven lying websites deleted (RICH IS INCAPABLE OF LEARNING!)
Rich - 22 Jan 2006 22:11 GMT > "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > IS *SELECTIVELY* noticing on the part of YOU, Rich Shewmaker, insulter > and harasser. That's not a complete sentence either, Jan, and it doesn't make sense in light of the fact that I didn't write "Trudeau = filthy lucre."
> [snip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> (Prediction, watch this thread turn into trashing *Jan*) Actually, I was still trashing Trudeau, with just a little dig thown at you as an aside. That's hardly changing the thread.
>> --Rich > > Proven lying websites deleted (RICH IS INCAPABLE OF LEARNING!) THAT is a lie, Jan. You can't back it up.
 Signature
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/
JanD - 22 Jan 2006 23:06 GMT >> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > That's not a complete sentence either, Jan, and it doesn't make sense in > light of the fact that I didn't write "Trudeau = filthy lucre." IS *SELECTIVELY* noticing on the part of YOU, Rich Shewmaker, insulter and harasser.
>> [snip >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Actually, I was still trashing Trudeau, with just a little dig thown at > you as an aside. That's hardly changing the thread. (Prediction, watch this thread turn into trashing *Jan*)
>>> --Rich >> >> Proven lying websites deleted (RICH IS INCAPABLE OF LEARNING!) > > THAT is a lie, Jan. You can't back it up. YOU LIE, everytime, you repeatedly say that + keep on posting them.
Been PROVEN over and over.
Carole - 26 Jan 2006 22:22 GMT > --Rich > > Recommended websites: I wouldn't regard any of the following websites as representing the truth.
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Ratbags is a list of alternative practitioners the pharmaceutical cartel would like to see put out of action.
> http://www.acahf.org.au The Australian Council against Health Fraud is a misnomer. What it really is about is suppressing alternative remedies in favour of the pharmaceutical cartel.
> http://www.quackwatch.org/ Quackwatch is the most interesting of the lot, run by a guy called Steven Barrett who is a psychiatrist. Psychiatry opens up a whole can of worms from the arty craft of psycho-politics used by communists to classify people as insane and have dissidents committed to mental institutions, to social engineering of society towards a world dictatorship.
> http://www.skeptic.com/ > http://www.csicop.org/ Disinformation websites - anything which they do not like, which offends their personal sense of what constitutes genuine science, is attacked, often in a very malicious and underhanded manner. The ranks of the skeptics groups are filled with "science zealots" who write disinformation articles, hate-mail, and otherwise engage in social campaigns aimed at suppressing things they do not like.
Carole http://www.conspiracee.com http://www.cellsalts.net
Sdores - 26 Jan 2006 23:30 GMT Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure sounds like it. UM MOM Susan
Mark Probert - 27 Jan 2006 01:32 GMT > Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure > sounds like it. UM MOM Susan Yes, Carole truly believes that everything, except her, is a conspiracy. Visit her websites for a good laugh as some of the things she believes.
JanD - 27 Jan 2006 02:01 GMT > Sdores wrote: >> Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure >> sounds like it. UM MOM Susan >> > Yes <snip> Do you always answer for other people, Mark?
YOU do NOT speak for others.
Make a note of it.
Mark Probert - 27 Jan 2006 02:05 GMT >>>Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure >>>sounds like it. UM MOM Susan >> >>Yes <snip> > > Do you always answer for other people, Mark? When it suits me. It is MY choice, not yours.
> YOU do NOT speak for others. Neither do you, toots, but you sure do stick your proboscis into other people's business.
> Make a note of it. Would that be a B-flat, or a C-sharp?
Is there such a thing as a C-sharp?
Peter Bowditch - 27 Jan 2006 03:50 GMT >>>>Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure >>>>sounds like it. UM MOM Susan [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Is there such a thing as a C-sharp? Place your finger behind the first fret on the bottom string of a guitar. Pluck the string. Take your finger quickly off the string while the note is still sounding.
That's the note for Jan - F-off.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
JanD - 27 Jan 2006 06:46 GMT > Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote: <snip>
>>>>>Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure >>>>>sounds like it. UM MOM Susan [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>> YOU do NOT speak for others.
>>> Make a note of it.
> That's the note for Jan - F-off. This is a note to you LIAR
Do NOT use Half quotes.
You are D E S P I C A B L E!
Another HALF quote!
What more can be expect from a LIAR!
Corrected quote :
Children over three do NOT wear diapers!
Not in *MY* daycare *center*. Where *preschool classes* were taught, as well as kindergarten
Make a note of it!
<snip LYING proven TRASH!>
Sdores - 27 Jan 2006 12:53 GMT Jan you keep saying that preschool classes were taught in your daycare. How long ago was this? The reason I ask is I had to put my son into a special daycare and he still did normal things like playing with clay, pictures and so on. So what do you mean by "preschool classes"? UM MOM Susan
>> Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > <snip LYING proven TRASH!> vernon - 27 Jan 2006 13:21 GMT > Jan you keep saying that preschool classes were taught in your daycare. > How long ago was this? The reason I ask is I had to put my son into a > special daycare and he still did normal things like playing with clay, > pictures and so on. So what do you mean by "preschool classes"? UM MOM > Susan "he still did normal things like playing with clay, pictures and so on."
You mean like a sports hero in High School or college?
Actually my grand daughter is in preschool and they "play" a lot but the "result" is learning the alphabet, write their name, learn a few words from a picture book AND a little control when there is so much to do and so many other kids to talk to.
Sdores - 27 Jan 2006 14:09 GMT That's now, my understanding is that her daycare was long ago. My son went to a special school at 2 years old. As he got older they started to try to teach him more things but he had a psychologist test him and I was told to "feed his brain" At three or four or there about he started learning on a computer small words, we played games like Upwords, it's a child's form of scrabble and I would highly recommend it and I also taught him to print. Did this by accident though. I was writing a letter to my mother and he wanted to write like mommy so I gave him the same tools I was using and put a capital B on the paper and told him when he could write that I would give him another letter. Well he did it and the next thing that happened to my surprise is that he could write his whole name, address and phone number. I didn't know not to teach in caps which caused him problems in school down the road but what a surprise it was to me how quickly he took off. It was like I couldn't give him enough. UM MOM Susan
>> Jan you keep saying that preschool classes were taught in your daycare. >> How long ago was this? The reason I ask is I had to put my son into a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > from a picture book AND a little control when there is so much to do and > so many other kids to talk to. Coleah - 27 Jan 2006 15:02 GMT Susan, it sounds like your son may have had a high IQ and needed to be accelerated into learning more, faster. "Stimulate or stagnate". Wonderful that you worked with 'feeding his brain'.
> That's now, my understanding is that her daycare was long ago. My son went > to a special school at 2 years old. As he got older they started to try to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > from a picture book AND a little control when there is so much to do and > > so many other kids to talk to. Sdores - 27 Jan 2006 15:18 GMT At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had to put him into public school they couldn't continue all the hard work to keep him interested. He did go to college at UM at the age of 17 because he skipped a grade. UM MOM Susan
> Susan, it sounds like your son may have had a high IQ and needed to be > accelerated into learning more, faster. "Stimulate or stagnate". [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > and >> > so many other kids to talk to. Coleah - 27 Jan 2006 16:19 GMT Excellent !! Yes kiddo, he probably was 'bored' a lot in public school. At least they promoted him to a higher grade. Many public schools aren't really prepared for kids with accelerated learning skills.
While I was with Intel I had conversations with young males who came from India to work with us. They explained that in India they are tested in school and those with potential for higher learning (w/higher IQ's) are sent to college....paid in full by the government. Those who don't have that potential are sent to other training schools.....paid for by the government.
These young men said they didn't understand why the U.S. makes their young people pay for their own education (which many young people do not complete because they also have to work to get funding for school.)
These very bright youngsters returned to India with additional technical knowledge and are now supporting the country's system there (which as most people are aware, has taken over many of the U.S. jobs previously held by U.S. citizens who worked their butts off to get their education.)
How sad that our progressive country has wasted it's resources without supporting its citizens with free health care and education. We have essentially weeded our neighbors gardens while our own harvest went to hell.
> At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had to > put him into public school they couldn't continue all the hard work to keep [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > and > >> > so many other kids to talk to. vernon - 27 Jan 2006 17:05 GMT > At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had to > put him into public school they couldn't continue all the hard work to > keep him interested. He did go to college at UM at the age of 17 because > he skipped a grade. UM MOM Susan IQ numbers at under 14 to 18? A fool's paradise. Ignorance on the part of the persons giving such numbers.
Einstein miserably failed math at what we would call fourth grade.
Coleah - 27 Jan 2006 17:26 GMT > > At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had to > > put him into public school they couldn't continue all the hard work to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Einstein miserably failed math at what we would call fourth grade. Hmmm, I'm assuming you imply that tests given before age 14 are not to be considered as accurate? For myself, I was tested at 12 and consistently had the same score when tested as an adult.
Einstein may have had behavior factors in 4th grade that overshadowed his IQ abilities with math (home environment, not turning in homework, disruptions from others or being disruptive....or having a lousy, unstimulating teacher....)
vernon - 27 Jan 2006 20:56 GMT >> > At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had > to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > had > the same score when tested as an adult. Sorry, anecdotal and insignificant.
> Einstein may have had behavior factors in 4th grade that overshadowed his > IQ > abilities with math (home environment, not turning in homework, > disruptions > from others or being disruptive....or having a lousy, unstimulating > teacher....) No, it is quite often "normal" for persons having memorization problems (rote learning) to end up being at a much higher I.Q. AND be able to use it. That problem is quite normal when they get older as well. 4th grade "math" (arithmetic) is memorization and has NOTHING to do with IQ except possibly in a reverse way.
They didn't have stupid, nonsensical, home environment, home work, disruptions in his day. "Unstimulating teacher"? HA HA HA HA HA AH. "Stimulation" was a whack on the head, hand or butt. It's called "Equal opportunity". Learning was repetition.
Your input, local schools (government) have been influenced by the liberal, Socialist junk from Europe. In Germany, how one does in the fourth grade says what type of school they are "allowed" to attend from thence forward. The result is that the poor are kept poor, the rich can get temporary tutoring. All government leaders are given tutoring for their children. That is where we are also headed, Socialism, controlling the populous to a preset ideology.
Peter Bowditch - 27 Jan 2006 23:11 GMT >> At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had to >> put him into public school they couldn't continue all the hard work to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >A fool's paradise. Ignorance on the part of the persons giving such >numbers. IQ is related to age, so it is completely proper to measure it at those ages.
You did mention ignorance ...
(Don't take anything I say to be a comment on the validity of IQ testing.)
>Einstein miserably failed math at what we would call fourth grade. >  Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
David Wright - 28 Jan 2006 03:42 GMT >> At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had to >> put him into public school they couldn't continue all the hard work to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Einstein miserably failed math at what we would call fourth grade. Sorry, that's an urban legend. Here's a bit of material from "Einstein in Berlin," by Thomas Levenson:
The myths that Einstein did poorly at school or that he failed mathematics are only that--myths. With a few exceptions, his marks ranged from good to excellent from primary school into university--and that included creditable work in fields far removed from those he truly cared for.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
vernon - 28 Jan 2006 14:23 GMT >>> At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had >>> to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > university--and that included creditable work in fields far removed > from those he truly cared for. Read some more on his childhood.
***************************************** "With a few exceptions, his marks ranged from good to excellent from primary school into university--and that included creditable work in fields far removed from those he truly cared for. " *************************************************************** Absolutely true as far as it states, maybe even an understatement
David Wright - 28 Jan 2006 16:57 GMT >>>> At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Read some more on his childhood. Why? You haven't done anything to back up your claim about this myth.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
HCN - 28 Jan 2006 20:03 GMT >>>> At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Read some more on his childhood. Actually, there was a concerted effort to promote the myths, so much so that two very loyal secretaries would not allow anyone to write about Einstein (including his family, even his disenfranchised son) NOR would they release his papers until after their deaths. One died in her 90's.... so the papers were not released until just before the 1990's. This is explained in _The Private Lives of Albert Einstein_ by Roger Highfield and Paul Carter, 1993.
You have to be careful which book you read, since even after the release of the papers there have been some that have pushed to perpetuate the myth (like one written by a neighbor of Einstein). Be sure to make sure the book has been written after the release of hte papers, AND is well referenced... not a bunch of heresay stories and anecdotes.
Any problems Einstein had in grammar school would be more likely attributed to the school policies and to the prevailing attitudes of the era he grew up in.
> ***************************************** > "With a few exceptions, his marks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *************************************************************** > Absolutely true as far as it states, maybe even an understatement JanD - 27 Jan 2006 22:08 GMT > At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had to > put him into public school they couldn't continue all the hard work to > keep him interested. He did go to college at UM at the age of 17 because > he skipped a grade. UM MOM Susan Skipping a grade isn't always good. He might have been ready academically, but not socially.
>> Susan, it sounds like your son may have had a high IQ and needed to be >> accelerated into learning more, faster. "Stimulate or stagnate". [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> and >>> > so many other kids to talk to. Sdores - 27 Jan 2006 22:28 GMT He skipped one grade, they wanted him to skip more but we just wanted him to be at the grade level that allowed him to go to special classes that were available for him. Socially he did just fine. UM MOM Susan
>> At that time he came in as a genus with 168. Unfortunately when we had >> to put him into public school they couldn't continue all the hard work to [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >>> and >>>> > so many other kids to talk to. Eric Bohlman - 28 Jan 2006 00:44 GMT > He skipped one grade, they wanted him to skip more but we just wanted > him to be at the grade level that allowed him to go to special classes > that were available for him. Socially he did just fine. UM MOM Susan Skipping one grade usually isn't a problem if the kid is of typical maturity; there's always going to be a range of at least one year in any grade due to the cutoff dates (e.g. a kid who was born on the cutoff date is going to be a year younger than a kid in the same grade who was born the day after the cutoff) so skipping one grade isn't going to have much more effect than having a late-fall birthday.
Jan does have a point, though, about skipping multiple grades. The fact that a kid is *intellectually* able to handle college-level subjects at the age of, say, 15 doesn't imply that he's *mature* enough to learn those subjects in a college environment (where, for example, students are expected to learn with little if any supervision; if you don't go to class or do your homework, you just end up doing badly rather than having teachers or parents getting on your case), let alone mature enough to handle typical college life (again, the lack of supervision, for example). It's not merely a question of social skills (which lots of people tend to poo-poo, arguing that it's no loss for the kid to miss out on the typical high school clique system); it's really a question of giving the kid a little time to acquire a bit of wisdom and for his hormones to settle down a bit.
Another problem with going to college very early as a result of skipping multiple grades is that the kid's options may be a bit limited when he graduates. If he's planning to go on to an academic graduate program or work in certain "bleeding-edge" sectors of the technology industry he may be OK, but if he wants to go into a professional (medical, law, business, etc.) graduate program or into most private industry, his age is likely to hurt his chances, again because professional schools and employers want a certain level of maturity that isn't usually found in late- teenagers.
Sdores - 28 Jan 2006 01:09 GMT I totally agree. He skipped second grade, we refused the school to skip him to 5th grade for reasons like stated. He went to community college when he was a senior in high school which was credited to his scores at the private school he went to. UM MOM Susan
>> He skipped one grade, they wanted him to skip more but we just wanted >> him to be at the grade level that allowed him to go to special classes [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > want a certain level of maturity that isn't usually found in late- > teenagers. vernon - 27 Jan 2006 17:00 GMT > Susan, it sounds like your son may have had a high IQ and needed to be > accelerated into learning more, faster. "Stimulate or stagnate". > Wonderful > that you worked with 'feeding his brain'. Capabilities at 2 - 8 have little to do with 14 on up. It's akin to saying that a child who walks at 11 months is going to be a champion marathon runner.
Give them what they need when they need it. Don't try to second guess nature.
Sdores - 27 Jan 2006 19:09 GMT My husband and I did through out his life. He graduated with honors in high school. Went to college and took classes during his senior year and graduated high at UM. His IQ is still in the genius range. UM MOM Susan
>> Susan, it sounds like your son may have had a high IQ and needed to be >> accelerated into learning more, faster. "Stimulate or stagnate". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Give them what they need when they need it. Don't try to second guess > nature. vernon - 27 Jan 2006 21:08 GMT > My husband and I did through out his life. He graduated with honors in > high school. Went to college and took classes during his senior year and > graduated high at UM. His IQ is still in the genius range. UM MOM Susan Your husband and you did what throughout whose life. Anecdotal
I could go on and on about so called geniuses I hired and fired that had high grades in college and couldn't APPLY due to the lack of real IQ (Cognative capability).
I could also brag on and on about my personal numbers. What I found that I couldn't brag for THREE reasons. 1. It is God given. 2. The typical numbers are meaningless and have become political. 3. I do have a degree in what is called Statistical Psychology. (If it ain't in the numbers, it is theory and hypothetical) I moved up into a degree in Engineering because I wasn't going to play the "game".
>>> Susan, it sounds like your son may have had a high IQ and needed to be >>> accelerated into learning more, faster. "Stimulate or stagnate". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Give them what they need when they need it. Don't try to second guess >> nature. Sdores - 27 Jan 2006 21:38 GMT Our son's life. We helped him learn to pay attention and we would not allow anyone to comment on his IQ. We didn't either. He was test by a professional a couple of times. Raising a child with a high IQ we were told by his first psychologist is just as bad as raising a child with a mental disease. It wasn't easy but we got him involved in lots of activities. We also took him to places for fun that most don't get to do. Someone can rate high in their IQ but still be an idiot. I don't deny that. My husband rates high in his IQ and had done well for himself and of course for us. My son can read and understand what he is reading, as a matter of fact, he and his father can read something and years later tell you what page it was on that they were talking about. Everyone is different. We didn't play the game like you explain here. My son has two degrees from college. I am the one who has trouble remember and keeping up with things. I can read something and then I forget most of what I read. It's always been that way for me though the older I get it's been getting a lot worse. UM MOM Susan
>> My husband and I did through out his life. He graduated with honors in >> high school. Went to college and took classes during his senior year and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> Give them what they need when they need it. Don't try to second guess >>> nature. vernon - 27 Jan 2006 22:03 GMT > Our son's life. We helped him learn to pay attention and we would not > allow anyone to comment on his IQ. We didn't either. He was test by a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > read. It's always been that way for me though the older I get it's been > getting a lot worse. UM MOM Susan To give a little anecdotal description of what I was talking of. Please excuse using me.
When I was going thru Religion school. One of the requirements was to "memorize" the ten commandments. I couldn't. It was required that I stand in front of every one and state them. I finally got permission to give a paraphrased version of all 70 rules and explain the present day application rather than a word for word ten Commandments.
In grade school a test required listing the countries of western Europe and the capitals. I was allowed to draw a map of Europe with the capitals pin pointed and a "somewhat" phonetic spelling of the names.
O.K. everyone, yes, I was weird, even then.
Coleah - 28 Jan 2006 03:21 GMT > > Our son's life. We helped him learn to pay attention and we would not > > allow anyone to comment on his IQ. We didn't either. He was test by a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > O.K. everyone, yes, I was weird, even then. ------------------------------ No, not weird at all.
You were fortunate to have been given the opportunity to learn 'outside' the structured rote box. I can identify with difficulty memorizing religious text, word for word, with the expectation of rattling it off like a verbatim recording (without the emphasis of testing the understanding the actual meaning). It wasn't like memorizing steps to do one's job, but a robotic exercise.
Peter Bowditch - 27 Jan 2006 23:22 GMT >> My husband and I did through out his life. He graduated with honors in >> high school. Went to college and took classes during his senior year and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >high grades in college and couldn't APPLY due to the lack of real IQ >(Cognative capability). That would be "cognitive". Do not claim it as a typo, as knowledge of the correct spelling is cognate with your claim below to have studied psychology.
>I could also brag on and on about my personal numbers. What I found that I >couldn't brag for THREE reasons. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >ain't in the numbers, it is theory and hypothetical) I moved up into a >degree in Engineering because I wasn't going to play the "game". "Statistical Psychology"? Were you away the day they talked about how IQ is dependent on age?
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
JanD - 28 Jan 2006 00:11 GMT >>> My husband and I did through out his life. He graduated with honors in >>> high school. Went to college and took classes during his senior year [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > correct spelling > is cognate with your claim below to have studied psychology. Do not tell others what to claim, as you can NOT back up your LYING claims.
>>I could also brag on and on about my personal numbers. What I found that >>I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>ain't in the numbers, it is theory and hypothetical) I moved up into a >>degree in Engineering because I wasn't going to play the "game". vernon - 28 Jan 2006 00:16 GMT >>> My husband and I did through out his life. He graduated with honors in >>> high school. Went to college and took classes during his senior year [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > correct spelling > is cognate with your claim below to have studied psychology. Without a spell checker, I would live a different life. I am not a speed typer but type faster than I should.
Your problem????
In case you didn't know, the definition of a typo is to type that which one KNOWS to be other than what was typed.
DDUUUUHHH
Look that up in the dictionary.
>>I could also brag on and on about my personal numbers. What I found that >>I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is dependent on > age? AND? Playing games with people and creating numbers from so called "tests".
Yes, I know that the numbers are weighted in accordance with what would be expected of a person of a particular age. It is based on a Bell curve from statistics.
Now correlate that fact with the FACT that children (humans) develop various capabilities at very different ages, SO. The inane and pretend psych people take the numbers to which they have no knowledge at spout them off under the pretext of service for a fee. The concept of IQ of anyone under 18 is questionable at best. Many (large number, small percentage) do not develop all aspects of their mental capabilities until around 25. There are cases where full development occurs between 25 and 30. Part and parcel of most IQ tests are timing. Synapse (automatic) response is partially physical.
JanD - 27 Jan 2006 21:59 GMT I don't know what you consider long ago, but I retired in 1996. However, I still owned *CENTERS* for several years after that.
> That's now, my understanding is that her daycare was long ago. My son > went to a special school at 2 years old. As he got older they started to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> from a picture book AND a little control when there is so much to do and >> so many other kids to talk to. JanD - 27 Jan 2006 21:48 GMT > Jan you keep saying that preschool classes were taught in your daycare. > How long ago was this? The reason I ask is I had to put my son into a > special daycare and he still did normal things like playing with clay, > pictures and so on. So what do you mean by "preschool classes"? UM MOM > Susan It wasn't daycare. I was a daycare *center*. There is a big different. Daycare Center classes cover many things. Learning the alphabet (many wiggles and giggles for each letter). Arts and crafts (wow what fun, and what a preparation). Circle time (many musical games). Dramatic play (dress up corner, farm setup, doctor, nurse, patient station, puppets). Felt board (covered many subjects). Books and stories. Games (teaching sorting, eye, hand coordination, etc.). Incentives (Many awards Plus the most important, Constant Loving Environment!). Science (We had our garden, bugs, colors, community helpers, seasons, weathers). Theme days ( silly backwards day, everyone wore their clothes backwards, pajama day, hat day.}
At this point, I am really laughing, just got to stop and tell this story.
Shortly after I had retired, (my daughter had taken over). It was pajama day. I walked in. I immediately said. What in the world going one here? I went on and on. One little boy that was a real corker, kept raising his hand. He was just about to bust a gut. Finally I said, OK Seth, now what is it? He said, but it is pajama day! I said. OH! Well, Whew, (wiping my forehead) thank you Seth! I was soooo worried!
The above is just a small list of what we taught in our preschool classes.
>>> Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >> <snip LYING proven TRASH!> Sdores - 27 Jan 2006 22:23 GMT Thanks, I understand better now what you center did. UM MOM Susan
>> Jan you keep saying that preschool classes were taught in your daycare. >> How long ago was this? The reason I ask is I had to put my son into a [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >>> >>> <snip LYING proven TRASH!> JanD - 27 Jan 2006 23:25 GMT > Thanks, I understand better now what you center did. UM MOM Susan You are most welcome.
>>> Jan you keep saying that preschool classes were taught in your daycare. >>> How long ago was this? The reason I ask is I had to put my son into a [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >>>> >>>> <snip LYING proven TRASH!> Mark Probert - 27 Jan 2006 14:48 GMT > Children over three do NOT wear diapers! > > Not in *MY* daycare *center*. Did you discriminate against those kids who, by having a physical problem, could not be toilet trained by the age of three?
Where *preschool classes* were taught, as
> well as kindergarten > > Make a note of it! Are you now saying that ALL children over the age of three do not wear diapers?
Please clarify this issue.
Thank you for your cooperation.
JanD - 27 Jan 2006 22:35 GMT >> Children over three do NOT wear diapers! >> >> Not in *MY* daycare *center*. > > Did you discriminate against those kids who, by having a physical problem, > could not be toilet trained by the age of three? NO. This was answer already.
YOU claimed I did.
> Where *preschool classes* were taught, as >> well as kindergarten [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are you now saying that ALL children over the age of three do not wear > diapers? I said EXACTLY what I said.
Make a note of it!
Do NOT chop off what I said
Children over three do NOT wear diapers!
>> Not in *MY* daycare *center*. Where *preschool classes* were taught, as >> well as kindergarten I am now NOT saying anything different than what I said becuase I refuse to play your diversion games.
Make a note of it.
Make a further note that you LIED.
Your EXACT words
*I see, so you admit that you discriminated against children who were developmentally delayed and could not be potty trained before the age of 3.
That adds to the list of your bigotry*
> Please clarify this issue. > > Thank you for your cooperation. Clarify.
When all else fails, pull the old switcheroo Mark Probert
As in posting the above in another thread.
Guess, you'll just need to get up earlier to get one step ahead of me, Markey.
You are welcome.
Jan *:*
Mark Probert - 28 Jan 2006 23:51 GMT >>>Children over three do NOT wear diapers! >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > YOU claimed I did. From what you said, it was a reasonable inference.
However, I am still not clear. If a 4 year old was not toilet trained as the result of a physical disability, would you accept him?
>> Where *preschool classes* were taught, as >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do NOT chop off what I said Why not? That is *PRECISELY* what you do.
> Children over three do NOT wear diapers! I happen to know for a fact that this is not true. There are children who are physiologically incapable of being toilet trained and wear diapers their entire lives.
>>>Not in *MY* daycare *center*. Where *preschool classes* were taught, as >>>well as kindergarten You snipped my question:
Are you now saying that ALL children over the age of three do not wear diapers?
> I am now NOT saying anything different than what I said becuase I refuse to > play your diversion games. There was no diversion. I wanted to make sure that I fully understood you.
> Make a note of it. > > Make a further note that you LIED. Screw you.
> Your EXACT words > > *I see, so you admit that you discriminated against children who were > developmentally delayed and could not be potty trained before the age of 3. > > That adds to the list of your bigotry* Yes, I did say that. Did you ever refuse to take a developmentally disabled child who was not trained because he was not trained?
>>Please clarify this issue. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jan *:* I want to get this clear. Correct me if this statement is wrong:
You maintain that *all* children three years old and older are toilet trained. (Note the emphasis).
Is that correct?
JanD - 27 Jan 2006 03:52 GMT >>>>Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure >>>>sounds like it. UM MOM Susan [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > When it suits me. It is MY choice, not yours. Sad that YOU don't know it is RUDE!
<snip>
>> YOU do NOT speak for others.
>> Make a note of it. Mark Probert - 27 Jan 2006 03:56 GMT >>>>>Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure >>>>>sounds like it. UM MOM Susan [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sad that YOU don't know it is RUDE! Only in your limited life.
> <snip> > >>>YOU do NOT speak for others. Neither do you, toots, but you sure do stick your proboscis into other people's business.
>>>Make a note of it. JanD - 27 Jan 2006 06:06 GMT "Mark Probert"
>>>>>>Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure >>>>>>sounds like it. UM MOM Susan [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Only in your limited life. Sorry, but you are sadly mistaken.
>> <snip> >> >>>>YOU do NOT speak for others. > >>>>Make a note of it. Mark Probert - 27 Jan 2006 14:50 GMT > "Mark Probert" > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sorry, but you are sadly mistaken. Other than attending Bund meetings and sheet washing day after a cross lighting, what do you do?
>>><snip> >>> >>>>>YOU do NOT speak for others. Neither do you, toots, but you sure do stick your proboscis into other people's business.
>>>>>Make a note of it. JanD - 27 Jan 2006 22:40 GMT >> "Mark Probert" >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Other than attending Bund meetings and sheet washing day after a cross > lighting, what do you do? Another claim added to you long long long long list of claims you cand not prove.
>>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>YOU do NOT speak for others. > > Neither do you, toots, but you sure do stick your proboscis into other > people's business. You are sorry mistaken, about who sticks their nose in, as has already been proven.
Make a note of it.
Mark Probert - 28 Jan 2006 23:52 GMT >>>"Mark Probert" >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Another claim added to you long long long long list of claims you cand not > prove. True. I could only prove that by attending a Bund meeting and being in your laundry. However, from your bigoted posts, I felt that the metaphors, which is a literary concept that you never have understood, was valid. And, it is still valid.
>>>>><snip> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You are sorry mistaken, about who sticks their nose in, as has already been > proven. Yes, you do.
> Make a note of it. PeterB - 27 Jan 2006 20:42 GMT > Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure > sounds like it. UM MOM Susan It isn't about conspiracy, but money. "Conspiracy theory" is a term used by media grunts whose job it is to protect mindshare (read: profits) for their sponsors. There are plenty of them right here on mha every day of the week.
PeterB
David Wright - 28 Jan 2006 03:42 GMT >> Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure >> sounds like it. UM MOM Susan [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >profits) for their sponsors. There are plenty of them right here on >mha every day of the week. Of course, that's your conspiracy theory, and it's just as valid as the ones about the extraterrestrial lizards who walk among us.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Carole - 29 Jan 2006 17:15 GMT > Do you really believe that everything in life is a conspiracy? I sure > sounds like it. UM MOM Susan Rising taxes, more and more bureaucracy and government red tape, making the world safe for democracy by cutting back on people's rights ... yes, basically its a conspiracy aimed at one world dictatorship.
Look up Codex Alimentarius. This is a conspiracy to get rid of alternative remedies and give the pharmaceutical cartel more market share.
Carole http://www.conspiracee.com http://www.cellsalts.net
Peter Bowditch - 27 Jan 2006 03:28 GMT >> --Rich >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Ratbags is a list of alternative practitioners the pharmaceutical cartel >would like to see put out of action. Hmmm.
Racism (98 sites) Religious bigotry (84 sites) Creationism (28 sites) Sexuality (26 sites) Pseudoscience (111 sites) Buffoonery (99 sites) MLM, Pyramid Schemes, Scams and Frauds (108 sites) Cults (10 sites)
Why would the pharmaceutical cartel (TINPC) want to put these out of action?
>> http://www.acahf.org.au > >The Australian Council against Health Fraud is a misnomer. What it really is >about is suppressing alternative remedies in favour of the pharmaceutical >cartel. Hmmm.
I wonder where these links from the "Links" page go.
Australian Council on Healthcare Standards Australian Patient Safety Foundation Consumers' Health Forum of Australia Healthy Skepticism
(The last one is a site which monitors advertising by the pharmaceutical cartel (TINPC) and gets them to be honest.)
>> http://www.quackwatch.org/ > >Quackwatch is the most interesting of the lot, run by a guy called Steven >Barrett who is a psychiatrist. "Stephen" actually. These things matter.
>Psychiatry opens up a whole can of worms from the arty craft of >psycho-politics used by communists to classify people as insane and have >dissidents committed to mental institutions, to social engineering of >society towards a world dictatorship. Have you ever been inside a mental institution, Carole? Most of the people in there would be no threat to any dictator.
>> http://www.skeptic.com/ >> http://www.csicop.org/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >hate-mail, and otherwise engage in social campaigns aimed at suppressing >things they do not like. Could you please list some things that these organisations have managed to suppress?
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
rich.@, - 22 Jan 2006 23:02 GMT On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:31:06 GMT, "LadyLollipop" aka Jan Drew aka JanD aka Jan the hypocrite <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
>When starting a new thread don't just reply to a message sent by someone >else and clear the subject line. Not all e-mail and news clients behave like [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Message" function. This will start a fresh thread of your own without any >traces of previous threads. ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Best defense to logic is ignorance
Mark Probert - 23 Jan 2006 00:33 GMT > "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > IS *SELECTIVELY* noticing Uh-oh....Jan-the-Judge has convicted Rich of First Degree Selective Noticing.
Jan, however, is guilty of the same crime. She selectively noticed that Stossel and Barrett were on 20-20 but not Dr. Wolfe.
Why does she do this? Simple, because she cannot trash Dr. Wolfe or call him a member of organized medicine, whatever that is.
Yes, Jan is as predictable as sunrise.
Rich - 23 Jan 2006 00:44 GMT >> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Yes, Jan is as predictable as sunrise. Of all the things I've ever been accused of, predictability is one of the least damning. 'Selective noticing,' falls in that category, too, though I really don't believe that phrase has enough specific meaning to take seriously. ALL 'noticing' is selective, after all, at least to us who interact with the world in the usual way. It's interesting that one of the characteristics of autism is that its victims cannot do 'selective noticing,' but notice everything, which overwhelms them with information and leads to discomfort. So I'll just go on noticing selectively, thank you.
 Signature
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/
Mark Probert - 23 Jan 2006 00:51 GMT >>>"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > noticing,' but notice everything, which overwhelms them with information and > leads to discomfort. So I'll just go on noticing selectively, thank you. That is also one of the major problems in AD/HD where the person cannot focus their "noticing" and is all over the place.
|
|
|