[Grimey]

Ok, so I was hanging out at the local BMX track with a friend he was giving lessons and so forth. In the US their is a seperate 'pro section' of the track - usually larger doubles and the such. Kids in the US don't pratice the pro sectionor have to ride it in races - I believe it is closed off for most classes. I think only the AA Pros are forced to ride that section. My friend was telling me in France and most of Europe there is no pro section. The tracks are hard, and everyone rides the same track, 5year olds to vet. pro. Of course most of UCI bmx racing is dominated by Europeans. Ever wonder if sheltering our kids from difficult things only hinders their performance later?

Lets take this out of the context of biking. What bugs me is 'my son/daughter is in 3rd but reading at 5th grade level' Shouldn't we just make the 3rd grade level harder

I believe that lowering standards to accomadate everyone only decrease the average. What is everyone elses take on this.

(sorry if this doesn't make sense, i'm not sure I am conveying what I am thinking.)

 

[BurlyShirley]

I get you man,

The problem is that we, as a society, in the US are too worried about crap that doesnt matter, like self-esteem and making everyone feel accepted. Actually making school harder to seperate the dumb kids from the smart kids is a big no-no nowadays. Parents with dumb kids flip out, everybody flips out because everyone should be equal. But you know, this does more damage to the country than having some stupid kids with low self esteem wandering around. There is a pee-wee soccer league around where i live that doesnt keep score because they dont want kids feeling like losers when they get beat. Hello? Are you stupid people. Losing is just as much a part of life as winning. (unless you're me that is) and it doesnt do any good to shelter people from that.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Grimey
[B What bugs me is 'my son/daughter is in 3rd but reading at 5th grade level' [/B]

I'm guessing you don't have a kid? Or is it a hermaphrodite?

Anyway, what level math is said freak performing at? How about crafts, music, science or whatever the kids do in 3rd grade?

 

[Grimey]

No kids here. Just using reading as an example. I know other subjects would have to be considered and so on.

I was mainly thinking about how socierty is trying to be so protective of everyones' feelings. At what point do you stop protecting and start harming ones copping abilities.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Grimey
Lets take this out of the context of biking. What bugs me is 'my son/daughter is in 3rd but reading at 5th grade level' Shouldn't we just make the 3rd grade level harder

I believe that lowering standards to accomadate everyone only decrease the average. What is everyone elses take on this.

(sorry if this doesn't make sense, i'm not sure I am conveying what I am thinking.)

Could it really be that simple? Just make all the grades as hard is needs to be to categorize the smartest 2 or 3 in the right spot.

If there are 2 or 3 kids in a 3rd grade class of say 30 kids are reading at a 5th grade level, and the rest are reading at the 3rd grade level, making 3rd grade harder doesn't make a lot of sense does it? In this same example there are probably 2 or 3 reading at less than 3rd grade. With the rest falling in the middle. (Bell Curve anyone)

The other side is if 12 or more of those kids in 3rd grade reading at a 5th grade level then yes the 3rd grade should be harder.

Children do need to be challenged in order for them to find their limits and sometimes failing isn't a bad thing. BUT just as important, maybe more so, children need to succeed. Some of it is age dependent. Young children certainly don't need to be beat down at every turn. Nor do older kids need to be sheltered at every turn. Its a progression.

Personally I don't see the big deal if 6 or 7 year olds can play a game, have fun and then don't have to deal with losing. They'll get plenty of that later.

Kids don't have to grow up in one fell swoop.

 

[Damn True]

Kids need to be taught to comptete at an early age. Life IS competition. You compete for grades, you compete for scholarships, you compete in atheltic endavors, you compete for jobs, you compete for promotions.

If a kid dosen't learn those skills early they will be behind the power curve as adults and surprised, with grim result, when they are eventually forced to learn the lessons.

What does competition teach? That hard work has rewards. If you train you stand a better chance of sucess than if you don't.

Losing teaches a far more valuable lesson than "just playing". No matter what level of effort you put into "just playing" the end result is the same. If there is actual competition with winners and losers, "A" students and "C-D-F" students the kids have the opportunity (if their parents are worth a piss) to learn that had they worked harder in preparation for the event (be it a soccer game or math test) the result most likely would have been different.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I get you man,

The problem is that we, as a society, in the US are too worried about crap that doesnt matter, like self-esteem and making everyone feel accepted. Actually making school harder to seperate the dumb kids from the smart kids is a big no-no nowadays. Parents with dumb kids flip out, everybody flips out because everyone should be equal. But you know, this does more damage to the country than having some stupid kids with low self esteem wandering around. There is a pee-wee soccer league around where i live that doesnt keep score because they dont want kids feeling like losers when they get beat. Hello? Are you stupid people. Losing is just as much a part of life as winning. (unless you're me that is) and it doesnt do any good to shelter people from that.

Well said.

Everything today seems to be designed around the lowest common denominator. We need to raise the bar a little and let the weak die off.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I get you man,

The problem is that we, as a society, in the US are too worried about crap that doesnt matter, like self-esteem and making everyone feel accepted. Actually making school harder to seperate the dumb kids from the smart kids is a big no-no nowadays. Parents with dumb kids flip out, everybody flips out because everyone should be equal. But you know, this does more damage to the country than having some stupid kids with low self esteem wandering around. There is a pee-wee soccer league around where i live that doesnt keep score because they dont want kids feeling like losers when they get beat. Hello? Are you stupid people. Losing is just as much a part of life as winning. (unless you're me that is) and it doesnt do any good to shelter people from that.

I thought school was about education, isn't every child entitled to the same level of care and tuition? If you simply want to use school for the smarter kids then 50% of the population is being left behind.

When winning becomes the most important thing a lot of other stuff is lost.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by fluff
I thought school was about education, isn't every child entitled to the same level of care and tuition? If you simply want to use school for the smarter kids then 50% of the population is being left behind.

When winning becomes the most important thing a lot of other stuff is lost.

It's probably more like 80% left behind. Which really raises an interesting question.

Should the brightest 20% be forced to be bored?

I think the most ignored group of students in the public school system are the gifted.

Especially in a smal district without the resources for gifted education and advance placement.

All the kids deserve a chance to learn, even the smartest.

My daughter (time for dad to brag) is an advanced reader she reads at a 9.1 level (first month of freshman year) and she's in the fifth grade.

So the lesson plans designed for the class as a whole are come easy to her so we keep her busy with music, sports and extra stuff to keep her challenged. Next year she will move up to the middle school which has gifted education programs and she will then be challeneged.

It's tough on one hand you have kids who for whatever reason are slower in picking up concepts and some are faster. Some kids who are ahead of the curve will fall behind in the future and of course the opposite will happen too.

 

[ohio]

I personally think this issue more relates to parents' egos than students' needs.

Education should be tailored to the student. gifted students don't benefit from sharing classes with avergage students, and mediocre students don't get the attention or the opportunities to participate that they need when mixed in with students far above their level. It's not a question of doing a disservice to the best and the brightest... it's a disservice to everyone involved.

And DT, I agree that competition can be valuable, but it makes more sense to have children of roughly equivalent ability competing, rather than having a select few being so dominant that the other students are discouraged from even trying. But i think that still puts us in agreement that it's okay to segregate students based on ability.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ummbikes
It's probably more like 80% left behind. Which really raises an interesting question.

Should the brightest 20% be forced to be bored?

I think the most ignored group of students in the public school system are the gifted.

Especially in a smal district without the resources for gifted education and advance placement.

I agree.

I was lucky at a young age to be recognized, and skipped 4th grade, but i was one of the very very few in my school district for that to happen to. Plenty of kids just get pushed through the same old system without ever getting a chance to excel. How do we build great minds by ignoring them? Well, sadly by high school my GPA fell to 1.2 repeating and now Im in the Marines.

Fluff, I'm going ot hit you with yet another quote that you wont get "Winning isnt everything; its the only thing" - Vince Lombardi

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Fluff, I'm going ot hit you with yet another quote that you wont get "Winning isnt everything; its the only thing" - Vince Lombardi

Lombardi Vince? Did he paint the Mona Lisa?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Lombardi Vince? Did he paint the Mona Lisa?

Lol.

BTW the BS, just cos someone says something it doesn't make it so.

Unless you are God of course, but last I checked he wasn't posting here.

 

[JRogers]

Originally posted by ummbikes
It's probably more like 80% left behind. Which really raises an interesting question.

Should the brightest 20% be forced to be bored?

I think the most ignored group of students in the public school system are the gifted.

Especially in a smal district without the resources for gifted education and advance placement.

All the kids deserve a chance to learn, even the smartest.

My daughter (time for dad to brag) is an advanced reader she reads at a 9.1 level (first month of freshman year) and she's in the fifth grade.

So the lesson plans designed for the class as a whole are come easy to her so we keep her busy with music, sports and extra stuff to keep her challenged. Next year she will move up to the middle school which has gifted education programs and she will then be challeneged.

It's tough on one hand you have kids who for whatever reason are slower in picking up concepts and some are faster. Some kids who are ahead of the curve will fall behind in the future and of course the opposite will happen too.

I doubt that most schools have the capacity, money or resources to make separate classes for more advanced students. In high school, yes. Middle school and elementary, no. Plus, I don't think it's necessary. I never had a say in which classes I took until 8th or 9th grade- there were no options. Before that, I suppose I was never really "challenged" but I'm not sure that I would be any better off now if I was. I graduated high school with basically a 4.0 and I attend one of the most selective liberal arts schools in the country. So what if in 4th grade I didn't get hard enough words to spell or books to read? High school is a different story. I know lots of kids who didn't have the oppotunity I had for advanced classes. But, high school is a fundamentally different time and place than elementary school. One of the prime functions of the latter is psychological development. I think spending all day with a mixed group of kids works to that end.

As far as having "competition" in life, you have to think about it in context. No, I don't think that keeping score for a little league game is a bad idea (I spent 5 years of my yound life losing football games and I don't regret it). However, it's not the same in school. Some kids take the "dumb" classes and some take the "smart" classes. "Oh, you're in the dumb class? Why do I want to be around you?" Many elementary age children, I think, would be frustrated, disheartened or otherwise discouraged by a more stratified system. They don't see things like we do. Kids get frustrated and upset by small problems. They don't act like adults and just say "Well, I'm just not good at it. No problem." They might see the classes as a label they can't escape.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by JRogers
I doubt that most schools have the capacity, money or resources to make separate classes for more advanced students. In high school, yes. Middle school and elementary, no.

I'll agree with the lack of resources, but this threa is more about the philosophy that even with the resources, all children should be treated as if they are at the same level. On that point I disagree that distinction shouldn't be made in elementary school... as both a student and a teacher I witnessed either the majority get sidelined and neglected as the top students dominated the class, or the top students be bored out of heir minds as the curriculum was tailored to the lowest in the class. That's not "fair" to anyone.

Yes, students should all be mixed together and have a chance to socialize... that's what art, gym, recess, and well everything but Math and English are for.

It can be both intimidating and embarassing for students of lesser ability to try to participate within the same setting as advanced kids. It is also EXTREMELY difficult for a teacher to meet the varying needs of ALL kids at a given age. In a school big enough to have to classes at the same grade level, it makes a lot of sense to break it up by ability at least for core subjects like Math and English.

 

[D_D]

I was schooled with seperate abilites for some classes after 11years. Obviously there are some groups that don't mix much but there are a lot of kids whose abilities for different subjects vary. so the whole year isn't split into completly seperate groups.

You need to seperate out the kids that just want to drink, smoke, do drugs and fight anyway otherwise they disrupt everyone.

Some subjects wern't split like pe,rs,english and the whole year was split into 6 forms of about 25 kids of mixed ability that did a lot of activites together.

It was also very low key, classes where named by the teacher(s) that teached them not like maths a, maths b etc.

I think in the general scheme of things I had quite a good schooling, some of my classes had as low as 4 people in. I definatly benifited from being seperated by ability.

I am not sure about this reading age stuff, and general grading of young children either. If it is done it should be kept internal to the school and only given to parents in special circumstances and definaly not used as a political tool or to test the ability of teachers.

I wounder how much resistance to it is caused by parents not wanting the humilation of their little darling being in a below average class even if it would be better for them in the long run.

 

[androshandrew]

It helps to be seperate the smart from the average, but not in elementary school. They all need to learn the basics, some will get it faster than others and they just have to sit through it. Until High School when they can choose which classes they take.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by fluff
Lol.

BTW the BS, just cos someone says something it doesn't make it so.

Unless you are God of course, but last I checked he wasn't posting here.

Fluff, I recall at some point actually thinking you had some good points during conversation, but lately...you're making me want to reconsider. Life is competition. Nature is competition. The way to survive is to win. You, my friend, need to open your eyes.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by androshandrew
It helps to be seperate the smart from the average, but not in elementary school. They all need to learn the basics, some will get it faster than others and they just have to sit through it. Until High School when they can choose which classes they take.

Being bored sucks.

If kids at the elemantary level are bored then they need to be stimulated by means other than the school curiculum.

If the district can afford the gifted and advanced placement programs they implement them.

"Sitting through it" is a poor option when you figure out reading and arithmetic in the third grade and you don't get lit, algebra or essays untill the eigth grade.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Being bored sucks.

If kids at the elemantary level are bored then they need to be stimulated by means other than the school curiculum.

If the district can afford the gifted and advanced placement programs they implement them.

"Sitting through it" is a poor option when you figure out reading and arithmetic in the third grade and you don't get lit, algebra or essays untill the eigth grade.

I thought that's what parents are for?

 

[valve bouncer]

It's interestng that most of the people in this thread advocating a "throw 'em in at the deep end" kind of attitude are the ones without any children. I submit that you really don't have any idea what you're talking about. Here's one for you that you won't get Shirley..."it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game".

 

[androshandrew]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Being bored sucks.

If kids at the elemantary level are bored then they need to be stimulated by means other than the school curiculum.

If the district can afford the gifted and advanced placement programs they implement them.

"Sitting through it" is a poor option when you figure out reading and arithmetic in the third grade and you don't get lit, algebra or essays untill the eigth grade.

You make a good point, I guess Im just trying to vent because of what I said is exactly what happened to me. I moved a lot when I was a child and because of that the shcools would not put me in any gifted and talented programs so I sat through all the bs that they tought in elementary school. Even in middle school I wasnt put in some of the advanced classes because I was not in them in elementary school. But now in high school Im taking all of the honors and AP classes I can. Just saying that if you are talented and have to sit through it, its just going to be boring, but you do get to get away from all the not so smart people.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
It's interestng that most of the people in this thread advocating a "throw 'em in at the deep end" kind of attitude are the ones without any children. I submit that you really don't have any idea what you're talking about. Here's one for you that you won't get Shirley..."it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game".

Here's one from Sean Connery in 'The Rock'

"Losers are always whining about how they did their best; Winners go home and F*** the prom queen."

This "how you play the game" crap is exactly our problem, and I submit that you're either (a) not competitive or (b) always losing. And you probably think that's ok.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Here's one from Sean Connery in 'The Rock'

"Losers are always whining about how they did their best; Winners go home and F*** the prom queen."

This "how you play the game" crap is exactly our problem, and I submit that you're either (a) not competitive or (b) always losing. And you probably think that's ok.

I bet your dad never let you win at arm wrestling as a little(r) boy. I imagine he was always in your face shouting "you want some more pipsqueak.....you're 7, you're nothin" as he pinned you again. But hey you were gettin' a lesson in life, weren't ya? Winning isn't everything Shirley, learn some perspective, it might help you be less angry at the world.

P.S-you can add this little lesson to the "ways VB is helping me become less clueless" file. Should be pretty thick by now.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I bet your dad never let you win at arm wrestling as a little(r) boy. I imagine he was always in your face shouting "you want some more pipsqueak.....you're 7, you're nothin" as he pinned you again. But hey you were gettin' a lesson in life, weren't ya? Winning isn't everything Shirley, learn some perspective, it might help you be less angry at the world.

P.S-you can add this little lesson to the "ways VB is helping me become less clueless" file. Should be pretty thick by now.

VB, about the only lesson you've taught me is that unrealistic idealism isnt just a domestic problem. Its a worldwide phenomenon that unfortunately allows failures like yourself to somehow feel legitimized. It's okay though i guess, as long as you "keep trying your best."

If one isnt driven to win, he may as well just give up. Of course, you cant always win, but it should be your goal. Being happy with "I tried my best" will get you nothing. Of course, I wouldnt be surprised if you had nothing and you're just mooching off of a spouse or something. You think the Oakland Raiders felt better after losing the superbowl when they said "We gave it our all"? You think the Tampa Bay Bucs after winning said "Its how you play the game, not if you win"? Of course not; they basked in the glory.

Again, I'll say it. Life is competition, if you arent driven to win...why exist? If our country wants to continue leading the pack, we should breed winners. Not mediocrity.

 

[slein]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Again, I'll say it. Life is competition, if you arent driven to win...why exist? If our country wants to continue leading the pack, we should breed winners. Not mediocrity.

i thought life was like a box of chocolates... eat too many and you get diabetes. there's a lot of things to consider in winning too.... like luck and chance. skill shows how well you play, yet you can't control everything in the competition.

even the good eventually die.

 

[JRogers]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
VB, about the only lesson you've taught me is that unrealistic idealism isnt just a domestic problem. Its a worldwide phenomenon that unfortunately allows failures like yourself to somehow feel legitimized. It's okay though i guess, as long as you "keep trying your best."

If one isnt driven to win, he may as well just give up. Of course, you cant always win, but it should be your goal. Being happy with "I tried my best" will get you nothing. Of course, I wouldnt be surprised if you had nothing and you're just mooching off of a spouse or something. You think the Oakland Raiders felt better after losing the superbowl when they said "We gave it our all"? You think the Tampa Bay Bucs after winning said "Its how you play the game, not if you win"? Of course not; they basked in the glory.

Again, I'll say it. Life is competition, if you arent driven to win...why exist? If our country wants to continue leading the pack, we should breed winners. Not mediocrity.

You are a total jackass. This isn't the right place or time for full blown personal attacks. Keep it to yourself, you tactless fool.

Have you ever played a seriously competitive team sport? It does matter how you play and how much you gave. When I played football, we didn't win every game (9-2 my last year) but every one that we lost, we went down fighting. We knew we couldn't win but still gave everything. I didn't decide to roll over when losing was inevitable. Just because I didn't win doesn't mean that this was a vain effort. Losing hurts but knowing you gave up is worse.

And besides, the "winning is everything" mentality is bogus. Some of us don't see life as a continual competition. I have time for competition on the track or course or field. I'm not trying to beat anyone in my day to day life. Being content with myself and how I live my life are more important than being better than the guy next to me. Get real.

 

[slein]

Originally posted by JRogers
You are a total jackass. This isn't the right place or time for full blown personal attacks. Keep it to yourself, you tactless fool.

uh-oh

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
VB, about the only lesson you've taught me is that unrealistic idealism isnt just a domestic problem. Its a worldwide phenomenon that unfortunately allows failures like yourself to somehow feel legitimized. It's okay though i guess, as long as you "keep trying your best."

If one isnt driven to win, he may as well just give up. Of course, you cant always win, but it should be your goal. Being happy with "I tried my best" will get you nothing. Of course, I wouldnt be surprised if you had nothing and you're just mooching off of a spouse or something. You think the Oakland Raiders felt better after losing the superbowl when they said "We gave it our all"? You think the Tampa Bay Bucs after winning said "Its how you play the game, not if you win"? Of course not; they basked in the glory.

Again, I'll say it. Life is competition, if you arent driven to win...why exist? If our country wants to continue leading the pack, we should breed winners. Not mediocrity.

Nice words from a self-admitted failure. I'm sure once you get out in the real world you might actually learn a few things. One thing you might learn is that the world might be a better place if we were less inclined to wanna f*ck each other over at every oppurtunity. Maybe one day you'll have kids (that's if you can ever get away from your misogyny/bestiality complex) and you'll realise there's more to bringing them up than teaching them to stab others in the back whenever they get the chance.
You seem fond of these sporting analogies, it seems symptomatic of your shallowness on this and umpteen other issues. Everything is so one-dimensional to you. A wins, B loses, ergo B is a loser. Well news flash soldier, sometimes ya win and sometimes ya lose...THAT'S LIFE, having the critical faculties to deal with both magnanimously is to me more important than prancing around "basking in the glory".
Is being confrontational in every single situation really the way you want to live your life? Seems to me you'll be setting yourself up for failure more often than not considering you basically don't seem to have what "it" takes.
Mate, I can assure I'll be reflecting on what a "loser" I am when I move into my new house in a couple of weeks.....I may even ponder it while I'm on the plane to Australia with the wife and kids next month. I may even have a few thoughts next year when I take my new DH bike to Germany to visit Partsy. But one thing you don't have to worry about is whether or not I'm angry at the world. No I'm quite content with my lot. You on the other hand are filled with vile- hope you think you're a winner boy cause it sure doesn't look like it from here.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by JRogers
You are a total jackass. This isn't the right place or time for full blown personal attacks. Keep it to yourself, you tactless fool.

Have you ever played a seriously competitive team sport? It does matter how you play and how much you gave. When I played football, we didn't win every game (9-2 my last year) but every one that we lost, we went down fighting. We knew we couldn't win but still gave everything. I didn't decide to roll over when losing was inevitable. Just because I didn't win doesn't mean that this was a vain effort. Losing hurts but knowing you gave up is worse.

And besides, the "winning is everything" mentality is bogus. Some of us don't see life as a continual competition. I have time for competition on the track or course or field. I'm not trying to beat anyone in my day to day life. Being content with myself and how I live my life are more important than being better than the guy next to me. Get real.

Well first,

The "personal attack" as you called it on VB was only retaliatory...please re-read his first post and about the 5,000 other before that.

Secondly, I've played numerous team sports, individual sports and been involved in various competition. At no point did you ever hear me mention "just giving up" . Of course, you must always play your best and strive to win, and AGAIN,as i said..we all sometimes lose...but being content with "It's how you play the game" will get people nowhere....but sadly, that's many peoples' mentality.
I live my life in competition with others every day. Be it vieing for promotions, job offers, sporting events..what have you. I try to win as often as possible to place myself in the best position. Get real? yeah, thanks for the tip. Oh, and the personal attack.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by JRogers
You are a total jackass. This isn't the right place or time for full blown personal attacks. Keep it to yourself, you tactless fool.

JR- on this forum I give as good as I get...the moderators seem to allow us a bit of largesse- more so than they might on other forums. Things get heated but I don't think anyone cares too much. It's all just mental masturbation so don't worry too much about it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Nice words from a self-admitted failure. I'm sure once you get out in the real world you might actually learn a few things. One thing you might learn is that the world might be a better place if we were less inclined to wanna f*ck each other over at every oppurtunity. Maybe one day you'll have kids (that's if you can ever get away from your misogyny/bestiality complex) and you'll realise there's more to bringing them up than teaching them to stab others in the back whenever they get the chance.
You seem fond of these sporting analogies, it seems symptomatic of your shallowness on this and umpteen other issues. Everything is so one-dimensional to you. A wins, B loses, ergo B is a loser. Well news flash soldier, sometimes ya win and sometimes ya lose...THAT'S LIFE, having the critical faculties to deal with both magnanimously is to me more important than prancing around "basking in the glory".
Is being confrontational in every single situation really the way you want to live your life? Seems to me you'll be setting yourself up for failure more often than not considering you basically don't seem to have what "it" takes.
Mate, I can assure I'll be reflecting on what a "loser" I am when I move into my new house in a couple of weeks.....I may even ponder it while I'm on the plane to Australia with the wife and kids next month. I may even have a few thoughts next year when I take my new DH bike to Germany to visit Partsy. But one thing you don't have to worry about is whether or not I'm angry at the world. No I'm quite content with my lot. You on the other hand are filled with vile- hope you think you're a winner boy cause it sure doesn't look like it from here.

What i look like from there truly doesnt concern me. I honestly dont know how you draw the conclusion that im "mad at the world" or "confrontational". I think, in fact, that Im really one of the most easy going people there are in daily life. But the things i speak of are merely the philosophy i live by. Its personal motivation. I think its a positive mindset that most could use. You dont like it; i dont care. Simple as that. The confrontation you see here has been sparked by YOU.
Backstabbing is not something i ever do. Again, where are you coming up with this? I achieve my goals through hard work. I dont take "no" for an answer. But thats just me. I hate losing.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I achieve my goals through hard work. I dont take "no" for an answer. But thats just me. I hate losing.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it but it sounds like bunk to me.
P.S- Does this mean you've had your way with one of the Olsen twins? Or worse, a dolphin?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I guess I'll have to take your word for it but it sounds like bunk to me.
P.S- Does this mean you've had your way with one of the Olsen twins? Or worse, a dolphin?

Not YET with the Olsens,

But there is a place just down the street from here where you can pay $120 to "swim with dolphins" Im pretty sure i could have the dolphin handler distracted for a few. I wonder if you can get dolphinsyphyllis?

Out of curiosity, is your situation similar to Partsbaras? You got a US military wife? Stationed in Japan? Or just live there for uh....fun?

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Not YET with the Olsens,

But there is a place just down the street from here where you can pay $120 to "swim with dolphins" Im pretty sure i could have the dolphin handler distracted for a few. I wonder if you can get dolphinsyphyllis?

Out of curiosity, is your situation similar to Partsbaras? You got a US military wife? Stationed in Japan? Or just live there for uh....fun?

$120 to swim with the dolphins??? Bloody hell, talk about winners and losers You'd just about wanna have your way with one of 'em for that price
I'm married with 2 kids and run my own business here. Permanent resident....mortgage and all

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
$120 to swim with the dolphins??? Bloody hell, talk about winners and losers You'd just about wanna have your way with one of 'em for that price
I'm married with 2 kids and run my own business here. Permanent resident....mortgage and all

If you're anywhere near Tokyo, i dont even want to imagine your mortgage, but anyway...why Japan? Have a Japanes wife? And...dont tell me its a computer business you own cos those guys are way too smart to have some skippy undermining their cash crop.

 

[ohio]

Several thoughts, not all related to each other:

1. Winning and losing isn't always the scenario. Executives that view the world that way have succeeded in destroying a good bit of our (the US's) economy. Turns out collaboration and sometimes (gasp) compromise yield optimal results. Also see: John Nash. What it boils down to, BS, is that you're outdated...

2. It seems there are three philosophies with regards to educating children, though folks in this thread are treating them as two.
A) Seperate them based on ability. Allow them to compete in a limited pool.
B) Don't seperate or distinguish, but allow them to compete to the best of their abilities and let the strong dominate
C) Don't seperate or distinguish, and don't allow them to compete directly because of the emotional damage that may result.

Seems like A and C are getting lumped together... just an observation. I personally feel like A is optimal for certain subjects and fields.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
If you're anywhere near Tokyo, i dont even want to imagine your mortgage, but anyway...why Japan? Have a Japanes wife? And...dont tell me its a computer business you own cos those guys are way too smart to have some skippy undermining their cash crop.

Yeah the missus is a local, we're far away from the big smoke so our mortgage is OK. We got given the land (about 300 square metres- couldn't tell ya in square feet sorry) so we only took out the loan over 15 years. Manageable
The only time I go near computers is to look at porn and argue with you on the
No, I've got my own little school where I teach the locals the intracacies of our mother tongue. I only work 25 hours a week (mostly in the evenings) and that pays the bills and then some, so I've got plenty of time to ride. But mostly I just masturbate but I'm sure you knew that already

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
Several thoughts, not all related to each other:

1. Winning and losing isn't always the scenario. Executives that view the world that way have succeeded in destroying a good bit of our (the US's) economy. Turns out collaboration and sometimes (gasp) compromise yield optimal results. Also see: John Nash. What it boils down to, BS, is that you're outdated...

Oh jesus,

OBVIOUSLY, working with others and compromising sometimes is the ONLY way to do things. I was speaking only in terms of general mindset. Dont take it so literally.

 

[JRogers]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well first,

The "personal attack" as you called it on VB was only retaliatory...please re-read his first post and about the 5,000 other before that.

Secondly, I've played numerous team sports, individual sports and been involved in various competition. At no point did you ever hear me mention "just giving up" . Of course, you must always play your best and strive to win, and AGAIN,as i said..we all sometimes lose...but being content with "It's how you play the game" will get people nowhere....but sadly, that's many peoples' mentality.
I live my life in competition with others every day. Be it vieing for promotions, job offers, sporting events..what have you. I try to win as often as possible to place myself in the best position. Get real? yeah, thanks for the tip. Oh, and the personal attack.

First, VBs statements were much less malicious than yours. His statement was hyperbole, yours was just mean spirited.

Second, I don't think that many people have the mentality you are talking about. A lot of people will believe "it's how you play the game" but not, simultaenously, believe the winning is totally secondary or completely unnecessary. I don't believe that "it's not whether you win or lose" is taken literally.

Also, the statement doesn't advocate losing. In fact, it advocates giving your best effort while remaining a generally good human being. If you always give your best effort and you don't burn bridges or forget your morals, winning will come to you naturally. If winning is your only goal, you may give your best effort but you forget the rules and hurt people. Who wants to be a dirty player?