Tell the good news about home schools

Does the Register not realize the $8 million the state spends for home schooling is a bargain to taxpayers? School districts receive 30 percent of the regular funding per child for home-schooled children, or 40 percent if dual-enrolled in order to cover costs associated with the home-schooled student participating in selected public school ... Full Story
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#184 May 4, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Once again, my first posting came before the attack on Bob. And was that attack on Bob unprompted? It came out of the blue? Have another look, Professor. It's not complicated.
Yes, your attack on Bob was unprovoked on this thread. I didn't notice anything posted by any of your critics prior to your post @#18 so as far as this thread is concerned, it was out of the blue. I don't care what either of you said on other threads.
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#185 May 4, 2013
But the posting of mine that you show above your own addresses your attack on anyone who would dare disagree with you on the real topic of this thread. You chose NOT to respond to that, just,as you chose not to acknowledge my initial post on the topic and instead to begin counting my posts in my response to Bob's attack on me (which, coincidentally, you also chose to ignore). As I say, you aren't fair-minded, which implies that you are not entirely honest. Moreover, from the gauntlet that you lay down for all would-be opponents, which is as eloquent as the "pissing contest" that you invoke, it looks as if you're aching for your own "pissing contest".
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#186 May 4, 2013
Oh, my, it looks as if you and I were posting simultaneously,,SLC. I must take back my observation that you'd ignored my statement to you. It's no longer true. You have reacted to my statement since I wrote that.My apologies, Ace.
Bob

Dorval, Canada

#187 May 4, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, your attack on Bob was unprovoked on this thread. I didn't notice anything posted by any of your critics prior to your post @#18 so as far as this thread is concerned, it was out of the blue. I don't care what either of you said on other threads.
I just checked posts #1 - 18, I didn't post on this thread, and straight out of the blue, MaltaMoron attacks me.
So bite a fart, MaltaMon.
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#188 May 4, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
\
Furthermore, my complaint with religion is solely with the born agains like Ken Ham who propagate lies and crap against science. Their religious views are indeed baloney. I have nothing against the religious views of Ken Miller, other then being a non-believer and thus not being in agreement with him. Just for the record, my PhD thesis adviser was a born again Christian who, nevertheless did not believe in the preposterous notion of a 6000 year old earth. He might possibly be a candidate to share a Nobel prize with Peter Higgs as they both published papers on what is now called the Higgs boson.
As for the subject of home schooling, I only have contempt for those parents who use it as an attempt to brainwash their children. There are many home schoolers who are competent and do a fine job in educating their children. Unfortunately, all too many of them do not.
I agree with your basic sentiments regarding science and religion, but I would never state them in so derogatory a manner. Your approach is one of indictment,,as if for criminal activity, when all it comes down to is what one regards as truth (As someone allegedly said to someone else long ago, "We both have truths. Are mine the same as yiurs?") Religious belief and practice have always posed problems between the true believers, and those who claim to be, and the non-believers. I don't believe on God. I don't believe that religious practice has any place on the secular, public classroom. However, I'm not about to shut down religiously-affiliated schools (which DJW believes, apparently, I have the authority to do, at least on his side of the Atlantic), or to claim that religion has no place in society. Religion goes back to prehistoric times. Man has,always attempted an explanation of what he cannot understand--a justification for the tragedy and the caprice of life. And it persists, it manifests itself in one form or another, in every society on earth today. You have to recognize reality and begin there. It s a matter of simple respect for your fellow men. Trashing them doesn't make your perspective more valid. And if others trash you for your reliance upon science, don't get down into the gutter with them.
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#189 May 4, 2013
Typos again, among them "yours", not "yuirs", and "in god", not "on".
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#190 May 4, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I just checked posts #1 - 18, I didn't post on this thread, and straight out of the blue, MaltaMoron attacks me.
So bite a fart, MaltaMon.
Lol. Yes, yes. I'll do that right away, Bob..
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#191 May 4, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> I agree with your basic sentiments regarding science and religion, but I would never state them in so derogatory a manner. Your approach is one of indictment,,as if for criminal activity, when all it comes down to is what one regards as truth (As someone allegedly said to someone else long ago, "We both have truths. Are mine the same as yiurs?") Religious belief and practice have always posed problems between the true believers, and those who claim to be, and the non-believers. I don't believe on God. I don't believe that religious practice has any place on the secular, public classroom. However, I'm not about to shut down religiously-affiliated schools (which DJW believes, apparently, I have the authority to do, at least on his side of the Atlantic), or to claim that religion has no place in society. Religion goes back to prehistoric times. Man has,always attempted an explanation of what he cannot understand--a justification for the tragedy and the caprice of life. And it persists, it manifests itself in one form or another, in every society on earth today. You have to recognize reality and begin there. It s a matter of simple respect for your fellow men. Trashing them doesn't make your perspective more valid. And if others trash you for your reliance upon science, don't get down into the gutter with them.
I will quote Ken Miller, no atheist he: If your church rejects the Theory of Evolution for religious reasons, get another church (via John Kwok).

I would also say that religion is dying in Western Europe as it has become irrelevant to the populations of those countries (Scandinavia, Great Britain, and France in particular). That's probably one of the reasons that the Raping Children Church elected someone from South America as Pope, as it is in South America where religion is still growing, although the church was unable to prevent the passage of a same sex marriage law in Argentina.
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#192 May 4, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
I will quote Ken Miller, no atheist he: If your church rejects the Theory of Evolution for religious reasons, get another church (via John Kwok).
I would also say that religion is dying in Western Europe as it has become irrelevant to the populations of those countries (Scandinavia, Great Britain, and France in particular). That's probably one of the reasons that the Raping Children Church elected someone from South America as Pope, as it is in South America where religion is still growing, although the church was unable to prevent the an. passage of a same sex marriage law in Argentina.
That's what I mean. "Raping Children Church" may seem a remarkably witty play on "Roman Catholic Church", but the practitioners of that religion don't endorse what abusive, evil paedophile priests did to innocent kids. You're on the gutter with those who would say that you're a "heathen".And don't point to Europe, with its 500 million people, as the center of a planet of 7 billion.(even if it's the best part of it) Euro-centrism itself is dead. Its birthrate is in decline. And religion is not on the wane in every European country. But it is clearly on the rise elsewhere.
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#193 May 5, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> I agree with your basic sentiments regarding science and religion, but I would never state them in so derogatory a manner. Your approach is one of indictment,,as if for criminal activity, when all it comes down to is what one regards as truth (As someone allegedly said to someone else long ago, "We both have truths. Are mine the same as yiurs?") Religious belief and practice have always posed problems between the true believers, and those who claim to be, and the non-believers. I don't believe on God. I don't believe that religious practice has any place on the secular, public classroom. However, I'm not about to shut down religiously-affiliated schools (which DJW believes, apparently, I have the authority to do, at least on his side of the Atlantic), or to claim that religion has no place in society. Religion goes back to prehistoric times. Man has,always attempted an explanation of what he cannot understand--a justification for the tragedy and the caprice of life. And it persists, it manifests itself in one form or another, in every society on earth today. You have to recognize reality and begin there. It s a matter of simple respect for your fellow men. Trashing them doesn't make your perspective more valid. And if others trash you for your reliance upon science, don't get down into the gutter with them.
I don't have any particular objection to religion affiliated colleges and universities. There are a number of reputable such institutions, such as Notre Dame in Indiana, Georgetown in D.C. Southern Methodist and Baylor in Texas, Brandais in Massachusetts, Yeshiva in New York City, etc. Unfortunately, there are also a number of turkeys such as Regent and Liberty "Universities" in Virginia. Just as a matter of information, my sister is a law graduate from Santa Clara, a Jesuit college in California.

Just as a matter of information, there is no such thing as truth or proof in science. There is only evidence that supports a proposition or evidence that falsifies a proposition. Thus on the question of evolution, there is a ton of evidence that supports the theory of common descent and an old earth. Special creation and young earth creationism were falsified long ago. As Richard Dawkins said, anyone who rejects the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but he didn't want to consider the last). This was in reaction to a presentation by faux mathematician David Berlinski who he said was neither ignorant stupid, or insane.
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#194 May 5, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> That's what I mean. "Raping Children Church" may seem a remarkably witty play on "Roman Catholic Church", but the practitioners of that religion don't endorse what abusive, evil paedophile priests did to innocent kids. You're on the gutter with those who would say that you're a "heathen".And don't point to Europe, with its 500 million people, as the center of a planet of 7 billion.(even if it's the best part of it) Euro-centrism itself is dead. Its birthrate is in decline. And religion is not on the wane in every European country. But it is clearly on the rise elsewhere.
I think that the Raping Children Church sobriquet for the RCC is most appropriate. Not only was there a massive child abuse scandal in the church but there was also a massive coverup of the scandal by the superiors of the pedophile priests, including the previous Pope, Joe the rat. By the way, there are similar scandals taking place in various ultra orthodox Protestant churches and in ultra orthodox Jewish congregations in the New York City area and in Israel. As the late Christopher Hitchens put it, religion poisons everything. Partially in response to the scandal, it is estimated that some 1/3 of the christened RCC members in the US have left the church (some 22 million individuals).

I would also point out that there isn't much interest in religion in China or Japan so, in fact the 500 million Europeans have considerable company.
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#195 May 5, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that the Raping Children Church sobriquet for the RCC is most appropriate. Not only was there a massive child abuse scandal in the church but there was also a massive coverup of the scandal by the superiors of the pedophile priests, including the previous Pope, Joe the rat. By the way, there are similar scandals taking place in various ultra orthodox Protestant churches and in ultra orthodox Jewish congregations in the New York City area and in Israel. As the late Christopher Hitchens put it, religion poisons everything. Partially in response to the scandal, it is estimated that some 1/3 of the christened RCC members in the US have left the church (some 22 million individuals).
I would also point out that there isn't much interest in religion in China or Japan so, in fact the 500 million Europeans have considerable company.
You obviously have never been to China or Japan. I don't know where you get your "information". As for Hitchens, I'm a huge fan of his, have read most of his books and other non-compiled stuff. You are not at all in his league intellectually, my friend.(Incidentally, he was not a scientist) You are much too angry, unreasonable, incapable of rational discussion (on this topic, anyway) and, worst of all, petulantly reliant upon sweeping generalizations, uninformed simplistic stereotypes, misinformation, derogatory epithets and personal insults. A Catholic, for example, could not possibly expect "intelligent discussion" (your words, remember?) with someone who declares unequivocally that it is "most appropriate" to refer to his or her church as the "Raping Children Church". And you openly declare hatred for the "brain-washing parents" who want their kids schooled at home. Your rage and arrogance disables you from any meaningful discourse. I advise you to forget about the "intelligent discussion" that you requested--you really just wanted a clear right of way to pontificate (no pun intended)--and move on to another thread.
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#196 May 5, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> You obviously have never been to China or Japan. I don't know where you get your "information". As for Hitchens, I'm a huge fan of his, have read most of his books and other non-compiled stuff. You are not at all in his league intellectually, my friend.(Incidentally, he was not a scientist) You are much too angry, unreasonable, incapable of rational discussion (on this topic, anyway) and, worst of all, petulantly reliant upon sweeping generalizations, uninformed simplistic stereotypes, misinformation, derogatory epithets and personal insults. A Catholic, for example, could not possibly expect "intelligent discussion" (your words, remember?) with someone who declares unequivocally that it is "most appropriate" to refer to his or her church as the "Raping Children Church". And you openly declare hatred for the "brain-washing parents" who want their kids schooled at home. Your rage and arrogance disables you from any meaningful discourse. I advise you to forget about the "intelligent discussion" that you requested--you really just wanted a clear right of way to pontificate (no pun intended)--and move on to another thread.
Maltamon is 100% incorrect and inaccurate. In no way, shape, form, or regard do I consider all home schooling parents child abusers. The assignment of child abuse is reserved for those home schooling parents who teach their children creationism and other anti-scientific nonsense, unfortunately an all too large a fraction of the home schooling community. I have no objection to parents who are qualified in the subjects to be taught to home school their children.

As for the Raping Children Church, if Maltamon is offended, tough bananas. I'm sure that Bob is offended by being called a child molester.
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#197 May 5, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Maltamon is 100% incorrect and inaccurate. In no way, shape, form, or regard do I consider all home schooling parents child abusers. The assignment of child abuse is reserved for those home schooling parents who teach their children creationism and other anti-scientific nonsense, unfortunately an all too large a fraction of the home schooling community. I have no objection to parents who are qualified in the subjects to be taught to home school their children.
As for the Raping Children Church, if Maltamon is offended, tough bananas. I'm sure that Bob is offended by being called a child molester.
Well, I'd say that your statement makes my case regarding your capacity for "intelligent discussion"..
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#198 May 5, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Well, I'd say that your statement makes my case regarding your capacity for "intelligent discussion"..
Ah yes, MaltaMon considers intelligent discussion to consist of a pissing contest between himself and Bob. MaltaMon is hardly one to criticize others.
Bob

Dorval, Canada

#199 May 5, 2013
Pissing contest between myself and MaltaMon?
There's no contest. I win every time.
He makes allegations with no proof. I challenge him to prove his allegations with logic, but he always responds with blabbery.
No contest!
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#200 May 5, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes, MaltaMon considers intelligent discussion to consist of a pissing contest between himself and Bob. MaltaMon is hardly one to criticize others.
A case of "tough bananas" and oranges, my friend. Nobody expects intelligent discussion with Pedo Bob on any serious topic. And Bob himself has never attempted or otherwise openly presumed to desire any intelligent discussion. He is here to refute endlessly my charge against him. Ours is, by virtue of its very sordid origins and nature, which focuses wholly upon one of my children entirely personal dispute. Hence, our years-long "pissing contest", about which, incidentally, you are far too uninformed,(which is a good thing, perhaps) to propose any worthwhile contribution. It does not concern you. You, however, requested it on this one. You present yourself as a credentialed scholar seeking enlightened discourse about a timely and very controversial subject. Clearly, that is a false representation you attempt to convey. You seek only to pummel into the ground with insults and other pejorative characterizations any who dare to disagree with you. And those who so dare, according to the posture and approach you evince here, simply MUST be your intellectual inferiors. In fact, you are a would-be schoolyard bully who isn't as up to the challenge as, say, someone like Pedo Bob, who has actually bullied children. Ironically, you and I agree largely on this subject, but only in principle. The difference between us is that I responded to your serious request for intelligent discussion with a few words of caution that you not descend into the gutter with the religiously fanatical posters who would make this a "pissing contest". But I needn't have bothered. I asked you to keep THIS discussion free of personalized epithets and insults, to be more mindful of the reality of religion's predominance in most societies, and what do you do? You bloviate on and on, justifying your nastiness with "evidence" (even though no evidence justifies your childish,,decidedly non-scholarly disposition), and attacking me personally. The pissing contest is yours, my friend, so I suggest you find a bathroom in which to empty your bladder. I won't get onto the gutter with you, Mr. SLC.
MaltaMon

Merchantville, NJ

#201 May 5, 2013
** ... which focuses wholly on one of my children. It's an entirely personal dispute
Bob

Dorval, Canada

#202 May 5, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> A case of "tough bananas" and oranges, my friend. Nobody expects intelligent discussion with Pedo Bob on any serious topic. And Bob himself has never attempted or otherwise openly presumed to desire any intelligent discussion. He is here to refute endlessly my charge against him. Ours is, by virtue of its very sordid origins and nature, which focuses wholly upon one of my children entirely personal dispute. Hence, our years-long "pissing contest", about which, incidentally, you are far too uninformed,(which is a good thing, perhaps) to propose any worthwhile contribution. It does not concern you. You, however, requested it on this one. You present yourself as a credentialed scholar seeking enlightened discourse about a timely and very controversial subject. Clearly, that is a false representation you attempt to convey. You seek only to pummel into the ground with insults and other pejorative characterizations any who dare to disagree with you. And those who so dare, according to the posture and approach you evince here, simply MUST be your intellectual inferiors. In fact, you are a would-be schoolyard bully who isn't as up to the challenge as, say, someone like Pedo Bob, who has actually bullied children. Ironically, you and I agree largely on this subject, but only in principle. The difference between us is that I responded to your serious request for intelligent discussion with a few words of caution that you not descend into the gutter with the religiously fanatical posters who would make this a "pissing contest". But I needn't have bothered. I asked you to keep THIS discussion free of personalized epithets and insults, to be more mindful of the reality of religion's predominance in most societies, and what do you do? You bloviate on and on, justifying your nastiness with "evidence" (even though no evidence justifies your childish,,decidedly non-scholarly disposition), and attacking me personally. The pissing contest is yours, my friend, so I suggest you find a bathroom in which to empty your bladder. I won't get onto the gutter with you, Mr. SLC.
Blabbery.
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#203 May 5, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> A case of "tough bananas" and oranges, my friend. Nobody expects intelligent discussion with Pedo Bob on any serious topic. And Bob himself has never attempted or otherwise openly presumed to desire any intelligent discussion. He is here to refute endlessly my charge against him. Ours is, by virtue of its very sordid origins and nature, which focuses wholly upon one of my children entirely personal dispute. Hence, our years-long "pissing contest", about which, incidentally, you are far too uninformed,(which is a good thing, perhaps) to propose any worthwhile contribution. It does not concern you. You, however, requested it on this one. You present yourself as a credentialed scholar seeking enlightened discourse about a timely and very controversial subject. Clearly, that is a false representation you attempt to convey. You seek only to pummel into the ground with insults and other pejorative characterizations any who dare to disagree with you. And those who so dare, according to the posture and approach you evince here, simply MUST be your intellectual inferiors. In fact, you are a would-be schoolyard bully who isn't as up to the challenge as, say, someone like Pedo Bob, who has actually bullied children. Ironically, you and I agree largely on this subject, but only in principle. The difference between us is that I responded to your serious request for intelligent discussion with a few words of caution that you not descend into the gutter with the religiously fanatical posters who would make this a "pissing contest". But I needn't have bothered. I asked you to keep THIS discussion free of personalized epithets and insults, to be more mindful of the reality of religion's predominance in most societies, and what do you do? You bloviate on and on, justifying your nastiness with "evidence" (even though no evidence justifies your childish,,decidedly non-scholarly disposition), and attacking me personally. The pissing contest is yours, my friend, so I suggest you find a bathroom in which to empty your bladder. I won't get onto the gutter with you, Mr. SLC.
Given he seriousness of your charges against Bob, the fact that you have thus far failed to have him arrested by the authorities in Ontario or the RCMP seems to indicate that you have no case. I haven't kept count of the number of comments on multiple threads on this forum in which you have made accusations against Bob that, if untrue, are libelous and slanderous but they must be in the hundreds. Furthermore, your gay bashing, reminiscent of Largelanguage, does not lend credibility to your accusations. May I respectively suggest that it is time to make it or get off the pot. Either file a complaint with the authorities in Canada, assuming that the abuse took place there, or STFU.

Once again, just to make it perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding, I have nothing against moderate religious followers, such as John Jones III, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or even less moderate religious followers such as my thesis adviser. I do have a lot against criminals like RCC Cardinal Law, Cardinal Mahoney, Cardinal Egan, former Pope Benedict XVI, and the various high officials in other countries such as Ireland in that church that covered up the child abuse and protected the perpetrators of those crimes. Those miscreants belong in jail along with the actual abusers how have been tried and convicted. The fact is that, as we sit here today the RCC is a criminal conspiracy, no better then the Mafia, and should be treated as such.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Education Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
M6040-427 practice tests 8 hr Wendytest 1
CCIE Collaboration 400-051 practice exam dumps 8 hr testorches 1
TestHorse CCDE 352-001 exam - 352-001 practice ... 9 hr testorches 1
TestHorse 350-001 exam - 350-001 practice exam 9 hr testorches 1
TestHorse SIMOS 300-209 practice exam dumps 9 hr testhorseahx 1
TestHorse SISAS 300-208 practice exam dumps 9 hr testhorseahx 1
TestHorse SITCS 300-207 practice exam dumps 9 hr testhorseahx 1
More from around the web