[jolinar of malkshor]

IFF wrote -

Well, I'm sure this will make you "cring" too... but actually, there's no point in debating with anybody if you're unwilling to be accountable for your own words.

Your exact words to bcb were: "quite frankly, a teacher wouldn't know." You later qualified your statement to include post-secondary educators--and since I have been a post-secondary educator for the better part of a decade, I was glad to assume the mantle of expertise and debunk the unfounded nonsense that you were spewing. You then cited a news program that relied on the expertise of "educators"--i.e. not post-secondary educators but real educators--teachers. The very people whose expertise you dismissed just a few posts before (ironically, they're about the only people whose expertise I might be inclined to accept--certainly I would never believe a police officer, whose experience is likely skewed toward the lower rungs of the scholastic success ladder).

I guess you can read it how ever you want. You knew what I meant when I said teachers (meaning primary and secondary) and you knew what I meant when I said educators (PSE). Yet instead of having a debate you try and pick a fight about semantics. You talk about how you "debuncked" unfounded nonsense. Yet you did nothing but blab on about what YOU believe. You accuse me of just making arguement without any facts yet you do the EXACT same thing. You provided not one shred of evidence to the debate and actually accuse me of "bsing". So, I guess everything you have said is BS as well.

As for the police officer comment I would agree that they most likely see the dead beats and most would not represent the majority of graduates. Having said that, I know a few resource officers in several police recruiting centres and some of the stories I hear about the kinds of applications they have received not just from High School grads but college grads as well would make any think how they ever made it through grade 10.

The fact is, on this issue (as with a few others) you once again show that you have too many opinions and not enough knowledge.

Opinions I do have. I did not once say I was an expert but my opinions are based on legitimate information from news articles and other programs. The fact that you believe that there is no problems at all makes me believe you know less of this than I. Not once did you acknowledge any of the facts that I have posted above.

Next time try a little research before leaping headlong into some hackneyed ideological stance. Put me on ignore if you like: I'm not going to cry about it. But maybe there will be more point in other people having debates with you if you're willing to take the time to construct a rational, reasoned argument on the basis of evidence, rather than making a claim because you saw a TV program one time that kind of seemed to support something you already believed.

Excuse me, I didn't realize that a prerequisite for posting on CP was having all the facts and rational before you could post. Forget the fact that I had read some of this information before and heard it on the news, it is now required that I have it available immediately upon posting.

The fact is, that if you think I'm an "expert in everything," then you profoundly misunderstand my style, and my approach to these issues. My academic training tends rather to make me think that I don't know anything at all yet, and that any opinion I form ought to be backed up by evidence and reason, rather than the tissue of emotional appeals and alarmism that seems to be your preferred approach. I'm prepared to back up my claims. Why aren't you? That's not "doing my work for me"; the onus is on you to prove that you're not full of crap.

I guess I did misunderstand your style, because that is most certainly not how you debate on this forum.

However, I will gladly agree with you on the topic of the sun, and will add that it rises and sets equally on liberals and conservatives alike.

Well, would the sun not rise sooner on the libs than the cons?