Quote: SlagA @ March 20 2009, 3:42 PM GMTI didn't need to read that to know it, even if I've never sat on a gold chair.
It's not all about you, Mr 'Moderator'.
Quote: SlagA @ March 20 2009, 3:42 PM GMT
But it's not the educating I was led to believe.
Not that you were led to to believe. Again, it's not all about you.
Quote: SlagA @ March 20 2009, 3:42 PM GMTIs there such a thing as an educator who refuses to educate?
Next set of questions?
Quote: jonny2 @ March 21 2009, 2:53 AM GMTNot that you were led to to believe. Again, it's not all about you.
Regarding the education that gotmilk states is found within this piece:
Quote: gotmilk @ February 25 2009, 9:52 PM GMTThrough my stories they discover facts about the world around them...
I get across complex ideologys in a way children can understand...
I am able, like the BBC in its prime, to educade AND entertain.
It isn't so much a case of what I was led to believe, as Gotmilk being very specific in his claims.
I asked for examples of ideology and education and got the reply that sitting on a hard chair hurts my bum. Hardly the Beeb in its prime, but arguably the numbed-bummed dumbed-down beeb in ten years time, perhaps? As for real world facts, I learned the name of the assistant to the queen of mice.
Re: The URL about Tamir, as your example of an educator who refuses to educate: Did you read to the bottom? The last sentence is brutally concise in its judgement of such a person: "Tamir is a failure."
Next set of questions? Just one. Examples please... of the complex ideologies that children (and I) can understand.
Quote: SlagA @ March 21 2009, 1:12 PM GMTSo it wasn't so much what I was led to believe. Gotmilk was quite specific.
I am not Gotmilk. I don't even like milk! Even if Gotmilk were my brother, I would not be his keeper - and I am not even his brother!! Put simply - ask Gotmilk, wherever he is.
Quote: SlagA @ March 21 2009, 1:12 PM GMTI asked for examples of ideology and education and got the reply that sitting on a hard chair hurts my bum. As for real world facts, I learned the name of the assistant to the queen of mice.
There isn't a Queen Of Mice - sorry to mislead you. Neither is there a Santa Clause.
Quote: SlagA @ March 21 2009, 1:12 PM GMTRe: The URL about Tamir, the educator who refuses to educate: Did you read to the bottom? The last sentence sums up with "Tamir is a failure."
Your question was: Is there such a thing as an educator who refuses to educate?
My answer was 'Tamir'. Tamir 'is a failure' is irrelevant. I named an educator who refuses to educate, i.e. Tamir. Your question answered.
Quote: SlagA @ March 21 2009, 1:12 PM GMTNext set of questions? Just one. Examples please... of the complex ideologies that children (and I) can understand.
I'll do my best but it will have to be brief, as I am working on an article entitled 'Nitrogen Agricultural Environmental Breakthrough' to be published in Nuts Magazine.
Anyway, here we go. If one examines complex ideologies, one is faced with a choice: either reject deconstructive complex ideologies or conclude that ideologies, complex or otherwise, have objective value. Therefore, you must use them bearing in mind the term 'reconstructive dialectic theory' to denote the genre, and eventually the literary value of Gotmilk's thread 'My Novel'.
In his thread 'My Novel', Gotmilk (not me!) analyses complex ideologies; however in his thread 'Kid's book' ( https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/11341#P358140 ) however, he has no idea that his father can breed Beastie Weasties. Therefore, any number of complex ideologies concerning the role of an educator/father is not so much a question, more the equivalent of a puppy cocking its head to one side in bemusement. Thus concluding that Gotmilk's raison d'être is to comment on the magical world as we know it to be at this moment in time - which is 18.52pm. However, when this is read, 'the magical world as we know it to be at this moment in time' will not be 18.52pm - who knows? You might be clambering out of a crack in the Earth's crust! Therefore, Gotmilk (in MY opinion!) promotes the use of the material paradigm of an abundance of constructions concerning predialectic utterances which are of use in complex ideologies to deconstruct the status quo at 18.52pm. That was then; this is now. Now? No comment.
The main theme of my (i.e. Jonny2) critique of Gotmilk's literary works is to bridge between the educated and uneducated. So you see, the primary theme of Gotmilk's work is the defining characteristic, and eventually the meaninglessness, of predialectic culture. The subject is interpolated into a sub constructivist paradigm of consensus that includes art as a paradox (as opposed to Thordox – but let's not go there!). Thus, Gotmilk (not Thordox!) implies that we have to choose between complex ideological theory and the neotextual paradigm of narrative.
Finally; it is not so much society that is part of the absurdity of reality, but rather the paradigm, and eventually the futility, of society. Therefore, generally speaking, the main themes of Gotmilk's literary works in my opinion (not gotmilk's!) are not construction as such, but post-construction.
Hope that helps.
Credit where it's due - jonny2's post made me laugh lots. Thx. 
Quote: jonny2 @ March 22 2009, 12:06 AM GMTAnyway, here we go. If one examines complex ideologies, one is faced with a choice: either reject deconstructive complex ideologies or conclude that ideologies, complex or otherwise, have objective value. Therefore, you must use them bearing in mind the term 'reconstructive dialectic theory' to denote the genre, and eventually the literary value of Gotmilk's thread 'My Novel'.
In his thread 'My Novel', Gotmilk (not me!) analyses complex ideologies; however in his thread 'Kid's book' ( https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/11341#P358140 ) however, he has no idea that his father can breed Beastie Weasties. Therefore, any number of complex ideologies concerning the role of an educator/father is not so much a question, more the equivalent of a puppy cocking its head to one side in bemusement. Thus concluding that Gotmilk's raison d'être is to comment on the magical world as we know it to be at this moment in time - which is 18.52pm. However, when this is read, 'the magical world as we know it to be at this moment in time' will not be 18.52pm - who knows? You might be clambering out of a crack in the Earth's crust! Therefore, Gotmilk (in MY opinion!) promotes the use of the material paradigm of an abundance of constructions concerning predialectic utterances which are of use in complex ideologies to deconstruct the status quo at 18.52pm. That was then; this is now. Now? No comment.
The main theme of my (i.e. Jonny2) critique of Gotmilk's literary works is to bridge between the educated and uneducated. So you see, the primary theme of Gotmilk's work is the defining characteristic, and eventually the meaninglessness, of predialectic culture. The subject is interpolated into a sub constructivist paradigm of consensus that includes art as a paradox (as opposed to Thordox – but let's not go there!). Thus, Gotmilk (not Thordox!) implies that we have to choose between complex ideological theory and the neotextual paradigm of narrative.
Finally; it is not so much society that is part of the absurdity of reality, but rather the paradigm, and eventually the futility, of society. Therefore, generally speaking, the main themes of Gotmilk's literary works in my opinion (not gotmilk's!) are not construction as such, but post-construction.
Who's getting married?
I was going to make a sardonic comment about this thread but in the end decided that I was finding it too entertaining.
Mind though but, I'm frightened to get involved with the subject-matter of the broader discussion as there is too much highfalutin talk and too many big words for a simple lad like myself.
I'm spending half the time with a dictionary in my hand every time I read a new post.
Still it's great for the learnin' an that.
I've got to say this thread gets (as Alice In Wonderland would say) 'curiouser and curiouser'!
Alice in Wonderland never manages to stray from the mundane. Do not mention it. In the word of my my new character, Gatrail-Blamcob:
Look up at the stars, mein father (for he had spent many years in Germany) then we shall see glory and Jesus. Look to the ground and mud, my son, and we shall see monotony - in earthworms and lice. Bliss, alas not. Oh and let it be thanked!
EDITED - my original response was of no real worth. Nothing new there, you say. 
Quote: gotmilk @ March 22 2009, 9:55 PM GMTAlice in Wonderland never manages to stray from the mundane. Do not mention it. In the word of my my new character, Gatrail-Blamcob:
Look up at the stars, mein father (for he had spent many years in Germany) then we shall see glory and Jesus. Look to the ground and mud, my son, and we shall see monotony - in earthworms and lice. Bliss, alas not. Oh and let it be thanked!
But look to the ground and you will see creation in all its glory in those earthworms and lice (lice - who sees lice when they look down ffs? Do you live in a squat?). Look to the sky and all you'll get is a sore neck.
Lice is a metaphor - can't you read, sluggard? And that joke was BLANTANTLY pinched from The Two Ronnies, so don't be childish.
What's it a metaphor for? I'm sure your posts have some great, deep meaning, but to be honest most of them are about as accessible as an Umberto Eco first draft. Who's Umberto Eco, you might well ask.
Why use sluggard? Maybe wait until you've had a smorgasbord of success before using rarely-used terms of Nordic origin.
I know my joke was old, but then I also know how to spell blatantly (caps or no caps.)
BLATANTLY.
See.
He's a semiologist and James Joyce scholar. And BLANTANT is the regional spelling in my region so look to the ant, learn her ways and by wise, failure.
Ok chaps, let's take some time out and calm down please. I'm now closing this thread.
