2) Spelling in English is standardised. You can get a special book called a "dictionary" which not only tells you how normal people spell the word, but also what the word means.
Normal people? Do you mean American Liberals, Communists or ANTIFA members. Please elaborate or retract.
2) Spelling in English is standardised. You can get a special book called a "dictionary" which not only tells you how normal people spell the word, but also what the word means.
1. This thread is for discussing politics, not typos. 2. No one is required to respond to any demands to retract or revise statements. Arguments and counter-arguments can stand on their own merits; we're not here to order each other to "Admit you're wrong."
2) Spelling in English is standardised. You can get a special book called a "dictionary" which not only tells you how normal people spell the word, but also what the word means.
1. This thread is for discussing politics, not typos. 2. No one is required to respond to any demands to retract or revise statements. Arguments and counter-arguments can stand on their own merits; we're not here to order each other to "Admit you're wrong."
Can you explain to me who the "Normal People" are then? of course I meant no offence just wanted to understand who "Normal People" are. Though the comment and the spelling in it is funny you must admit.
2) Spelling in English is standardised. You can get a special book called a "dictionary" which not only tells you how normal people spell the word, but also what the word means.
1. This thread is for discussing politics, not typos. 2. No one is required to respond to any demands to retract or revise statements. Arguments and counter-arguments can stand on their own merits; we're not here to order each other to "Admit you're wrong."
Honestly, when I read that comment last night, I thought it was a little out of line. I mean, it's the kind of thing I would definitely post of Youtube or Twitter, but I wouldn't do here. I'm a bit of a grammar Nazi myself, and I constantly edit my posts if I find even one typo, but yeah, if we are going to spend time picking apart the grammar and writing skills of everyone here, we could do that on nearly every post. I admit, when I see people use "there" as a possessive it drives me nuts, but, much like trying to convince religious people to be agnostic or atheists, I see pointing it out as a completely futile gesture at this point. I only do if I'm deliberately trying to put someone down in other mediums, and that probably isn't nice. And it's also too easy.
Though I personally strive to have grammatically correct and well-formatted posts, it's clear alot of people don't place a high priority on it, including many I agree with. Which is fine. I'm sure many people read mine and think "why does he use so many damn commas" or "he uses caps lock to accentuate words WAY too often" (see what I did there). Anyway......
If I can complete this tangent so we can get back on topic: "standardise" is the British English spelling for the American English "standardize."
Which is why I found it so amusing for someone to say that spelling in English is standardized. The same way that British seem to have a fondness for making -o- into -ou- as in armor vs. armour, color vs. colour, et. cetera.
Which does not take away from his point that by and large, Trump supporters are the less-educated. Including Trump himself.
Which is why I found it so amusing for someone to say that spelling in English is standardized. The same way that British seem to have a fondness for making -o- into -ou- as in armor vs. armour, color vs. colour, et. cetera.
As this Forum uses American spelling I tend to force myself to write "armor" in my posts, but even after years it still grates on me .
I don't know what @Fardragon meant by "normal," but I don't think it matters too much. I prefer not to infer a whole lot from a single word. I'd just as soon move on.
2) Spelling in English is standardised. You can get a special book called a "dictionary" which not only tells you how normal people spell the word, but also what the word means.
O RLY?!
"Standardized"
I'm English. "Standardised" is the correct spelling in the UK. "Standardized" is the correct spelling in the USA.
[Note to Democrats: If you had done more to improve basic education whilst in power, you might not have found yourselves in the mess you are in now.]
They were too busy making sure that no teachers could lose their jobs regardless of their effectiveness. Real improvements to the educational system might have cost them the teachers' union votes...
I don't know how things differ in the USA, but in the UK you don't really need to sack poor teachers. The children will chew them up, spit them out, and leave them crying in the gutter.
What matters is recruitment. Schools don't need to recruit weak candidates in the first place - unless there are no strong candidates. Which is what happens if pay and conditions are not good enough to attract strong candidates to the profession.
The same way that British seem to have a fondness for making -o- into -ou- as in armor vs. armour, color vs. colour, et. cetera.
It does actually reflect a slight difference in pronunciation. I would make the word slightly longer than you probably would: col-o-ur. "Our" and "are" are not homophones to me.
But the British spelling is the older version (reflecting the influence of Norman-French). There was a deliberate attempt to simplify US spellings in the early 20th century (1906 simplified spellings board).
If Donald Trump was posting in this thread, @semiticgod would have had to ban him by now.
That may be the most accurate description of Trump's presidency I've seen. Well done, @jjstraka34. Well, the guy is coming to Poland and my colleague managed to get me tickets to the show on Thursday, so I'm going to check if his hands are really that small.
If Donald Trump was posting in this thread, @semiticgod would have had to ban him by now.
That may be the most accurate description of Trump's presidency I've seen. Well done, @jjstraka34. Well, the guy is coming to Poland and my colleague managed to get me tickets to the show on Thursday, so I'm going to check if his hands are really that small.
Be prepared for a long senseless speech about the terrorism and God and business and winning.
That's what I am expecting. And I'm pretty sure he'll say something nice about my country, since polish government actually managed to seriously limited independency of judiciary, freedom of media and freedom of assembly, not to mention our inhuman, disgraceful politics towards refugees' crisis (tl;dr - UE, give us money and expect nothing in return!).
In one of the more insane aspects of our current US governmental system, in 20 years, 70% of the US population will live in 15 states, represented by 30 Senators. The other 30% will live in States represented by 70 Senators. The Electoral College is one thing, but the Senate is where the ACTUAL will of the people is going to truly die. This was all a well and good system when there were 13 States, that, as I've pointed out before, had very little difference in population with one or two notable exceptions. But it's complete nonsense in modern America.
California has about 38 million people, represented by 2 Senators. The combined population of Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina and Alabama is also, roughly, 38 million people. 18 States, represented by 36 Senators. Now someone will say, "well, what about House Seats??" California is also underrepresented there. If you take Wyoming and it's one member for it's 563,000 people, and plug in the math for California, which has 66, they still come in 3 or 4 seats shy of what they SHOULD have based on their population. So the Senate is OVERWHELMINGLY undemocratic, and the House, which is supposedly the most representative of actual population, STILL favors small states. It's one thing to have the Senate be there to balance things out. It's quite another when things get this absurdly out of whack.
So the next time someone from a rural or red part of the country tells you they feel like they are being disenfranchised or ignored by the "liberal and coastal elites" you need to understand that "feelings" is all that they are, because there isn't a shred of statistical evidence to support that that's the case. The exact opposite is what is happening. The actual truth is that they are awarded astronomically more power than they deserve, to the point where it's almost comical. And they still complain. Talk about grading on a curve. This is the largest curve in human history.
And, in an update of Trump incompetence that actually matters, in the wake of yet another North Korea provocation: Trump still has not nominated an Ambassador to South Korea OR an Asst. Secretary for Nonproliferation. But he has put his son's wedding planner in charge of HUD in NY and NJ.
Thing is, lots of doctors chose their profession because it paid well, and not out of altruism. My dad's a doctor and is motivated by altruism, but many (or even most) of his colleagues are motivated by money. Yet they work hard and they save lives all the same. Just because they're in it for the money doesn't mean they're bad doctors.
Why would education be any different?
This much is a fact: people follow the money. In between the tiny fraction of people who are wholly altruistic and the tiny fraction of people who don't care about anyone but themselves and their own profit, the vast majority of humankind lies in the middle, and money is a large part of their motivation. Put it this way:
In your job, are you in for the money?
If not, would you switch jobs if you suffered a 50% pay cut?
What about 25%?
What about 10%?
If you have a family to provide for, would you even have a choice?
Let's be realistic. The world isn't just divided between selfish people who are only trying to make money and altruistic people who just want the best for everyone. People are a mix of both motives. My cousin-in-law forsook a career as a musician in favor of a career as an engineer. Does that mean he's only in it for the money? No, he chose the higher-paying career because he needed to care for his family.
Most importantly: If we assume that increasing teacher salaries would only corrupt the pool by attracting selfish people, it logically follows that we could purify the pool by cutting teacher salaries, so only the truly selfless people remained.
I think the difference is fair wages.
Should a teacher be able to make +$95,000 teaching an elementary class? Does that person, who reaches that max limit, really twice as efficient in teaching kids as a brand new teacher. If so, as a parent, would you feel cheated if your kid was placed in a class with a teacher fresh out of college?
If a teacher improves their credentials, but does the exact same job they did the year prior, should they get a pay raise due to the new credentials? Or should the raise be issued only if those credentials are used? (Here in Ontario it is the former)
But the United States isn't that far off when it comes to teacher salaries as well, depending on the state. It'd be interesting to take those numbers, colour code them, then compare the secondary education level of each state (one of the determining factors of how educated a population is). You'll probably find it looking like a bell curve with a happy medium somewhere in the $50, 000 range. Is that a fair, average wage for a teacher?
What else goes into educating a child besides the teacher? Can those tool (including educating the teachers themselves), which would make a teacher's job easier, be improved before offering teachers a pay raise?
That's what I am expecting. And I'm pretty sure he'll say something nice about my country, since polish government actually managed to seriously limited independency of judiciary, freedom of media and freedom of assembly, not to mention our inhuman, disgraceful politics towards refugees' crisis (tl;dr - UE, give us money and expect nothing in return!).
You can be sure he will do no research beforehand. He wings it on everything and gets his info from Fox News not advisers or research. Unless he has hotels there he will know nothing about Poland, he probably thinks it was recently part of Russia.
During his middle east trip he had no idea that Israel wasn't in the middle east for example and there's countless examples of him not having a clue about anything including how to pronounce the names of the world leaders he's standing next to (example calling President Erdogan of Turkey "Ergo Dan" (actually pronounced Erd-o-wahn) .
Seriously, what a shitbag. Let's imagine for one second what would happen if Malia Obama had sent out a tweet that was mocking over half the population of the country. This is something that isn't getting enough attention. Say what you want about Obama, and his policies, but he wasn't on Twitter on daily basis straight up insulting half the country. Why would anyone on the left show any respect for Trump or his family?? It takes two to tango. He makes no bones about the fact that he only cares about his supporters, and that the rest of us could as well die in a fire. There is an open hostility to citizens who are in opposition coming from this White House that is unprecedented. The President's son thinks liberals aren't worthy or qualified to celebrate the nation's birthday. It would be one thing if he thought it privately. It's quite another when he broadcasts it by megaphone.
And in perhaps the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, NPR today was tweeting out the Declaration of Independence, piece by piece. The reaction from conservative Twitter, oblivious to what was going on, was to start calling them out for fomenting political violence.
Seriously, what a shitbag. Let's imagine for one second what would happen if Malia Obama had sent out a tweet that was mocking over half the population of the country. This is something that isn't getting enough attention. Say what you want about Obama, and his policies, but he wasn't on Twitter on daily basis straight up insulting half the country. Why would anyone on the left show any respect for Trump or his family?? It takes two to tango. He makes no bones about the fact that he only cares about his supporters, and that the rest of us could as well die in a fire. There is an open hostility to citizens who are in opposition coming from this White House that is unprecedented. The President's son thinks liberals aren't worthy or qualified to celebrate the nation's birthday. It would be one thing if he thought it privately. It's quite another when he broadcasts it by megaphone.
And in perhaps the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, NPR today was tweeting out the Declaration of Independence, piece by piece. The reaction from conservative Twitter, oblivious to what was going on, was to start calling them out for fomenting political violence.
The other 'bag Eric, called liberals less than human. Liberals are Americans whose number is more than half the country.
Thing is, lots of doctors chose their profession because it paid well, and not out of altruism. My dad's a doctor and is motivated by altruism, but many (or even most) of his colleagues are motivated by money. Yet they work hard and they save lives all the same. Just because they're in it for the money doesn't mean they're bad doctors.
Why would education be any different?
This much is a fact: people follow the money. In between the tiny fraction of people who are wholly altruistic and the tiny fraction of people who don't care about anyone but themselves and their own profit, the vast majority of humankind lies in the middle, and money is a large part of their motivation. Put it this way:
In your job, are you in for the money?
If not, would you switch jobs if you suffered a 50% pay cut?
What about 25%?
What about 10%?
If you have a family to provide for, would you even have a choice?
Let's be realistic. The world isn't just divided between selfish people who are only trying to make money and altruistic people who just want the best for everyone. People are a mix of both motives. My cousin-in-law forsook a career as a musician in favor of a career as an engineer. Does that mean he's only in it for the money? No, he chose the higher-paying career because he needed to care for his family.
Most importantly: If we assume that increasing teacher salaries would only corrupt the pool by attracting selfish people, it logically follows that we could purify the pool by cutting teacher salaries, so only the truly selfless people remained.
I think the difference is fair wages.
Should a teacher be able to make +$95,000 teaching an elementary class? Does that person, who reaches that max limit, really twice as efficient in teaching kids as a brand new teacher. If so, as a parent, would you feel cheated if your kid was placed in a class with a teacher fresh out of college?
If a teacher improves their credentials, but does the exact same job they did the year prior, should they get a pay raise due to the new credentials? Or should the raise be issued only if those credentials are used? (Here in Ontario it is the former)
But the United States isn't that far off when it comes to teacher salaries as well, depending on the state. It'd be interesting to take those numbers, colour code them, then compare the secondary education level of each state (one of the determining factors of how educated a population is). You'll probably find it looking like a bell curve with a happy medium somewhere in the $50, 000 range. Is that a fair, average wage for a teacher?
What else goes into educating a child besides the teacher? Can those tool (including educating the teachers themselves), which would make a teacher's job easier, be improved before offering teachers a pay raise?
In the UK teachers' salaries have traditionally been quite low. However, in the past there where a number of intangible perks that helped to keep talented people in the profession: the freedom to indulge enthusiasms, academic, sporting or musical, good holidays, a free meal, etc.
That's all gone now, replaced by performance monitoring, paperwork, closed staff rooms and sold off games pitches.
Combined with that as been the public sector pay freeze, the effects of which have started to hit home over the last 2 years. It's not a matter of paying peanuts and getting moneys. It's a case of offering so few peanuts that even the monkeys aren't interested.
In one of the more insane aspects of our current US governmental system, in 20 years, 70% of the US population will live in 15 states, represented by 30 Senators. The other 30% will live in States represented by 70 Senators. The Electoral College is one thing, but the Senate is where the ACTUAL will of the people is going to truly die. This was all a well and good system when there were 13 States, that, as I've pointed out before, had very little difference in population with one or two notable exceptions. But it's complete nonsense in modern America.
California has about 38 million people, represented by 2 Senators. The combined population of Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina and Alabama is also, roughly, 38 million people. 18 States, represented by 36 Senators. Now someone will say, "well, what about House Seats??" California is also underrepresented there. If you take Wyoming and it's one member for it's 563,000 people, and plug in the math for California, which has 66, they still come in 3 or 4 seats shy of what they SHOULD have based on their population. So the Senate is OVERWHELMINGLY undemocratic, and the House, which is supposedly the most representative of actual population, STILL favors small states. It's one thing to have the Senate be there to balance things out. It's quite another when things get this absurdly out of whack.
So the next time someone from a rural or red part of the country tells you they feel like they are being disenfranchised or ignored by the "liberal and coastal elites" you need to understand that "feelings" is all that they are, because there isn't a shred of statistical evidence to support that that's the case. The exact opposite is what is happening. The actual truth is that they are awarded astronomically more power than they deserve, to the point where it's almost comical. And they still complain. Talk about grading on a curve. This is the largest curve in human history.
Too bad--you don't have to like the system we have but you do have to live with it. The alternative is to live in a country where California and New York are telling everyone else what laws they are going to have.
Just out of curiosity, you do realize that your level of aggravation might decrease if you would quit paying attention to any tweets coming from the current Administration, yes? I ignore them and that fact doesn't bother me at all. Incidentally, there is legislation being proposed to update the laws regarding Federal official communication so that social media posts must be archived for posterity. Right now, the laws do not apply to status updates or tweets, which is probably why he does that so often.
Just out of curiosity, you do realize that your level of aggravation might decrease if you would quit paying attention to any tweets coming from the current Administration, yes?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Ignoring tweets is not the same thing as "doing nothing"; tweets are neither laws nor executive orders and may thus be ignored since they are, themselves, nothing. Actual laws and executive orders, though, may--should--be opposed if they are purporting to do things which this nation ought not be doing, like launching "preemptive" strikes against people who are not already attacking us.
In one of the more insane aspects of our current US governmental system, in 20 years, 70% of the US population will live in 15 states, represented by 30 Senators. The other 30% will live in States represented by 70 Senators. The Electoral College is one thing, but the Senate is where the ACTUAL will of the people is going to truly die. This was all a well and good system when there were 13 States, that, as I've pointed out before, had very little difference in population with one or two notable exceptions. But it's complete nonsense in modern America.
California has about 38 million people, represented by 2 Senators. The combined population of Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina and Alabama is also, roughly, 38 million people. 18 States, represented by 36 Senators. Now someone will say, "well, what about House Seats??" California is also underrepresented there. If you take Wyoming and it's one member for it's 563,000 people, and plug in the math for California, which has 66, they still come in 3 or 4 seats shy of what they SHOULD have based on their population. So the Senate is OVERWHELMINGLY undemocratic, and the House, which is supposedly the most representative of actual population, STILL favors small states. It's one thing to have the Senate be there to balance things out. It's quite another when things get this absurdly out of whack.
So the next time someone from a rural or red part of the country tells you they feel like they are being disenfranchised or ignored by the "liberal and coastal elites" you need to understand that "feelings" is all that they are, because there isn't a shred of statistical evidence to support that that's the case. The exact opposite is what is happening. The actual truth is that they are awarded astronomically more power than they deserve, to the point where it's almost comical. And they still complain. Talk about grading on a curve. This is the largest curve in human history.
Too bad--you don't have to like the system we have but you do have to live with it. The alternative is to live in a country where California and New York are telling everyone else what laws they are going to have.
Just out of curiosity, you do realize that your level of aggravation might decrease if you would quit paying attention to any tweets coming from the current Administration, yes? I ignore them and that fact doesn't bother me at all. Incidentally, there is legislation being proposed to update the laws regarding Federal official communication so that social media posts must be archived for posterity. Right now, the laws do not apply to status updates or tweets, which is probably why he does that so often.
And the reality we have now is that people in rural states essentially have enhanced citizenship and and tell everyone in urban centers how things are going to be. It's always going to be one or the other. The difference is that one way is based on actual population and the other one is just made-up.
Comments
1. This thread is for discussing politics, not typos.
2. No one is required to respond to any demands to retract or revise statements. Arguments and counter-arguments can stand on their own merits; we're not here to order each other to "Admit you're wrong."
Though I personally strive to have grammatically correct and well-formatted posts, it's clear alot of people don't place a high priority on it, including many I agree with. Which is fine. I'm sure many people read mine and think "why does he use so many damn commas" or "he uses caps lock to accentuate words WAY too often" (see what I did there). Anyway......
Which does not take away from his point that by and large, Trump supporters are the less-educated. Including Trump himself.
What matters is recruitment. Schools don't need to recruit weak candidates in the first place - unless there are no strong candidates. Which is what happens if pay and conditions are not good enough to attract strong candidates to the profession.
But the British spelling is the older version (reflecting the influence of Norman-French). There was a deliberate attempt to simplify US spellings in the early 20th century (1906 simplified spellings board).
That may be the most accurate description of Trump's presidency I've seen. Well done, @jjstraka34.
Well, the guy is coming to Poland and my colleague managed to get me tickets to the show on Thursday, so I'm going to check if his hands are really that small.
That's what I am expecting.
And I'm pretty sure he'll say something nice about my country, since polish government actually managed to seriously limited independency of judiciary, freedom of media and freedom of assembly, not to mention our inhuman, disgraceful politics towards refugees' crisis (tl;dr - UE, give us money and expect nothing in return!).
California has about 38 million people, represented by 2 Senators. The combined population of Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina and Alabama is also, roughly, 38 million people. 18 States, represented by 36 Senators. Now someone will say, "well, what about House Seats??" California is also underrepresented there. If you take Wyoming and it's one member for it's 563,000 people, and plug in the math for California, which has 66, they still come in 3 or 4 seats shy of what they SHOULD have based on their population. So the Senate is OVERWHELMINGLY undemocratic, and the House, which is supposedly the most representative of actual population, STILL favors small states. It's one thing to have the Senate be there to balance things out. It's quite another when things get this absurdly out of whack.
So the next time someone from a rural or red part of the country tells you they feel like they are being disenfranchised or ignored by the "liberal and coastal elites" you need to understand that "feelings" is all that they are, because there isn't a shred of statistical evidence to support that that's the case. The exact opposite is what is happening. The actual truth is that they are awarded astronomically more power than they deserve, to the point where it's almost comical. And they still complain. Talk about grading on a curve. This is the largest curve in human history.
Should a teacher be able to make +$95,000 teaching an elementary class? Does that person, who reaches that max limit, really twice as efficient in teaching kids as a brand new teacher. If so, as a parent, would you feel cheated if your kid was placed in a class with a teacher fresh out of college?
If a teacher improves their credentials, but does the exact same job they did the year prior, should they get a pay raise due to the new credentials? Or should the raise be issued only if those credentials are used? (Here in Ontario it is the former)
You also have to remember, I am from Ontario, where educators are among the top paid world wide (although, those numbers maybe skewed due to Northern Canada's salaries).
But the United States isn't that far off when it comes to teacher salaries as well, depending on the state. It'd be interesting to take those numbers, colour code them, then compare the secondary education level of each state (one of the determining factors of how educated a population is). You'll probably find it looking like a bell curve with a happy medium somewhere in the $50, 000 range. Is that a fair, average wage for a teacher?
What else goes into educating a child besides the teacher? Can those tool (including educating the teachers themselves), which would make a teacher's job easier, be improved before offering teachers a pay raise?
During his middle east trip he had no idea that Israel wasn't in the middle east for example and there's countless examples of him not having a clue about anything including how to pronounce the names of the world leaders he's standing next to (example calling President Erdogan of Turkey "Ergo Dan" (actually pronounced Erd-o-wahn) .
Seriously, what a shitbag. Let's imagine for one second what would happen if Malia Obama had sent out a tweet that was mocking over half the population of the country. This is something that isn't getting enough attention. Say what you want about Obama, and his policies, but he wasn't on Twitter on daily basis straight up insulting half the country. Why would anyone on the left show any respect for Trump or his family?? It takes two to tango. He makes no bones about the fact that he only cares about his supporters, and that the rest of us could as well die in a fire. There is an open hostility to citizens who are in opposition coming from this White House that is unprecedented. The President's son thinks liberals aren't worthy or qualified to celebrate the nation's birthday. It would be one thing if he thought it privately. It's quite another when he broadcasts it by megaphone.
And in perhaps the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, NPR today was tweeting out the Declaration of Independence, piece by piece. The reaction from conservative Twitter, oblivious to what was going on, was to start calling them out for fomenting political violence.
good times.
That's all gone now, replaced by performance monitoring, paperwork, closed staff rooms and sold off games pitches.
Combined with that as been the public sector pay freeze, the effects of which have started to hit home over the last 2 years. It's not a matter of paying peanuts and getting moneys. It's a case of offering so few peanuts that even the monkeys aren't interested.
Just out of curiosity, you do realize that your level of aggravation might decrease if you would quit paying attention to any tweets coming from the current Administration, yes? I ignore them and that fact doesn't bother me at all. Incidentally, there is legislation being proposed to update the laws regarding Federal official communication so that social media posts must be archived for posterity. Right now, the laws do not apply to status updates or tweets, which is probably why he does that so often.