> >For one thing, at university, they call them "professors" for a >reason. To profess is merely to affirm a belief. At a post-secondary >level, the assumption is that students are at a level that they can >research the professors affirmations and form their own opinions as to >whether the professor is right or wrong. > >Up to the end of high school we have "teachers". To teach is to >impart knowledge. The distinction between teachers and professors is >an important one. >
Which is why higher education (at least of this type is a sad joke). People pay for someone to impart rubbish to them simply so they can develop the skill of detecting rubbish vs. truth and so they can then form an opinion??? Don't make me laugh. If somepne around the age of 19 or 20 hasn't developed a healthy dose of comon sense, I guess they deserve to be taken by this kind of charlatan and flush their money down thr drain. >This guy in Wisconson may (or may not be) a nutbar, but I defend his >right to lecture whatever he wants. Moreso, I defend his university's >right to pay him and have him lecture there. The fact that tax >dollars go to that university does not give the taxpayers or the >legislature the right to demand that the guy gets sacked. At most, it >gives them the right to pull those tax dollars out of the place, but >then 90% or more of the students will be harmed due to (what's >portrayed as) the rantings of this loonie. > >The other thing, of course, is that perhaps, just perhaps, if someone >actually sat in on this guy's course and read the materials, he might >have a few accurate things to say, and he might have evidence to back >up his assertions. Stranger things have happened. It's hard to judge >based on a newspaper article - and a biased one, at that. I suppose he also knows more than the people who spent 1000's of man hours investigating the cause of the collapse, the engineering, the structural fatigue, etc., etc. > >I've got to admit, I always wondered how it is that the Pentagon isn't >one of the best defended buildings in the world, with all the latest >detection devices and radar and defences. I've always thought it a >bit strange that something as complex and difficult to pilot as a >modern airliner, flown by a rank amateur, managed to get through those >defences and score a direct hit. I'm not saying this guy's right, but >it makes one wonder. It's hard to both detect and prevent something moving at 400 mph that's just a few miles away from hitting you. It's akin to cathing a bullet in your teeth. You and Aaron and the rest of the world didn't watch two fully fueled jetliners crash into the buildings on TV? Tom C. > >cheers, >frank > > >-- >"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
