State of the Union 2006

283 comments on “State of the Union 2006”

1. Den –
   what is the public benefit of having a private toll road run parallel to an existing highway?

   Presumably, faster travel times compared to going through the much-crowded I-25 corridor which goes right through Denver.

   In the end, however, nothing changes in the long run: with the way the Denver Metro is expanding, in 25 years any such parallel road to the east will also become crowded as development encroaches upon the road.

   Bobb –
   You either maintain a road in servicable condition, or you don’t.

   And we have far too many roads to maintain. But handing over the rights to build more roads to private companies doesn’t solve anything either – alternative methods of transportation in this country is what’s really needed.

   And in that case, the Denver Metro is unfortunately very much behind the times. Still, we just approved a major construction project that will add tons of miles of light rail to the Metro, but it won’t be complete for like 10-15 years. 😛

   Luigi –
   As far as those who don’t pay their taxes, are you suggesting the discussion of the educational system should be geared towards tax evaders? And how many of those people don’t pay their taxes?

   Well, I guess it’s my turn to saying you’re taking my comments out of context, and thus you’re lying, because I said nothing about tax evaders.

   It’s very simple, Luigi: your whole argument is based on a simple, straightfoward set of circumstances that you think will cover everybody.

   That isn’t reality.

2. rrlane: How many unemployed automotive workers are there now? Are they tax evaders now?
   Luigi Novi: I don’t see what being unemployed has to do with tax evasion. Most people have taxes taken out of their paychecks automatically. The unemployed aren’t tax evaders, because at the time of their unemployment, they’re not being paid a wage in the first place.

   Of course they aren’t. It was a rhetorical question. What I was trying to point out is there are a vast number of people who don’t pay taxes who aren’t tax evaders. Public education means that these people don’t have to choose between their children going to school and their family eating.

   rrlane: Public schools don’t have that option. We are mandated to make it our problem. That is the crux of the argument I am making. A private school can say to a parent, “This is your problem, not ours.” I have been in parent/teacher meetings where the exact same thing is said to the teachers BY THE PARENTS.
   Luigi Novi: Same answer as above: This is one reason why the system needs changing.

   Where we agree-the system needs changing.

   Where your argument falls flat–thinking that a privatized system will have one whit of effect on the parents and children I describe above. And you are fooling yourself if you think that you can simply say, “tough cookies, lady–you and your brat are on your own.”

   I’m really sorry, but nothing you have said has made one tiny dent in that armor of that beast.

   rrlane: Also, I’m not wealthy by any stretch, but my wife and I own a nice, comfy home. We are paying approximately $2,200/year in property taxes, which is where the school taxes are taken from here in Pennsylvania. Now, even if we assume that all of that goes to support education (for the record, it doesn’t), I have two kids at home now. Where do I find a good private school with tuition of $1100/year per kid?

   Luigi Novi: If you read my February 5, 2006 10:38pm post, you wouldn’t have to ask that question, nor would I have to respond yet one more time that schools have succeeded who have not had to spend that much on each kid.

   Looking over that particular post, the only numbers I see you mention:

   Theresa Middleton, who spends only $3,000 per child in her South Carolina school.

   $3,000/year is a bit more than $1,100/year. Would a private school in my town be willing to work at a $1,900/year loss per kid?

   If you mentioned other figures in that post, I may have missed them.

3. After this post, I’m done with this thread (for real this time) because we are all beginning to repeat ourselves, and I don’t see the point of finding yet another way to type the same thing again. To sum up my points:

   Privatization does not take into account those who cannot pay the tuition needed, and would lead to a class of people for whom a basic education is a pipe dream.

   Arguments stating that private education is superior to public education fail to factor in the CRUCIAL fact that, despite any Clintonian semantic juggling, private schools are able to select what students attend their institutions, whereas public schools cannot, making any comparisons between the two using test scores, graduation rates or dámņ near any other objective criteria ridiculous.

   I have truly enjoyed this give and take, and wish to thank all those who participated. This is the first time I’ve joined in the discussion on this particular site and it has been memorable.

4. Craig: Well, I guess it’s my turn to saying you’re taking my comments out of context, and thus you’re lying, because I said nothing about tax evaders.
   Luigi Novi: The difference between your lie and the fictional one you attribute to me, of course, is that you quoted me selectively, but deliberately not including surrounding text that provided a different meaning from one provided by your chopped-up version of it. Again, I pointed this out to you, and you still haven’t directly addressed it. You merely denied the lie, without offering any opinion on the how the quote looked as you presented it.

   By contrast, if I misunderstood what you were referring to, that is easily attributable to the normal miscommunication that sometimes happens in online discussions such as this, and has nothing to do with “taking things out of context.” In this latter instance, there was no additional material that I chopped out of your quote that would’ve given it a different meaning.

   Of course, you cannot comprehend or admit the simple distinction between these two things, and thus, in the true spirit of relativism, you lump them together as the same intellectual dishonesty.

   But then again, you would.

   Craig: It’s very simple, Luigi: your whole argument is based on a simple, straightfoward set of circumstances that you think will cover everybody.
   Luigi Novi: Despite the numerous instances I listed in which I made clear that a different system would be generally better, and not absolutely so.

   But if you can point me to the passage where I said that any system would cover “everybody”, please feel free to do so. I feel I’ve already pointed sufficiently to the numerous instances in which I stated my suggestion as a generalization.

   rrlane: Of course they aren’t. It was a rhetorical question. What I was trying to point out is there are a vast number of people who don’t pay taxes who aren’t tax evaders. Public education means that these people don’t have to choose between their children going to school and their family eating.
   Luigi Novi: I do not believe that under a change of the system, that parents would have to make that choice. I pointed out before how schools do not have to spend that much on kids, but even if parents couldn’t afford that, you could keep some public schools open for those ones if you wanted. But we could still give a far greater modicum of choice for the general public.

   rrlane: Where we agree-the system needs changing. Where your argument falls flat–thinking that a privatized system will have one whit of effect on the parents and children I describe above. And you are fooling yourself if you think that you can simply say, “tough cookies, lady–you and your brat are on your own.”
   Luigi Novi: And what about those for whom it would help? Shouldn’t those people have a greater choice, if they can afford it. Even if the taxes parents pay isn’t enough to send all their kids to a given school, what about those for whom it is?

   rrlane: Looking over that particular post, the only numbers I see you mention: “Theresa Middleton, who spends only $3,000 per child in her South Carolina school.” $3,000/year is a bit more than $1,100/year. Would a private school in my town be willing to work at a $1,900/year loss per kid?
   Luigi Novi: I apologize; I misread the $1100 you gave. Mea culpa. In answer to your original question, see above.

5. My own summing up:

   Parents should be allowed to take the tax money they pay that’s earmarked for education, and spend it where they want. Whether this means vouchers, attaching the taxes to the child, or more privatization, I believe that this would generally lead to a better system.

   Thos who cannot pay for private schools can continue going to public ones if they wish.

   Under privatization, schools do not choose their students. It is the students (or their parents) who choose the schools. Discriminating against students for arbitrary reasons would be counterproductive to the schools, would lead to bad publicity, and it has not been proven that this scenario would come to pass. Schools exist in this country, and school systems exist abroad, that suggest that this scenario is little more than a Scare Tactic. Comparison between private and public is neither necessary for any reason, nor relevant to the issue of greater privatization, and therefore, in my opinion, moot.

   I’ve enjoyed this discussion as well.

6. Shouldn’t those people have a greater choice, if they can afford it.

   And apparently anybody that cannot afford it just gets left behind.

   I’m sure there’s some wonderful data that can be inferred regarding cost vs quality, numbers, and so forth of public colleges/universities vs private.

   Flat out: private colleges are more expensive. And the only thing that will happen if there were fewer public colleges? Well, it wouldn’t be more students going to private college, it would just be fewer people going to college.

   What you propose, Luigi, is making supposedly better education the province of the more fortunate and less accessible for the poor.

   Thankfully, Bush & Kerry prove that an Ivy League education really doesn’t mean a whole helluva alot anyways.

   Of course, you cannot comprehend or admit the simple distinction between these two things, and thus, in the true spirit of relativism, you lump them together as the same intellectual dishonesty.

   Uhuh, and I’m the one that supposedly throws out lines of complete bs as a way of avoiding the topic of conversation.

   Like I’ve said, Luigi, quit accusing people of lying when you’ve done the same.

7. Craig: And apparently anybody that cannot afford it just gets left behind.
   Luigi Novi: I already answered this above when I wrote:

   I pointed out before how schools do not have to spend that much on kids, but even if parents couldn’t afford that, you could keep some public schools open for those ones if you wanted.

   Pretend all you want not to have read it. I’ll just point it out, so we can again see how you deliberate ignore the content of my posts.

   Craig: Flat out: private colleges are more expensive. And the only thing that will happen if there were fewer public colleges? Well, it wouldn’t be more students going to private college, it would just be fewer people going to college
   Luigi Novi: I never said anything about colleges, nor did I ever suggest making “fewer public colleges.” There are plenty of private universities that students can choose between them, or go to public colleges if they can’t afford it. The same can occur with the lower grade levels.

   Craig: What you propose, Luigi, is making supposedly better education the province of the more fortunate and less accessible for the poor.
   Luigi Novi: No, I just propose giving parents the freedom of choice.

   Luigi Novi: Of course, you cannot comprehend or admit the simple distinction between these two things, and thus, in the true spirit of relativism, you lump them together as the same intellectual dishonesty.

   Craig: Uhuh, and I’m the one that supposedly throws out lines of complete bs as a way of avoiding the topic of conversation.
   Luigi Novi: And yet, you don’t seem to be able to actually to refute the distinction I pointed out, preferring instead to restrict yourself to vague, indirect denials and rhetoric.

   Craig: Like I’ve said, Luigi, quit accusing people of lying when you’ve done the same.
   Luigi Novi: When you can point out where I’ve “lied,” using the same fidelity to detail, logic and internally consistency that I have in doing so with you, you let me know, okay? 🙂

8. No, I just propose giving parents the freedom of choice.

   No, you are allowing a segment of the population to get bent over.

   Who’s going to pay for the public education of the remainder of the population that cannot afford to send their kids to private schools? Or the group who is not allowed in, for whatever reason?

   You’ve already taken the funding away from public education, along with the facilities, teachers, and so forth.

   Yet you maintain that there will still be public schools for “everybody else”.

   Have you paid attention to what has happened to public universities lately? Tuition costs are skyrocketing, meaning more people either have to borrow money to go (and we all know how great it is to be in debt), or aren’t going at all.

   You seem to be going with “well, youre less fortunate, now suffere further because of it” as your reason behind this.

   When you can point out where I’ve “lied,” using the same fidelity to detail, logic and internally consistency that I have in doing so with you, you let me know, okay? 🙂

   Your Honor, I submit to you the “Luigi Defense”:

   Accuse somebody of lying and using logical fallacies, and then when they do the same, simply dismiss them out of hand, while never admitting to your own lies and logical fallacies.

9. Craig: Yet you maintain that there will still be public schools for “everybody else”.
   Luigi Novi: Yeah. Why wouldn’t there be, if that’s how we enact the change?

   Craig: Have you paid attention to what has happened to public universities lately? Tuition costs are skyrocketing, meaning more people either have to borrow money to go (and we all know how great it is to be in debt), or aren’t going at all.
   Luigi Novi: In other words……..inflation?

   Luigi Novi: When you can point out where I’ve “lied,” using the same fidelity to detail, logic and internally consistency that I have in doing so with you, you let me know, okay? 🙂

   Craig: Your Honor, I submit to you the “Luigi Defense”: Accuse somebody of lying and using logical fallacies, and then when they do the same, simply dismiss them out of hand, while never admitting to your own lies and logical fallacies.
   Luigi Novi: This does not answer the above challenge at all. It merely makes the accusation, without ever illustrating it any detail with examples or reason.

   Yes, I accused you of lying and employing logical fallacies. Rather than refute any one of those instances on the basis of the assertions’ merit, you simply denied them, without any elaboration.

   By contrast, I’ve responded to each one of your statements, including your irrational and unfounded accusations, explaining why they don’t hold up, which is pretty much the opposite of “dismissing them out of hand,” which actually describes your responses exactly. What you hypocritically accuse me of is actually descriptive of your own behavior. The reasoning I use to argue both the former and the latter is why my accusations hold up, and yours do not. You say these things, but you do not back them up, even when I challenge you to do so. I’ve given you numerous opportunities to refute the logic of these many instances, and you’ve consistently failed to do so, preferring to merely repeat the accusation/denial, without any elaboration.

   But again, when you can point out any lies or logical fallacies on my part, and when you can directly answer my various illustrations of the same on your part, using the same detail, let me know.

10. Luigi Novi: Okay. Society isn’t supposed to do anything, because it’s neither its problem, or its fault. If a child “absolutely refuses to learn,” then that’s the kid’s, fault, and/or its parents. Unless you envision Big Brother government controlling and overseeing everything, it is not society’s job to handle private familial problems.

    No. My point is, once you declare these kids to be “uneducatable” and dump them on the street, they are going to be somebody’s problem. Without even a high school education, they will be virtually unemployable in the modern economy. That means they will most likely end living a life of crime and/or drug abuse. Now, granted, a lot of them are ending up that way anyhow, but at least the intent of NCLB is stem that tide.

    If you think it’s perfectly acceptable to just dump them in the streets and wait for the penal system to pick them, please just say so.

    Luigi Novi: The evidence would suggest otherwise. A private company rented the empty space in the middle of the 91 Freeway in California, and built a toll road that functioned better than the public one. It takes about 45 minutes off the rush hour commute, and there are no toll booths, because scanners in the scaffolding bill people electronically as cars pass by, so that the cars don’t even have to slow down. If you’re car breaks down, they see you with their cameras, and will come to help you. If you run out gas, they’ll give you a free gallon. Seeing footage of the private road next to the public road is dramatic.

    That’s one example by itself. My original point, though, was no one envisions dozens of competing privat toll roads all going in the same direction. A few isolated roads contracted to private entities is not the same thing.

    Luigi Novi: Just how many kids do you think are going to be so unruly, that in rrlane’s words, they “absolutely refuse to learn”? Why is it that discussion of a major system is being opposed on the grounds of what is certainly an extreme minority? This is akin to those who oppose gay marriage because supposedly, two male friends who are not gay and not in love can just get married in order to pull off an insurance scheme, or something. My question for both situations is, “Is this truly representational of the typical person or persons for whom the idea is designed?”
    

    Pile on the strawmen! First of all, I already said that “absolutely refuses to learn” does not necessarily equal “unruly” and gave two examples of how it wouldn’t be. Please debate honestly.

    Second, since the entire issue of how to reform education does revolve around what to with those at risk, this is not an example of the “extreme minority” but those for whom the reform is actually needed.

    People are often frightened of change, even when the evidence suggests the change would be for the better. Opponents of change will often employ the Scary Scenario to explain why the change would be bad, and this question about all these delinquents who would “absolutely refuse to learn,” and

    Not all what I’m saying. I’m asking for details on how you would deal with certain situations. If again, you feel this system is the fix for all kids or the “extreme majority” (sic), then tell us how you would deal with the bumps in the road.

    In my opinion, if you allowed parents’ taxes to be attached to their kids, or allowed vouchers, or privatization, then there wouldn’t be any large number kids as you describe. I believe that’s just Chicken Little paranoia.

    You may believe that. But I want details and numbers to support it, not just the “privatization is better” mantra.

    Luigi Novi: Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?

    The ones that are cited in studies that show private schools do better do. Yes, there are private special needs schools, but they aren’t being compared to public schools. Most of these comparisons are of private schools that cater to kids w/o special needs to public schools that are mandated to accomodate everyone. That’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

    Luigi Novi: Again, I don’t know how or why it has this effect on you, but let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that these passages have this effect on you. Doesn’t it stand to reason that all the previous instances where I stated otherwise would have the effect of the opposite impression? How do you explain this, in light of these previous comments by me:
    

    Look, you can pull all of the comments out of context you want, but the fact that more than one person has had this impression towards your statement should be a sign that maybe your word choice is not conveying the point you want to make.

    As far as being an abuse of eminent domain, that occurs even now, with things like Ikea stores that are not akin to roads or schools. It’s not something specific to private roads, which already exist in the U.S. now, and are much better than public ones.

    Which is wrong, but that’s a completely separate debate.

    Luigi Novi: One more time: Then how do you explain the fact that it works abroad? There, the schools don’t “pick” the students. They compete by offering more and better things so that the students’ families pick them.

    You’re mixing arguments. I was talking about how private schools pick and choose students in the US today, not how the schools operate in other countries in some future scenario.

    Now, do these other countries have a mandate that these kids have to go to one school or another? Is there a “default” school that those with learning disabilities or other problems (and no, we’re not talking just about kids who are “unruly”) are sent? Or do the schools, as you have plainly advocated, have to right to simply kick the problem kids out and let them be someone else’s problem?

    And no, rrlane and I are two different people. I teach at the community college level.

11. I think every Bush speech should be taken off the record and put into a brown paperbag in the bathroom.

12. Luigi Novi: Okay. Society isn’t supposed to do anything, because it’s neither its problem, or its fault. If a child “absolutely refuses to learn,” then that’s the kid’s, fault, and/or its parents. Unless you envision Big Brother government controlling and overseeing everything, it is not society’s job to handle private familial problems.

    Den: No. My point is, once you declare these kids to be “uneducatable” and dump them on the street, they are going to be somebody’s problem. Without even a high school education, they will be virtually unemployable in the modern economy. That means they will most likely end living a life of crime and/or drug abuse. Now, granted, a lot of them are ending up that way anyhow, but at least the intent of NCLB is stem that tide.
    Luigi Novi: Intent does not equal results. The government always claims good intentions when enacting supposedly “new” programs and approaches to problems, whether it’s the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, public housing, etc. But there’s no reason to think that just because that’s the intent of NCLB that it will be the result. The only intent that will keep a kid off the streets and out of a life of crime will be if it’s the intent of the kid and his parents.

    Den: If you think it’s perfectly acceptable to just dump them in the streets and wait for the penal system to pick them, please just say so.
    Luigi Novi: I think it’s acceptable to own up to one’s own sense of personal responsibility, both for oneself, and for one’s family, instead of assuming a system where it’s the government’s job, especially since most things that the government tries to police, regulate or run that’s outside of the narrow purview set forth by the Founding Fathers often is done poorly.

    Den: That’s one example by itself. My original point, though, was no one envisions dozens of competing privat toll roads all going in the same direction. A few isolated roads contracted to private entities is not the same thing.
    Luigi Novi: Who says there have to be “dozens”? The range of competition is obviously limited by logistics and practicality. You can only have as many brands of peanut butter or bread as the supermarket has shelf space to give to them. Similarly, the amount of different roads is limited by how many roads there are, and/or how much space there is to build more. The fact that the private road functions so much better than the government one illustrates why it does things better than the government. You also seem to have missed this statement I previously made:

    yes, people can choose a public road, and/or the contract can be put back up for bid, and that’s where the competition is.

    Den: Pile on the strawmen! First of all, I already said that “absolutely refuses to learn” does not necessarily equal “unruly” and gave two examples of how it wouldn’t be. Please debate honestly. Second, since the entire issue of how to reform education does revolve around what to with those at risk, this is not an example of the “extreme minority” but those for whom the reform is actually needed.
    Luigi Novi: There is no Straw Man. I have not distorted your words nor your argument, but merely believe that this is what is implied or entailed by your suggestion, even if not intentionally on your part. “Absolutely refuses to learn” is most certainly a description of a rebellious delinquent. Not someone who is “needed.” “Unable to learn” or “having difficulty learning” is not the same thing as “absolutely refuses to learn.” In my opinion, the entire issue does not revolve around the “absolutely refuses to learn” demographic. “Refuse” indicates a clear choice, not difficulty, impairment, neglect, or lack of aptitude. As for those who do fall into that latter category of needing help, I provided examples above, such as the one about Dorian Cane. Please read it.

    Den: Not all what I’m saying. I’m asking for details on how you would deal with certain situations. If again, you feel this system is the fix for all kids or the “extreme majority” (sic), then tell us how you would deal with the bumps in the road.
    Luigi Novi: See last part of above answer.

    Den: You may believe that. But I want details and numbers to support it, not just the “privatization is better” mantra.
    Luigi Novi: One more time for the cheap seats: See my prior examples of how such those methods are successfully employed by other countries. That’s your data. By contrast, where’s your data that my suggestions will lead to significant numbers of kids in the streets leading lives of crime?

    Den: The ones that are cited in studies that show private schools do better do. Yes, there are private special needs schools, but they aren’t being compared to public schools. Most of these comparisons are of private schools that cater to kids w/o special needs to public schools that are mandated to accomodate everyone. That’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.
    Luigi Novi: I’m not sure if I’m following here. What exactly is the relevance of a comparison? Compare for what purposes? Aren’t results that count? If any of my suggestions are implemented, then why would anyone compare private schools to public ones? (I apologize for not understanding.)

    Den: Look, you can pull all of the comments out of context you want…
    Luigi Novi: Now I’m pulling my own comments out of context? Wow, how exactly does one do that? And if I pulled them out of context, then please explain how they are out of context. You didn’t specify this. It seems to me, from looking at all those passages, that their meaning was fairly clear. Are you saying that there was a different context in which they were originally made, and that therefore, they had a different meaning? What meaning was that?

    Den: …but the fact that more than one person has had this impression towards your statement should be a sign that maybe your word choice is not conveying the point you want to make.
    Luigi Novi: Wrong.

    First of all, the fact more than one person is having this reaction, does not, and of itself, meaning that the miscommunication lies with my choice of words. The number of people have difficulty understanding me may theoretically be one thing to consider and it is certainly possible, but it is not the sole barometer by which to measure this.

    Moreover, at least two people, Bill Mulligan and Jerome Maida, have praised my posts, with neither of them chiming in to inform me that they got this “impression” as well. All other posters have this point abandoned the thread, or simply not been interested enough to chime in. So using your numerical logic, we have three people who get what I’m saying, and three who don’t. What should we make of this?

    Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes it is wrong. The way to tell which it is is with the reasoning you use to explain why the context is different.

    After the initial days of the thread waned, the thread only continued with about four people speaking about the education issue (you, me, Craig and rrlane), three of which are opposed to my position (or aspects of it), and since it is an issue about which people are sensitive, it is possible that these three are simply not able to respond as objectively as possible. Now mind you, I’m not saying that this is automatically the case just because you three feel passionately about this subject (by virtue of the same reasoning). But let’s look at the facts: Craig regularly and deliberately ignores the substance of my responses that clearly refute his statements. Rrlane admitted that some of her behavior did not meet the ideal level of civil, intelligent discourse, and was very gracious and honorable in apologizing about it. Numerous times I pointed out that they (and you) ignored things that I have said. It seemed, therefore, that the problem was that Craig and (initially) rrlane were simply poor debaters who did not want to even consider my arguments, or at least were employing less-than-civil and intelligent argumentation tactics, which I have pointed to time and time again.

    If my numerous passages in which I stated clearly that the changes I propose would be generally better did not suffice to make this point clearly enough, then why did Craig and rrlane and you not respond to them at all? You said these comments were made in a different context, but not only did you not elaborate on what this “different context” was, you ignore the fact that Craig, for example, didn’t even acknowledge the comments. What kind of context would there be that would preclude you from explaining why those comments didn’t convey what I intended? This strongly suggests not that the context in which I originally said these things was different, but that they were simply being ignored. If not, then why did they continue to ignore them every time I pointed out that I had said them over and over, before I ultimately made a list of them? Can you answer that?

    Sorry Den, but as I stated to Craig, Bold Statements not backed up with any elaboration do nothing to prove your point. It is clear that you simply believed about my position what you wanted to believe, and when I present clear evidence that refutes it, the only thing you can come up with is some theoretical argument about context that you refuse to back up.

    Luigi Novi: As far as being an abuse of eminent domain, that occurs even now, with things like Ikea stores that are not akin to roads or schools. It’s not something specific to private roads, which already exist in the U.S. now, and are much better than public ones.

    Den: Which is wrong, but that’s a completely separate debate.
    Luigi Novi: In what way is it wrong? I showed that private roads are better than public ones. You claimed that my example wasn’t sufficient by itself (and ignored where I showed competition in the scenario), but you didn’t show how it was “wrong.”

    Luigi Novi: One more time: Then how do you explain the fact that it works abroad? There, the schools don’t “pick” the students. They compete by offering more and better things so that the students’ families pick them.

    Den: You’re mixing arguments. I was talking about how private schools pick and choose students in the US today, not how the schools operate in other countries in some future scenario.
    Luigi Novi: There is no “mixed” argument. Those schools in other countries do not operate that way in a “future scenario.” They operate that way now, and successfully so, leaving our best public school students in the dust. If we operated the same way, we’d do better.

    Den: Now, do these other countries have a mandate that these kids have to go to one school or another?
    Luigi Novi: I answered that point directly in my February 5, 2006 10:37pm post. Thanks for once again proving that you’re not really reading my posts before responding to them. So much for me not arguing “honestly.”

    Is there a “default” school that those with learning disabilities or other problems (and no, we’re not talking just about kids who are “unruly”) are sent? Or do the schools, as you have plainly advocated, have to right to simply kick the problem kids out and let them be someone else’s problem?
    Luigi Novi:

    Den: And no, rrlane and I are two different people. I teach at the community college level.
    Luigi Novi: And where does she teach? How do you know she doesn’t also teach at the community college level? Do you know each other? (I find it interesting that not only are you both Pennsylvania teachers, but you both used an accusation of a Straw Man argument against me, and that in both cases, it was made incorrectly, as well as the fact that both of you got into a quibble with me as to the scale involved in the word “epidemic.”)

    And if you’re two different people, then I’d be very curious to ask her:

    A. Why she indicated that a point that had originally been made by you had somehow been made by her.

    B. Why she didn’t respond to this point in her 2/10, 9:27pm post, after I had brought it up in my 2/10, 8:27pm post.

13. Ack. I forgot to answer the point about disabled students in foreign countries. I do not know what precisely happens in such countries, but I would imagine that those students have schools to go to that address their needs. If you have any information or insight into this, I would welcome it. I doubt that in this day and age, that such kids in Europe get “kicked out” to be someone’s else’s problem.

14. Luigi Novi wrote: “So using your numerical logic, we have three people who get what I’m saying, and three who don’t.”

    Luigi,

    For what it’s worth, I also get what you’re saying. Your arguments are well-reasoned, as is the defense of said arguments. That’s one thing I like reading about your posts. You will not only state your position on an issue, but also back it up with _why_ you feel that position is correct- building on a logical argument. If A, then B, then C, etc.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean your arguments are always right- just that they’re based on careful thought, and not the “just because” position, which argues that “just because” is all the explanation that’s needed.

    On another website, I participate in weekly discussions analysing episodes of an old TV show to which the website is dedicated. One particular episode generated a great deal of debate between myself and another over whether particular “rules” of that “universe” applied throughout the series. I maintain that they do, while my fellow poster maintains they only applied in special circumstances that existed in an episode which preceded the one under discussion. We each argued our respective cases, and cited certain dialogue and/or events from the run of the series as “evidence” supporting our respective positions.

    We respect each other’s positions, but we each believe the evidence supports our argument. The truth, however, is that until or unless the man who wrote the episode in which this “rule” was first introduced steps forward and says definitively whether it was a one-time deal or not, we won’t _know_ for certain which of us is right.

    But at least we had a nice, friendly debate based on reasoning and logic, with neither of us subscribing to the “just because” school of debate.

    For the record, however, I think your comments with regard to changing the education system make sense. The system _does_ need changes and improvements.

    Rick

    P.S. on a completly unrelated matter, it’s now Feb. 14. And that can mean only one thing.

    Happy Jack Benny’s birthday, everyone.

15. Thanks, Rick.

    Interestingly, the site you mention sounds a lot like http://www.nitcentral, which began as a nitpicking/discussion board site devoted to the various Star Treks, and which by now has topics from Politics to Religion, Humor, Novels, Movies, etc.

16. Luigi Novi: In what way is it wrong? I showed that private roads are better than public ones.

    I was talking about the abuse of eminent domain re: the Kelo case. That’s what was wrong and a separate debate.

    Luigi, I’ve never met rrlane. I have no idea where she teaches or even if she’s actually a woman. (for the record, I’m a guy) I don’t know what she looks like or what her real name is. I wouldn’t know her if I saw her on the street. You are, quite frankly, started to sound a little paranoid on this point, which means it’s time for me to pull out of this debate.

17. “Bobb: Simply tossing the whoel ball of yarn to the private industry with a note saying “you guys figure this mess out” is not the solution we need. Before we farm out the work, we need to determine what the goal is, and that’s going to need a fundamental restart of the Federal Education system.”

    “Luigi Novi: Obviously, the “ball of yarn” and “you figure this mess out” metaphors are not accurate characterizations of the suggestions for privatization, vouchers or attached taxes, and obviously, determination of goals is central to any such proposal. Who here has suggested otherwise?”

    I think the idea of privatizing education, especially through the use of vouchers, is exactly tossing the ball of yarn to private industry. As a society, we don’t have any clear idea of what we want our primary education system to be. It’s not a way to teach important life skills. Aside from English and basic math….both skills students have pretty much all the tools they need before they enter high school…there’s precious little essential curriculum in our schooling system that’s actually of use to people. We have this idea that school is supposed to help prepare people for an independant live as an adult. If that’s the goal, we’re highly ineffecient at it. So, rather than try and make the effort to examine the system, decide what we want to get out of it, and then implement changes, the current solution is to throw money at the problem, let people go to the private sector and use the market to determine what our education system is going to do, be and produce.

    The education of our next generations is essential to the continued success of our country. It’s far too important to leave to an unregulated system like the free market. As a society, we’ve demonstrated nothing if not that, when faced with free choice, we don’t always make the best, or even a good one. Education is something that cannot be left to private interests. It’s too important, and only a centralized government can be situated to guide it. So what if it operates at a loss? If you focus the system on really teaching the next generations the skills they truly need to be productive, independant, successful people, you’ll make up that loss with a populace that depends less on adult programs like welfare, unemployment, and the penal system.

    But if all you do is hand out money to people to spend on private school, you really are tossing the whole tangled ball of yarn to someone else. Before we can farm a program out, we need to untangle that mess, and figure out what we want it to be.

18. Den: And no, rrlane and I are two different people. I teach at the community college level.
    Luigi Novi: And where does she teach? How do you know she doesn’t also teach at the community college level? Do you know each other? (I find it interesting that not only are you both Pennsylvania teachers, but you both used an accusation of a Straw Man argument against me, and that in both cases, it was made incorrectly, as well as the fact that both of you got into a quibble with me as to the scale involved in the word “epidemic.”)

    And if you’re two different people, then I’d be very curious to ask her:

    A. Why she indicated that a point that had originally been made by you had somehow been made by her.

    B. Why she didn’t respond to this point in her 2/10, 9:27pm post, after I had brought it up in my 2/10, 8:27pm post.

    Oh, Good Lord.

    First of all, my wife of the eighteen years would be very surprised to find out that I’m a “she” all of the sudden.

    Second, I’m fuzzy on how you are getting that I am claiming any point as “my own.” If I wrote something that was similar to something Den wrote, it was because we both believe he same thing, nothing more.

    Finally, I didn’t respond to it because I didn’t see it until Den brought it up yesterday and put it to bed. The notion that after he said we were not the same person, you continue to harp on it is taking this to new lows. My real name is Rich Lane, and I teach ninth grade and twelfth grade English in a rural Pennsylvania town.

19. Bobb: I think the idea of privatizing education, especially through the use of vouchers, is exactly tossing the ball of yarn to private industry. As a society, we don’t have any clear idea of what we want our primary education system to be.
    Luigi Novi: I think there are parents who do. All I’m saying is that we should give them a choice. If they want to throw their persona ball of yarn into a private institution because they feel that institution has a solid reputation for knitting those balls into nice little sweaters (if you’ll pardon my extending this metaphor), who are we to gainsay them?

    Bobb: It’s not a way to teach important life skills. Aside from English and basic math….both skills students have pretty much all the tools they need before they enter high school…
    Luigi Novi: This is obviously not true to anyone who has ever tried having a conversation on the Internet with people who are essentially illiterate and illiterate in the ways of doing research, proofreading their posts, spelling, etc.

    Bobb: We have this idea that school is supposed to help prepare people for an independant live as an adult. If that’s the goal, we’re highly ineffecient at it. So, rather than try and make the effort to examine the system, decide what we want to get out of it, and then implement changes, the current solution is to throw money at the problem, let people go to the private sector and use the market to determine what our education system is going to do, be and produce.
    Luigi Novi: First of all, why do you present “implementing changes” and private schools are somehow contradictory? Why the use of the word “rather”? If we examine the system, and decide that parents should be allowed to use their tax dollars to send their kids where they want to, isn’t that a “change” to be implemented? Exactly how is it that you see making an effort to examine the system, deciding what one wants to get out of it, and then implementing changes as mutually exclusive from allowing parents to use the money that they earned on a private school? What if their decision to do so is the result of examining the system, deciding what they want out of it, and implementing changes? Don’t you think these solutions I’ve suggested are the result of “examining” the situation? What if what they “want to get out of it” is a better education than a public institution can provide?

    And why do you mention “deciding what we want out of it” as somehow a new idea? Don’t you think it’s fairly obvious that we all already know what we “want to get out of it”?

    And how exactly is a private school “throwing money at the problem”? Did you even read this thread? Throwing money at a problem is what the government does, not what a private institution does. Governments are wasteful and inefficient precisely because they think they can solve a problem by throwing money at a problem, which makes taxes goes up. I showed above examples of how public schools that spend billions more on kids do not end up with better grades, and how conversely, private schools that spend less can do better.

    Yes, parents should be able, if they want, to go to the private sector and determine what education they should get for their their kids.

    This entire above passage of yours makes absolutely not logical sense.

    Bobb: The education of our next generations is essential to the continued success of our country. It’s far too important to leave to an unregulated system like the free market. …Education is something that cannot be left to private interests.
    Luigi Novi: There’s that Ideology Over Results idea again.

    Can you please explain to me, how you’ve established a negative correlation between the importance of something, and its care under a private, less regulated system? Why do you assume that importance automatically = “government”? (I am reminded of one panelist on an episode of Politically Incorrect, maybe it was Maria Conchita Alonso, who, when asked why the government should fund the arts, as with the NEA, responded by saying that “It’s important!”) Can you please explain to me what is wrong with hiring private institutions to take care of something that is “important”? The vast majority of the things we do in life are things we hire private companies for! If you have an insect or mouse problem in your home, and you need to get rid of it, isn’t that “important”? Do you call the government? Or do you call a private extermination company, because you know/believe that they’re professionals? Is the fact that they’re a for-profit company concerned with the bottom line make the service they offer questionable? You talk about importance. Let’s talk about the three basic necessities in our society: Food. Clothing Shelter. Now please tell me that these things are not “vital” or “important”. Now tell me that you look to Big Daddy Government to take care of these things. If you’re like me, and for that matter, everyone else, you don’t. You go to supermarkets and corner bodegas for food, you go to clothing stores for clothes, and you rely on architects, constructions firms, real estate agents, and newspaper ads for buying a new house or renting a new apartment. What do all these people you rely on have in common? They’re PRIVATE!

    If you could somehow establish that governments do things like education better than private institutions, then you’d have a legitimate line of argument you could provide. But nowhere in your post do you do this. I debunked this idea when Bladestar proposed it way back in my February 5th post. Rather than read it, and respond to it to show me where I’m wrong or where my reasoning is flawed, you simply didn’t read it/or ignored it.

    Again.

    Bobb: As a society, we’ve demonstrated nothing if not that, when faced with free choice, we don’t always make the best, or even a good one.
    Luigi Novi: LOL! So now you’re saying we citizens shouldn’t have power of choice????!!! That we need Big Brother to make it for us? Just what country are you living in? Maybe you’re too incompetent or have no faith in your abilities as an adult to make your own choices, and want Uncle Sam to diaper your ášš and spoon-feed you, but me, I’m an American, and if I have kids, I want the choice to do with my education dollars as I please. I don’t want to be forced to give it to Uncle Sam to teach my kids, as if he thinks he somehow knows better than I, when he’s proven time and time again to do a much šhìŧŧìër job than the private guys.

    You can decide your kids’ education based on an invalid ideology all you want.

    Me? I prefer RESULTS. Private institutions give those. Public ones don’t.

    Bobb: It’s too important, and only a centralized government can be situated to guide it So what if it operates at a loss?
    Luigi Novi: What do you mean “at a loss”? Well, in the first place, it shouldn’t operate that way, and second, the problem is not that it merely “operates at a loss,” but the fact that it doesn’t get the job as well as a private place.

    Bobb: If you focus the system on really teaching the next generations the skills they truly need to be productive, independant, successful people, you’ll make up that loss with a populace that depends less on adult programs like welfare, unemployment, and the penal system.
    Luigi Novi: Again, how is this a new or insightful idea? In theory, haven’t the public schools been “focusing the system” on doing this since forever? If so, then how come there are not les people on such programs now?

    Your solution is to avoid adult government programs by forcing a childhood one on us. Sorry if that doesn’t make sense to me.

    Bobb: But if all you do is hand out money to people to spend on private school…
    Luigi Novi: Allowing parents to use their own tax dollars as they please does not constitute “handing out money”. It’s giving people the choice they are entitled to as Americans to do as they please with what’s already theirs.

    Bobb: …you really are tossing the whole tangled ball of yarn to someone else.
    Luigi Novi: And if that “someone else” knows how to do the job, I say do it. I’m sorry if you feel the only competent professionals among us are those working for the government.

    Bobb Before we can farm a program out, we need to untangle that mess, and figure out what we want it to be.
    Luigi Novi: If you admit it’s a tangled mess, why do you argue, a priori, it seems, that we should continue using the same system? And again, what does this “what we want it to be” comment mean? What if some of us already know what we want it to be for our own kids?

    rrlane: First of all, my wife of the eighteen years would be very surprised to find out that I’m a “she” all of the sudden.
    Luigi Novi: Sorry. For most of the thread I didn’t know which gender you were, but then when I read this passage by you:

    Where your argument falls flat–thinking that a privatized system will have one whit of effect on the parents and children I describe above. And you are fooling yourself if you think that you can simply say, “tough cookies, lady–you and your brat are on your own.”

    I though perhaps you were using yourself as a hypothetical example. It was all I had to go on, lest I resort to continuously using the phrase “he/she” when referring to you. Sorry ‘bout that.

    rrlane: Second, I’m fuzzy on how you are getting that I am claiming any point as “my own.” If I wrote something that was similar to something Den wrote, it was because we both believe he same thing, nothing more.
    Luigi Novi: I didn’t mention anything about you writing anything “similar.” What I mentioned was an indication by you, in continuing an exchange between me and Den, that you were the one who had made the initial point that Den had made. Observe:

    Den: Now, maybe if you privatized all schools and allowed them to do what private schools do: ignore the mentally disabled, the learning disabled, the kids with psychological problems, kids with neglectful parents, and the chronic under-achievers, maybe they’d have a higher test score level, but I don’t see how it achieves the overall goal of a better educated citizenry.

    Luigi Novi: Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?

    rrlane: Longer answer–yes, there are schools designed exclusively with special needs children, and they function, for the most part, very well and help many special needs children achieve a good measure of independence in the workaday world (I am talking about schools for those with mental and emotional disabilities here, not those that work with those with physical disabilities…that needs to be clear).

    When you said “I am talking about,” it seemed that you were clarifying the initial point, as if I had not gotten it. But the initial point wasn’t made by you. It was made by Den. Why would you clarify to me what you were talking about, when you weren’t the one who made the original comment, but Den did? It just seems odd that you would phrase it this way.

    rrlane: Finally, I didn’t respond to it because I didn’t see it until Den brought it up yesterday and put it to bed. The notion that after he said we were not the same person, you continue to harp on it is taking this to new lows. My real name is Rich Lane, and I teach ninth grade and twelfth grade English in a rural Pennsylvania town.
    Luigi Novi: I apologize if you find this tiresome, but I’m simply trying to understand why you and he said these things. I’ve encountered people who’ve used sock puppets with me before, and slipped up in a way that made it obvious. I’m not saying it’s impossible that you’re two different people, but I hope you can understand, by my point of view, how this looks.

    You say that you teach ninth and twelfth grades, right? But have you ever mentioned that before? If not, then why would Den state that he teaches at a community college, as if to distinguish himself from you, when the only way this fact could serve to do so would be if he already knew where you taught? Do you two know one another? (Again, I’m just asking.)

20. Luigi Novi:When you said “I am talking about,” it seemed that you were clarifying the initial point, as if I had not gotten it. But the initial point wasn’t made by you. It was made by Den. Why would you clarify to me what you were talking about, when you weren’t the one who made the original comment, but Den did? It just seems odd that you would phrase it this way.

    What seems odd to me is why you don’t see that I was talking about the paragraphs that immediately proceeded the one you pulled from.

    You are making an assumption with nothing at all to back it up, so I shall make one as well. It seems to me that you are attempting to cast doubts on the credibilty of the people you are arguing with.

    Luigi:You say that you teach ninth and twelfth grades, right? But have you ever mentioned that before? If not, then why would Den state that he teaches at a community college, as if to distinguish himself from you, when the only way this fact could serve to do so would be if he already knew where you taught? Do you two know one another? (Again, I’m just asking.)

    I don’t know him from Adam, and while I don’t think I mentioned here that I teach English, but I have mentioned several times that I teach in public schools, that I am a reluctant member of the NEA and that I’m in Pennsylvania.

    Luigi, I don’t really care why Den said what he said. You can either take us for our respective words or not. It, like your use of the nome de place of Luigi Novi as opposed to your real name, is your choice.

    To be quite honest, the way you are trying to get this conversation to jump to another track smacks not a little of the smear campaign politics that the GOP has been wallowing in of late. It seems like you are trying to cast aspersions on those that disagree with you rather than address the real issues.

    Though, now that you mention it, Den and I don’t ever seem to be in the room at the same time. Hmmmm…..

21. Okay, I really didn’t want to get involved in this discussion; I don’t have a strong opinion on the public/private issue – besides that I have little complaint with my own, public school, education – and I don’t have the thought and possible research Luigi Novi has put into this, or the real world knowledge and experience which rrlane and Den have.

    But, when – against my better judgement – I read the new posts on this thread, and read this from Luigi Novi – “…(initially) rrlane were simply poor debaters” – I had to say something. As someone who has read this entire thread, for better and worse – rrlane, in any sarcasm or snideness present, was simply responding in kind to the precedent for behavior set by Luigi Novi. He does have well-thought out posts, and has often been very informative and useful as a poster here over the years. But many of his posts on this thread have been sarcastic, condescending, insulting, and have frankly created an impression of self-worship on L.N.’s part. The tone of the conversation has largely improved in cordiality since rrlane made his very generous apology, realizing that he had been dragged down into behavior that was beneath him, and choosing to rise back to a higher level – taking blame for following a course of discourse which had already been laid out before him by someone else.

    rrlane, I remember your post above in which you mentioned being a long-time lurker, new poster here. You should know – I probably should have posted at the time – that it was not YOUR behavior which had me dreading reading this thread, which actually had me thinking with disgust about this thread at work one morning (hours after I’d been on-line). I, for one, am gald to welcome you to the PAD community, and hope that this atypical experience with this thread won’t put you off from posting here in the future.

22. All right, Luigi. I’ve really had it. I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not rrlane. He’s said he’s not me. I’ve said I’ve never met in him person.

    I can only conclude that the fact you are still harping on this is that you think we’re both lying. In which case, you can just pìšš øff for all I care.

    Yes, we’ve made some similar statements if for no other reason then we both think that privatizing schools is not the panecea you make it out to be. Yes, we both live in Pennsylvania. So do 12.5 million other people.

    Is that really too hard for you wrap your mind around?

    If I was going to use an alias or sock puppet, I would’ve claimed at least claimed to have been from another state. I also would not have claimed to have been a teacher in both identities.

    Seriously, you’ve gone beyond my limit to tolerate this nonsense. What do you want? Both of us to drive out to Union City and introduce ourselves to you?

23. Crap,it should say “nom de plume” not “nome de place” above (oh, for the ability to edit!).

    I thank you for the kind words, Luke. They are much appreciated. I’m sure I’ll be sticking around. For the most part the people here are intelligent and well spoken and considerate, so I don’t have any problems with the occasional bump in the road.

24. rrlane: What seems odd to me is why you don’t see that I was talking about the paragraphs that immediately proceeded the one you pulled from.
    Luigi Novi: I don’t see that because it’s not true. You were responding to my statement, “Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?. What paragraphs after that one were you referring to?

    rrlane: You are making an assumption with nothing at all to back it up, so I shall make one as well. It seems to me that you are attempting to cast doubts on the credibilty of the people you are arguing with.
    Luigi Novi: I am not making any assumption at all; I’m merely responding to the content of your posts. That you quoted the above statement by me before responding to it is not an “assumption.” It’s a fact. That one responds to the statement that quote right before it—well, I guess that’s an assumption, but it’s a fairly reasonable one. If you were responding to a different paragraph, why did you quote the one above?

    I am not attempting to cast doubts on anyone’s credibility, regardless of whether that happens to be one of the emergent effects of this. I am merely responding to what I see, and asking you, “Why is this?” “Can you explain this to me?” Yes, I understand that even suggesting the possibility that someone is using multiple aliases is a sensitive question that may result in angered responses, but I attempted to make clear that I was asking because I was genuinely puzzled by these things, and as aforementioned, I’ve had to deal with people who used multiple aliases with me in debates before. Are you saying it was unreasonable of me to react this way by merely asking these questions?

    rrlane: I don’t know him from Adam, and while I don’t think I mentioned here that I teach English, but I have mentioned several times that I teach in public schools, that I am a reluctant member of the NEA and that I’m in Pennsylvania.
    Luigi Novi: Okay. I suppose it’s possible that he was referencing this. But I don’t think you mentioned this on this particular thread, so this would demonstrate an impressive memory for detail on his part; he didn’t even specify, when mentioning that he taught c.c., that you taught public. There’s nothing precluding one from remembering this point about you from some previous thread, but when you consider that he didn’t seem to be able to recall things that I myself said in this thread, this seems surprising to me.

    rrlane: Luigi, I don’t really care why Den said what he said. You can either take us for our respective words or not. It, like your use of the nome de place of Luigi Novi as opposed to your real name, is your choice.
    Luigi Novi: Where have you established that this is a nom de plume? It isn’t. It’s my real name. It’s the same name I use at http://www.nitcentral.com, and the same name I’ve used when contributing material to the site of magician/skeptic/educator James Randi, at http://www.randi.org. You can do a search on my name there and find the two text pieces I’ve contributed, and you can see the two pieces of artwork I contributed at http://www.randi.org/jr/072905beenthere.html#9 and http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/122305hallelujah.html#i2. The latter pieces contains a credit to me, and since I’m still struggling to find my “big break” as it were, it wouldn’t make much sense for me to hide behind a pseudonym when I want people to see my work.

    rrlane: To be quite honest, the way you are trying to get this conversation to jump to another track smacks not a little of the smear campaign politics that the GOP has been wallowing in of late. It seems like you are trying to cast aspersions on those that disagree with you rather than address the real issues.
    Luigi Novi: False Either/Or Fallacy.

    The fact that I raise questions about material in your posts that causes me to wonder if you’re one and the same does not preclude the ability to also continuing to discuss the education issue. It is utterly preposterous for anyone to suggest that I’m somehow not discussing the education issue, when I, along with you and a couple of others, are the only ones continuing to maintain this thread, long after the blog entry has left the main page, and when I always respond to each and every significant point that you guys bring up.

    Luke K. Walsh: But, when – against my better judgement – I read the new posts on this thread, and read this from Luigi Novi – “…(initially) rrlane were simply poor debaters” – I had to say something. As someone who has read this entire thread, for better and worse – rrlane, in any sarcasm or snideness present, was simply responding in kind to the precedent for behavior set by Luigi Novi. He does have well-thought out posts, and has often been very informative and useful as a poster here over the years. But many of his posts on this thread have been sarcastic, condescending, insulting, and have frankly created an impression of self-worship on L.N.’s part.
    Luigi Novi: Well, thanks for the ad hominem argument. I notice that nowhere in your post do you –surprise!—actually attempt to refute anything I’ve said, much less illustrate these accusations of yours.

    Poor debaters? Yeah, what’s wrong with saying this? I’m not allowed to opine when someone’s debating technique is abysmal, or when the tactics they use are dishonest, troll-like, or incoherent? I’ve provided numerous examples where people like Craig exhibited behavior that was, to be kind, unintelligent. Since I confined my references to Rich with the qualifier (initially), since he was acting this way, what’s the problem? Do you dispute that Craig is a poor debater? Or that Den, Rich, Bladestar, or Bobb, have employed reasoning that exposed as flawed? That they have continuously repeated the same fallacies over and over again, even after I responded to them? That they continuously ignored my refutations by simply continuing to repeat the original argument? How is it wrong to point out that this displays an impoverished facility for discussion?

    Sarcastic? Well, yeah, I’ve peppered some snide comments here and there. So what? They are only used for creative effect, in conjunction with the reasoning I provide as to why I have come to the conclusions I have, and why I feel the counterarguments by others are flawed. Obviously, sarcasm does not represent the bulk of my posts, as I’ve been polite and cordial to everyone here, including Rich, even when he offered, during his apology, to let me insult him. I tiny bit of spice in a few forkfuls, even if you don’t care for them, shouldn’t spoil the entire meal.

    Condescending? Where? Can you provide an example?

    As far as self-worship, I have been polite in my dealings with everyone here, stuck to facts and reasoning, have apologized where I made mistakes or misread what other people said, and so forth. I’d give this accusation greater accusation if you actually illustrated it with examples, but hey, you’re not interested in that sort of thing, right?

    Den: I can only conclude that the fact you are still harping on this is that you think we’re both lying. In which case, you can just pìšš øff for all I care.
    Luigi Novi: And I can only notice that:

    A. Your post came just four minutes after Rich’s.
    B. You used the same phrase (“harping on”) that he used.
    C. You still haven’t answered the question of whether you knew what type of teacher Rich was from his prior posts, and if not, why merely stating you taught at a c.c. served to distinguish the two of you.
    D. In your last post, you used the exact same fallacy about “similar statements” that Rich did. (See next exchange.)

    Because of this, I have not concluded that you are lying, but have merely become a bit suspicious that you were the same person, and have been simply asking you, quite politely, mind you, to explain these coincidences. The funny thing is, when I first brought this up after Rich mentioned your point as his, I figured that the possibility was maybe 50/50 or less, but with each subsequent set of posts, other things popped up, the ones I just listed. One coincidence can be written off as such. But four?? They tend have a synergistic effect when taken together. For some reason, though, you have not answered these questions, but merely respond (shocker!) indirectly, and by deliberately watering down one thing (claiming someone else’s point was made by oneself) into a completely different one (“similar statements).

    Den: Yes, we’ve made some similar statements if for no other reason then we both think that privatizing schools is not the panecea you make it out to be. Yes, we both live in Pennsylvania. So do 12.5 million other people. Is that really too hard for you wrap your mind around?
    Luigi Novi: You have not made similar statements. Rich indicated that a point you had made was one that he had made. That is not a “similar statement.” I pointed this out above when Rich employed that same fallacy. Can you not wrap your mind around that? I’ve mentioned before that you and the others here have consistently repeated certain arguments, even after I refuted them. Here, you’ve done so again. Now why is this?

    Den: Seriously, you’ve gone beyond my limit to tolerate this nonsense. What do you want?
    Luigi Novi: Answers to two questions:

    1. How do you explain the four points I listed above?
    2. Why did you use the “similar arguments” bit when Rich had already done so, and after I had already pointed out that the issue was not one of similar arguments?

    Since you asked. 🙂

25. I take it back, Luigi. You are not an intelligent debater who simply has poor social skills. You are an intelligent troll with apparently vast experience at twisting otherwise polite conversations anyway you wish.

    I will still be polite to you, but please understand that any comments you make on any topic from now on will be colored by that understanding. Your entire raison d’etre here seems to be to piss people off. You now share the rarified air with others who, when I somehow find I’m on the same side with them in a debate, will cause me to re-evaluate my own position.

    Oh, I still don’t think Luigi Novi is your real name.

26. 
    A. Your post came just four minutes after Rich’s.

    Actually, I started typing my post before his appeared. I got interrupted and he made his post first.

    Of course now I see that Rish had post 20 minutes before I checked this website again and cite that as further “proof” that we’re one and the same.

    B. You used the same phrase (“harping on”) that he used.

    Oh well, that clinches it. I probably also used similar words like “a”, “an,” and “the”.

    
    C. You still haven’t answered the question of whether you knew what type of teacher Rich was from his prior posts, and if not, why merely stating you taught at a c.c. served to distinguish the two of you.

    I simply assumed that he taught in a public school system based on his previous posts. I had no idea what subject or grad level.

    D. In your last post, you used the exact same fallacy about “similar statements” that Rich did. (See next exchange.)

    First of all, it’s only a fallacy in your warped little mind. Second, you cite the fact that we made similar statements as “proof” that we’re the same person, then complain when we both call you on it as additional proof.

    Gøddámņ you’re a paranoid freak.

    1. How do you explain the four points I listed above?

    Simple, you’re an insane freak who warps everything to conform to your silly little predetermined conclusions.

    Oh, wait, I used “warped” which is similar to Rish’s use of “twist” so we must be same person!

    2. Why did you use the “similar arguments” bit when Rich had already done so, and after I had already pointed out that the issue was not one of similar arguments?

    First of all, restating one of the four points above does not make it a new point. Second of all, bûllšhìŧ. Here is one instance of where you accused of make similar statements: “(I find it interesting that not only are you both Pennsylvania teachers, but you both used an accusation of a Straw Man argument against me, and that in both cases, it was made incorrectly, as well as the fact that both of you got into a quibble with me as to the scale involved in the word “epidemic.”)”

    But since in your sick, paranoid world, it’s apparent that nothing either of us say to you is going to convince you that we’re not the same person, I’ll make it easier for you tell us apart. Rich says he’s still going to be polite to you. I’m not even going to try anymore.

    So, with all due respect (that is none, since you don’t deserve any): Go fûçk yourself, Luigi.

27. Please excuse the numerous typos in my last post. I’m just too pìššëd øff now to adequate proof read.

    Of course, I’m sure that’s just further proof that I’m really Rich.

28. I’ve always hesitated to post the addresses of other sites I frequent out of respect for the site I’m on (I’m not a fan of site poaching), but since if Den and I are the same person, I’ve been using the pseudonym of “Rich Lane” for an awful long time. You can check out my post count at http://www.captaincomics.us.

29. rrlane: I take it back, Luigi. You are not an intelligent debater who simply has poor social skills. You are an intelligent troll with apparently vast experience at twisting otherwise polite conversations anyway you wish. I will still be polite to you, but please understand that any comments you make on any topic from now on will be colored by that understanding. Your entire raison d’etre here seems to be to piss people off.
    Luigi Novi: Yeah, because when one thinks of trolls, the content of my posts is really what they think of. You could just chalk up this last point about you and Den as a mistake on my part (I’m certainly able to), but I guess it’s just easier to insult someone by calling them a troll.

    rrlane: Oh, I still don’t think Luigi Novi is your real name.
    Luigi Novi: Okay. When you can provide reasoning or evidence for this (you know, that stuff you hate), let me know. You can see me at myspace, btw. (I forgot to mention that previously.)

    Den: Second, you cite the fact that we made similar statements as “proof” that we’re the same person, then complain when we both call you on it as additional proof.
    Luigi Novi: I did not cite any fact about “similar statements” as proof that you were the same person (those are your words, not mine), or for that matter, anything as “proof”, since I was not convinced that you were the same person, only that I had a suspicion of that I was asking you to clarify.

    Den: First of all, restating one of the four points above does not make it a new point.
    Luigi Novi: It was stated as one of the four as possible indications that you were the same person. My new question was about why you didn’t take my refutation into account when you repeated it, a recall of my long-made observation that you and others do not read my posts before responding to them (which is separate from the question of you two being the same person).

    Den: So, with all due respect (that is none, since you don’t deserve any): Go fûçk yourself, Luigi.
    Luigi Novi: Temper, temper, Den. 🙂

    Seriously, though, I’d like to apologize to you two for this point about Rich and Den supposedly being the same person. As I stated before, I’ve been burned in the past about people debating with me with separate identities simultaneously, and while I had no problem considering the possibility that these things I noticed were coincidences, I simply wanted to discuss them. I thought I had brought them up in a polite-enough way in order to convey that I was merely approaching the issue with a sense of dispassionate skepticism, but perhaps I was naïve in thinking that it would not result in angered responses, and accusations of paranoia on my part, regardless of how I phrased it, so I’m very sorry that this has made you two angry, since Rich was honorable enough to apologize earlier for behavior he felt was inappropriate. Inasmuch as I attempted to greet his apology in the same way I’d want someone to do so with me in the same situation, I hope you (and Den) can be understanding in this regard. Yes, perhaps at first you’ll still have this “understanding” about me, but maybe in time, I’ll be able show that I’m not a troll, and that pìššìņg people off is not my intention, even if it’s sometimes the result. Trolls, after all, do not apologize.

    And for the most ironic closing remark I’ve ever placed in one of my posts:

    Happy Valentines Day, guys. 🙂

30. YOu never see Luigi and X-Ray at the same time and place either…

31. but I hope you can understand, by my point of view, how this looks.

    Wow, talk about hitting a new low, Luigi.

    What it looks like is you’ve lose all capacity to take individual comments at face value, because I see no way for any of us to understand “how this looks” from your POV when your POV is completely nuts.

32. While I’m coming into this thread extraordinarily late, and I am in no way going to wade into the poop-flinging fest that it became for several days, I did want to respond to one sentence.

    Luigi wrote:

    Private schools do not pick and choose their clientele.

    As someone who has worked at three different independent schools and served on the admissions committee for two of them, I’d point out that the above statement is absolutely and categorically wrong. Private schools don’t get to pick and choose who applies to them, but they ábšødámņlûŧëlÿ get to pick their students from within that group.

    (Oh, and as for having the ability to kick students out — yes. It’s a Big Deal. Anyone who thinks it’s not a big deal has never experienced it.

    Since I’ve no idea whether anyone’s even going to read this, I’ll save the rest of my innumerable to-privatize-or-not-to-privatize opinions for another time. (There was a discussion last summer that might be worth looking at, though; http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003197.html .)

    TWL

33. I live at 77453 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?