Bill Z. wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <***@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.edgenewengland.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=84292&pf=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the basic facts of the story are not in question, despite the
>>>>>> source.
>>>>> (See my other post)
>>>> I don't know which one. The one I saw merely smeared the messenger,
>>>> when in fact, the messenger appears to have got the basic facts of the
>>>> case right.
>>> Reduced to lying again?
>> Not even for a first time, let alone "again". All you did in the one
>> I saw was smear the source, WND.
>
> So you aren't reading the post where I commented on your URL?
I saw a post in which you smeared WND for reporting something that makes
queers look bad, and another one where you smeared a site by and for
queers for corroborating the WND story.
>>>> It's a rag, but not on the level of tabloids claiming alien abduction, no.
>>> I take it you didn't see the following World Net Daily article:
>>> <http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327>, which I would
>>> put on a level with alien abduction.
>> No, I don't usually read it.
>>
>> The point is, they got the facts of this case right. They correctly
>> identified the school, the mother of the student, the principal, the
>> teacher, and the questions on the <scoff> "questionnaire".
>
> What they'll do is to ignore facts that don't fit their agenda, no matter
> how important those facts are.
They got the facts of the queer indoctrination program in the small-town
high school right: names, places, set of questions, etc.
>>> Then why did you quote it when you claimed you were trying to get
>>> the facts?
>> They corroborated the facts. That's the whole point. They don't like
>> that the mother of the student is publicly opposing the indoctrination
>> and making trouble for the school, but they did corroborate the facts,
>> despite their partisan dislike for these facts. That's why I
>> referenced the site.
>
> So, now you are claiming it is a legitimate news source
No, I never said any such thing.
> when previously
> you tried to write it off after first pointing to it as a news source.
I never pointed to it as a news source.
> Try to get your story straight.
It is, and always has been.
>
>>>>> Yet it claims that the material was in fact designed for critical
>>>>> thinking!
>>>> That's what they claim, yes. I only pointed out the site - a site by
>>>> and for queers - because they accept the basic facts of the situation
>>>> reported by WND.
>
> Well, the claim was probably true: maybe they asked someone who provided
> the material, regardless of how good the material actually is for that
> purpose.
>
>>> Except it didn't back up the WND claims. Rather, it showed how the WND
>>> omitted key facts.
>> No, it absolutely corroborated the facts reported by WND. The sham
>> claim that this bit of indoctrination is actually an exercise in
>> "critical thinking" is nonsense. It's indoctrination.
>
> No, it showed that the WND omitted key facts.
No, they didn't. WND *did* quote the principal of the school saying
it's a "critical thinking" exercise:
Principal Dave McSherry, however, told WND that the discussion was
part of a comprehensive curriculum in critical thinking skills,
preparing the students to make decisions on their own in college
and beyond.
Your reading skills are really very shoddy.
>>>>> If this site is not a legitimate news source, then please provide one.
>>>> It is not a news source at all. It is a queer-run site, for queers,
>>>> that accepts the facts as reported by WND.
>>> I.e., you have no idea as to the facts
>> I certainly do have.
>
> Really?
Yes.
>>> and don't believe the site
>>> you yourself cited
>> I can clearly see they corroborated the facts: the names, the place,
>> the name of the school, the fact the "questionnaire" was used.
>
> ... which are not the only facts.
Those are the relevant facts.
>>>> At this stage, I have no reason to doubt the basic facts as reported
>>>> by WND, and as accepted by the queers' site
>>>> http://www.edgenewengland.com/.
>>> I.e., you have no citation from an impartial source.
>> No such thing. This is all a bit of a troll on your part, of course -
>> you don't dispute the event happened, exactly as WND reported it.
>> You, for partisan reasons, want to accept at face value that this was
>> an exercise in "critical thinking", but that isn't supported by any
>> so-called "impartial source".
>
> No,
Yes.
>>>>>> But that doesn't square with the facts. If this "exercise" had
>>>>>> taken place in some kind of "contemporary issues" class, the claim
>>>>>> might have been plausible; but it was in an English class.
>>>>> The web site you quoted
>>>> A site by queers, for queers...
>>> You'd look like less of a fool if you didn't insert comments
>>> mid-sentence.
>> They're fine. You can live with it.
>
> No,
Yes - you can live with it. They're fine.
>>>>> claimed this class was in a town with 800
>>>>> residents and that the high school had an English class (singular
>>>>> not plural). With 800 residents [snip gas]
>>>> You really didn't have a point in all that. You were projecting, and
>>>> trying to make excuses for radicals propagandizing students.
>>> Wrong, and what you snipped was highly relevant
>> No, it wasn't, just as the repetition of it below won't make it relevant.
>
> Yes it was.
No, it was completely irrelevant - nothing but gas.
>>> - that with 800
>>> residents in a town, the high school is going to be too small to have
>>> your suggested "contemporary issues" class as a separate class.
>> Still irrelevant. That kind of thing is always an elective course.
>> If they're too small to offer that kind of elective, then so be it.
>
> No, highly relevant
Irrelevant.
>>> It would just be piggybacked onto an English or history class.
>> Those are required classes, and the propaganda doesn't belong in them;
>> it's not part of an English or history curriculum.
>
> There was no propaganda - the questionnaire
It's propaganda.
>> See, your partisanship, and the ideologically driven polemical
>> nonsense it leads you to say, are just blatantly obvious.
>
> Liar.
No, not at all.
>>> No, it is not obvious.
>> Absolutely it is obvious, which is why that site by and for queers
>> leapt on this story to try to spin it the way they want to see it
>> spun.
>
> So you are back to saying it is an ureliable web site
No, I never said that. You're making stuff up.
>>>>> If you live and work in places like San Francisco or Silicon Valley,
>>>>> you better be comfortable with a wide variety of cultures. I've gone
>>>>> into meetings at work and literally been the only Caucasian in the
>>>>> room, and this was at a large American company with over 40,000
>>>>> employees.
>>>> I don't believe you. I worked in Silicon Valley, albeit 20 years ago,
>>>> and I simply don't believe you. There is a heavy Asian representation
>>>> in high tech, but not to the extent that you would be the only white
>>>> in the room. You were exaggerating for effect, an effect motivated by
>>>> your partisanship.
>>> No, I'm not exaggerating.
>> Of course you are.
>
> No I'm not.
Of *course* you are.
>>> Of course, I've worked there far more
>>> recently than you did. There's been a lot of immigration from Asia
>>> since you claimed to be here.
>> Oh, that's funny - you insist you are there, but you disparage my
>> statement that I worked there as "merely" a claim. Too funny; too
>> obvious.
>
> Why should I believe you,
I was just thinking the same thing about you.
>>> What I posted was completely true,
>> It was just your claim, that's all.
>
> I was in those meetings.
You claim.
>>>>> Promoting tolerance isn't just a "liberal" thing:
>>>> We're not talking about promoting tolerance; not really. That's what
>>>> the queers want to dress it up to be, but that's not what it is. What
>>>> they're trying to do is *force* an acceptance of themselves as they
>>>> wish to be seen. That wish to force is inherently illiberal, even
>>>> approaching totalitarian.
>>> Nonsense.
>> No, not nonsense at all.
>
> Yes, nonsense
Not nonsense at all. I am accurately describing the queer agenda. It
*is* about compelling people not just to "tolerate" them, but to see
them entirely as they demand to be seen, and to "celebrate" their sexual
orientation and "lifestyle". It's fundamentally totalitarian in its
outlook.
>>> The exercise you commented on was obviously intended to
>>> promote tolerance.
>> It was not. It was what I called it: part of a concerted effort by
>> queers to try to force people to see them as they, the queers, wish to
>> be seen.
>
> Nope
Yep. It's about coercion, plain and simple.