🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50987@sun.uucp>, livesey@sun.uucp (Jon Livesey) writes:

+ 	You have a reasonable point, but the wrong guy.    This discussion
+ began when Mr Huntbach, who does not, I think, receive soc.politics.misc,
+ seized on a discussion of IQ testing to make an impassioned denunciation
+ of proposals for changes to the UK's education system. ...
+ 
+ 	Since you have been posting here as long as Huntbach has, I find 
+ myself wondering why you did not invite him to take his postings elsewhere, 
+ around about, oh, say 9 Apr 88 19:39:21 GMT.    If you had, that would have 
+ cut this short from the start.   Is it possible that only postings that you 
+ personally disagree with ought to go to soc.politics.misc?
+ 
+ 	Given that we have a science education problem of some magnitude in 
+ the US, I have to say that I think discussions about education policy, are at 
+ least as relevant to sci.misc as, say, discussions about astrology, a pseudo-
+ science at best.
+ 
+ 	What do you say?   Am I being unfair?
+ 

I had (and have) no objection to the original postings by either side; it is
the continuing vitriolic and entirely political followups that I protest.
(And obviously, I ask the side I disagree with to end the exchange :-) :-)) 

You obviously saw my note on astrology and took it to mean that I support the
stuff; frankly I think that astrology is a load of pseudo-scientific garbage
at about the same level as intelligence testing.  My interest in it is purely
historical.  Is that clear enough?

-- 
Michael L. Siemon
contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories
ihnp4!mhuxu!mls
standard disclaimer