SK> I disagree with the following three remarks:
 
 MM> Now, most people in our country learn all they need to know from
 MM> they're own lives, not from school.
 
 MM>Yes, but why do you disagree with it?
 RM> Because we do not consider it to be true, but instead to be
 RM> a generalization which is based upon nothing more than your
 RM> personal conjecture..
 
MM>That doesn't answer the question, Ron.
Now you're going to define "answering a question"?  I DID
answer the question; you may not care for the answer, but
the answer is that we don't accept what you're saying as
being true.  We base this on our own observations.  Our
point of view is every bit as valid as yours (and based on
some of the things you're saying, MORE valid)....
 MM>Tell me something that you absolutely must learn in school, in order 
 MM>to survive in our world.
 RM> First of all, THAT isn't the statement with which she is
 RM> taking issue.... "Survival" is too vague a term....
 
MM>What's vague about survival?
It means different things to different people and is, 
therefore, unclear as to meaning... Again, it is convenient
for YOU, since you can then redefine as needed... AND..
Once again you have not responded to what was written, but
instead changed the argument....
 MM>In college, you don't learn to _distrust_ the current way of doing
 MM>things, the current laws, the current scientific system, you learn
 MM>to trust it, to believe in it, to agree with it.
 RM> Huh?!?  Why is it, do you suppose, that history has shown 
 RM> the educational community, the "intelligentia", to be the 
 RM> most visible target of totalitarian governments?  The 
 RM> college campuses are ALWAYS centers of political and social 
 RM> unrest.  This statement is simply incorrect...
MM>College campuses are centers of _controlled_ dissent.  Governments
MM>don't target these people because they are on the right track, they
MM>do it as a standard course of action to make a point.
I just finished telling you that governments DO target this
group; it is NOT a sanctioned activity, and introducing 
another self-defined term ("controlled dissent") is not
responsive to what I wrote...
 RM> You sound so sincere that I want to believe you, and so very
 RM> sure that this will happen... May I ask why you're so sure?
 RM> Has this ever been tested?  When?  Where?
MM>Ron, the current system has inherent flaws in it
As do ALL systems...
MM> which we cannot solve from within the system.
I disagree with this...
MM>The system that I would like to see is guaranteed to be better
I disagree..... "Better" in only one respect, and THEN
based only upon YOUR definition of better...  BTW, you
didn't answer MY questions - Again!
 SK> I would bet that without obligatory schooling, the number of 
 SK> children out learning "street life" would increase dramatically, 
 SK> to the detriment of not only those children themselves, but all 
 SK> of society.
 
 MM>I don't think so.
 RM> Yes, and Illich doesn't think so, but do either of you KNOW
MM>How many people are saved from the streets right NOW?
Plus some more stuff completely unresponsive to what I wrote.
You ARE Matt, right?
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * WINDOWS95 only promises what OS/2 DELIVERS!
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------