RM> Michael, here's the deal... What you're proposing as an IDEAL
 RM> is ok; it's an interesting philosophical argument, but I 
 RM> don't see any real system involved here.  It seems like, "Oh
 RM> heck, let's just scrap everything because it isn't perfect,
 RM> and let kids do whatever the heck they want - I'm SURE it'll
 RM> all work out".  Well, yes, it WILL all work out, but to what
 RM> end and at what cost?
MM>One thing is for sure, as I have said.  It will be better than
MM>what we have now, which is a restrictive, choice-limiting, 
MM>freedom-suppressing system.
And once more, I disagree....
 RM> A lot of inner-city kids simply will not go to school at all;
MM>They don't do it NOW, don't you see that?!
SOME don't, MOST do....
I can see that it's pointless to go any further... Most of 
what you believe to be true I don't accept. I think that as 
an ideal it's ok, but as a practical way of running things?  
No way...  A great deal of what you are saying is hyperbole, 
unsubstantiated conjecture, supposition, and circular 
reasoning.  When confronted with counterexamples and logic,
you change the argument, ask new questions, redefine terms,
or attempt generally to put the questioner on the defensive
though it is YOUR points which are under discussion.  It's 
like playing the "why" game with a child.  This type of 
"discussion" is pointless to pursue; we're not going to 
change each other's mind, and I don't enjoy interacting with 
someone who uses these tactics.  If you started being
responsive to the points of others, this might be 
interesting, but in the absence of that, there's no reason
to continue....
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * OS/2 WARP: Windows done RIGHT!
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------