Re: cyclists attack auto driver

On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 17:01:53 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 04:50:48 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 14:54:08 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 11:50:31 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 11:40:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

I'm amazed at the anti-education bias shown by some posters here

>
Not anti-education, little man, only anti-formal education with some
attention seeking namby-pamby standing in front of a classroom and
telling students what to read.

>
It used to be that teaching a trade was done by the "apprentice"
system where a young man was "apprenticed", nearly given, to a
craftsman who would teach the apprentice all factors of the trade from
sweeping the floor to completing the entire project.
>
I was lucky enough that the school I went to was still using a quasi
apprentice system to teach students how to be machinists. In the 8th
grade you entered into the system and learned how to use woodworking
tools. Then in the 9th and 10th you actually made the molds and
patterns used to cast simple power tools - I remember a bench grinder
was one of the completed projects and we were working on the patterns
for a bench saw.
>
The 11th and 12th grades you worked in the machine shop machining and
assembling the raw castings. The completed tools were sold to help
finance the system.
>
So, when you graduated from high school you were a trained machinist.
Which in those days was a high end profession, based on salaries paid
:-)
>
Of course this was long before automated machinery had become
introduced - I spent one summer vacation making nuts on a lath that
had the cross feed calibrated in fractions of an inch... not thousands
of an inch.
>
The other "side" of the school taught courses for the potential
collage student. I remember there was a big scandal as it was
discovered the French Teacher couldn't speak French. She could read
and write it but not carry on a conversation... in a village that was
half French Canadian and a large number of the students spoke French,
if not with their parents then certainly with their grandparents :-)

>
Education is a process of learning how to do something whereas the act
of doing that something has value. The notion that simply learning
something has value is nonsense.  Knowledge is useless unless it's
applied.
>
Many teachers do nothing but tell the student what to read and then
proceed to evaluate how well they learned what they read about. A good
student is one who is interested in learning and has no use for a
teacher's useless instructions. A good student will seek out
opportunities to learn by trial and error, which is by far, the best
way to learn.

>
the above, dated, 1 September just appeared on my computer so this  is
a trial answer.
>
Way back when my first wife was alive and my kids were little I
decreed that they learn the multiplication  tables so decreed that the
two boys had to learn the 2 times table this week and the next week
the 3 times and do on. 
>
Any after a couple of months or so they had it down pat and then one
of them in math class made the mistake of answering the teacher with a
"Well, 3 x 7 is 21 and 4 more is 25". And the teacher sent them home
with a letter that I wasn't to attempt to teach my children math as I
wasn't a qualified teacher. Any way, I went to the next "Parent -
Teachers" get to meet the math teacher... As the conversation
progressed it turned that my kids knew something that the teacher
didn't know (:-)

(3*7)+4 = 25

Algebra: (X*Y)+Z = P

This isn't to say that home training is good or bad but rather that
knowing a bit more can be useful.

Time tables are one of the few STEM (I never heard of that term until
recently here on RBT) things that are only learned by rote. My mom, a
teacher herself, drummed them into my head long before the school did.