NCclimber

Why so testy? Please tell us about the part detailing how professors can/should offer political opinions, unrelated to the stated course material.

???? When did Chemistry QUIT being a hard science and become a social sciences course??? Looks like "The Rape of Alma Mater" is completed... Well, if you could just READ what I wrote (for a change), I was discussing a "GenEd" requirement, not chemistry for chemistry majors. In order for ANY undergraduate program to be accreditable, it must have a general education component. The universities and colleges have no option if they want to be accredited. The purpose of GenEds is NOT the same as the purpose of major courses. I'm surprised that you are ignorant of this. No, on reflection, I'm not surprised at all. You seem to be saying that it is appropriate for professors to force feed their students on matters unrelated to the course curriculum. Please enlighten us on how the 2000 election drama is relevant to the subject matter in "Chemistry for Dummies". I'm really interested in reading why you think this kind of behavior is completely approrpiate. My gut tells me you think this is some sort of entitlement. Am I wrong? Educate the masses.

I guess that depends if the rates of change were the same or not.

This too.

Very well said. And I guess 99.999% of Americans should be unconcerned with the supposed "attacks on our civil liberties" by the current administration because their actions actually don't "effect us in the slightest. And all the hetero population that favors gay marriage - "It's really none of your business!!!". Or maybe these national matters do effect us, even though they are not directly about us. That said, I thought the OP was offensive, intolerant, narrow-minded and pretty fucking hostile.

Differnt issues for diiferent time frames. ROTFLOLPIMP.

Do you have any sources to back back your claims? What are they? Are you implying that if guns were banned in the US, the Violent Crime and Homicide levels would be equal to current levels for all non-gun related incidents? Go check out the FBI UCR for the last 10 years, and compare with data from Canada, Australia and the UK Home Office. It has also been posted in SC previously. I checked out those reports. I found the US homicide rate in 2004 was down 42% from the 1993 level. The 2004 level matched the 2000 level, which was the lowest level since 1965. Also, the homicide rate in England and Wales climbed to an all-time high in 2000. Since then it has remained above the pre-2000 all-time high. In other words, the post 2000 low is greater than the pre-2000 high. Violent crime and homicides are down at historic lows in the US and homicides are up at historic highs in the UK. Is there an echo? How about a response to:

While a GenEd course may serve a different purpose, I'm not aware of any situations where the course description states "Professor may occassionally offer in-your-face, one-sided political diatribes that are irrelevant to subject of study". Silly me. I never knew higher education was about indoctrination.

So... a very one-sided rant about how the 2000 election was stolen is relevant to Intro to Chemistry? Perhaps you can find me a course syllabus for Chem 101 that states Poly-Sci topics are part of the curriculum.

Yesterday I read the following. It really rang true.

Do you have any sources to back back your claims? What are they? Are you implying that if guns were banned in the US, the Violent Crime and Homicide levels would be equal to current levels for all non-gun related incidents?

Did you get tired of that "how many deaths of children are worth it" angle?

How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? How many innocent lives have to be lost to auto accidents before you advocate getting rid of cars? Do you have the same outrage for drownings? Accidental poisonings? Falls? If not, you are blaming a TOOL and not the *user* of the tool. can you explain how you can go on the rampage in a school with a gun, shooting children, if you don't have a gun ? This is an emotionally "loaded" question. If maintaining current gun laws means 5 children per year will die in in school rampages every year and if banning guns reduces that to zero but it means an additional 20 homicides per year, which option do you pick? Status quo or ban guns?

In the context of this discussion (excluding sporting concerns), the average gun fan just wants to have more than one option (asking the bad guy not to kill him) in a bad situation. It's a wish to try to take care of yourself rather than hope someone else will. Doesn't apply to me at my size, but some of my 100lb girlfriends would like to have more options than just locking themselves in the bathroom should a stalker ex come barging in the door, waiting for that 20 minute police response time. ok, it's a direct question at you... is it a price worth paying (the odd person getting killed by a gun that would have been taken out of circulation otherwise) just so that you can keep your gun? i don't suppose for one minute you'll answer this question directly First you have to address the absolute NONSENSE that all guns are going to magically disappear just because they were banned - still hasn't happened in "Merry Olde" yet, has it? Then, prove that the attacker wouldn't have killed the person if they'd been using a piece of pipe, baseball (or cricket) bat, knife, etc... THEN we can discuss it... and my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? still no answer to my question.... It's a bad anology. From what I've read the number crimes/attackers that were averted because the potential victim had a gun far outnumber all gun related crimes.

NC, thanks for that. You're right...and I went ahead and emailed him a moment ago. Here is what I sent over... "Hi, Professor: Friday's episode has been bothering me, and I wanted to take a brief moment to email you this morning. I thought we had a pretty good relationship and I want to apologize for any part I played in turning it into a confrontational one. It wasn't (and isn't) my intent to have a confrontational relationship with anyone, and again, I am sorry for any part I played in developing that. With that, I am back to studying, and I'll see you this afternoon. Regards- Michele" If he responds, I'll post it up. If not, well, we'll see what happens this afternoon in class. Thanks again for the wording, and for the suggestion. Let's see how this goes. And now, I have to review pH factoring and buffer identification... Ciels- Michele YOUR FUCKING WELCOME. I suggested this on the first page as I recall, at least way back there. So you kinda support your prof's theory about political divide, as you wouldn't take the same advice from me. Just saying NClimber is a conservative, not a neo-con or anything, we don't have of those here. You know, lucky... you write your own personal treatise on conservatives on campuse and how a savy student like yourself deals with professors. Then... way down at the bottom you offer some caustic advice on apologizing. Maybe the reason my post rang true for Michele had to do with the tone and content of my post. Maybe that's the same reason your's didn't. Tone and Content.

It was an all-time high at the time. I didn't say that. It's about reading comprehension. The Total Violent Crime figure was in response to Kallends claim about it rising last year. Then I brought up US homicide figures and compared them to the UK figures. your response was to simply tell me I was wrong and link a bunch of graphs that didn't address my figures. Good show, mate.

I'm still waiting for you to prove this claim. Or perhaps you were the one who was wrong???

you mean the post you removed didn't contain faulty claims about my posts and the link I provided? I could have sworn it went on about total homicides and proprtionate population (even though my numbers were based on per capita figures).

Good luck.

How nice that you are able to post word definitions. Last week you had it pegged it as "a word Lush Rimjob used", while making a bogus claim, that you never did own up to.... now, less than a week later, you are using it yourself. Prior to your getting in a tizzy about it last week, the word had been posted eight times in the preceding 2 1/2 months (I'm not counting quoted posts). Most of those posts were mine. What was that big hit for The Persuaders?

Wanna start a thread about thread drift? Maybe you should ask Billvon.

I noticed you deleted your last post, which was also full of errors. LOL I posted changes in the homicide rates for both countries for comparable periods. It's about reading comprehension. I really cracked up at your jumping on me for cherry picking and then want to discount major factors that hurt your case.

You wish!

end, in general, there's not a lot of political diversity at many univerities, so it's not much of an issue Rubbish. Rubbish? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15606-2004Nov26?language=printer

This is about God's Army in Myanmar?