Vivi's back!

[Lucifer]

when did i suggest "the masses" should learn latin?     stop taking the pills, child - they're making you hallucinate.

Its the in the mix the same Tories you seem to have aligned yourself with seem to think should be part of an education

  honestly hadron, you really do talk out of your arse.  you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about - anyone who knows the slightest thing about me would be howling with mirth at that load of utter wank. 

Oh, do you stroll around with a communist flag draped over your shoulders now?

sigh... don't be a knob all your life - have a day off. 

however...

learning latin and/or greek enables one to enter into a far more interesting relationship with language and words in general: if one can see the etymological connexions, it gives one a raft of transferable knowledge.  as an example, teachers spend ages getting kids to understand that "kilo" means a thousand, thus enabling them to work out relationships between units of measurement, etc.  it would also help with vocabulary, and thus reading, to equip people to be able to work out the meaning of words.

suffice it to say that i've taught etymology (insofar as latin and greek roots are concerned) to very young kids, and as i put it into a context they could "relate to" and enjoy (hence the "iPod" issue), they loved every minute of it.  and i was never taught latin and greek, or classics - i learned that sort of thing by myself - although i wish i had been.

Maybe I should have rephrased my question slightly. If you put Latin in the timetable, how is it better than what has been taken out? Direct learning is a lot better than going the long way around, imo. I am sure you can guess what wankers come out of the Classics degree, along with the unemployable...

no, i can't.  all the people i've met who read clasics are fine specimens of humanity.

Including Boris and some of the wankers that sit at the top of the Civil Service?

i refer you to the part of the quotation in bold.

as for putting anything in the timetable, "direct learning" is codswallop, and just leads to cramming kids' heads with useless facts.  learning "indirectly", as i suppose i'll have to put it, is of far more value, and (your point from a few posts above) relevant and interesting.

Direct learning works fine if the kids are not as thick as a brick wall.

contrary to popular opinion, most aren't.  and you're wrong anyway (but what would i know about that - i've only had 20 years teaching experience...  )

still, i don't expect you to listen to anything i've said, as you know everything already, and are right all the time (in your head).

There is a hell of a difference between listening and agreeing, or more to the point reading in this case.[/quote

no idea why that's relevant.

i reiterate - i really pity you, as your narrowmindedness about everything is really preventing you accessing so much.

Really? Just goes to show you know jack all about me, yet again...

i don't claim to know much about you, which is rather the opposite of your own claims vis á vis me and just about everyone else.

go and take your pills, dear.  you're getting boring.

[Christopher McCandless]

when did i suggest "the masses" should learn latin?     stop taking the pills, child - they're making you hallucinate.

Its the in the mix the same Tories you seem to have aligned yourself with seem to think should be part of an education

  honestly hadron, you really do talk out of your arse.  you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about - anyone who knows the slightest thing about me would be howling with mirth at that load of utter wank. 

Oh, do you stroll around with a communist flag draped over your shoulders now?

sigh... don't be a knob all your life - have a day off. 

Surely you can do better than using common insults? What happened to innovation?

however...

learning latin and/or greek enables one to enter into a far more interesting relationship with language and words in general: if one can see the etymological connexions, it gives one a raft of transferable knowledge.  as an example, teachers spend ages getting kids to understand that "kilo" means a thousand, thus enabling them to work out relationships between units of measurement, etc.  it would also help with vocabulary, and thus reading, to equip people to be able to work out the meaning of words.

suffice it to say that i've taught etymology (insofar as latin and greek roots are concerned) to very young kids, and as i put it into a context they could "relate to" and enjoy (hence the "iPod" issue), they loved every minute of it.  and i was never taught latin and greek, or classics - i learned that sort of thing by myself - although i wish i had been.

Maybe I should have rephrased my question slightly. If you put Latin in the timetable, how is it better than what has been taken out? Direct learning is a lot better than going the long way around, imo. I am sure you can guess what wankers come out of the Classics degree, along with the unemployable...

no, i can't.  all the people i've met who read clasics are fine specimens of humanity.

Including Boris and some of the wankers that sit at the top of the Civil Service?

i refer you to the part of the quotation in bold.

Including Boris then, whom I recall you saying somewhere you have met...

as for putting anything in the timetable, "direct learning" is codswallop, and just leads to cramming kids' heads with useless facts.  learning "indirectly", as i suppose i'll have to put it, is of far more value, and (your point from a few posts above) relevant and interesting.

Direct learning works fine if the kids are not as thick as a brick wall.

contrary to popular opinion, most aren't.  and you're wrong anyway (but what would i know about that - i've only had 20 years teaching experience...  )

So apparently have some of my former "teachers"

still, i don't expect you to listen to anything i've said, as you know everything already, and are right all the time (in your head).

There is a hell of a difference between listening and agreeing, or more to the point reading in this case.

no idea why that's relevant.

Go figure then.

i reiterate - i really pity you, as your narrowmindedness about everything is really preventing you accessing so much.

Really? Just goes to show you know jack all about me, yet again...

i don't claim to know much about you, which is rather the opposite of your own claims vis á vis me and just about everyone else.

go and take your pills, dear.  you're getting boring.

Normally I tend to be pretty close to the mark on people I have met online.

[Lucifer]

[renaeden]

it's there.  but if you're one of these people who thinks one shouldn't read/listen to/experience anything older than a couple of years, i pity you.  and the diminution of general knowledge/culture is utterly saddening.

This is way more than a couple of years ago. Lord of the Rings, Redwall or just about anything would be better than Shakesphere. At least the majority of people in those classes might just enjoy the subject a little.

I agree, with my opinion. I had to read some Shakespeare in high school and I found it really boring. But then again, I found Lord of the Rings boring too. Even the movies. I just don't have the attention span to follow the plot.

[Calandale]

I agree, with my opinion. I had to read some Shakespeare in high school and I found it really boring. But then again, I found Lord of the Rings boring too. Even the movies. I just don't have the attention span to follow the plot.

Reading a play is nowhere near as enjoyable as
watching (or being in) one. LOTR was so so (the
book), the movie was less so, for me, because there
was so much wrong with it. But, the book had too
many sections which just dragged on and on, with little
purpose. The ancillary works are even worse. Way too
much poetry.

[Lucifer]

i've asked several people this, and many agree: i read LOTR as a child, and loved it.  when i tried to read it again as an adult, i found it practically impenetrable - it's really dry an, as you say, cal, drones on and on.  funny that.

but then there are quite a few books like that for me.  i obviously had a far more sophisticated reading ability when i was young (as in about 12), as i zipped through stuff like "The Glass Bead Game" with alacrity and enjoyment, and can't see myself having the patience to sit through it now.  strange...   

[odeon]

I've always found LOTR to be infinitely dull.

[Lucifer]

yep.  the horses of mannanan mac lir were good in the film, though.

[odeon]

The films were OK. Sometimes good, even, but the books are a waste of perfectly good trees.

[Christopher McCandless]

i've asked several people this, and many agree: i read LOTR as a child, and loved it.  when i tried to read it again as an adult, i found it practically impenetrable - it's really dry an, as you say, cal, drones on and on.  funny that.

but then there are quite a few books like that for me.  i obviously had a far more sophisticated reading ability when i was young (as in about 12), as i zipped through stuff like "The Glass Bead Game" with alacrity and enjoyment, and can't see myself having the patience to sit through it now.  strange...   

Exactly why I suggested it (although there are plenty of other good books out there that could be used instead). The problem is that the majority of people in english classes feel completely alienated, Shakesphere should be saved for later on for those who might enjoy it, and only as an option.

[Calandale]

i've asked several people this, and many agree: i read LOTR as a child, and loved it.  when i tried to read it again as an adult, i found it practically impenetrable - it's really dry an, as you say, cal, drones on and on.  funny that.

Is the bolded comma a mistake?

but then there are quite a few books like that for me.  i obviously had a far more sophisticated reading ability when i was young (as in about 12), as i zipped through stuff like "The Glass Bead Game" with alacrity and enjoyment, and can't see myself having the patience to sit through it now.  strange...   

My wife loved that. I've been so so on
Hesse though. Should give it a shot.

[Lucifer]

i've asked several people this, and many agree: i read LOTR as a child, and loved it.  when i tried to read it again as an adult, i found it practically impenetrable - it's really dry an, as you say, cal, drones on and on.  funny that.

Is the bolded comma a mistake?

the emboldening ( ) has crept in without my input.  there is a "d" missing, though.  perhaps I2's got an automatic (and surreal) spellchecker.

but then there are quite a few books like that for me.  i obviously had a far more sophisticated reading ability when i was young (as in about 12), as i zipped through stuff like "The Glass Bead Game" with alacrity and enjoyment, and can't see myself having the patience to sit through it now.  strange...   

My wife loved that. I've been so so on
Hesse though. Should give it a shot.

"siddhartha" is lovely.  and "narziss and goldmund" is worth a look.

[Calandale]

"siddhartha" is lovely.  and "narziss and goldmund" is worth a look.

Read both. Like I said, I'm kinda so so on hesse,
so I didn't really enjoy, I guess.

Read any Faulkner? I liked what I saw of his.

[Lucifer]

"siddhartha" is lovely.  and "narziss and goldmund" is worth a look.

Read both. Like I said, I'm kinda so so on hesse,
so I didn't really enjoy, I guess.

Read any Faulkner? I liked what I saw of his.

not yet - what would you recommend?

[Calandale]

I only read the first and third
(I buy books used) of the snopes
trilogy. The Hamlet, and The Mansion.

Very pretty writing. Not the most
compelling story, but for writing alone,
I think it might be the best imagery that
I've seen (whatever that means).