Posts by stephen walker
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's an easy mistake to make. Isn't that the same kind of , 'hide the mistakes we make and refuse to question for fear of being wrong
you're trying to hide your mistake, Mark?
tsk, tsk.
-
@Steve:
you forgot mr Williamson, and... (oh, never mind) -
It is no mystery why modern students can't think for themselves, they have had it squeezed out of them by a system that measures only outcomes and is not bothered about process or what isn't measured.
Part of it is the drive for so many to go to university, but that is not the whole story. Just beware of assuming anything from overseas must be better.
that answer is CORRECT.
(the metaphor i usually think of involves pulverising natural curiosity and creativity by means of a shoe heel being driven into the dusty ground)
-
Is that tongue in cheek, an exaggeration, or are you serious?
are you serious in asking if he is serious?
LOL
-
I suspect I was being too opaque.
i don't think so.
Sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to dodge questions.
i didn't get that impression.
i find it interesting that your attempt to highlight the perverse outcomes of a system ostensibly designed to provide accountability and transparency received so much breathless indignation. but there you go, people read what they want to read.
-
re the WSJ profile of John Key, you have to remember that the WSJ is really like two papers in one: the Op-Ed section and the news section are so completely different it's like reading two different publications. the news section tends to have quite well-written, informative and well researched articles (and analysis), whereas the Op-Ed section could be used for chip paper, maybe. really, try looking at a few days worth of print editions. the contast is amazing. and many of the views espoused in the opinion pieces are, ah, whacky. to say the least. y'know, like private prisons!
speaking of whitch, i learnt all i need to know about private prisons from Nick Cave. in 1989.
-
evidence based policies
they've got what? bomb them!
-
our contestant from Copenhagen wins the prize for best literary quotation of the evening!
-
i haven't read the Listener article you cite, but the chances of finding intelligent, non-superficual analysis in a Listener article are quite low, imo. that probably goes for all of the Big Media-owned outlets in NZ, unfortunately. superficial, reactionary (faux shock on behalf of "ordinary Kiwis") and hackneyed seem to be the three most important criteria in any mainstream publication these days.
back on topic:
the longer one stays away, the more surreal it all seems when one returns. probably a reflection of one having changed in the interim and NZ having changed too. the reconcilation between image and reality becomes more fraught as time goes on. and all your old school friends have got grey hair (if they still have any). what i am saying is that gradual change is easier to cope with. less so if you've just land back and step out of the Tardis. good luck. -
WHAT IS BUDDHISM?
This is not an easy question to answer, because Buddhism is comprised of many systems of belief and practice, or what we call traditions. These traditions have developed in different times and different countries, and in some degree of isolation from each other. Each has developed distinctive features which to a casual observer might appear to be major differences. However, these differences are frequently merely cultural overlays, and in other cases they are only differences in emphasis or approach. All traditions in fact are underpinned by a central core of common belief and practice
...
Buddhist commentators have usually construed sexual misconduct to include rape, sexual harassment, molestation of children, and unfaithfulness to one's spouse. Clearly, these manifestations of sexual misconduct can apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual behaviour.
the Dalai Lama is not the "Pope of Buddhism". his opinions on sexual proscriptions are not particularly representative of Buddhism in general.