Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again

In article zorNb.55214$Rc4.211704@attbi_s54, P. Tierney wrote:

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:SiqNb.69916$I06.320795@attbi_s01...
In article , toto wrote:

Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
classes, SNIP

Things have gone for the worse then. Back when I was in HS the
the computer classes were computer classes. BASIC and Pascal on
the apple 2E.(obsolete by then,but not by a whole lot) Pascal,
what horrid language, only loved by CS profs and the like. And
a bit of some other now dead programing language... logo or something
like that. Easy classes though.

How have things "gone for the worse" when schools are
no longer teaching computer languages that you say are
dead and obsolete?

Because they are no longer teaching programming at all as stated
by the person I was responding to. DUH. Today they should probably
be teaching C and VB. BASIC isn't obsolete as a learner language
either. Fortran, as old as it is, will still be useful for anyone
going into an engineering / research field and could serve as an
alternative for BASIC.

In article , 0tterbot wrote:
"Brent P"
It's not a matter of being *perfect.* Victims of bullies do have
some common characteristics though. Nothing that is their fault
and it isn't physical size that matters.

That was in response to someone who
was arguing that the victim should modify his behavior not to be
an "abuse magnet"

you appear to mean me.

On usenet, yes. And I've lost my tolerance for stupidity.

there might be some behaviours or tendencies that
should be got rid of, if possible, in order to not attract bullying (see
dorothy's list),

BLAME THE VICTIM. He's an "abuse magnet". It's his fault others go after him.

Well, here's a clue, if the school does not stand in the way, does
not make itself a secondary problem for the victim to deal with, the
victim can, at least in some instances, stop being victim without the
school tying his hands.

but overall there's no way on god's good earth i'd suggest
a victim "should modify his behaviour" to avoid being bullied, & it simply
isn't the victim's "fault" & i would never say that. so i hope you don't
mean me. you're already reading things that aren't there & this might be
another example.

The language being used suggests otherwise.

And some kids have other strengths but aren't allowed to use them.
But if a 'bully' doesn't get the reaction he is looking for he
will increase the intensity. He doesn't go elsewhere until it's
painful for him not to.

actually, i often hear how people were able to diffuse bad school (or other)
situations with humour. there's a lot of comedians out there who'll actually
thank their bullies for being their first audiences.

That's nice. Some children dodn't have class-clown abilities. The only
ability they mayhave that would be effective to stop the problem is
beating the snot out of bullies when they attacked. But the school
effectively ties their hands by threatening their academic future.
Most kids don't know this is an empty threat, but the bullies seem to
realize it is or simply don't care because they generally have no future
anyway.

Children who are not bullies or victims have a powerful
role to play in shaping the behavior of other children.
Teach your children to speak up on behalf of children
being bullied. "Don't treat her that way, it's not nice."
"Hitting is not a good way to solve problems, let's find a
teacher and talk about what happened.

lol... sorry but that cracks me up. That would turn the neutral
kid into a victim in short order or if not a victim, a social leper.

no, it doesn't, actually. it tells a bully that they're going to have their
work cut out beating up _everyone_.

It's very easy to nip allies in the bud.

it makes clear that where there is one
helper, there are bound to be others. it creates dialogue. it does a lot of
things. what it doesn't do is automatically create shiny new "victims"
because, as said before, victims tend often to be a "type" & the confident
kids who speak up don't fit that "type". they aren't easily scared nor
scared off.

Allies are quickly and easily turned. Sure the victim might think he has
friends. But those kids don't want to sacrifice their own popularity
defending the unpopular kid. When it hits the fan, they'll likely be the
trojan horse. It's a social calculation, one friend or be liked by 30.
The human animal picks the later. The thinking human may pick the former,
but they are the rarer type.

remainder of generalisations & relentless negativity & pessimism snipped

i enjoyed dorothy's post & it very clearly outlined a lot of things i'd have
said, but it said them much better.

It did a very good job of blaming the whole thing on faults in the
victims' skill base and personality. How wonderful. Don't be different,
be like everyone else and you won't have a problem. If you are different,
if your skills have a different distribution, oh well.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:05:04 GMT, (Brent P)
wrote:

In article , wrestleantares wrote:

You are only partly right, IMO. And this is coming from someone who
was ALWAYS the smallest guy in school. Bullies certainly use size to
feel people out, but the ones they continue to bully are (with
exceptions of course) the ones that allow it. I was never bullied for
any length of time, because I did not allow it. As I said, there are
exceptions, but most bullies want to move on to easier prey.

What got me into this thread was when the kid *IS NOT ALLOWED* to do
anything about it by the powers that be.

The only way that somone can be NOT ALLOWED to do something is when he
or she does not allow themself to do something. There may be
consequences to making the choice of not being bullied, but, with
exceptions of course, being bullied or not is controllable. I
personally risked expulsion from two different schools in order to
keep from being bullied. To me, the benefit of my actions (stop from
being bullied) outweighed any possible consequences.

Parents, teachers, school
admin, etc. When there is punishment from higher authority for doing
something about it, the kid is in a horrid catch 22.


The kid always has a choice. Again, (I can't say this enough) there
are always exceptions. I know, you can tell me what the
parents/teachers/schools do to threaten the child into keeping what
happens to his or herself. It can be extremely tough. But it is
still largely the child's choice. And really, no matter what, isn't
that the way it almost always is. Only the bullied can stop a bully.

I made it a mission of sorts while I was in high school to help stop
others from being bullied. It never worked. It's not that they chose
to be bullied, but that they chose to accept it rather than act
against it.

In article , wrestleantares wrote:

You are only partly right, IMO. And this is coming from someone who
was ALWAYS the smallest guy in school. Bullies certainly use size to
feel people out, but the ones they continue to bully are (with
exceptions of course) the ones that allow it. I was never bullied for
any length of time, because I did not allow it. As I said, there are
exceptions, but most bullies want to move on to easier prey.

What got me into this thread was when the kid *IS NOT ALLOWED* to do
anything about it by the powers that be. Parents, teachers, school
admin, etc. When there is punishment from higher authority for doing
something about it, the kid is in a horrid catch 22.

In article ,
wrestleantares wrote:

Was it really strength of body, or was it strength of will. I am
betting your new strength of body gave you a renewed sense of
confidence, and that you weren't bullied - not because you were
stronger physically, but stronger in spirit. You probably could have
gotten them to stop bullying you even without the weightlifting. Not
guaranteed of course, but certainly very likely.

Stuff and nonsense. Strength of will is necessary, but so is strength
of body. It does no good to stand up to a bully if he can pound you
with no injury to himself.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:17:11 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

In article ,
wrestleantares wrote:

Was it really strength of body, or was it strength of will. I am
betting your new strength of body gave you a renewed sense of
confidence, and that you weren't bullied - not because you were
stronger physically, but stronger in spirit. You probably could have
gotten them to stop bullying you even without the weightlifting. Not
guaranteed of course, but certainly very likely.

Stuff and nonsense. Strength of will is necessary, but so is strength
of body. It does no good to stand up to a bully if he can pound you
with no injury to himself.

I can name three cases right off hand. All my experiences of course,
but have heard of many others.

I was 5' 4" and under 100 pounds and being bullied by a large number
of athletes on one particular team. I went directly to their locker
room at a time when I knew the coach was not there, and directly
challenged all of them to meet me off campus. I told them I would
take them all on as a group or individually if they felt like they had
that much of a problem with me that they constantly had to bully me.

It was a measured risk, and it worked. That was my most audacious
moment.

The other two were similar but with individuals.

Trust me, as samll as I was during those High School years, I know
what it's like to get bullied. But I also know it is not necessarily
the case that strength of arms is needed.

I also made it perfectly clear, that there are exceptions. However,
most bullying I've seen in my personal and professional life can be
prevented by the person that is bullied.


Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:6LyNb.75261$na.42703@attbi_s04...
In article zorNb.55214$Rc4.211704@attbi_s54, P. Tierney wrote:

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:SiqNb.69916$I06.320795@attbi_s01...
In article , toto wrote:

Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
classes, SNIP

Things have gone for the worse then. Back when I was in HS the
the computer classes were computer classes. BASIC and Pascal on
the apple 2E.(obsolete by then,but not by a whole lot) Pascal,
what horrid language, only loved by CS profs and the like. And
a bit of some other now dead programing language... logo or something
like that. Easy classes though.

How have things "gone for the worse" when schools are
no longer teaching computer languages that you say are
dead and obsolete?

Because they are no longer teaching programming at all as stated
by the person I was responding to. DUH. Today they should probably
be teaching C and VB. BASIC isn't obsolete as a learner language
either. Fortran, as old as it is, will still be useful for anyone
going into an engineering / research field and could serve as an
alternative for BASIC.

Some schools do teach such things, but it isn't necessary for
everyone. Even the best school can only offer so many things.
A good school district, however, should be able to offer a variety
of study areas, often via "magnets", within a district.


P.
Tierney

I take you missed my earier posts were I stated that in hindsight
it's worth the suspensions to beat the snot out of them. But as child
in the situation, it's easier to see the powers that be as the bigger
threat. Which is why as a child I only fought off school grounds.

Yeah, I missed the fact that you were a different person than the one
I responded to originally. I saw your earlier comments, but didn't
associate them with you.

In article , wrestleantares wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:05:04 GMT, (Brent P) wrote:

In article , wrestleantares wrote:

You are only partly right, IMO. And this is coming from someone who
was ALWAYS the smallest guy in school. Bullies certainly use size to
feel people out, but the ones they continue to bully are (with
exceptions of course) the ones that allow it. I was never bullied for
any length of time, because I did not allow it. As I said, there are
exceptions, but most bullies want to move on to easier prey.

What got me into this thread was when the kid *IS NOT ALLOWED* to do
anything about it by the powers that be.

The only way that somone can be NOT ALLOWED to do something is when he
or she does not allow themself to do something.

I take you missed my earier posts were I stated that in hindsight
it's worth the suspensions to beat the snot out of them. But as child
in the situation, it's easier to see the powers that be as the bigger
threat. Which is why as a child I only fought off school grounds.

There may be
consequences to making the choice of not being bullied, but, with
exceptions of course, being bullied or not is controllable. I
personally risked expulsion from two different schools in order to
keep from being bullied. To me, the benefit of my actions (stop from
being bullied) outweighed any possible consequences.

And in hindsight I have already stated an agreement with that. Beat
the snot out of em and take whatever the system dishes out.

Parents, teachers, school
admin, etc. When there is punishment from higher authority for doing
something about it, the kid is in a horrid catch 22.

The kid always has a choice. Again, (I can't say this enough) there
are always exceptions. I know, you can tell me what the
parents/teachers/schools do to threaten the child into keeping what
happens to his or herself. It can be extremely tough. But it is
still largely the child's choice. And really, no matter what, isn't
that the way it almost always is. Only the bullied can stop a bully.

However, in each situation which appears as the larger threat is
different. I spoke up because in my personal case the school made
itself appear as the bigger threat. There was no need for that. It
is my arguement that policies like suspend them all are not good
policies. A let-them-fight-it-out policy would be superior to that
nonsense. I am going a step further in saying that the school's
staff should not stand in the way of the bullied to stop it.

I made it a mission of sorts while I was in high school to help stop
others from being bullied. It never worked. It's not that they chose
to be bullied, but that they chose to accept it rather than act
against it.

Again, you'll find agreement with that in my prior posts.

In article 38BNb.62807$nt4.90237@attbi_s51, P. Tierney wrote:
"Brent P" wrote in message
news:6LyNb.75261$na.42703@attbi_s04...
In article zorNb.55214$Rc4.211704@attbi_s54, P. Tierney wrote:

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:SiqNb.69916$I06.320795@attbi_s01...
In article , toto wrote:

Most public high schools don't teach programming. They teach
computer literacy and they *may* teach one or two programming
classes, SNIP

Things have gone for the worse then. Back when I was in HS the
the computer classes were computer classes. BASIC and Pascal on
the apple 2E.(obsolete by then,but not by a whole lot) Pascal,
what horrid language, only loved by CS profs and the like. And
a bit of some other now dead programing language... logo or something
like that. Easy classes though.

How have things "gone for the worse" when schools are
no longer teaching computer languages that you say are
dead and obsolete?

Because they are no longer teaching programming at all as stated
by the person I was responding to. DUH. Today they should probably
be teaching C and VB. BASIC isn't obsolete as a learner language
either. Fortran, as old as it is, will still be useful for anyone
going into an engineering / research field and could serve as an
alternative for BASIC.

Some schools do teach such things, but it isn't necessary for
everyone. Even the best school can only offer so many things.
A good school district, however, should be able to offer a variety
of study areas, often via "magnets", within a district.

Here you go again making it appear I made arguements I didn't make.
There was no arguement it was required for everyone. I didn't make
the arguement that it wasn't tought anymore either, I just responded
that if it isn't offered any longer then it's a loss, a step down.