|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/18/2001 : 10:36:47 [Permalink]
|
Hey Rat,
Thanks for the memory touch-up and also for the additional 'Laws". they hit it right between the eyes. In return, I promise that I won't tell my snakes that you exist.
Hey Snake,
Ya beat me to it. But it's not just in art and literature that fantasy can be an inspiration. I have no doubt that many solid, scienfific achevements began with a daydream.
luck,
D
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2001 : 10:58:39 [Permalink]
|
OK, I agree with Snake on this issue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with escapist literature. However, the teacher must actually be creative enough to get his/her students discussing the social/political impact of the movie. Additionally, what was good artistically, what was bad. Analyzing films this was actually encourages more critical film viewing.
Always loved Arthur C Clarke
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2001 : 12:53:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sort of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" writ large, eh?
OK, topic hijack: I say the British "Whose Line" (with Clive Anderson) is far, far wittier and more enjoyable than the American one (with Drew Carey). Any dissenters?
I shall dissent! 
I enjoy both, but Wayne Brady can't be beat for amazing improv (songs at least), Ryan and Colin remain as hillarious as they were on the original, you can actually understand what the hell Drew Carey says, even if it's not that funny sometimes (as opposed to Clive's 1,000,000mph jibberish), and the rest is pretty much the same.
So basically I think the new one just barely beats out the original, but not so I'd argue about it. 
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
hatten_jc
New Member
Sweden
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2001 : 11:26:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think anyone has raised this point yet...
No i think you are about first...
quote:
Why on earth would a school organize a field trip to see an entertainment movie in the first place?
One of the most importent thing a Tetcher can do is make lerning FUN if a child discover that its FUN to lern a new thing the child will start lerning ON it self faster and with esy.
by using Harry Potter as lerning experience the joy of going to school is incresing and children lern that evrything IN school is not baad.
And the movie it self can be use as a forum fore social discusion inside the classroom agien.
quote:
Was this the school's Film Club or something? Or was it justified as having some educational merit?
The value of fun ways of making school intreting give it a great merit.
The fact that the movie it self can be use as a way to teach children how to analyse social problem in diskusion and even give them mor motivation to go to school ( so not to miss nex movie )
quote:
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be purely fun things connected with school -- hell, ideally learning should always be fun (and hard work too, sometimes). But why the "Harry Potter" movie? Why not a natural history museum or something?
You have oviusly forgoten how it was to be child.
Verry fue childen like History museum if they can go to a movie.
But by combining days out with movie/Museum and other things a more positiv picture is built in the childs mind of the days out and in school.
quote:
If I really strain my imagination I can barely justify the movie as an "encouragement to reading". But from what I've heard, the books are already so popular among kids it's hard to imagine that seeing the movie would send them scurrying off to the library or bookstore.
The fact that the book is now a movie dont seem to discurise childen from reading the book quite the oposite is what wee see in sweden :) and belive me the Swedish translation is worst then my english..
( becuse of the lusy Translation of books in sweden i activly try to read the book in its native languish this only work for swedish, english books and chort esy dutch books )
quote:
Or am I just being an old poop?
i say old poop :)
quote:
By the way, I share your contempt for the fundies who spoiled the fun. Regardless of whether the trip was a good idea in the first place, they clearly had "no standing" (in the legal sense) to intervene. Whack their ta-tas!
the sad part of funis is that they ONLY care about there own way of life and activly disreagard other opinon.
Fundis ought to be faught verbaly and literly and by contraprotest if posible as and fast so that they dont get the chans to creat probelm.
If a lie is said to many time it will be consider the truth.
quote:
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
No ! i plan to think by myselves...
Never underestemate a humans capaity for activ stupity
Sorry about my lousy English ? can we talk in Swedish :) |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2001 : 20:10:04 [Permalink]
|
Cygonaut:
I guess that I missed this one way, way back on 11/24/01 (probably one of those hectic weeks where I am seldom near my computer).
Anyway, you stated:
quote:
That's completely false.
Creationists don't lack peer review. What they lack is evidence.
That is really not true. Creationists are not considered to be *peers* (meaning *equals*) in the community of scientists. Therefore, Creationists' ideas do not count in science as *peer review*, one way or the other. *Peer review* works in science where every *recognized* scientist in a given field is considered as a *peer*, meaning an *equal*. Creation *scientists* are not considered to be *scientists* and, therefore, not *peers* by real scientists.
Sorry to be so late in posting this, but I could not let it go by as it was...
ljbrs 
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
