> Most here were respectful listeners once, much as it > always puzzled me given the climate here. >
I'd rather gnu math teachers be out in the field doing the job, not respectfully gathering around the camp fire to hear Urner blab about B, A & T modules 'til the cows come home.
They're supposed to already know this stuff -- and do (or they wouldn't be gnu math teachers duh).
> > I think you applauding Pam, a reading specialist > > for young children, > > Correction - reading specialist for all ages, > children and adults. The fact that I am getting them > younger and younger is a very good thing. > > > for standing up to me, is kind of ass > > backwards on your part. You're the vlorbik > > topologist or whatever you are, the big math > > cheese. Why hide behind Pam? > > Perhaps because I was commenting on behavior more > than mathematics, and my work with young children > makes me uniquely qualified for such observations > here at math-teach? > > Pam
Seems there's this desperate attempt by some on math-teach to avoid substantive mathematics at all costs, and instead focus on (a) Kirby's psychological problems or (b) on the mafioso ayatollah types secretly pulling the strings (uh huh, yeah, right...).
What seemed to send you, Pam, over the edge was when I morphed "phonemes" into "phoenemes" to suit my own purposes -- seems I stomped on your turf at that point. That's about the time you got nasty. Guess I found a hot button.
For Haim, I just have to say "Grunch" and he goes "OK, that's it, he's crazy." Plus relating "pedant" to "foot soldier" gets him all riled.
Owen said he looked into A & B modules awhile back and didn't see their point (even though they're quite pointy).
Why would anyone want to fill space with a couple fool tetrahedra, building the simplest of all space-fillers along the way (volume 1/8), and connecting CCP centers together with volume 1 Couplers, while meanwhile bridging to rotationally five-fold symmetric groups with an equivalently volumed and recursively self-assembling phi-scaling thing (i.e. the T module)?
I mean, isn't that just stoopid? Better we should just shut up and integrate by parts eh?
And who wants to understand hexapent architecture, macro and micro, while learning vector graphics in a real computer language, when we *could* be graphing rational expressions on tiny little monochrome screens using the weakest chips in the business? What silly Kirbyland nonsense!
All my chatter about building up a mental discovery zone from whole numbered and simple fractioned shapes, and relating this internal vista to multidisciplinary material, including in the sciences, is either:
(a) over Owen's head (which I sincerely doubt) or
(b) sounds disloyal to some internalized authority structure he carries around as a part of his mental baggage.
I'm thinking the latter is the more likely explanation for what makes him tick, going from warm to cold all of a sudden, given the perceived threat to his professional ego.
It just *wouldn't do* to have some pesky academy of Silicon Forest execs get federal support for an alternative curriculum, complete with flagship schools in New Mexico, perma culture hexapents, spatial geometry on flatscreens (Python Nation a sponsor) and gnu math teachers doubling as tcp/ip janitors, keeping the local networks humming, instead of whining to IT.
That just wouldn't do at all.
But will math teachers be able to stop this storyboard from being implemented? In New Mexico maybe, but in all fifty states? What if word gets out that *some* public schools really do offer choice? What would Haim say?
What if we teach about an NCLB Polyhedron, and how the muggles refused to share it, or really much of any Pentagon Math for that matter?
I think it's just easier to try to keep me in boxed in, giving me stuff by Peter Drucker to read. That'll teach me to respect my betters who know what a morpheme is.