Yet again, you are still dodging the entire question. Did your "yes" include the other part of my question, where we hire many more teachers to cut almost in half the teaching load and thus increase the non-teaching load, as it is the case in those three top performers of Korea, Finland, and Japan, where we also raise the minimum bar to where it is in say Finland as to who becomes a teacher?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Lol, That was an explanation? > > Are you asking me if I would accept no sports programs for our kids at all OR if I would accept sports programs not being part of school? > > If it is the latter then YES, if it is the former, then NO. > > Bob Hansen > > On Oct 11, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: > >> You didn't actually answer the question with respect to the deal or >> exchange in question. You dodged it. >> >> Example of what how dodging questions in and of itself says something: >> If a politician who from past sayings is against legal abortion >> refuses to answer questions on whether they would agree to deals >> allowing legal abortion but where they get other things that want, we >> can take that dodging as a "no" answer unless and until the dodger >> actually answers the question. >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 11, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: >>> >>> You tacitly confirmed what I said - the question was about a deal or >>> an exchange, and you tacitly said that you would never agree to said >>> deal or exchange. >>> >>> >>> WTF? >>> >>> Please explain.