Robert Hansen posted Mar 7, 2014 12:39 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9407035) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Mar 7, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Louis Talman > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > But you need to read more, too. Both in quality > > and quantity. > > Good point. > > > But the central part of precise writing is precise > > thinking---not just about what you write, but about > > what you read, as well. > > I disagree with this insinuation, that one?s writing > is a reflection of one?s thinking. > To the best of my understanding, this is not an 'insinuation' at all. (I've not yet confirmed this with a dictionary, shall do that in due course).
To quote Professor Talman's own words: QUOTE > >But the central part of precise writing is precise > >thinking---not just about what you write, but about > >what you read, as well. > > UNQUOTE Several assertions there, but no 'insinuations', so far as I can make out. > >Believe me, I am a > bad enough writer, ... > I believe you. > >***...and enough people have made that > mistake about me. They usually regret it after a few > more posts. I wrote a paper in high school making the > point that our vocabulary can and does affect our > thinking, and I believe this still. But that doesn?t > preclude good writing.*** > Do you understand what you have written above? > > To be honest. I was getting > hit with so much red ink, not having anything to do > with my thoughts, but with grammar and spelling, that > I gave up. I had to take creative writing not twice, > but three times and only got through with the help of > a spell checker I bought for my C64, > It's NOT the spelling that is at issue. What's at issue is the THINKING that has led to the triple-starred paragraph above. (And, more damagingly, something else - see below). > > that required > switching floppy disks halfway through the damn spell > checking. After that it was all science and math and > programming. I was so relieved. I didn?t write > (creatively) again till I started blogging 8 or 9 > years ago. > > And I don?t have an answer as to why writing was so > difficult for me in school. > I'm pretty certain that - had your teachers been using the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) to help develop guidelines for their own teaching and for the 'learning' of their students - you would have been thinking and writing much more clearly today than you are able to do at this time.
Your teachers would have had to work with the silver dyad of 'learning+teaching', and not with the monod of teaching alone, which is the general philosophy of most conventional educational systems. (True, some outstanding teachers do - despite the incompetent systems in which they are immersed - manage to 'work the dyad' instead 'work the monod'.
(Of course, any learning at any time of your life would demand that you are more open-minded than you and your cohorts and consorts have thus far demonstrated yourselves to be. A great many of our teachers themselves keep their minds hermetically sealed to the ingress of new knowledge - so a great many of their students are forced to learn to do just that). > > You can always throw lazy > in there I guess, but that doesn?t tell the whole > story. Were you lazy in not learning how to play the > piano? Or did playing the piano not reckon high > enough in your order of things. For me, I always > found something more interesting to do, like reading > and mathematics. > Professor Talman had written "laziness" (if I remember right). I had modified that to 'intellectual laziness'. As to your abilities in 'reading' see below - but that may not be a reflection of your 'ability to read AND understand', but a reflection of your 'intellectual honesty'.
OK, let's say we buy the logic of the above. How does that square with your 'education philosophy' that:
"Children must be PUSHED (or GOADED) to learn math!" (and presumably everything else).
Do you consider my bringing up the above to be "poking you with a stick" ??? > >I think the spelling thing though is > a wiring issue, and if I were to turn off my spell > checker right now, I bet you might just believe me. > Your abilities in spelling (or lack of such) is not the issue here. > > With regards to reading, and your point, it isn?t > just reading and thinking about the ideas the author > wrote about, because I had that in spades, and I read > a lot. It is reading and thinking about what the > author actually wrote, which is what you?re saying I > hope. > A: How, with all the 'reading' you've done, did you come up with the falsehood that
"OPMS is just list-making and nothing else" (words to that effect)???
[The merest glance at the OPMS documentation would clearly demonstrate that the OPMS is MUCH more than "just list-making"].
B: How, with all the 'reading' you've done, did you come up with the falsehood that "GSC would solicit funds" from those who make inquiry about OPMS???
These are the issues as far as I'm concerned - not your spelling abilities (or lack of such). > > The words themselves. I realized later that I > had always skipped that part. That might certainly be > construed as ?lazy?. Fortunately, spell checking > removed the stigma of bad spelling, and I started > writing again. I think going forward, I will take > more time thinking about what I write. Although, I do > enjoy a good hashing out of ideas, freestyle like. > > Bob Hansen > See above.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")