Evolving wrote:We used to have a "peaceful Ahmadi Muslim" here...

Aw, I liked that guy. He was fun.

He was certainly funny.

Do you remember the spoof thread? I've been trying (lackadaisically) to find it.

Paarsurrey was his/their name.

His command of English fluctuated wildly and the suspicion grew that he was a collective of posters, which is apparently against the FUA.

My own theory is that he was a hive mind.

Evolving wrote:Paarsurrey was his/their name.

His command of English fluctuated wildly and the suspicion grew that he was a collective of posters, which is apparently against the FUA.

My own theory is that he was a hive mind.

I, as a non-native speaker of English with an interest in linguistics in general and ample experience with bilinguals in general (and with several different language-pairings involved), find the fluctuation of his English quite within the bounds of what's natural, and I think the repeated claim that such fluctuation is evidence of someone really being a collective quite unjustified, and I think you all should just fucking let that rest. You're seeding a mistaken metric into people's minds. Try being a bit fucking rational about it, plz. This forum's name is rationalskepticism, for fucking crying fucking out fucking loud.

Yes, I find repetition of such retarded claims a bit offensive. (And this particular piece of bullshit reasoning has been repeated several times on this forum already. I did hope people would have forgotten it already, but apparently not.)

From vague memory Paarsurrey happily admitted to being a collective.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Evolving wrote:Paarsurrey was his/their name.

His command of English fluctuated wildly and the suspicion grew that he was a collective of posters, which is apparently against the FUA.

My own theory is that he was a hive mind.

I, as a non-native speaker of English with an interest in linguistics in general and ample experience with bilinguals in general (and with several different language-pairings involved), find the fluctuation of his English quite within the bounds of what's natural, and I think the repeated claim that such fluctuation is evidence of someone really being a collective quite unjustified, and I think you all should just fucking let that rest. You're seeding a mistaken metric into people's minds. Try being a bit fucking rational about it, plz. This forum's name is rationalskepticism, for fucking crying fucking out fucking loud.

Yes, I find repetition of such retarded claims a bit offensive. (And this particular piece of bullshit reasoning has been repeated several times on this forum already. I did hope people would have forgotten it already, but apparently not.)

Wow. don't hold back!

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Evolving wrote:Paarsurrey was his/their name.

His command of English fluctuated wildly and the suspicion grew that he was a collective of posters, which is apparently against the FUA.

My own theory is that he was a hive mind.

I, as a non-native speaker of English with an interest in linguistics in general and ample experience with bilinguals in general (and with several different language-pairings involved), find the fluctuation of his English quite within the bounds of what's natural, and I think the repeated claim that such fluctuation is evidence of someone really being a collective quite unjustified, and I think you all should just fucking let that rest. You're seeding a mistaken metric into people's minds. Try being a bit fucking rational about it, plz. This forum's name is rationalskepticism, for fucking crying fucking out fucking loud.

Yes, I find repetition of such retarded claims a bit offensive. (And this particular piece of bullshit reasoning has been repeated several times on this forum already. I did hope people would have forgotten it already, but apparently not.)

You know I think I might have been on the mod team for that, I hated to see him go. I liked him a lot.
(But then again I was often a shit disturber trying to get the fun ones to stay ).

So, I agree!

Bud's Brain wrote:

Alan B wrote:In what area is this school?

Bracknell Forest Council (Berkshire) - Sandhurst School

Bloody Hell! I lived in BFC since 1964. My youngest son still lives there. I know Sandhurst, just the other side of Crowthorne.

Alan B wrote:

Bud's Brain wrote:

Alan B wrote:In what area is this school?

Bracknell Forest Council (Berkshire) - Sandhurst School

Bloody Hell! I lived in BFC since 1964. My youngest son still lives there. I know Sandhurst, just the other side of Crowthorne.

It's off topic, I know, but you might be interested to know that Sandhurst school has dragged itself up from failing its Ofsted report to a healthy 2 and is still improving. Even I, of apartheid era whites only education and discipline am impressed with the behaviour of the kids. Mind you, my daughter thinks that I'm positively draconian in my opinion of discipline in British schooling.

Bud's Brain wrote:

Shrunk wrote:The problem, it seems to me, is that RE is conceived with the goal of fostering respect and tolerance towards religious beliefs, rather than understanding religions and their history. Maybe that's not such a bad goal, but then they shouldn't call it Religious Education.

I completely agree. If it was billed as, for instance, 'we've invited a representative of a not-very-representative sect of Islam to talk to you. Next week is Rosicrucianism and after that, a cargo cult'.

For good or bad, I'm raising my daughter to be leery of religion - whatever it's called. She is expected to be courteous but NOT respectful of religious beliefs.

I'm all for understanding religions and for facilitating people's desire to follow them if they so wish, as long as they don't impinge on non-adherents in a negative manner, but I do worry when unrepresentative material is presented by a devotee to youngsters in school.

Still, your daughter's questioning sounds healthy. And perhaps the nature of this sect was made clear in the preamble?

... And perhaps the nature of this sect was made clear in the preamble?

Do you mean notification from the school regarding the proposed lecture? I did get a letter but nothing was mentioned about the nature of the subject / sect.

What these people are doing is presenting their version of Islam as the only 'true' version. This is like the nutcase pastors who play with poisonous snakes declaring that their version is the only 'true' version of Christianity.

What the school should do now is to invite an extremist Mullah to give their alternative version of Islam and also comment on the previous speaker's POV.

This could be interesting, being next to Sandhurst Military College...

These speakers should not be invited. Religion should not be discussed in school as a separate subject.

Scot Dutchy wrote:These speakers should not be invited. Religion should not be discussed in school as a separate subject.

Pray tell, why not?

Scot Dutchy wrote:These speakers should not be invited. Religion should not be discussed in school as a separate subject.

Actually, I view them as chew toys for my daughter to test her milk teeth on. It only becomes problematic if it''s not balanced.

Zwaarddijk wrote:
Pray tell, why not?

From a pure finite resource point of view, I'd much rather see time and money be spent teaching kids other subjects and having more time for practical application of those subjects (including basic lifeskills stuff), then waste time on religion.

If religious learning is important to parents, they can sort that shit in their own time. Why on earth should the state pay for it?

Sendraks wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:
Pray tell, why not?

From a pure finite resource point of view, I'd much rather see time and money be spent teaching kids other subjects and having more time for practical application of those subjects (including basic lifeskills stuff), then waste time on religion.

If religious learning is important to parents, they can sort that shit in their own time. Why on earth should the state pay for it?

Thank you Sendraks my opinion exactly.
If they want religion let them do it in their own time. An historical reference to religion is ok in history but lets not waste time and money on fairy tales.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:
Pray tell, why not?

From a pure finite resource point of view, I'd much rather see time and money be spent teaching kids other subjects and having more time for practical application of those subjects (including basic lifeskills stuff), then waste time on religion.

If religious learning is important to parents, they can sort that shit in their own time. Why on earth should the state pay for it?

Thank you Sendraks my opinion exactly.
If they want religion let them do it in their own time. An historical reference to religion is ok in history but lets not waste time and money on fairy tales.

Kids won't voluntarily learn stuff out of school. That means that they'll get their info from their parents - probably only one religion. That's not a good way to ensure that kids get an overview of all religions. It's not a waste of resources if kids are made aware of others and, hopefully, ask basic questions. I'm not a fan of religious tolerance, but it's a chance to educate children away from fundamentalism.

Why waste money on fairy tales? You cant give an overview of any branch of religion so why try. Just refer to religion in a historical context is more than enough.

Public schools here dont even touch on religion outside of history.

Zwaarddijk wrote:I, as a non-native speaker of English with an interest in linguistics in general and ample experience with bilinguals in general (and with several different language-pairings involved), find the fluctuation of his English quite within the bounds of what's natural, and I think the repeated claim that such fluctuation is evidence of someone really being a collective quite unjustified, and I think you all should just fucking let that rest. You're seeding a mistaken metric into people's minds. Try being a bit fucking rational about it, plz. This forum's name is rationalskepticism, for fucking crying fucking out fucking loud.

Yes, I find repetition of such retarded claims a bit offensive. (And this particular piece of bullshit reasoning has been repeated several times on this forum already. I did hope people would have forgotten it already, but apparently not.)

As I recall, it wasn't the fluctuation in his command of English that made me suspicious but, rather, the inconsistency in the content of his posts. In particular, one post when he out of the blue insulted a female member and called her a "cow." It was quite out of keeping with the unctuous, overly polite persona he usually presented.

But he was fun, sorta.