VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:45:21 11/09/01 Fri
Author: Clare
Subject: Re: And somehow this thread got to speaking of overpopulation!
In reply to: Michael 's message, "And somehow this thread got to speaking of overpopulation!" on 12:42:57 11/09/01 Fri

>
>Most of the time I like the Michael Rapaport
>character, but this was not one of those moments.
>I don't totally remember the context of the conversation, >but IIRC, the character threw in the bit about thinking of >students while he beats off in an unprovoked manner. >Correct me if I am wrong. Did he really need to volunteer
>that info? Keep in mind that my high schooling
>occured in a single-sex environment, so if such an
>admission were to have been made there ... eesh!

I like him too, and I agree he shouldn't have said that to the kids. But I think what they're establishing here is that the character not only "says what he feets", but he also tends to speak without thinking first. I think he's going to be fun to watch.

>>That is the woman who was talking behind Ronnie's back
>>in front of all of the other teachers, right? That is
>>the one I hate, but think if she is like that all the
>>time, that she would be good to keep, kind of like a
>>Dr. Smith on Lost in Space. (giving away my age!)

Okay, maybe I had the wrong teacher here. The one who led the meeting about Ronnie was not someone I've ever seen. I thought you meant Marla, co-teacher with Lipschitz and presently struggling with her weight. Sorry for the misunderstanding (I would say "my bad", but I don't understand what that means--now I'm giving away MY age!)

>Finally, a realistic interpretation of a teacher
>*smirk*! Having at one time desired to be a high
>school teacher, and even going through many of the
>steps in the process to become one, it's amazing how
>many you find that become so insecure about how they
>are percevied and of their worth to society that views
>like this become the dominant one. Closed door
>meetings to discuss other unwelcomed teachers?
>Back-stabbing? You'd have thought a profession that
>so influences the futures of the children of America
>would be above that. Ronnie's back-handed compliment
>was the perfect response to what was going on in there.

Yes, and you'd think with the teacher shortage they're always talking about, these teachers would be pleased to have someone come in and help alleviate the overcrowding. I did however, understand their dissatisfaction with having a student teaching last year (although she did do a good job).

>>but those who enjoy booming out
>>babies as if there is no world population
>>crises(70,000 million net more people on the earth
>>every year than the year before and will reach 7
>>billion in the next ten years!)
>>I know that isn't fair, since there are likely people
>>who have large families who do care about the earth
>>and also those who have no children who could care
>>less about what humanity is doing to our precious
>>planet!
>
>Ah yes! The part that the subject of my post refers
>to! For every family that's churning out babies
>shortsightedly, I could probably find just as many
>career-oriented women who feel that introducing new
>life into the world would get in the way of job
>advancement. Plus there are people who
>conscientiously object to bringing another life into
>the world, seeing it as a drain on
>soon-to-be-tapped-out resources. Those are both
>encouraging trends.

Okay, now I'm confused. How DID we get to overpopulation? When Jamie originally referred to baby-boomers, I thought he (she?) was talking about people born in the "boom" after WWII--which most historians say lasted until between 1964 and 1967 (or so). My parents personally had quite a large baby boom themselves.

Anyway, for the record, I agree that there is quite an overpopulation problem.

>What is discouraging though, is that such measures are
>most likely countered by the number of irresponsible
>girls who get knocked up, or don't have the foresight
>to obtain birth control or contraception before living
>their promiscuous lives.

Speaking of which, there was an episode last season where I understand (I never got to see it) the faculty had to do a sex talk for the students. Did either of you see it? Doesn't this school have regular sex education classes? I had sex ed. back in the '70's. Don't tell me that they no longer do that.

>Oh, and thanks for clarifying that Lauren is not a
>villain. I read that wrong *sheepish look* ... my bad.

Again, where does "my bad" come from?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-4
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.