A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Calorie Intake



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old July 20th, 2005, 07:14 PM
OmManiPadmeOmelet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"JC Der Koenig" wrote:

"c" wrote in message ...

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
m...

"c" wrote in message
...

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
m...

"Marsha" wrote in message
...
JC Der Koenig wrote:


To make myself more popular with my peers I tell them, "The only
reason
we need to curve grades is to make up for **** poor teaching
techniques."


Brutal, man.


But I think they're getting used to me.



That's a scary thought in itself. ;-)


If it makes you feel any better, they're still somewhat uneasy.



It does. Honestly though, I do commend you for speaking your mind with
regards to the grading system. There are so many robots in society that
just
"go with the flow" and look where that has got us.


You might be surprised at how many teachers are among the sheeple.



I'd not be surprised at all... :-(
There is a reason that so many high school graduates can barely read,
much less know diddly about grammar and spelling!

THAT is what is scary!!!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
  #192  
Old July 20th, 2005, 09:14 PM
OmManiPadmeOmelet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"JC Der Koenig" wrote:

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" wrote in message
...

I'd not be surprised at all... :-(
There is a reason that so many high school graduates can barely read,
much less know diddly about grammar and spelling!

THAT is what is scary!!!



That is what the parents want and that's what the parents pay for.



Uh, 'scuse me, but I believe it's what the taxpayers shell out for...
My local school taxes are $600.00 per year and I don't even have kids in
the school system!

It's our frickin' corrupt govt. that has gold plated toilet seats and
lear jets, and fully paid tropical vacations that keep the school
systems dumbed down by stealing all the money in the "general fund"
that's supposed to pay for education.

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
  #193  
Old July 21st, 2005, 02:42 AM
OmManiPadmeOmelet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"JC Der Koenig" wrote:

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JC Der Koenig" wrote:

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" wrote in message
...

I'd not be surprised at all... :-(
There is a reason that so many high school graduates can barely read,
much less know diddly about grammar and spelling!

THAT is what is scary!!!


That is what the parents want and that's what the parents pay for.



Uh, 'scuse me, but I believe it's what the taxpayers shell out for...
My local school taxes are $600.00 per year and I don't even have kids in
the school system!

It's our frickin' corrupt govt. that has gold plated toilet seats and
lear jets, and fully paid tropical vacations that keep the school
systems dumbed down by stealing all the money in the "general fund"
that's supposed to pay for education.


1. More money won't make the students learn any better, contrary to what
you've been told. Your $600 has nothing to do with why Johnny can't read.


Too high of a student to teacher ratio
Poor quality teachers, some of them are barely literate.


2. As long as the parents come in and complain because the teachers are too
mean and because their precious little one didn't get an A+ for the year,
then the standards will continue to come down to meet their expectations.


That's the schools problem.
Mommy and daddy nead to realize that their kids have a problem.
There is no excuse for passing illiterate kids!


3. The "what the parents pay for" part is in reference to the stance the
parents take when they come to the school and complain about a low grade.
It's their school after all, because they pay for it.


If the kids don't earn it, they should not get it.
They don't pull that crap in colleges, and the expense there is directly
out of pocket for many.......

Sorry, but I don't agree with your concept.



--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
  #194  
Old July 21st, 2005, 01:07 PM
Chris Smolinski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"JC Der Koenig" wrote:

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JC Der Koenig" wrote:

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JC Der Koenig" wrote:

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" wrote in message
...

I'd not be surprised at all... :-(
There is a reason that so many high school graduates can barely
read,
much less know diddly about grammar and spelling!

THAT is what is scary!!!


That is what the parents want and that's what the parents pay for.



Uh, 'scuse me, but I believe it's what the taxpayers shell out for...
My local school taxes are $600.00 per year and I don't even have kids
in
the school system!

It's our frickin' corrupt govt. that has gold plated toilet seats and
lear jets, and fully paid tropical vacations that keep the school
systems dumbed down by stealing all the money in the "general fund"
that's supposed to pay for education.


1. More money won't make the students learn any better, contrary to what
you've been told. Your $600 has nothing to do with why Johnny can't
read.


Too high of a student to teacher ratio
Poor quality teachers, some of them are barely literate.


I know that's what you've been told, but are you sure it jives with reality?



2. As long as the parents come in and complain because the teachers are
too
mean and because their precious little one didn't get an A+ for the
year,
then the standards will continue to come down to meet their expectations.


That's the schools problem.
Mommy and daddy nead to realize that their kids have a problem.
There is no excuse for passing illiterate kids!


It's the kids problem, and the parents problem, before it's the schools
problem. The schools work for the parents, and in the end they get what
they want.



3. The "what the parents pay for" part is in reference to the stance the
parents take when they come to the school and complain about a low grade.
It's their school after all, because they pay for it.


If the kids don't earn it, they should not get it.
They don't pull that crap in colleges, and the expense there is directly
out of pocket for many.......

Sorry, but I don't agree with your concept.


Whether or not you like it, the truth of the matter doesn't change.


"Welcome to Central High, where every student is in the Gifted and
Talented program" (or whatever they call it today).

--
---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
  #195  
Old July 21st, 2005, 07:10 PM
Bob (this one)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JC Der Koenig wrote:

"Chris Smolinski" wrote


"Welcome to Central High, where every student is in the Gifted and
Talented program" (or whatever they call it today).

It's still called the same, although we often ask, "Gifted and talented at
what?"


Four school years ago, my daughter was "tested" for being a "TAG"
student. The guidance counselor (with no email address, unique among all
staff in that school - no computer in her office) and a woodshop teacher
(I swear it's true) evaluated musical and dramatic talents. Each student
had 5 minutes to display their talents. No criteria for the
presentations were published.

My daughter was selected for the musical TAG program and rejected for
the dramatic one. She can barely carry a tune and has not enough desire
to play a musical instrument to actually try to play one. She has,
however, been in a few drama training courses for kids that she did well
in and enjoyed.

When she indicated she didn't want to be in the musical TAG, they said
that one or nothing. The big musical project for that year was to make a
marimba! Cut pieces of wood, sand them. Build the frame and assemble
everything. Shave the pieces of wood to get true tones. When I suggested
that it was a shop project, not a musical one, the reply I got from the
fatuous guidance teacher was, "Of course it's musical. Do you play any
musical instruments?" When I said, yes, I play several stringed
instruments, she said, "See?" Then she quickly walked away. I looked
around for the Candid Cameras.

"Talented and Gifted" is what the original name was, but it has since
been changed to "Gifted and Talented" for reasons no one seems to know
but the school administration still called it the TAG program. Why I
changed schools for the kid. The principal was a blowhard and it seemed
that his example was the best way for staff to survive in that school.
Sad, really.

Pastorio
  #196  
Old July 21st, 2005, 11:35 PM
Luna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"JC Der Koenig" wrote:

"Bob (this one)" wrote in message
...
JC Der Koenig wrote:

"Chris Smolinski" wrote


"Welcome to Central High, where every student is in the Gifted and
Talented program" (or whatever they call it today).

It's still called the same, although we often ask, "Gifted and talented
at what?"


Four school years ago, my daughter was "tested" for being a "TAG" student.
The guidance counselor (with no email address, unique among all staff in
that school - no computer in her office) and a woodshop teacher (I swear
it's true) evaluated musical and dramatic talents. Each student had 5
minutes to display their talents. No criteria for the presentations were
published.

My daughter was selected for the musical TAG program and rejected for the
dramatic one. She can barely carry a tune and has not enough desire to
play a musical instrument to actually try to play one. She has, however,
been in a few drama training courses for kids that she did well in and
enjoyed.

When she indicated she didn't want to be in the musical TAG, they said
that one or nothing. The big musical project for that year was to make a
marimba! Cut pieces of wood, sand them. Build the frame and assemble
everything. Shave the pieces of wood to get true tones. When I suggested
that it was a shop project, not a musical one, the reply I got from the
fatuous guidance teacher was, "Of course it's musical. Do you play any
musical instruments?" When I said, yes, I play several stringed
instruments, she said, "See?" Then she quickly walked away. I looked
around for the Candid Cameras.

"Talented and Gifted" is what the original name was, but it has since been
changed to "Gifted and Talented" for reasons no one seems to know but the
school administration still called it the TAG program. Why I changed
schools for the kid. The principal was a blowhard and it seemed that his
example was the best way for staff to survive in that school. Sad, really.


Seems about par for the education environment. There are some exceptions,
although they are few and far between.

Which, yes, is sad.


Indeed. I wish every kid who was gifted or talented in something could
have the high school experience I had. I was a horrible underachiever
until I got into the performing arts Magnet school, where you had to
keep up your grades to stay in.

We took performing arts classes as electives, and we also had
requirements to participate in a certain number of shows per quarter.

They were very strict with us. If rehearsal started at 4, you were
onstage on your mark at 4, not walking in the door, not chatting with
your friends in the seats, not putting your stuff down.

We also learned a lot about how the real world works. When 200 kids
audition for a show with 20 roles, there are bound to be
disappointments. Crying and complaining that "it's not fair" wouldn't
even get you sympathy, let alone a part in the show. There was even
tons of competition for backstage work, so if you screwed up, you'd be
replaced.

One time I was supposed to be an usher for a matinee, during school.
There was a dress code for ushers, and I forgot it was my turn, and I
was wearing jeans. Just for showing up in jeans, I had to work in the
costume shop every day after school for a month, during the hour break
between school and rehearsals.

I learned more about the real world from that program than anything else
in my childhood.

--
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
  #197  
Old December 20th, 2005, 08:26 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Calorie Intake

Qouting Bev-Ann:
Martha Gallagher wrote:

And, I have to say I'm not entirely convinced by the idea that low carbers
generally have to exercise vigilence to ensure that their calories don't
drop too low. While some people might go through phases when their calorie
consumption is perhaps lower than optimal, most people who are low carbing
to lose weight don't seem to have a long term problem with that.


I've seen several people on this ng who claim to have lowered their
calories to ridiculous levels (less than 1200/day)


Some people really do need to take it that low to lose the last of
their fat.

If I recall correctly, you only needed to lose 20-25 or so pounds. Is
that correct?

  #198  
Old December 20th, 2005, 03:46 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Calorie Intake


"Suze" suze_andersonATspamcopDOTnet@ wrote in message
...
Qouting Bev-Ann:
Martha Gallagher wrote:

And, I have to say I'm not entirely convinced by the idea that low
carbers
generally have to exercise vigilence to ensure that their calories don't
drop too low. While some people might go through phases when their
calorie
consumption is perhaps lower than optimal, most people who are low
carbing
to lose weight don't seem to have a long term problem with that.


I've seen several people on this ng who claim to have lowered their
calories to ridiculous levels (less than 1200/day)


Some people really do need to take it that low to lose the last of
their fat.

If I recall correctly, you only needed to lose 20-25 or so pounds. Is
that correct?


1200 calories a day is dangerous and unhealthy (I've done it). But do go
right on ahead, I'm sure you'll say it's necessary for "some people" (like
Ethiopians).


  #199  
Old December 25th, 2005, 02:52 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Calorie Intake

Quoting "Joe the Aroma" :
1200 calories a day is dangerous and unhealthy (I've done it).


That's nice.

At the time that you 'did it', were you female (with the accompanying
hormonal profile), 5 foot 5 or less, and below 160# or so at the time?

But do go
right on ahead, I'm sure you'll say it's necessary for "some people" (like
Ethiopians).


Here's a tip: the 'do go on' phrase is just laughable unless the user
of it has an actual point to stand on.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weight Loss Diets with Negative Calorie Foods pcm19 General Discussion 1 October 8th, 2004 10:59 PM
Is fat discrimination really so different... NR General Discussion 5 July 15th, 2004 03:07 AM
Is fat discrimination really so different... NR Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 July 15th, 2004 03:07 AM
Calorie intake. Ian Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 September 20th, 2003 04:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.