4,601 Forum Posts by "BeFell"
Rydia it looks like your guy is a douchebag of the highest order, just break it off with him and find someone who will have respect for you. There's no way you're going to feel good about messing around with another guy when in the back of your mind you're still wondering if you're technically with doucey boy. If you're living like that you might just rob yourself of a real chance of a meaningful relationship.
It seems modern society has conditioned us to believe that a few months of abstinence is somehow abnormal and unreasonable "living like monks" as you put it. However if we look at how well the ideals of modern society are working out in guiding relationships I think you might find them lacking. If someone has made a commitment to you, it is ok to expect loyalty, that's what a commitment is. This bullshit that physical needs outweigh devotion is just a loophole for douchebags like your guy friend to exploit, physical needs can be met through internet porn and sex shop devices quite effectively.
And I'm not even going to get into the threesome thing except to say, find a friend and ask them to slap you accross the face.
So anyways lose a jerk and find a good guy, there are plenty of them out there.
Also if Stafff were to shave, get a haircut, at least own a tie and stop wearing dresses and dress type outfits, and use spellcheck, I would so totally go down on him, if not for my commitment to my wife and overwhelming homophobia. Just putting it out there...
How come none of you bastards immediately jumped to the conclusion mine and my wife's parents did and imagined I was the one civilian in the 20,000 residents of this Godforsaken little town to be sniped last night.
In related news, today is my birthday, I demand well wishes and cake right now!
At 5/19/07 02:49 PM, CadillacClock wrote: It seems every fourteen to sixteen year old has some naive opinion on how society should be run. Yet, they're ideals are always so terribly flawed and like all debates neither side is going to break there ideals of life and the posts collectively go on and on.
I just finished up a developmental psychology class, when we got to the part on adolescents the instructor explained that teenagers are argumentative and stupid because they are trying to get a handle on the newly formed cognitive capacity for abstract thought. She said that's why all teenagers go through a phase where they will argue pretty much any position and try their best to warrant a back hand to the face.
When I heard this I immediately jumped from my seat and shouted, "That explains the politics forum!" It was an online class and I was sitting on my couch watching the flash lecture via my Wii but had I been in a classroom I assure the effect would have been the same.
I just checked my email, Tom and Wade didn't send me my birthday lovin' =(
At 5/17/07 02:56 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 5/17/07 02:48 PM, BeFell wrote: Who wants to touch me?Congradulations man.
...
Besides fli.
Thanks
I guess you'll have to charge more than a foamy shirt to do my taxes now. My graduation is tonight. Yes there will be pictures with gowns.
Isn't there already a picture of you floating around in a skirt? People might start to wonder.
Who wants to touch me?
...
Besides fli.
Um... guys, I'm sure you could nitpick the generalities of my argument all day but I was just using illustrations of the principals of supply and demand.
Can anyone actually come back at me and refute my position of allowing market forces to determine pay?
I see this as the fact that one guy is corrupt and the World Bank needs to overhaul its oversight measures. How exactly do you see the entire republican party as being a party to this?
At 4/15/07 12:11 PM, JoS wrote: You seem to get the impression that contract faculty only work in the Arts and Humanities. I have had contract faculty in economics and I knwo there ones who teach in science. If you read the article you will notice there has been a decline in the number of tenure track positions, and a growth in contract. Its nto that the field is over crowded, its universities are now starting to try and cheap out and they are doing so by cutting the number of full-time faculty and replacing them with contract.
Rugby, in the future will you please give us the benefit of carefully reading an article before basing a debate on it.
No one argues that per-course instructors have no place at the university, particularly in programs where a certain level of practical expertise is necessary, such as journalism or business. And there are many sessionals who are happy to remain teaching on a per-course basis. University of Toronto president David Naylor says that concerns about sessional lecturers are related mostly to undergraduate programs in the humanities, social sciences and sciences, where they tend to be most heavily employed.
Even if the people you're referring are trying to get full time positions it's more likely their mediocrity is caused by an issue of excess supply or their own incompetence than some sinister implementation by the University. If schools were having trouble getting people for these positions the pay and opportunities for tenure would increase.
Oh another quick lesson in supply and demand, if it costs too much to have PhDs teach freshman English or Biology labs the Universities will just stick more than qualified grad students in those positions with offers of tuition breaks. That is at least the case at my university where the supply of PhD is actually low given the fact the area is relatively rural (not even a super Wal-Mart) and a Pac 10 school 8 miles away on the other side of the border.
So demanding high pay for low range faculty might actually be shooting them in the foot similar too factory workers demanding higher pay only to motivate management to install cheaper robots or even better, pack up and move to China.
The only way these people are going to get higher pay is if there is a decrease in PhDs in their fields so the schools actually have to compete for instructors to teach upper division courses where a grad student would be out of their league, or if they change fields. As I indicated any attempt to artificially raise their salaries would probably just make them worse off than they are now.
At 4/15/07 03:21 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 4/15/07 01:39 AM, BeFell wrote:If that's your standard of measurement for intelligence and success, there's really nothing I can say to you.At 4/15/07 12:20 AM, Ravariel wrote: BeFell, you're an idiot.We'll see what my paycheck indicates after graduation.
Um... I was just being sassy when I indicated you didn't understand the topic, I had actually given you more credit than you deserved.
Let me explain this to you. This whole topic is about the fact that some educators don't make as much money as other educators. Some posting here feel that this is somehow wrong and the salaries of the underpaid educators should be artificially inflated. It is my contention that those who are underpaid are in that situation because the particular field they went into is overcrowded with qualified applicants and thus there is a severe discrepancy between supply and demand. The reason I cited for this is the fact that these particular fields don't have the competition for the applicants outside of the Universities. For example someone with a PhD in accounting is more highly sought after than someone with an equivalent degree history because the accountant can potentially save businesses, the government or other organizations a lot of money whereas the only the thing a history PhD can do is give a titalizing lecture on the Mesopotamians. So accounting PhDs have starting salaries in excess of 100 at most Universities while a history PhD would be lucky to get full time work simply because the universities have lots of competition for the accountant and none for the historian.
This is not to say we don't need historians, in fact quite the opposite. The problem is there are more historians available than we need, so where as they would be worth paying a premium for if there were few, why bother when there are a whole bunch? Now I have no sympathy for the historians because I feel that the 8 or 9 years it takes one to earn a doctorate is enough time to evaluate one's chosen field and realize that there is very little potential for payout. Thus I submit that anyone with a PhD who is earning a low income accepted those terms and pursued their field knowing they would not be well compensated. Since the choice was there's to make and they had ample time to make it I certainly do not feel pity for them.
If this is indeed what they really wanted to do than the money shouldn't be an issue for them anyways as you have indicated. My position is that if these had wanted to be educators and make good money there were plenty of alternatives for them to pursue. Thus I see no reason to attempt to reverse market forces and further perpetuate the problem. If pay remains low for educators in these fields then there will be less motivation for students to pursue those degrees, reducing the pool of applicants for those positions and thereby increasing the wages of those in that field.
This is the reality that applies to everyone else in the world and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be applied here. There are so very many who have it a lot worse than these supposed martyrs .
At 4/15/07 12:20 AM, Ravariel wrote: BeFell, you're an idiot.
We'll see what my paycheck indicates after graduation.
Choosing to teach on a college level is not throwing away opportunity. If you've never taught a class or mentored a student, I guess you'll never really know how rewarding it is (or how difficult). To THINK that we say "if you go into teaching for the money then you're stupid"... I find that to be far more wrong than what you're rambling on about. Teachers should be among the highest paid professionals there are. It should be a career of prestige, honor and wealth. It should have extremely cutthroat competition, so that only those who really are the best get to do it, rather than those who "can't get a real job elsewhere".
Look dumb ass, I'm not saying teachers don't deserve decent wages, I'm saying that when you go into an overcrowded field already full of qualified, dedicated individuals you shouldn't whine and bitch about not making as much money as others. My point is they actively chose to go into areas of education where there is no demand outside demand. English and Sociology professors don't have as much value as Economics and Biology professors, it's a cold hard fact. My point was these individuals knew what they were getting into when they chose not to get into a field with more real world application. There are plenty of professors who make more money than than most but that is because they educate in fields where their knowledge could provide value beyond education. Hence not everyone who major in these fields go into education where as with the majors I was referring to education is the only option.
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Is one of the most insulting cliche's there is.
That you denigrate teachers for not taking on "real" jobs is sickening, and I hope you fail your Master's Thesis.
Accountants don't do a thesis, we rather focus on things that would be valuable in a real world setting.
Look jackass, I wasn't badmouthing teachers, I have no problem with those who choose to educate and spread enlightenment. My point was the people this article specifically refers are not unique enough to warrant higher pay. Those who go into English, History and the like should know that there are already more than enough people in those fields to accommodate the need, so I do not feel sorry for them when they choose those fields anyways. If they had gotten their doctorates in something else the colleges would offer them more money and they would get to teach and be wealthy. The fact is it was decision to choose to teach in a field they knew wouldn't provide a very good salary.
I'm starting to wonder, do you even understand what this topic is about?
At 4/14/07 09:33 PM, JoS wrote: Do we have to be a member of a certain group to care about something? It does matter, they are people too and deserve our support. They are our mentors, our teachers, and if you want to look at it from a certain prosepctive, our employees (they work for us via our tution money).
I think I'd fire them. They weren't even smart enough to capitalize on the opportunity for a college education. All over the world there are people in extreme poverty, some to the point of starving to death with no chance of ever improving their condition.
With this going on I am somewhat baffled to realize I am reading an outcry for support to go to individuals who spent 8 or 9 years earning degrees in nothing. We're suppose to feel sorry for people who had the opportunity to become surgeons, lawyers, bankers, managers, research biologists, better paid high school or elementary school teachers or any number of things which lead to high salaries. Instead they chose to focus on poetry or relationship patterns in 17th century France. Is this stuff necessarily worthless to our society? Probably but we're still willing to support a few people doing it but not as many as appear to going into the field.
The most disgusting thing about this topic is the fact they did it to themselves.
This discussion is especially shameful in the fact that these imbeciles have been compared to people who didn't have the opportunity for a college education such as those stuck in retail or working at McDonalds. Good God almighty pity going to those who had the financial backing and ability to earn PhDs and chose to waste it while simultaneously those no thought is given to those in similar financial circumstances who had no opportunity.
I know I'm rambling but I just can't express how wrong this is. Perhaps for five bucks I could get one of these "Doctors" to help me, but then I'm not willing to part with that much money for something so trivial. Now if they could help me with my tax return...
At 4/14/07 05:28 PM, fli wrote: God does has the cocept of time--
So you think the religious should claim God created everything in 6 days and science be damned?
WE'RE TRYING TO MEET YOU HIPPIES HALF WAY!!!
At 4/14/07 01:33 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: The real question, and the question that is really at the heart of this topic is if it is right for professors, and other teachers for that matter, to be paid so little. Why should the lawyer make more than the professor? Why should the rock star make more than the professor? Is it a matter of workload, education required, or a simple matter of what society deems important and worthy of reward?
It's supply and demand, there are more mediocre English professors than talented rockers or lawyers.
At 4/14/07 01:02 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Actually, it's not a matter of having overcrowded fields. Studies show that many companies desire people with history degrees, because history majors are quite good at analysis and seeing the big picture. These two abilities are gold for companies that want to expand. Not to mention that history majors are often pre-law students, joining the ranks of lawyers, and many of whom go on to make a lot of money. Sociology majors often find themselves in a wide range of positions, especially in management and policy-making, because their education allows a deeper understanding of human behavior. English majors don't have to become starving writers. A lot of them do become teachers (and English teachers are always in demand), and a lot of them go into the various media.
I'm sorry but logic just doesn't back up you position. While there may be some application in the business world for history majors do you honestly believe that they are going to be sought after like accounting or finance majors? I'm sure there are lots of rewarding things you can do with those degrees but the fact is there just aren't as many as other fields thus there is less demand.
I, for instance, am a History and Political Science major. Now, you BeFell, may be laughing, but when my four years here are up, I have multiple choices. I can continue school and get a master's and doctorate, or I can go to law school, or I can settle into a job in politics. Hell, a Fortune 500 company might want to hire me for my skills and knowledge.
Will pursuing that doctorate pay off for you? I'm getting my Masters so I'll be qualified to be a Certified Public Accountant a masters for you will lead to...? A law degree would certainly lead to a lucrative career but that's puts in a whole different realm than someone with a PhD in your field.
The real overcrowded fields, BeFell, are your much-adored sciences. There are only so many spaces that open up each year, yet thousands of engineers, biosci majors, and pharm students compete for those spaces. Competition is fierce at any college, and I know plenty of sci students here all competing with the others in their field to be the best, so they can get recognized and land a job at Bell Labs or IBM or some other think tank.
Follow the money, most people with degrees in engineering and science can get jobs with decent salaries, what about those who pursue the social sciences?
And in the end, I would rather be doing a job that I love for little pay, then work a job for three times the amount of money that leaves me bored and soulless. I hope you can say the same.
Then what are we talking about. I'm simply saying that if you choose to do something you love knowing that you'll make less money don't whine and complain about your choice.
At 4/14/07 11:56 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Please keep in mind that science isn't a quest to create tools to destroy religon, it's a search for answers using the theory of stoctism. [if A=b and B=c then A=c]
Bah, too much effort, science should just chalk existence up to God and focus on more important things such as interactive holographic porn and High Definition graphics for the Wii.
At 4/14/07 11:50 AM, Phen0 wrote: Mourits, I don't think you can get a solid answer to this question.
Hello, God moved from dinosaur toys to action figures in a similar progression to my childhood. Although he skipped the Ninja Turtle step before the Gi Joes, that would have been sweet. At least we still have the X-Men era to look forward to.
At 4/14/07 11:41 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The problem is the Big Bang is like a stage Curtain, you dont know how far back the energy and matter that existed before the big bang had been around; it could have been seconds and it could have been eons.
Uh huh, and who do you think lit the firecracker that set off the big bang?
At 4/14/07 08:14 AM, Drakim wrote: The Bible can't send a message that abortion should be allowed AND shouldn't be allowed at the same time, so at one point, somebody must have picked their stance.
Have you ever sat down and read that thing, it's all over the place. Obviously morality just comes down to individual interpretation and thus it's relative in that sense but that's really no reason why a bunch of people can't get together and dictate what is or isn't acceptable.
God claimed to create the Earth in 6 days. God is immortal and thus doesn't really have a concept of time that is comparable to ours. We measure days in the amount of time it takes the Earth to rotate on it's axis. Perhaps God measures days in the rotation of the Universe. Anyways if the 6 days is just a rough figure then it's possible dinosaurs popped up somewhere and died out in the span of creation. I thought the T-Rex was pretty cool when I was younger but maturity taught me it probably wouldn't be the best addition to the garden of Eden. Perhaps God had similar enlightenment.
At 4/14/07 11:18 AM, JoS wrote: Which do you feel is the most important part of an educators work, teaching the minds of tomorrow or research?
For someone with a PhD in English? Waxing my car.
University of Toronto president David Naylor says that concerns about sessional lecturers are related mostly to undergraduate programs in the humanities, social sciences and sciences
These are people who majored in stuff like English, History or Sociology. What did they think was going to happen? If you're going to go into an overcrowded field with no jobs available outside of University settings don't be surprised if you don't make as much as the folks who were smart enough to get their education in something with actual demand.
This is just a fact of economics, the reason these people are working for so little is because they don't have any other options. These people aren't like business professors or engineers or those with degrees in actual sciences where they could easily step into a high paying job outside of Universities. The reason they are making wages comparable to a burger flipper or a Wal-Mart greeter is that's pretty much the only other thing a degree in history qualifies you to do once you leave campus.
Fuck these people they have doctorates and yet they are too stupid to understand supply and demand? Lot's of people with worthless degrees combined with low demand means rock bottom pay. Perhaps they would understand this if they had majored in Economics, they would certainly be making a lot more.
If you're going to drive a car, you had better be prepared to die.
*cues dramatic trumpeting*
Same thing goes for eating pretzels, eating spinach and pissing me off.
My wife likes to lay on my arm and then I can't get away and then my arm falls asleep and I try very gently to pull it out from under her but I can't feel because it's asleep and I go too hard and then she rolls off the bed and bumps her head and then I get yelled at and end up on Newgrounds at 11pm.
There probably should have been more punctuation in that...
At 2/23/07 04:20 PM, fli wrote:At 2/23/07 02:56 PM, BeFell wrote: School got hard so I quit my job.Don't worry... There's a reason why it's called a "McJob."
I'm basically working at home doing photo restoration and photographing weddings.
Our photographer ruined our reception. He took us off for some quick pictures and by the time we were finally done an hour later most of the quests had left. Also he was 90 years old, my Mom thought it would be neat if we had the same photographer that did my parents wedding. There's nothing like watching a middle aged man holding a camera to his eye yelling at his father to get out of the shot as he is straightening at your beloved's train on the most blissful day of your life.
In essence, don't be like that.
"CAN I TAKE THE PICTURE NOW DAD!!!"
School got hard so I quit my job.
I had an awesome epiphany today when I realized I could utilize the opera browser to play Newgrounds Duck Hunt on my Wii. If only Shrike would finish Parrot Hunt.
I read an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that in essence said that because of the higher than normal temperatures this year refineries are producing more gas and less heating oil which will mean lower gas prices this summer. Lower gas prices will of course mean more consumption and thus more emissions. So if you buy into the global warming hype this kind of means that global warming is actually increasing global warming. I don't know why but I just felt like sharing this.
At 12/8/06 01:08 PM, Elfer wrote: See, in North America, we have this thing called "celebrity"
So this is about as significant as Britany Spears's divorce?
How is this news?
Headline:
CHILD DOES SOMETHING PARENT DOESN'T APPROVE OF!!!
Holy shit, reporters should be following teenagers around so they can pounce every time they puff a cigarette, refuse to eat meat or join the Mormon church.
What exactly does the left expect to gain by milking this? Do they think Cheney is going to stand up and say, "Well, since my daughter has once again defied me I have decided to completely change my value system." Or maybe they just hope to an elicit a simple "Yep, she's a constant source of disappointment and embarrassment for me, now back off hippies or you'll get it like that smack talking lawyer."
At 11/17/06 01:31 PM, BeFell wrote: OMG THE CRAZY BRIT IS ONLINE!!!
*Crazy Brits
Upon further research I've found he's been posting for the last three days. Maybe I should be online more often. =/
OMG THE CRAZY BRIT IS ONLINE!!!
*Crazy Brits
