--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00352 Date: 05/10/98 From: ROBERT CRAFT Time: 09:57am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: [1/2] Forked Tongue >>> Part 1 of 2... FOLLOW THE WORDING By Jeff Leen and Lorraine Adams Sunday, April 26, 1998; Page C01 Ever since President Clinton used the present tense instead of the past in his first memorable answer about Monica Lewinsky ("There is not a sexual relationship" rather than "There was no sexual relationship"), people have been parsing his language for h idden meanings. Why is and not was? And what exactly did Clinton mean in saying there was no improper relationship? Our water-cooler musings, about what the president said and how he said it, have a basis in a field of inquiry that has spread throughout law enforcement in the past two decades. Developed in the early 1980s and known variously as "content analysis," "st atement analysis" or "linguistic forensic analysis," the technique is widely used to ferret out signs of truth or deception in patterns of words. Content analysts look for subtle patterns in changes in tenses, pronouns and words used to describe key people, events or objects. They also focus on vagueness, hesitancy, stuttering, extraneous information and qualifying words such as "I believe" or "I think" that suggest a lack of conviction. Of course, not everybody who stutters or qualifies their words is being deceptive. A content analyst studying a deposition, or any statement, must first find places where a person is clearly telling the truth. The rest of the statement is then scrutinize d for breaks with that truthful pattern. For content analysts, the sworn deposition of President Clinton in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit is a kind of Rosetta stone: a rare opportunity to scrutinize the words of a president for clues to his behavior and vulnerabilities. Those words still matter; the Jones case may be history for now, but Clinton's deposition could still figure significantly in whatever report Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr eventually makes to Congress. When Gerald Brown, a content analyst in Beaverton, Ore., watched Clinton on television after the Lewinsky story became public, he immediately saw red flags in the president's words. When Brown read the 150-page portion of the president's deposition that has been released, he found more things that gave him pause. At times, Clinton gave direct, specific answers. But on certain questions, he stuttered. He used lots of those "I think," "I believe" qualifiers. At a key point, he made a lengthy digression fu ll of extraneous and self-justifying information. Much of what content analysts do appears to be common sense: Liars typically give themselves away by tripping over their words or saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. But content analysts caution that great care has to be used in analyzing answers a nd drawing inferences. Their method is subjective, and content analysts can disagree on small matters of interpretation. One analyst deemed problematic Clinton's "absolutely not" response to a question of whether he caused money to be paid to Lewinsky; t he analyst said the answer appeared to overcompensate and broke a pattern of "no, sir" answers. But a second analyst believed both answers to be truthful. And of course, content analysis has its limits. It can detect whether someone is using cautious, hedged language or words that imply a greater intimacy with another than the speaker is willing to admit, but it cannot determine the precise intent behind s uch language. It can only point out promising lines of inquiry for investigators. "Statement analysis is an aid that can be used to obtain a confession; it is not an end in itself," special agent Susan H. Adams, who teaches the technique at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., wrote in the October 1996 issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bu lletin. Like lie detector test results, the findings of content analysis are not admissible in court. With these caveats, the method is used by the FBI, a variety of law enforcement and intelligence agencies and Fortune 500 companies trying to catch spies, child molesters, thieving employees, even murderers. For example, investigators were immediately su spicious of Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman eventually convicted of drowning her two young sons, because she kept using the wrong tense in her interviews with police. Smith said her boys had been kidnapped, but she spoke of them in the past tense, as if she already knew they were dead. Her husband, who was innocent, used the present tense. Content analysts also take note when the opposite occurs and people use present tense rather than the past. In the famous farewell note that O.J. Simpson wrote after he headed off in his Bronco following the murders of his wife and Ronald Goldman, Simpso n began: "First, everyone understand I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder." His use of "have" rather than "had" caught the attention of the content analyzers. Generally, according to content analysis theory, people who are truthfully describing past events will use the first-person, past tense. "The shift to present tense is significant, because events recalled from memory should be stated by using the past te nse," Adams wrote. "The change to present tense could indicate deception." Brown and other analysts noted that Clinton often lapsed into the present tense when answering critical questions during his deposition. Asked whether Lewinsky told him about her subpoena from Jones's lawyers, Clinton replied: "I don't know if she had be en," rather than the past tense "I didn't know if she had been," or, simply, "No, she did not." In analyzing Clinton's responses, Brown found areas in which he felt Clinton was obviously being truthful. One concerned questions about whether Kathleen Willey had given him permission to kiss her and initiate sexual contact. "No, she didn't," Clinton r esponded. Asked if he had sexual relations with her, Clinton's response was equally terse and committed: "No, I didn't." The second area where Brown felt Clinton was obviously truthful was when he was asked if he had paid money to Lewinsky. "No, sir," Cl inton said. Clinton's short, committed answers gave way to long, carefully hedged responses in other parts of the deposition. Asked whether he prompted the conversations between his friend Vernon Jordan and his personal assistant Betty Currie to help Lewinsky, Clint on answered with 22 qualifiers -- "think," "believe," "if," "seemed," "may," "not sure." In many of his answers on important points -- such as Lewinsky's contacts with Jordan and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson -- Clinton piled on the qualifiers. Generally, when such qualifiers appear, "the person giving the statement is avoiding commitment, and warning bells should ring in the investigator's ears," Adams noted in her 1996 article. >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: The NeverEnding BBS/Deltona,FL/407-860-7720/bbs.never (1:3618/555) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00353 Date: 05/10/98 From: ROBERT CRAFT Time: 09:57am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: [2/2] Forked Tongue >>> Part 2 of 2... There may be an explanation for Clinton's overuse of qualifiers that makes his deposition harder to analyze: his careful, tentative language may simply have been the defensive posture of a politician who was trained as a lawyer. "When he says, 'my memory is,' or 'my recollection is,' or 'not to my knowledge,' that's lawyer talk," said Brown, who was an investigator for 21 years with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Defense Investigative Service before starting his own firm 10 years ago. "That way, if you're corrected later on by the facts, it's not perjury." Brown noted that throughout the deposition, Clinton appeared to make a strenuous effort to tell as much of the truth as he could, walking a narrow line between the criminal tr ap of perjury and the political trap of damaging admissions. "The things we see here are consistent with people who do that," Brown said. "They can't tell the truth and they can't lie, either." There is a long section in Clinton's deposition where the p resident talked without qualifiers or careful language. It came when he was asked: "Do you recall ever walking with Monica Lewinsky down the hallway from the Oval Office to your private kitchen there in the White House?" Clinton began his response not with a direct answer but with digressions. He mentioned many specific facts. He described the kitchen, who works there, who has access. He mentioned that there are no curtains in the Oval Office or his private office, and no curtains or blinds in the private dining room. Those facts were related smoothly without stuttering or qualification, leading the analysts to say they appear to be truthful. When the president finally returned to the specific question about Lewinsky's presence in the hallway, the vagueness and qualification reappeared in his sentences. He cited his "recollection" four times. He said he did not "believe" she was in the kitchen alone. He said he "thinks" Currie was also there. Clinton's response to the question about Lewinsky in the hallway attracted the analysts' attention for another reason: At 331 words, it was his longest answer in the deposition. The answer was, essentially, "yes." So why did he need so many words? Brown said Clinton's long answer here indicates that this was the most important matter in the deposition for him. "He's going overboard, if you will, to discuss that situation," Brown said. "It's like the old saying: He doth protest too much." Analysts consider simple answers to be the most truthful. "People involved in crimes may feel the need to justify their actions," agent Adams noted. "They may also include more information than is necessary." Brown and other analysts who looked at Clint on's deposition found many indications of possible deception. But Brown cautions that the parsing of words can only go so far. "What I love about my job is that I don't have to go out and prove that anyone's lying," he said. "That's for the investigators to do." For Bill Clinton, the ultimate content analysis remains in the hands of Ken Starr and Congress. Jeff Leen and Lorraine Adams are reporters on the investigative staff of The Washington Post. c Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company ... Clintons - The Gang That Couldn't Keep Their Lies Straight ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: The NeverEnding BBS/Deltona,FL/407-860-7720/bbs.never (1:3618/555) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00354 Date: 05/10/98 From: ROBERT CRAFT Time: 10:01am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Praises TV News & Reviews May 7, 1998 COMMENTARY E.I.B.? You Bet Forget Rush Limbaugh's politics; he's quite simply the embodiment of excellence in broadcasting. By KEVIN BAXTER, Times Staff Writer Look, this is just between you and me, OK? I mean, if the guys I hang out with ever found out, I'd never live this down. But I listen to Rush Limbaugh. Not that I'm the only one, mind you. His nationally syndicated weekday talk show is heard on more than 600 stations and generates about $38 million in advertising revenue annually. Locally, Arbitron ratings for the first three months of 1998 show that Ru sh's 9 a.m.-noon show on KFI-AM (640) is the highest-rated show in the market--up 31% from the last quarter of 1997 and 13% from where it was a year ago. He's up in Philadelphia, New York and San Diego as well. Still, the fact that I love Rush is not something I'm apt to use to impress people. His program has a reputation of attracting a certain type of listener--someone whose political philosophy falls somewhere between that of Pat Paulsen and Patrick Buchanan. In fact, before I pull into the parking garage at work I always make sure to switch over to National Public Radio or some high-brow classical music station in case I park next to someone I know. What my colleagues don't know, however, is that since my car radio went on the fritz a few months ago, I've been balancing a small boom box on my knees during the drive to work to avoid missing my morning Rush. Listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio is like watching Picasso paint or listening to Pavarotti sing. How many times do you get to experience a master at work? I mean, this guy really gets radio. Rush is, however, an acquired taste. To the uninitiated, his bombast, his confidence and especially his budget-deficit-sized ego can be off-putting. He frequently introduces himself as having "talent on loan from God," for example, and he shoots down dis senting callers with quips such as "if you know more than me, which is highly unlikely. . . . " But once you realize it's all part of the shtick, it becomes funny. And that it fools so many gullible listeners only makes it funnier. Is Rush objective, fair and straight with the facts? Absolutely not. He's more one-sided than a Bulls-Clippers game and he lists further to the right than a damaged supertanker. But then he never pretended to be CNN; instead, he sees his role as righting the wrongs of what he considers to be a liberally biased media. He calls himself "the truth detector" and sees himself as the avenging angel of conservatism. But that's all part of the shtick, too, and as long as you realize that going in, there's no real harm done. After all, the left has its spokesmen, so the right is entitled to Rush. But then I don't listen for the politics anyway. The truth is, I'm a lot closer to being a Deadhead than I'll ever be to being a Dittohead. And for all his right-wing rhetoric and faux confidence, Rush Limbaugh is no more a politician than, say, Sonny Bo no was. What he is is an entertainer and a genius at his craft. As a deejay for a Top 40 station in Sacramento, he was a hit, and he'd probably be a success hosting a sports-talk show too. In fact, as a former Kansas City Royals publicist and a die-hard Pittsburgh Steeler fan, he arguably knows more about sports than he does about politics anyway. That he wound up with a show on politics 10 years ago is as much a product of the Reagan Revolution and the mood of the electorate as it is of Limbaugh's own conservatism. Contrary to popular belief--including his own--Rush followed the country to the ri ght; he didn't lead it there. But credit him for finding a niche and making it work, marvelously so. Even his detractors have to admit he redefined and revitalized AM radio, giving birth to imitators like Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy and Mary Matalin. But while those hosts were--and are--much more rabid politically than Limbaugh, none of their shows could, in a good week, match the audience Rush averages on a daily basis. In fact, CBS Radio recently canceled Matalin's show, proving it's not the message but the messenger that draws listeners. On Rush's show, current events become the jumping-off point for forays into broad topics, such as declining morality, lax educational standards or the hypocrisy of politicians (although here the hypocrites are always Democrats). Limbaugh also does a kill er Bill Clinton imitation, and the show's comic skits--like the sound bite from a fictional "Larry King" show featuring James Carville and Kenneth Starr--are so outrageously funny, Rush often breaks into the middle of them to give his network's call lett ers, thereby preventing rivals from replaying the parodies on their shows. Of course, you have to know who Carville and Starr are in order to understand the humor, which is why loyal fans like me are sticking with Rush. Where else can you get caught up on current events and be entertained at the same time? Well, maybe on C-SPAN , but they're not intentionally funny there. In a culture in which people can name more of the Rugrats than they can members of the Supreme Court, however, Rush's insistence on being topical probably puts the show out of the reach of many potential listeners. After all, anyone can listen to Howard Stern. You have to be able to read to get Rush. Copyright Los Angeles Times ... Judge Rush Limbaugh by looking at those who criticize him. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: The NeverEnding BBS/Deltona,FL/407-860-7720/bbs.never (1:3618/555) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00355 Date: 05/10/98 From: ROBERT CRAFT Time: 10:04am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: [1/3] Terachers >>> Part 1 of 3... Published in Washington, D.C. 5am -- May 8, 1998 www.washtimes.com SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION SEEN FAILING By Carol Innerst THE WASHINGTON TIMES Maybe little Janie can't read or count because her teacher can't teach. Or worse still, maybe the teacher doesn't know enough about English or math or history to teach the subject. Mischievous speculation? No. It happens, as a result of a historically flawed system in America of educating mostly average or below-average students to be public-school teachers. As evidence continues to pile up that American children are not learning the basics in school, critics are quick to blame the youngsters, their parents, the schools, television, or the curriculum. But increasingly, the focus has shifted to the teacher, the most vital link in the education process. Now, a four-month study at teachers colleges by The Washington Times indicates that the problem of unsatisfactory classroom learning is rooted in the early selection and education of students who say they want to be teachers. These students then are being taught by professors who differ wildly on what teachers need to know. "Schools of education are cash cows to universities," says Dean Edwin J. Delattre of the Boston University School of Education. "They admit and graduate students who have low levels of intellectual accomplishment, and these people are in turn visited on schoolchildren. They are well-intentioned, decent, nice people who by and large don't know what they're doing." Mr. Delattre is one of the harshest critics of schools of education. "It would be possible in terms of the quality of their research, the significance of their research, and the quality of their instruction to give an intellectual justification for perhaps three dozen of them -- certainly no more than 50," he says. There are about 1,300 schools nationwide teaching students to be teachers. Roughly two-and-a-half million public-school teachers are responsible today for the education of 46 million children in kindergarten through high school. Although many teachers pe rform well, a significant number are products of an entrenched training system that almost guarantees mediocrity in the classroom. New initiatives are under way in some of the preparatory schools and colleges, but, for the most part, the old ways and faddish new ways are still shaping the teachers of tomorrow. To become a public-school teacher, graduates have to be certified by the state. A college student must take required courses, do a stint at student teaching, and pass a series of general-knowledge examinations. The passing scores for these tests vary fro m state to state but tend to be fairly low. Curiously, many aspiring teachers never get in front of a classroom until their final days in college -- an experience that sometimes persuades many to seek other careers. A major in education has long been considered an easy route to a college degree. Elementary education majors were especially easy to spot on any campus. They were the ones cutting out letters of the alphabet to make posters while the English majors worried over a paper on Shakespeare's treatment of religious themes. Rigorous academic training was seldom demanded. "You just had to love kids to become a teacher," says J. Michael Davis, dean of the School of Professional Studies at 105-year-old East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania. Thirteen years ago, it was possible to graduate from East Stroudsburg with a major in elementary education without ever taking a math class, Mr. Davis recalls. Twenty years ago, some University of Maryland campuses gave short shrift to reading instruction. Serious concerns about teacher training surfaced in 1983 with the publication of "A Nation at Risk," a landmark national report on the state of America's educational system. It found that too many teachers had poor academic records and low scores on tests of cognitive ability. Students who went into teaching programs scored below nearly all other majors on college entrance exams, then graduated not knowing enough about the subjects they were teaching. Not much has changed in 15 years. Anyone who believes that the problem of unqualified teachers is overblown or confined to a couple of subject areas such as math and science has only to look at the experience of a New York state school district last spring when it tried to fill 35 teaching vacancies. The Connetquot district on Long Island got 758 applications in response to an advertisement. District officials decided to narrow the pool by asking applicants to take a short version of a multiple-choice reading comprehension test taken from the state's old 11th-grade Regents English exams. Just 202 applicants correctly answered at least 40 of the 50 questions. Such incidents keep teacher education in the public consciousness and on the radar screens of elected officials at the state and federal levels. Initially, state legislators turned to higher salaries to try to attract higher-caliber students. From 1981 to 1997, average salaries for public-school teachers rose from $17,209 to $38,611. That's for what is essentially a 180-day school year plus in-se rvice days spread over nine months. Then, lawmakers linked salary increases to policies aimed at raising standards such as requiring new teachers to have more education and raising the passing scores prospective teachers must attain on standardized tests such as the National Teacher Examin ations and its successor, Praxis. The teachers colleges responded with talk of "restructuring" teacher education, and some institutions actually did move to raise admissions and curriculum standards. East Stroudsburg has raised entry standards and toughened course requirements. Students still need to take 60 hours in general education, but they no longer have a smorgasbord of courses to choose from. The college recently raised the grade point average needed to get into elementary education from 2.5 to 2.75. In 1996, Boston University began to target only teacher >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: The NeverEnding BBS/Deltona,FL/407-860-7720/bbs.never (1:3618/555) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00356 Date: 05/10/98 From: ROBERT CRAFT Time: 10:04am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: [2/3] Terachers >>> Part 2 of 3... applicants with high SAT scores, resulting in a 17 percent drop in the inquiry pool. As a result, prospective teachers in last fall's freshman class had average SAT scores of 1,276, compared with 96 4 for all 85,442 self-declared education majors who took the 1997 SAT. George Mason University decided in 1989 that teachers should get a bachelor's degree first and then train to teach in a fifth-year graduate-level program. The Fairfax County, Va., school says it annually rejects half the applicants for elementary educati on training because they don't meet admissions standards. It takes a 2.7 GPA to get into the University of Maryland College of Education at College Park and a 3.0 to prepare for special education, a five-year program. "We're not getting the best and the brightest kids," says University of Maryland Dean Willis D. Hawley. "We're getting some of the best and brightest. Some kids are really smart. What there aren't anymore are kids who are really dumb." But the perception lingers, even among insiders, that a lack of academic rigor continues to plague the nation's teacher training programs. "The truth is, students get into colleges of education -- particularly early-childhood education majors -- because it's the easiest thing they can get into," says John E. Stone, professor of education at East Tennessee State University and founder of the Education Consumers Clearinghouse -- an Internet source for parents, taxpayers and policy-makers. "Here at ETSU, the schools of education are kind of at the bottom of the pecking order," he says. "Students flunk out of nursing or business and come to Ed to get some kind of college degree." Since the concept of a formalized vocational training program for teachers was established nearly 160 years ago, that training has combined lessons in subject matter with courses in methodology, or "how to teach." The training also has included theories of child development and practical field experience. From the start, teaching preparation emphasized methods of teaching at the expense of the content of courses. Often the subject matter would be watered down and presented in courses tailored especially for teachers, instead of requiring teachers to take the same math, for example, that liberal arts majors were required to take. "Their focus is process, and that hasn't changed," says C. Emily Feistritzer, who as president of the private Washington-based National Center for Education Information has conducted a number of studies of teachers and teaching. "Resistance to change is extraordinarily high at the same time there is a high level of conversation about change." Many critics of teacher training programs argue that a solid grounding in the liberal arts with a concentration in the subject to be taught is all that is needed to teach math, science, history or English. But Mr. Hawley at Maryland's College of Educatio n disputes that. Chances are, he argues, that a rocket scientist would make a terrible science teacher. "You have to have the ability to transfer knowledge," he says. That ability generally has to be learned, says Dean Gary R. Galluzzo of George Mason's Graduate School of Education. He believes that only 5 percent of the population might be "born" teachers, while 65 percent have knowledge but need to learn how to impart it. Boston University recently doubled the amount of time its prospective teachers are required to spend in math class. It also requires juniors and seniors in education to take an ethics course that exposes them to the icons of Western civilization. "We try to make the fact that teachers are deeply involved in character and values formation obvious to our students," says professor Kevin Ryan, who teaches an introductory education course. "'What is the right thing to do?' is a question teachers need to ask the young. And we want them to see that America has a moral heritage." Adds Charles L. Glenn, chairman of BU's Department of Administration, Training and Policy Studies, who teaches a course on the social and civic contexts of education: "Teachers have to be moral exemplars to students. We raise questions that are usually r aised in a religious context. On what basis can you say certain behaviors are right or wrong? I don't know how you can send someone who hasn't grappled with those questions out to teach a 7-year-old." Schools of education, reacting to social and political pressures, are perceived to be more interested in promoting equity, diversity and social justice than in transmitting knowledge. And many of the educational practices they encourage are often criticized as fads. East Stroudsburg's administrators, for example, proudly describe their teacher training program as focused on the learner and on "outcomes," committed to "developmentally appropriate practice," "modeling," inclusion, and "hands-on" and cooperative learning. These are the buzzwords and the practices that permeate nearly all of the nation's teacher training institutions. "Schools of education are currently the origins of our problems, not their solution," says E.D. Hirsch Jr., professor of English and university professor of education and humanities at the University of Virginia. Testifying before Congress, Mr. Hirsch sharply criticized what's known as "developmentally appropriate practice" -- the philosophy that a child should not be pressured to learn anything until he signals that he is ready and receptive. "The doctrine," he said, "is drummed into almost all teachers who take early-education courses. The intention is to ensure caring treatment for young children, yet the ultimate effect of the doctrine is to cause social harm. To withhold demanding content from young children between preschool and third grade has an effect which is quite different from the one intended. It leaves advantaged children [who get knowledge at home] with boring pablum, and it condemns disadvantaged children to a permanent educational handicap that grows worse over time." The schools that hire new teachers appreciate the increased attention college and university training programs are giving to practical experience. "Teaching colleges are getting a lot better," says James Dallas, a Fairfax County support coach for new teachers. "They have begun to structure their programs to the needs of the school systems." Where practical experience used to come in the senior year, it now begins at many places in the freshman year, where it can serve to weed out those who discover that life in an >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: The NeverEnding BBS/Deltona,FL/407-860-7720/bbs.never (1:3618/555) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00357 Date: 05/10/98 From: ROBERT CRAFT Time: 10:04am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: [3/3] Terachers >>> Part 3 of 3... elementary classroom is not what they thought it would be. While there is gen eral agreement among the deans about the value of practical experience, they part company on the ideal program to train elementary teachers. Mr. Galluzzo of George Mason would opt for a solid general education foundation in an undergraduate or graduate program. "You should be required to take a liberal arts major of about 80 [semester hours] or two-thirds of the college experience for general education plus major combined. Then you should study the four core disciplines -- math, science, history and English -- roughly 15 credits each. Spend the other 20 hours getting smart in one of these areas. And in the undergraduate program, the other 40 credits are in learning to teach those things, because now you have something to say." In many programs, a lot of the basic discipline has to be taught in the methodology classes because the prospective teachers don't know enough math or science to stand up in front of a class and teach, he says. One of his concerns is that too many future teachers take a concentration in psychology instead of English, math, science or history, thinking it will help them understand children. In fact, psychology is a subject they will never teach in elementary school. "What does it mean to know your subject?" asks Maryland's Mr. Hawley, whose background is in the liberal arts and political science. "You probably don't need to understand quadratic equations to teach fourth-grade math, but you ought to understand algebra and calculus." ... 46% of Chicago teachers send their children to private schools. Why? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: The NeverEnding BBS/Deltona,FL/407-860-7720/bbs.never (1:3618/555) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00358 Date: 05/11/98 From: ROBERT CRAFT Time: 05:14pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Echo Rules -- 051198 _____________________________________________ The INTERNATIONAL FANS of RUSH LIMBAUGH CONFERENCE A Radio and Television Program Topics and Issues Forum Updated: 23 January 1997 1. LEAVE THE MODERATING TO THE MODERATORS. 2. Rebuttals to moderator warnings posted in the echo will result in an immediate removal of your access without further notice. 3. In order to maintain civility and allow proper discourse, if the moderator feels your purpose for participation in the echo is to antagonize others, or if your responses generate off-topic discussions, your access may be removed. 4. This echo is a forum for the fans of Rush Limbaugh. No bashing of Rush Limbaugh will be tolerated in any form. 5. THIS IS *NOT* A DEBATE ECHO. Discussion is limited primarily to the current topics of Rush Limbaugh's radio and television programs and the Limbaugh Letter, except as otherwise permitted under Rule 13. Regardless, the following subjects are not permitted without consent of the moderators. Other echoes exist for discussion of the following topics: Religion Gun control Abortion Homosexuality 6. Attacks of a personal nature are prohibited. 7. This echo is rated G. Foul or harsh language in any form whatsoever is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. 8. "Handles" or aliases are not allowed. Real names only, please. 9. When replying to a message, only brief quotes pertinent to the topic should be posted. 10. Advertisements of BBS's, echoes, networks, products or services of any type are explicitly prohibited. 11. Encoded, encrypted or otherwise non-English messages, as well as those with extended ASCII characters, are not permitted in this conference. 12. Commenting on grammar or spelling is not allowed. 13. Chit-chat of a general nature is permitted, particularly for regular participants of this echo. Unlike many topic-specific echoes, we welcome occasional exchanges of non-topical pleasantries. However, to discuss any "substantial" topic for extended periods of time, as may be determined by the moderators, please consider the above echo rules before posting. 14. The moderators recognize that hard-and-fast rules may not be completely appropriate in all circumstances. Therefore, they reserve the right to enforce the "spirit" of the rules as deemed appropriate by their determination, while closely approximating the intent of the "letter" of the rules in their efforts. Rules 15 through 18 suspended 2/13/96. 19. See? Violators of the echo rules will receive one warning in the echo. Access to this echo may be removed at any time. Appeals will be accepted by the moderators via NetMail only. This Echo is not approved nor sanctioned by Rush Limbaugh or the EIB network, nor does Rush Limbaugh participate in this conference. The moderators claim no affiliation with these trademarks. For further information, contact one of the following moderators: Mark Fornoff Moderator FidoNet: 1:260/180 Robert Craft Moderator FidoNet: 1:3607/4 _____________________________________________ ... Clinton and truth seldom intersect - B. Novak. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: The NeverEnding BBS/Deltona,FL/407-860-7720/bbs.never (1:3618/555) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00359 Date: 05/11/98 From: LARRY GAULT Time: 09:21pm \/To: ROBERT CRAFT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Get A Life SB> :WARNING: This message contains *many* multi-syllabic :WARNING: SB> :WARNING: words, many of which have multiple meanings :WARNING: SF> Please do me a favor? In the future, when responding to SF> posts, please do so in a timely fashion. The message you SF> responded to is weeks old, therefore things being dragged SF> on and on. SF> WAIT! Where have I seen that practice before? RC> ... Don't you have to be a MODERATOR to post a message like that? I like. Subtle, yet effective. Unfortunately, I'd give odds that this one will sail right over the head of SF and on into the wild blue yonder. Direct to you from the keyboard of Larry Gault... ... Kamikaze instructor: "Watch closely, I do this only once" ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] -*- SF-Quick/BW 1.00r [#48] --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: COLUMBIA SPITFIRE * Dallas, Texas * (214-275-5040) (1:124/3271) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00360 Date: 05/11/98 From: LARRY GAULT Time: 09:21pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Grandpa!! DH> By the way, for those who are interested, on 15 Mar 1998, My wife and DH> I became grandparents! Congrats to all! DH> Autumn Renee Elizabeth Earl is doing great, and DH> is(as far as I am concerned) the cutest grandbaby in the world! And I am just as sure that you are correct. At least until mine come along (somewhere in the *distant* future....) Direct to you from the keyboard of Larry Gault... ... I didn't claw my way up the food chain to eat vegetables! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] -*- SF-Quick/BW 1.00r [#48] --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: COLUMBIA SPITFIRE * Dallas, Texas * (214-275-5040) (1:124/3271) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F5G00361 Date: 05/11/98 From: LARRY GAULT Time: 09:21pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Klinton's Arrogant AS -=> Quoting Larry Gault to Shoshona Bieman <=- LG> don't cover it. How bout ? LG> Only....could we maybe call it "Larry L'ing?" DH> as in Lobster? Some things just *refuse* to go away. Don't they? Direct to you from the keyboard of Larry Gault... ... Today on Gardening with Bill Clinton: From Weed to Flowers. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] -*- SF-Quick/BW 1.00r [#48] --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: COLUMBIA SPITFIRE * Dallas, Texas * (214-275-5040) (1:124/3271)