From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:09:42 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [RANT] Public schools
Message-ID: <ZoiTuD2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Jay Gairson <erp@digiforest.com> writes:

> First off, what does this have to do with cryptography?  or anything 
> cypher for that matter?

Nothing. Neither does most other stuff posted to this list.

> On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
> > > > U.S. public school system is darwinian evolution in action. Parents who
> > > > afford to send their kids to private schools, do so. Parents who send t
> > > > kids to public schools deserve to have their offsprings fucked up, ment
> > > > and phsyically, to improve the species' gene pool.
> 
> So, basically your saying, since my parents cannot afford to pay for a 
> private school for me, we are genetically inferior to those who can?

In general, on the average, yes.

> Because hate tell ya, but I've ran into some major idiots that go to 
> private schools.  Also to consider that from the school I go to, last 
> year we had two perfect sat scores (no problems missed).

Oh yes - I've seen idiots at private schools and I've seen smart kids at
public schools. They're exceptions.

Judging from your abuse of the English language, you're not.

The cirricula at public schools and the SAT requirements are pretty
lame, so any kid willing to spend enough time on them can become a
straight A student and feel good about himself/herself. I'm not impressed.

> > > But the cutoff is often whether the parents can afford to send their kids
> > > to private school, not whether or not they're genetically superior.
> > 
> > You must have attended a public school if you don't understand that geentic
> > superiority leads to economic success.  My older kid goes to a private scho
> > The parents are obviously genetically superior to public school parents.
> 
> I am assuming from what you have said in that statement, that you believe 
> since he may have gone to a public school, it has made him have the 
> opinion he does?

Opinions change.  His snotty attitude toward learning, his propensity to
wallow in his stupidity and ignorance the way a pig wallows in its own
excrement is a trait commonly acquired in the U.S. public school system.

> Also, in your statement that your older kid goes to a private school, and 
> that the parents are obviously genetically superior to public school 
> parents.  You seem to be saying that YOU are genetically superior to my 
> parents?

I believe myself to be genetically superior to the vast majority of the
population. Not knowing much about your parents, other than they can't
afford to send you to a better school, I assume that they're part of
this vast majority.

(Make it both intellectually and physically superior. :-)

> Another thing to consider here is, from this line of statements, you are 
> saying that children who have parents who made it well in, let us say the 
> movie buisness (or even drug buisness), and then send there children to 
> public schools, are genetically superior because they can act (lie) 
> better than my parents.  For if this is so, that must mean that my aunt 
> is genetically superior to my mother (who is a teacher at a private 
> school, but she did not go to a private school) and to her parents, for 
> she is making more money, and if she ever has children they will be 
> genetically superior to me, because they will have more money?

In general, on the average, yes.  I believe that being able to afford a
good private school for one's kids is a trait correlated to desirable
traits, some of which are inherited by the kids who benefit from the
better education.

That's eugenics in action.

> > Push vouchers. What's the cryptorelevance of your comments, anyway?
> > 
> 
> Umm, where you not the one that started this conversation?

Nope.

> > No, on the contrary, sending poor kids to good schools on scholarships
> > does not improve their genes. They tend to become drug dealers.
> 
> Hate to inform you on this but, it is more often than not the children 
> sent by there rich mama and papa to school, that end up on drugs or as 
> drug dealers, than the ones that start out with scholarships (For the 
> ones with scholarships have more to loose, than the ones with the rich 
> mama and papa, for the rich mama and papa can afford the big expensive 
> lawyer.).  Just look at the studies and such done on this type of area.  

Can you site any such studies? They certainly contradict what I know
about this area, and I consider myself pretty well-informed.

> Also you have to consider that generally the ones that end up as drug 
> dealers, are the children who have parents that where drug dealers and 
> such or had experience in such, or just had parents who didn't care what 

That's pretty much what I said. Other disciplinary problems (poor
attendance, talking back to teachers, weird dress, sex, etc) also
tend to be associated with the poor kids admitted on scholarships.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps