I’m shocked I tell you….

Here’s some of that ‘free’ public education that so many people think is essential to our survival:

THREE NSW teachers a month are being sacked for gross incompetence and shocking crimes, including sexual assault, child pornography and supplying drugs.

http://tinyurl.com/y3jdnd

Here’s a horrible thought: just how awful a teacher do you need to be that even a public education system would regard you as “grossly incompetent”?

…and why haven’t hundreds of teachers been fired for being, you know, communists?

45 thoughts on “I’m shocked I tell you….

  1. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

    Teaching is a job that appeals to losers in any case. You knock off at 3pm, you get a lot more holidays than anyone else in the workforce, and if you come to work with a hangover you can just get the kids to read silently to themselves while you have a snooze.

    There used to be a social status attached to the job that saw many more competent and decent people go into teaching. Now the profession is mostly populated by bimbo ex-babysitters who couldn’t get into any other university course, and blokes who see it as a bit of a bludge compared to office work.

  2. Yobbo: The name says it all I guess.

    Such bigoted and arrogant nonsense and gross generalisation.

    Do you have evidence for your assertions or are you just blowing it out of your arse?

  3. I’ve worked in both the private sector (town planning) and as a teacher in the state school system. Believe me, private sector white collar work is much easier.

    A single period with a difficult class is a real shock to the system. Five or six such periods in a day leaves you wrecked by 3.15. Then you have detentions to run, corrections, lesson preparation, report writing, staff meetings, professional development evenings, parent teacher nights, faculty meetings, phoning parents, information nights, award nights etc.

    At the moment, I have my normal classes to run and in the next seven days I’m expected (in the after hours and weekends) to correct 150 examinations and to write and proof 150 reports. Each report takes at least 15 minutes to write and each exam at least ten minutes to correct. Do the maths. There’s no way I won’t be burning the midnight candle every night.

    Why do it? It’s for the opposite reason you’ve advanced. It’s not because it’s easier but because it’s more of a challenge and therefore less boring than the white collar private sector work I’ve previously done. In other words, I find the stress of boredom worse than the pressures of teaching.

    I expect the real reason for the jibes at teachers is the impression that teachers are lefties and therefore part of the political opposition.

    This impression is partly true. At my school, every teacher over the age of 50 is a politically correct lefty. Amongst the younger teachers, though, things have changed. The younger English teachers do tend to be left-wing, but most of the others have broken away and could probably be described as apolitical centrists.

  4. Teachers always seem to forget that people in other jobs also work outside of office hours. It is not a practice unique to teaching.

    What is unique to teaching is the 9-3 office hours and the extremely generous holidays.

    The majority of teachers that taught me at public school were flat out trying to spell, frequently corrected my (correct) examination answers incorrectly, had no ability at all to control unruly classes, and bored everyone to tears.

    There were of course some very good teachers too, but the bad ones outnumbered the good at least 3-1.

  5. Teachers do not claim that they are the only profession to work out of office hours – they only mention it in response to ignorant assertions that teachers only work from 9 to 3.

    One of the reasons for the ‘extremely generous holidays’ is to prevent teachers going into stress induced meltdowns and leaving the profession.

    Unless you have worked 6 hours a day with children/adolescents it is hard to appreciate how utterly exhausting it is. Term breaks are the only time you get to recharge enough to give it your best for another term. Without them, most teachers would burn out after a few years. You should hear parents complain after having their kids home for two weeks, usually wondering how on earth teachers manage to cope.

    Teachers do not claim that they are the only profession to work out of office hours – they only mention it in response to ignorant assertions that teachers only work from 9 to 3.

    But you are right about the pay being peanuts given that teachers do what most adults refuse to do – take responsibility for their children.

  6. Yobbo, at my state school it would be career suicide to leave at 3.15. Remember too that once a teacher arrives at school he/she hits the ground running. It’s unusual to take much time off for lunch or recess. No 45 minutes at a local cafe. Instead, it’s yard duty, detentions, preparations for afternoon classes, dealing with a variety of student issues and something quick from the canteen.

  7. I had mostly great teachers at the schools I attended and I have great memories of school. I have never worked professionally with kids however I know from experience that whilst time spent entertaining, inspiring and educating kids is very rewarding it is also very mentally draining. Doing it with large numbers of very diverse kids must be even more so. Dealing with oddball parents must be hell.

  8. But you are right about the pay being peanuts given that teachers do what most adults refuse to do – take responsibility for their children.

    The pay is peanuts because teaching is heavily unionsed and largely a government owned enterprise. Unions refuse to consider performance based pay systems as it would weaken their power base – look at what happened in the trades under individual based contracts.

    Government owned enterprises like schools have fiscal pressure to minimise education expenditure, which conflicts with the stated role of providing educational opportunities to all. They pay peanuts because that is the only way they can afford to provide schooling to every child. Give people choice about education, and salaries will reflect what people are prepared to pay. Because the government sector is so large compared to the private education sector, the private sector doesn’t have to compete very hard on price for the best teachers.

    Unproven, inexperienced teachers will still have to do their time in lower paid employment providing basic education at the lowest cost, but since they will have upwardly mobile career opportunities with more prestigious schools, they will have motivation to work hard to create a good resume. Children of lower income families will benefit becuase teachers will be working hard to prove themselves so that they can get access to better pay and conditions (and possibly students!), teachers acting in the own self interest.

  9. Given that most public school families ‘only’ pay at most a few hundred dollars contribution per year it is hard to see where the extra money for higher teacher salaries under this market model will come from – unless it’s from governments investing more in education.

    The constant whinge about standards of education will not be remedied by market driven redistribution of the same pool of money to the top 20 percent and impoverishing the rest. If the nation is serious about quality education more investment is needed. The Irish Republic is a good example of transforming a country through long term investment in education and training.

    Still don’t know how you determine performance based pay for a brilliant teacher in the most dire of disadvantaged schools with challenged students. Simple measures like ENTER scores are inadequate, but it is these simplistic devices which are preferred by politicians, tertiary institutions and journalists.

    It is in our interests that all students are well-educated, not just those with academic gifts and wealthy parents. Unless we’re intentionally aiming for a two-tiered society of the wealthy and a poor, unskilled underclass. Sadly, there are those who think this would be a good idea – the markets will sort it out. For some, what is wealth and privilege without a corresponding poor and disadvantage?

  10. I spent six years teaching after I sold my business and before I started studying law/working as a lawyer. I’ve therefore been a small business owner/operator, a high-school teacher in tough state schools (Logan-Beaudesert region and London Borough of Brent), and a lawyer. I’ll take running my business and lawyering over teaching any day – and I was a PE teacher, generally one of the easier roles because kids like to get outside and run around.

    I went into teaching because I though I could ‘make a difference’ – get through to kids who had similar busted up backgrounds to me. Fat chance. The system is set up so both kids and teachers fail. Good teachers aren’t rewarded, there is little or no backup when it comes to discipline, parents expect teachers to do all the stuff they don’t do (discipline, values etc), lousy teachers bludge on those who are good.

    Teaching also fails to attract enough talented people, although the pay is only part of it. In days gone by, access to a scholarship involved a commitment to teaching for at least three years. Anywhere. Including woop-woop. This meant that teaching got – sometimes for much longer than three years – the best and brightest in a range of disciplines. ‘Commonwealth teaching scholarships’, anyone? When Gough made university education free, he drained much talent out of teaching because the ‘public service’ requirement engendered by the scholarships disappeared.

    Kids aren’t stupid. When students of mine found out my high school results (fairly easy to do if you know where to look), I inevitably got the ‘why’d you do this scuzzy job, Miss? You could do anything’.

  11. Pingback: Performance-based pay for teachers « Soap Box

  12. ‘The constant whinge about standards of education will not be remedied by market driven redistribution of the same pool of money to the top 20 percent and impoverishing the rest.’

    What does this mean?

    ‘If the nation is serious about quality education more investment is needed.’

    Throwing more taxpayer money at the problem is not a solution. Increased funding has not been the solution to problems in a wide variety of areas, from health to indigenous disadvantage. While the government has an effective monopoly on school education, and while the public school system competes on unequal terms with the private system, school administrators (and teachers) have little incentive to respond to the needs of students. They are too busy satisfying the requirements of government bureaucrats.

    The whole issue of on what basis teachers should be paid is a matter for individual schools. It’s not a matter for us, economists or any other public policy ‘expert’, although these people like to pretend that they know what they’re talking about so they can garner more influence and taxpayer funded career opportunities. That’s why governments shouldn’t be funding schools at all. They should be funding students, who along with their parents can then dictate what sort of ‘quality’ they want.

  13. “Still don’t know how you determine performance based pay for a brilliant teacher in the most dire of disadvantaged schools with challenged students. Simple measures like ENTER scores are inadequate, but it is these simplistic devices which are preferred by politicians, tertiary institutions and journalists.”

    1. You will have a high reservation wage in a free market due to shitty conditions.

    2. You can give them bonuses when the kids improve. The school’s policy is another product feature for parent’s to choose from.

  14. Whats the big deal Slim, why is it so hard for you to understand the idea of free markets.

    Give us our damn money back and let us spend on what we value.

  15. The tragedy is that many people don’t value their kids education much. I doubt that funding makes as much difference as parental input.

    I have three kids and I don’t like having to prop up the system to support other peoples kids if it is at the expence of mine. A friend told me that when he had kids he realised he loved them so much that he would die for them. He was surprised by the intensity of this instinct. I responded that I loved my kids so much I would kill for them. It is an instinct that would trump my libertarian instincts if I was forced to choose.

    I support the idea of education vouchers that links funding to students. However I think the current funding setup is not fundamentally different.

  16. Given that most public school families ‘only’ pay at most a few hundred dollars contribution per year it is hard to see where the extra money for higher teacher salaries under this market model will come from – unless it’s from governments investing more in education.

    That is utter crap. Reduce the tax burden and people will have more funds to dedicate to education (if that is what they want to spend their money on). Removing price controls (unions and state control), and the market will set wages according to supply and demand.

    Are teachers worried that the market will value them less than the state? If that is the case then they are asking all of us to subsidise their desire to earn an income using the tried and tested argument of “Who, but who, will think of the little children”. Such arguments are feckless.

    The constant whinge about standards of education will not be remedied by market driven redistribution of the same pool of money to the top 20 percent and impoverishing the rest.

    Who said anything about the pool of money staying the same? When something is free, people are less willing to get value for money, but if they had to pay for it, they may be willing to pay more to get value. Education spending in South Australia sits about $10,496 per student. For $12,500 you might be able to get a damn good education, and those willing may be able to fund that extra $2,000. If people care so much for education of other people’s children, scholarships and grants will fund places. Charities will be formed to collect donations for impoverished schools. Students will take out loans to fund their own education.

    Still don’t know how you determine performance based pay for a brilliant teacher in the most dire of disadvantaged schools with challenged students. Simple measures like ENTER scores are inadequate, but it is these simplistic devices which are preferred by politicians, tertiary institutions and journalists.

    Are you telling me employers aren’t able to recognise which are their better employees? People who choose to work in poorly funded schools “to make a difference” are no different to people who volunteer their time to charities. Just because you think that we should value their efforts more, does not mean we should pay for it. It is an individual choice to work where you want, especially if you choose to take less pay for your efforts than the market is willing to pay. Teachers would be free to apply to better funded schools and then donate their free time to helping the impoverished. Individuals will find ways to acheive the things that are important to them.

    It is in our interests that all students are well-educated, not just those with academic gifts and wealthy parents.

    No it is not. It is in an individuals interest to get as much education as they need to achieve what they want. Outside of basic literacy and numeracy, which can be learnt at home, most education spending is wasted on people who will never use it. Education is not a right.

  17. I agree that state control tends to supress wages. They have a near monopoly on the demand for teachers and they use it to keep wages low. However I think this is why you get heavy unionisation rather than the other way around. In towns where the privately owned coal mine is the dominant source of employment you also get heavy unionisation. Unionisation is mostly a response to employer market power.

  18. I think workers unionise in response to conditions and as an important institution for bargaining – rather than wages, which need to be high to attract workers from elsewhere.

    Mines can’t nationalise other mines and do not control budgets like state health systems either.

  19. There are industries with incredibly good working conditions that are heavily unionised and industries with pretty poor conditions that are either loosely unionised or barely unionised at all.

    If you can easily take your skills to a dozen different employers in your local area then you are unlikely to require a union. However if you have invested heavily in acquiring skills that are enterprise specific or if there are few alternative employers for your skills (in the area in which you prefer to reside) then you are more likely to join a union.

    In short I don’t think it is centrally just about working conditions. It is about bargaining power. The relative status of individuals in the employment relationship determines unionism more than the absolute material outcome. Rich people will unionise as readily as poor people if it is an empowering experience.

  20. I’m just hear to admit that finally Catallaxy has lured me back (it was the Latin America posts.) But i’m having problems registering (password never makes it to my email.)

    Anyway i’ll put here what i wanted to put there. Sorri if its bad blog manners.

    Scepticlawyer you’d do well not to take all your cues on Venezuela form Daniels Blog. You’ll lose contact from reality quickly (and if you think that there is a more than 10 percent chance of Rosales winning you’re already floating out there somewhere. If you want an accessible (from the right) yet reasonably balanced perspective try Caracas Chronicles. And if youw ant some idea of why you shouldn’t trust the majority of Venezuelan Opposition bloggers than try Oilwars. Try the thread “washington we have a problem, if you want some alternate perspectives on the march. Either of the pictures at the bottom of this page would make a good counterpart to the one you posted.

    http://www.puebloalzao.net/~aporrea/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24665

    While you’re there you might want to check out the graph, about 4 posts down (sorry cant link to individ posts) which shows that in 9 out of the last 10 quarters the country has experienced higher than 10 percent growth. Then you can decide how much of that you want to put down to unsustainable oil driven growth.

    Sorry for the break in transmission. I have no current thoughts on public education. Except that im glad i had some of it.

  21. Michael and Terje, Jason sent me a password after I mentioned this problem in a similar post, if you have his email, perhaps you can email him direct?

  22. Mikey and Terje,

    Shit a brick, I just read this – sorry people about the registration thing. It seems we are still paying for extra popularity. It’s nice but has its drawbacks. Jason, maybe you should put your email address on the ‘about’ page. No, bugger it – I will.

    And yes, I thinnk Chavez will win, but that his country his already progressed well down the road to dictatorship – all the relevant indicators – from the Economist etc – show increased authoritarianism, increased use of illegal detention and torture. They’ll either have a coup like Chile, and there’ll be blood in the streets, or there’ll be a contested election result, and there’ll be blood in the streets. Welcome to LatAm – except for Chile – but then, they had Milt.

  23. Mikey and Terje you have the audacity to criticise Venezuela’s democratically elected with 80% popularity Hugo Chavez for being authoritarian when its well documented that the US 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged.
    The Economist is a neocon/zionist propaganda rag.
    Go watch Panama Deception on video.google if you want to learn about American hegemony and the use of the media cabal to thwart public dissent with ostensible narratives that mask the real oligarchic dictatorship that is ‘American Democracy’.
    Meanwhile wave your freedom flag and say “Im free. I’m free./ I’m free”.

  24. Jake,

    I do like to be audacious. So a few audacious questions if I may;

    1. Where exactly did I ever criticise Hugo Chavez?
    2. Have you ever heard me defend US foreign policy and if so where?
    3. Do you really think I get any inspiration from reading The Economist?

    Regards,
    Terje.

  25. Jake, the Economist is well worth reading. “Know thy enemy” and all that. Plus its good value – $10 for in-depth economic and political analysis from across the world? Bargain!

    You don’t have to agree with the analysis to benefit from it.

  26. Wooo! Jake McCrann has joined us!

    For those unfamiliar with this…er….’eccentric’ gentleman, here’s a brief introduction.

    Jake is a 9/11 conspiracy nut who has made the following claims:

    1- WTC fell down because of a “controlled demolition”
    2- He is a retired millionaire, despite claiming he was on the dole on Sep 11, 2001
    3- He has a 152 IQ
    4- He has a private army of 100,000 Australian jihadis
    5- He fought in Iraq wth the SAS
    6- He fought with Hamas
    7- He fought with Hizbollah
    8- He was going to launch an armed revolution on Canberra on Sep 11, 2006, as well as setting off bombs at Melbourne universities and the cafe at ASIO HQ.
    9- He would start an assassination compign against politicians and “traitors”
    10- Steve Irwin was killed by a Mossad hit squad because he was about to “come out with the truth about 9/11”
    11- Peter Brock was killed by a Mossad hit squad for the same reason.
    12- Optus is run by Zionist agents
    13- He has various degrees in science, engineering and business. Unfortunately, he can’t remember where he got them.
    14- He had an “award winning muslim rocket scientist friend” at a “Melbourne University” who was kidnapped by the Mossad.
    15- The Moon landing was faked.
    16- Canberra is an “impregnable fortress”
    17- Everyone who doesn’t believe in the “truth” of 9/11 is a Mossad agent.

    Hey, this all sounds believable to me. It is entertaining though 🙂

  27. Tex
    13 of Jakes comments are off the mark, but he does have a point about Steve Erwin and Pater Brock. Both their deaths so close in time could only mean one thing, Mossad was responsible.

    I also think 911 was done not by Mossad, but French Jews.

  28. No
    I take that back. I think jake’s right. He now thinks 911 was a hit job by Fuji bank to hide losses. Why? Who knows.

    Where did you find Jake anyway? I’m impressed.

  29. “You don’t have to agree with the analysis to benefit from it.”

    Crikey. Makes you wonder how the condescending fatfingers was before he met with these multitude of benefits.

  30. “Where did you find Jake anyway? I’m impressed.”

    He’s an infamous usenet pest, who has sent countless thousands of posts over the last year saying he’s found the truth about 9/11 and will lauch a revolution where he will kill us all, blah blah. His delusions grow increasingly amusing every month

  31. Thanks for the heads up, Tex. Love the site. I never knew the Rothchilds own the world until I went through that link. Classic.

  32. Tex is not a poster who typically engages issues with argumentive theory.
    His MO appears to be to sabotage constructive debates with childlike snipes and misrepresentations. Here his defamatory critique of Jake McCrann was entirely misleading.

    I don’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job – I KNOW it was an inside job.

    Tex refuses to acknowledge any evidence that affirms that charge.
    Tex simply denies the existence even if its on the table bleeding in front of him.

    1- WTC fell down because of a “controlled demolition”

    indeed it did. Indeed it did. I would look closely at the work of Professor Steven Jones before you refute that hypothesis. Any scientific mind will investigate sincerely. Only ignorant people refute issues prima facie.

    If you search Tropi/Tex on Google-Groups and examine his interactions with posters over the years you can see that he has no respect for informed debate. He strikes me as a signature Troll. Not interested in truth and more than willing to use disinformation to attack those he disagrees with or anyone whom attacks the integrity of Israel.

    2- He is a retired millionaire, despite claiming he was on the dole on Sep 11, 2001

    *yes I did retire with a million dollars from a consortium of quasi-illegal white-collar quasi-fraudulent transactions.

    3- He has a 152 IQ

    Yes I do. And Tex is very upset about my assertion. It seems that Tex has
    an inferiority complex regarding IQs. He refuses to cease bringing up this issue of my IQ. Get over it Tex!

    4- He has a private army of 100,000 Australian jihadis

    *Never said that I had “jihadis” – I said we had 100,000 aboriginals armed with Kalashnikovs. It was clearly propaganda. But Tex embarassed himself by calling it in to the Terror Hotline and everyone laughed at him for his naivity.

    5- He fought in Iraq wth the SAS

    *Clearly propaganda

    6- He fought with Hamas

    *Clearly satire.

    7- He fought with Hizbollah

    *Clearly satire.

    8- He was going to launch an armed revolution on Canberra on Sep 11, 2006, as well as setting off bombs at Melbourne universities and the cafe at ASIO HQ.

    *Clearly propaganda

    9- He would start an assassination compign against politicians and “traitors”

    *Clearly propaganda. But relying on 9/11 Truth it would seem appropriate action to take against these traitors in our parliament.

    10- Steve Irwin was killed by a Mossad hit squad because he was about to “come out with the truth about 9/11″

    *Clearly satire.

    11- Peter Brock was killed by a Mossad hit squad for the same reason.

    *Clearly satire.

    12- Optus is run by Zionist agents

    *Basically. There are Zionist interests in Optus executives.
    I defeated Optus with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman for their cancellation of my account. I had verbal comfirmation from disinterested representatives at the Optus Customer Service desk and TIO that it would seem that executives had gone over everyone’s head in cancelling my account and that they were probably jews offended by my anti-zionist politiking.

    13- He has various degrees in science, engineering and business. Unfortunately, he can’t remember where he got them.

    *Bachelor of Science (Melbourne University) Chemistry and Mathematics.
    *Bachelor of Chemical Engineering (Melbourne Univerisity – 3 out of 4 years completed)
    *Masters in Business Systems (Monash University)

    Whats your problem Tex? Is that how you get around in life accusing everyone of not having degrees they claim to have? Whats the point? You can’t refute the claim with evidence. I’m not obligated to provide you with evidence and you never recognise evidence that contradicts you.

    How about you TRY and give me evidence that Osama Bin Ladin was behind the 9/11 attacks, that Suddam was harbouring WMDs and that Collin Powell didn’t knowingly and deliberately lie to the UNSC about WMDs in IRaq. And that the US didn’t sell Suddam WMDs in the 80s.

    You’re a fuckwit Tex. I’ve cited evidence ten times over to support the charges that 9/11 was an inside job. You only have one MO regarding any such debate – DENY EVIDENCE – EVEN IN-YOUR-FACE EVIDENCE.

    14- He had an “award winning muslim rocket scientist friend” at a “Melbourne University” who was kidnapped by the Mossad.

    yes I do have such a friend. He won Chancellors Prize for Best PhD at Melbourne Univeristy. And he disappeared a year ago and I don’t know where he is. I never said he was kidnapped by Mossad.

    15- The Moon landing was faked

    If you go watch Bart Sibrel’s Astronauts Gone Wild, and another documentary called A.Funny.Thing.Happened.On.The.Way.To.The.Moon.DVDRip.XviD.avi
    then it certainly seems to be the case. The MANNED moon landing was faked. I don’t dispute that robots have been to the moon.

    16- Canberra is an “impregnable fortress”

    Did I say that? Just to prove to everyone here that you’re not a lier, how about you show us all the link where I said that?

    17- Everyone who doesn’t believe in the “truth” of 9/11 is a Mossad agent.

    I never said that. Thats your childish reduction of the issue of 9/11 and false-flag terrorism.

  33. Yay, fruitboy jake is back!

    Tex is not a poster who typically engages issues with argumentive theory.
    His MO appears to be to sabotage constructive debates with childlike snipes and misrepresentations. Here his defamatory critique of Jake McCrann was entirely misleading.

    Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?

    I don’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job – I KNOW it was an inside job.

    Sure Jakey

    Tex refuses to acknowledge any evidence that affirms that charge.
    Tex simply denies the existence even if its on the table bleeding in front of him.

    If you search Tropi/Tex on Google-Groups and examine his interactions with posters over the years you can see that he has no respect for informed debate.

    Says the idiot who issues death threats to people who mock him

    2- He is a retired millionaire, despite claiming he was on the dole on Sep 11, 2001

    *yes I did retire with a million dollars from a consortium of quasi-illegal white-collar quasi-fraudulent transactions.

    …and yet you said you were on the dole on 9/11

    3- He has a 152 IQ

    Yes I do. And Tex is very upset about my assertion. It seems that Tex has
    an inferiority complex regarding IQs. He refuses to cease bringing up this issue of my IQ. Get over it Tex!

    Despite your “152 IQ”, you still don’t know how message headers work, you use the same IDs to say you are/are not Jake McCrann

    4- He has a private army of 100,000 Australian jihadis

    *Never said that I had “jihadis” – I said we had 100,000 aboriginals armed with Kalashnikovs. It was clearly propaganda.

    What was it propoaganda for Jakey?

    But Tex embarassed himself by calling it in to the Terror Hotline and everyone laughed at him for his naivity.

    I’m sure you have evidence for this. Or did your neighbour’s jewish dog eat it?

    5- He fought in Iraq wth the SAS

    *Clearly propaganda

    In other words, you admit talking shit in most of your posts, and you wonder why people don’t take you seriously

    6- He fought with Hamas

    *Clearly satire.

    You may want to look up the meanings of “satire” and “propaganda”, because you don’t seem to know what they mean, despite your “152 IQ”

    7- He fought with Hizbollah

    *Clearly satire.

    No Jake, it was just more of your kooky horseshit

    8- He was going to launch an armed revolution on Canberra on Sep 11, 2006, as well as setting off bombs at Melbourne universities and the cafe at ASIO HQ.

    *Clearly propaganda

    See above

    9- He would start an assassination compign against politicians and “traitors”

    *Clearly propaganda. But relying on 9/11 Truth it would seem appropriate action to take against these traitors in our parliament.

    So, if everything you’ve said has been “propaganda” and “satire” (and let’s not forget those “extended metaphors”), why are you so surprised that everyone laughs at you, jakey?

    10- Steve Irwin was killed by a Mossad hit squad because he was about to “come out with the truth about 9/11″

    *Clearly satire.

    Oh it was funny alright, but you never intended it to be so.

    11- Peter Brock was killed by a Mossad hit squad for the same reason.

    *Clearly satire.

    See above

    12- Optus is run by Zionist agents

    *Basically. There are Zionist interests in Optus executives.
    I defeated Optus with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman for their cancellation of my account.

    No, you didn’t. You got kicked off and there’s fuck all you’ve been able to do about it

    I had verbal comfirmation from disinterested representatives at the Optus Customer Service desk and TIO that it would seem that executives had gone over everyone’s head in cancelling my account and that they were probably jews offended by my anti-zionist politiking.

    Sure Jakey, and Darth Vader says he will install me as his trusted underling when he invades earth next week

    13- He has various degrees in science, engineering and business. Unfortunately, he can’t remember where he got them.

    *Bachelor of Science (Melbourne University) Chemistry and Mathematics.
    *Bachelor of Chemical Engineering (Melbourne Univerisity – 3 out of 4 years completed)
    *Masters in Business Systems (Monash University)

    So, you did 10 years of study during only 5 years in Australia, despite your amazingly successful business career taking up much of your time, and you were accepted into a Masters degree despite not having the relevant prerequisites and having no idea how the internet works. Yeah, that makes the whole thing sounds really believable.

    Whats your problem Tex? Is that how you get around in life accusing everyone of not having degrees they claim to have?

    Because you don’t have them

    Whats the point? You can’t refute the claim with evidence.

    What “claim”?

    I’m not obligated to provide you with evidence and you never recognise evidence that contradicts you.

    You never produce any Jakey

    You’re a fuckwit Tex. I’ve cited evidence ten times over to support the charges that 9/11 was an inside job. You only have one MO regarding any such debate – DENY EVIDENCE – EVEN IN-YOUR-FACE EVIDENCE.

    LOL. You “evidence” consists of:
    – tinfoil hat conspiracy sites
    – youtube videos, like the idiot who set up his awesome backyard chicken-wire model to “prove” that fires could not have made the WTC collapse
    – conspiracy theories which completely contradict your other conspiracy theories

    14- He had an “award winning muslim rocket scientist friend” at a “Melbourne University” who was kidnapped by the Mossad.

    yes I do have such a friend. He won Chancellors Prize for Best PhD at Melbourne Univeristy. And he disappeared a year ago and I don’t know where he is. I never said he was kidnapped by Mossad.

    Sure Jake. What year was he awarded this “prize”?

    15- The Moon landing was faked

    If you go watch Bart Sibrel’s Astronauts Gone Wild, and another documentary called A.Funny.Thing.Happened.On.The.Way.To.The.Moon.DVDRip.XviD.avi
    then it certainly seems to be the case. The MANNED moon landing was faked. I don’t dispute that robots have been to the moon.

    So jake, given your magnificent academic career and respect for science, perhaps you can explain why not one single scientist of note, anywhere of the planet, believes that the Apollo 11 mission was faked….

    16- Canberra is an “impregnable fortress”

    Did I say that? Just to prove to everyone here that you’re not a lier, how about you show us all the link where I said that?

    Which one of your 400 fake google IDs should I use?

    17- Everyone who doesn’t believe in the “truth” of 9/11 is a Mossad agent.

    I never said that. Thats your childish reduction of the issue of 9/11 and false-flag terrorism.

    Sure Jakey.

  34. Tex has graciously confirmed my criticism that he only engages and provokes childish antics in political forums. And that he lies and spreads disinformation regarding the tabling of these important issues that effect our lives.
    I do believe that if 9/11 Truth finally has its day of justice that the internet disinformation agents like Tex – if they can be confidently identified – should be hung for crimes against humanity. There is nothing more repulsive to the trained scientific mind than a disinformant.

  35. “I do believe that if 9/11 Truth finally has its day of justice that the internet disinformation agents like Tex – if they can be confidently identified – should be hung for crimes against humanity. There is nothing more repulsive to the trained scientific mind than a disinformant.”

    Tex should be hung for disagreeing with your crackpot theory?

  36. Tex has graciously confirmed my criticism that he only engages and provokes childish antics in political forums.

    LOL, this coming from the author of:

    “I’ll spit in your face, cut your throat out on mobile-phone video and upload it to Ogrish.com as a Snuff for the whole world to see.”

    “I think you should pay me compensataion to how your remorse. $5000 should settle it for your defamation. I have organised for my lawyer to contact your ISP and make your indentifiaction known to him. You should expect a law suit for stalking and defamation. You should also expect charges to be filed against you in the Nuremberg 911 War Crimes Trials that are destined to follow. ”

    “We have planted bombs in the cafe’s that ASIO staff frequent for lunches. This September 11 2006 if ASIO hasn’t come clean we are going to exterminate them like the rodents they are. ”

    Back to your rubber-room jakey 🙂

  37. 16- Canberra is an “impregnable fortress”

    Did I say that? Just to prove to everyone here that you’re not a lier, how about you show us all the link where I said that?

    —–
    To simplify my charge to you all that Tex is a disinformant I restate my challenge.

    Where did I say that Tex?

    Somebody said “911 was an inside job” is a crackpot theory.
    Shall I list to you all the highly successful, highly paid, military, intelligence, government, academics who have signed up to that coin of phrase?
    Its hardly an insult you’ve penned.
    I’m flattered. If the divide between those who know and those who don’t is defined by that line, I’m flattered thus to be associated with such an ilk of intellectuals.
    I guess in a world where MacDonalds succeeds is a world that divides the common men from the common sheep.

Comments are closed.