Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ken Robinson.

Rethinking education

Best book on the matter.

Omx5KrRVkMc

education has never been about creativity

Originally posted by Oliver North
education has never been about creativity

It's always been about forced creativity according to that video.

Every intelligence related task requires creativity. Even simple math requires creativity, in order to understand, interpret, and solve a math problem one must recreate it, copy it, in their head. The must truly understand it.

In my courses, the quality of the work reflects the passion put into it. I honestly couldn't work out a form of schooling where I wouldn't need to go through the creation process on call or demand of an assignment.

My grade is a reflection of my intrinsic interest, and it's ability to encourage prodigal propensities, which I think is the case for everyone. Passion is a strong driving force that's overlooked in the schooling system to be assured.

The main driving force I have, is to be better at the tasks in the course than my peers. Mine is a competitive drive. I can ace this, because I'm quickly able to develop tasks, to understand and utilize knowledge. That's not the case for everyone.

I'm not entirely sure what you're advocating here.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not entirely sure what you're advocating here.

I'm not either.

My posts in this thread are no more than a series of mere observatory statements.

Originally posted by Dolos
The main driving force I have, is to be better at the tasks in the course than my peers. Mine is a competitive drive. I can ace this, because I'm quickly able to develop tasks, to understand and utilize knowledge. That's not the case for everyone.

I can go into more detail about the rest of your reply, but lets just take this bit here. The intent of this thread seems to be to suggest that the system of education, as it exists, destroys creativity and prevents real learning. Also, you say you want to do the best in this system, when compared to your peers.

So, basically, you want to be stifled in your creativity more than your peers and have your real learning prevented more than them?

Originally posted by Dolos
My posts in this thread are no more than a series of mere observatory statements.

a blog might be a better format for you then

Might I suggest opening a blog?

Originally posted by Oliver North
I can go into more detail about the rest of your reply, but lets just take this bit here. The intent of this thread seems to be to suggest that the system of education, as it exists, destroys creativity and prevents real learning. Also, you say you want to do the best in this system, when compared to your peers.

So, basically, you want to be stifled in your creativity more than your peers and have your real learning prevented more than them?


It depends on the course, I must find a course in which my peers are passionate, or at least a course they claim to be strong in. That is a sense of confidence for them. If I can pull off greater grades, going into extra credit to be assured, yet have no interest in the course or be particularly strong in the subject, would be elating for me. It would make me feel empowered, chosen, accomplished, intelligent.

Works well with other competitive learners, though usually any of them will just tell you their grade if you ask. In fact they're very vocal about their grade.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Might I suggest opening a blog?

This forum is very much a combination of a blog and a social network and much more. In my mind, message boards are very very useful. This conversation isn't spam, it's real opinions. That to me is one of the reasons I prefer message boards to other types of social media.

Originally posted by Dolos
It depends on the course, I must find a course in which my peers are passionate, or at least a course they claim to be strong in. That is a sense of confidence for them. If I can pull off greater grades, going into extra credit to be assured, yet have no interest in the course or be particularly strong in the subject, would be elating for me. It would make me feel empowered, chosen, accomplished, intelligent.

Works well with other competitive learners, though usually any of them will just tell you their grade if you ask. In fact they're very vocal about their grade.

so you are arguing against the title of your thread?

Originally posted by Oliver North
so you are arguing against the title of your thread?

There are always exceptions.

One could make the argument I chose to be competitive simply to get ahead academically, because of the value that degrees hold economically. I also wish to be not just independent, but well off.

Furthermore, the higher you get in education as per doctorates, the more likely actually scientists will take you under their wing. They certainly wouldn't decline a request into some elite learning schools. These aren't forced creativity, and highly personalized when one student is apprenticed.

My passions revolve around independence and ability to tackle direct, illusory or abstract problems. Physically, aesthetically, emotionally, intellectually, I have to be ahead. One thing I've learned is that through persistence personal progress is the one thing that can be counted on.

wow man, you are really all over the place here...

Originally posted by Oliver North
wow man, you are really all over the place here...

I think a topic is limited when only allowed to go in a certain direction.

Originally posted by Dolos
I think a topic is limited when only allowed to go in a certain direction.

ok... what I mean is, there is no coherence to what you are saying. I've asked you what I thought were specific questions about what you are saying, and you have used that as a jumping off point to try and talk about everything from what you think grades represent to how competitive you are.

Like, cool, those are all interesting topic, however, none have really been related to what I asked you. As was mentioned before, if you just want to post your own random thoughts about school, a blog is the more appropriate format. As it is, I'm failing at trying to have a conversation with you because I can't keep up. I'm still stuck looking for some explanation of how you can possibly say that education is supposed to be about creativity in any way.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm still stuck looking for some explanation of how you can possibly say that education is supposed to be about creativity in any way.

Everything you do in a serious course requires creativity, does it not?

Originally posted by Dolos
It's always been about forced creativity according to that video.

1) Videos on the internet can be wrong.
2) Ken Robinson doesn't say that.

Also, our educational system (in the US) comes from a system designed for efficiently educating many children as the nation began to urbanize (Robinson mentions this) and later from a perceived need to produce as many engineers as possible in the 20th century. It has evolved a bit but generally those have been the goals.

Originally posted by Dolos
Every intelligence related task requires creativity. Even simple math requires creativity, in order to understand, interpret, and solve a math problem one must recreate it, copy it, in their head. The must truly understand it.

You can do math without understanding it, people do that all the time actually. Ever heard of multiplication tables? I'm not sure why you're grouping all cognition into creativity.

In my courses, the quality of the work reflects the passion put into it. I honestly couldn't work out a form of schooling where I wouldn't need to go through the creation process on call or demand of an assignment.

Originally posted by Dolos
My grade is a reflection of my intrinsic interest, and it's ability to encourage prodigal propensities, which I think is the case for everyone.

The idea that it is "intrinsic" interest that matters is seriously flawed. I've taken plenty of classes where the teacher managed to make me interested in content I don't much care about. A grade is a reflection of a great many things, focusing on one extremely specific thing in isolation is a mistake. I'd mainly criticize the fact that grades create a metagame, one of the most important skills for a person who wants a good grade is understanding how the teacher thinks.

Originally posted by Dolos
Everything you do in a serious course requires creativity, does it not?

not according to what I call creativity, no

most courses up until, probably 2-3rd year university require far more rote memorization than rational understanding.

just to throw it out there, almost nobody, especially professors, think marks are equal to one's level of understanding or intelligence. Marks are, 90%, an issue of how much effort an individual puts specifically into the task of getting high marks.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1) Videos on the internet can be wrong.
2) Ken Robinson doesn't say that.

Also, our educational system (in the US) comes from a system designed for efficiently educating many children as the nation began to urbanize (Robinson mentions this) and later from a perceived need to produce as many engineers as possible in the 20th century. It has evolved a bit but generally those have been the goals.



You can do math without understanding it, people do that all the time actually. Ever heard of multiplication tables? I'm not sure why you're grouping all cognition into creativity.

You understand the problem, and that's why you're able to solve it. That's how you know what to do in addition, multiplication, division, you understand what those signs mean. It's beyond random numbers, you're performing a task. You must create an idea reflecting the problem in your head, before an accurate solution can also be created. I think creativity is an integral part of all cognitive tasks on a fundamental level.



Well it seems like that is an inter-personal related motive, like my competitiveness - ulterior yet useful, for tackling the issue of creating without particular interest, that 'metagame' is your intrinsic interest.

Originally posted by Oliver North
just to throw it out there, almost nobody, especially professors, think marks are equal to one's level of understanding or intelligence. Marks are, 90%, an issue of how much effort an individual puts specifically into the task of getting high marks.

I don't know, you might be getting a skewed perspective from psych and neuro professors who probably more aware of controversies in test construction and operationalization.

Originally posted by Oliver North
just to throw it out there, almost nobody, especially professors, think marks are equal to one's level of understanding or intelligence. Marks are, 90%, an issue of how much effort an individual puts specifically into the task of getting high marks.

That could be a fatal mistake in educating an individual...or maybe not, as progress does seem to be a commodity to those with persistence.

My ultimatum is control, symmetry, stability in a chaotic, unfair and uncertain world - and I have that in the form of self-progress.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know, you might be getting a skewed perspective from psych and neuro professors who probably more aware of controversies in test construction and operationalization.

maybe, though, I took nearly as many sociology/anthropology courses in my undergrad as I did psych/neuro (I had the prerequisites to get a minor in middle east studies), so I am certainly aware of how testing and grading is done in those courses.

A huge issue in most cases is labor. In highschool and low level university/college courses, the work load that asking students to write papers or do more challenging things other than multiple choice produces is insurmountable. I taught a section of into-psych that had 300 students in it. That was one of 12 sections. To test the students on issues of grand comprehension or cognitive maturity with the material would have taken an army of markers that the university wouldn't pay for, and probably wouldn't be available there if they would.

Additionally, and I could rant on this, there is a lowering standard for students (almost ever prof I have talked to has mentioned this) and the business-ification of universities has made core courses much more about giving the students the credits, thus taking more of their money and getting them degrees, than about making sure they have an actual comprehension of the material. For instance, in the intro-stats courses I was teaching this past year, the assignments were designed such that students could only lose a certain number of marks per question, and in many cases even if an assignment was left blank a student wouldn't lose enough marks to fail. This is because intro-stats is a core course for a psych degree, and thus designed by a committee of individuals whose primary concern is, "how can the most number of students pass so we can keep taking their money?"

Originally posted by Dolos
That could be a fatal mistake in educating an individual...

hardly

in my experience, high grades are a sign of neuroses and a lack of social/emotional development. All of it is anecdotal, but I've never met someone who gets good marks that is as well adjusted and mature as those who couldn't give a shit.

That being said, those neurotics get to go on to PhD, I get to find another job.

Originally posted by Oliver North
maybe, though, I took nearly as many sociology/anthropology courses in my undergrad as I did psych/neuro (I had the prerequisites to get a minor in middle east studies), so I am certainly aware of how testing and grading is done in those courses.

A huge issue in most cases is labor. In highschool and low level university/college courses, the work load that asking students to write papers or do more challenging things other than multiple choice produces is insurmountable. I taught a section of into-psych that had 300 students in it. That was one of 12 sections. To test the students on issues of grand comprehension or cognitive maturity with the material would have taken an army of markers that the university wouldn't pay for, and probably wouldn't be available there if they would.

Additionally, and I could rant on this, there is a lowering standard for students (almost ever prof I have talked to has mentioned this) and the business-ification of universities has made core courses much more about giving the students the credits, thus taking more of their money and getting them degrees, than about making sure they have an actual comprehension of the material. For instance, in the intro-stats courses I was teaching this past year, the assignments were designed such that students could only lose a certain number of marks per question, and in many cases even if an assignment was left blank a student wouldn't lose enough marks to fail. This is because intro-stats is a core course for a psych degree, and thus designed by a committee of individuals whose primary concern is, "how can the most number of students pass so we can keep taking their money?"

They're lowering their standards for me!

Bollocks!!!

yup

Originally posted by Oliver North
hardly

in my experience, high grades are a sign of neuroses and a lack of social/emotional development. All of it is anecdotal, but I've never met someone who gets good marks that is as well adjusted and mature as those who couldn't give a shit.

That being said, those neurotics get to go on to PhD, I get to find another job.

Everyone is neurotic, or very capable of neurosis. It's to what level.

That adds to what I've been saying all along though, that grandiose ultimatum is very neurotic...to them (or us I should say) these types of things are a challenge to be conquered.

I'm not well, I have anxiety problems, sometimes when I dose off I go into a state of panic, the world is too much. Too much going on, too far a depth and too broad a scope. I can't handle how much I'm allowed to fathom.

Define creativity for me, without copying it from a dictionary.

Originally posted by Dolos
You understand the problem, and that's you're able to solve it. That how you know what to do in addition, multiplication, division, you understand what those signs mean. It's beyond random numbers, your performing a task. You must create and idea reflecting the problem in your head, before an accurate solution can be created.

Understanding isn't creativity, its understanding.
Many tasks can be completed with neither creativity nor understanding.

Originally posted by Dolos
I think creativity is an integral part of all cognitive tasks a fundamental level.

Memory is not a creative act (its partly constructive but that's not really the same thing.

Originally posted by Dolos
Well it's seems like that is an inter-personal related motive, like my competitiveness - ulterior yet useful, for tackling the issue of creating without particular interest, that 'metagame' is your intrinsic interest.

A metagame isn't a motive, its a consequence of competition within a sufficiently complex environment. School metagames are between the school and the students not between students. The school wants to weed out students who don't understand. All students want to get good grades.

The typical school metagame is degenerate, on the balance students will always win, because the school's only mode of assessment is very limited and does not check for many alternative reasons for the grade.

Students are trained to do well at this metagame. Maybe you've heard these guidelines before: Narrow down answers and guess. Make your essays as long as possible. Human constructed multiple choice tests are biased toward "C". Estimate and check.

Teacher have a pretty limited toolbox but they play the metagame too. Some literature teachers write tests using only information that isn't on sparknotes. Some teachers use a computer to pick where to put answers. Many teachers play by mixing question types on tests to trip up students who train for multiple choice.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Memory is......partly constructive.....

Exactly. I apologize for scrambling what you were saying outside of its context.

However, I'm really just trying to explain my perspective in saying that, "look more crucially", you're recreating the idea of addition in your head.



Yes, I understand the concept of metagames. What I was indicating was that sense of 'conformed contentedness' you brought up. When that's taken to personally uncompromising extents, you're no longer caring about the subject itself, but conquering said subject to prove your wits. If necessary, through guile and trickery. A real Sith Academy.

Originally posted by Dolos
Exactly. I apologize for scrambling what you were saying outside of its context.

The constructive nature of memory has nothing to do with creativity. Intent is a pretty crucial aspect of creativity.

Originally posted by Dolos
However, I'm really just trying to explain my perspective in saying that, "look more crucially", you're recreating the idea of addition in your head.

My point is that with a slide rule or a mathematical table you can do math without ever learning math, only the mechanical operations that result in you getting an answer your teacher says is correct.

Originally posted by Dolos
Yes, I understand the concept of metagames. What I was indicating was that sense of 'conformed contentedness' you brought up. When that's taken to personally uncompromising extents, you're no longer caring about the subject itself, but conquering said subject to prove your wits. If necessary, through guile and trickery. A real Sith Academy.

I never mentioned conformed contentedness.

It does require creativity if you think about it, just on a very minuscule level.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The idea that it is "intrinsic" interest that matters is seriously flawed. I've taken plenty of classes where the teacher managed to make me interested in content I don't much care about.


You're compromising your interests out of necessity, if only to a small degree.

This thread is definitely off the mark about education in general being forced creativity, but as others have already pointed this out I'll leave it alone.

As to some of the spawned-off discussions, even in my Engineering classes the amount of information gets to the point that it more or less becomes piecemeal learning for the upcoming test to prove you can comprehend the material, then dump the higher details so that you'll be ready to move on. Most students take the line of thinking that manuals and computers will handle all the heavy lifting down the road, so capability is enough.

As to another point made, the only people I know who continue to excel at every academic level do so at the cost of social engagements as already noted. Those who are still overachieving at higher level classes tend to have nothing on their plate other than school for the most part. Anyway, I'm on an inane tear here, so I'm outtie.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Omx5KrRVkMc

education has never been about creativity

+1. Creativity comes from experience, you can gain experience through education.

We don't need no education.

Is it though....really?

You're being forced to create things you have no desire to create. Like a construction worker helps to build a building. He has no use for that particular building, he has no desire for it. We are slaves in every facet of society save hooking up with a member of the opposite sex (which in itself enslaves two individuals ) and recreating, but in those instances we're slaves to desire, desire is not the same as money or a diploma or a degree. We allowed ourselves to desire those things because we've been tricked into thinking we need them to get what we desire. And we will need them so long as we believe what others want us to believe.

Anyone can who can make a choice can have as much money and degrees as he wants, a trillion, a googolplexplex of scholarly degrees, graham's number of $s, doesn't matter.

Unless you're being educated in a field that is based around cultivating or inspiring creativity then generally speaking i don't see how education has anything to do with creativity. That isn't to say that education doesn't inspire or strengthen ones creativity even if the fields of study are unrelated.

To argue the title of the thread further i would also like to point out that creativity can in fact be forced just as education can be forced.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Unless you're being educated in a field that is based around cultivating or inspiring creativity then generally speaking i don't see how education has anything to do with creativity. That isn't to say that education doesn't inspire or strengthen ones creativity even if the fields of study are unrelated.

To argue the title of the thread further i would also like to point out that creativity can in fact be forced just as education can be forced. Yes but the way operates in reality, is designed for shaping individuals to conform to planned skills and creative proclivities. Not all of them are good. Who plans these? That's the question you should ask.

It's mind domination. You accept the lie that things the way they are, that what you experience, good or bad, is really happening, when you shouldn't.

The only things that should happen, are the things that you desire to happen.

Originally posted by Dolos
Yes but the way operates in reality, is designed for shaping individuals to conform to planned skills and creative proclivities. Not all of them are good. Who plans these? That's the question you should ask.

It's mind domination. You accept the lie that things the way they are, that what you experience, good or bad, is really happening, when you shouldn't.

The only things that should happen, are the things that you desire to happen.


Are you asking who or what determines is basic education? If so, then I would suggest that is you and I (society). The idea of what is necessary education changes all the time and varies all over the world and even from state to state, in America.

When you say that the only things that should happen are the things you desire. Then I would have to say that, ultimately those are the only things that do end up happening. Anyone who has gone to school has realized that the only people that excel are the people that actually want to learn. I think you can be forced to learn much in the way babies are forced to learn but those who want to learn are the ones that retain the knowledge and don't just rely on unprecedented memory recall. I think this same idea can be applied to the creativity aspect but I really don't think we should go there because creativity relative.

People are obviously forced to learn basic skills that assist them in living and being apart of society, however the choice for them to live amongst society and adopt the basic rules we agree upon as a community is entirely their choice as well as is their choice of what they choose to learn after reaching full self-awareness.

What you say is true, but if there was no doubt or fear, or lack of confidence and ability to get what one desires - none of this would be here, the universe wouldn't be made of atoms, etc.

However, the reason this world is the way it is is due to a very specific balance of confidence and doubt, manifested through the law of attraction. We're all one consciousness. Choice exists, that is the complete creation equation. Our doubts and fears take on physical form, we're afraid so and so will create an institution called school, and they do because we doubted that it wouldn't happen. We doubted that school was all fun and games, and so it is tedious and boring AF. We doubted that learning could be fun, and so it's not. It is NOT placebo and nocebo, those were meaningless and nonexistent until I empowered them with existence by applying meaning to them myself.

Originally posted by Oliver North
hardly

in my experience, high grades are a sign of neuroses and a lack of social/emotional development. All of it is anecdotal, but I've never met someone who gets good marks that is as well adjusted and mature as those who couldn't give a shit.

That being said, those neurotics get to go on to PhD, I get to find another job. do you think the same applies if you're just going to a community college to get a technical degree so you can find a decent job?

i have straight A's at my college. in high school i didn't give a shit and hardly ever even showed up. i think there was one semester where i actually got straight Fs. i just wasn't that motivated to make money at the time. somehow i graduated anyway. they basically just push you through eventually.then i spent the next 5 or so years making bad decisions and working shit jobs. so i mostly make sure to have good grades now to correct the mess that i made by not giving a shit before.

Yeah, so, lets assume for a moment that "education is forced creativity" is correct under our understanding of education an creativity. Obviously "creativity can not be forced" is bullshit. So...paradox solved?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, so, lets assume for a moment that "education is forced creativity" is correct under our understanding of education an creativity. Obviously "creativity can not be forced" is bullshit. So...paradox solved? B.F. Skinner claimed that our innermost desires are wholly subjective. Academia is operate, objective adaptation. Adaptation to the environment is submitting yourself to a role. Don't.Do.That.

Because there is a chance that the environment is a blindfold pulled over your eyes. Tell me, what is the difference between putting a kid in a classroom and shaping his behavior via reinforcement, and controlling his actions against his "undefinable" or "indeterminate" will?

I believe there's a chance that we can just make things happen. Each time I can demonstrate that kind of reshaping of my environment, maybe even to the direct objective defiance of the laws of nature, I discredit the reality we're living as being beyond our inner desires reach to reshape.

Originally posted by Dolos
B.F. Skinner claimed that our innermost desires are wholly subjective. Academia is operate, objective adaptation. Adaptation to the environment is submitting yourself to a role. Don't.Do.That.

Because there is a chance that the environment is a blindfold pulled over your eyes. Tell me, what is the difference between putting a kid in a classroom and shaping his behavior via reinforcement, and controlling his actions against his "undefinable" or "indeterminate" will?

I believe there's a chance that we can just make things happen. Each time I can demonstrate that kind of reshaping of my environment, maybe even to the direct objective defiance of the laws of nature, I discredit the reality we're living as being beyond our inner desires reach to reshape.

Look, mate, I don't even know where to start. Perhaps first of all "operate" is not an adjective, so right off the bat, I have no ****ing clue what you are trying to communicate with that sentence.

Further, I feel like one of your main issues is drawing false equivalencies (or inequivalencies in your case) based on vague (or perhaps not well understood) definitions of words. Like I suppose our innermost desires are by one definition always subjective, now just because the word objective can be the opposite of that it doesn't mean that the word in every context is that.

And then a lot of what you say just plain doesn't make sense in any context.

As I implied in an earlier thread, and I don't mean that in a small way, either you must be doing this for show (trolling perhaps), or you have actual, severe mental issues (paranoia, schizophrenia, I don't know) and should seek therapeutic help.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, mate, I don't even know where to start. Perhaps first of all "operate" is not an adjective, so right off the bat, I have no ****ing clue what you are trying to communicate with that sentence.

I make typos from time to time, the word is operant.



No, I use what I've seen, experienced, learned, etc as I please. If anything my problem is that, like everyone else, my very being is an attempted mimicry of the intrinsic and extrinsic existence that we all interact with. I don't think that existence is anything more than the outcome of the ability to choose. Choice implies consciousness, perception, intelligence, persona, identity, location, you name it.



Context, sense, any, in. Made up things without connection or meaning.

You know what it is called? Super-sanity, "super" sanity is almost like "in" sanity, but different, it's a whole other ballgame. A prognosis that, unfortunately, doesn't exist outside of Comic Books.

I've seen willpower projected into reality, I think that the reality we all experience is set-up and we're too integrated into our beliefs that no matter what, there's no denying it. If that's true, and to answer the OP, consciously decided daylight hallucinations (chronic divergent schizophrenia) induced euphoria could be just as convincing as real reality manipulation.

If the brain proves incapable of sustaining stable hallucinatory realities, even on a mundane "senseless" level on extreme self-hypnosis alone - I guess I'll have to rethink everything, and decide what I'm going to do when that can't happen. I'll probably start waiting for techno-progressive trans-humanism and buy them.

It seems to me like our intelligences are confined by physical existences that are themselves the product of adaptation to nature (subservience and ingrained acceptance of our limits).

In the way Skinner was using the term "subjective", he was actually mistaken, hence the "Cognitive Revolution"

Originally posted by Oliver North
In the way Skinner was using the term "subjective", he was actually mistaken, hence the "Cognitive Revolution" Even if one's true soul desires were quantifiable, the fact is that it is trapped, altered, and imprisoned by the form (brain and other parts) it takes in this hell hole of physical laws.

It's almost as if a malicious intelligence shaped this cosmos to be how it is, to observe torment by remote viewing the human experience.

Originally posted by Dolos
mew mew mew..... meow meow...

purrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

JlWlnBWVQLE

oh I just want to scratch your adorable face!

You know what I think.

I think I will be warping reality by 2018: and I'll hypnotize the demons out of everyone else so they can diverge from one reality into 7 billion.

That is my prediction.

Originally posted by Dolos
You know what I think.

I think I will be warping reality by 2018: and I'll hypnotize the demons out of everyone else so they can diverge from one reality into 7 billion.

That is my prediction.

3Mj2RIpbU8o

and you have such a fluffy tummy

rsrWBquU8bc

There are are no pacts between lions and men.

Originally posted by Dolos
tLt5rBfNucc


dawwww, look at him play dress up! so adorable!

Note to self: When ON is upset with you, he'll respond to every post you make with a cat video from youtube.

na, I just figured if you are going to spam-troll literally every conversation on these boards with inanity, I should at least find a way to still enjoy coming here. Lord knows there isn't any actual discussion anymore...

besides, who could stay mad at such a cute little fur-ball!!!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cat_proximity.png

Did you really just make a chart for me?

It's like you can't buy art in an art store. What's up with that?

Originally posted by Dolos
httpd.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html]Ken Robinson.

Using creative words doesn't make the premise of the thread valid.