There's alot of hugging going on around here. It's like being around a bunch of eight year old girls. It looks nice, if you don't know what is going on, but there is always the unhugged target who understands exactly what is going on.

Oooooh Benk, diddums.

Come here for a hug, but take the spikes off first. Thank you.

Dear Vanna,

A few more clarifications:

Universities are centers of learning. They exist
for one purpose - to further human knowledge and
encourage scholarship. They encourage scientists
and academics to carry out innovative research
which is often of commercial significance.

If you were to google
the achievments and awards of any Australian
university, be it Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra,
South Australia, or any other,
you would be amazed at what they have achieved.
From pioneering research in a diverse range of topics
such as dairy science, the use of probiotic bacteria
in foods, medicine, to the waking effectiveness of different
sound frequencies in smoke alarms in which the research
findings has led to a major policy change to the
smoke alarm warning sounds in all residences occupied
by people suffering hearing loss and in all commercial
sleeping rooms. Then there's the research done in the
reduction of road trauma in the past two years where
the university has worked alongside with the Victorian
Transport Accident Commission, and the list goes on.

You seem to be of the mindset that modern universities should
view education as simply another good to be produced and
sold according to the dictates of accountants.

Therefore according to your theory, people like Charles
Darwin wouldn't get a university job in the 21st century
simply because of his poor publishing record. This is
the tragic situation that you're suggesting. How many
Charles Darwins would therfore be confined to
meaningless work in offices because they don't play
according to your rules?

You seem to have forgotten that education is the prime
public good, and your attempt to apply market principles
is pure economic nonsense. Only those societies able
to produce a suplus - and allocate a reasonable
proportion of it to public education - will be sustainable.
We need ideas and inventions to not end up on the
dust heap of history.

Anyway, I see that there's a huge gap in the way we view
the world. I won't be responding to you any further.
A closed mind is like a closed book, just a piece of
wood.

Foxy,
I once had the opinion that all a government had to do was get organisations such as universities to carry out research, and then base their policies on that research.

Now I believe governments should be gradually shutting universities down, because of the corruption of those universities, the complete lack of reliability of their research, and the biased and subjectivity of their staff.

The author offers no scientific evidence for her assertions regards heterosexual marriage, just feminist doctrine, and if a university accepts this as reliable, then nothing from a university can be regarded as reliable.

Also keeping in mind that Cutin university is the home of Susan Maushart, who would represent the absolute pinnacle of gutter or dunny can journalism in this country.

Dear Vanna,

You obviously have your reasons for thinking
the way that you do.

I've enjoyed our discussion on this thread.
We don't have to agree. I believe that
without intellectual tension there can be
no intellectual development.

Once again thanks for taking the time and
trouble to respond to my posts.

I'll see you on another thread.

"...take the spikes off first..."
Harrrr harrr,!

Foxy, beautiful, clear and edifying post, I wish vanna would take notice!

Vanna,
where else would students at Universities be able to get this kind of education/information, if Universities were shut down?

The opinion of this author is not the general opinion of universities.

Richie10
I'm glad you studied the bible for 30 years, because you might be able to explain what confuses me.

For example...
Take the proverbs 22 verse 6 you mentioned, "Train a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not turn from it."

But then, you would also find:
Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death...”

So, does God say that a child is still be allowed to learn after making the mistake of cursing his/her parent, or should this child be executed for doing so?

One cannot put a child to death and wait till the child is 'old' enough to know better at the same time. Both cannot both be true at the same time.

Sorry for being seemingly off-topic, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, Richie.
But what I'm getting at is how Christians view same-sex marriage differently. It clearly says in the bible that homosexuals should be put to death. So where is the contradiction that tells Christians to accept and love homosexuals?
If you can't answer this, then perhaps another Christian can explain?

I want to understand how Christians can differ from opinion so much about same-sex marriage (and other issues). All Christians take their morals from the same book, right? But they come to different conclusions.
Is God's word negotiable, or do Christians just pick their favourite bits from the Bible and ignore other bits?