read what this guy writes:

one man's opinion



I publically challenge shertzer to a very public debate on the issues of ESL Teaching.

I thought you didn't do things 'in public'??

Archie, how dare you slander such a fine upstanding fellow xtian.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/text...en%20ch%201.htm

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/...0Phen%20ToC.htm

i worte ajarn last year after another very bad 'article' he wrote asking for equal time. never heard from them. it seems they like printing garbage.

MY CHALLENGE still stands. steve s. can contact me here if he is interested and Tyster (ty-rex0 can pass the challenge on over at koreabridge since steve hangs out there.

it has been suggested that the forum kokobridge be used as the public arena but i would like to do it at a more popular website.

How about I meet you in person.

Why don't you go and challenge him in person on koreabridge? You have no qualms about skulking around kokobridge even though you vowed you would never return (lies and hypocrisy make baby Jeebus cry) so you could just as easily go to KB and PM him yourself. I ain't your errand boy, fool.

are you making a homosexual avance and propisition? no thanks.



yes you are.

1. It is proposition.
2. Why the fixation on homosexuality? As far as I can discern, it was never once mentioned. You brought up a challenge, and I answered it. Where'd the gay part come from??

i see c.c.'s comprehension is very low and doesn't grasp the fact that the challenge went out to steve s. not him.

he is ignored.

Yet I'm calling you out.

See how that works?

ha ha ha ha. challenge wasn't given to him but to shertzer, are you saying you are shertzer in disguise?

why would i want to meet c.c. in person ? he has shown nothing on here that would make me interested enough to change my schedule to meet up with him.

So, let me get this straight.

You challenge someone - who doesn't post on this forum - to a debate on certain issues. That person - who doesn't post on this forum - is unable to reply.

When someone who does post on this forum - and is willing to take you up on that challenge agrees - you back down.




So you challenge someone who isn't here, but then when called out yourself, you back down.


got it

this is one of the things that turn me off of thi forum and many other. one poster made a challenge, knowing far more details than the rest, and is 'attacked' by others missing those details yet feel free to assume and twist the original poster's words making it into slandereous insults.

what c.c. does NOT reaize is that Steve s. is not banned from this board and has the ability to reply if he wants to. that ty-rex posts where steve s. does participate thus could easily pass the challenge on and he forgets that i mentioned contacting ajaarn directly previously and received no response.

joolee may find c.c. well balanced but i do not. i find him obnoxious and unintelligent.



what challenge? the only words used were 'i will meet yoou...' there was no challenge made and he was not at liberty to respond in place of steve s. as the challenge was limited to 1 person and was not opened up for all challengers. so his 'challenge' was nothing more than an opportunity to attack another persn when he was rebuffed.



thinly disguised insults are very unbecoming---GOT IT?

I thought you were ignoring him, good grief, you're feeble-minded. As for me being anyone's errand boy, fool, I'm here only to keep you in line as your disciplinarian and the revealer of the truth about you. Especially your support for allowing convicted pedophiles in classrooms with small children UNSUPERVISED. Creep.
And if you were really so sure of your position, you could go PM steve yourself, you little feeb.

you over-step your boundaries and i did not see that clause in the rules when i signed up. nor did you. in fact you violate the rules here not obey them.

who asked you to be an errand boy? you know full well i cannot go to koreabridge and post thus you would be doing a favor NOT slave labor.



insulting gets you nowhere but shows your true character.

a good example of how people limit definitions to their own narrow-minded applications. i did not address c.c. but used his post as springboard to something that needed to be pointed out. in this age too many electronic participants forget the proper etiquette to use and they lose the abilities to grasp what others are saying, they prefer to go straight to attack mode instead of clarifying what someone has said for some perverted entertainment gratification they receive by doing so.

You talk about etiquette and manners - yet you challenge someone who doesn't post here.

What kind of etiquette is that?

No, I don't know that. You cna easily sign up as archie or davidthiessen or whatever id you like (arcaheologist is the ID that was banned not your IP) and challenge him yourself. Your a chicken$hit so you'll do this pathetic dance for several pages but you'll never step up.

another distortion of the application of the meaning of ettiquette but that is par for the course for people like c.c.



another example of people posting by assumption and leaps to a conclusion without knowing all the details .

Another cop-out

If you want to challenge someone on another forum - go there!

Seems simple enough.

How about I bring in the mods from the KB and ask them what your ban status is? I know Ollie personally and I can call him now if you want. Yours is not an IP ban and you can easily get online. Heck, even if it were an IP ban, you're in Korea, the most wired nation in the world. There are 500 computers within walking distance of anyone at any time so get on it.

BACK TO TOPIC:

i have never met steven s. but have only read his work. has anyone ever met the guy? is he as whining and crybabyish in person as he is in his'articles'? is he as weird as he seems to be in his articles?

i have not liked one thing he has written about and i certainly dislike his using his thailand time as a barometer for his views on korea and NEts here.

***the other two posters are ignored and faile dto grasp why a challenge was made here. if they do not like it, they can refrain from reading this thread. i am not twisting their arms to respond either.

Help me oh wise sage. Why was the challenge made here. Spell it out in simple terms so I can glean truth from you.

I too am a little confused as to this 'challenge'.

I've offered to debate/discuss nearly any Korean topic with you... but you've declined.

How is it you think you can debate and discuss these topics with someone else with more success?

one of the things that bothers me about steve s.'s writings, besides the broad generalizations and factless rhetoric, is that he seems to apply the personalities, behaviors, and atmosphere of NEts in thailand and thailand itself to all of korea and its NEts.

i find that quite offensive as i did his statement about his open class where he says he walked in the classroom and wrote on the board 'i own the classroom' . he then went on to say how th eprinicple smiled an dnodded in agreement and so on.

steve s. may be a nice guy in person, do not know never met the person but from his writings i find him to be troubling and very wrong. just because thailand is full of perverts (remember the 2 pedophiles who taught in korea migrated there ) does it mean that the maority of the esl industry is corrupt an dfull of people who are lousy teachers.

korea's industry does have its problems with unsavory characters and people who should not be teaching (even if they do have BEds andteacher's diplomas) but that is no excuse to blackball everyone in it.

i am not going to make remarks concerning his person and will limit my contribution to his written record so don't take this for a judgmental thread. except for jon huer, i have not seen one writer who can obtain 100% negative reaction to his words. those 'articles' of his are just mean spirited and wrong.

Again, this does not explain why you chose to challenge him on a forum that you know full well he does not visit.

As for this:You yourself have publicly stated that you support the rights of formerly convicted pedophiles to be allowed to teach young children in Korea unsupervised.