Mike Tribe

Certainly wouldn't pass the Tebbitt test!

Since, as a poor teacher, I can't afford satellite TV, I was unable to watch the England game -- Spanish TV is only broadcasting the Spain games on "free-to-air" -- but from the brief replays they've shown, I've decided to insist to my students that I'm totally Spanish and that my British passport has well and truly expired. Two very tired performances from an over-hyped team...

I haven't read the book, and unless I can persuade the school library to buy it, I probably won't be able to afford to do so, but Kershaw's view on the various pre-war military plots against Hitler was that they were characterized by indecision, division and timidness. Bassett may be right in claiming that this one was different, but I'd need quite a bit of convincing...

Thinking back to my own time in secondary school several decades ago, I recognize what Andy's describing... However, there are some positive aspects to some sort of assembly. We don't have them at all here and I think that's a pity. At other schools at which I've taught, they have served to give a sense of community to the group as whole and to discuss issues which affected us all. None of these were in any way religious, though...

I am indeed, and I have read them with interest. I did say -- as you noted in your quote -- that "some" of the E-HELP postings were just housekeeping, not that they all were. I also said that "there's a lot of good, useful stuff here". I would certainly include these two postings in that category. So, what I said is not "clearly incorrect" as you suggest. I tried to keep what I wrote as neutral and courteous as I could. Why must you adopt such a hostile tone?

Far be it from me to even think of defending Andy. He's more than capable of doing that for himself... However, I suppose those of us who don't share the enthusiasts' keen obsession with the minutae of the various conspiracies which seem to dominate all discussion on this forum, might perhaps be forgiven for asking ourselves if this is really what "education" is all about. If leave the E-HELP messages to one side for a moment since some of these are clearly concerned with "housekeeping matters" relating only to those who attended the recent conference, of the current "today's active topics", 11 were about the JFK matter, and 5 were about other supposed conspiracies. That left only three, an interview with Lance Price, a new member biography and an announcement about the forum in French, about other education issues. I know John gets upset when I write about this, and I'm still not sure why. All I'm saying is that the banner at to top says this is a forum for teachers and educators and yet discussion has come to be dominated -- some would say unhealthily -- with what can only be seen as a tangental issue in education. Any teacher checking in to the forum for the first time would rapidly be given the impression that this was a forum dedicated to political conspiracies rather than to education in its broad sense. Many of them would be discouraged by this and not return. This would be a great pity because there's a lot of good, useful stuff here as well once you've ploughed through the latest on Tosh, Liddy and the others...

Owen the reason I chose to concentrate on the source of you material rather than its content is two-fold: (1) I really don't have the time to read through such a huge amount of material on a subject which would be, at best, tangental to my teaching assignment. I teach a full schedule of 19th and 20th Century history. About half my teaching assignment relates to examination classes and I'm afraid Kosovo doesn't figure prominently in the exams... Pragmatic, I know, but... (2) As a teacher, I do think it's important for you to look at the "origin and purpose" of the sources you choose to cite. I teach International Baccalaureate history classes and on Paper 1 of the examination, students are specifically required to assess the value and limitations of two sources on the basis of their origin and purpose. I think this is one of the "historical skills" to which Andy was referring. I understand that you hold the views that you hold very passionately and that you have taken the trouble to research the issue in considerable depth, obviously devoting many hours to the endeavour. However, you must understand that to any reputable historian, the use of sources which clearly have "an axe to grind" in the matter you are investigating without making any reference to such possible bias would be considered most reprehensible. I don't know whether or not the material you have amassed is "true" or not. That is not the point I was making. You are about to embark on an academic career. If you don't take more care over the way you use your sources, you will (or certainly ought to if you have competent professors) find yourself in all sorts of difficulties. All you had to do was make reference to some "neutral" materials and make it clear in your text that you were aware of the inherent bias of almost every source you used but had decided it was valuable to cite it anyway because (insert relevant reason).

John, I think you've raised the crucial point when you say that conspiracy theorists have to rely for "supporting evidence" on documentary evidence, some of which may never be released and much of which will only be released in the distant future, or on the evidence of people concerned at the time. Both of these sources have obvious drawbacks. Even seemingly clear documentary evidence like the famous film of the JFK assassination or the photographs of astronauts on the moon are, as frequent vistors to the forum are only too well aware, the subject to passionate debate, with neither set of "technical experts" prepared to accept anything the other group says. Any evidence which doesn't seem to fit the proponent's particularly theory is dismissed as a fake -- the product of the same conspiracy -- and anyone attacking the theory is accused of being an "agent provacateur" or paid servant of the conspirators, or ... The same sort of problem arises with the use of "eye-witness" reports. You have yourself indulged in a long and controversial debate with Tim Gratz who may or may not have had some sort of tangental connection with shady right-wing groups in the 60s. Mr Gratz's recollection of events is a variance with those of other witnesses. Since we can't rely on documentary evidence to support or contradict witness statements, we really have no way to examine objectively. If you accept apriori that the event you're investigating was the result of a conspiracy, then you have the perfect excuse to dismiss any witness accounts which don't "fit" -- they're part of the conspiracy... One of the problems is that while some of the long-established conspiracy theories do indeed seem to have been borne out by documentary evidence when this finally became available, others seem to stretch the bounds of credibility and it's difficult to see how any sort of documentary evidence could ever support them. Among these, I would include the suggestion that the Asian tsnami was caused by the explosion of a nuclear device on the seabed by Mossad. I have also seen claims on the forum that there was a US government conspiracy to "seed" hurricanes so that they hit areas with black politicians. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a bit of "cross-over" among conspiracy theorists. Supporters of "middle-of-the-road" theories -- like the view that there's something seriously defective about the investigation of the JFK assassination -- are often the same people who suggest that the US Airforce is dropping tons of chemicals on unsuspecting citizens for some obscure reason. Andy has an abrasive tone in most of his submissions. That's the way he writes. I don't think it's true to say he dismisses all conspiracy theorists as anti-semites (although some certainly are) but he certainly has little respect for them as educationalists or historians. This is, perhaps, an over-generalization. However, the fact remains that the banner of the forum says that it's intended audience is "teachers and educators" but the daily content seems distressingly restricted to a diet of conspiracy which can be of little use to the average teacher in his daily labors at the chalkface...

Whoops! NOW it says what I meant...

I think that for the average, run-of-the-mill teacher, rather than the web-master, these trends have both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, I know my teaching has been greatly enriched by access to materials on Spartacus, JohnDClare, schoolhistory and so on. It's much more accessible, often a lot more interesting, and written by people who understand what it is to stand in front of a classful of 15-year-olds at 3:30 on a Friday afternoon... On the other hand, I think student plagiarism has ballooned out of all proportion in recent years largely as a result of the sheer availability of on-line material. Many of my students seem to come to me with a rather blurred concept of where internet research ends and cut-and-paste plagiarism begins. I think it's also dangerous that an essential "peer review" element is often missing on some of these sites. Some of them don't cite sources at all, let alone adequately. I know from experience that I can trust Andrew Field, Mr Walker and Mr Simkin, Juan Carlos Ocana, John D Clare and so on to check the materials they put up for reliability, but most of the students I teach have neither the knowledge nor the experience to make that sort of judgement. When they were relying on library books or school textbooks for their information, the material they were getting had been -- I hope -- "vetted" by librarians or teachers. Now they're "on their own" on the internet, there's no such filter and I'm afraid I can't see many signs that we're giving them the tools and training they need to avoid untrustworthy material. I think the recent post by Owen Parsons on Serbia rather underlines what I'm saying here... I know I've drifted off John's original point about net advertising and I apologise for going off at a tangent.

I am sure that Owen feels deeply and strongly about this issue, but I think it might be worthwhile to take a slightly closer look at some of the sources used. He relies heavily on www.srpska-mreza.com. The name itself ought to ring some alarm bells, but when one of the entries begins: "Dragan Ivetic, 3rd-year law student at University of Illinois College of Law, collected and contributed the majority of articles" they should be ringling even more strongly... A lot of the sources cited come from www.tenc.com. The initials appear to refer to "the emperor's new clothes". There is little information on the website which would lead one to trust its objectivity. The leading light of the website seems to be a Jared Israel who, amongst other things, claims a direct link between the PLO and the Nazi Holocaust. Another website used several times as a source is www.slobodan-milosevic.org. I don't know quite how much objectivity we can expect from Mr Milosevic's supporters... Two other websites used are www.kosovoforum.net and www.balkan-archive.org.yu. A visit to the webpages gives no information about the origin or credentials of the material produced. I don't know enough about this issue to be able to say whether what Owen says is true or not, but if the only sources he has consulted are the ones he cites, then I really don't think he does either. Recent entries on this forum ridiculed anyone who suggested that the historian should try to be as objective as possible in his approach to the past as being either hopelessly conservative or stupid. I would suggest that using only sources which back your own views, and failing to mention that these sources might be considered a little self-serving is just the sort of subjectivity that those calling for a modicum of objectivity might be criticizing, "stupid" though such criticism may be.

The new curriculum review report for IB history was published yesterday. I continue to have very grave reservations about it. The report is available at http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/documents/dp/gr3/h...rr_0605_1_e.pdf on the IB Online Curriculum Center. I would strongly advise all IB history teachers to read it and respond to the survey when it is released next week. There are several points which concern me: (1) An entirely new section has been created to accommodate "Islamic History" within the History curriculum. A glance at the proposed curriculum would seem to suggest that it would be more appropriately studied within a Religious Education class. (2) The Middle East has been lumped together with Europe to the benefit of neither region. The resulting mish-mash will be very difficult to teach. (3) Appropriate materials for some of the proposed new topics will be very hard indeed to obtain. (4) The structure of the proposed Paper 3 leaves a great deal to be desired. The topics described are very wide indeed. Teachers are told to teach three of the topics. There will be two questions on each topic and the students are supposed to pick three questions. This means, effectively, that students will have a choice of only 3/6 questions...

You're right. I'm sorry.

This isn't true. I have contributed often to posts on many different topics, including the one about political philosophy started by Andrew and several about religion and politics. That I haven't contributde recently is a sign that very little has been posted that had anything to do with anything in which I am interested or in which I have any experience or expertise.

Perhaps someone hit the "today's active posts" button and discovered that -- like today -- almost all the traffic on the forum was about "conspiracy theories" about JFK's assassination, Watergate, 911, etc, etc rather than about education... I know that one could make links between JFK's assassination and education, but the "image" projected by the forum has increasingly become one which is more interested in whether the USA really landed a man on the moon than it is in educational issues...

And the ref should have played the advantage rule and allowed the Barcelona goal before sending the goalkeeper off. And the free kick resulting in Campbell goal came as the result of a bit of blatant diving. As always, the inadequacies of the referee are often in the eyes of the beholder... They lost because the goalkeeper committed an obvious professional foul so that Arsenal had to play with only 10 players against what is probably the best attacking team in Europe... From then on, the final result was pretty obvious...

As you can see from the forum section, the 9th Grade use it a lot and read almost everything I put up. Around half the 11th Grade (20th Century Topics) visit regularly, but hardly any of the 12th Grade even log on... You can lead a horse to water, etc..

You're welcome to see mine, Andy. http://class.ws ... My three groups -- 9th Grade World History, Regional Studies and 20th Century Topics -- are all guest access. I've only really worked at keeping the 9th Grade and 20th Century Topics up-to-date. The Regional Stduies one is on my list of resolutions for next year... I suppose I like Moodle specifically because I haven't "cracked e-learning". I'm a very old dog and it takes me a long time to master new tricks. I find preparing and teaching a full load, after-school activities and paperwork take up around 12-14 hours a day and I'm just too tired to do any more... I haven't even scratched the surface of Moodle and some of the ways I use it are, apparently, not kosher to the purist. However, the kids enjoy it, and I've been especially pleased with the responses to the 9th Grade forum discussions to which more than half of the kids in the class contributed -- including some it's very difficult to persuade to join in discussions in class. I wish I had the time and energy to learn html or whatever and to design and maintain my own website, but I don't. With something simple like Moodle and the support of the school techy, I can just about keep my head above water...

Is there a way around the restriction to UK residents only?

Is there not some discrepancy here? Having little interest in the internal disputes of conspiracy theorists, I don't really care which it is, but I couldn't help noticing the apparent difference... How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Real lost again this weekend against a very mediocre team who, as a result of the win, climbed clear of the relegation zone. They played poorly and didn't deserve to win. Having said that, the playing conditions were appalling, and the goal the did score was a header from an inch-perfect free kick from Beckham who seems to be the only player on the team at the moment playing anywhere near his potential...

But isn't that, at least partly, our fault? In the rush to make subjects "relevant" to students, we seem to have thrown out any idea of teaching chronology in history. Teachers are, as far as I can see, free to pick and choose whatever topic they like to teach at GCSE and A Level, so kids may know a great deal about Jack the Ripper or the state of the drains in Salford in 1844, or the religious practices of the Plains Indians, but they know nothing at all about the French Revolution, or Bismarck, or Garibaldi... I'm not saying that the new approaches to the teaching of history pioneered by people like John S and JDC haven't greatly enriched students' awareness of the past, but I do think some pretty important babies have been thrown out with the bathwater. The same sort of thing seems to have happened with the teaching of modern foreign languages. Let's not teach grammar because the kids find it "boring". Oh, dear, the kids still find it boring? Well, there's only one thing to do then -- let's have them do gardening, or food technology, or graphic design instead... OK, we'll end up with a generation of school-leavers who can't speak any foreign language, but they'll have had fun, and that's the main thing, isn't it? Some of these decisions were completely out of the power of the individual teacher or even head of department to influence, but some of them weren't.

From today's CNN... http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/02/02....analysis.reut/ Google plunge may lead to greater disclosure NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A plunge in Google's stock may have forced the company to shed a bit of its aloofness toward Wall Street, some analysts said Wednesday. Google missed earnings expectations on Tuesday for the first time since it went public in August 2004, sending its shares down almost 20 percent at one point in after-hours trading and slicing billions of dollars off its market capitalization. Contrary to its reputation of indifference to the market, management did care about that dive, two analysts said, since the company uses its high-flying stock as a tool to hire the best talent the company can find. "They saw their stock price dive right after the numbers came out, they heard it loud and clear. They saw that the Street didn't like what the Street saw," said Sasa Zorovic, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. Zorovic said he talked twice to Google's management on Tuesday night after the earnings report, possibly a first, and they were "fairly amiable, talking at length." Management does indeed care deeply about the company's stock price, said Jason Schrotberger, an analyst at Turner Investment Partners, a big Google shareholder. "The misconception is that the management does not care about the shareholders, and if they did, they would give more information," Schrotberger said. "I think the stock price is extremely important to them." However, Schrotberger said he doubted Google would ever conform to Wall Street's desire for earnings forecasts, and Ian Warmedan, a fund manager at Henderson Global Investors, said the stock drop won't be particularly worrisome to Google management. "It's highly likely that they will keep sticking to their guns, about giving very little away to the Street," said Warmedan, who helps oversee about $800 million in technology assets, including Google, at Henderson. Warmedan said he did not think Tuesday's earnings miss was enough to force management in the future to act like other companies, but someday a big earnings miss might. "Sooner or later they're going to have to do it the same way as everyone else," he said. But until a big miss, "they won't feel compelled to bow to what the Street looks from them." Though Google is benefiting from tremendous growth, the company's stance toward Wall Street poses risks to the stock, said Paul Keung, an analyst at CIBC World Markets who has a 12- to 18-month price target of $520. Google shares closed at $401.78 on Wednesday, about 7 percent below Tuesday's $432.66 closing price, before the earnings report was issued. Google shares hit an all-time high just above $475 on January 11. The objectives of management and investors may not line up, Keung said. Investors worry that Google does not issue earnings outlooks to Wall Street and is less accessible to analysts than most other companies, he said. Investors also are concerned that management has repeatedly said it would run Google differently from how other companies are run, and that its founders lack public company experience, he said in a note to investors. Gus Zinn, a technology analyst at Waddell & Reed, said investors who knock Google for perceived disclosure shortfalls don't take the time to go through earnings releases. The company does talk about its business, but won't provide the earnings projections Wall Street craves, he said. "Trading off the headline number is probably the worst thing you can do," Zinn said. "People are a little disappointed today only because of these guys who had no idea of what they were doing and were just dead wrong." But Oppenheimer's Zorovic said Google's policy of providing no earnings expectations remains a nagging issue and increases the risk of investing in the company's shares. For investors who hope Google might open up someday, Zorovic said, there might be this ray of hope: Google pays close attention to Yahoo, which does a phenomenal job of disclosing information to investors, he said. "At some point Google will be humbled," said Zorovic, who reiterated a "buy' recommendation and a price target of $540 for Google's stock on Wednesday.

I must admit to a certain sympathy for Mr Healy's position here. I have no idea what his views are about the myriad "conspiracy theories" which exercise so many contributors -- this is, after all an "education" forum, not a "conspiracy" forum -- but I, too, have been hassled by Mr Simkin about my lack of photo and threatened with suspension from the forum unless I provided one forthwith. Despite my technological ineptitude, and with Andy's assistance, I provided a photo. It is, therefore, a bit annoying to see that some members seem to be mysteriously exempt from the requirement so rigorously enforced on others. Perhaps it's a conspiracy... Mike Tribe Educator

Mark, you were the one who raised the issue of the instability and barbarism of the Iranian government being a possible reason for denying them nuclear weapons. You were the one who suggested that Iran and the USA could be seen as "morally equivalent". I think it probably is too late to try to stop nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of the bloodthirsty and unstable people running Iran, but this is no reason for not regretting the fact... Another moral equivalency question: Israel and Iran. When did Israel suggest the total destruction of the Iranian state or its wholesale transfer to Central Europe? I read quite widely enough thank you. Perhaps some background reading on the Iranian Revolution and its leadership might not come amiss among those who choose to write about it...