What 13 year old boy wouldn't?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2016, 10:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Seriously?

The internet has made a lot of people dumber instead of smarter.

You really need to look at the home school options. There are some really awesome programs out there ....   Heck even Florida schools have an online home program.   

You should really educate yourself on home schooling before posting ignorant on the matter.

[BFritz21]

(06-08-2016, 10:57 PM)Harmening Wrote: I'm the last one Fritzy would think would chime in on his defense, but I think what he was trying to convey, was that if you are in prison, and are consumed with boredom, being raped once, even if only once in a while, seems like you are constantly being raped.  Living in fear and all.  Like the next time it happens, seemed like it just happened.

Exactly.

Much appreciated.  I'd rep you if I could, but I'm suspended from that.

What else are you going to think about or look forward to?  You can try to think of when you'll be free, but I'm pretty sure that eventually jail kills a lot of optimism, especially if you've been raped and live in fear.

[fredtoast]

(06-09-2016, 08:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You should really educate yourself on home schooling before posting ignorant on the matter.

You should do the same

(06-08-2016, 11:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://icher.org/faq.html

Quote: Wrote:Evidence regarding this question has been fraught with controversy because most of the studies that have received widest attention have been interpreted to say something they do not and cannot. We simply can’t draw any conclusions about the academic performance of the “average homeschooler,” because none of the studies so often cited employ random samples representing the full range of homeschoolers.

For example, two large U.S. studies (Rudner, 1999; Ray, 2009) are frequently cited as definitive evidence that homeschoolers academically outperform public and private school students. But in both cases, the homeschool participants were volunteers responding to an invitation by the nation’s most prominent advocacy organization to contribute test scores (on tests usually administered by parents in the child’s own home). The demographics of these samples were far whiter, more religious, more married, better educated, and wealthier than national averages. And yet these test score results were compared to average public school scores that included children from all income levels and family backgrounds. Not surprisingly, wealthy homeschoolers from stable two-parent families who take tests administered by their parents in the comfort of their own homes outscore the average public school child by large margins.


The simple fact is that no studies of academic achievement exist that draw from a representative, nationwide sample of homeschoolers and control for background variables like socio-economic or marital status. It is thus impossible to say whether or not homeschooling as such has any impact on the sort of academic achievement measured by standardized tests.

Cliffs Notes in bold.

[BFritz21]

(06-10-2016, 03:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You should do the same

The link you provided doesn't have any text, just a bunch of links, but then you posted like you were taking it directly from the link, which is par for the course for you to post false information.

I'm guessing you did that because you just cherry picked what fits your argument, even though there's probably a lot contradicting it.

Even so, your quote doesn't even really say anything that says homeschooled kids aren't better, but it just says that one group of people are more likely to be homeschooled and that those students performed better on tests.

It looks to me like wealthier families are the only ones that can afford to do homeschooling or the only ones that would take or have the time to do it.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-10-2016, 04:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The link you provided doesn't have any text, just a bunch of links, but then you posted like you were taking it directly from the link, which is par for the course for you to post false information.

I'm guessing you did that because you just cherry picked what fits your argument, even though there's probably a lot contradicting it.

Even so, your quote doesn't even really say anything that says homeschooled kids aren't better, but it just says that one group of people are more likely to be homeschooled and that those students performed better on tests.

It looks to me like wealthier families are the only ones that can afford to do homeschooling or the only ones that would take or have the time to do it.

Your browser must have issues because all the info is in that link.

[BFritz21]

(06-10-2016, 05:45 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Your browser must have issues because all the info is in that link.

I said he probably cherry picked because, even though there's links in his link, there is none of that text.

Here's a screenshot of it:

[fredtoast]

(06-10-2016, 06:14 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said he probably cherry picked because, even though there's links in his link, there is none of that text.

Here's a screenshot of it:

Just click on "display" after the question


How does U.S. homeschoolers’ academic performance compare with other students?

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-10-2016, 06:14 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said he probably cherry picked because, even though there's links in his link, there is none of that text.

Here's a screenshot of it:

Wow dude...just click the link that provides the text.

[XenoMorph]

(06-10-2016, 06:14 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said he probably cherry picked because, even though there's links in his link, there is none of that text.

Here's a screenshot of it:

you know we cant click and see your thumbnails right?

[fredtoast]

(06-10-2016, 04:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The link you provided doesn't have any text, just a bunch of links, but then you posted like you were taking it directly from the link, which is par for the course for you to post false information.

I'm guessing you did that because you just cherry picked what fits your argument, even though there's probably a lot contradicting it.

Brad making up more lies.

That is all he does anymore.

[BFritz21]

(06-16-2016, 11:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Brad making up more lies.

That is all he does anymore.

lol.

I obviously just didn't know clicking the thumbnail showed the information.

However, that doesn't hide the fact that you're the only known liar on the board 

[Tiger Teeth]

(06-10-2016, 04:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'm guessing you did that because you just cherry picked what fits your argument, even though there's probably a lot contradicting it.

Solid points to back your claim.

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2016, 01:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: However, that doesn't hide the fact that you're the only known liar on the board 

I've never told a lie here.

But i can give a direct link to you claiming that the driver of the car that wrecked you claimed he had permission to drive the car when in fact you knew he testified that he did not.  

You are the proven liar.  Not me.  You can not cite a single lie I have ever told.  

[BFritz21]

(06-18-2016, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I've never told a lie here.

But i can give a direct link to you claiming that the driver of the car that wrecked you claimed he had permission to drive the car when in fact you knew he testified that he did not.  

You are the proven liar.  Not me.  You can not cite a single lie I have ever told.  

That was in the civil case.

He was never charged with stealing the car because he admitted that, at the very least, it was implied permission.  

The guy whose car it was and who bought the beer went to jail for buying the beer and letting us use his car.

You even posted that there was a thing called borrowing the car.

And it's laughable about you saying I've never cited a lie because, among others, was when you said that I stated many times that chemotherapy didn't exist, when I never said any such thing.  You also told about 25 lies off of that.

Stop doing this because it's childish of you and it's getting old.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2016, 04:45 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: That was in the civil case.

He was never charged with stealing the car because he admitted that, at the very least, it was implied permission.  

You said the guy claimed he had permission to use the car when you knew he testified that he knew he did not have permission.

you were lying.  No other way to explain it.

(06-19-2016, 04:45 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: And it's laughable about you saying I've never cited a lie because, among others, was when you said that I stated many times that chemotherapy didn't exist, when I never said any such thing. 

we have been over that aboutr 100 times.  Every time yiou try to make that claim everyoen leaughs at you and agrees that I was being sarcastic and not lying at all.  Why do you even try to keep bringing it up when everyone agrees with me that I was not lying?

I have never told a lie here.

You are the proven liar.  Not me.

[BFritz21]

(06-20-2016, 12:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You said the guy claimed he had permission to use the car when you knew he testified that he knew he did not have permission.

you were lying.  No other way to explain it.

I said he admitted in the criminal suit that he knew he had permission, and then in the civil suit he tried to lie to change it to protect the caretaker/cemetery because there was a clause in their insurance about wrecking in a stolen car.  

You even said that there was such a thing as borrowing, which now you're going back on.  

You're lying, like always.

Aside from the borrowing, putting the keys and the alcohol in the car, at the very least, gave him implied permission to drive the car.

(06-20-2016, 12:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: we have been over that aboutr 100 times.  Every time yiou try to make that claim everyoen leaughs at you and agrees that I was being sarcastic and not lying at all.  Why do you even try to keep bringing it up when everyone agrees with me that I was not lying?

I have never told a lie here.

You are the proven liar.  Not me.

That makes no sense.  

You were trying to sound smart and just thought that I'd roll over and accept it. 

If you were being sarcastic, you wouldn't have spent so much time trying to deny saying it and even posted the link denying saying it, not claiming you were being sarcastic.

It took you a while to settle on the sarcastic defense after so many other attempts to defend yourself failed.

[BFritz21]

Honestly, I'm done posting about it because you'll just keep making up lies to fit your ever-changing story.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2016, 01:08 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said he admitted in the criminal suit that he knew he had permission, and then in the civil suit he tried to lie to change it to protect the caretaker/cemetery because there was a clause in their insurance about wrecking in a stolen car. 

This is a complete lie.

In post #134 of this thread http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Classless-Lawyers?page=7 about the CIVIL case you said this.  .  .  

"he admitted that the owner left the keys in it and that it was assumed permission for us to drive."


The truth is that in the CIVIL case he admitted that he knew he DID NOT have permission to drive the car.  His testimony is cited in the Court of Appeals opinion from the CIVIL case.  It is public record.  Anyone who wants to read it can see that you are a complete and total liar.


Next time when I prove you are a liar you should just shut up instead of telling more lies.  I own you on this issue and the more you keep lying the worse you look.


And.finally there would have been no difference in the liability of the cemetary caretaker if the car was stolen or not.  It would only have made a difference for the liability of the car owner, not the cemetary caretaker.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2016, 01:08 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: If you were being sarcastic, you wouldn't have spent so much time trying to deny saying it and even posted the link denying saying it, not claiming you were being sarcastic.

I never denied saying it.  I always admitted saying it, but explained that I was just being sarcastic.

Stop and think about what I said.  Even the biggest moron on earth knows that chemotherapy exists.  There is no way that anyone with a brain would belive that I was being serious when I said that you did not know chemotherapy existed.

Everyone who has seen the quotes from the thread agrees with me.  Not one person was dense enough to believe that i was actually trying to claim that you did not know chemotherapy existed.  That is just too outrageous for anyone to take seriously.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2016, 01:10 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Honestly, I'm done posting about it because you'll just keep making up lies to fit your ever-changing story.

I never lied and I never changed my story.

But since I have proven that you are a liar it really is in your best interest to stop posting lies about me.