Sitting through
a discussion by proponents from both schools, my sense was..
Not exact matches
Now that the
discussion of whether NCLB would actually close «achievement gaps»
by 2014 is nearly in our rear view mirror (it is not going to happen, not even close — it is going to take 80 more years based on recent NAEP research, NCLB actually slowed our progress) let's take a look at the discourse
by proponents
Last Sunday, in a short gallery - sponsored
discussion moderated
by Rachel Stella and including longtime S / S
proponent Raphael Rubinstein, Bernard Ceysson, Paul Rodgers, and two of the artists, Noel Dolla and Pierre Buraglioin, the panelists discussed the artists, the movement, and the continued importance of S / S concepts.
In my experience,
discussions of nuclear power with nuclear
proponents who begin the
discussion by accusing nuclear critics of having «minds closed in their youth
by irrational anti-nuclear sentiments» are not likely to be fruitful or edifying.
It is interesting to see the list of excuses (sorry, reasons) given
by the climate change alarmist
proponents for not engaging some of their champions in a face to face
discussion (Ithink «debate» is not the right word) with Christopher Monckton.
There are various arguments relating to the construction of s 21 used
by proponents of this view — I do not propose to sumarise them here (for further
discussion see Webber & Dovar on Residential Possession Proceedings, para 7.014).
The Robinson paper starts its
discussion with what is described as the often «polarizing» claims made
by ABS
proponents and opponents.