+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 91
General Chat Thread, Petition to remove Michael Gove in General; A teacher should of course know their subject but even if they dont, a good teacher will cope. You must ...
  1. #16

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,362
    Thank Post
    1,396
    Thanked 2,408 Times in 1,693 Posts
    Rep Power
    708
    A teacher should of course know their subject but even if they dont, a good teacher will cope. You must be very lucky if you never had a teacher who was knowledgeable about their subject but had absolutely NO idea about how to convey the information to the students.
    As for your son, as a musician I have to say that whilst I am sure he is very good at what he does, it is unlikely that on his own he will have studied music to the depth that a teacher would have shown him. As all subjects, you can learn enough to get you through, and even do well, but that doesn't mean that you know everything about the subject, and I am sorry to rant, but there is a vast amount of theory and other aspects to music that you would have a great deal of difficulty learning on your own. I think, sorry mate, that is a bit insulting to music teachers - unless you are musical you may not understand but it is as if you said that your son has taught himself, Spanish to degree level. Unlikely, although I am sure he is very good.But there is far more to music than just playing notes. Also you appear to be implying that my bit about my daughter's flute teacher is irrelevant as your son is self-taught and so never needed a 'proper' teacher. Trust me, you would have to be some sort of musical prodigy or genius to get to my daughter's level without professional teaching.

    I am sorry that your experiences of teachers have been so negative - I have seen absolutely inspirational teaching that might have been done by unqualified teachers, but I doubt it. It isn't just about subject knowledge, it is about the ability to pass that knowledge on and make people WANT to learn. Yes, of course some people have it naturally, but you appear to be saying that all teachers are time wasters who do nothing of interest or help, and that you do not need a teaching qualification to teach in any shape or form.
    You wouldn't go to an unqualified lawyer would you? Maybe someone who has a degree in law and lots of experience as an academic but not the lawyerly qualifications? - much like an unqualified teacher might have a degree in maths but no teaching experience?
    Quite a few of the teachers in the schools I work in work very very hard, are very good at what they do and deserve their pay - they also do not dispute that they are reasonably paid now either. I have seen a class of disaffected children have their interest caught and held by a good teacher many times. Often the teacher is young too - in fact the younger teachers seem to have been taught new ways of engaging modern children, who do, as you so rightly point out, learn in a different way to the way we did. The modern teaching qualification addresses the issues around the way people learn today, and so newly qualified teachers have good strategies, in a way that perhaps some 35 year-old with a degree in Geography only might not.
    Last edited by witch; 2nd August 2012 at 11:19 PM.

  2. #17

    SimpleSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    5,822
    Thank Post
    1,476
    Thanked 593 Times in 445 Posts
    Rep Power
    168
    I'm fed up with people putting the education sector down and Mr Gove is the worst example
    No - he's just the latest example.

    I've asked this question before and never received an answer - name the last education secretary you thought did a good job?

    Education has been the easiest ball to play with once a goverment is in power. It lets the goverment affect the hearts and minds of voters at a deep level (e.g their kids education).

    Teachers (and support staff) are just the tools - successive Labour goverments of recent years have cared little for the effects on their testing/scoring regimes on teachers - why on earth would anyone think that a Conservative one would be nicer!
    Simon
    PS As a "scab" teacher at times - I'm all in favour of non-teaching people coming in and imparting their knowledge and experience on young pople - not so keen on a cover supervisor running high percentage of Maths and English lessons as you need "proper" teachers who can cope and teach a wide range of abilities

    So Mr Gove has been very clever in throwing this last one into his mix of policies as apart from die-hard,stick in the mud/jobs worth types - who else would object

    And just remember - the proposed replacement isn't very balanced either - Maths for everyone till they are 18!

    PPS One day - they'lll suss that what we need (as a country) are tests in Reading and Writing and Numeracy for everyone - and leave English Lang/Lit/Maths for moderately clever people to do

  3. #18

    SimpleSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    5,822
    Thank Post
    1,476
    Thanked 593 Times in 445 Posts
    Rep Power
    168
    @witch - Have you seen a lot of bad teaching by a non QTS specialist person?

    If you have and have only mainly seen good teaching from QTS people then it would explain your position.

    But if a non QTS person can teach a subject better than a QTS person then why wouldn't you want it to happen?

    Simon

    PS If you can get me a slot in a >Y2 class - I'll come and show you what a non QTS can do and then you can post the results here

  4. #19

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,702
    Thank Post
    854
    Thanked 901 Times in 746 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    329
    Having just read the debate between @bossman and @witch it interesting to see how right they both are in their own way. As ever the solution is probably somewhere between the two camps (am I being over diplomatic here?). I think education is broken in this country in terms of teaching to qualification and league tables. I think witch's statement

    A teacher should of course know their subject but even if they don't, a good teacher will cope
    Is very telling here. I think the problem that bossman is highlighting is the fact that you can (and most do) go straight from uni to QTS without ever seeing the real world in between. Maybe 5 years real world experience should be a requirement to QTS?

    The other thing I think bossman was spot on with is the fact that, thanks mostly to the Internet and now the advent of smartphones and tablets, the way we are learning as changed significantly. Teachers as a rule appear to be struggling with this step change. The future of education is almost certainly personal learning and discovery with teachers guiding/advising that discovery more than emparting knowledge by rote.

    As for Mr Gove? I've no love for the man but changing him wont solve anything. He's a Tory and like any Tory he his hell bent on privatising the education system and returning teaching to a more Victorian model. The best way to deal with the likes of him is vote labour any chance you get (I'd prefer to vote LD but that seems to just let the torys slip in, grrrr)

  5. 4 Thanks to tmcd35:

    bossman (3rd August 2012), DocHouse (3rd August 2012), Roberto (4th August 2012), SimpleSi (3rd August 2012)

  6. #20

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,362
    Thank Post
    1,396
    Thanked 2,408 Times in 1,693 Posts
    Rep Power
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleSi View Post
    @witch - Have you seen a lot of bad teaching by a non QTS specialist person?
    @SimpleSi - I am not saying that non QTS people cannot teach - and yes, I have seen good teaching by a non QTS. What I am saying is that I am concerned that people who cannot teach but who have a relevant degree will be drafted in by these schools because they are a heck of a lot cheaper in many cases. Also, although as I said, good teachers are often born and not made, there are techniques to teaching that do need to be taught. I really wish that I could find the article about teaching children to count as it highlighted several different aspects of the issue that I really dont think anyone not trained would immediately know.
    The ability to teach is NOT a superficial skill. Let me liken it to someone who can play an instrument - yes, they can do it well but do they really understand music theory, keys, rhythm, form, language notation, structure etc etc etc.
    A good head teacher would help a non-teacher with all this sort of thing but I am not sure this would happen in many cases.

    Let me reiterate - teaching practice does cover the new methods of teaching - maybe older teachers need a refresher but imparting of knowledge by rote went out a long time ago - at least in the schools I work in. Use of technology - netbooks etc is supporting the personal route taken by children to learn for themselves with guidance.
    But 'at the end of the day' (yuck) there are some things that DO have to be taught first before a child can go down the self-discovery route.

  7. #21

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,818
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,473 Times in 1,916 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    A teacher should of course know their subject but even if they dont, a good teacher will cope.
    A good teacher, yes, but that isn't what this discussion is about. This discussion is about education needing a shake-up, and introducing unqualified teachers. Being unqualified doesn't preclude them from being good teachers.

    As for your son, as a musician I have to say that whilst I am sure he is very good at what he does, it is unlikely that on his own he will have studied music to the depth that a teacher would have shown him. As all subjects, you can learn enough to get you through, and even do well, but that doesn't mean that you know everything about the subject, and I am sorry to rant, but there is a vast amount of theory and other aspects to music that you would have a great deal of difficulty learning on your own. I think, sorry mate, that is a bit insulting to music teachers - unless you are musical you may not understand but it is as if you said that your son has taught himself, Spanish to degree level. Unlikely, although I am sure he is very good.But there is far more to music than just playing notes. Also you appear to be implying that my bit about my daughter's flute teacher is irrelevant as your son is self-taught and so never needed a 'proper' teacher. Trust me, you would have to be some sort of musical prodigy or genius to get to my daughter's level without professional teaching.
    See, this is actually some form of arrogance here, I'm sorry to say. You are making a massively sweeping statement. I learn best on my own. Teacher led lessons bore me and I just never pay attention. I did it in school - I go home and read, research around a topic until I understand it and then move on. The teachers become 'guides' providing a path - but this can be replaced by more research on my part.

    I am sorry that your experiences of teachers have been so negative - I have seen absolutely inspirational teaching that might have been done by unqualified teachers, but I doubt it. It isn't just about subject knowledge, it is about the ability to pass that knowledge on and make people WANT to learn. Yes, of course some people have it naturally, but you appear to be saying that all teachers are time wasters who do nothing of interest or help, and that you do not need a teaching qualification to teach in any shape or form.
    You're welcome to your views, but having seen some of the best teaching I've ever seen come from unqualified people, I would disagree with your assertion. Also, your last line there takes what anyone has said far too far. No-one is saying teachers should all be abandoned. Not even the government has said this. What they have said is that allowing highly skilled but unqualified teachers into classrooms is a good thing.

    You wouldn't go to an unqualified lawyer would you? Maybe someone who has a degree in law and lots of experience as an academic but not the lawyerly qualifications? - much like an unqualified teacher might have a degree in maths but no teaching experience?
    I had an unqualified lawyer when I took part in a protest movement. His advice was second to none. All self taught, no university degree. And later when a court case lined up, our solicitor had him at his side as an advisor. So, again, your view appears to have been slanted by something. Qualifications are not the be-all and end-all.

    Quite a few of the teachers in the schools I work in work very very hard, are very good at what they do and deserve their pay - they also do not dispute that they are reasonably paid now either.
    You are lucky on the latter part. Huge swathes of teachers claim they are still poorly paid. Whether they work hard or not isn't at question here - every profession has people who go above and beyond, and those that coast along doing the minimum.

    I have seen a class of disaffected children have their interest caught and held by a good teacher many times. Often the teacher is young too - in fact the younger teachers seem to have been taught new ways of engaging modern children, who do, as you so rightly point out, learn in a different way to the way we did. The modern teaching qualification addresses the issues around the way people learn today, and so newly qualified teachers have good strategies, in a way that perhaps some 35 year-old with a degree in Geography only might not.
    Anecdotal evidence of only one aspect of this. Have you seen unqualified teachers making kids hate the subject? Without evidence of this, I'd be almost happy to say that evidence that qualified teachers can teach is kinda irrelevant.

  8. Thanks to localzuk from:

    bossman (3rd August 2012)

  9. #22

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,818
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,473 Times in 1,916 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    @SimpleSi - I am not saying that non QTS people cannot teach - and yes, I have seen good teaching by a non QTS. What I am saying is that I am concerned that people who cannot teach but who have a relevant degree will be drafted in by these schools because they are a heck of a lot cheaper in many cases.
    I'd say you'd be wrong to think that. Schools will still have to deal with Ofsted. If an unqualified teacher doesn't teach well then they aren't going to be employed long are they? Not to mention, why would someone with experience in their field want to leave their field for less pay to become a teacher?

    Let me reiterate - teaching practice does cover the new methods of teaching - maybe older teachers need a refresher but imparting of knowledge by rote went out a long time ago - at least in the schools I work in.
    And amazingly, some would be able to show to you that education has suffered because of this... Just because methods are being mooted by people who are academics in the field doesn't mean that they actually work or are any good at improving grades. In exactly the same way that saying unqualified teachers might be a danger to employ...

    Use of technology - netbooks etc is supporting the personal route taken by children to learn for themselves with guidance.
    But 'at the end of the day' (yuck) there are some things that DO have to be taught first before a child can go down the self-discovery route.
    Studies that have been done about the use of netbooks etc... supporting personal routes also indicate that this does nothing for improving grades. Others show it does. So, why not give this new idea a chance before making out that it will be massively detrimental?

  10. Thanks to localzuk from:

    bossman (3rd August 2012)

  11. #23

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,702
    Thank Post
    854
    Thanked 901 Times in 746 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    Let me reiterate - teaching practice does cover the new methods of teaching - maybe older teachers need a refresher but imparting of knowledge by rote went out a long time ago - at least in the schools I work in. Use of technology - netbooks etc is supporting the personal route taken by children to learn for themselves with guidance.
    But 'at the end of the day' (yuck) there are some things that DO have to be taught first before a child can go down the self-discovery route.
    A very interesting paragraph @witch. Can I ask what level of schools you work in? I work mostly in secondary schools which almost certainly colours my arguments and experiences. We also support a few primary schools and the difference in teaching styles (quite necessarily) between the two levels is very interesting. In many ways there are things primaries are leading the way on that secondaries should be doing more of - like learning through self discovery.

    I would say at primary level you are quiet right. There are things pupils need to learn first, and I worry that sometimes primaries try to be too cross curricular in their teaching instead of focusing on the basics. Secondaries, at least from my experience, seem to be more exam driven and thus teaching by rote is more the norm.

    Education is in need of a shake up, but this thread as highlighted one thing - the current administration is probably not the best to implement any kind of shake up.
    Last edited by tmcd35; 3rd August 2012 at 10:50 AM. Reason: v.bad typo :o

  12. #24
    SteveBentley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,439
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 263 Times in 189 Posts
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    It isn't just about subject knowledge, it is about the ability to pass that knowledge on and make people WANT to learn. Yes, of course some people have it naturally, but you appear to be saying that all teachers are time wasters who do nothing of interest or help, and that you do not need a teaching qualification to teach in any shape or form.
    This idea that teaching is about passing knowledge on is part of the problem. Teaching should be about passing on the ability to acquire information and apply it to a problem, especially in this day and age when information is at everybody's finger tips, just knowing stuff isn't that relevant. The important skill is being able to filter the wealth of information that is available and then use it. The emphasis on knowledge means that education as a whole is producing people who can pass an exam, but are they of any use in the real world?

    In terms of making people want to learn, who is going to inspire kids more - a career teacher whose experience is Uni and schools or somebody who has had a professional career and can explain in context why something matters beyond passing an exam?

  13. Thanks to SteveBentley from:

    tmcd35 (3rd August 2012)

  14. #25

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,362
    Thank Post
    1,396
    Thanked 2,408 Times in 1,693 Posts
    Rep Power
    708
    @SteveBentley - you are right I misphrased that - I meant that they can pass on the ability to learn about that subject. I did say that they can make children WANT to learn which is surely what you are talking about?
    Where did I EVER say that I was saying that a career teacher would be better?
    I am obviously not putting this across very well - I agree, someone who has been out in the real world has a wealth of experience is tremendously useful - my point is that teachers do need to be taught the ins and outs of how to teach. I know quite a few teachers who have done their PGCE or whatever later in life, perhaps after 10 years in industry and having a family, and they are indeed very good teachers. BUT they all say that they needed that teaching knowledge as well as their academic and industrial experience. That is my point. You need some knowledge about how to teach - hence my example of being taught by experts who couldnt explain to someone who found the subject difficult. @localzuk - Schools do still have to deal with Ofsted, yes, but they do now, and so according to you there should be no bad teachers and we know that isnt true, dont we? @tmcd35 - I work in a junior school and a middle-deemed-secondary (up to year 8) so yes, maybe that is why I see things a bit differently.
    Let me say again, I am NOT against unqualified teachers per se, but I am concerned that they will not have the teaching skills needed in the modern world.
    I have been closely involved with someone going through the SKIT program and I was amazed at the analysis of teaching methods and the structures they learn. It isnt an easy course by any means but it really gives you the tools to do the job. Which an unqualified person may not have.

  15. #26

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,818
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,473 Times in 1,916 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    @localzuk - Schools do still have to deal with Ofsted, yes, but they do now, and so according to you there should be no bad teachers and we know that isnt true, dont we?
    Why is that? Its because schools have historically protected their teachers, and when a teacher does leave, they still get a good reference and just walk into another job. Which is partly what this entire thing is about.

  16. #27
    SteveBentley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,439
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 263 Times in 189 Posts
    Rep Power
    72
    I think this is very much down to the subject and perhaps the age group. At primary level I would definitely agree that those foundations are best laid by qualified teachers. Beyond that, for more vocational subjects then bringing in people who have "real world" experience (and I use that as a convenient turn of phrase) can be a good way to contextualise and make things relevant, engaging and inspiring.

    If the education system is doing its job (and I'm talking about the system here, not individual teachers) kids should start secondary school with the skills to be able to engage with the kind of more vocational teaching I would expect somebody who hasn't been formally trained to teach to provide. Something more based around interactive discussions and the like than "sage on stage". But of course the education system is more bothered about SATS and league tables and things that can be measured rather than important soft skills like these, and that is reflected in curriculum design.

    Incidentally going back to a point that was made early on about people who have PhDs going straight into teaching with little or no teacher training - that's a pretty fair description of a large proportion of university lecturers. I'm just throwing that point in without comment.

  17. Thanks to SteveBentley from:

    SimpleSi (3rd August 2012)

  18. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Surburbia
    Posts
    2,178
    Thank Post
    74
    Thanked 307 Times in 243 Posts
    Rep Power
    115
    * I really don't think there's anything new happening, any particularly significant evolution in how kids learn. If you do then can you please explain the radical changes?

    * Serious music tuition is typically one-to-one and apart from the motivating & goal-setting, it's essentially someone with lots of experience who can spot & fix faults, fill in all the gaps. I suppose it doesn't teach you stuff that's impossible to figure out yourself, but it sure as H makes it much more efficient, especially in terms of technique.

    * I don't think PGCE taught tOH much about the knack of teaching (I think you either have a raw ability to 'engage' that can be honed a bit or you don't), but importantly she did learn the housekeeping side, how to navigate the mountain of bureacracy, jargon and fashionable eduTwaddle.

    * My focus via Sprogette is Primary: Lack of experience there is an obvious issue.. too many young women teaching straight out of college who lack any discernable wisdom and are also clueless about the realities of being a parent, or for that matter a child. If I ran the universe you wouldn't be able to teach until you were something like 35, had done significant other stuff and were clearly enthusiastic about your subject, but you would still have to train and pass to do it full time as opposed to occasional guest spots. Not sure I could make a universe where the right folk would want to start teaching 1/2 way through an 'industry career' though.

    * I stopped quickly, but read Gove's columns a few times when he wrote for the Times.. seemed blinkered, shallow and capricious then.. in a word: juvenile. AFAICT nothing has changed. We have even more over-prescriptive curriculums that are supposed to be state-of-the-art, but if it's all so good then why can academies etc. can ignore them? The cynical view is that the intent is to suffocate LEA schools into becoming academies. However courtesy of Wilshaw and/or those difficulties shools have distinguishing between guidelines and mandates, I'm not sure that many of the latter will bypass it and with this yearly target stuff I suspect we'll get more of the ill effects that levels+leagues have already caused.

    * The policticians we elect are the fundamental problem: It's all trite instant gratification for this lot or that lot, preening & posturing for the media from second-raters these days... not much trace of serious, committed thinkers with any kind of decent plan.
    Last edited by PiqueABoo; 3rd August 2012 at 01:01 PM.

  19. Thanks to PiqueABoo from:

    bossman (3rd August 2012)

  20. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    332
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts
    Rep Power
    36
    There is an unqualified English teacher in my school that has had the highest results percentage of all subjects for each of the last 6 years. He has an MA in English Literature, but no formal teaching qualification.

    It's astounding that he get's paid half as much as some of the incompetent teachers. Many of whom are simply coasting through the day and leaving work, at times, before the pupils. We call it the 3 o'clock steeplechase!

    There are many teacher's who are in it for the right reason - the kids. They deserve their pay. Unfortunately there are too many that are just in it for themselves.

    This is just my opinion based on working in 2 different schools for 10 years.

  21. Thanks to Gardinho from:

    bossman (3rd August 2012)

  22. #30
    DocHouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    brum
    Posts
    734
    Thank Post
    156
    Thanked 85 Times in 77 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    I really don't think there's anything new happening, any particularly significant evolution in how kids learn. If you do then can you please explain the radical changes?

    In primary for the last five years the move has been towards a curriculum that is creative and based in the real world and give a real purpose, can't really say for secondary. A lot has been made of thinking strategies and the actual process of learning including mind maps, thinking tools etc...

    * Serious music tuition is typically one-to-one and apart from the motivating & goal-setting, it's essentially someone with lots of experience who can spot & fix faults, fill in all the gaps. I suppose it doesn't teach you stuff that's impossible to figure out yourself, but it sure as H makes it much more efficient, especially in terms of technique.

    I agree with you on this as certain areas benefit from a one to one relationship from an expert.

    * I don't think PGCE taught tOH much about the knack of teaching (I think you either have a raw ability to 'engage' that can be honed a bit or you don't), but importantly she did learn the housekeeping side, how to navigate the mountain of bureacracy, jargon and fashionable eduTwaddle.

    I did the four year ITT course in primary and KS3 and it was a real eye opener and taught me a lot more than the single pgce ever could, I'm not saying that all pgce teachers lack experience but in nearly 15 years in schools the worst seem to be those with a pgce who see teaching as a quick buck. Those that have the experience and commitment to engage with children and are willing to go above and beyond seem increasingly hard to find.

    * My focus via Sprogette is Primary: Lack of experience there is an obvious issue.. too many young women teaching straight out of college who lack any discernable wisdom and are also clueless about the realities of being a parent, or for that matter a child. If I ran the universe you wouldn't be able to teach until you were something like 35, had done significant other stuff and were clearly enthusiastic about your subject, but you would still have to train and pass to do it full time as opposed to occasional guest spots. Not sure I could make a universe where the right folk would want to start teaching 1/2 way through an 'industry career' though.

    Your on your own on that one....

    * I stopped quickly, but read Gove's columns a few times when he wrote for the Times.. seemed blinkered, shallow and capricious then.. in a word: juvenile. AFAICT nothing has changed. We have even more over-prescriptive curriculums that are supposed to be state-of-the-art, but if it's all so good then why can academies etc. can ignore them? The cynical view is that the intent is to suffocate LEA schools into becoming academies. However courtesy of Wilshaw and/or those difficulties shools have distinguishing between guidelines and mandates, I'm not sure that many of the latter will bypass it and with this yearly target stuff I suspect we'll get more of the ill effects that levels+leagues have already caused

    Vindictive, bullies who twist the rules to suit them when they cannot get their own way. Gove is the ringleader of a bunch of misguided, down right nasty individuals who basically give you the my way or else option, look at downhills primary in London or Montgomery in Brum, schools are being backed into the corner and forced to take a sponsor or be inspected and judged as unsatisfactory in which case Gove removes the governing body and head and implants his cronies.

    * The politicians we elect are the fundamental problem: It's all trite instant gratification for this lot or that lot, preening & posturing for the media from second-raters these days... not much trace of serious, committed thinkers with any kind of decent plan.

  23. Thanks to DocHouse from:

    bossman (3rd August 2012)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. GPO to remove printer properites
    By eejit in forum Windows
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21st May 2009, 02:27 PM
  2. Batch file to remove registry key doesnt work
    By sidewinder in forum Windows
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 7th December 2007, 04:48 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th August 2007, 02:20 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 16th February 2007, 12:15 AM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 19th October 2006, 02:08 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •