--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 9, 2005, at 12:11 PM, authfriend wrote: > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Dec 9, 2005, at 11:29 AM, authfriend wrote: > >>> How odd, you seem to have deleted what I went on > >>> to say, which made it clear I wasn't questioning > >>> the accepted scientific fact. > >> > >> It wasn't clear to me. > > > > Well, let's have another look, shall we? (Since > > you snipped it again.) > > ---------------- > > The "subtle confusion" LBS refers to isn't necessarily > > in conflict with the principle that the younger the > > better in terms of second-language acquisition. The > > purported confusion may be on an entirely different > > level than that of facility in a second language. > > > > It isn't impossible that the optimal situation, in > > MMY's view, is a sort of trade-off between acquiring > > second-language facility and avoiding the subtle > > confusion. In other words, an older child may still > > be able to learn a second language well enough to > > become reasonably fluent in it at a point when learning > > it may no longer cause the subtle confusion. > > > > Or maybe not. But obviously we don't know enough, on > > the basis of LBS's account, to say either way. > > ---------------- > > Where in what I wrote do you see any suggestion > > that I was questioning accepted scientific fact? > > > > I repeat: I think you just *assumed*, in a knee-jerk > > fashion, that I would question established scientific > > fact because you have me erroneously pegged as a > > "true believer" (or just hope you can convince others > > to think I am). > > > > And therefore you didn't pay much attention to the > > rest of what I said. If you had, you'd have seen > > that I was actually accepting as a given that > > children learn languages more easily the younger > > they are. (One hint: that's why I referred to it > > as a "principle" rather than a "theory.") > > > >> Despite repeated accusations of having some hidden agenda in the > >> quoting of your email messages, there exists no such agenda, > >> other than in your own consciousness. > > > > Oh, goodness, it's not just *my* "email messages" (I > > assume you mean posts to FFL and alt.m.t) by any means. > > You even snip portions of your own earlier posts when > > they might conflict with or detract from whatever you're > > saying in your current post. In any case, the snipping > > is always in your own interest. > > > > I'm quite willing to believe, however, that the > > agenda may not be conscious. I suspect it's just > > become second nature, and you do it without even > > thinking about it. > > > > That out of the way, do you have any relevant comment > > on what I suggested, i.e., that we don't know enough > > about what MMY means to come to the conclusion, as you > > did, that he isn't to be trusted with children's > > education? > > LOL. You read way too much into these things. > > Why do you think that is?
You seem to be assuming I think it's the case, but obviously I don't. I note that you *still* can't address what I suggested; nor are you able to say where in what I wrote you saw any hint that I was questioning established scientific facts. Now, why do you think *that* is? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Drugs Don't Discriminate. Get help for yourself or someone you know. http://us.click.yahoo.com/0I.OUB/ZbOLAA/d1hLAA/0NYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
