Dayton3/Tracker/Dayton Kitchen’s Greatest Hits

The Stalin thing was kind of tongue in cheek but there have been indications for years that his own staff either poisoned him outright or let him die.

The deaths in Indonesia were mainly at the hands of the Indonesian military some of which was directed by American CIA officials.

Then you're aware of the dishonesty of your blaming the communists - as you do for everything else.

An "expert" in this stuff would be at least somewhat objective.

It's poorly written, poorly organized, poorly cited and riddled with opinionated statements as opposed to straight facts. If you dared to submit it for peer review, you'd get destroyed.

It is unlikely the massacres would've occurred if the Communists had not tried to take over the government.

I did. It wasn't. Vast amounts of information about the Cold War have never been released to the public so its inevitable that sometimes "straight facts" are not available.

The style of writing is meant to be conversational so students can follow it along easily and easily use it as a reference tool. Note some of the organizational problems are due to a formatting problem when I copied it to this thread.

How did you manage to come by them?

I was referring to the parts that Professor Sexbot referred to as "opinionated statements".

He's absolutely right. As I told you yesterday, opinion without proof is just opinion. If you can't validate your opinion with sources outside your own head, you're engaged in the great American pastime of Making Shit Up.

Bullshit. If you had, then you'd be bragging about it. At best, you asked some mouth breather you share a church pew with what he thought of it and, not wanting to deal with slogging through your chicken scratch, he told you it was awesome without having read more than three lines.

Well, if you did send it off for peer review, then where did you send it? What notes did they come back with? How did you change your guide based upon those notes?

No. You didn't extrapolate opinion from available evidence at all in your little guide. What you did was express political opinions based upon your own beliefs. Example:
President Jimmy Carter -U.S. president considered one of the weakest ever. By whom? Using what criteria? What do you mean by "weak"? Weak on Communism? Weak in the way he wielded Presidential power? Weak as in not being able to bench press more than 30 pounds? And that's just one example. Your little shit show of a study guide is replete with this crap.

For a kid with Down's Syndrome?

How can it be a reference tool when none of your points refer back to anything? At best, it's a bunch of bullet points for the bullshit you lecture about.

An organization issue and a formatting issue are two vastly different things.

Game. Set. Match.

Put another way: nothing but net.

Why do you think I hate Jews?

@Daytoŋ3 has some great meltdowns. What this thread cannot show is how he got angry and necroed a whole bunch of his dumb ass threads because the mods warned him about posting pictures of his rotting stump because he was angry at people necroing some of his best village idiocy because he asked them to prove he was a teacher by using the information they got from those great old posts.

This is truly the greatest village idiot ever.

It's also extremely unlikely that 9/11 would have happened without various US policies in the middle east. But blaming the victims rather than the terrorists is still a fucking disgrace. And we've come to expect no better from you.

Now, your fresh claim to have this piece of shit peer-reviewed (I doubt you know what that means) is still yet to be answered. Please enlighten us.

How would I prove that?

Sorry I can't seem to remove the attached file that was already saved in an initial draft of this post. Please do that spoiler tag thing moderators.

Proof that Dayton lies when he says he never uses the F-word:

Fire?

No facetious. Arkansas gym teachers with stumps don't know what getting fired is. It is not in the curriculum for their mail order bachelor's degree in waffle house management.

It should be noted here in @Dayton3 's merry thread of his fuckups that he posted several pictures of the huge, disgusting open wound he has on his foot, in a thread that had nothing to do with open gaping wounds, for some unknown reason.

I won't post them because jesus fucking christ but I think @Anna summed it up quite nicely:

I handed it out to a group of Arkansas secondary history teachers meeting to discuss new approaches to teaching hosted by the Arkansas Historical Society. I then had a time to explain my approach to teaching about the Cold War. They agreed that it was a smart and innovative approach even though this (in 2009) was only a rough draft of my completed guide.

I explained the approach of teaching about the Cold War in a similar manner to how we teach about major "hot wars" dividing it into phases, theatres, and campaigns. This includes identifying key turning points, military and political leaders on both sides. I received considerable input about incorporating decolonization and the cultural impact of the Cold War as well.

Right, so you understand that what you've described is not what is usually meant by "peer review"?

Closest I can come at present. Care to define what you mean by "peer review"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

Given that you didn't actually submit it for peer review, or apparently know what that means, you shouldn't have made the claim that you did.

From your link, what I did qualifies as "peer review"

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers).

There were definitely "one or more people" present at my presentation. Given they were long time secondary social studies teachers one can naturally infer that they were of "similar" or even "superior" competence to my own.

Not certain how you can then claim it was not "peer reviewed".

Of course, if they considered my work to be good then naturally they couldn't have been competent right?

I had the wrong link originally and it's now edited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
Having a chat with some teacher colleagues is not what is typically meant by peer review.

lol classic dayton

You also said that at least one of the people you gave it to said this about it.

So, it sounds like it didn't quite receive the praise you claim it did.

"I glared at her. Hard."

CHILLS