sad Days for america

[DangerBoy]

LOL! So Woody goes right back to his talking point that anyone who doesn't agree with him isn't intelligent or can't comprehend properly.

Why in the world are people like him allowed to hold teaching licenses?

[john9blue]

Woody's around young kids all day, the attitude probably just carries over to the forums even though this is a whole new ball game.

[Woodruff]

LOL! So Woody goes right back to his talking point that anyone who doesn't agree with him isn't intelligent or can't comprehend properly.

Perhaps if a few people around here didn't seem to be so intentionally ignorant, it wouldn't come out so often.

Why in the world are people like him allowed to hold teaching licenses?

You're frankly lucky people like me are allowed to hold a teaching license. Then again, you're willing enough to base how well I do my job on a few posts on an internet forum...so I'll fall back to that talking point in your case, as well.

Most of you want to spend all your time attacking me as a person instead of trying to pick apart my arguments with logic. Phatscotty seems to be the only one bothering with that. Quite telling.

[Woodruff]

Woody's around young kids all day, the attitude probably just carries over to the forums even though this is a whole new ball game.

I treat my students far better than I do many of you in this forum, due to the fact that they are able to carry on discussions in a rational manner, rather than bleating idiocies with no thought behind them.

[john9blue]

I gave up trying to argue with you because (like jay in your signature ) I have told you everything you need to know and you still don't seem to understand. To be perfectly honest I would have been more trusting of your judgment if the district itself had accepted this behavior. I would have just shrugged it off as "our world going to crap". But this incident seems to be the work of a few biased school leaders who don't know how to correctly exercise power, who you sadly seem to agree with.

The kids were bullied and didn't complain or fight back because they were taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions (you're a fan of that right?). The failure of the school to stop the bullying would have been mildly irritating at worst. But instead of treating the kids as victims, they treated them as aggressors, because they were peacefully protesting. If you don't see how fucked up that is, then we will never see eye to eye and I am done with you.

[Woodruff]

I gave up trying to argue with you because (like jay in your signature ) I have told you everything you need to know and you still don't seem to understand.

Jay in my signature is admitting that he stops responding to me because he runs out of arguments against my points. Is that really what you meant to say?

To be perfectly honest I would have been more trusting of your judgment if the district itself had accepted this behavior. I would have just shrugged it off as "our world going to crap". But this incident seems to be the work of a few biased school leaders who don't know how to correctly exercise power, who you sadly seem to agree with.

I don't believe I've ever said I agreed with it, so much as I've backed it as a reasonable action. The two are not at all necessarily the same (you may have noticed that I stated I considered it disrespectful to the flag to ask the kids to turn their shirts inside out).

The kids were bullied and didn't complain or fight back because they were taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions (you're a fan of that right?). The failure of the school to stop the bullying would have been mildly irritating at worst. But instead of treating the kids as victims, they treated them as aggressors, because they were peacefully protesting. If you don't see how fucked up that is, then we will never see eye to eye and I am done with you.

First of all, the school absolutely is responsible for stopping the bullying...there's no question of that. That part of the issue never really came up, so I hadn't addressed it. However, it sounds to me as though you are allowing the bullying that took place to excuse the further action, which certainly could easily result in an escallation.

[b.k. barunt]

LOL! So Woody goes right back to his talking point that anyone who doesn't agree with him isn't intelligent or can't comprehend properly.

Perhaps if a few people around here didn't seem to be so intentionally ignorant, it wouldn't come out so often.

Why in the world are people like him allowed to hold teaching licenses?

You're frankly lucky people like me are allowed to hold a teaching license. Then again, you're willing enough to base how well I do my job on a few posts on an internet forum...so I'll fall back to that talking point in your case, as well.

Most of you want to spend all your time attacking me as a person instead of trying to pick apart my arguments with logic. Phatscotty seems to be the only one bothering with that. Quite telling.

What is "quite telling" is the personality that comes out in your posts. It is a smug, self satisfied persona that is quite ridiculous given the lack of any evidence of superior intellect. Teaching science does not mean you have the intelligence to grok sociological content any more than my having a degree in sociology means i can intelligently discuss science past a basic level.

Before i will take the time and effort to discuss your arguments with you in a logical manner you have to show me that you are indeed a person who merits such respect - you have not shown me this. Evidently others concur. Your arguments are overshadowed by your personality, which is rather ridiculous and cries out for repeated bitch slaps. For me to discuss anything with you seriously would make me feel stoopit - kinda like talking to a jar of mayonaise - i might do it in private if i've had enough to smoke but i'd rather no one else is there to see it.


Honibaz

[Woodruff]

LOL! So Woody goes right back to his talking point that anyone who doesn't agree with him isn't intelligent or can't comprehend properly.

Perhaps if a few people around here didn't seem to be so intentionally ignorant, it wouldn't come out so often.

Why in the world are people like him allowed to hold teaching licenses?

You're frankly lucky people like me are allowed to hold a teaching license. Then again, you're willing enough to base how well I do my job on a few posts on an internet forum...so I'll fall back to that talking point in your case, as well.

Most of you want to spend all your time attacking me as a person instead of trying to pick apart my arguments with logic. Phatscotty seems to be the only one bothering with that. Quite telling.

What is "quite telling" is the personality that comes out in your posts. It is a smug, self satisfied persona

It shouldn't be "quite telling", given that I've openly admitted that I am a smug, self-satisfied, arrogant personality. I've never hidden that.

that is quite ridiculous given the lack of any evidence of superior intellect. Teaching science does not mean you have the intelligence to grok sociological content any more than my having a degree in sociology means i can intelligently discuss science past a basic level.

No argument...I agree that it doesn't. However, it has given me the ability to look at situations in a logical manner...a manner which many in these fora seem to lack.

Before i will take the time and effort to discuss your arguments with you in a logical manner you have to show me that you are indeed a person who merits such respect - you have not shown me this.

Ah, the forum bully speaks of respect! Must give the bully respect!

Evidently others concur. Your arguments are overshadowed by your personality, which is rather ridiculous and cries out for repeated bitch slaps.

Speaketh the forum bully again!

For me to discuss anything with you seriously would make me feel stoopit - kinda like talking to a jar of mayonaise - i might do it in private if i've had enough to smoke but i'd rather no one else is there to see it.

It's a good method for you to use, because this way you can avoid my further embarrassing you. Wise move, internet bully!

Once again, you spent your entire rebuttal attacking me as a person, rather than attempting to discuss the issue or my arguments. Well done, internet bully!

[john9blue]

If the boys were attacked, a court of law would find the attackers guilty and the boys innocent. Why then are the boys being treated like they are guilty, when they broke no rules?

[Woodruff]

If the boys were attacked, a court of law would find the attackers guilty and the boys innocent.
Why then are the boys being treated like they are guilty, when they broke no rules?

Sometimes, people have to make decisions based on the information they have, even when no rule has been specifically broken. It seems to me that is what the administrators at the school did...made the decision to ask the boys to turn their shirts inside out and when the boys refused to do so, they sent them home.

That being said, I don't believe those boys are necessarily being treated like they are guilty (though I can see why someone might feel that they are). I believe the administrators took an action to remove what they viewed as a source of inciting violence, not of accusing the boys of inciting violence, at least based on what I have read of the incident in the link provided along with several others. Removing them from the situation is not presuming their guilt, but rather an action of attempting (rightly or wrongly) to defuse the situation.

[john9blue]

Well then I hope you don't find it illogical that I object to people making up ex post facto rules on the spot. In fact I think it's horribly unjust.

[Army of GOD]

I agree with Woody on a lot of this stuff.

John, the way you 'changed' his words on the other page might've had the same literal meaning, but the diction you used made it a lot different than what he wanted it come out to be.

(Woody stop feeding the trolls *cough* bradley *cough*)

[john9blue]

Oh I know, I was taking his words to the logical extreme and removing the sugar coating. And I'm not trolling... lol...

[Army of GOD]

OKAY!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

hahaha

[beezer]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/sanfrancisc ... e-19586193

this is just sad. this is pathetic the lack of patriotism in this country where you could get sent home from school because you were red white and blue.

It annoys the hell out of me personally that those high school boys are wearing U.S. flag T-shirts anyway. Pisses me off when depictions of the flag are worn as clothing...it's not respectful in any way. But that's a different issue...

However, that being as it may...the boys were frankly TRYING to instigate trouble. Say what you want, but why else would they be wearing the t-shirts and bandanas on THIS PARTICULAR DAY when, per stated reports by other students, they didn't typically wear those shirts and bandanas? In my view, attempting to incite violence at school is worthy of being sent home.

Now, if it could be shown that these boys did typically wear these shirts and bandanas (by say...wearing them maybe a couple of times per month or so), then no they shouldn't be sent home because the situation is then a significantly different one.

Ah! Quite nice of you to finally expose your true colors there, Woodruff. The kids wearing the American flag on their clothes as a symbol are instigating trouble? You've got to be out of your mind. While most teenagers are out getting into real trouble, you're worried about these guys!!!

I can only say how overjoyed I am that someone as despicable as yourself is not allowed to influence my two kids. I only wish that I knew which school district you were teaching at so I could alert the parents to kick your butt out of a taxpayer funded position. I can't believe we as taxpayers have to put up with people like yourself denigrating patriotic expression.

Oh and beware, Woodruff!! Americans sometimes say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the National Anthem, or celebrate the 4th of July. We can't allow these people to trick us into believing they're expressing themselves via the rights guaranteed by the Constitution! After all, they're doing nothing but inciting violence and instigating trouble.

Go back to your commune.

[Army of GOD]

I'm sorry, but if you honestly think they were trying to be "patriotic" by wearing those clothes (to an over-extent and with no one, not even the boys themselves claiming that they usually or have been wearing clothes like that until THAT specific day [and then the day after, but that's clearly just a cover-up]) then you're not looking at this the right way.

Let's assume that none of that's true though. Let's assume that they were in fact being patriotic and usually wore ridiculous clothes like that before. There is still the potential for a fight to break out (more than normal. It doesn't mean ban the clothes forever. Just for this day because some people WERE being offended) and at a High School, that is what officials have to stop.

[john9blue]

Well then I hope you don't find it illogical that I object to people making up ex post facto rules on the spot. In fact I think it's horribly unjust.

Maybe they did prevent a fight, who knows. Whether the decision was a "good one" isn't really the issue here. The fact that a few administrators can decide what is and isn't appropriate on the spot is very worrying. It is hardly different from a dictatorship.

[Army of GOD]

It wasn't really a rule. It was a judgement call, in which he was hired by the school distract to make.

[john9blue]

If there was a rule that said they had the power to make the judgment call... then why did the district rebuke their actions?

I really do think the incident itself is not a big deal... it's the PRINCIPLE (or principal) behind the thing that worries me.

[Army of GOD]

If there was a rule that said they had the power to make the judgment call... then why did the district rebuke their actions?

Public relations? Because they honestly disagree with the initial ruling? We'll never know for sure.

[jay_a2j]

Just saw this on FOX NEWS and the beautiful Megan Kelly was right on target. Your Constitutional rights do not end when you walk into a school. You can not pre-emptively send students home because of what you might perceive as instigation. Woody would have hated her taring apart his argument.


And as for it being disrespectful. Give me a break, you wanna-be patriot! I have a flag on the right shoulder of my uniform. Even though I am saddened that people of this great nation had to die to give you the right to spew your garbage.

[BigBallinStalin]

Just saw this on FOX NEWS and the beautiful Megan Kelly was right on target. Your Constitutional rights do not end when you walk into a school. You can not pre-emptively send students home because of what you might perceive as instigation. Woody would have hated her taring apart his argument.


And as for it being disrespectful. Give me a break, you wanna-be patriot! I have a flag on the right shoulder of my uniform. Even though I am saddened that people of this great nation had to die to give you the right to spew your garbage.

School uniforms trump your "constitutional rights."

Anyway...

You can not pre-emptively send students home because of what you might perceive as instigation.

Why not?

[b.k. barunt]

Ah, the forum bully speaks of respect! Must give the bully respect!

Speaketh the forum bully again!

Wise move, internet bully!

Once again, you spent your entire rebuttal attacking me as a person, rather than attempting to discuss the issue or my arguments. Well done, internet bully!

Oh niggapleeze. Now i'm a "bully" because i deem you to be obnoxious and inane. Gimmeafuckingbreak. My entire rebuttal was indeed directed at your personality because that was the issue i was rebutting! You said it was illogical to focus on a personality instead of the issues and my response was that your personality tends to overshadow the issues when you take your usual highhanded petulant tone with people who disagree with you.

This whiny post is a good example. You don't respond to the issues i brought up - instead you devote your rebuttal to attacking me as a person and calling me names. Hello pot - meet kettle.

If i see you on the street and intimidate you physically by reason of superior physical size and/or prowess, that would make me a bully. The only way one can "bully" someone on the internetz is by intimidating them by reason of superior intellect - do i intimidate you in such a way? I guess one could also be intimidated by threats but i've only seen one person fearful and insecure enough to be bullied by that. Not to mention any names, heh heh.

The flag wearing kids at the school were bullied by the assistant principle who used his position - not any rules or school policy - to do so. He as a Latino was offended that they would dare to wear our flag on a day that he felt should be devoted to his country and he abused his authority to bully them into submission. You foolishly let us know that you would've done the same thing and you're not even a Latino - you just love the thought of exerting your authority as a teacher because you obviously got bullied a lot as a student by other students. That sucks big time.


Big Bad Honibaz

[thegreekdog]

Excuse me sir, but could you please turn your t-shirt inside out?

LAWSUIT!!!

I love those shirts the irony is delicious.

I have a t-shirt with that face and the caption "This Shirt Brought to You by Capitalism." It used to be my avatar.