Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Concerned Mom

Board of Education

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
TOWN OF KEARNY

(3)  THREE YEAR TERM

1A Barbara Ann Banach

2A  Alan R. Doffont

3A Bernadette McDonald

4A John J. Campbell

5A Michael Cicchino

6A Joseph Weber

I think that it's important that all of the above come out and state their views on the LaClair matter publicly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The "Mouse Trap"
I think that it's important that all of the above come out and state their views on the LaClair matter publicly.

Is Doffont capable of speaking publicly? I can't believe this guy is an Administrator in a School system. Did he get the position based on his ability or did someone call in an I.O.U. Does he still hold the fundraisers for himself at the Scots Club? And to think we have him to ourselves here in Kearny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SGT .$$$ BILL

Does anyone know who will be the new candidates for the Board of Education? There is a "Meet the Candidates" meeting on April 3rd.

Do all Candidates agree with "the uniform policy that was jammed at us" ????

See news article below /// LITIGATION =$$$$

Told no, uniforms staying

Friday, April 06, 2007

By RONALD LEIR

JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

The Bayonne Board of Education has survived the latest challenge to its mandated uniforms policy for its 6,000 elementary school students, but that doesn't figure to wear out the policy's opponents.

On Wednesday, the state Board of Education turned aside an appeal by a group of anti-uniform parents of December's ruling by the state education commission upholding the board policy. The parents are represented by Hackensack attorneys Robert Vort and Karin White Morgen.

In a one-sentence ruling, the state Board of Education said: "The decision of the Commissioner of Education is affirmed for the reasons expressed therein," referring to the commissioner's two-page decision, which said that "this matter is appropriately dismissed as it was filed outside the 90-day limitation period . and petitioners have provided no factual or legal justification which would warrant relaxation of this date."

The parents had 90 days to file their complaint to the state from the day the school board voted to implement the uniform policy. The board approved uniforms on June 19. The parents filed their complaint on Oct. 10.

Bayonne Schools Superintendent Patricia McGeehan said: "We felt we did everything appropriately."

The district is considering extending its uniform policy to students at Bayonne High School.

Morgen said she wasn't surprised by the state board verdict, adding, "I anticipate a much more in-depth analysis once we have the matter reviewed by the (New Jersey) Appellate Division. . Basically, (the school board) has been given a pass on an obscure technicality."

Laura DePinto, one of the parents contesting the policy, said that she, too, looks forward to having the case decided on its merits. Requiring students to wear uniforms is "very non-democratic, highly punitive, dictation from a political government group," she said, "and that just rubs people the wrong way."

DePinto has filed a federal lawsuit against the board for forbidding her son to wear a controversial anti-uniform emblem featuring an image of Hitler Youth. A ruling is still awaited.

Parent Harry Smith, whose son has been removed from his school's chess team and band for not wearing a uniform, said: "This is far from over. The school board doesn't have the right to tell me how to raise my kid."

© 2007 The Jersey Journal

© 2007 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that it's important that all of the above come out and state their views on the LaClair matter publicly.

I don't believe that current BOE members can publically speak about how they may feel about the issue. I also think its intersting that you suggest they publically state how they feel, when you are not a registered user. What is your stance on the issue Guest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Happy Gilmore
I think that it's important that all of the above come out and state their views on the LaClair matter publicly.

I dont think that it is even an issue anymore.

Its over.

Lets move on and address new items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I think that it's important that all of the above come out and state their views on the LaClair matter publicly.

The whole LaClair issue is a dead one. It got Paul his 15 minutes of fame, but that time has come and gone. Time to examine what the real issues like taxes and the school budget in this town of Kearny instead of the constant mudsliding produced on both sides. Hoping both sides will be mature enough not just to let these potential candidates do what needs to get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
The whole LaClair issue is a dead one. It got Paul his 15 minutes of fame, but that time has come and gone.  Time to examine what the real issues like taxes and the school budget in this town of Kearny instead of the constant mudsliding produced on both sides.  Hoping both sides will be mature enough not just to let these potential candidates do what needs to get done.

There are many other issues the Board of Education must address, funding being among the most important. It does appear that the people of Kearny understand this very well. The mere fact that the unfortunate incident of a teacher who went badly out of control captured a lot of press, and gained a lot of attention on KOTW doesn't mean that the Board and the people of Kearny cannot address other issues --- it never did mean that. The people of Kearny and our Board of Education are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. We all are, else we couldn't survive.

The First Amendment will never go away. There's no need to be nasty about it. It's very sad that some people cannot accept that Matthew and I have done what we thought was right, or even conceptualize why it is important. Whatever attention is drawn to our cause need not detain you for an instant if you don't want it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole LaClair issue is a dead one. It got Paul his 15 minutes of fame, but that time has come and gone.

Don't expect people to just forget about all of the preaching, lying, and attempts at sweeping under the rug. I'm sure anyone on 'that side' would love us all to just forget about it, but sorry, not going to happen. The issue will 'go' when it is resolved, and not a day sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Don't expect people to just forget about all of the preaching, lying, and attempts at sweeping under the rug. I'm sure anyone on 'that side' would love us all to just forget about it, but sorry, not going to happen. The issue will 'go' when it is resolved, and not a day sooner.

This is exactly right. We've been hearing it was a dead issue since it happened, and that meant exactly what Strife picks up: many people wanted it to go away because they saw it as a challenge to their religious beliefs, even though it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Don't expect people to just forget about all of the preaching, lying, and attempts at sweeping under the rug. I'm sure anyone on 'that side' would love us all to just forget about it, but sorry, not going to happen. The issue will 'go' when it is resolved, and not a day sooner.

In your own phrase - "Quit whining!". We certainly do not care what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter? Santos and his machine control the School Board, even though they deny culpability for its increases and excesses. He can hide behind the smoke and mirror that spells the separation of municipal government and school districts, on this one.

Wasn't an Aide to the Mayor, who has influence in and from his office, also a former Board of Education President? Doesn't this allude to something? Perhaps the Mayor's slate, oh of course there will the be the usual non-endorsement of candidates, the "impartial" road in this election, therefore, no slate. But really, who is the Sheriff and his merry band of Molly Maids endorsing (off the record, discretely, clandestinely)?

You should be a concerned mother. This should concern us all, not just the mother's of Kearny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I think that it's important that all of the above come out and state their views on the LaClair matter publicly.

They should, that will help me decide who to vote for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I don't believe that current BOE members can publically speak about how they may feel about the issue.  I also think its intersting that you suggest they publically state how they feel, when you are not a registered user.  What is your stance on the issue Guest?

I think you're "confused" and have no idea what you are talking about...How about joining a VA discussion board?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In your own phrase - "Quit whining!". We certainly do not care what you think.

Firstly, how is it whining to point out the ridiculousness of people acting like this issue has been resolved when it hasn't? Simply stating that, as much as Mr. P. and friends would like to pretend that the issue will just fade away with time, it will continue to be an issue until the day a real resolution is enacted, isn't whining. It's a fact. Deal with it.

Furthermore, I think the people of Kearny will start caring more if/when things are forced into court, and then it's the townspeople that will ultimately have to pay for Paszkiewicz's transgressions. I would have liked to ask the crowds at the February meeting if they were willing to pay (in the most literal sense possible) for Paszkiewicz's mistakes. It would have been interesting to see what the response would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I don't believe that current BOE members can publically speak about how they may feel about the issue.  I also think its intersting that you suggest they publically state how they feel, when you are not a registered user.  What is your stance on the issue Guest?

And "Confused in VA" is so telling of your identity? Why is it that so many of those who have "registered" feel that they are more entitled to share opinions on this forum - especially when so few actually register with any identifying names or information? I tell you what - "register" with your name and address, and then you can be emboldened to question the contributions of "guests".

And of course a BOE member can speak publicly about how they may feel about the issue. I think that every BOE member and candidate is obliged to make their opinions and principles known on important issues. And if I were running for a seat on the BOE, my identity and my beliefs would be points of necessity. However, since that is not the case, I will leave it that the candidates' opinions on such an issue are important - and it's the right of every voter to know the positions of the candidates. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that political debate is dead, and general statements of positions and principles are not appropriate in public elections.

As for my opinion - since you asked - I think the teacher was dead wrong. I think that his conduct in the classroom leading up to the "meeting" was inappropriate. I think his conduct in the "meeting" was likewise inappropriate. I am slightly comforted by the fact that the pattern of behavior that was originally brought to light by Matthew has seemingly been corrected. However, I am incredibly disappointed that the teacher has not stepped between the student and his more fervent supporters to alleviate some of the abuse being heaped on a high school student. Of course, there is no legal obligation on his part to do so - but I would argue that there is a moral or ethical obligation that is not being met. Nonetheless, considering all of the above, I think that the teacher should retain his job unless and until he violates the policy again.

As to the other side of the coin, I don't like the taping in the classroom - although I concede that it was, most likely, the only way to stop the behavior of the teacher. I wrestle with the issue because the privacy of each of the other students in the classroom was violated, and the name of the Muslim student was released for all to hear. In my opinion, it was a large price to pay. I'm not sure if the ends justified the means - but at this point, it's water under the bridge. Still, Matthew stepped up for his beliefs. He didn't do anything that violated any law or school policy. His cause was just and carried substantial weight. And while - I think - he could have gone to the teacher directly prior to going to the administration, he was certainly under no obligation to do so. Accordingly, rather than facing ridicule, the administration should use him as an example to others of how to be an advocate for your beliefs - a skill that would serve all students well in their lifetimes (and a skill that was vastly undersold during my tenure in the school district more than a few years ago).

Lastly, I think that the religious aspects of this Constitutional debate have swirled around and - much like religous debates for the last score or so of centuries - have resolved little other than reaffirming that people have divergent beliefs and hold fast to them. Meanwhile, the Constitutional protection of separation of church and state - first promulgated by Jefferson in the DEFENSE of a religious group - is now being framed as an attack on Christianity. That cannot be farther from the truth. The protection means that no one in government - including a public school teacher - can tell you what religion you must practice, or what your children must believe. Likewise, those that suggest that the separation is an absolute proscription against any intermingling of government and religion are likewise wrong. As a number of judges have recognized, the separation is not absolute, and there are times when considerations of religion must be factored into governmental matters. However, in the present matter, a teacher discussing religious matters in the manner so discussed, went beyond what is acceptable under current law. And the fact that the student who brought the usurpation to light is not a Christian - does not mean that the Constitutional principle (or the student defending it) is anti-Christianity.

Hope this leaves you less "Confused", my friend from VA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And "Confused in VA" is so telling of your identity?

1) "Confused in VA" is talking about assigning an identity to your posts, not revealing your personal 'identity.'

2) Yes, in case you didn't notice, there is only one registered user named "Confused in VA." Therefore, one always knows who is writing the posts labeled with that registered alias.

Why is it that so many of those who have "registered" feel that they are more entitled to share opinions on this forum - especially when so few actually register with any identifying names or information?

Why do you beat your wife?

This is a loaded question. What registered users have actually said is that registering allows people to actually follow who is saying what, and having a conversation. With the sea of guests around, it's like trying to have a conversation with a crowd of people all at the same time. You never know who's saying what (though some people by the sorts of things they say and the way they say them, stand out).

I tell you what - "register" with your name and address, and then you can be emboldened to question the contributions of "guests".

You totally misunderstood what was said. Try reading it again:

"...its intersting that you suggest they publically state how they feel, when you are not a registered user."

He is merely pointing out hypocrisy on your part (I bet you don't notice it, though), not saying 'you're not entitled to state your opinon because you're not registered.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
1) "Confused in VA" is talking about assigning an identity to your posts, not revealing your personal 'identity.'

2) Yes, in case you didn't notice, there is only one registered user named "Confused in VA." Therefore, one always knows who is writing the posts labeled with that registered alias.

Why do you beat your wife?

This is a loaded question. What registered users have actually said is that registering allows people to actually follow who is saying what, and having a conversation. With the sea of guests around, it's like trying to have a conversation with a crowd of people all at the same time. You never know who's saying what (though some people by the sorts of things they say and the way they say them, stand out).

You totally misunderstood what was said. Try reading it again:

"...its intersting that you suggest they publically state how they feel, when you are not a registered user."

He is merely pointing out hypocrisy on your part (I bet you don't notice it, though), not saying 'you're not entitled to state your opinon because you're not registered.

This is one of my two knocks on you Strife - you are so short-sighted sometimes (not always) as you rush to defend those who share your opinions that you fail to thoroughly think through your arguments (which is a shame, because you do make valuable contributions when you actually take the time to evaluate your comments before hitting "Add Reply" - either that or it's luck :) ). For the record, my other knock is that you fail to apologize when you're wrong about something.

So here's my criticism on your post, take it for what it's worth.

First - the wife beating makes no sense, adds no value, and leads me to believe that your blood-sugar dipped as you typed your post.

Second - Confused's argument wasn't about hypocrisy. It was about a twisted sense of "entitlement" to post on the forum that you seem to share. You both appear to have the notion that because your friend in VA registered as "Confused in VA" - it has given him or her such a magical connotation that he or she is now able to request that those running for office should state their views publicly - but a guest who could otherwise register as "Strife's an Idiot" without much more information (but chooses not to) is morally and ethically barred from making the same request. It would seem that both you and your friend from VA are feeling pretty self-congratulatory about mastering the KOTW registration process. It would also seem that you have completely forgotten the purpose of this forum - for anyone to express any reasonable opinion whether or not they choose to take the time to register. I refuse to believe that the purpose of the forum is to allow those who register to maintain conversations with each other. Conceded - that is a benefit of registration. However, until KOTW changes the rules and requires all who post to register - which likely has a snowball's chance in that place that you don't believe in - that's how it stands.

Perhaps you and Confused are unable to draw the distinction between someone posting on a local forum, and someone running for public office - but I see no hypocrisy in taking the time to post on a forum that the candidates state their opinions publicly (isn't that the purpose of this forum). I am certainly entitled to do so (and, believe me, it's not such a "taboo" question that I would seek to veil my identity to pursue such query). Moreover, if I sought a position in public office, I would anticipate that someone would call me out on my opinions. Accuse me of sloth, if you will, for not bothering to take the time to register. But hypocrisy? Please. Hypocrisy would have been criticizing Confused for not identifying himself publicly.

Now, a quesiton. Why didn't you criticize Confused for suggesting that I was not "entitled" to question candidates running for public office about whether they support the Constitutional principles that the LaClairs are fighting for, or whether they support the teacher's right to delve into religious studies during history class. Or why not criticize Confused for "quasi-protecting" candidates from having to state their opinions publicly. Is it because he or she is "entitled" because he or she registerd? And is it because you share the sense of entitlement?

Listen, I get on this forum a day here and a day there. The thought of registering never crossed my mind in earnest (mostly because of the fact that it doesn't truly identify someone, it just gives a meaningless monkier to anonymity). Like I said to Confused - have the intestinal fortitude of Paul (yes, out of necessity, but ballsy nonetheless) and some of the others (you're excluded from this club, I'm afraid) to truly identify yourself and then - yes - I'll give your argument some weight. Otherwise, take off the emporer's new clothes, and accept the fact that sometimes even "guests" can make meaningful contributions - which is why we are "entitled" to do so.

So ... go have some juice - get that blood sugar back to appropriate levels - and get back to me with an arguement to compels me to run out and register on KOTW for the good of humanity and/or my soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're "confused" and have no idea what you are talking about...How about joining a VA discussion board?

First, I am a registered user, unlike you guest. I lived in Kearny for the first 23+ years of my life and graduated from Kearny High School, I'm certified to teach high school sciences, I had family on the BOE, both my parents are educators and my family still resides in Kearny I may not know everything about the situation, but I've done enough research to pose my questions logically. I keep in touch with the Kearny news, things like Mr. Aulisi's death, the death of Dr. John Elkas, the LaClair situation, and how the varsity soccer team does are all important to me as Kearny alumni.

I am active in my community in VA, but I haven't forgotten my roots-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And "Confused in VA" is so telling of your identity?  Why is it that so many of those who have "registered" feel that they are more entitled to share opinions on this forum - especially when so few actually register with any identifying names or information?  I tell you what - "register" with your name and address, and then you can be emboldened to question the contributions of "guests".

And of course a BOE member can speak publicly about how they may feel about the issue.  I think that every BOE member and candidate is obliged to make their opinions and principles known on important issues.  And if I were running for a seat on the BOE, my identity and my beliefs would be points of necessity.  However, since that is not the case, I will leave it that the candidates' opinions on such an issue are important - and it's the right of every voter to know the positions of the candidates.  Unless, of course, you are suggesting that political debate is dead, and general statements of positions and principles are not appropriate in public elections.

As for my opinion - since you asked - I think the teacher was dead wrong.  I think that his conduct in the classroom leading up to the "meeting" was inappropriate.  I think his conduct in the "meeting" was likewise inappropriate.  I am slightly comforted by the fact that the pattern of behavior that was originally brought to light by Matthew has seemingly been corrected.  However, I am incredibly disappointed that the teacher has not stepped between the student and his more fervent supporters to alleviate some of the abuse being heaped on a high school student.  Of course, there is no legal obligation on his part to do so - but I would argue that there is a moral or ethical obligation that is not being met.  Nonetheless, considering all of the above, I think that the teacher should retain his job unless and until he violates the policy again.

As to the other side of the coin, I don't like the taping in the classroom - although I concede that it was, most likely, the only way to stop the behavior of the teacher.  I wrestle with the issue because the privacy of each of the other students in the classroom was violated, and the name of the Muslim student was released for all to hear.  In my opinion, it was a large price to pay.  I'm not sure if the ends justified the means - but at this point, it's water under the bridge.  Still, Matthew stepped up for his beliefs.  He didn't do anything that violated any law or school policy.  His cause was just and carried substantial weight.  And while - I think - he could have gone to the teacher directly prior to going to the administration, he was certainly under no obligation to do so.  Accordingly, rather than facing ridicule, the administration should use him as an example to others of how to be an advocate for your beliefs - a skill that would serve all students well in their lifetimes (and a skill that was vastly undersold during my tenure in the school district more than a few years ago).

Lastly, I think that the religious aspects of this Constitutional debate have swirled around and - much like religous debates for the last score or so of centuries - have resolved little other than reaffirming that people have divergent beliefs and hold fast to them.  Meanwhile, the Constitutional protection of separation of church and state - first promulgated by Jefferson in the DEFENSE of a religious group - is now being framed as an attack on Christianity.  That cannot be farther from the truth.  The protection means that no one in government - including a public school teacher - can tell you what religion you must practice, or what your children must believe.  Likewise, those that suggest that the separation is an absolute proscription against any intermingling of government and religion are likewise wrong.  As a number of judges have recognized, the separation is not absolute, and there are times when considerations of religion must be factored into governmental matters.  However, in the present matter, a teacher discussing religious matters in the manner so discussed, went beyond what is acceptable under current law.  And the fact that the student who brought the usurpation to light is not a Christian - does not mean that the Constitutional principle (or the student defending it) is anti-Christianity.

Hope this leaves you less "Confused", my friend from VA.

Honestly Guest in reading your post we are on the same side in many cases, though I am not sure it qualifies me as a "friend". My original point was that certain aspects of this case cannot be discussed by the parties involved. I am sure the BOE candidates will weigh in on this issue, but I do not know how vocal the current BOE members can be on the reasoning behind the actions they took publicly during these past 6 months or so. I was not suggesting that you could not or should not have an opinion, just that I thought it was ironic that someone not registered to the board would suggest the BOE members state their views "publicly".

As I've mentioned in other threads, there is a lot of room for improvement in how the situation was handled, but it is easy to say since many of us have watched the situation unfold the past 6 months. In many cases the situation spurred serious debate on this board and which I believe have caused many people to think and rethink their positions on the nuances of the case; some of which you mentioned in your post. For example: I too struggle with the taping, but I also struggle with the "no taping" ruling.

For me it has been a learning experience reading and chatting with some of the folks on this board. I appreciate Paul's honestly and Strife's passion even if we do not always agree. I believe that after 6 or so months of following this situation I'm a lot less "confused" and a lot more informed (I do still reside in VA however). It will be interesting to see how this BOE election develops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is one of my two knocks on you Strife - you are so short-sighted sometimes (not always) as you rush to defend those who share your opinions that you fail to thoroughly think through your arguments (which is a shame, because you do make valuable contributions when you actually take the time to evaluate your comments before hitting "Add Reply" - either that or it's luck  B) ).  For the record, my other knock is that you fail to apologize when you're wrong about something.

So here's my criticism on your post, take it for what it's worth.

First - the wife beating makes no sense, adds no value, and leads me to believe that your blood-sugar dipped as you typed your post.

I think it's you who misunderstood. Asking "when did you stop beating your wife" or a similar question is the classic way to mock the fallacy of the loaded question (more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question). Nothing personal was meant by it. You likely just misunderstood because you're not familiar with the common retort to that fallacy. Another example of a loaded question, except it was directed at me specifically on this forum, was someone suggesting something then asking "is that why you hate God?" The question is loaded because it makes a false presupposition--asking me for the motive for doing something I don't do (that is, "hate God"). Hope that clears that up.

Second - Confused's argument wasn't about hypocrisy.

Sure seemed like it to me. He pointed out the irony that someone posting completely anonymously was 'demanding' that others make public statements about a situation that would invariably be tied to them personally from then on. That's my reasoning, disagree if you will. At least you didn't mention Kool-aid in your post.

EDIT: And seeing "Confused"'s latest post, I was right! Look:

"I was not suggesting that you could not or should not have an opinion, just that I thought it was ironic that someone not registered to the board would suggest the BOE members state their views "publicly"."

Now, will you apologize for your mistake?

It was about a twisted sense of "entitlement" to post on the forum that you seem to share.  You both appear to have the notion that because your friend in VA registered as "Confused in VA" - it has given him or her such a magical connotation that he or she is now able to request that those running for office should state their views publicly - but a guest who could otherwise register as "Strife's an Idiot" without much more information (but chooses not to) is morally and ethically barred from making the same request.  It would seem that both you and your friend from VA are feeling pretty self-congratulatory about mastering the KOTW registration process.

Then I suggest you carefully reread with what I've just 'said' in mind. I think you've misunderstood and come to a false conclusion about us. The thing I have about this whole registration thing is that it facilitates back and forth exchange so much, and on top of that, it takes all of three minutes to do. Hell, afterwards, you can easily set a cookie on your computer so that you're automatically logged in next time you visit the forum, and never even have to put your password in again.

You may think this unfair, but I admit it's a bit harder to take someone seriously when they won't take that tiny step. Doesn't mean I'll just think "who cares what they say, they're a guest," just saying...if someone is intereseted in having a real exchange, then they can easily meet others halfway by at the very least letting everyone know which of these posts you did and did not write.

It would also seem that you have completely forgotten the purpose of this forum - for anyone to express any reasonable opinion whether or not they choose to take the time to register.

One problem with that would be the sheer volume of 'unreasonable' (to say the least) content that has made it onto this forum, sad to say.

I refuse to believe that the purpose of the forum is to allow those who register to maintain conversations with each other.

Then don't believe it--that's like someone saying "I refuse to believe that we all came to be by chance" when attacking evolution. What you said is kind of a straw man, since neither I nor anyone else that I know of has ever said that the above is the purpose of this forum. The purpose of any forum is communication. Except in a situation where the object is to have everyone state an opinion once and never directly reply to another person's post, registering is ideal, don't you agree? That's all I or anyone else has been saying on this subject--back and forth exchange between two (or more people) necessitates some sort of defined identity of the people involved to be effective.

Conceded - that is a benefit of registration.  However, until KOTW changes the rules and requires all who post to register - which likely has a snowball's chance in that place that you don't believe in - that's how it stands.

Not seeing your point here. I'd think that goes without saying.

Perhaps you and Confused are unable to draw the distinction between someone posting on a local forum, and someone running for public office - but I see no hypocrisy in taking the time to post on a forum that the candidates state their opinions publicly (isn't that the purpose of this forum).

Well, it may also partly be an underlying annoyance at the majority of the 'content' attached to posts by "Guests" coming out. I'll give you that much.

I am certainly entitled to do so (and, believe me, it's not such a "taboo" question that I would seek to veil my identity to pursue such query).  Moreover, if I sought a position in public office, I would anticipate that someone would call me out on my opinions.  Accuse me of sloth, if you will, for not bothering to take the time to register.  But hypocrisy?  Please.  Hypocrisy would have been criticizing Confused for not identifying himself publicly.

Now, a quesiton.  Why didn't you criticize Confused for suggesting that I was not "entitled" to question candidates running for public office about whether they support the Constitutional principles that the LaClairs are fighting for, or whether they support the teacher's right to delve into religious studies during history class.  Or why not criticize Confused for "quasi-protecting" candidates from having to state their opinions publicly.  Is it because he or she is "entitled" because he or she registerd? And is it because you share the sense of entitlement?

Absolutely not, and again, it just comes out weird when you take a step back and see an anonymous post talking about how people should be identifying themselves with an issue. That's just how I feel.

Listen, I get on this forum a day here and a day there.  The thought of registering never crossed my mind in earnest (mostly because of the fact that it doesn't truly identify someone, it just gives a meaningless monkier to anonymity).

You don't seem to realize what I was talking about above--regardless of the moniker, it's now an identity--people can tell what you've written. Lots of people start out anonymous then register later on. I think when one reaches the point where one is interested in having a real back-and-forth with someone, is when one should really consider registering, even if it's just as a courtesy to the person you're communicating with.

Like I said to Confused - have the intestinal fortitude of Paul (yes, out of necessity, but ballsy nonetheless) and some of the others (you're excluded from this club, I'm afraid) to truly identify yourself and then - yes - I'll give your argument some weight.  Otherwise, take off the emporer's new clothes, and accept the fact that sometimes even "guests" can make meaningful contributions - which is why we are "entitled" to do so.

So ... go have some juice - get that blood sugar back to appropriate levels - and get back to me with an arguement to compels me to run out and register on KOTW for the good of humanity and/or my soul.

1. You're mischaracterizing me as someone who wholly disregards posts solely on the criterion of "guest or not." I'd like you not to do that. :blink:

2. I already talked about the benefits at length above. If for nothing else, register as a courtesy to someone like me who you are in direct communication with here--that way I (and everyone else) will know what posts you are responsible for.

Sadly, the way things have been on this forum (at least it's tapered off a little bit lately) creates another reason to register, minor though it may be--to differentiate oneself from the "guests" who make a habit of spewing truly nonsensical/insulting/uneducated tripe all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
I think it's you who misunderstood. Asking "when did you stop beating your wife" or a similar question is the classic way to mock the fallacy of the loaded question (more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question). Nothing personal was meant by it. You likely just misunderstood because you're not familiar with the common retort to that fallacy. Another example of a loaded question, except it was directed at me specifically on this forum, was someone suggesting something then asking "is that why you hate God?" The question is loaded because it makes a false presupposition--asking me for the motive for doing something I don't do (that is, "hate God"). Hope that clears that up.

Sure seemed like it to me. He pointed out the irony that someone posting completely anonymously was 'demanding' that others make public statements about a situation that would invariably be tied to them personally from then on. That's my reasoning, disagree if you will. At least you didn't mention Kool-aid in your post.

EDIT: And seeing "Confused"'s latest post, I was right! Look:

"I was not suggesting that you could not or should not have an opinion, just that I thought it was ironic that someone not registered to the board would suggest the BOE members state their views "publicly"."

Now, will you apologize for your mistake?

Then I suggest you carefully reread with what I've just 'said' in mind. I think you've misunderstood and come to a false conclusion about us. The thing I have about this whole registration thing is that it facilitates back and forth exchange so much, and on top of that, it takes all of three minutes to do. Hell, afterwards, you can easily set a cookie on your computer so that you're automatically logged in next time you visit the forum, and never even have to put your password in again.

You may think this unfair, but I admit it's a bit harder to take someone seriously when they won't take that tiny step. Doesn't mean I'll just think "who cares what they say, they're a guest," just saying...if someone is intereseted in having a real exchange, then they can easily meet others halfway by at the very least letting everyone know which of these posts you did and did not write.

One problem with that would be the sheer volume of 'unreasonable' (to say the least) content that has made it onto this forum, sad to say.

Then don't believe it--that's like someone saying "I refuse to believe that we all came to be by chance" when attacking evolution. What you said is kind of a straw man, since neither I nor anyone else that I know of has ever said that the above is the purpose of this forum. The purpose of any forum is communication. Except in a situation where the object is to have everyone state an opinion once and never directly reply to another person's post, registering is ideal, don't you agree? That's all I or anyone else has been saying on this subject--back and forth exchange between two (or more people) necessitates some sort of defined identity of the people involved to be effective.

Not seeing your point here. I'd think that goes without saying.

Well, it may also partly be an underlying annoyance at the majority of the 'content' attached to posts by "Guests" coming out. I'll give you that much.

Absolutely not, and again, it just comes out weird when you take a step back and see an anonymous post talking about how people should be identifying themselves with an issue. That's just how I feel.

You don't seem to realize what I was talking about above--regardless of the moniker, it's now an identity--people can tell what you've written. Lots of people start out anonymous then register later on. I think when one reaches the point where one is interested in having a real back-and-forth with someone, is when one should really consider registering, even if it's just as a courtesy to the person you're communicating with.

1. You're mischaracterizing me as someone who wholly disregards posts solely on the criterion of "guest or not." I'd like you not to do that. :blink:

2. I already talked about the benefits at length above. If for nothing else, register as a courtesy to someone like me who you are in direct communication with here--that way I (and everyone else) will know what posts you are responsible for.

Sadly, the way things have been on this forum (at least it's tapered off a little bit lately) creates another reason to register, minor though it may be--to differentiate oneself from the "guests" who make a habit of spewing truly nonsensical/insulting/uneducated tripe all over the place.

Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...