 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Boy punished for talking about gay mom
More from the land of freedom of speech: Boy punished for talking about gay mom http://tinyurl.com/xbq4 On cnn.com today.  SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >More from the land of freedom of speech: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >On cnn.com today. The boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom. He was disciplined for using a word - gay - that the school feels is unacceptable. The school has a policy that people cannot be described with certain words: nigger, gay, etc. I don't agree with the school's action, but let's not be misleading in your continual quest for verification that stupid things are done in the US. > The boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom. He was > disciplined for using a word - gay - that the school feels is > unacceptable. The school has a policy that people cannot be described > with certain words: nigger, gay, etc. That's hardly analogous. I could see your point if the boy had said "my Mom's a dyke", even if (as is imaginable) she described herself that way. But "gay" is not generally considered a term of abuse, except by those who think it's inherently a bad thing to be. So it's not really plausible that the school was trying to protect children from hearing terms of abuse from their peers in this case. The natural inference from the official's reaction to the word is that the reason he found the word "gay" unacceptable is that he thought it was unacceptable to *be* gay. > The natural inference from the official's > reaction to the word is that the reason he found the word > "gay" unacceptable is that he thought it was unacceptable > to *be* gay. It's hard to come to any other conclusion. I foresee backtracking involving the use of the phrase `taken out of context' in the school's near future. SignatureSAm. >> The boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom. He was >> disciplined for using a word - gay - that the school feels is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >considered a term of abuse, except by those who think it's >inherently a bad thing to be. The school determines what is abusive and what is not. The standards of abusive language are different to different people. That's Louisiana, you know. The word "gay" is banned here in some schools if used to describe someone. >So it's not really plausible that the school was trying >to protect children from hearing terms of abuse from their >peers in this case. The natural inference from the official's >reaction to the word is that the reason he found the word >"gay" unacceptable is that he thought it was unacceptable >to *be* gay. Yes, it is plausible. School boards set the rules. School boards are not famous for setting reasonable and logical rules. The intent is probably good, but the way the rule is written and enforced is often the problem. I'm sure in Louisiana that being gay is unacceptable to many, but they are making - here - an honest effort to keep kids from using words that may be offensive to others. Whether or not the effort is called for, or is enforced correctly, is debatable. >> So it's not really plausible that the school was trying >> to protect children from hearing terms of abuse from their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are making - here - an honest effort to keep kids from using words > that may be offensive to others. Still doesn't sound very likely to me, but I suppose I don't have enough information to rule it out completely. Is there any evidence that might shine more light on the question? Published policies of the school board, with rationale? Evidence that "gay" is a slur in Louisiana, separately from the speaker's opinion of its descriptive meaning? > Evidence that "gay" > is a slur in Louisiana, separately from the speaker's opinion > of its descriptive meaning? I have no evidence, but I can see a schoolyard taunt of someone being "gay" (or a sissy or a priss or a tomboy or...) making the word a slur in some contexts. We may have come across one of those zero-tolerance overreactions that is sometimes in the news, as for example when some kid gets in trouble for taking aspirin to school. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. I don't seem to be on the side of the angels on this, so I'll reply to several posts combined as one: >> Yes, it is plausible. School boards set the rules. School boards are >> not famous for setting reasonable and logical rules. The intent is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >is a slur in Louisiana, separately from the speaker's opinion >of its descriptive meaning? (Mike Oliver) I heard a radio accounting of this incident, and a reference was made to a list of words put together by the school district that are words that are not allowed to be used in the schools in that district. I don't find that particularly unusual since the same practice is in place in some Florida schools. Just recently we had a flap about a student that was suspended because he called another student a nigger. Both students were African-Americans and it was a friendly exchange, The principal defended the suspension on the grounds that if he allows one student to call another a nigger, then he must allow any student to use the term. >You, sir, are an idiot. (Adrian Bailey) That may well be, but it's difficult to tell from the above response if you've made that reasoned judgement on my general postings, this posting, or a specific part of this posting. Even so, I'm glad you had the opportunity to get this off your chest. > The school determines what is abusive and what is not. (Tony Cooper) >An implicit trust of authority is un-American. (Simon) I don't have a problem with the schools setting out rules of behavior that includes what language kids can use. The rules should be reasonably written and reasonably enforced. In this particular case, the enforcement was not - in my opinion - reasonable. That doesn't negate the need for rules. >Are you a commie bastard, Comrade C**per? >Here's the facts according to your commie-bastard friends at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ken Choe, a staff attorney from the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights >Project who is handling the matter. Yes, yes, we all had the opportunity to read this. It's the ACLU's version of what happened, and the ACLU is going to present the situation in such a way that justifies the ACLU being involved. I don't see how anyone can take from even this accounting that Marcus was discouraged from talking about his mother. He was disciplined for using the word "gay". If a school kid says "My parents are a.sholes", he might be disciplined for saying "a.sholes". That doesn't mean he's discouraged from talking about his parents. >Has anybody seen the school's list of forbidden words? I'd bet lesbian >and homosexual are on there too, in which case the child is >constructively prohibited from talking about his mom. (Dena Jo) I would very much doubt if lesbian and homosexual are on the list. The usual purpose of such a list is stop kids from taunting other kids with offensive terms like "gay", "faggot", "butt-f.cker" and such. Kids don't usually taunt with words like "lesbian". > It's a stupid >rule, and it's probably a good thing this has come to light. I dunno that it's a stupid rule. Let's say you have a kid in grade school, and that the kid is the bookish type that doesn't like to get dirty, isn't yet interested in girls, and has clean nails. Some fat, stupid bully of a kid keeps calling your kid "gay" or "a faggot". I have a hunch you'd be at the principal's office asking for such a rule to be put in place. Where I would agree with you is that this rule - good or bad - was stupidly enforced in this particular case >Where did you get the notion that there was an actual list or even a >policy? (snip) The notion of an actual list is intriguing. I can just see it. >"Nope, 'porch monkey' isn't on the list." (Evan K) It was mentioned in the radio report that I heard. It didn't strike me as odd at all since similar incidents have come up before in Florida schools. Take a look at http://www.booksmith.com/censorship.html . This is a list of books that are banned in some schools across the US. If Judy Blume's books can be banned, what's unusual about banning the term "gay"? (We bought all of the Judy Blume books that my daughter wanted to read.) A high school in Wisconsin has banned tee shirts with the company logo "Billabong" on them because they suggest a bong. I don't recall where, but the NRA is currently involved in a case where a high school kid was disciplined for wearing a tee shirt with a hunting scene on it because the school bans clothing that promotes the use of guns. Why would it surprise you that there's a list? What should surprise you is that grown-ups can't make a rule and enforce a rule without throwing common sense out the window. It isn't the rule that's the problem. It isn't the list that's the problem. It's the unreasonable application of the rule that's the problem. >Hmmmm...so that CyberCypher creep is an anti-American bigot? (DE781) Frank is not anti-American. Frank does not seem to think that he was treated very well here and prefers to live in Taiwan. He likes to find verification that stupid things are done in the US. That doesn't make him anti-American. >I take it that you can find no rebuttal to my charge that your >statement was misleading, so you chose the ad hominem route. (Tony) >True...But like you're one to talk. (DE781) Joey, you gotta start looking up words and phrases. "Ad hominem" means attacking the person instead of debating the issue. When Frank calls me "a.shole" because he doesn't like my posting, and doesn't speak to issue in the post, that's "ad hominem". When I debate or discuss the issue, without any form of attack on the person, that is not "ad hominem" no matter how ruthlessly I criticize the person's position on the issue. >There is no lists of words, it seems. Simon Hughes has posts the URLs >to the copies of the disciplinary documents, put online by the ACLU; (Don Aitken) The radio report I heard referred to a list. The report may or may not have been correct. Neither of the two urls say there is no list. They just don't reference a list. I'm offering my opinions based on what I read and heard on the radio. > Take a look at http://www.booksmith.com/censorship.html . This is a > list of books that are banned in some schools across the US. If Judy > Blume's books can be banned, what's unusual about banning the term > "gay"? (We bought all of the Judy Blume books that my daughter wanted > to read.) Coop, are you implying that you let your daughter attend a school that banned Judy Blume's books? Oy! At my elementary school our teachers actually encouraged us to read Blume's books. I don't remember them being officially required, but I remember getting _Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing_ out of the elementary school library. Well, that was there and then (there, BTW, being Brooklyn [Fourth Largest City in America]). >> Take a look at http://www.booksmith.com/censorship.html . This is a >> list of books that are banned in some schools across the US. If Judy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Coop, are you implying that you let your daughter attend a school that >banned Judy Blume's books? Oy! No. Not at all. You know I didn't. Why slide this in? > >> Take a look at http://www.booksmith.com/censorship.html . This > >> is a list of books that are banned in some schools across the US. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No. Not at all. You know I didn't. Why slide this in? I read it that way, too, although I can see that you may not have meant it that way. It appeared that you were saying that you had to buy (and, presumably, willingly bought) the books *because* they had been banned at her school. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth. |Enormous effort and elaborate kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this (650)857-7572 |much money | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> >> Take a look at http://www.booksmith.com/censorship.html . This >> >> is a list of books that are banned in some schools across the US. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >buy (and, presumably, willingly bought) the books *because* they had >been banned at her school. I bought the books for my daughter because she wanted to read them. I found nothing objectionable about the books. The books, and her school, are not at all connected. I included that parenthetical comment to show that I find her books unobjectionable. > >> >> Take a look at http://www.booksmith.com/censorship.html . This > >> >> is a list of books that are banned in some schools across the US. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I included that parenthetical comment to show that I find her books > unobjectionable. But why was that even relevant, Coop? I don't understand. >But why was that even relevant, Coop? I don't understand. He was just stating his opinion, Fontana. It might not have added anything to his argument. But, so what? What's the point of you mentioning "fourth largest city in America" every time Brooklyn is brough up? > >But why was that even relevant, Coop? I don't understand. > > He was just stating his opinion, Fontana. It might not have added anything to > his argument. But, so what? What's the point of you mentioning "fourth > largest city in America" every time Brooklyn is brough up? The FLCIT thing is a verbal ritual, Joe. It's the functional equivalent of "May he rest in peace" following the mention of someone recently deceased. You might also want to consider the epithets of Homer (no, not Bart's father). SignatureBob Lieblich Rosy-fingered, wine-dark poster >I bought the books for my daughter because she wanted to read them. I >found nothing objectionable about the books. The books, and her >school, are not at all connected. > >I included that parenthetical comment to show that I find her books >unobjectionable. The reason why some of her books were banned was most likely that they reveal there's no such thing as Santa Claus. It's an understandable banning, I think. At the very least, books should be rated, like movies, CD's, TV shows, etc. Now there's something that would encourage teens to read! I remember my grandmother, who used to be an elementary school principal, telling a story about a parent who complained to her that one of the books in the school's library stated that Santa Claus is fake. The woman's child had taken the Christmas book out of the school library and had been devastated to read the truth about Santa in the book. So, the woman told my grandmother to remove the book from the library or to "white-out" the part about Santa. My grandmother refused. But, I definitely see the woman's point. I also just recalled that my same grandmother was once reading a story about Christmas to my little sister, when she was about 5 or 6. The story explained how the children's parents filled the stockings just after the children had gone to bed. Obviously, my sister had believed in Santa Claus before that point too. IMO, it's quite shocking that books geared towards children, about Christmas, would reveal the truth about Santa Claus. It's like the authors want the children to realize the truth. Why is that? Is there some movement of authors who are anti-Santa Claus? I know some people are, in general. But is Judy Blume one of them? And why be that way? I remember my parents equating the Santa/Easter Bunny issue, the gay issue, and the whole sex/reproduction issue in general, stating that I should not talk about any of the above in front of my peers because I should always assume that they do not know the truth yet. I always did that. Well, at least up until 6th or 7th grade, when it was fairly obvious that everyone had pretty much learned about everything already. However, *I* waited until I heard things from other people before spilling the beans. I never felt like it was my right to explain the above stuff to anyone else first, especially back in second and third grade. > I remember my parents equating the Santa/Easter Bunny issue, the gay > issue, and the whole sex/reproduction issue in general, stating that > I should not talk about any of the above in front of my peers > because I should always assume that they do not know the truth yet. We're running into that with Josh (who's five) now[1]. A couple of days ago he wanted to confirm that "Santa Claus doesn't really exist, does he?" I presume that one of his otherwise sensible friends said something that got him wondering. I finally settled on "Some people like to pretend he does" as being preferable to "Some parents lie to their kids about where the presents come from". We'll see how well that works. [1] Well, not the sex/reproduction issue or the gay issue, neither of which have come up since his friends haven't shown any interest. He knows where babies grow (and has seen pictures of them developing) and how they come out, but hasn't pressed on how they get there, and he's told me very earnestly that it doesn't seem right that a gay[2] couple we are good friends with aren't allowed to get married. So far, "If he's able to ask the question, he's old enough for a matter-of-fact, honest, age-appropriate answer" has worked pretty well. [2] Actually, I don't think he knows the *word* "gay" yet. He just knows that some men love men and some women love women the way mommies and daddies love each other. It was about a year ago when he said something about a family needing to have a man and a woman and I pointed out the several counterexamples he was familiar with. His reaction was basically "Oh, yeah". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes |closest to applying... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan: > So far, "If he's able to ask the question, he's > old enough for a matter-of-fact, honest, age-appropriate answer" > has worked pretty well. Good, because that's what I plan on doing. de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 18 Dec 2003: > Evan: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good, because that's what I plan on doing. Oh, no! The government isn't going to allow you to sire little ones, is it? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Evan: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good, because that's what I plan on doing. So ask away. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >Coop, are you implying that you let your daughter attend a school that >banned Judy Blume's books? Oy! > >At my elementary school our teachers actually encouraged us to read >Blume's books. SAME! Back in first grade, even. I don't remember them being officially required, but I >remember getting _Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing_ out of the elementary >school library. That was the first "Fudge" book, right? I loved that series. But, I do remember being concerned once my sisters started reading them that the whole Santa Claus thing would be blown. Well, that was there and then (there, BTW, being >Brooklyn [Fourth Largest City in America]). > >Coop, are you implying that you let your daughter attend a school that > >banned Judy Blume's books? Oy! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I do remember being concerned once my sisters started reading them > that the whole Santa Claus thing would be blown. According to the American Library association web site http://tinyurl.com/bh6n <URL:http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/ Offices/Intellectual_Freedom3/Banned_Books_Week/Related_Links7/ 100_Most_Frequently_Challenged_Books_of_1990-2000.htm> the Blume books most frequently challenged are _Forever_ (#8), _Blubber_ (#32), _Deenie_ (#46), _Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret_ (#62), and _Tiger Eyes_ (#78). I don't think that "blowing the whole Santa Claus thing" was the main concern. From Blume's introduction to _Places I Neaver Meant To Be_ (which does, I admit, say that people did indeed raise the "Santa Claus" issue, though not necessarily to the point of trying to ban the book for that reason), When _Margaret_ was published in 1970 I gave three copies to my children's elementary school but the books never reached the shelves. The male principal decided on his own that they were inappropriate for elementary school readers because of the discussion of menstruation (never mind how many fifth- and sixth-grade girls already had their periods). Then one night the phone rang and a woman asked if I was the one who had written that book. When I replied that I was, she called me a communist and hung up. I never did figure out if she equated communism with menstruation or religion. ... Of course, they couldn't keep the occasional anecdote from reaching me: the mother who admitted she'd cut two pages out of _Then Again, Maybe I Won't_ rather than allow her almost thirteen-year-old son to read about wet dreams. Or the young librarian who'd been instructed by her male principal to keep _Deenie_ off the shelf because in the book, Deenie masturbates. "It would be different if it were about a boy," he'd told her. "That would be normal." ... The Moral Tone Brigade attacked _Blubber_ (a story of victimization in the classroom) with a vengeance because, as they saw it, in this book evil goes unpunished. ... My worst moment came when I was working with my editor on the manuscript of _Tiger Eyes_ (the story of a fifteen-year-old girl, Davey, whose beloved father dies suddenly and violently). When we came to the scene in which Davey allows herself to _feel_ again after months of numbness following her father's death, I saw that a few lines alluding to masturbation had been circled. My editor put down his pencil and faced me. "We want this book to reach as many readers as possible, don't we?" he asked. I felt my face grow hot, my stomach clench. This was the same editor who had worked with me on _Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret_; _Then Again, Maybe I Won't_; _Deenie_; _Blubber_; _Forever_ -- always encouraging, always supportive. The scene was psychologically sound, he assured me, and delicately handled. But it also spelled trouble. I got the message. If you leave in those lines, the censors will come after this book. Librarians and teachers won't buy it. Book clubs won't take it. Everyone is too scared. The political climate has changed. http://www.judyblume.com/articles/places-intro.html SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan: >From Blume's introduction to _Places I Neaver Meant To Be_ (which >does, I admit, say that people did indeed raise the "Santa Claus" >issue, though not necessarily to the point of trying to ban the book >for that reason), I NEVER realized how controversial Blume was. Isn't her target audience like five to ten-year olds? How come my 1st grade teacher encouraged us to read the Fudge books, but none of Blume's other stuff was ever brought up? What's her deal, exactly? Is there any site where I can read her books online for free? Does Blume just believe it's necessary to talk about real issues to children? Was she the first childrens author to do so? How come schools seem to have a love/hate relationship with her? >the mother who admitted she'd cut two pages out of > _Then Again, Maybe I Won't_ rather than allow her almost > thirteen-year-old son to read about wet dreams. I think this is a book that a girl in my fourth grade class was reading! Is this the book where the son has his first wet dream and is worried that his penis is "broken" or something like that, and then tries to clean the jizz up? The girl who was reading the book actually laughed and passed the book around to show everyone when she came to that part. But it wasn't anything most of us knew nothing about. However, I don't remember waking up upon having my first wet dream. It was rather uneventful, compared to how the book presented it. But, maybe that was because I KNEW what would be happening to me eventually? >who'd been instructed by her male principal to keep > _Deenie_ off the shelf because in the book, Deenie masturbates. I wanna read that! >Does Blume just believe it's necessary to talk about real issues to children? >Was she the first childrens author to do so? How come schools seem to have a >love/hate relationship with her? Schools don't have a problem with Blume. Schools have a problem with parents that have a problem with Blume. > I don't seem to be on the side of the angels on this, so I'll reply to > several posts combined as one: >>You, sir, are an idiot. (Adrian Bailey) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the enforcement was not - in my opinion - reasonable. That doesn't > negate the need for rules. Any rules are better than no rules? Oh dear. >>Are you a commie bastard, Comrade C**per? >>Here's the facts according to your commie-bastard friends at the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was discouraged from talking about his mother. He was disciplined > for using the word "gay". But the teacher's remark that she thought it better that parents take up "this kind of thing", was not about bad language, but about the morality of homosexuality. Let the parents instil their (Victorian, prejudicial, irrational, reactionary, oppressive) fears in their offspring, in other words. > If a school kid says "My parents are a.sholes", he might be > disciplined for saying "a.sholes". That doesn't mean he's discouraged > from talking about his parents. Don't you see the qualitative difference between a kid insulting its parents and talking about its home life? Your analogy is beside the point. >>Has anybody seen the school's list of forbidden words? I'd bet lesbian >>and homosexual are on there too, in which case the child is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have a hunch you'd be at the principal's office asking for such a rule > to be put in place. That would be my last resort. My first resort would be to scare the living sh.t out of the bully. It certainly worked on me, when I thought I'd have a go at bullying another kid. > Where I would agree with you is that this rule - good or bad - was > stupidly enforced in this particular case Let that be the bottom line. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >> I don't seem to be on the side of the angels on this, so I'll reply to >> several posts combined as one: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Any rules are better than no rules? Oh dear. How do you make that deduction from what I wrote? Sometimes, Simon, I think you write your replies before you read the post. >>>Are you a commie bastard, Comrade C**per? >>>Here's the facts according to your commie-bastard friends at the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >(Victorian, prejudicial, irrational, reactionary, oppressive) >fears in their offspring, in other words. I agree with you on this point. >> If a school kid says "My parents are a.sholes", he might be >> disciplined for saying "a.sholes". That doesn't mean he's discouraged [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >its parents and talking about its home life? Your analogy is >beside the point. I think the analogy works. The analogy was used to point out that it's the use of a particular word in a sentence that draws the fire. >>> It's a stupid >>>rule, and it's probably a good thing this has come to light. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the living sh.t out of the bully. It certainly worked on me, when >I thought I'd have a go at bullying another kid. So your first resort would be to physically intimidate an 8 year old child? That's what you recommend as a course of action? I was suggesting that Dena might ask for such a rule. She doesn't seem to me to be the thuggish type. >> Where I would agree with you is that this rule - good or bad - was >> stupidly enforced in this particular case > >Let that be the bottom line. >>> Let's say you have a kid in grade >>> school, and that the kid is the bookish type that doesn't like to get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So your first resort would be to physically intimidate an 8 year old > child? Yes. Well, perhaps not as young as 8, but certainly if the bully was in his/ her teens. > That's what you recommend as a course of action? No one gets hurt, and the short sharp shock works. No one needs to think any more about it after the confrontation. > I was suggesting that Dena might ask for such a rule. She doesn't > seem to me to be the thuggish type. I hear she can be quite scary. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >> I was suggesting that Dena might ask for such a rule. She >> doesn't seem to me to be the thuggish type. > > I hear she can be quite scary. Some might say... SignatureDena Jo But they'd be wrong... Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. Tony Cooper posted thus: >>>> It's a stupid >>>>rule, and it's probably a good thing this has come to light. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I was suggesting that Dena might ask for such a rule. She doesn't > seem to me to be the thuggish type. No rule is necessary for disciplining with a bully. Context was everything in this case, and I expect teachers and principals to exercise some common sense. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >Tony Cooper posted thus: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >everything in this case, and I expect teachers and principals to >exercise some common sense. Without a rule, the teachers and the principal could not become involved in the scenario I described above. You'd think so, but the parents of the bully wouldn't put up with teacher interference where there is no policy for teacher interference. Today, anyway. When I was in school there was no need for policies or rules. >But the teacher's remark that she thought it better that parents >take up "this kind of thing", was not about bad language, but >about the morality of homosexuality. If this is the case, it very well could be interpreted as anti-homosexual racism. However, where does one draw the line (and who gets to draw the line?) regarding what's acceptable to speak about in school, especially among second graders? Some people consider the whole "homosexual" issue as a part of the general "sex" issue. And most parents would not want their second grader learning about sex, I don't think. Many don't even think their children should learn about sex in school during puberty. So, I guess I could see this as being anti-lesbian bigotry. But it's also very reasonable to see why teachers might not want young children explaining homosexuality to each other. > I don't find that particularly unusual since the same practice is in > place in some Florida schools. Just recently we had a flap about a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one student to call another a nigger, then he must allow any student > to use the term. Which only goes to show that the entire concept of attempting to ban the use of certain words in certain places is fundamentally flawed. SignatureSAm, English bastard. sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> I don't find that particularly unusual since the same practice is >> in place in some Florida schools. Just recently we had a flap [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ban the use of certain words in certain places is fundamentally > flawed. Volstead Act, anyone? Prohibitions are useless when they cannot be enforced. One of the fundamental problems with the explanation given by the superintendant of schools in the Lafayette, LA, incident is that primary and secondary schools are "controlled" environments. As long as humans are part of the environment, only the non-human aspects of school environments can be controlled. Teachers and administrators can no more be controlled than students can. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Volstead Act, anyone? Prohibitions are useless when they cannot be > enforced. The problem I have with this formulation is that it seems to hint that alcohol Prohibition would have been a good thing, if only it could have been enforced. I don't buy it. Prohibition was wrong -- *morally* wrong -- in its very conception. And so are our current drug prohibitions. Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> Volstead Act, anyone? Prohibitions are useless when they cannot be >> enforced. > > The problem I have with this formulation is that it seems to > hint that alcohol Prohibition would have been a good thing, > if only it could have been enforced. I don't have any moral problems with Prohibition. I'm a pragmatist. For me it was wrong because it violates three realities. First, it cannot be enforced. No prohibitions can be enforced. People will do what they want to do, regardless of what the law says is legal or the church says is moral. There isn't a place on Earth that doesn't have crime and what the moralistic would call immoral. And it exists at all levels of society and in all corners of culture. That ought to be sufficient evidence that crime and immorality are irrepressible. But idiots keep wanting to push human beings to some ideal of perfection that is unattainable. Second, whatever is forbidden becomes desired everywhere. Not necessarily by everyone, but everywhere. This is just a fact of human nature. It's not just a trait in children. Humans are naturally curious, so there are always a bunch who will try anything and everything, just to see what it's all about. Third, while there are always people who will engage in excessive negative behaviors, they are a minority everywhere. There is no point in prohibiting everyone from doing what is abused by the few, which, unfotunately, is why some laws are formulated. And there is not point in trying to protect people from themselves. We will abuse ourselves as much as we wish in private if we cannot do it in public. Prohibitions are always unenforceable. They are never good. > I don't buy it. Prohibition was wrong -- *morally* wrong -- > in its very conception. And so are our current drug > prohibitions. Can you name a country in which there are no drug prohibitions? Can you name a country that has no drug problems because there are no drug prohibitions? Can you name a country (1) in which people are allowed to freely take drugs and (2) that freedom results in benefits rather than detriments to society? I don't know of any, but maybe there are. I frankly didn't like what drugs did to me when I used to smoke pot and do one or two others back in the 60s. I like even less what drugs to other people; they become unbearable and dangerous, just as the do when they are drunk on alcoholic beverages. I frankly don't care whether anyone wants to fry their brains with drugs; I don't care if they overdose and die; I don't care if they get AIDS from sharing dirty needles; but I do care about what they are capable of when high on drugs and driving or walking around with some kind of weapon. I know very few people get that bad, but it takes only one to ruin another person's life. It's a practical issue, not a moral one. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Can you name a country in which there are no drug prohibitions? No. So? > Can > you name a country that has no drug problems because there are no > drug prohibitions? There will be drug problems with or without prohibition, but even if prohibition eliminated all drug problems, this would still not morally justify the violation of liberty. > Can you name a country (1) in which people are > allowed to freely take drugs and (2) that freedom results in benefits > rather than detriments to society? I view with favor the relatively relaxed attitude of the Netherlands. I'm not real good in judging what's good for society, maybe mainly because I don't really believe in the notion of social good. Society has no consciousness, will or feelings; these are all attributes of individuals. So how can society have a "good"? Your good is what you conceive of as good, and society doesn't conceive of anything. When it is said to, this is merely a summary of a lot of individual conceptions. > I don't know of any, but maybe > there are. I frankly didn't like what drugs did to me when I used to > smoke pot and do one or two others back in the 60s. So you noticed that, and regulated your own life without government help. Good for you. > I like even less > what drugs to other people; they become unbearable and dangerous, > just as the do when they are drunk on alcoholic beverages. Not everyone does. Therefore it is the unbearable and dangerous behavior that should be regulated, and not the drug, to avoid infringing on the liberty of those who can use the drug without becoming unbearable and dangerous. Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> Can you name a country in which there are no drug prohibitions? > > No. So? I was wondering whether you had some factual basis for being against all drug prohibitions, you know, like a country where drug use is totally legal and it's okay in almost every way. >> Can you name a country that has no drug problems >> because there are no drug prohibitions? > > There will be drug problems with or without prohibition, but even > if prohibition eliminated all drug problems, this would still not > morally justify the violation of liberty. I wonder what you base your notions of morality on. Even extreme libertarians (in a philosophical sense, not a political one) have to believe that there must be some restrictions on "liberty". There is no culture with distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable things. Total freedom leads to what? How can parents who believe that ny violation of one's liberties is immoral raise children to be useful to themselves if they do not restrict their liberties? >> Can you name a country (1) in which people are >> allowed to freely take drugs and (2) that freedom results in >> benefits rather than detriments to society? > > I view with favor the relatively relaxed attitude of the > Netherlands. I've only read about the Netherlands and its open drug policy. I've read all kinds of things, including laments that too many people do drugs. But the Netherlands is a strange country from many points of view, especially the economic. I like, in principle, at least, many of the radical laws that the Netherlands has passed lately, but I don't know enough about the effects of those laws on society as a whole or on individuals. I think Switzerland also legalized drugs a decade or two back and people there complained that all the public parks were loaded with druggies who had taken them over, much like the homeless in some areas of the US take over park benches. > I'm not real good in judging what's good for society, > maybe mainly because I don't really believe in the notion of > social good. So you believe that if everyone acts in order to optimize their own personal good, that society as a whole will probably be better off than if the state decides what is best for the social good? Mass selfishness leads to mass satisfaction? > Society has no consciousness, will or feelings; > these are all attributes of individuals. So how can society have > a "good"? Your good is what you conceive of as good, and society > doesn't conceive of anything. When it is said to, this is merely a > summary of a lot of individual conceptions. True enough when taken literally, but there are problems with that view of society. Culture passes from one generation to another, and in the cultural values that are handed down from parents to children are the mental constructs for societies. Societies seem to be born of shared ideas of what the "natural order of things" is or ought to be. >> I don't know of any, but maybe >> there are. I frankly didn't like what drugs did to me when I used >> to smoke pot and do one or two others back in the 60s. > > So you noticed that, and regulated your own life without > government help. Good for you. Yes, I did it without government help, but I didn't do it without being deprived of my liberty beforehand. By that I mean that I had been brought up to value certain things and to scorn others. I was always a rebellious kid --- for no reason other than that I hated being restricted, which, I think, is a normal feeling, and one that you have also expressed here --- so I naturally did what I was raised not to do, just to see what it was all about. I found out that what my father had told me was true, but that truth had no value until I learned it for myself. Many of my friends had different experiences and got deeper into drugs. I no longer enjoyed being with them. People on drugs all the time don't usually make sense when they talk. >> I like even less >> what drugs to other people; they become unbearable and dangerous, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > infringing on the liberty of those who can use the drug without > becoming unbearable and dangerous. Now you contradict yourself, I think. If you think restrictions on your right to take drugs if you so choose are immoral simply because they are prohibitions, then you ought to feel the same way about regulations against unbearable and dnagerous behavior caused by being on drugs or anything else. I know that my responses are not satisfactory. I'm not happy with them either, but I don't have much time to discuss things today. Maybe next week a discussion on morality and liberty would be interesting. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> I'm not real good in judging what's good for society, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > than if the state decides what is best for the social good? Mass > selfishness leads to mass satisfaction? Where did I say anything about mass satisfaction? Didn't I rather specifically disavow the idea that any coherent meaning can be assigned to the notion? Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >>> I'm not real good in judging what's good for society, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Where did I say anything about mass satisfaction? Nowhere, but that is implied in your notion of individual liberty. If all individuals are free of state regulation, then everyone will be satisfied and happy because they are free. > Didn't I rather specifically disavow the idea that any > coherent meaning can be assigned to the notion? No, you didn't. You just said that you didn't believe in the notion of the social good. That's a utilitarian notion anyway, and it isn't related to the libertarian position that the state has no right to restrict individual liberties. In the utilitarian position, the individual is nothing and the group is all. For libertarians, the individual is all and the group be damned. Still, there is an implication that everyone ought to be satisfied because everyone will be free to act as they choose. Or am I wrong about that? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Nowhere, but that is implied in your notion of individual liberty. If > all individuals are free of state regulation, then everyone will be > satisfied and happy because they are free. There is never any guarantee that freedom will make any particular person happy (including me). Freedom can be just another word for nothin' left to lose. It can be just some people talkin'. (Does anyone else have a mental image of a prison, walkin' through this world all alone?) All it says is that I, or you, or whoever, will be able to seek happiness for ourselves, for those we love, without anyone else specifying the means, beyond the stipulation that we can't harm an unconsenting person in the search. Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> Nowhere, but that is implied in your notion of individual >> liberty. If all individuals are free of state regulation, then [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > anyone else specifying the means, beyond the stipulation > that we can't harm an unconsenting person in the search. So your idea of liberty is a restricted one, even an artificial one that requires a social context. Why should the welfare of others be your concern? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >>All it says is that I, or you, or whoever, will be able [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that requires a social context. Why should the welfare of others be > your concern? I'm not saying it has to be. You just have to avoid actively harming them. Basically Lockean natural law. Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >>>All it says is that I, or you, or whoever, will be able [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm not saying it has to be. You just have to avoid actively > harming them. Basically Lockean natural law. This is the source of your morality then, Natural Law? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > This is the source of your morality then, Natural Law? Yep. Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> This is the source of your morality then, Natural Law? > > Yep. I'll have to read up on that again. It's been a long, long time since I read Locke. I rememb er that the Rev ML King Jr used natural law as the basis for challenging the Jim Crow laws that existed in the South in the 50s and 60s. While I agreed with him that these laws were unjust, I could not bring myself to agree with the metaphysics of his philosophy. There is no morality in nature, and what balance there is is always in favor of survival of the species and not the individual. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There is no morality in nature, and what balance there is is always in > favor of survival of the species and not the individual. It's easier to say "natural law" than "law of universal intersubjectivity". SignatureSimon R. Hughes "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's easier to say "natural law" than "law of universal > intersubjectivity". Phenomenological, then? Social construction of reality? Requires the agreement of everyone involved? W3NID [quote] Main Entry:intersubjective Function:adjective Etymology:inter- + subjective 1 : connecting or interrelating two consciousnesses or subjectivities *intersubjective communication* 2 : existing between, accessible to, or capable of being established for two or more subjects : OBJECTIVE *intersubjective reality of the physical world* –intersubjectively \*+\ adverb –intersubjectivity \*+\ noun [/quote] SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote on 05 Dec > 2003: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > intersubjectivity \*+\ noun > [/quote] It's the Frankfürt School's (Theodor Adorno, Jürgen Habermas, Walter Benjamin, et al) plan for ending war and saving the world through discourse (we can come to commonly held truths -- not objective truths, but truths that are valid for all mankind -- if only we talk as equals). It's a good plan, but totally unrealistic. SignatureSimon R. Hughes "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote on 05 Dec >> 2003: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> Phenomenological, then? Social construction of reality? Requires >> the agreement of everyone involved? [...] > It's the Frankfürt School's (Theodor Adorno, Jürgen Habermas, > Walter Benjamin, et al) plan for ending war and saving the world [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's a good plan, but totally unrealistic. It's a conscious kind of social construction of reality, then. I understand. Yes, it is totally unrealistic. It's difficult for two sides to come to agreement on commonly held truths, but for all nations or even three nations, is unrealistic. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >> Mike Oliver <moliver@unt.edu> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm not saying it has to be. You just have to avoid actively > harming them. Basically Lockean natural law. What about 'inactive' harm? The fact that is dangerous to walk on many beaches because of druggies' needles lying around is not caused by people actively harming, nor is related to the illegality of drugs. SignatureRob Bannister Franke: >So you believe that if everyone acts in order to optimize their own >personal good, that society as a whole will probably be better off >than if the state decides what is best for the social good? Mass >selfishness leads to mass satisfaction? Hmmm...Something I can actually AGREE with Franke on? According to people like Mike Oliver, we are "fascists" now (not even "communists" anymore), for believing that the satisfaction of all society outweighs the satisfaction of an individual! >I hated >being restricted, You hated being "gay"! >People on drugs all the time don't usually make sense when they talk. Hmmm...I wonder if the AUE has been screened for illegal substances yet? >I know that my responses are not satisfactory. I'm not happy with >them either, but I don't have much time to discuss things today. I guess it's excusable to write half-assed and only give a general idea of your beliefs, leaving room open for debating the specifics later, as long as you're not me. >Joey, you gotta start looking up words and phrases. And you've got to stop making assumptions before replying to a poster. >"Ad hominem" >means attacking the person instead of debating the issue. What made you think I did not know that? Must I remind you of your drama with Rey? Or several things that you (and many others) have said about me, rather than debating WHAT it is I say? >Frank is not anti-American. Frank does not seem to think that he was >treated very well here and prefers to live in Taiwan. He likes to >find verification that stupid things are done in the US. That doesn't >make him anti-American. Well, stupid things are done all over the place. It's rather ignorant for people to place higher expectations on America simply because we're more powerful than they are. It would be GOOD if that were so, but foreigners should not expect it to be so. As for "not being treated well", I could tell stories about Italy and Canada. People hate us just because we're Americans. And there's nothing more exciting than for one of them to "rip off" a "clueless" American tourist just because they're American and "stupid". >When Frank >calls me "a.shole" because he doesn't like my posting, and doesn't >speak to issue in the post, that's "ad hominem". Yeah, but who does argue the ISSUE at hand here? Everybody resorts to childish insults and personal attacks and trying to "prove" opinions wrong, and lots of other crap in order to "win" an argument. It's stupid. People here make drama even where there shouldn't be any. Frank sure does seem to be THE Drama Queen of this board, though. >When I debate or >discuss the issue, without any form of attack on the person, that is >not "ad hominem" no matter how ruthlessly I criticize the person's >position on the issue. But what about when you do criticize the person? Don't deny what you've said about Rey and what you've said about my intelligence. I also recall you saying some cruel things to CJ when he was here. >>Frank is not anti-American. Frank does not seem to think that he was >>treated very well here and prefers to live in Taiwan. He likes to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >about Rey and what you've said about my intelligence. I also recall you saying >some cruel things to CJ when he was here. You identify with CJ? Hmm. Fair-ee interestink . . . . -- Ross Howard Ross: >You identify with CJ? Hmm. Fair-ee interestink . Why is that interesting? We were treated the same way. Of COURSE I can identify with the poor kid. >>When I debate or >>discuss the issue, without any form of attack on the person, that is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >about Rey and what you've said about my intelligence. I also recall you saying >some cruel things to CJ when he was here. Me? Criticize Rey? Never! I often make fun of him, but only in a joshing manner. You still aren't up to speed with "ad hominem". It means attacking the person instead of dealing with the issue.* There should be an issue present else the attack is just sh.t-slinging. If I say "Joey, you're an idiot" that's not an ad hominem attack. If I say "Joey, 'funner' is not a word", and you reply "You're an old fart and an obnoxious a.shole"....then that's ad hominem. You ducked the issue of 'funner' being a word or not being a word and attacked my character. There are those that use ad hominem to mean any personal attack on someone, but I wouldn't. I feel it has to be an attack on character by someone that is evading the issue being discussed and using the attack in an attempt to discredit the other person. Others may - and probably will - disagree. So, since there are never issues being discussed in the exchanges between Rey and I, it's just sh.t-slinging. *Ad hominem also has the meaning of "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect". I've never - personally - seen the phrase used to describe something that appeals to feelings or prejudice instead of intellect. Wait a mo, though, and someone will jump in that uses it this way on a daily basis. >between Rey and I I know you say you don't, but I'm now convinced you *do* do it on purpose. -- Ross Howard >>between Rey and I > >I know you say you don't, but I'm now convinced you *do* do it on >purpose. No. I slipped. Ross: >>between Rey and I > >I know you say you don't, but I'm now convinced you *do* do it on >purpose. I thought there was a thread in which people here agreed "between you and I" was acceptable? Cooper: >Me? Criticize Rey? Never! I often make fun of him, but only in a >joshing manner. Oh, good! I'd hoped so, but sometimes I'm unsure. He says some cruel things about you, but I guess that's just the greatness of Rey. >You still aren't up to speed with "ad hominem". It means attacking >the person instead of dealing with the issue.* There should be an >issue present else the attack is just sh.t-slinging. I agree. >If I say "Joey, you're an idiot" that's not an ad hominem attack. Why not? You should attack my WORDS and my ARGUMENT, right? >If >I say "Joey, 'funner' is not a word", and you reply "You're an old >fart and an obnoxious a.shole"....then that's ad hominem. You ducked >the issue of 'funner' being a word or not being a word and attacked my >character. I understand. But when someone's obnoxious character is preventing an argument from progressing, it's sometimes necessary to call them on it. >There are those that use ad hominem to mean any personal >attack on someone, but I wouldn't. I feel it has to be an attack on >character by someone that is evading the issue being discussed and >using the attack in an attempt to discredit the other person. But, isn't that ALWAYS what a personal attack attempts to do? >So, since there are never issues being discussed in the exchanges >between Rey and I, it's just sh.t-slinging. LOL, well I guess that's what it's evolved into. But there must have once been issues involed, right? Or is the ENTIRE thing just an act? Do you guys really have ZERO hostility towards each other? >Cooper: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Oh, good! I'd hoped so, but sometimes I'm unsure. He says some cruel things >about you, but I guess that's just the greatness of Rey. You do miss a lot, don't you? The subtle stuff? >>You still aren't up to speed with "ad hominem". It means attacking >>the person instead of dealing with the issue.* There should be an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Why not? You should attack my WORDS and my ARGUMENT, right? There is no argument in the above sentence. There is no issue being discussed. See below where there is both issue and argument. >>If >>I say "Joey, 'funner' is not a word", and you reply "You're an old [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I understand. But when someone's obnoxious character is preventing an argument >from progressing, it's sometimes necessary to call them on it. It is never necessary. It is only pleasurable. >>There are those that use ad hominem to mean any personal >>attack on someone, but I wouldn't. I feel it has to be an attack on >>character by someone that is evading the issue being discussed and >>using the attack in an attempt to discredit the other person. > >But, isn't that ALWAYS what a personal attack attempts to do? Nope. Remember, an issue has to be present and the attack has to be in place of addressing the issue. That's key: the issue remains unaddressed because the ad hominem attacker switches the topic to the attacked person's character. >>So, since there are never issues being discussed in the exchanges >>between Rey and I, it's just sh.t-slinging. > >LOL, well I guess that's what it's evolved into. But there must have once been >issues involed, right? Or is the ENTIRE thing just an act? Do you guys really >have ZERO hostility towards each other? I can't speak for Rey, but I would certainly not describe my feelings about Rey to be hostile. He's more fun to play with than a Slinky. > I dunno that it's a stupid rule. Let's say you have a kid in grade > school, and that the kid is the bookish type that doesn't like to get > dirty, isn't yet interested in girls, and has clean nails. Some fat, > stupid bully of a kid keeps calling your kid "gay" or "a faggot". I > have a hunch you'd be at the principal's office asking for such a rule > to be put in place. If the rule stops some kid from talking about Jesus, no one will mind. But if it stops him from talking about his homosexual mother, then suddenly there is a problem. People are only upset because the rule was supposed to give special rights to a certain minority, but now it's hurting that minority. >> I dunno that it's a stupid rule. Let's say you have a kid in grade >> school, and that the kid is the bookish type that doesn't like to get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >give special rights to a certain minority, but now it's hurting that >minority. Nonsense. There are just as many stories in the newspapers about kids being suspended or whatever for a religiously connected incidents as anything else. Evidently, you just focus on those that offend your own set of values. Trust me, the fat, stupid bully of a kid in the above paragraph will get his a.s in a sling just as quickly for calling a kid a kike or a raghead as he will for calling a kid a faggot. Or, is this different? Is it just wrong in your mind if Jesus is involved? > >If the rule stops some kid from talking about Jesus, no one will mind. But > >if it stops him from talking about his homosexual mother, then suddenly [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > raghead as he will for calling a kid a faggot. Or, is this different? > Is it just wrong in your mind if Jesus is involved? I'm saying that schools have turned into anti-Christian brainwashing camps where children are forced to praise homosexuals and they are not allowed to talk about Jesus or the Bible. > I'm saying that schools have turned into anti-Christian brainwashing camps > where children are forced to praise homosexuals and they are not allowed to > talk about Jesus or the Bible. Better that than schools being anti-human brainwashing camps where children are forced to praise Jesus and the Bible and not allowed to talk about homosexuals. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > I'm saying that schools have turned into anti-Christian brainwashing camps > > where children are forced to praise homosexuals and they are not allowed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > where children are forced to praise Jesus and the Bible and not > allowed to talk about homosexuals. That's a subtle trick. In my sentence "anti-Christian" goes with "Jesus or the Bible", but in your sentence "anti-human" goes with "homosexuals". How is anti-homosexual the same as anti-human? After all, homosexuality is a VICE and a SIN; everyone knows that. I guess logic is not important inside your twisted world view. >>> I'm saying that schools have turned into anti-Christian brainwashing > camps [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the Bible", but in your sentence "anti-human" goes with "homosexuals". How > is anti-homosexual the same as anti-human? All homosexuals are humans. > After all, homosexuality is a > VICE and a SIN; everyone knows that. I guess logic is not important inside > your twisted world view. Happy new year! SignatureSimon R. Hughes > >>> I'm saying that schools have turned into anti-Christian brainwashing > camps [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Happy new year! I'd like him to have a happy new year, too; but I don't understand his initialisms. What do VICE and SIN stand for? Mike. > > >>> I'm saying that schools have turned into anti-Christian brainwashing > camps [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I'd like him to have a happy new year, too; but I don't understand his > initialisms. What do VICE and SIN stand for? VICE: Very Interesting Carnal Event. SIN: Seriously Inviting Notion. -skipka [...] > All homosexuals are humans. Oh, dear! You've outed me, Simon! As I remember the syllogism from Logic 101: All homosexuals are humans; [major premise] Aman is a human; [minor premise] therefore, Aman is a homosexual. [conclusion] I'm devastated. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Aman is a human; [minor premise] > therefore, Aman is a homosexual. [conclusion] I believe there are some statistics that support the claim that we are all gay. > I'm devastated. Affirming the consequent is the first step to recovery, I hear. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>>If the rule stops some kid from talking about Jesus, no one will mind. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > where children are forced to praise homosexuals and they are not allowed to > talk about Jesus or the Bible. I have never ever heard a kid talk about Jesus or the Bible or any other religious figure or writing voluntarily. It's the religions that brainwash people, and they particularly pick on small kids because they are more susceptible. SignatureRob Bannister Once upon a 12/29/03 7:07 PM, in the land of i_5Ib.3190$Su1.2953@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, the wicked, wicked "andrew" from <andrew@wicked.as> did enrune: >> I dunno that it's a stupid rule. Let's say you have a kid in grade >> school, and that the kid is the bookish type that doesn't like to get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > give special rights to a certain minority, but now it's hurting that > minority. Was Jesus gay? Sure, he had a lot of boy friends, but I thought he had a relationship with Mary Magdalene (washing the feet with her hair--hey, I've been there). I was informed (on the bus, by a Catholic-school compatriot), that this realationship was to what the expression "holy f.ck" was generally thought to refer. [...] > Was Jesus gay? Sure, he had a lot of boy friends, but I thought he had a > relationship with Mary Magdalene (washing the feet with her hair--hey, I've > been there). [...] But some say they may have been married; or maybe it was his wife who raised the first objection to MM's behaviour. Isn't it true that it was so irregular for a Rabbi to be unmarried that the Bible would probably have mentioned it? Certainly I'd have thought St Paul would have made a point of it when he was recommending celibacy (if that passage is genuine). Personally I like the idea that he was a married man. And can somebody remind me of which festival it was at which people threw palms about and shouted "Hosannah!" (I'm sure it wasn't the Passover.) Mike. > And can somebody remind me of which festival it was at which people > threw palms about and shouted "Hosannah!" (I'm sure it wasn't the > Passover.) Yes it was. It was at Jesus's entry into Jerusalem before Passover, which is celebrated on Palm Sunday, the Sunday before Easter. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. >> Was Jesus gay? Sure, he had a lot of boy friends, but I thought he >> had a relationship with Mary Magdalene (washing the feet with her [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > passage is genuine). Personally I like the idea that he was a married > man. I have seen it theorised that the wedding in Cana where water was turned into wine was His own. This is a staple of the 'Holy Blood Holy Grail' conspiracy theorists for whom the descendants of JC & Mary Mag are the rightful heirs to the throne of France and / or hereditary members of the Priory of Sion. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > >> Was Jesus gay? Sure, he had a lot of boy friends, but I thought he > >> had a relationship with Mary Magdalene (washing the feet with her [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > rightful heirs to the throne of France and / or hereditary members of the > Priory of Sion. That book's a real guinea-a-minute hoot. I've got a first ed for sale at the right price. What about the palms and Hosanna bit, though? I think John Varela is using only the New Testament as authority. Mike. >>>> Was Jesus gay? Sure, he had a lot of boy friends, but I thought he >>>> had a relationship with Mary Magdalene (washing the feet with her [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > What about the palms and Hosanna bit, though? I think John Varela is > using only the New Testament as authority. I think any response to a question about Jesus is likely to use the New Testament as authority. The palms and Hosannas were for his entry into Jerusalem which took place a few days before the Passover IIRC. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply [...] > > What about the palms and Hosanna bit, though? I think John Varela is > > using only the New Testament as authority. > > I think any response to a question about Jesus is likely to use the New > Testament as authority. The palms and Hosannas were for his entry into > Jerusalem which took place a few days before the Passover IIRC. A plague o' these pickle-herring! I've clearly been failing to put the question properly. I mean, which recognized Jewish festival was it at which palms and hosannas featured? A few months ago I heard somebody on Radio 4 say the NT was misleading, in that the festival so identifiable wasn't the Passover; but I can't remember the rest of what he said. Mike. > [...] >>> What about the palms and Hosanna bit, though? I think John Varela is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the NT was misleading, in that the festival so identifiable wasn't the > Passover; but I can't remember the rest of what he said. Sukkot. m. > [...] > > > What about the palms and Hosanna bit, though? I think John Varela is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mike. Sukkot, or Feast of Tabernacles. Apparently both the word "hosanna" and the custom of waving palm branches started with that ceremony. *But* they became a general way for a crowd to express joy. See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07472b.htm I don't see a problem. People can cheer more than once a year. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux [...] > > I mean, which recognized Jewish festival was it at which palms and > > hosannas featured? A few months ago I heard somebody on Radio 4 say [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I don't see a problem. People can cheer more than once a year. Well, certainly. But I think the question the Jewish broadcaster raised was a fair one: you can buy chocolate eggs all the year round now; but a purportedly historical book of uncertain date, authorship, and provenance which referred to their use in December would need to be checked. Mike. > trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote > [...] > > > I mean, which recognized Jewish festival was it at which palms and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and provenance which referred to their use in December would need to > be checked. Mike, each of your posts on this thread seems somehow incomplete. Are you posting under the influence? Does your chocolate egg analogy mean that palm leaves would not have been available at the time of Passover? Are palms deciduous or something? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Mike, each of your posts on this thread seems somehow incomplete. Are > you posting under the influence? Ah, you picked up on the Shakespearean quotation! No, only the first time. But the only significant missing data was simply the word "Jewish" before the word "festival". > Does your chocolate egg analogy mean that palm leaves would not have > been available at the time of Passover? Are palms deciduous or > something? I meant that a Jewish bloke on Radio 4 said that casting palms was specifically associated with one particular festival in the Jewish devotional calendar; further, that he said that that festival wasn't Passover, and therefore wondered if the New Testament writers concerned had become so far removed from Judaism and the events they related that they'd got the festivals mixed up. I, meanwhile, had forgotten which festival it was he'd said it must have been. I asked all and sundry which one it was. (Tabernacles: thank you.) If he was wrong in that Jewish people at some time extended the throwing of palms to other celebratory occasions, it's important to know when they so extended the custom; and if they had made the change by about AD30, did the scope of that extension include Passover? The chocolate-egg analogy was meant to be self-explanatory, but clearly isn't. Chocolate was available in November 1957, but wasn't on sale in the form of eggs: if somebody tells you something happened in 1957 when British kids were buying Cadbury's chocolate eggs, you have a good idea of what time of year it was; but if he tells you it happened when they were buying them in 1997, you have no idea which month it was. If, however, he tells you it happened when they were buying the eggs in November, *and* that it was 1957, you have reason to doubt the authenticity of his story. The importance of this question stems from assertions by others (not in this thread; or even, as far as I know, on AUE) that the Jewish people could not have been involved in the execution of a death sentence at Passover. Which is the next question... Mike. [...] > The importance of this question stems from assertions by others (not > in this thread; or even, as far as I know, on AUE) that the Jewish > people could not have been involved in the execution of a death > sentence at Passover. Oh, no! Never mind the execution: they could not then, I understand, have been involved in such a sentence's *imposition*, even by the proxy of an occupying power. Mike. [snip earlier discussion] > If he was wrong in that Jewish people at some time extended the > throwing of palms to other celebratory occasions, it's important to > know when they so extended the custom; and if they had made the change > by about AD30, did the scope of that extension include Passover? The URL I gave you before, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, gave examples of the palm-waving and "hosanna" being extended to other occasions. In particular, it said: In this way hosanna became associated with rejoicing. The same has to be said of the use of palm-branches. In I Mach., xiii, 51-52, we read: "And they entered. . . with thanksgiving, and branches of palm-trees, and harps, and cymbals, and psalteries, and hymns, and canticles, because the great enemy was destroyed out of Israel; and he ordained that these days should be kept every year with gladness." In II Mach., x, 6, 7: "And they kept eight days with joy, after the manner of the feast of tabernacles." I had to look up "Mach". It stands for "Machabees" which are two books in the (Catholic) Apocrypha. The Catholic Encyclopedia site says those books are from second century BC. The article goes on to say (although not prove) that palm-waving was associated with -- not other fixed holidays such as Passover -- but with general rejoicing. Something you might do if the Messiah rode into your town on a donkey. Look up Leviticus 23, which describes the Feast of the Tabernacles. Note: 40 On the first day you are to take choice fruit from the trees, and palm fronds, leafy branches and poplars, and rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days. Rejoicing, palm fronds -- the people had many centuries to practice this connection. I never know what I'll learn next around here. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux [...] > Rejoicing, palm fronds -- the people had many centuries to practice this > connection. I wonder what the chap on Radio 4 was thinking, then. I don't think he was a Rabbi, so he probably made no claim to special learning. > I never know what I'll learn next around here. That's why we do it, no? You mention Maccabbees: I've found that the Apocryphal books are the most natural-reading bits of the New English Bible, and have wondered if that was because of the translators who did those bits, or if it was because of some significant difference in the original texts. Mike. > Rejoicing, palm fronds -- the people had many centuries to practice this > connection. I suppose at least it's something useful to do with palm fronds. They're bloody nuisance in my garden, but the idea of dumping them in someone else's street has appeal. On the other hand, they can be very itchy and scratchy to handle without gloves. SignatureRob Bannister > The school determines what is abusive and what is not. An implicit trust of authority is un-American. Are you a commie bastard, Comrade C**per? Here's the facts according to your commie-bastard friends at the ACLU: ===== Marcus McLaurin was waiting in line to go to recess on November 11 at Ernest Gallet Elementary School when a classmate asked him about his mother and father. He responded that he didn’t have a mother and father; instead he has two mothers. When the other child asked why, Marcus told him that it was because his mother is gay. The other child then asked what that meant, and Marcus explained, “Gay is when a girl likes another girl.” Upon hearing this, Marcus’s teacher scolded him in front of his classmates, telling him that “gay” is a bad word and he should never say it at school, then sent him to the principal’s office instead of letting him go to recess. The following week the school required Marcus to attend a special behavioral clinic at 6:45 in the morning, where he was forced to repeatedly write “I will never use the word ‘gay’ in school again.” “To tell a 7-year-old boy that he can’t talk about his family not only makes that child feel confused and hurt – it violates his Constitutional right to free speech and equal treatment,” said Ken Choe, a staff attorney from the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project who is handling the matter. “At the ACLU we often deal with schools that mistreat treat gay children and children who have gay parents, but this is beyond the pale.” <http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14481&c=104> ===== Didn't somebody somewhere say something about cruel and unusual punishment? Oh, that's right; it's in the American Constitution -- that formulation of liberty that commie bastards dislike so much. (Copies of the schools disciplinary documents are provided by the ACLU: <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=14477> and <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=14479> Acrobat required.) But what can we expect of a school whose government is openly and rabidly homophobic? <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29683-2003Dec2.html> Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? HA! SignatureSimon R. Hughes "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> The school determines what is abusive and what is not. > > An implicit trust of authority is un-American. > > Are you a commie bastard, Comrade C**per? [...] > Didn't somebody somewhere say something about cruel and unusual > punishment? Oh, that's right; it's in the American Constitution > -- that formulation of liberty that commie bastards dislike so > much. [...] > But what can we expect of a school whose government is openly and > rabidly homophobic? As Donna pointed out in this thread, bad things happen in the USA, but freedom of the press allows the media to inform the public of these bad things, which allows them to be corrected --- maybe. The funny thing about this defense is that it makes it seem as if the USA is the only place in the world where freedom of the press exists. There is certainly a lot of freedom of the press in Japan and there is here in Taiwan as well. The same can be said of lots of European countries. It cannot be said for repressive places like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, and a host of other countries that are not very free. No country is perfectly free; such a place would indeed have to be called Erewhon. The foundation of the United States of America includes the principles of equality, freedom of expression, and "liberty and justice for all". The irony of America is that these things are not allowed when they threaten the cosmology of the people in power, and they always do threaten those people, so these people constantly attempt to suppress what they don't like without regard for the rights and freedoms of others (people like ex-judge Roy Moore). Is it a conspiracy? Yes, of course it is. But it's not a secret. Every televangelist and supporter of the radical religious right is part of it; they openly declare it. The politicians who cynically exploit that power base to get elected by appealing to the fears of such little-minded people are also part of this open conspiracy. They are the ones who, under the cloak of patriotism and morality and everything else that is "holy", turn into the kind of ethical monsters that kept and keep the fires of McCarthyism and other forms of repression burning in the bowels of the USA, people like Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston, the once and future idols of these bigots. And the greatest irony is that people like Phoney Pooper, a typical rationalizer of behavior he claims to disapprove of, are those who provide the real "enemy within" their greatest boost. I suspect that this is because they sympathize with that behavior but are ashamed and afraid to admit it. They have no sense of outrage about things that really matter. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance because the biggest threat to freedom in the USA comes from within its borders, not without. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >That's hardly analogous. I could see your point if the >boy had said "my Mom's a dyke", even if (as is imaginable) >she described herself that way. Apparently, you don't realize what the word "gay" has come to mean. I've always believed it was quite derogatory for people to call homosexuals "gay". "Gayness" equals badness, now more than ever before. Nobody should want to be "gay", including homosexuals. I can totally see where the school is coming from and wish more of our society would realize why the word "gay" can ONLY mean something derogatory these days. >But "gay" is not generally >considered a term of abuse, except by those who think it's >inherently a bad thing to be. But, to my generation, it IS a bad thing to be "gay", since "gay" means blindly happy to the point of being a tool. "Gay" people don't realize that the world's not this big happy place that they wish it could be. "Gay" people are out of touch with reality. An example of people who let their gayness get the best of them are The Brady Bunch! NO ONE should want to be so "gay" and clueless in today's society, and most people think of people who are that "gay" as loons. Therefore, it should not be difficult to understand why it should be considered offensive to call a homosexual person a "gay" person. >The natural inference from the official's >reaction to the word is that the reason he found the word >"gay" unacceptable is that he thought it was unacceptable >to *be* gay. In the original sense of the word, it SHOULD BE unacceptable to be "gay", and, like I said, most of my generation do consider it so. When you hear someone of my generation call someone or something bad or cheesy or boring "gay", it has NOTHING to do with sexuality. Thus, calling homosexuals "gay", given the original and the new meaning of the word, is insulting. >>That's hardly analogous. I could see your point if the >>boy had said "my Mom's a dyke", even if (as is imaginable) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >from and wish more of our society would realize why the word "gay" can ONLY >mean something derogatory these days. So, go on, tell us. Why? >>But "gay" is not generally >>considered a term of abuse, except by those who think it's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >as loons. Therefore, it should not be difficult to understand why it should be >considered offensive to call a homosexual person a "gay" person. So the Gay Pride parades that congregate tens of thousands is actually the Brady Bunch fan club? >>The natural inference from the official's >>reaction to the word is that the reason he found the word [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >In the original sense of the word, it SHOULD BE unacceptable to be "gay", and, >like I said, most of my generation do consider it so. The original sense of the word is no more unacceptable than "jolly" or "cheerful". The second sense is no more unacceptable than "homosexual". The third sense -- which seems to be the only one you accept -- is "corny". Is that what you're saying? >When you hear someone of >my generation call someone or something bad or cheesy or boring "gay", it has >NOTHING to do with sexuality. Thus, calling homosexuals "gay", given the >original and the new meaning of the word, is insulting. And you really think the Louisiana teacher had that in mind? -- Ross Howard >So, go on, tell us. Why? I believe I did! >So the Gay Pride parades that congregate tens of thousands is >actually the Brady Bunch fan club? Well, they should change the name. But they're too busy arguing against the REAL & ORIGINAL use of the word "gay", claiming that it's offensive to their "gayness", to realize that calling homosexuals "gay" in the first place IS what's offensive. >The original sense of the word is no more unacceptable than "jolly" or >"cheerful". Yes. But, apparently you're out of touch with my generation. How many of us are (or wish to be) "jolly" and "cheerful"? To us, being so IS a bad thing. Calling homosexuals "gay" comes from the bigoted stereotype that they're all like Richard Simmons (blindly and totally happy and "gay", to the point of not being aware that there's evil in the world). Is Rosie O'Donnel "gay"? I think not! >The third sense -- which seems to be the only one you >accept -- is "corny". Is that what you're saying? Oh yes! I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sure that I'm the ONLY person on earth who uses "gay" to mean corny! Where the f.ck have you been for the past decade? What are you smoking? Do you live on Mars?! My generation's use of "gay" comes directly from the word's ORIGINAL use. It's NOT an anti-homosexual slur, as your generation would have people believe! According to our use, which stems from the ORIGINAL use, calling a homosexual "gay" would actually be where the intolerance and bigotry comes in. Although, few of my generation have actually thought about its etymology as much as I have. However, EVERYONE who uses it seems to regonize that it has NOTHING to do with one's sexuality! THANK YOU VERY MUCH! >And you really think the Louisiana teacher had that in mind? Judging by your generation's cluelessness, no! Like I've already stated, any one of three options could be the case. The racist anti-lesbian one, the "parents-only-have-the-right-to-teach-little-kids-about-sex" one, OR (least likely, but still very possible, especially if the list differentiates between "gay" and "homosexual"/"lesbian") the cheesy/lame meaning of the word that my generation (especially second graders) is most likely to use. All I can say is that I'M keeping an open mind to all three posibilities until more information comes out, unlike all of you who are jumping on a different bandwagon every five seconds! > But, to my generation, it IS a bad thing to be "gay", since "gay" means blindly > happy to the point of being a tool. "Gay" people don't realize that the > world's not this big happy place that they wish it could be. "Gay" people are > out of touch with reality. Interesting. Is "gay" returning, gradually, to its pre-Tet standard meaning, or is this Joey-reported generational usage of "gay" a survival of the pre-homosexual meaning? > An example of people who let their gayness get the > best of them are The Brady Bunch! I'm surprised you even know who the Brady Bunch are, Young Joey! One of your fellow Post-Bicentennials here, what's her name who up and went to Australia, claims never to have heard of the Brady Bunch IIRC. I don't know if I agree with you about the Bradys, BTW, except of course for the late Mike Brady. (NTTAWWT.) Speaking of the Bible Belt, Ann B. Davis up and became a born-again Christian (NTTAWWT). > In the original sense of the word, it SHOULD BE unacceptable to be "gay", and, > like I said, most of my generation do consider it so. When you hear someone of > my generation call someone or something bad or cheesy or boring "gay", it has > NOTHING to do with sexuality. But does it really have anything to do with being "giddily happy" or whatever? >> But, to my generation, it IS a bad thing to be "gay", since "gay" means blindly >> happy to the point of being a tool. "Gay" people don't realize that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > meaning, or is this Joey-reported generational usage of "gay" a survival > of the pre-homosexual meaning? One seems to recave (Italian _ricavare_ -- there really should be an English cognate) from your words the notion that anyone who is cheerful obviously doesn't know what's going on. Is Chicago really that bad, Richard? > Is Chicago really that bad, Richard? Yes. It's the wind. Every day's like a tornado. And no ocean or pizza. ISR. >>Is Chicago really that bad, Richard? > > Yes. It's the wind. Every day's like a tornado. And no ocean or pizza. Hmm. Sounds like you need to move up one more city, to the Second Largest. Move into my old place in Brentwood, bike to the ocean and then up into the mountains. Heaven on Earth. > >>Is Chicago really that bad, Richard? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in Brentwood, bike to the ocean and then up into > the mountains. I wouldn't rule it out, despite my having been raised with a strong anti-Los-Angeles prejudice. Frankely, I'd welcome the relatively temperate climate (and relatively moderate wind conditions [and highly potable drinking water]) of the New York City Region (Largest Metropolitan Area in America), despite its relative lack of affordable housing (as Sgt. Jan "The Versifier of the Verrazano" Sand can confirm). It may be noted that what you save in Chicago on rent you probably lose in spending on bottled water. [ ... ] > Frankely, Knowing Areff, I'm confident that was deliberate. > I'd welcome the relatively > temperate climate (and relatively moderate wind conditions [and > highly potable drinking water]) of the New York City Region (Largest > Metropolitan Area in America), despite its relative lack of affordable > housing (as Sgt. Jan "The Versifier of the Verrazano" Sand can confirm). If you'd like, Areff, I'll see whether my daughter and her spouse can rent you the extra room in their new house in the general vicinity of the stadia and arena in East Rutherford, NJ. Easy access to New York County via the Lincoln Tunnel and PATH trains. Also close to Fairly Ridiculous University and not too far from Drew U, Rutgers-Newark, and Seton Hall. > It may be noted that what you save in Chicago on rent you probably lose in > spending on bottled water. Refrigerator filters can work wonders. SignatureBob Lieblich What does this have to do with the use of "gay" in Louisiana? Liebs: >Also close to Fairly Ridiculous University What's wrong with that school, Bob? Why do you call it that? >and not too far from Drew >U Drew borders Farleigh. It's practically the same thing. I never knew you had children living in my area! >One seems to recave (Italian _ricavare_ -- there really should be an >English cognate) from your words the notion that anyone who is >cheerful obviously doesn't know what's going on. It's not exacly the case. The nuances of my generation's use of "gay" are likely very difficult for your generation to understand, as is evident by your attempts at creating websites of our "slang", your ridiculously off-base attempts at using "ghetto humor" in movies (most notably, recently, Bringing Down Da House), and your general lack of understanding of my generation's culture. Like someone pointed out "cheesy" is a better definition of our "gay". Like, "cheesily happy or blissful". It doesn't mean were against being positive or cheerful, when it's sensible to be so. However, we think it's "gay" when people try to pretend the world is just this cheerful little "gay" place. Trying to pretend homosexuals and abortions don't exist is "gay"! Get it? I'm sure you don't and you never will! Yet, I STILL waste my time explaining, which is more than any of you would do. And, *I* actually have an exam I'm supposed to be studying for. Oh well, I guess I can't help being so nice. Maybe I've become "gay" myself. >I'm surprised you even know who the Brady Bunch are, Young Joey! I'd be shocked to hear that any American older than about ten has not heard of the Brady Bunch. Fontana, how could you have forgotten that there were two Brady Bunch movies released in the mid-90's? Although your generation and earlier ones most likely assumed otherwise, having not seen the movies (or possibly even wrongly interpreted, even after seeing the movies) that the movies were simply stories about The Brady Bunch, which followed directly from the television show, THEY WERE NOT. The movies themselves were actually mockeries of the Brady Bunch's gayness, and displayed how foolish such a "gay" family would look, and how out of place they would be, even in the early to mid 1990's. And THAT'S what made the movies funny. In the mid 00's, "gayness" has now become much worse an attribute than it even was then. The usage of "gay" is probably more mainstream in my generation than any of those "2004 slang" words that were posted in another thread. It boggles the mind that even you, Fontana, haven't heard (let alone heard OF) our new usage. >Speaking of the Bible Belt, Ann B. Davis up and became a born-again >Christian (NTTAWWT). Who is she? >But does it really have anything to do with being "giddily happy" or >whatever? It does have a lot more to do with that than with sexuality. I can understand how this seems vague to your generation though. > now become much worse an attribute than it even was then. The usage of "gay" > is probably more mainstream in my generation than any of those "2004 slang" > words that were posted in another thread. It boggles the mind that even you, > Fontana, haven't heard (let alone heard OF) our new usage. OTCYJ. I've already noted that in elementary school "gay" was used to mean something like "condemnably silly or silly to the point of being worthy of ridicule" (and I remember people using "queer" in that sort of way too when I was a teenager), and I can easily see that evolving into the putative generational usage you have described. I have to discount your own reports of contemporary youth slang by a certain degree for certain reasons. I used to be a young AUE poster too, you know. Even today, in this post-Chris-Johnson era, AUE is still generationally dominated by the Pre-Sputnik crowd. And even today I can report that these people have their annoying side (until you get to the Wartime and older generations, including Merchant Marine vets and native Bavarians and Latvians, but excluding natives of Broad Ripple [Fourth Largest Neighborhood in Indianapolis]). Even a relative youngster like Kirsh seems rather ancient, owing to his militantly Pre-Tet personality (NTTAWWT). So you can imagine what it was like in 1998 or whenever. So yes, it's tempting to try to carve out a semi-imaginary generational role for yourself in a setting like this. However, what I think you'll find if you examine other corners of Usenet is that AUE's peculiarities have less to do with generational distribution than with other cultural factors. Put differently, Young Joey, we all know that you are not some legitimate ambassador of the younger generation, even though we know you are no CJ-style impostor (NTTAWWBACJSI). We have a Dinkin, for Rey's sake. So my advice is to ignore all the postings that mention Tom Lehrer or some singer named "Melanie" or irritating generational catchphrases like "participatory democracy" and "multinational corporation". No need to aggressively counteract that sort of thing with some sort of supposed younger-generational equivalent. Anytime you start identifying with a "generation" you are aligning yourself with the tyrannically vapid majority and against the thoughtful and brave minority. Everyone can see through that. Is anyone forcing you to think about how this or that poster (typically non-North-American) has a Bee Gees beard? No. Use a killfile if you gots to. When this incident was first reported, it was my opinion - based on the newspaper and radio reports - that the boy was disciplined for using a banned word. This doesn't seem to be the case. The following is from a Lafayette, Louisiana newspaper: "The Advertiser" It's a long article, and I've snipped out most of it, but the entire article is available at http://tinyurl.com/xv52 Quoting from The Advertiser: During an early interview on ABCs Good Morning America on Thursday, Easton did admit that there should have been more communication between the district and the mother but still refused to apologize, saying the childs punishment was not for using the word gay. The American Civil Liberties Union lobbed a complaint at the district Monday because of the punishment. In November, the school informed Sharon Huff that her son had said a word so bad that he had been sent to the principals office during recess, then made to attend a behavioral clinic. The paperwork sent home to Huff stated in two different documents that the teacher overheard him talking about his gay mother and that it was unacceptable. But Ernest Gallet Elementary teacher Terry L. Bethea, Principal Virginia Bonvillan and Assistant Principal Nicholas Thomas told Easton that the boy was not disciplined simply because he used the word gay. And Easton said he believes them. The fact of using the word gay is not the issue, Easton said. These are the people we entrust the lives of our children with. There has been nothing to come forth, nothing at all, to make me doubt their word. end quote The obvious question to Easton is now "What *was* the boy disciplined for?". That's unsaid. So, my take on the reported incident seems to be off-base. The more cynical among us seem to be right. Still, what I expressed was my opinion - conclusion, if you will - based on what I read and heard. I also concluded from the media reports that Richard Jewel planted the bomb in Atlanta and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter in Dallas. I've never misrepresented any facts. I've just presented an opinion. >I [...] concluded from the media reports that [...] Lee Harvey >Oswald was the lone shooter in Dallas. Huh? Wasn't it Kristin? -- Ross Howard > When this incident was first reported, it was my opinion - based on > the newspaper and radio reports - that the boy was disciplined for [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > I've never misrepresented any facts. I've just presented an opinion. After having read about the matter further on Google News, I think it should be mentioned that the paper trail--the stuff people actually wrote down in reports--shows no indication that the boy was disciplined for anything other than saying a word the teacher didn't like. I see no escape from the conclusion that the school authorities are now either lying or they have been unacceptably negligent in the way they maintain records concerning disciplinary action. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > After having read about the matter further on Google News, I think > it should be mentioned that the paper trail--the stuff people > actually wrote down in reports--shows no indication that the boy was > disciplined for anything other than saying a word the teacher didn't > like. How do you get that from the paper trail? The teacher's written explanation was Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay [his version is that this was in response to a question]. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way." and on the paper sent home was the handwritten note He explained to another child that you are gay [word double underlined] and what being gay means. Both of these imply to me that it was the topic that was taboo, not specifically the word. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little |practice, writing can be an kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog! (650)857-7572 | Calvin http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > After having read about the matter further on Google News, I think > > it should be mentioned that the paper trail--the stuff people [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Both of these imply to me that it was the topic that was taboo, not > specifically the word. There is evidence otherwise. In the "behavioral contract" that his mother had to sign, Marcus... From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29820-2003Dec2.html "was asked what he did. "'I sed bad wurds,' he wrote. "When asked what he should have done, he replied, 'cep my mouf shut.'" If the school accepted those statements, then they were explicitly accepting that it was the word which they found to be offensive. If it was not the word, they had the responsibility to redo the contract and have the student acknowledge what he had actually done wrong (according to them) not his supposedly erroneous interpretation of what he had done wrong. It is as I said before, either the school officials are lying or they are being sloppy in their handling of the paperwork. However, let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, that it was the topic which is taboo. *If* that is the case, then Superintendent James Easton would clearly be lying when he said the following: See http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=838&snippetset=yes "'An apology is not due,' Superintendent James Easton said. 'The child was not singled out because his parent is gay.' Easton said the grade two student was disciplined for behavior problems. In a prepared statement Wednesday, Easton wrote that, after reviewing papers and meeting with the principal, he had concluded that the discipline 'was unrelated to any judgment by school officials regarding sexual orientation or practices, or the student's discussion of that particular topic.'" How do you reconcile all of the above with your theory of what happened? SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > Both of these imply to me that it was the topic that was taboo, not > > specifically the word. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > either the school officials are lying or they are being sloppy in > their handling of the paperwork. That form was the one on which the teacher wrote He explained to another child that you are gay [word double underlined] and what being gay means. so presumably the amendment should be seen as part of what he was considered to have done wrong and (given the "you") the way it was explained to his mom. In the official incident report, following the meeting with his mom, the teacher was specific that it was that the "kind of discussion" was what was "not acceptable" and that "things of this nature" should be "explained" by parents. It appears that they may well have presented it *to the child* as "you said a bad word", but nothing in the record indicates that that was the real problem. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't |learn anything at the Harvard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Business School. (650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen | Harvard Business School http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Both of these imply to me that it was the topic that was taboo, >>> not specifically the word. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > "you said a bad word", but nothing in the record indicates that > that was the real problem. Although in the original report, we find: A teacher who heard the remark scolded Marcus, telling him "gay" was a "bad word" and sending him to the principal's office. The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write: "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again." If that last part is true, you can see where some might get the idea that his use of the word had something to do with it. It may not be a part of the paper trail, as you say. -- rzed > >>> Both of these imply to me that it was the topic that was taboo, > >>> not specifically the word. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > that his use of the word had something to do with it. It may not be a > part of the paper trail, as you say. That's why I did not include it. However, if the boy reported they made him write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again.", and if he is otherwise not known to have a tendency to make things up, I would accept his statement as evidence that the school authorities were indeed attacking his use of the word (and consequently lying about the matter later). SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > That's why I did not include it. However, if the boy reported they > made him write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again.", > and if he is otherwise not known to have a tendency to make things > up, I would accept his statement as evidence that the school > authorities were indeed attacking his use of the word (and > consequently lying about the matter later). I question what you mean by "later". Unless they forged that particular piece of paper, they claimed that it was his "explaining" the term that was the problem *in the note sent home to the mother*, the same one in which he claimed that his perception of the problem was that he used "bad words" (plural, you might note). I don't doubt that that might not have been what they told the boy, not feeling comfortable themselves explaining to a second grader what they felt should only be explained by parents, but I don't think that "lying about the matter later" is really justified. Unless, of course, the "later" is "after they called the mom but before they sent the form home". It's possible that they realized after talking to the mom that they had screwed up and came up with a better-sounding story, but we can't really tell from what's written down. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Voting in the House of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Representatives is done by means of a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |little plastic card with a magnetic |strip on the back--like a VISA card, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |but with no, that is, absolutely (650)857-7572 |*no*, spending limit. | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ "rzed" <Dick.Zantow@lexisnexis.com> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: [...] > Although in the original report, we find: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > idea that his use of the word had something to do with it. It may > not be a part of the paper trail, as you say. In his interview with Asron Brown on CNN today, the school board president denied that this had happened. Someone -- "someones" is more like it --- be lyin' and tryin' their damnedest to cover up the sh.t that hit the fan. Remember when Eisenhower categorically denied that the US had spy planes flying over Russia (just after the Soviets claimed that Gary Powers and his U-2 spy plane had been shot down)? Shortly thereafter, the Secretary of State said that the US did have spy planes flying over Russia. (It might have been the other way around. 'Sbeen 45 years or so.) SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >However, let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, that >it was the topic which is taboo. *If* that is the case, then Superintendent [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >unrelated to any judgment by school officials regarding sexual orientation >or practices, or the student's discussion of that particular topic.'" What surprises me somewhat is that Easton is an African-American. You would think that an African-American living in Louisiana would be somewhat sensitive to someone being discriminated against because of something that person has no control over. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >>However, let us assume for the sake of argument that you are >>correct, that it was the topic which is taboo. *If* that is the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > be somewhat sensitive to someone being discriminated against > because of something that person has no control over. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, as the cliché correctly goes. One cannot predict what a man believes, feels, or understands by the color of his skin. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoisNOSPAM@mninter.net> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >> When this incident was first reported, it was my opinion - based >> on the newspaper and radio reports - that the boy was disciplined [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > negligent in the way they maintain records concerning disciplinary > action. It's clear that Easton is lying. The school board president was intereviewed by Aaron Brown on CNN TV today. He said that the board usually doesn't get involved unless there's an expulsion, but because this was such a national issue now, he felt the board ought to get involved. He's right. The school authorities and the superintendant, Easton, screwed up big-time. The school board president really didn't know what to say about the incident, but did say that because of privacy laws. there were many documents that could not be made public --- to protect the student's privacy. Yeah, right. As if he had an privacy left to protect. Only two school documents were made available by the mother, who gave them to the ACLU, he said. They will try to stonewall this and cover everything up. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Even today, in this post-Chris-Johnson era, AUE is still >generationally dominated by the Pre-Sputnik crowd. Can't you give me a pass? I'm only pre-Sputnik by 13 days (the soundtrack for the launch of which, incidentally, was Paul Anka's "Diana" at No. 1 in Britain and, at No. 1 in America -- ta-dah! -- Buddy Holly & the Crickets' "That'll Be The Day", which would be the inspiration for one of the highlights of the Seventies retro movement: the seminal Fifties-set David Essex/Ringo Starr movie with the same title. -- Ross Howard gguiri@yahoo.com spake thus: > >Even today, in this post-Chris-Johnson era, AUE is still > >generationally dominated by the Pre-Sputnik crowd. > > Can't you give me a pass? I'm only pre-Sputnik by 13 days I have only about 18 months start on Ross - may I also be excused, please? SignatureDavid ===== > gguiri@yahoo.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have only about 18 months start on Ross - may I also be excused, > please? The Authorities [Orange Class] have met and decided that Ross is to be classified as Post-Sputnik (Honorary), while David56 is to be classified as Pre-Sputnik. Sorry. >> gguiri@yahoo.com spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > classified as Post-Sputnik (Honorary), while David56 is to be classified > as Pre-Sputnik. Sorry. We are talking about Zig-zig Sputnik, right? SignatureSimon R. Hughes de781@aol.com spake thus: > >That's hardly analogous. I could see your point if the > >boy had said "my Mom's a dyke", even if (as is imaginable) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from and wish more of our society would realize why the word "gay" can ONLY > mean something derogatory these days. I guess the folk at http://uk.gay.com/ disagree with you. Come to Manchester and I'll take you for a visit to Canal Street - a happy place indeed. http://www.pubsofmanchester.com/canalstreet.htm SignatureDavid ===== >I guess the folk at http://uk.gay.com/ disagree with you. They're brainwashed by your generation's criticism of my generation's usage of "gay" as implying that "homosexuals" are "bad", when in actuality our use of "gay" implies that "gayness" is bad. Homosexuals are confused when trying to combat my generation's use of what they perceive (wrongly) as a slur against them. de781@aol.com spake thus: > >I guess the folk at http://uk.gay.com/ disagree with you. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > combat my generation's use of what they perceive (wrongly) as a slur against > them. You oversnipped somewhat. I will reconstruct: bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com spake thus: de781@aol.com spake thus: > > Apparently, you don't realize what the word "gay" has come to mean. I've > > always believed it was quite derogatory for people to call homosexuals "gay". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > combat my generation's use of what they perceive (wrongly) as a slur against > them. UK homosexuals are brainwashed by my generation's view of your generation's use of the word "gay" into thinking that their use of the word "gay" to describe themselves is actually good and wholesome when in fact they are sadly mistaken and using a bad and derogatory word to describe themselves? [1} No. You are utterly and fundamentally wrong. I have never heard the word "gay" used in this way before this thread, so I cannot have misled the denizens of Canal Street. See, the problem is that you redefine words in a way which nobody else does, then tell us we should know what you mean. When UK teenagers use "gay" as an insult, it means the same as "pansy". I live with two of them so I'm not isolated in a bubble of baby boomers. [1] I would like to enter this question for the 2004 Sentence of the Year competition. It was a long struggle but I think the result show that it was worth the wait. SignatureDavid ===== > When UK teenagers use "gay" as an insult, it means the same as > "pansy". I live with two of them so I'm not isolated in a bubble of > baby boomers. Don't they mind you talking about them in those terms? SignatureSimon R. Hughes a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no spake thus: > > When UK teenagers use "gay" as an insult, it means the same as > > "pansy". I live with two of them so I'm not isolated in a bubble of > > baby boomers. > > Don't they mind you talking about them in those terms? They are inured to my many iidiosyncrasies. SignatureDavid ===== > a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They are inured to my many iidiosyncrasies. Such as spelling? (Deliberate, I presume.) m. mUs1Ka@exite.com spake thus: > > a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Such as spelling? (Deliberate, I presume.) Actually, no. I saw it go by but was powerless to correct it because of a minor bug in Gravity which cannot be persuaded not to post once you've started the spiel chequer. SignatureDavid ===== > mUs1Ka@exite.com spake thus: >>> They are inured to my many iidiosyncrasies. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of a minor bug in Gravity which cannot be persuaded not to post once > you've started the spiel chequer. There are similar points-of-no-return in other newsreader software, alas. Agonizing! SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>Actually, no. I saw it go by but was powerless to correct it because >>of a minor bug in Gravity which cannot be persuaded not to post once >>you've started the spiel chequer. > > There are similar points-of-no-return in other newsreader software, alas. > Agonizing! Can't you just kill the process? >>> Actually, no. I saw it go by but was powerless to correct it >>> because of a minor bug in Gravity which cannot be persuaded not to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can't you just kill the process? I haven't tried that. Possibly. Let's see ... >>>> Actually, no. I saw it go by but was powerless to correct it >>>> because of a minor bug in Gravity which cannot be persuaded not to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I haven't tried that. Possibly. Let's see ... I suppose it could have been done, but there are dire warnings about that, and I didn't want to take any chances. Seems a bit drastic for mere spelling errors and such. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > de781@aol.com spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > word "gay" used in this way before this thread, so I cannot have > misled the denizens of Canal Street. It has been my understanding that the slang meaning of gay arose within the homosexual community itself. Donna! What does your slang book say? SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. > > de781@aol.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Donna! What does your slang book say? We've discussed the matter before. "Gay" was used with sexual meanings long before it was applied in the case of homosexuals, and it seems very likely that the application of the word to homosexuals was an alteration in the meaning of the word from those pre-existing sexual meanings to the new one, rather than being an independent invention. I don't think we have any way of being sure that the first application of the word to homosexuals came from within the homosexual community itself: Much of the use of the word "gay" before it was applied to homosexuals appears to have been derogatory, that is, it was used by the people not designated, disapprovingly, as "gay." So it could very well be that non-homosexuals first used the term "gay" in a disapproving way towards homosexuals. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > > > de781@aol.com spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Donna! What does your slang book say? Which part? Under the adjective meaning of homosexual, there are two entries from the early 1940s that support that. One is 1944, 'It is significant that the homosexual's word for his own kind is 'gay.'" There are only a couple of citations before the 1940s. That's separate from the 19th century meaning of the word, "engaged in prositution." And now I see it has a later meaning of the word, which I'll post to the "gay meaning bad" thread. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > When UK teenagers use "gay" as an insult, it means the same as > "pansy". It certainly doesn't in Australia and hasn't for quite a while: stupid, useless, (maybe) boring, unfashionable, etc. It's over 3 years since I was in a classroom, so it may even be going out by now. SignatureRob Bannister David: >When UK teenagers use "gay" as an insult, it means the same as >"pansy". Well, THAT could very well be homophobic. But, how do you know they don't simply mean cheesy or dated? >>I guess the folk at http://uk.gay.com/ disagree with you. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > combat my generation's use of what they perceive (wrongly) as a slur against > them. You don't see any parallels with earlier generations using 'spaz' (for spastic) or 'retard'. I've even heard 'ADD' (I think the official term now has an extra letter). All were used as terms of abuse and were offensive to those who belonged in those groups from natural causes. Of course, I never liked the homosexuals appropriating the word 'gay' from the 'happy' meaning of my childhood. SignatureRob Bannister > >That's hardly analogous. I could see your point if the > >boy had said "my Mom's a dyke", even if (as is imaginable) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from and wish more of our society would realize why the word "gay" can ONLY > mean something derogatory these days. Nonsense. > >But "gay" is not generally > >considered a term of abuse, except by those who think it's > >inherently a bad thing to be. > > But, to my generation, it IS a bad thing to be "gay", since "gay" means blindly > happy to the point of being a tool. Nonsense. > "Gay" people don't realize that the > world's not this big happy place that they wish it could be. Nonsense. > "Gay" people are > out of touch with reality. An example of people who let their gayness get the > best of them are The Brady Bunch! NO ONE should want to be so "gay" and > clueless in today's society, and most people think of people who are that "gay" > as loons. Therefore, it should not be difficult to understand why it should be > considered offensive to call a homosexual person a "gay" person. You need to get out more. > >The natural inference from the official's > >reaction to the word is that the reason he found the word [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > NOTHING to do with sexuality. Thus, calling homosexuals "gay", given the > original and the new meaning of the word, is insulting. You are using an argumentum ad absent populum ("my generation", feh!) to try to bolster your utterly idiosyncratic (or at least narrowly provincial) definition of the word. I know your generation well; four out of five think you need to broaden your horizons. -skipka Anna: >You are using an argumentum ad absent populum ("my generation", feh!) >to try to bolster your utterly idiosyncratic (or at least narrowly >provincial) definition of the word. Ha! Guess who's had the last laugh now? > Anna: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ha! Guess who's had the last laugh now? Ha! > > Anna: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ha! Ho, Ho, Ho. SignatureBob Lieblich Yeah, I'm Jewish. But it's late December. > Yeah, I'm Jewish. You sure? Funny, you don't look Jewish. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman > > Yeah, I'm Jewish. > > You sure? Funny, you don't look Jewish. Remember when Taylor and Burton made a film of *The Taming of the Shrew*? The story is that she suggested it to him and he initially tried to put her off with this remark: "Funny, you don't look shrewish." They made the movie anyway (and it was better than it had any right to be). SignatureBob Lieblich Shakespeare spun in his grave only a few times >>>Anna: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ho, Ho, Ho. I'm glad someone told me how to pronounce this new slang word. SignatureRob Bannister > Anna: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ha! Guess who's had the last laugh now? Which part of "provincial" do you need to have explained to you, Young Jelly? -skipka Anna: >to bolster your utterly idiosyncratic (or at least narrowly >> >provincial) definition of the word. >> >> Ha! Guess who's had the last laugh now? > >Which part of "provincial" do you need to have explained to you, Young Jelly? I believe I've proved my meaning is NOT "provincial"! So HA! HA! << [DE781] But, to my generation, it IS a bad thing to be "gay", since "gay" means blindly happy to the point of being a tool. "Gay" people don't realize that the world's not this big happy place that they wish it could be. "Gay" people are out of touch with reality. An example of people who let their gayness get the best of them are The Brady Bunch! NO ONE should want to be so "gay" and clueless in today's society, and most people think of people who are that "gay" as loons. Therefore, it should not be difficult to understand why it should be considered offensive to call a homosexual person a "gay" person. [end quote] >> I have this vague suspicion that this new usage might be due to a spectacularly successful campaign started by the religious regressives. They must be dancing in the aisles -- well maybe not that. -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >More from the land of freedom of speech: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unacceptable. The school has a policy that people cannot be described > with certain words: nigger, gay, etc. What word should a 7yo use to describe his gay mother, considering he's known her all his life and `gay' is presumably the word she's brought him up to use? I'd be extremely surprised if I were wrong to assume that his mother foresaw him being asked about his family circumstances and went through with him how he ought to describe them. SignatureSAm. sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) wrote on 03 Dec 2003: >> >More from the land of freedom of speech: >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > circumstances and went through with him how he ought to describe > them. "sinful" in Louisiana. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net spake thus: > sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) wrote on 03 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "sinful" in Louisiana. Is that a sequel to Sleepless in Seattle? SignatureDavid ===== david56 <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: > cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Is that a sequel to Sleepless in Seattle? It it isn't, it ought to be. "Stella!" SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > > What word should a 7yo use to describe his gay mother, considering > > he's known her all his life and `gay' is presumably the word she's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "sinful" in Louisiana. In Louisiana? Have you ever been to New Orleans? SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. "John Varela" <OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> > What word should a 7yo use to describe his gay mother, considering >> > he's known her all his life and `gay' is presumably the word she's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > In Louisiana? Have you ever been to New Orleans? I've heard lots of tales about The Big Easy, but I spent three years in Atlanta, Georgia, and traveled frequently to Tuskegee Institute, Alabama. I know the difference between the city and the country. New Orleans is all about money, but the rest of Louisiana is about maintaining the kind of small-mindedness that is the hallmark of the south. I don't believe that the school in question was in New Orleans, but I could be wrong about that. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >What word should a 7yo use to describe his gay mother, Lesbian or homosexual. >>What word should a 7yo use to describe his gay mother, > > Lesbian or homosexual. Assuming his mother used 'gay', which seems a fair assumption, I doubt a 7yo would know those words. He might know 'lezzo' or 'homo', but probably only as terms of abuse. SignatureRob Bannister > >More from the land of freedom of speech: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > your continual quest for verification that stupid things are done in > the US. So your interpretation is that if the boy had simply said "lesbian," there would never have been a problem? Or "homosexual"? I don't think so, given the strength of the reaction: "I was concerned when the assistant principal called and told me my son had said a word so bad that he didn't want to repeat it over the phone," Huff said. Is anyone familiar with the relative nuances of these three words in the Bible belt? Of course stupid things are done in the States, stupid things happen everywhere. The suitable defense, I think, is to point out that it is a country where these errors are publicized in the media and challenged in the courts, instead of buried and denied. That's what the "freedom of speech" part is all about. Or so we hope. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > I don't think so, given the strength of the reaction: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is anyone familiar with the relative nuances of these three words in the > Bible belt? I'm reminded of that quote from `Soap' all those years ago: We don't have homos in Texas... ...Not live ones, anyways... SignatureSAm. >> >More from the land of freedom of speech: >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >there would never have been a problem? Or "homosexual"? I don't think >so, given the strength of the reaction: Yes. No problem. It's a yes/no situation. If he says a "no" word, the rules say he's disciplined. If "lesbian" is not on the "no" list, presumably nothing would have happened. > "I was concerned when the assistant principal called > and told me my son had said a word so bad that he > didn't want to repeat it over the phone," Huff said. That's the mother's reaction. A mother defending a son's use of a word that she considers acceptable but is on the "no" list for the school. She didn't object to being identified as a lesbian. She objected only to the discipline her son received for using the word "gay". And, the above was quoted as part of the findings by the ACLU. The balloon had risen. Let me be clear on this: In my opinion it's a prime example of an over-the-top interpretation of a rule that was intended to stop kids from being abusive to other kids. It's not an example of any kind of prejudice against homosexuality. The people may *be* prejudiced, but that's not involved here. > >> >More from the land of freedom of speech: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > prejudice against homosexuality. The people may *be* prejudiced, but > that's not involved here. You, sir, are an idiot. Adrian > >> The boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom. He > >> was disciplined for using a word - gay - that the school feels is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the rules say he's disciplined. If "lesbian" is not on the "no" list, > presumably nothing would have happened. Where did you get the notion that there was an actual list or even a policy? From the account, it sounds as though it was an individual teacher who decided that it was a "bad word" and required him to come to school and repeatedly assert that he would never use that word in school. (I wonder how the teacher defines "irony".) The notion of an actual list is intriguing. I can just see it. "Nope, 'porch monkey' isn't on the list." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> >> The boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom. He >> >> was disciplined for using a word - gay - that the school feels [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > never use that word in school. (I wonder how the teacher defines > "irony".) You have omitted the principal of the school, the one who told the mother that her child had used a word so bad that he couldn't repeat it over the telephone. It was not the action of an individual teacher only. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > You have omitted the principal of the school, the one who told the > mother that her child had used a word so bad that he couldn't repeat it > over the telephone. ...to a woman who, if said principal had thought about it for the moment, must fairly obviously be in the habit of describing herself using that precise word---or her 7yo son would hardly have been so straightforward about using it. Was the list of proscribed words provided to the parents when their children entered the school? Around here, my childrens' language isn't specifically controlled at school at all. Rather, they have to figure out for themselves what words are appropriate in any given circumstances. For the most part, they seem to manage the situation for themselves, as do the rest of their peer-group. Is that too difficult? SignatureSAm. sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> You have omitted the principal of the school, the one who told >> the mother that her child had used a word so bad that he couldn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > straightforward about using it. Was the list of proscribed words > provided to the parents when their children entered the school? There doesn't seem to have been a list of proscribed words, so that question, while a good one, cannot be answered. > Around here, my childrens' language isn't specifically controlled > at school at all. Rather, they have to figure out for themselves > what words are appropriate in any given circumstances. For the > most part, they seem to manage the situation for themselves, as do > the rest of their peer-group. Is that too difficult? It shouldn't be. Childrens' language ought to be controlled by parents, because that is the major source of language for the first few years. After that, it comes from TV, grandparents, friends, other family members, teachers, movies, music, books. But all kids have to go through the process of learning what to say and what not to say by themselves. Some people cannot learn just be reading a list of tabooed words. They have to test the tabooed words out by using them to see what happens. On the one hand, school teachers and administrators are always in a bind in the USA because so many parents are ready and willing to sue the schools for teaching anything they, the parents, disapprove of for any reason whatsoever, and for damages if anything at all goes wrong, no matter what the cause, because "someone has to be responsible for this and that someone has to pay" --- of course, the parents and the children involved are never responsible for anything that goes awry, unless the parents are the parents of some other child or children; one's own child is always guiltless and the victim. In this litigious atmosphere, it's a wonder that there are still people willing to work at public schools. I would never even consider it, no matter how desperate I was for a job. I suspect that if public education were not required by law, many American kids wouldn't go to school at all. That's how much a great many parents there value education. But, then, one can genuinely ask whether what they get at most schools in the US is what truly educated people would call an education. Except for the best public and private schools in America, those located in or underwritten by the wealthiest and most educated or education-oriented people in the US, I would venture to say that education has become secondary to cultural politics. The back-to- basics approach does not stress education but only test scores. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >The people may *be* prejudiced, but >that's not involved here. EXCELLENT point! You seem to be the only one here, besides me, who understands how my generation and the younger generation uses the word "gay". > >The people may *be* prejudiced, but > >that's not involved here. > > EXCELLENT point! You seem to be the only one here, besides me, who understands > how my generation and the younger generation uses the word "gay". You mean the Post-Bicentennial Generations? (The Bicentennial's got EVERYTHING to do with it, Young Joey!) > Is anyone familiar with the relative nuances of these three words in the > Bible belt? Lafayette, LA is not in the Bible Belt. It's solidly Cajun and Roman Catholic country. No red clay there. Mud. I have to say I was surprised when I read the story in The Washington Post and saw that it happened in Lafayette. As I remarked elsewhere, this may be a zero-tolerance phenomenon, although if it is I don't know why they haven't said so. What we may have is just a couple of bigoted individuals. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. > > Is anyone familiar with the relative nuances of these three words in the > > Bible belt? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't know why they haven't said so. What we may have is just a couple of > bigoted individuals. All right, I wasn't trying to say that Lafayette was Protestant. (Don't Catholics use Bibles? Anyway...) I was trying to ask whether this occurred elsewhere, and I reached for a general term to stand for "away from the multicultural, sophisticated cities." I don't think "out in the boonies" would have gone down any better. So far, no one has said that they have come across a source that is deeply offended by the word "gay" and yet is neutral on the concept of "homosexual." It's hard to imagine. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >All right, I wasn't trying to say that Lafayette was Protestant. (Don't >Catholics use Bibles? Yes, but in the AUE NOTHING is ever taken as a given to some of these loons. Had you said "WASP", they would have been right to correct you. But YOU DIDN'T! > >All right, I wasn't trying to say that Lafayette was Protestant. (Don't > >Catholics use Bibles? > > Yes, but in the AUE NOTHING is ever taken as a given to some of these loons. > Had you said "WASP", they would have been right to correct you. But YOU > DIDN'T! Joey, you don't know what the Bible Belt is, do you? SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. "John Varela" <OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> Is anyone familiar with the relative nuances of these three words >> in the Bible belt? > > Lafayette, LA is not in the Bible Belt. It's solidly Cajun and > Roman Catholic country. And the Roman Catholic Church is a staunch defender of individual freedom of expression, does not condemn homosexuals to eternal damnation, recognizes the wisdom of the freedom of choice of women, accepts that women are equal, and welcomes all things secular as another viable way of living. Such a liberal institution. There are no similarities between the tenets of RCism and bible-thumperism. > No red clay there. Mud. I have to say I > was surprised when I read the story in The Washington Post and saw > that it happened in Lafayette. As I remarked elsewhere, this may > be a zero-tolerance phenomenon, although if it is I don't know why > they haven't said so. What we may have is just a couple of > bigoted individuals. If you want to call the majority of the population of La. "a couple of bigoted individuals", you might be right. But that seems to me to constitute language abuse. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 03 Dec 2003: >>More from the land of freedom of speech: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > misleading in your continual quest for verification that stupid > things are done in the US. Listen, a.shole, I posted the f.cking URL and you read the f.cking story on CNN.com. If you don't like the USA being called "the land of freedom of speech", tough. That's what *Americans*, not crypto- Hibernians, call it. If you can't take it, then move back to Indiana or move to Russia with your d-i-l's family or to Denmark with your nephews. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 03 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Listen, a.shole, I posted the f.cking URL and you read the f.cking >story on CNN.com. I heard, and read about, the story before your posting. I take it that you can find no rebuttal to my charge that your statement was misleading, so you chose the ad hominem route. Let me repeat: the boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom as you said. He was disciplined for using a word that the school does not allow to be used to describe people. > If you don't like the USA being called "the land of >freedom of speech", tough. That's what *Americans*, not crypto- >Hibernians, call it. If you can't take it, then move back to Indiana or >move to Russia with your d-i-l's family or to Denmark with your >nephews. And you moved to Taiwan because........? >I take it that you can find no rebuttal to my charge that your >statement was misleading, so you chose the ad hominem route. True...But like you're one to talk. >He was disciplined for using a word that the school does >not allow to be used to describe people. Because it is a derogatory slur, as is "nigger" even despite the fact that blacks use it themselves all the time. [responding to Tony Cooper who was responding to Franke] > >I take it that you can find no rebuttal to my charge that your > >statement was misleading, so you chose the ad hominem route. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because it is a derogatory slur, as is "nigger" even despite the fact that > blacks use it themselves all the time. May I humbly suggest that we don't have enough evidence to know whether (1) there was an existing banning the use of the word "gay," which the student violated, or (2) there was a more general rule against offensive language, which the teacher and principal interpreted to cover "gay," or (3) the teacher and princpal were enforcing some ex post facto rule to cover their tracks when what really offended was that the child had two lesbian parents? If I'm wrong, and there is evidence sufficient to answer the question without great leaps of inference, show us the evidence. Otherwise, let's get back to Postwar Prestige Standard and whether "arsehole" and "a.shole" are two words or two different spellings of the same word SignatureBob Lieblich Fatigued > May I humbly suggest that we don't have enough evidence to know > whether (1) there was an existing banning the use of the word "gay," [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enforcing some ex post facto rule to cover their tracks when what > really offended was that the child had two lesbian parents? Yes, you may humbly suggest that. Is there any other boon you crave? SignatureMike, in a dispensational mood. > If I'm wrong, and there is evidence sufficient to answer the > question without great leaps of inference, show us the evidence. > Otherwise, let's get back to Postwar Prestige Standard Okay. >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 03 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>unacceptable. The school has a policy that people cannot be >>>described with certain words: nigger, gay, etc. Do you have concrete evidence that the school in fact has such a policy, that the policy is written down somewhere, that the policy was explained to all the students in the school, and that that policy was explained to the boy's mother before the boy used the word to describe his mother? You are lying again. You are making up "facts", just as you ignorantly and wrongly attributed the words written by a CNN.com headline writer to me. You shoot from the lip without bothering to check things out. >>>I don't agree with the school's action, but let's not be >>>misleading in your continual quest for verification that stupid >>>things are done in the US. Would you please learn the meanings of the words you use before you use them? The sentence above is pure gobbledygook. I don't need to "quest for verification that stupid things are done in the US". Stupid things are done everywhere, and when stupid things happen in the USA, as they do every day, they are printed in the newspapers and broadcast on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. I don't consider what the teacher and principal did there "stupid"; I consider it criminal and dangerous. I consider it a symptom of an irrational national disease. The disease is epidemic worldwide, but the rest of the world doesn't constantly bleat about being the land of "liberty and justice for all", and the rest of the world is not arrogant enough --- or powerful enough --- to feel justified in invading other nations in order to bring them the good news about democracy and freedom American-style. >>Listen, a.shole, I posted the f.cking URL and you read the f.cking >>story on CNN.com. > > I heard, and read about, the story before your posting. So you know all the facts? > I take it that you can find no rebuttal to my charge that your > statement was misleading, If you had taken the trouble to read the story on CNN.com, you would have seen that what you believe to be my statement was copied verbatim from the CNN.com headline. I didn't write that statement; some CNN.com headline writer did. But you always assume what you want to assume and lie when it suits your purposes and misrepresent everything and anything when it suits your purposes. Ad hominem is what you are entitled to. > so you chose the ad hominem route. Let me repeat: the boy > was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom as you said. Let *me* repeat: I didn't say it. CNN.com said it. Read the story, a.shole, on CNN.com. Stop talking through your anal sphincter. > He was disciplined for using a word that the school does > not allow to be used to describe people. He was punished for having a lesbian mother and for admitting to it. He was punished for calling his mother "gay". He was punished for saying something that was true because the teacher and the principal did not want to hear the truth. >>If you don't like the USA being called "the land of >>freedom of speech", tough. That's what *Americans*, not crypto- >>Hibernians, call it. If you can't take it, then move back to Indiana or >>move to Russia with your d-i-l's family or to Denmark with your >>nephews. > And you moved to Taiwan because........? To get away from having to live next door to a.sholes like you and your new-found friend YJ. Since Frank has me killfiled, and will never see this, I think I'll have some fun and rearrange his post so he's answering himself: Frank said: >He was punished for having a lesbian mother and for admitting to it. He >was punished for calling his mother "gay". He was punished for saying >something that was true because the teacher and the principal did not >want to hear the truth. And then Frank replied: >Do you have concrete evidence...? Frank said: >I don't consider what the teacher and principal did there "stupid"; I >consider it criminal and dangerous. I consider it a symptom of an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >nations in order to bring them the good news about democracy and freedom >American-style. And then Frank replied: >So you know all the facts? Sssshhh, now, everybody. Don't tell Frank I did this. He might get worked up and say unpleasant things about me. I don't mind the insults, but it's the sebenty-leven paragraphs of surrounding tales of injustice that get me. I don't think I could stand having him tell me how he didn't get Valentines in grade school, wasn't invited to parties in high school, that he was ignored by the pretty girls, that no fraternity would pledge him in college, that the Navy Hoovered him, and that he was incompetent in his job but they wouldn't let him quit. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: > Since Frank has me killfiled, and will never see this, I think > I'll have some fun and rearrange his post so he's answering > himself: Okay, buffoon, now that you've had your pre-adolescent fun, answer the questions. You can't answer the questions, because you know that you manufactured "facts" that did not exist, stated your unwarranted assumptions as if they were the facts, and, in general, lied and misrepresented as you always do. If you have anything of value to say, say it. But all you can do is come up with this kind of puerile class-clown garbage in order to distract people. As Adrian remarked in his pinpoint analysis of you in a very recent post, you are an idiot. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >assumptions as if they were the facts, and, in general, lied and >misrepresented as you always do. What I've stated, from the very beginning, was my opinion on what went on when the lights went out in Louisiana. Assumptions, if you will, and assumptions that are as warranted as anyone else's. Anyone that's commented on this subject is basically working from the same information, but processing that information according to their own biases. My bias is that I think that most people in charge of most things do a lot of things that are wrong, but do them for what they think are the right reasons. Somewhere along the line they often get off track and leave common sense on the hatrack. Your bias seems to be that you view most people in charge of most things to be inherently evil and deliberately wrong. A simple f.ck-up, to you, is a "symptom of an irrational national disease". Errors in judgment about the reasonable way to handle something are "criminal and dangerous" actions. None of us here are dealing with facts. We are dealing with the reporters tell us, and we don't know if they are dealing with facts. The facts in cases like this always seem to change, and "new" ones evolve, as the investigation progresses. If you had any common sense you'd know this and not be making wild assertions of facts being misrepresented. You'd know that what we do here is state opinions and that we don't - because we can't - provide facts. When you go into one of your frequent laments about how you were f.cked over, left out, or abused by all of the systems you came in contact with in the US, you are presenting - presumably - facts. At least, the facts as you perceived them to be. When you or I, or anyone else here, comments on a newspaper story it's understood by the sentient reader that we are presenting opinion or observation. You do best, Frank, when you present your own opinion on something. Your presentation may be charged with your own biases, and they tend to make "overkill" an understatement, but you do well enough at this. You don't seem to be able to handle dissent, though. If anyone disagrees with you, you fly into a rage and start attacking the dissenter. Your credibility, and any point you intended to make about the actual issue, is lost in a spittle-flecked spray of insult, self-contradiction, and attempted character assassination. I don't handle dissent well, either. I handle it differently that you do, though. I don't see the need for name calling and character bashing. I just hunker down and get stubborn. Bad, but differently bad. If arguments here can be "won" (but I don't think they can), you are the easiest to defeat. All that's necessary is to say "You're wrong, Frank" and then stand back and watch you self-destruct. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > went on when the lights went out in Louisiana. Assumptions, if > you will, and assumptions that are as warranted as anyone else's. Okay, I haven't read the rest of this post yet, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are making a serious reply. Not everyone is making assumptions. In addition to the various news reports available on the Net, there are the two documents provided by the ACLU, PDF files of the school reports: one from the teacher explaining the incident and one from the student explaining what he had done wrong. Nowhere on those two documents does anyone say anything about using obscene language or violating a known school policy. > Anyone that's commented on this subject is basically working from > the same information, but processing that information according to > their own biases. No, that is not true. Some people have done some research on the subject and have refrained from coming to any conclusions other than the obvious ones that there was no school policy violated, only the teacher's personal policy of not having "that kind of dicussion" in her classroom because she thought it was better for parents to explain that sort of thing to their kids. That is in the teacher's own words in her report to the school. > My bias is that I think that most people in charge of most things > do a lot of things that are wrong, but do them for what they think > are the right reasons. Somewhere along the line they often get > off track and leave common sense on the hatrack. After reading three or four newspaper accounts of the incident and the quotes from the teacher, the vice-principal, the mother, and the school superintendant (Mr Easton), it is clear that the school screwed up and that Easton is trying to cover things up; his account of the events conflicts with the teacher's, if what the newspaper quoted him as saying is what he actually said. > Your bias seems to be that you view most people in charge of most > things to be inherently evil and deliberately wrong. That is your biased interpretation of my view. You love and trust authority and look for any excuse to say that they just made a little mistake. I am a cynic and find that people like that teacher and vice-principal went over the top because they basically cannot handle the idea that a child can so easily discuss what they find morally repugnant. > A simple > f.ck-up, to you, is a "symptom of an irrational national disease". You conveniently deny the plethora of evidence of homophobia throughout the US, not only in the military and in Congress, but also in almost all the state legislatures throughout the nation and in most of the religious institutions in the land. That's just for starters, of course, but I won't repeat the litany of evidence that average Americans are afraid of homosexuality because they think they or their children might catch it if exposed to it. This does not mean that the people in other countries do not feel the same thing. It seems that most do, but that does not excuse the teacher or the vice- principal in this case. > Errors in judgment about the reasonable way to handle something > are "criminal and dangerous" actions. Those people are obviously not reasonable people. They are the ones who [This is for you, Aaron] made it a big deal: "Your son said something so awful that I cannot repeat it over the telephone". Please! This guy is an idiot. > None of us here are dealing with facts. We are dealing with the > reporters tell us, and we don't know if they are dealing with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > state opinions and that we don't - because we can't - provide > facts. That is not true. The ACLU provides facts. Just look at the PDF files. The facts are written in the teacher's and the student's own words. You just haven't seen the facts, that's all. > When you go into one of your frequent laments about how you were > f.cked over, left out, or abused by all of the systems you came in > contact with in the US, you are presenting - presumably - facts. This is irrelevant and unnecessarily prejudicial commentary, and this is exactly the reason you are considered a malevolent a.shole by so many people in this NG. > At least, the facts as you perceived them to be. When you or I, > or anyone else here, comments on a newspaper story it's understood > by the sentient reader that we are presenting opinion or > observation. Some of us have read more than just the newspaper stories. We have read the official initial reports of the incident by the teacher and the student. And just for the record, newspaper stories are reasonable sources for historical research. They are cited all the time in history books, often because they are the only accounts that exist of some events. This is especially true for social history. Everyone knows that reporters don't always get it right, but there have been no stories published accusing the reporters or newspapers having seriously misrepresenting the statements of anyone involved nor of misquoting anyone involved. The story is at least 3 weeks old --- it happened on November 11. I'd expect the school, the teacher, the vice-principal, and the mother to have complained about newspaper lies by now if the papers hadn't got it right. The only obvious liar here is Easton, who has distorted the incident by claiming that it caused a classroom disruption when the teacher who reported the incident did not claim any classroom disruption. It's obvious who is lying. > You do best, Frank, when you present your own opinion on > something. I don't need your evaluations about what I do best or worse or well or poorly. You aren't qualified to evaluate anyone here. You are qualified to state your opinions, which is all you ever do. > Your presentation may be charged with your own biases, > and they tend to make "overkill" an understatement, but you do > well enough at this. I have often said that I am an extremist and I have often said that I engage in hyperbole because I enjoy it. You are not saying anything perspicacious here. No one is objective, so we all speak from the standpoint of our own biases. But your obvious bias makes your hyperbolic statement worthless. You are incapable of presenting a reasoned assessment of anything I have to say, so you twist and misrepresent, just as you did when you assumed --- because you had not read the CNN.com story --- that the headline writer's words were my words. Do you see my point? Your judgments are worth nothing because you make them without knowledge but only with bias and malice aforethought. > You don't seem to be able to handle dissent, > though. If anyone disagrees with you, you fly into a rage and > start attacking the dissenter. More psychoanalysis from a pathological liar --- a bit of hyperbole, I admit, but essentially true. This has nothing to do with the story, though, so why are are you saying all these nasty things? You just cannot talk to me like a civilized human being. You are not. > Your credibility, and any point you intended to make about the > actual issue, is lost in a spittle-flecked spray of insult, Oh, there you go with attempts at cleverness. I reply to your insulting remarks with insults because you invite them. > self-contradiction, and attempted character assassination. You have no character left to assassinate. It committed suicide long ago. > I don't handle dissent well, either. I handle it differently that > you do, though. I don't see the need for name calling and > character bashing. I just hunker down and get stubborn. Bad, but > differently bad. This is predictable. You think you are clever and you think you are reasonable. You are neither. You don't get stubborn, you get slimy and insinuating when you're not downright insulting. > If arguments here can be "won" (but I don't think they can), you > are the easiest to defeat. All that's necessary is to say "You're > wrong, Frank" and then stand back and watch you self-destruct. If you can show me that I'm wrong, produce the facts. You don't produce facts. You just make claims. If all you have to do is say "You are wrong", then why do you find it necessary to add all the nasty sh.t that you invariably tack on to your postings? You're lying again. This is not a debate. It's not about winning or losing. If you could discuss things without misrepresenting what others say whenever it suits your rhetorical purposes (you do it on purpose, IOW), you might be worth talking to, because, unlike your admirer YJ, you are not stupid, just annoying. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >> You do best, Frank, when you present your own opinion on >> something. > >I don't need your evaluations about what I do best or worse or well >or poorly. You aren't qualified to evaluate anyone here. You are >qualified to state your opinions, which is all you ever do. You really don't understand what an opinion is, do you? You really don't understand that saying "my evaluation of this situation is...." is often exactly the same as saying "my opinion of this situation is....". You say I'm not qualified to evaluate, but I am qualified to state opinions. Using "My evaluation" instead of "My opinion" when presenting a commentary is just a way of attempting to make the forthcoming commentary sound a little more serious. It does not make it more serious, though. There is an implication in the use of "evaluation" that there was a process of examination of careful study. My process was reading your posts for the past year or so. Still, an evaluation is often just an opinion dressed up. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >>> You do best, Frank, when you present your own opinion on >>> something. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You really don't understand what an opinion is, do you? Yes, I do. > You > really don't understand that saying "my evaluation of this > situation is...." is often exactly the same as saying "my opinion > of this situation is....". You often misuse words and then defend your misuse just the way YJ does. Perhaps that is why he is your admirer. > You say I'm not qualified to evaluate, but I am qualified to state > opinions. Any fool can state an opinion, even an old one. > Using "My evaluation" instead of "My opinion" when > presenting a commentary is just a way of attempting to make the > forthcoming commentary sound a little more serious. It does not > make it more serious, though. See? There you go misrepresenting things again. You want to make your opinions sound more serious by calling them evaluations. That's just another way of lying; it's like what the US government did in Vietnam when it called the destruction of villages and murder of the villagers "pacification". Sounds more serious and less vicious. > There is an implication in the use of "evaluation" that there was > a process of examination of careful study. No, there is an implication that you have some standing to make an evluation. Unless you have the proper credentials that demonstrate you are competent to evaluate other people's psychological condition or rhetorical style or intellectual capacity or writing ability, you are not qualified to make an evaluation. You are qualified only to register your unconsidered opinions. > My process was reading your posts for the past year or so. > Still, an evaluation is often just an opinion dressed up. In your case, that is just so. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Yes, I do. (snipped the balance of the post that carefully avoided providing any definition of either "opinion" or "evaluation" or demonstrating any perception of the interchangeability or difference.) Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > definition of either "opinion" or "evaluation" or demonstrating any > perception of the interchangeability or difference.) You are a hopeless case. You snip anything that makes you look as bad as you are. You never deal with your own shortcomings because you don't believe you have any. You never admit to being wrong, even when you are. You are constantly in need of winning your discussions. You don't even know what a discussion is. You think it is an opportunity to sh.t on someone else. You're good at that, I have to admit. That's why I call you Pooper, Pooper. You are good at sh.tting. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> definition of either "opinion" or "evaluation" or demonstrating any >> perception of the interchangeability or difference.) (snipped the balance of the post that carefully avoided providing any definition of either "opinion" or "evaluation" or demonstrating any perception of the interchangeability or difference or covered any new ground.) Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > demonstrating any perception of the interchangeability or > difference or covered any new ground.) You are a hopeless case. You snip anything that makes you look as bad as you are. You never deal with your own shortcomings because you don't believe you have any. You never admit to being wrong, even when you are. You are constantly in need of winning your discussions. You don't even know what a discussion is. You think it is an opportunity to sh.t on someone else. You're good at that, I have to admit. That's why I call you Pooper, Pooper. You are good at sh.tting. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 05 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >have to admit. That's why I call you Pooper, Pooper. You are good at >sh.tting. Note to Joey: this is an excellent example of an ad hominem argument. Note that Frank never once deals with the issue: the interchangeability of "opinion" and "evaluation". Instead, he counters with attacks on character. It's also an excellent example of why the ad hominem argument is used: the person using it is unable to intelligently address the issue. Classic stuff. I'm snipping heavily because there are only a few points worth rebutting. You have said: >Not everyone is making assumptions. In addition to the various news >reports available on the Net, there are the two documents provided by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >anything about using obscene language or violating a known school >policy. and >No, that is not true. Some people have done some research on the >subject... and >That is not true. The ACLU provides facts. Just look at the PDF >files. The facts are written in the teacher's and the student's own >words. You just haven't seen the facts, that's all. and then - as if to prove the fallacy of your own comments - you wrote: >After reading three or four newspaper accounts of the incident and >the quotes from the teacher, the vice-principal, the mother, and the >school superintendant (Mr Easton), it is clear that the school >screwed up and that Easton is trying to cover things up; his account >of the events conflicts with the teacher's, if what the newspaper >quoted him as saying is what he actually said. You allude to facts and research (a laughable claim) and then you readily admit that you allow for error in case the newspaper reports (which supply the facts) are incorrect. Media reports are often either incomplete or have their facts wrong. This almost mind-boggling claim that "some people (in this newsgroup) have done research on the subject" is ludicrous. The most anyone in this group has done is follow a link to media report, googled some key words to see if there are any more links to what other media reports have said, and read what the ACLU has chosen to release in their report. To deem that "research" is preposterous. I'll stick to my position that what we do here - in this type of discussion - is present our opinions based on whatever information is easily available, and that our opinion-forming is affected by our biases. All of us. I wrote: >> A simple >> f.ck-up, to you, is a "symptom of an irrational national disease". and then I wrote: > Your bias seems to be that you view most people in charge of most > things to be inherently evil and deliberately wrong. And then your replied: >You conveniently deny the plethora of evidence of homophobia >throughout the US, not only in the military and in Congress, but also [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >average Americans are afraid of homosexuality because they think they >or their children might catch it if exposed to it. C'mon, now. You wrote the above paragraph to prove that my assessment of your biases is absolutely dead on target, didn't you? The only error in my assessment is that your assumption of inherent evil is not limited to people in charge. >> When you go into one of your frequent laments about how you were >> f.cked over, left out, or abused by all of the systems you came in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is exactly the reason you are considered a malevolent a.shole by so >many people in this NG. You do say the damnedest things trying to prove what you think is a point. Unnecessary prejudicial commentary makes one a malevolent a.shole? Uhhh, Frank, I think you've just shot your other foot. >Some of us have read more than just the newspaper stories. We have >read the official initial reports of the incident by the teacher and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >misrepresenting the statements of anyone involved nor of misquoting >anyone involved. Newspaper stories are certainly reasonable sources for historical research. Within reason. You could do some credible research on the Viet Nam conflict by reading newspaper reports. Provided, of course, that you verified the accounts as written and had a large enough base of reports to spot inconsistencies and discrepancies. This incident, however, was barely a squib in most media reports. That allows us to form opinions and make our deductions, but we shouldn't delude ourselves by thinking we have all the facts at hand. As to no follow-up stories, that tells us that (a) nothing was uncovered that qualified as reportable news, or, (b) there was not enough interest in the incident for anyone in the media to do any research. My opinion remains that the boy was disciplined for using an unacceptable word in the school environment and that the whole incident was handled badly. I do see the reasoning of making "gay" an unacceptable term when used as a taunt, but the unreasonableness comes in when "gay" can't be used in any context. The punishment was writing "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again" and not "I will never discuss homosexual relationships in class again". Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: > I'm snipping heavily because there are only a few points worth > rebutting. You have said: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > You allude to facts and research (a laughable claim) I didn't do the research. Someone else did. They looked for information about the incident on the ACLU Web site, a very good place to look, because the ACLU is going to sue the school, the vice- principal, and the teacher. Whoever did the research found two documents that verify the newspaper accounts. I would call that research. What would you call it? > and then you > readily admit that you allow for error in case the newspaper > reports (which supply the facts) are incorrect. Anyone can lie. You prove that all the time. Anycone can misrepresent the facts. You prove that all the time. Historians have researched all kinds of claims made by all kinds of historical figures and found them to be false. Newspapers don't always get things right, but they don't always get things wrong either. Do you know a source of infallible truth when trying to establish the facts about any incident? Eye witnesses often lie for a variety of reasons, or else they simply don't remember correctly and make false accusations, not because they are malicious, necessarily, but because they are mistaken. We must always allow for the possibility of error. > Media reports are often either incomplete > or have their facts wrong. Yes, and the key word there is "often". Can you give us an accurate percentage so that we don't have to speak so vaguely about this? > This almost mind-boggling claim that "some people (in this > newsgroup) have done research on the subject" is ludicrous. You tell them that. They found materials you have not seen. They cared enough about the issue to see what else they could learn about the incident. You didn't. You just want to express your opinions based on these very same media reports that you have labeled as untrustworthy. > The > most anyone in this group has done is follow a link to media > report, googled some key words to see if there are any more links > to what other media reports have said, and read what the ACLU has > chosen to release in their report. To deem that "research" is > preposterous. This is because you have no idea what "research" means. It is a broad term that covers following hyperlinks as well as interviewing witnesses and participants in the incidents. Why are you scoffing at other people for doing what is recognized as research? Do you think that there is a difference between clicking on hyperlinks on the Web and checking out the card catalog in a library? That's all manual and hyperlinks are electronic; that's the only difference. Or do you have some strange idea that research is digging around in the attics of old houses and looking for hidden caches of letters to and from long- dead historical figures? It's obvious that you have no idea how the word "research" is used others rather than by people like yourself who go to the dictionary and discover that "research" is an exhaustive investigation. The way the word is used by people who do research allows it to be gradable. We say things like "I've done a little research" or "I've been researching this for the past 5 years" or "Her research was exhaustive" or "His research was slipshod and incomplete". You demonstrate your ignorance when you attempt to ride roughshod over the usage of words that are not within your purview. I just remembered that in an earlier post you misused another word: "dissent". You said that neither you nor I deal well with dissent. What you should have said was that we don't deal well with "disagreement". I won't bother to explain why your usage was wrong, because you can look it up for yourself. You can also ask someone who knows English better than you do. Rey, for instance, or Richard. > I'll stick to my position that what we do here - in this type of > discussion - is present our opinions based on whatever information > is easily available, That is generally true, but some of the folks here do go to great lengths to dig up information that is not easily available. Raymond Wise, for example; I respect his seriousness. He actually does a lot of research when he answers questions here. And he doesn't always use what is easily available. You may not read what he has to say because it's too academic and too steeped in the technicalities of linguistics for you, but he supports all his claims with references to a wide variety of texts. Some other people here spend what seems like endless hours on the Web looking for materials to support their claims or disprove the claims of others. Donna, for example. does an incredible amount of research. You may not read what she has to say because her posts --- especially the ones with quotations and cited sources --- may put you off. In addition to opinions, she offers a great deal of excellent primary and secondary source material for most of her claims. I respect her for that. Simon and Rey both do a lot of research on some questions. That's wonderful. They come up with all kinds of marvellous contributions that you just don't appreciate, I know, but I do. Steve Hayes often cites outside sources when he talks about certain issues. You have to respect what he says when he quotes chapter and verse to support his claims. There are others here who do research, but I will stop with those I know best. I know that I am not as diligent as any of those guys, but I'm in Taiwan where there is very little reference material in English, so I have to rely on the Web and the few reference books that I have on my shelves. What kind of research do you do? How do you back up any of your claims? You rely on the strength of your opinions and the tenacity with which you hold and repeat them. That is obvious and that is what you said. > and that our opinion-forming is affected by > our biases. All of us. Well, of course. No one is perfectly objective. Even the most objective historians have to leave out certain facts when they recount, analyze, and interpret the past. And they have to choose which facts to include as well as which facts to exclude. That is what Mailer was talking about when he wrote his book subtitled "History as a novel and the novel as history". But this is old hat for me. I spent a few years in graduate school studying methodology in history and the other social sciences. Do you even know what methodology is? > I wrote: >>> A simple [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > you? The only error in my assessment is that your assumption of > inherent evil is not limited to people in charge. Excuse me, but I don't see a single reference to "evil" there. Can you point one out? Do you honestly believe that I think a fear of homosexuality is evil? I don't believe in evil, except metaphorically. I think that all kinds of discriminatory attitudes expressed by all people in the world are as normal as having to take a sh.t when your bowels are about to burst. I'm not an idealist blinded by some perfect vision for humanity if only everyone believed in X. I've lived in a few foreign countries and seen how other peoples think and act and feel. We all have our fears. Many of the students in my classes visibly shake when they find that they have a foreign teacher. They've never seen a Westerner, some of them, except on TV, and even most of those who have seen live Westerners on the streets of the towns where they live have never spoken to one. These kids are afraid of me because they don't know what foreigners are like. Some here don't like Westerners at all. They're very rude and even threatening. But they are in the minority. Can you category deny that there aren't daily incidents at all levels of American society of fear of homosexuals? I don't think you can. You just don't understand English well enough to know what I was saying. Your blind dislike for me and your constant attempts to smear me force you to place the worst possible interpretation of everything I say, and to engage in clownish acts like rearranging my post the way you did earlier today. You act like a fool and then accuse me of bias. I like that. You have monster-balls, alright. >>> When you go into one of your frequent laments about how you were >>> f.cked over, left out, or abused by all of the systems you came [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > malevolent a.shole? Uhhh, Frank, I think you've just shot your > other foot. Yes. The fact that it's unnecessary and prejudicial makes it malevolent. Perhpas you would prefer malicious. You are a malicious man, of that there is no doubt. The question is how far you will go. Very far indeed, I see. >>Some of us have read more than just the newspaper stories. We have >>read the official initial reports of the incident by the teacher [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > shouldn't delude ourselves by thinking we have all the facts at > hand. Nobody thinks that. Did you read the ACLU documents? I didn't think so. You have even fewer of the facts, then, right? > As to no follow-up stories, that tells us that (a) nothing was > uncovered that qualified as reportable news, or, (b) there was not > enough interest in the incident for anyone in the media to do any > research. Both highly unlikely given the nature of the subject matter. Just my unconsidered opinion, but this kind of thing is always of interest to the general public. > My opinion remains that the boy was disciplined for using an > unacceptable word in the school environment and that the whole > incident was handled badly. I do see the reasoning of making > "gay" an unacceptable term when used as a taunt, but the > unreasonableness comes in when "gay" can't be used in any context. But he didn't use "gay" as a taunt. The teacher's report --- provided by the ACLU, by the way --- shows clearly that he was not disciplined for using an unacceptable word but for telling another student what the meaning of "gay" was: "When a girl likes another girl". That's what the teacher wrote down. She said that she wouldn't have that kind of talk in her room and that she thought that parents ougth to talk about such things to their children, not other children. As many other posters here have said, that effectively prohibits the boy from talking about his family; it puts him in a class different from his classmates, and only because his mother is a lesbian instead of a homosexual. You didn't see that, so how can you make any judgment or state any opinion about why the teacher was upset with the boy? There is no list of unacceptable words referred to in the report. You are blowing smoke out your ears [For Donna: a slant rhyme with "arse"]. > The punishment was writing "I will never use the word 'gay' in > school again" and not "I will never discuss homosexual > relationships in class again". Which, as a number of other posters have mentioned, is a prejudicial punishment. It's cruel and unusual to prohibit a child from using the language his mother uses to describe herself. Why shouldn't he use the word "gay" in school again? Is everyone else prohibited from using that word? Does that mean he can use "homsexual" or "lesbian" to describe his mother? Doubtful. And the boy is only 7 and his writing skills are quite poor. Do you think that he would have understood the phrase "homosexual relationships"? I doubt it very much. Seven-year-olds don't really understand sexual relationships. They might giggle about such things, though. Your opinion here is based on what kind of thinking? Not much thinking, I think. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Jaysus, Frank! A 301 line posting with most of your lines nothing more substantial than your usual sh.t-slinging. And you wonder why I snip you. >I didn't do the research. Someone else did. They looked for >information about the incident on the ACLU Web site, a very good >place to look, because the ACLU is going to sue the school, the vice- >principal, and the teacher. Whoever did the research found two >documents that verify the newspaper accounts. I would call that >research. What would you call it? A cursory peek at what's out there. Click the CNN link,note the kid's name, enter "Marcus McLaurin" in Google, and up pops the ACLU bit. (If you skip over the Marcus McLaurin that's involved with Marvel Comics). Eighth grade science projects involve more research. There's a third document out there for the "dedicated researcher" (one that clicks an additional link). Where, by the way, do you get the idea that the ACLU is suing the school? One of your "facts"? The ACLU letter to the school said: " We demand that school officials refrain from taking further disciplinary action against Marcus because he informed a classmate that his mother is a lesbian, expunge all records of any reference to such disciplinary action, give assurances that they will neither engage in such censorship and discrimination in the future nor retaliate against either Marcus or Ms. Huff, and offer apologies to both Marcus and Ms. Huff. " There's no indication of the ACLU bringing suit. >I just remembered that in an earlier post you misused another word: >"dissent". You said that neither you nor I deal well with dissent. >What you should have said was that we don't deal well with >"disagreement". I won't bother to explain why your usage was wrong, >because you can look it up for yourself. You can also ask someone who >knows English better than you do. Rey, for instance, or Richard. I said "dissent", I deliberately chose "dissent", and I meant "dissent". Disagreement is nay saying. Dissenting is to differ; a differing of opinion. Your threshold of rage is lower than disagreement. It kicks in at the dissent stage. No wonder you didn't bother to explain why my usage was "wrong". You don't have any sense of the nuance of the correctly used word. > And just for the record, newspaper stories are reasonable sources for > historical research. They are cited all the time in history books, > often because they are the only accounts that exist of some events. > This is especially true for social history. I beg to differ. When we first arrived in the USA, in 1949, the San Jose Mercury Herald did a big write-up on us. I was present when they interviewed my dad. The story, as it appeared in the paper, had a few things that were accurate, but most of it was fiction, plaid up to achieve a sort of sensationalism, and several of the "facts" were dead wrong. > Everyone knows that > reporters don't always get it right, but there have been no stories > published accusing the reporters or newspapers having seriously > misrepresenting the statements of anyone involved nor of misquoting > anyone involved. My dad tried to get the SJMH people to come out again and to get things straight, but they had lost interest. After all, it didn't really matter, and their story was better than a recounting of the reality would have been. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >but most of it was fiction, plaid up to achieve a sort of sensationalism, Not to mention tartanized. >> but most of it was fiction, plaid up to achieve a sort of >> sensationalism, > > Not to mention tartanized. Nice catch. I should be kilt for that one. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> but most of it was fiction, plaid up to achieve a sort of >>> sensationalism, >> >> Not to mention tartanized. > >Nice catch. I should be kilt for that one. Saltyred, my friend, saltyred. David [...] > The story, as it appeared in the paper, had a few things > that were accurate, but most of it was fiction, plaid up ^^^^^ Perhaps your dad had a checkered past? :) > to achieve a sort of sensationalism, > and several of the "facts" were dead wrong. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman > [...] > >> The story, as it appeared in the paper, had a few things >> that were accurate, but most of it was fiction, plaid up > ^^^^^ > Perhaps your dad had a checkered past? :) My face is solidly red -- I checked that in the mirror. >> to achieve a sort of sensationalism, >> and several of the "facts" were dead wrong. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > And just for the record, newspaper stories are reasonable sources > > for historical research. They are cited all the time in history [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > accurate, but most of it was fiction, plaid up to achieve a sort of > sensationalism, and several of the "facts" were dead wrong. I've been doing some genealogical research on my family, and recently got access to the 1930 census forms, which include answers to questions like "What year did you immigrate to the US?" What better source could you ask for? Straight from the horse's mouth. I also have access to the (dated) ships' manifests at Ellis Island. The census information is usually within two or three years of the truth. Even "reasonable sources" need to be taken with several grains of salt. But they're typically better than nothing. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth. |Enormous effort and elaborate kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this (650)857-7572 |much money | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Since Frank has me killfiled, and will never see this, I think >> I'll have some fun and rearrange his post so he's answering [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >assumptions as if they were the facts, and, in general, lied and >misrepresented as you always do. LOL! Shows what the chink's "kill file" is worth! de781@aol.com spake thus: > >> Since Frank has me killfiled, and will never see this, I think > >> I'll have some fun and rearrange his post so he's answering [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > LOL! Shows what the chink's "kill file" is worth! "chink"? A narrow opening of some sort, Shirley? SignatureDavid ===== david56 <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: > de781@aol.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "chink"? A narrow opening of some sort, Shirley? This just demonstrates what type of *stupid* (as opposed to "run-of- the-mill") a.shole YJ is. He thinks that I'm Chinese just because I post from Taiwan. Next thing you know, he's going to say that when he uses "chink", it's not racist because people of his generation use that word to mean people with holes in their nose --- you know what I mean, nares --- and ears. God, it's amazing how clueless YJ is. If only he understood how kind almost everyone else here is to him. His arrogance tops anything I've seen here, except for Phoney Pooper's, who's been at it for 50 years longer than YJ, so I expect him to be better at it. But when YJ turns into OJ, he'll best the Pooper at his own game. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. [ ... ] > God, it's amazing how clueless YJ is. If only he understood how kind > almost everyone else here is to him. His arrogance tops anything I've > seen here, except for Phoney Pooper's, who's been at it for 50 years > longer than YJ, so I expect him to be better at it. But when YJ turns > into OJ, he'll best the Pooper at his own game. Or cut Tony into little pieces. Chink: >He thinks that I'm Chinese just because I >post from Taiwan. LOL! Now THIS is classic! >he's going to say that when he >uses "chink", it's not racist because people of his generation use that >word to mean people with holes in their nose Nope. It's not racist because I have NOTHING against the average Chinese person. Chinks, though, I can't stand! de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 18 Dec 2003: > Chink: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nope. It's not racist because I have NOTHING against the average > Chinese person. Chinks, though, I can't stand! Right. Some of your best friends are average Chinese persons. I'm sure that's true. Now, just what do *you* think "chink" means (other than a CRACK, CREVICE, CRANNY, INTERSTICE, LOOPHOLE, or other type of hole)? And what do you think average Chinese Americans think when they hear some paisan-American using "chink"? You continue to prove that you are even more inane than your posts make you seem. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 18 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >do you think average Chinese Americans think when they hear some >paisan-American using "chink"? There's a strange bit of logic. The word is offensive because of other meanings of the word? Then, we should be offended by Yank because it also means "to jerk"? This would have been a good opportunity to do one of those posts where you search out references and then form your opinion around them. You could have offered the origin of the term "Chink" to describe a Chinese person. Used your powers for good. My guess - and it's strictly a guess - is that it's based on the eyes appearing as chinks in the face. That, and the presence of the "ch" sound in both "chink" and "Chinaman". I know a Chinese-American. (Actually, he's an American of Chinese heritage since he was never Chinese himself) I will have to ask him if "Chink" evokes the image of an interstice when he hears it. He's a surgeon, so "interstice" will have meaning to him. As a "medical editor" you know that though. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 18 Dec 2003: >>de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 18 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > other meanings of the word? Then, we should be offended by Yank > because it also means "to jerk"? Woosh! You missed it. Or you are straining to twist what I've said again. I said it was a racist expression aimed at Chinese, and YJ Dumpty said it wasn't racist because he had "NOTHING against the average Chinese person", but he can't stand "Chinks". The definition of "chink" is as I gave it. I want to know what YJ Dumpty thinks "Chink" means and why out of his scurrilous mouty it is not a racist epithet, but I don't want a reptition of the dictionary's meanings. > This would have been a good opportunity to do one of those posts > where you search out references and then form your opinion around > them. You could have offered the origin of the term "Chink" to > describe a Chinese person. Used your powers for good. YJ is a college boy. He can do his own f.cking research. Besides, he's impervious to good. I am not the only one who thinks so. > My guess - and it's strictly a guess - is that it's based on the > eyes appearing as chinks in the face. That, and the presence of > the "ch" sound in both "chink" and "Chinaman". That may well be. I haven't looked it up recently, but your guess sounds accurate enough. But I dont care what it really means or where it really came from. I want to know only what YJ thinks it means and what part of his accepting soul it came from. > I know a Chinese-American. (Actually, he's an American of Chinese > heritage since he was never Chinese himself). The distinction is between ethnic Chinese and citizens of the PRC, aka "China". Among Chinese and Chinese Americans there is still an ongoing debate about who can “be Chinese” and who cannot. Is ethnicity sufficient, or is it possible to call oneself Chinese solely on the basis of having grown up in a Chinese cultural environment and, therefore, feeling Chinese? These two groups of Chinese are divided on the issue. The Chinese Americans, especially the American-born Chinese (“ABC”s over here) are less accepting of those who are not ethnically Chinese than are the culturally Chinese. The government of the PRC is politically cynical and uses racist statements like “We are all Chinese, so we should not fight each other” when trying to persuade Taiwanese that they (the Mainland government) own Taiwan. I have no opinion on the question of who can or cannot be Chinese: I am not, but my son is Taiwanese, as far as my family is concerned, and “meiguoren” (“American person”) to most Taiwanese here. > I will have to ask > him if "Chink" evokes the image of an interstice when he hears it. > He's a surgeon, so "interstice" will have meaning to him. As a > "medical editor" you know that though. Be sure to report what he says to the group. Anecdotal references from a single source are typically used as unimpeachable evidence of what everyone else who falls into the category of “an American of Chinese heritage since he was never Chinese himself” feels, thinks, and believes about the meaning and value of the word. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >> This would have been a good opportunity to do one of those posts >> where you search out references and then form your opinion around [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >YJ is a college boy. He can do his own f.cking research. Besides, >he's impervious to good. I am not the only one who thinks so. I'd be interested in the origin. Others, too, I'd think. To deprive us because you don't want to help Joey is that "cut off your nose" thing. >> My guess - and it's strictly a guess - is that it's based on the >> eyes appearing as chinks in the face. That, and the presence of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sounds accurate enough. But I dont care what it really means or where >it really came from. This is satire, right? A very subtle, but clever (klever?), response to my post about knowing buzzwords and obscure scholars? You post in a usage group, but have no interest in the origins of words and phrases. A satirical statement denying that you have intellectual curiosity? Damn. You're getting good at this. You must be attending my school. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 19 Dec 2003: >>> This would have been a good opportunity to do one of those posts >>> where you search out references and then form your opinion [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'd be interested in the origin. Then go to the library and look it up in the OED; my OED2-CD-ROM causes a GPF these days. W3NID says: Main Entry:7chink Function:noun Inflected Form:-s Usage:often capitalized Etymology:alteration (probably influenced by "chink" small cleft) of Chinese; from their slant eyes : CHINESE usually taken to be offensive > Others, too, I'd think. To deprive us because you don't > want to help Joey is that "cut off your nose" thing. You're such a street-level bullshitter. Like Malcom X when he was known as Malcolm Little and was a hustler, you love to pull people's coats. Only Malcom X made something of himself. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Chink: >YJ is a college boy. He can do his own f.cking research. Besides, >he's impervious to good. I am not the only one who thinks so. "Impervious to good"? Is that ALL?! Oh, come on, Chink! We ALL know Satan ain't got no sh.t on me! >I want to know only what YJ thinks it means and >what part of his accepting soul it came from. The part of my soul that hates all chinks, with a passion. >I am not, but my son is Taiwanese, as far as my >family is concerned, You're both Chinks, as far as I'm concerned. But, yo' chink son is just a chinklett. Maybe he'll end up being the kid, 2 from each of the 9 continents, that Michael Jackson adopts from Chinkland. We can only hope. de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 21 Dec 2003: > Chink: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > each of the 9 continents, that Michael Jackson adopts from > Chinkland. We can only hope. Michael Jackson? Do you mean that wannabe-white singer who already looks ghoulish at 40 because he bleaches his skin and frequently changes his features? Regardless of how his upcoming trial turns out --- if indeed there is a trial --- the man will not be allowed to adopt any children in the USA. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Chink: >Michael Jackson? Do you mean that wannabe-white singer who already >looks ghoulish at 40 because he bleaches his skin and frequently >changes his features? Regardless of how his upcoming trial turns out >--- if indeed there is a trial --- the man will not be allowed to adopt >any children in the USA. Damn! I'm sure your son would love him! On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes >>2 from >> each of the 9 continents *Nine* continents? Which would they be then? SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher > <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes >>>2 from >>> each of the 9 continents > > *Nine* continents? Which would they be then? North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Arabia, and the Maritime Continent. SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher > > <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, > Antarctica, Arabia, and the Maritime Continent. It must be ten, then. You left out Atlantis. SignatureBob Lieblich And what about Tierra del Fuego? >>>On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher >>><cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It must be ten, then. You left out Atlantis. I thought that was atypically sarcastic of you, Bob. We've done this continent thing before, and discovered that many people divide N & S America into 2. The only odd entry in this list was Arabia, although 'Maritime Continent' is an unusual name too: did it mean 'Oceania / Australasia' or did it mean the Pacific islands? - I give up. SignatureRob Bannister Once upon a 12/23/03 2:50 PM, in the land of 3FE8C69C.96145493@Verizon.net, >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher >>> <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, >> Antarctica, Arabia, and the Maritime Continent. If Europe qualifies as a continent, then so must Alaska. > It must be ten, then. You left out Atlantis. Isn't that the "Maritime Continent"? Hail Atlantis Way down, below the ocean, Where I wanna be, she may be... They've found the paving stones, doncha know? Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote on 24 Dec 2003: >> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher >> > <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It must be ten, then. You left out Atlantis. I hadn't read this when I responded to the penguin, but it's good to see that you, too, are keeping the faith, Bob. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Opus the Penguin <nospamopus@netzero.net> wrote on 24 Dec 2003: >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher >> <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, > Antarctica, Arabia, and the Maritime Continent. You forgot Atlantis and Sea World. That make 11. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Mark Browne <news@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote on 24 Dec 2003: > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher > <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes >>>2 from >>> each of the 9 continents > > *Nine* continents? Which would they be then? You got the attribution wrong, Mark. It was the dung-beetle larva and self-proclaimed idiot-savant YJ that [I use "that" instead of "who" for inanimate objects and animals, including insects] claimed 9 continents. I know that I've said before that I hate being wrong, but I hate even more being misquoted. Here is the body of the original post: [quote] Subject: Re: Boy punished for talking about gay mom From: CyberCypher <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 21 Dec 2003: > Chink: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > each of the 9 continents, that Michael Jackson adopts from > Chinkland. We can only hope. Michael Jackson? Do you mean that wannabe-white singer who already looks ghoulish at 40 because he bleaches his skin and frequently changes his features? Regardless of how his upcoming trial turns out --- if indeed there is a trial --- the man will not be allowed to adopt any children in the USA. [/quote] SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes >Mark Browne <news@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote on 24 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You got the attribution wrong, Mark. My apologies. I didn't see the original post, although I don't know why. SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected Mark Browne <news@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote on 24 Dec 2003: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher > <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes >>Mark Browne <news@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote on 24 Dec 2003: >> >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, CyberCypher >>> <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> writes >>>>>2 from each of the 9 continents >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My apologies. I didn't see the original post, although I don't know > why. No problem. I didn't think that you had done it on purpose. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 18 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >do you think average Chinese Americans think when they hear some >paisan-American using "chink"? There's a strange bit of logic. The word is offensive because of other meanings of the word? Then, we should be offended by Yank because it also means "to jerk"? This would have been a good opportunity to do one of those posts where you search out references and then form your opinion around them. You could have offered the origin of the term "Chink" to describe a Chinese person. Used your powers for good. My guess - and it's strictly a guess - is that it's based on the eyes appearing as chinks in the face. That, and the presence of the "ch" sound in both "chink" and "Chinaman". I know a Chinese-American. (Actually, he's an American of Chinese heritage since he was never Chinese himself) I will have to ask him if "Chink" evokes the image of an interstice when he hears it. He's a surgeon, so "interstice" will have meaning to him. As a "medical editor" you know that though. Chink: >Right. Some of your best friends are average Chinese persons. I'm sure >that's true. Nope. Just a couple of my cousins are. And, I guess, some ACQUANTANCES from high school were Chinese. But, I have ZERO Chinese friends. WRONG, as usual, Chink! >Now, just what do *you* think "chink" means (other than a CRACK, >CREVICE, CRANNY, INTERSTICE, LOOPHOLE, or other type of hole)? Guess. >And what >do you think average Chinese Americans think when they hear some >paisan-American using "chink"? The non-Chinks don't mind. >You continue to prove that you are even more inane than your posts make >you seem. Yo' chinkish momma is inanane! de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 21 Dec 2003: > Chink: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ACQUANTANCES from high school were Chinese. But, I have ZERO > Chinese friends. WRONG, as usual, Chink! I'm not surprised. That's what "Some of my best friends are Chinese" means. Another point against you. >>Now, just what do *you* think "chink" means (other than a CRACK, >>CREVICE, CRANNY, INTERSTICE, LOOPHOLE, or other type of hole)? > > Guess. You learned that from Tiger Turd. >>And what >>do you think average Chinese Americans think when they hear some >>paisan-American using "chink"? > > The non-Chinks don't mind. No, racists don't usually mind when you use racist epithets against other races. They object only when racist epithets are used against them. >>You continue to prove that you are even more inane than your posts >>make you seem. > > Yo' chinkish momma is inanane! I see that I was wrong about your being in the gutter. You are securely entrenched in the sewer, the one reserved for those incapable of even a modicum of conscious cleverness. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Chink: >>>Right. Some of your best friends are average Chinese persons. I'm >>>sure that's true. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I'm not surprised. That's what "Some of my best friends are Chinese" >means. Another point against you. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Is anyone else recognizing just HOW retarded Chink has shown herself to be? I guess Chinkland's made her dumb. Oh, wait.... >No, racists don't usually mind when you use racist epithets against >other races. They object only when racist epithets are used against >them. Well, if they're chinks then it's up to them to change that! >Listen, a.shole, I posted the f.cking URL and you read the f.cking >story on CNN.com. If you don't like the USA being called "the land of >freedom of speech", tough. LOL! Who needs to mature now? I just can't get enough of psychotic hypocrites! > The boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom. He was > disciplined for using a word - gay - that the school feels is > unacceptable. The school has a policy that people cannot be > described with certain words: nigger, gay, etc. Has anybody seen the school's list of forbidden words? I'd bet lesbian and homosexual are on there too, in which case the child is constructively prohibited from talking about his mom. It's a stupid rule, and it's probably a good thing this has come to light. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >Has anybody seen the school's list of forbidden words? I'd bet lesbian >and homosexual are on there too, If that is the case, then I'd have to agree that the school board is racist, yes. How can they just try to deny the existence of an entire group of people? I really CANNOT see a school board in Louisiana trying to claim that "gays" don't exist. In Texas, maybe. But most likely not in suburban Louisiana. The Catholic Church dislikes homosexuality. But would the pope ever try to claim that "gayness" doesn't exist? I don't think so. I have to agree with Cooper that the word "gay" (not "lesbian" or "homosexual") is considered derogatory by the school, as likely is "retarded", "nigger", "spic", possibly "fat", even though some people might refer to themselves by the above. It's an example of the school trying to be P.C. >> The boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom. He was >> disciplined for using a word - gay - that the school feels is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >constructively prohibited from talking about his mom. It's a stupid >rule, and it's probably a good thing this has come to light. There is no lists of words, it seems. Simon Hughes has posts the URLs to the copies of the disciplinary documents, put online by the ACLU; <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=14477> and <http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=14479> Two rather sizable PDFs, but the meat of it is this. The child was required to fill in a form, thus: "What I did: I sed bad wurds. What I should have done: cep my mouf shut." The teacher's exegesis is "Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay [his version is that this was in response to a question]. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way." Marcus was made to spend an hour in a "behavior clinic" at 6.45 in the morning, where he was required to write repeatedly "I will not use the word gay in school again." This makes it fairly clear that what was objected to was not a particular word, but any mention by Marcus of his mother's sexuality in any terms at all. None of those involved in this squalid episode (the punishment was apparently decided on by the Principal) have any business being allowed near children. I hope, for Marcus's sake, that he has learned to "keep his mouf shut". It will probably be his only protection. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". Don Aitken filted: >The teacher's exegesis is "Marcus decided to explain to another child >in his group that his mom is gay [his version is that this was in >response to a question]. He told the other child that gay is when a >girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my >room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to >their own children in their own way." Then the other student, who asked for more information about why Marcus had two mothers instead of a mother and a father, should also be disciplined...it was obviously inappropriate, given the teacher's stated policy, for him to pry into the composition of his classmate's family, and another reprimand is in order.... On Usenet, it's called "trolling"....r > "What I did: I sed bad wurds. > What I should have done: cep my mouf shut." With an explanatory note at the top: He explained to another child that you are gay [word double underlined] and what being gay means. > The teacher's exegesis is "Marcus decided to explain to another child > in his group that his mom is gay [his version is that this was in > response to a question]. He told the other child that gay is when a > girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my > room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to > their own children in their own way." Given that, for a second grader, his explanation was essentially correct, one must assume that, in light of the teacher's comments, it was the subject rather than the words that were objected to. Note also that in the "nature of incident" part of the form, "other" was checked rather than "being disrespectful toward teacher or other staff or other students" or "using profane language". > Marcus was made to spend an hour in a "behavior clinic" at 6.45 in the > morning, where he was required to write repeatedly "I will not use the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > particular word, but any mention by Marcus of his mother's sexuality > in any terms at all. But what he was actually taught was that it was the *word* "gay" that was a "bad wurd". Not that "some people around here are so uncomfortable with your family structure that you are not allowed to discuss it at school, even to explain what it is". And certainly not the implied "What you did wrong was present your family in a neutral way, when parents should have the right to explain to their children that it's immoral." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |To express oneself 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |In seventeen syllables Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is very diffic | Tony Finch kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> The boy was not disciplined for talking about his gay mom. He was >> disciplined for using a word - gay - that the school feels is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > constructively prohibited from talking about his mom. It's a stupid > rule, and it's probably a good thing this has come to light. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35936 << The school district superintendent, however, claims the boy was reprimanded because he caused an "ordinary student disturbance," not because he used the word "gay." >> << The AP reported Marcus was required to fill out a form, in which he wrote, "I sed bad wurds." In a space for "What I should have done," he wrote, "Cep my mouf shut." Easton [The Superintendent] told The Lafayette Advertiser yesterday that Marcus should not be punished for using the term "gay," but said, "he could be disciplined for describing bedroom antics, something that was personal, that took place at home." >> From http://makeashorterlink.com/?C372316B6 << ACLU state director Joe Cook released a behavior report signed by teacher Terry L. Bethea. The report states, "Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not appropriate in my room," Bethea wrote. "I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way." The ACLU also released a "behavior contract," sent to the mother about the child's punishment. At the top was written, "He explained to another child that you are gay and what being gay means." >> << Easton told The (Lafayette) Advertiser on Tuesday that Marcus should not be punished for using the term "gay," but said, "he could be disciplined for describing bedroom antics, something that was personal, that took place at home." Easton said Marcus was sent to a behavioral clinic a week after the "gay" incident because he was disrupting the classroom and not completing an assignment. However, the Nov. 17 date for "behavior clinic" was on the behavior report signed Nov. 11. >> So it seems that the teacher equated 'My Moms are gay' with 'describing bedroom antics'. Maybe time to change 'Lafayette, we are here' to 'Lafayette, we are coming'. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > So it seems that the teacher equated 'My Moms are gay' with > 'describing bedroom antics'. No, you misunderstood. The teacher equated "Gay is when a girl likes another girl" with "describing bedroom antics". Shades of [quoting myself] the controversy at Stanford in the '80s over a statue titled "Gay Liberation". It showed two men, standing, one with his hand on the other's shoulder, and two women sitting on a park bench, one casually touching the other's leg. The very notion was that "liberation" means being able to do the little things that everybody else takes for granted. And yet there was a huge outcry, and I vividly remember one letter to a newspaper from someone who said that such things shouldn't be allowed since, after all, a statue of a man and a woman having sex would have been seen as inappropriate. Somehow casual touches become "having sex" when the couple is gay, just as mentioning that someone is your partner becomes "running around and bringing up your sex life". http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=vfukh1jc.fsf@hpl.hp.com SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> So it seems that the teacher equated 'My Moms are gay' with >> 'describing bedroom antics'. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=vfukh1jc.fsf@hpl.hp > .com One of the unacclaimed wonders of the world is that in Taiwan and Japan, boys and young men in college who are not gay walk around town and campus holding hands and with arms draped over each other's shoulders. Girls and young women in college do the same thing. This is not seen by anyone but Americans and some other Westerners as "inappropriate behavior" or any indication of sexual orientation. Homosexuality is no more or less approved of in these two countries than in the United States. I'm sure this is normal in lots of other Asian cultures as well. Almost no one kisses in public, though --- but that is changing. In America, however, such same-sex physical is tantamount to a sex crime and certainly a sin. But when heterosexuals engage in public passion that is often embarrassingly lewd, almost nobody cares. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >> So it seems that the teacher equated 'My Moms are gay' with >> 'describing bedroom antics'. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=vfukh1jc.fsf@hpl.hp.com That's a pretty extreme reaction. Almost like some kind of irrational phobia. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > That's a pretty extreme reaction. Almost like some kind of irrational > phobia. "Almost"? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> So it seems that the teacher equated 'My Moms are gay' with >> 'describing bedroom antics'. > > No, you misunderstood. The teacher equated "Gay is when a girl likes > another girl" with "describing bedroom antics". Frankly, when a teacher reports a child in these circumstances, I wouldn't be confident of knowing *how* the teacher reached his/her conclusion. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply >>> So it seems that the teacher equated 'My Moms are gay' with >>> 'describing bedroom antics'. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wouldn't be confident of knowing *how* the teacher reached his/her > conclusion. This might be a good time to tune up the guitar and sing the song Phoebe (of _Friends_) performed for the kids the time they came to Central Perk: "Sometimes men love women And sometimes men love men And then there are bisexuals Though some just say they're kidding themselves La la la la la la ..." SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >I don't agree with the school's action, but let's not be misleading in >your continual quest for verification that stupid things are done in >the US. Hmmmm...so that CyberCypher creep is an anti-American bigot? It all makes sense now. He hates my honest frankness about what's wrong with foreigners! The closed-minded whore! >>I don't agree with the school's action, but let's not be misleading in >>your continual quest for verification that stupid things are done in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sense now. He hates my honest frankness about what's wrong with foreigners! >The closed-minded whore! Come back Christopher Johnson, all is forgiven! You may have been a phony but you were more entertaining than the real thing. -- Ross Howard Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >>>I don't agree with the school's action, but let's not be >>>misleading in your continual quest for verification that stupid [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Come back Christopher Johnson, all is forgiven! You may have been > a phony but you were more entertaining than the real thing. Yes, and he enough about English to know that there is no such thing as "dishonest frankness". SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: [ ... ] > > Come back Christopher Johnson, all is forgiven! You may have been > > a phony but you were more entertaining than the real thing. > > Yes, and he enough about English to know that there is no such thing as > "dishonest frankness". Now there's an interesting oxymoron. I can see it being used ironically to mean "lying behind an honest-appearing facade." Yup -- "Dishonest frankness." I was going to essay a pun about Franke-ness, but I'm low on energy tonight. SignatureBob Lieblich Really fatigued Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I was going to essay a pun about Franke-ness, but I'm low on > energy tonight. That you were going to is sufficient. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: > >>> Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: [snip] >> I was going to essay a pun about Franke-ness, but I'm low on >> energy tonight. >> >That you were going to is sufficient. More than sufficient. \ posted and e-mailed. > > Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ironically to mean "lying behind an honest-appearing facade." Yup > -- "Dishonest frankness." One of the more effective ways of lying is to tell the literal truth when it is bound to be misinterpreted. I think it was Robert Heinlein who wrote that. That is not the same as 'honest appearing'. And it is certainly not quite 'frank' - or is it? I keep stumbling over whether 'frankness' insists that there is no misunderstanding. SignatureRich Ulrich, wpilib@pitt.edu http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." > One of the more effective ways of lying is to > tell the literal truth when it is bound to be > misinterpreted. > I think it was Robert Heinlein who wrote that. My recollection of Heinlein's suggested way of lying is to tell the truth when you're certain not to be believed. That's different from "misinterpreted". > > One of the more effective ways of lying is to > > tell the literal truth when it is bound to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not to be believed. That's different from > "misinterpreted". I think you are right. That's even better, isn't it, as an instance of 'dishonest frankness'? SignatureRich Ulrich, wpilib@pitt.edu http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." >Now there's an interesting oxymoron. I can see it being used >ironically to mean "lying behind an honest-appearing facade." Yup >-- "Dishonest frankness." Why not? And it works in my case anyway because you all seem to THINK my frankness IS fake! But, as J. Lo said, "I'M REAL"! However, I MEAN it! >Yes, and he enough about English Hablas ingles? Por favor, en ingles!! >to know that there is no such thing as >"dishonest frankness". You're the only one who mentioned "dishonest frankness". You moron. Looks like SOMEONE needs to learn to READ AND WRITE! > >>I don't agree with the school's action, but let's not be misleading in > >>your continual quest for verification that stupid things are done in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Come back Christopher Johnson, all is forgiven! You may have been a > phony but you were more entertaining than the real thing. Ross, be kind to Young Joey; he is burdened with a problem that most of us don't share and are often antipathetic to: AOL. >>>>I don't agree with the school's action, but let's not be misleading in >>>>your continual quest for verification that stupid things are done in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ross, be kind to Young Joey; he is burdened with a problem that most of > us don't share and are often antipathetic to: AOL. Where *is* Perchprism? SignatureSimon R. Hughes [ ... ] > Where *is* Perchprism? Philadelphia, last I heard. SignatureBob Lieblich That was quite a while ago > [ ... ] > > > Where *is* Perchprism? > > Philadelphia, last I heard. He disappeared right after our little get-together after the Smithsonian lecture. We didn't cause that, did we? SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. > Where *is* Perchprism? Come to think of it, where is Charles? SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. >Ross, be kind to Young Joey; he is burdened with a problem that most of >us don't share and are often antipathetic to: AOL. Just like you people. Keep hating the things that are more successful than you could hope to be! If another ISP was #1, you'd be bashing them and praising AOL. Hypocrites are great. >Come back Christopher Johnson, all is forgiven! You may have been a >phony but you were more entertaining than the real thing. "The real thing"? So CJ was just one of you losers mimicking me, you think? YOU WISH! You just can't handle the fact that people younger than 40 exist, and WE'RE taking over the world with OUR ways, as your prehistoric ways (and you yourselves) die out! Just accept the inevitable! > >Come back Christopher Johnson, all is forgiven! You may have been a > >phony but you were more entertaining than the real thing. > > "The real thing"? So CJ was just one of you losers mimicking me, > you think? Uh, no. People didn't believe CJ because they thought he sounded too mature for the age he claimed. I don't think I've seen anybody accuse you of that. > YOU WISH! You just can't handle the fact that people younger than > 40 exist, Uh, Joey? *I'm* younger than 40. > and WE'RE taking over the world with OUR ways, as your prehistoric > ways (and you yourselves) die out! Just accept the inevitable! See those five-year-olds over there? Bow down before them, for they shall supplant you. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither |Liberty nor Safety. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > See those five-year-olds over there? Bow down before them, for they > shall supplant you. Perhaps, but they certainly will plant you. >Uh, no. People didn't believe CJ because they thought he sounded too >mature for the age he claimed. I don't think I've seen anybody accuse >you of that. Ha, ha, ha. That's just a pants-wetter right there! >Uh, Joey? *I'm* younger than 40. Wow. I don't think you have to worry about anyone thinking that you're 2000 enough to be your age. >See those five-year-olds over there? Bow down before them, for they >shall supplant you. Yes. I know they will. And it doesn't bother me one bit. On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, DE781 <de781@aol.com> writes >>Uh, no. People didn't believe CJ because they thought he sounded too >>mature for the age he claimed. I don't think I've seen anybody accuse [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Yes. I know they will. And it doesn't bother me one bit. Then why do you think that it bothers those of us over (*just* over) 40? SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected > >See those five-year-olds over there? Bow down before them, for they > >shall supplant you. > > Yes. I know they will. And it doesn't bother me one bit. But they won't until they're older, just as you won't until you're older. And by then, your speech patterns (and other habits) will have changed. Trust me. The very same people my age who use "gay" to mean "homosexual" used it in a very similar way to the way you describe when we were your age and younger. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > >See those five-year-olds over there? Bow down before them, for they > > >shall supplant you. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in a very similar way to the way you describe when we were your age > and younger. To describe the Brady Bunch? > > The very same people my age who use "gay" to mean "homosexual" > > used it in a very similar way to the way you describe when we were > > your age and younger. > > To describe the Brady Bunch? Actually, from junior high students, I wouldn't have been surprised to hear the Brady Bunch described as "so gay". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | is chaunge Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes | tho kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and (650)857-7572 | straunge |Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | hem so | Chaucer > >Come back Christopher Johnson, all is forgiven! You may have been a > >phony but you were more entertaining than the real thing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and WE'RE taking over the world with OUR ways, as your prehistoric ways (and > you yourselves) die out! Just accept the inevitable! You're right, of course, YJ. Demography is destiny, and there will be a lot more of your generation around in 50 years than there will be of mine. The only thing that might save civilization as we know it is that you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. Even the Boomers grew up, although it took them a lot longer than average. Meanwhile, I envy you your youth, but not the excess baggage that you seem to carry around. SignatureBob Lieblich Old fart (with no other choice) >The only thing that might save civilization as we know >it is that you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. My "cohort"? Leah? >Meanwhile, I envy you your youth, but not the excess baggage that >you seem to carry around. The world's a different place now than it was when you grew up, Bob. "Excess baggage" seems to come standard with my generation. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, that's up for debate. > [Bob Lieblich, I think -- why do you always snip attributions, YJ?]: >>The only thing that might save civilization as we know >>it is that you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. > > My "cohort"? Leah? No, she's your "consort". > The world's a different place now than it was when you grew up, Bob. > "Excess baggage" seems to come standard with my generation. You're referring to the epidemic (STS) of obesity among American youth? (NTTAWWT.) (BTW, Chicago youth are supposed to be twice as likely to be obese as GenAm youth, or something like that.) >You're referring to the epidemic (STS) of obesity >among American youth? (NTTAWWT.) (Oh, yes there is!) > > The world's a different place now than it was when you grew up, Bob. > > "Excess baggage" seems to come standard with my generation. > > You're referring to the epidemic (STS) of obesity among American youth? > (NTTAWWT.) (BTW, Chicago youth are supposed to be twice as likely to be > obese as GenAm youth, or something like that.) Must be all that pseudo pizza. SignatureBob Lieblich Or Domino's falling > > > The world's a different place now than it was when you grew up, Bob. > > > "Excess baggage" seems to come standard with my generation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Must be all that pseudo pizza. Watch it, Bob! Fontana: >> "Excess baggage" seems to come standard with my generation. > >You're referring to the epidemic (STS) of obesity among American youth? >(NTTAWWT.) (BTW, Chicago youth are supposed to be twice as likely to be >obese as GenAm youth, or something like that.) I meant "excess baggage" figuratively, as Bob did. > >The only thing that might save civilization as we know it is that > >you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. > > My "cohort"? Leah? Main Entry: co·hort 1 d : a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study <a cohort of premedical students> It's a word you might learn in school. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> >The only thing that might save civilization as we know it is that >> >you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >It's a word you might learn in school. That's interesting. It's a word that I've never looked up because I thought I knew the meaning of it. I've never thought of it, however, as a word to describe a group. I'd use it as "you and your cohorts" pluralizing it to make it a group. I'm sure I've seen others do this. > >> >The only thing that might save civilization as we know it is that > >> >you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > as a word to describe a group. I'd use it as "you and your cohorts" > pluralizing it to make it a group. I'm sure I've seen others do this. In full, the definition is 1 a : one of 10 divisions of an ancient Roman legion b : a group of warriors or soldiers c : BAND, GROUP d : a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study <a cohort of premedical students> 2 : COMPANION, COLLEAGUE <a few of their... cohorts decided to form a company -- Burt Hochberg> So originally, your cohort was a group of soldiers. I suspect that the transference went by way of things like "their cohorts", which can be read either way. Let's see what MWDEU has to say. About 1950 people began to notice a new sense of _cohort_, one meaning "companion, colleague, follower." ... How the new sense developed is a bit mysterious Everybody agrees that it happened in America. Here is one idea of how the development may have occurred. First the word referred to a Roman military force--one tenth of a Roman legion...Then it developed a sense meaning any body of troops...Then the word was extended to any group or band...This "band, group" sense was also used in the plural...The problem with plural use is that it could be understood either as "groups"--as presumably the writer intended--or as "followers, colleagues"--understood as referring to a number of individuals forming one group rather than to a number of groups. Consider this example: Twenty-one months ago Dr. Massadegh and his cohorts nationalized the British-owned oil concession in southern Iran--_N.Y. Times_, 25 Jan. 1953 The _cohorts_ there could refer to followers or to groups, but there seems to be a tendency--particularly on the part of those not versed in the traditions of the Roman military--to interpret such a _cohorts_ as referring to individuals. The earliest example of uncertain interpretation in our files dates from 1929... At any rate the sense was establishing itself by the 1940s. It is too firmly established in American English to be eradicated by commentators demonstrating their knowledge of Roman military organization...It would appear that the _New Yorker_ may have been influential in establishing this sense in sophisticated writing. The use seems to have spread even to Bristish English. In the various ellipses there is a quote The Assyrian came down like the wolf in the fold, And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold -- Lord Byron, "The Destruction of Sennacherib," 1815 as well as the comment The Byron quotation for the "group of solders" sense was chosen on purpose. At least two commentators...speculate that the popularity of the Byron poem fixed the word in the American consciousness, perhaps through the medium of 19th-century American schoolbooks, and thus led to the new sense. The theory is interesting but unprovable. Somewhat surprisingly, they don't discuss the scientific sense, which gets back to the "group" notion. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He who will not reason, is a bigot; 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |he who cannot is a fool; and he who Palo Alto, CA 94304 |dares not is a slave. | Sir William Drummond kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [quoting MWDEU] >In the various ellipses there is a quote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and thus led to the new sense. The theory is interesting but > unprovable. >Somewhat surprisingly, they don't discuss the scientific sense, which >gets back to the "group" notion. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". [quoting MWDEU] >In the various ellipses there is a quote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and thus led to the new sense. The theory is interesting but > unprovable. It's nice to know that they agree with me. But it is difficult to take byron seriously on this topic if you read http://www.hxms.com/nash/whale.htm. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". >>> >The only thing that might save civilization as we know it is that >>> >you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >as a word to describe a group. I'd use it as "you and your cohorts" >pluralizing it to make it a group. I'm sure I've seen others do this. Me too. I think it's probably because they first come across it in the Assyrian context. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > >> >The only thing that might save civilization as we know it is that > >> >you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > as a word to describe a group. I'd use it as "you and your cohorts" > pluralizing it to make it a group. I'm sure I've seen others do this. Cohort is used as a semi-formal term in UK education. It refers to all the children of a school, district or nation who belong in the same school year. SignatureDavid ===== Cooper: >That's interesting. It's a word that I've never looked up because I >thought I knew the meaning of it. I've never thought of it, however, >as a word to describe a group. I'd use it as "you and your cohorts" >pluralizing it to make it a group. I'm sure I've seen others do this. Yes! Same here! This is how I've seen the word used, actually, which is probably why I assumed that "cohort" meant ONE person that you hang out with, or whatever. I wonder if MOST people don't misuse "cohort(s)"? de781@aol.com (DE781) wrote on 18 Dec 2003: > Cooper: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that you hang out with, or whatever. I wonder if MOST people > don't misuse "cohort(s)"? Only ignoramuses. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Chink: >I wonder if MOST people >> don't misuse "cohort(s)"? >> >Only ignoramuses. Well, now that I've thought about it, I think I've heard Cooper's meaning in some of my JAP video games! So, apparently, it's all you chinks' fault that the word is misused. Not that I'd expect chinks to do ANYTHING right, though, unless it comes to shaving pubes and drinking jizz! >Chink: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Well, now that I've thought about it, I think I've heard Cooper's meaning in >some of my JAP video games! A JAP video game? Is that something where you play the role of a young woman in pursuit of a dentist? Cooper: >A JAP video game? Is that something where you play the role of a >young woman in pursuit of a dentist? Oh God, Coop! LOL! That was racist in SEVERAL senses of the word. I wonder if you'll be reprimanded by the chink? >Cooper: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Oh God, Coop! LOL! That was racist in SEVERAL senses of the word. I wonder >if you'll be reprimanded by the chink? I, in turn, wonder if you understood the reference. On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> writes >>Cooper: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I, in turn, wonder if you understood the reference. I didn't - please explain. SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected >On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper ><tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> writes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I didn't - please explain. JAP is an acronym (true acronym) for Jewish American Princess. It is often joked that every young, single JAP is looking for a "doctah" to wed. Or, at least, her mother is looking. For a selection of JAP jokes, see http://www.comfo.ca/us/jap/ Evan: > Main Entry: co·hort > 1 d : a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age > or class membership) in common in a demographic study Thanks. I've never heard of that word. >It's a word you might learn in school. I doubt it. > Evan: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I doubt it. Let me put it another way. Should you take a course in psychology, sociology, or economics/marketing in which you cover demographic studies, it is a word that will almost certainly be used. Whether you learn it or not is, of course, entirely up to you. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some |mythology is taught under that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Evan: >> > Main Entry: co·hort >> > 1 d : a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as >> > age or class membership) in common in a demographic study >> Thanks. I've never heard of that word. >> >It's a word you might learn in school. >> I doubt it. >Let me put it another way. Should you take a course in psychology, >sociology, or economics/marketing in which you cover demographic >studies, it is a word that will almost certainly be used. Whether you >learn it or not is, of course, entirely up to you. Ditto for Latin, since it's a Latin word, denoting a Roman military unit bigger than a century and smaller than a legion. For a graphic definition, see http://www.caerleon.net/history/army/page4.html The statistical sense derives from that. -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Latin. Man's natural language. Spoils your style. Useful for reading the inscriptions on public fountains. Beware of quotations in Latin: they always conceal something improper." -- Gustave Flaubert [I'm his interlocutor; dammit, Joey, show us the attributions] > >The only thing that might save civilization as we know > >it is that you and your cohort will grow up -- I hope. > > My "cohort"? Leah? AUE doesn't exist to supply dictionary definitions. If you don't know what a word means (or if you think one of us doesn't), look it up. See <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxguidel.html>, item (2). > >Meanwhile, I envy you your youth, but not the excess baggage that > >you seem to carry around. > > The world's a different place now than it was when you grew up, Bob. "Excess > baggage" seems to come standard with my generation. Whether it's a good thing > or a bad thing, that's up for debate. You're as free as you want to be, Joe. SignatureBob Lieblich Working on it << [Ross Howard] Come back Christopher Johnson, all is forgiven! You may have been a phony but you were more entertaining than the real thing. [end quote] >> << [Young Joey] "The real thing"? So CJ was just one of you losers mimicking me, you think? YOU WISH! You just can't handle the fact that people younger than 40 exist, and WE'RE taking over the world with OUR ways, as your prehistoric ways (and you yourselves) die out! Just accept the inevitable! [end quote] >> We are with you there; most of us can recall being 20. I note that the upper acceptable age limit has gone up. The interesting thing is that even when those of us who felt as you do at 20 finally reach 40, we still cannot really believe that we will eventually look and act 70. How do you see yourself at 40? -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > How do you see yourself at 40? I remember, as a kid, looking in the mirror and wondering what I would look like as a 30 year-old. I thought it strange that one day I would look, and a man would look back at me. It was disappointing, then, to look in the mirror on my 30th birthday and see the reflection of the same kid as always. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > How do you see yourself at 40? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disappointing, then, to look in the mirror on my 30th birthday > and see the reflection of the same kid as always. I'm always surprised when I learn the age of some person with the beginnings wrinkles and grey hair, and find out they're the same age as me. _My_ signs of aging are temporary, of course, and would disappear with one good night's sleep. SignatureSML ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu http://pirate-women.com >> How do you see yourself at 40? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disappointing, then, to look in the mirror on my 30th birthday > and see the reflection of the same kid as always. I was lucky! That same kid was still there in my late fifties (there are two pictures accessible from the AUE Photo Gallery that show me in my fifties). It was after 65 that I started to resemble my father, and my appearance is now going downhill with lighning speed. Rats! SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > I was lucky! That same kid was still there in my late fifties (there > are two pictures accessible from the AUE Photo Gallery that show me > in my fifties). It was after 65 that I started to resemble my > father, and my appearance is now going downhill with lighning speed. Needless to say, I didn't get that right to a T. > Rats! ... and double rats! SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > How do you see yourself at 40? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disappointing, then, to look in the mirror on my 30th birthday > and see the reflection of the same kid as always. My face "filled out" relatively quickly at around 24 or 25, and for several years the face in the mirror didn't look like me. I still don't think I look like an adult (and I certainly don't look "old" to myself), but I have noticed that high school kids and undergrads are looking younger and younger. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's gotten to the point where the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only place you can get work done is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |at home, because no one bugs you, |and the best place to entertain kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |yourself is at work, because the (650)857-7572 |Internet connections are faster. | Scott Adams http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > More from the land of freedom of speech: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > On cnn.com today. Dated (1966 or 1996?) but interesting: "Teachers in Charlotte, North Carolina, are forbidden to say in class the words *abortion*, *bisexual*, *gay*, *homosexual*, *lesbian*, *masturbation*, *orgasm*, *transsexual*, and *transvestite*. Below grade 8, they are also forbidden to use the words *birth control*, *condom* and *contraception*. The theory behind these prohibitions seems to be that hearing these words will encourage students to have sexual intercourse, to masturbate or to become homosexuals." Source: _Censorship News_, Winter 1966, No. 4. This item was sent to me by Sanford Berman, famous Minnesota librarian, who may have mistyped the year, i.e., 1966 for actual 1996. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <aman@sonic.net> wrote on 04 Dec 2003: >> More from the land of freedom of speech: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > librarian, who may have mistyped the year, i.e., 1966 for actual > 1996. Ah, yes, the famous "What they don't know won't hurt them" school of non-thought by parents and other authorities who have forgotten what it was like when they were children. Stupidity is neither new nor old, just an intrinsic aspect of human nature, it seems. And Santayana was wrong about those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it. In most cases, it seems, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, not in Haeckel's terms, but in the sense that everyone seems to have to go through the same stages of development and understanding and that knowledge cannot be absorbed into one's chromosomes for the benefit of one's issue. This does not apply to technology, naturally. But it does apply to human emotions and cognition. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > More from the land of freedom of speech: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > On cnn.com today. The state of Louisiana is on a roll. Another "Zero Tolerance" case there is covered in today's Shreveport Times. Bossier School Board upholds Advil expulsion Girl had over-the-counter pills in purse at school A student expelled from Parkway High for a year for having Advil, an over-the-counter pain reliever, will not be allowed to return to the school. Article at http://tinyurl.com/xwmn SignatureMaria Conlon For email: Please don't use "from" address; instead, use tootsie at sprynet dot com "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >> More from the land of freedom of speech: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Article at http://tinyurl.com/xwmn This feeds directly into what Mike Oliver and I have been discussing: prohibitions. "From Aug. 11 through Wednesday, 18 students were sent to the system's alternative school because of possessing 'pills,' according to a report system officials compiled." I wonder whether the rules at that school allow for carrying required medication. The rules about "pills" include both prescription and non-prescription "pills". Zero-tolerance leads to zero common sense, it seems. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Zero-tolerance leads to zero common sense, it seems. Well, duh! SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: > >> Zero-tolerance leads to zero common sense, it seems. > > Well, duh! Skitt, I think you're too old to say things like that. I know that I am, but then I've not yet reached my duhtage. Is this a Jim Carrey (is that how to spell his name?) line? As far as I am concerned, saying this in whatever context is offensive because it makes the speaker/writer sound as dumb and even dumber than the target of the "duh". Even YJ uses words instead of grunts to express his scorn. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >>> Zero-tolerance leads to zero common sense, it seems. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > speaker/writer sound as dumb and even dumber than the target of the > "duh". Even YJ uses words instead of grunts to express his scorn. Oh, it wasn't so much scorn as merely an indication that I felt you stated the all-too-obvious and expected result of a zero-tolerance policy. It was obvious to me and also what I had expected. Things are hardly ever clearly black or white -- there's always the gray, so your statement really surprised me. As for being too old, naah -- now that I'm no longer working I don't have to stay all-grown-up. It's a lot more fun that way. I can act like a kid again if I want to. I don't know the origins of "Duh!", but 1974 seems a bit before Carrey's time. I am sorry that you took the expression as seriously as you did. It was certainly intended to be in a much lighter vein. Maybe you still don't really know my nature -- it takes a while to get used to it and to understand it correctly. I'm really not as mean as some may think. Beneath my sometimes sarcastic demeanor is a cuddly teddy bear. If my remark offended you, you have my sincere apology. I don't agree at all with the thoughts you express in your last two sentences, but then, that's me. I think that certain expressions, trite or juvenile as they may appear at times, lend color to what could otherwise be a rather dull presentation. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > I don't know the origins of "Duh!", but 1974 seems a bit before > Carrey's time. Well, he was born in '62, so he might have been saying it by then. His first screen credit wasn't until 1983. (Google first records it on Usenet in 1982.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig. | Robert Heinlein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan: >Well, he was born in '62, so he might have been saying it by then. >His first screen credit wasn't until 1983. (Google first records it >on Usenet in 1982.) DAMN! Jim Carey is OLD! On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, DE781 <de781@aol.com> writes >Evan: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >DAMN! Jim Carey is OLD! Some of the best people were born in 1962, and I don't (usually) feel old. I have to admit that when I was 21, a friend of mine who was 24 seemed very old. He died last month, which is why I put the "usually" above. SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >>>> Zero-tolerance leads to zero common sense, it seems. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you stated the all-too-obvious and expected result of a > zero-tolerance policy. It might have been the hour, or it might have just been my own denseness, but I'm aware that it was the all-too-obvious. > It was obvious to me and also what I had > expected., I'm sure of that. > Things are hardly ever clearly black or white -- > there's always the gray, so your statement really surprised me. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. Especially when so many authorities miss it. I understand why the zero-tolerance policy exists and am sympathetic to the desire to protect the innocent from the depraved who want to do the former by carrying stuff like Advil to ward off headaches. > As for being too old, naah -- now that I'm no longer working I > don't have to stay all-grown-up. It's a lot more fun that way. I > can act like a kid again if I want to. I can't remember when I first heard "Well, duh!", but I instantly disliked it. It's a bias, a prejudice, a pet peeve, and obviously a damper on the fun of thers, but to me it makes the user sound stupid. > I don't know the origins of "Duh!", but 1974 seems a bit before > Carrey's time. I don't know enough about Carrey or "Duh!" to know that. > I am sorry that you took the expression as seriously as you did. I didn't take it as seriously as my post might have sounded. > It was certainly intended to be in a much lighter vein. My sense of humor filters out "Duh!". > Maybe you > still don't really know my nature -- it takes a while to get used > to it and to understand it correctly. I think I know it well enough, but that doesn't mean that I always respond appropriately. > I'm really not as mean as some may think. Beneath my sometimes > sarcastic demeanor is a cuddly teddy bear. I don't think you're mean anymore. I did the first we exchanged posts here many years ago. I can't remember when that was and I don't want to stir the mud up by searching, either. But I was less mellow then, too. > If my remark offended you, you have my sincere apology. No, it didn't offend me personally, just my ears. But I can put some cotton balls in. > I don't agree at all with the thoughts you express in your last > two sentences, but then, that's me. I think that certain > expressions, trite or juvenile as they may appear at times, lend > color to what could otherwise be a rather dull presentation. I never find your posts dull --- unless I'm not interested in the topic, and then it's the topic and not you. I retract my objections. I must have been too sensitive last night. I did something stupid and had to reinstall not only XP, but almost all my application programs too. I'm *not* in a good mood. But now my OED works again, so that is thrilling and makes up for whatever stupid thing I did. Don't give it another thought. I'm sorry to have troubled you. My problem. Not yours. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. skitt99@comcast.net spake thus: > I don't agree at all with the thoughts you express in your last two > sentences, but then, that's me. I think that certain expressions, trite or > juvenile as they may appear at times, lend color to what could otherwise be > a rather dull presentation. Well, dur! SignatureDavid ===== > skitt99@comcast.net spake thus: >> I don't agree at all with the thoughts you express in your last two >> sentences, but then, that's me. I think that certain expressions, >> trite or juvenile as they may appear at times, lend color to what >> could otherwise be a rather dull presentation. > > Well, dur! Dur? SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ skitt99@comcast.net spake thus: > > skitt99@comcast.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dur? That's the best transliteration I can manage. The vowel lasts for quite a long time. SignatureDavid ===== > skitt99@comcast.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's the best transliteration I can manage. The vowel lasts for > quite a long time. AmE "duuuuuuuuuuuh." Compare "um" and "erm". SignatureBob Lieblich Or don't compare them Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net spake thus: > > skitt99@comcast.net spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > AmE "duuuuuuuuuuuh." Compare "um" and "erm". Indeed. My version definitely has an r at the end. Duuuuuuuuuuur. SignatureDavid ===== Skitt: >> Well, dur! > >Dur? Doiiii, Skitt! You don't understand "dur" (though, technically, I think it's spelt more like "duhhhrrrr")? > skitt99@comcast.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well, dur! Nuh doisey! SignatureSML ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu http://pirate-women.com > "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > speaker/writer sound as dumb and even dumber than the target of the > "duh". Even YJ uses words instead of grunts to express his scorn. I kind of like it. I don't use it that often myself, but I do on occasion, and have used it in at least a couple of messages to Usenet newsgroups. I don't think it makes the speaker look dumb, and I don't think in the vast majority of cases it is intended to make the one to whom the speaker is replying look dumb. It's mostly used in an inoffensive, jocular manner. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoisNOSPAM@mninter.net> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >> "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > make the one to whom the speaker is replying look dumb. It's > mostly used in an inoffensive, jocular manner. Okay. This is what I get for having been out of the country for the past 20 years. I am culturally deficient in many ways, I agree. I hereby apologize to everyone else here who uses that expression. My bad. But it doesn't work for me. I'm in the minority, I know, a minority of one, it seems. End of minority report. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. CyberCypher wrote re "duh!": [...] > > I kind of like it. I don't use it that often myself, but I do on > > occasion, and have used it in at least a couple of messages to > > Usenet newsgroups. I don't think it makes the speaker look dumb, > > and I don't think in the vast majority of cases it is intended to > > make the one to whom the speaker is replying look dumb. It's > > mostly used in an inoffensive, jocular manner. > Okay. This is what I get for having been out of the country for the > past 20 years. I am culturally deficient in many ways, I agree. Your having been out of the country has nothing to do with your disliking "duh," in my opinion. With genuine apologies to all AUE adults who use it (Ray, Skitt & Co.), I consider it *stoopid*. "Duh," like "innit" and "m'kay?": only over my blue, dead lips! I hate it. That silly utterance is filling some gap, though, otherwise highly intelligent golden-agers (vide supra) would not use it. If gay Young Joey uses it, NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! But from the lips of Raymond, one of the most refined gentlemen in this group, it sounds very inappropriate. Questions: What *did* people use before Homer Simpson (?) introduced "duh"? And what non-stoopid-sounding exclamation could take its place? > I hereby apologize to everyone else here who uses that expression. > My bad. But it doesn't work for me. I'm in the minority, I know, > a minority of one, it seems. End of minority report. Minority of at least two: I'm your cohort in the duh-disliking department (DDD). -------------------- Speaking of golden-agers, here's the Thought for Today: It is well documented that for every minute you exercise, you add one minute to your life. This enables you at age 85 to spend an additional five months in a nursing home at $5,000 per month. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman ... } Your having been out of the country has nothing to do with your } disliking "duh," in my opinion. With genuine apologies to all AUE } adults who use it (Ray, Skitt & Co.), I consider it *stoopid*. "Duh," } like "innit" and "m'kay?": only over my blue, dead lips! I hate it. Hey! } That silly utterance is filling some gap, though, otherwise highly } intelligent golden-agers (vide supra) would not use it. If gay Young } Joey uses it, NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! But from the lips of } Raymond, one of the most refined gentlemen in this group, it sounds very inappropriate. } } Questions: What *did* people use before Homer Simpson (?) introduced } "duh"? And what non-stoopid-sounding exclamation could take its place? That's not what Homer Simpson says. He says "D'oh!", an exclamation of realization, a proclamation of an epiphany of sorts. "Duh!", on the other hand, is sarcastically feigned stupidity. Two different things entirely. People have been saying "Duh!" for decades (maybe centuries) before Homer came along. Likewise, there are several levels of parody in "m'kay". I'm guessing you didn't see the movie. There's a lot of analysis needs done on "innit". I think that here it's presented as a Briticism or something, but I've seen versions of it lots of places, such as in _Smoke Signals_. How do you feel about "nicht wahr"? How about "ne"? Postfixed "yo"? }> I hereby apologize to everyone else here who uses that expression. }> My bad. But it doesn't work for me. I'm in the minority, I know, }> a minority of one, it seems. End of minority report. } } Minority of at least two: I'm your cohort in the duh-disliking } department (DDD). Oh, there are probably more. } -------------------- } } Speaking of golden-agers, here's the Thought for Today: } } It is well documented that for every minute you exercise, you add one } minute to your life. This enables you at age 85 to spend an additional } five months in a nursing home at $5,000 per month. The trick is to start exercising at 85. SignatureR. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net> > "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" wrote: ... >} Your having been out of the country has nothing to do with your >} disliking "duh," in my opinion. With genuine apologies to all AUE [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >} That silly utterance is filling some gap, though, otherwise highly >} intelligent golden-agers (vide supra) would not use it. Exactly. It provides a nifty (good grief -- now, there's an oldie) single-word expression for what could otherwise require a sentence. It, of course, should be used only in colloqial contexts and, even then, only jocosely or sarcastically. >} If gay >} Young Joey uses it, NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! But from the >} lips of Raymond, one of the most refined gentlemen in this group, >} it sounds very inappropriate. } Even refined gentlemen have to have fun sometimes. >} Questions: What *did* people use before Homer Simpson (?) >} introduced "duh"? And what non-stoopid-sounding exclamation could [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the other hand, is sarcastically feigned stupidity. Two different > things entirely. Perzackly! (Oh, oh -- now I've done it ...) > People have been saying "Duh!" for decades (maybe centuries) before > Homer came along. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of it lots of places, such as in _Smoke Signals_. How do you feel > about "nicht wahr"? How about "ne"? Postfixed "yo"? Sure, it is the same as "nicht wahr?" and such, but here, at least by Leftpondians (me, for instance) it is used strictly in fun. We do play around with language here, innit? Sure, some of those expression might be wearing a bit thin, but then, what commonly used fixed expression isn't? It's difficult to say something original all the time. Naah, I'll use whatever meager means are at my disposal to lighten the mood whenever I can. With apologies to Rey, might his objections stem for a rather more no-nonsense upbringing than that of the average American? Having experienced it myself, I can well appreciate such background. There was a huge difference in the behavior between the average European (actually, Germans and Latvians are what my statement is based on) and the average American in the days of my youth. Acting a bit silly at times is something I'm not ashamed of -- it hides my otherwise very serious and no-nonsense nature. I'm don't have to impress anybody. In fact, as I have said here before, I have intentionally played the fool outwardly and superficially many times in my working life, only to astound everyone with what I can do in a serious situation. Yeah, enjoyed being a sandbagger. Still do. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote {to Dr. Franke}: ... > >} Your having been out of the country has nothing to do with your > >} disliking "duh," in my opinion. With genuine apologies to all AUE > >} adults who use it (Ray, Skitt & Co.), I consider it *stoopid*. > >} "Duh," like "innit" and "m'kay?": only over my blue, dead lips! > >} I hate it. > > Hey! > >} That silly utterance is filling some gap, though, otherwise highly > >} intelligent golden-agers (vide supra) would not use it. > Exactly. It provides a nifty (good grief -- now, there's an oldie) > single-word expression for what could otherwise require a sentence. > It, of course, should be used only in colloqial contexts and, even > then, only jocosely or sarcastically. > >} If gay > >} Young Joey uses it, NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! But from the > >} lips of Raymond, one of the most refined gentlemen in this group, > >} it sounds very inappropriate. > Even refined gentlemen have to have fun sometimes. Of course, but learnèd Raymond using such a hackneyed, banal, trite term is like the Pope picking his nose in public: it may be fun but it's inappropriate. > >} Questions: What *did* people use before Homer Simpson (?) > >} introduced "duh"? And what non-stoopid-sounding exclamation > >} could take its place? > > That's not what Homer Simpson says. He says "D'oh!", an exclamation > > of realization, a proclamation of an epiphany of sorts. "Duh!", on > > the other hand, is sarcastically feigned stupidity. Two different > > things entirely. Yes, I now vaguely remember this from an earlier discussion about these terms. Thanks for reminding me of the difference between these two loathed utterances. > Perzackly! (Oh, oh -- now I've done it ...) > > People have been saying "Duh!" for decades (maybe centuries) > > before Homer came along. > > > > Likewise, there are several levels of parody in "m'kay". > > I'm guessing you didn't see the movie. Nope. I don't go to the movies -- well, okay, once every 10 years or so. > > There's a lot of analysis needs done on "innit". I think that here > > it's presented as a Briticism or something, but I've seen versions > > of it lots of places, such as in _Smoke Signals_. How do you feel > > about "nicht wahr"? How about "ne"? Postfixed "yo"? I don't think you can liken "duh!" to _nicht wahr?_ and its equivalents in many languages (_n'est-ce pas_, _¿verdad?_, etc.). To me, the tag questions have a long and honorable history, whereas "duh!" is -- as we highly educated philologists call it -- "silly sh.t." Call me a wet blanket, duh-wise. > Sure, it is the same as "nicht wahr?" and such, but here, at least by > Leftpondians (me, for instance) it is used strictly in fun. We do play > around with language here, innit? Hey! > Sure, some of those expression might be wearing a bit thin, > but then, what commonly used fixed expression isn't? > > It's difficult to say something original all the time. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition or constant originality. It's more a matter of *avoiding* such verbal banalities if you wanna be considered a careful, fastidious, and judicious writer like you-know-who. > Naah, I'll use whatever meager means are at my disposal to lighten the > mood whenever I can. With apologies to Rey, might his objections stem [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > average European (actually, Germans and Latvians are what my statement > is based on) and the average American in the days of my youth. I don't believe that my upbringing has anything to do with my dislike for certain *words* and *phrases*. I'm not exactly known for being against fun & foolin' around, language-wise, as any careful, fastidious, and judicious reader should of [sic] noticed years ago. When it comes to language, perhaps I'm just more discriminating than that tin-eared & tin-eyed Valentine fellow, m'kay? (God, it HURTS just typing that last word!) SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman > People have been saying "Duh!" for decades (maybe centuries) before Homer > came along. Say it's Wartime, in the middle of the early 'Forties, and you're a young fella who's (= TCE "that's") fresh out of radio school and newly-inducted into the Merchant Marine. To celebrate your last night as a civilian, you go to a local picture show and you see a Warner Bros. animated short film. It's one of several that contain little parodies of _Of Mice and Men_. Afterward, you walk out of the the-ater saying, in imitation of the Lenny-like character, "Duhhhh, which way did he go, George? Which way did he go?" It's easy to get from there to the sarcastic "Duh!" meaning "That would be obvious even to a dimwitted person", but it took a few decades. What I don't really know is whether slow-witted persons were routinely represented as saying "Duhhhhh!" before Wartime. It's possible. IOW, how much of this is due to one person, Mel Blanc? } On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, R J Valentine wrote: } }> People have been saying "Duh!" for decades (maybe centuries) before Homer }> came along. } } Say it's Wartime, in the middle of the early 'Forties, and you're a young } fella who's (= TCE "that's") fresh out of radio school and newly-inducted } into the Merchant Marine. To celebrate your last night as a civilian, } you go to a local picture show and you see a Warner Bros. animated short } film. It's one of several that contain little parodies of _Of Mice and Men_. } Afterward, you walk out of the the-ater saying, in imitation of the } Lenny-like character, "Duhhhh, which way did he go, George? Which way did } he go?" It's easy to get from there to the sarcastic "Duh!" meaning } "That would be obvious even to a dimwitted person", but it took a few decades. } } What I don't really know is whether slow-witted persons were routinely } represented as saying "Duhhhhh!" before Wartime. It's possible. IOW, how } much of this is due to one person, Mel Blanc? Well, I'm not too clear on the period, myself, but weren't Mortimer Snerd and Goofy making noises like that around then. Mark Twain must've had some thickwits in there. What kind of noises did they make, and didn't any of the sharper tacks make fun of them. This's got to be researchable. SignatureR. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net> > > People have been saying "Duh!" for decades (maybe centuries) before Homer > > came along. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > he go?" It's easy to get from there to the sarcastic "Duh!" meaning > "That would be obvious even to a dimwitted person", but it took a few decades. It took two decades at most, if we go by OED's draft entry for "duh": duh, int. Expressing inarticulacy or incomprehension. Also (usu. mildly derogatory): implying that another person has said something foolish or extremely obvious. 1943 Merrie Melodies (animated cartoon) in J. E. Lighter Hist. Dict. Amer. Slang (1994) I. 672/1 Duh... Well, he can't outsmart me, 'cause I'm a moron. 1963 N.Y. Times Mag. 24 Nov. 54/2 A favorite expression is 'duh'... This is the standard retort used when someone makes a conversational contribution bordering on the banal. For example, the first child says, 'The Russians were first in space.' Unimpressed, the second child replies (or rather grunts), 'Duh'. See also <http://www.quinion.com/words/topicalwords/tw-doh1.htm> on "doh" and "duh". > > > People have been saying "Duh!" for decades (maybe centuries) before Homer > > > came along. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > were first in space.' Unimpressed, the second child > replies (or rather grunts), 'Duh'. I wish we knew what exactly the writer meant by "grunts", but I think that this 1963 "duh" is probably the "duh" I remember everyone using prior to the 1980s, and is distinct in articulation from the "Valley Girl duh", its child. Some of us still use the older "duh". My younger brother (b. 1972) has been known to do so, frecks. RJ: >People have been saying "Duh!" for decades (maybe centuries) I doubt centuries. I think it was started as a way of mocking retarded people. If someone "duhs" you, it's like making fun of you for being retarded. > RJ: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > retarded people. If someone "duhs" you, it's like making fun of you > for being retarded. And we all know that retarded people were invented in February of 1947. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty. | Peter Moylan kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 16 Dec 2003: >> RJ: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And we all know that retarded people were invented in February of > 1947. Don't be so hard on the kid, Evan. At his age, 56 years is a fuckin' [certified acceptable by the US FCC] eternity. It's hard for such a tender brain to imagine that people even existed centuries ago; TV hasn't even been around that long. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net spake thus: > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 16 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > tender brain to imagine that people even existed centuries ago; TV > hasn't even been around that long. The BBC broadcast television in London before WWII. SignatureDavid ===== david56 <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote on 16 Dec 2003: > cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The BBC broadcast television in London before WWII. It was invented in 1927 and seemed to be used in Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_, also 1927, but it was closed circuit. Earlier this year, by the way, a new digital version was released: http://www.kino.com/metropolis/ It's supposed to be clearer and longer than any other version. I prefer the Gorgio Moroder version, myself. I think he got it right: 90 minutes. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > david56 <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote on 16 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the Gorgio Moroder version, myself. I think he got it right: 90 > minutes. Television was invented in 1926. By John Logie Baird (of Scotland) Bob Martin Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote on 16 Dec 2003: >> david56 <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote on 16 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Television was invented in 1926. > By John Logie Baird (of Scotland) You can read all about it at the following URL: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae408.cfm And there are a few sites on the Web which claim that Baird invented television as early as 1923, but it was mechanical television and not electronic television. And a German invented the first mechanical TV in 1884: [quote] Paul Gottlieb Nipkow - Mechanical Television History German, Paul Nipkow developed a rotating-disc technology to transmit pictures over wire in 1884 called the Nipkow disk. This was the very first electromechanical TV scanning system. Nipkow's system was abandoned early in the history of TV for the electronic systems developed by later inventors... Electronic television is based on the development of the cathode ray tube, which is the picture tube found in modern TV sets. German scientist, Karl Braun invented the cathode ray tube oscilloscope (CRT) in 1897. Vladimir Kosma Zworykin - Electronic Television History Vladimir Kosma Zworykin invented the cathode-ray tube called the kinescope in 1929, a tube needed for TV transmission. Vladimir Kosma Zworykin also invented the iconoscope, an early television camera... Philo T. Farnsworth - Electronic The full story of Philo T. Farnsworth. Philo T. Farnsworth was the farm boy who conceived the basic operating principles of electronic television at the age of just 13 years. [/quote] http://tinyurl.com/zh7b Electronic TV was not invented until 1927. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Evan: >And we all know that retarded people were invented in February of >1947. I said "Duh!" was relatively new--not retardation! > Evan: > > >And we all know that retarded people were invented in February of > >1947. > > I said "Duh!" was relatively new--not retardation! You said ] I doubt centuries. I think it was started as a way of mocking ] retarded people. I admit that I made an assumption that the two sentences had something to do with one another. I think that it's safe to say that people have been mocking the mentally retarded for centuries. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Code should be designed to make it 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |easy to get it right, not to work Palo Alto, CA 94304 |if you get it right. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan: >You said > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I admit that I made an assumption that the two sentences had something >to do with one another. Right. They didn't have anything to do with each other. Well, I guess, they sort of did. People weren't AS creative in their cruelty towards the retarded 100 years ago. They just mocked them by exclusion and telling themselves they were superior to the retarded. > CyberCypher wrote re "duh!": > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > adults who use it (Ray, Skitt & Co.), I consider it *stoopid*. "Duh," > like "innit" and "m'kay?": only over my blue, dead lips! I hate it. No worries, innit? As long as you can choose whether to use it or not, you're quids in. It's when you have to use it because you have no alternative that the violins come out. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > CyberCypher wrote re "duh!": > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Minority of at least two: I'm your cohort in the duh-disliking > department (DDD). Minority of three. And you can add "my bad" to the list. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. > Reinhold (Rey) Aman posted thus: > > CyberCypher wrote re "duh!": > >> I hereby apologize to everyone else here who uses that > >> expression. My bad. But it doesn't work for me. I'm in the > >> minority, I know, a minority of one, it seems. End of minority > >> report. > > Minority of at least two: I'm your cohort in the duh-disliking > > department (DDD). > Minority of three. And you can add "my bad" to the list. Good woman! That's another one I hate with a passion and will never use. Add "LOL" and "ROTFLMAO" and similar cretinicities. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman >> Reinhold (Rey) Aman posted thus: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Good woman! That's another one I hate with a passion and will never >use. Add "LOL" and "ROTFLMAO" and similar cretinicities. Nothing you object to particularly annoys me. People that say "actually,", though, drive me up the wall. (Yes, Ross, it was this time) > Nothing you object to particularly annoys me. People that say > "actually,", though, drive me up the wall. Actually, that doesn't bother me. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. Cooper: >Add "LOL" and "ROTFLMAO" and similar cretinicities. > >Nothing you object to particularly annoys me. People that say >"actually,", though, drive me up the wal WOW! I'm SHOCKED! Cooper actually acted CIVILLY towards Rey. Is this an AUE first? "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <aman@sonic.net> wrote on 07 Dec 2003: >> Reinhold (Rey) Aman posted thus: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Good woman! That's another one I hate with a passion and will never > use. Add "LOL" and "ROTFLMAO" and similar cretinicities. When in Rome, . . . Using their slang correctly means, at least, that they will understand what one is saying. I never use these terms outside of this NG. They may be lingua franca here, but they are not lingua Franke. "m'kay" is not at all understandable to me as a substitute for "okay". Where does it come from? "innit" is perfectly alright with me because it is what Taiwanese and Japanese speakers tend to say and write instead of the correct tag question, so I associate it with what I hear every day from non-native speakers, so I don't bother trying to correct anyone who uses it. By the wey, Rey, I'll be in San Rafael in January, so if you're in Santa Rosa then, you will be hearing from me. I like Santa Rosa. Too bad it's still California, though. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <aman@sonic.net> wrote on 07 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > lingua Franke. "m'kay" is not at all understandable to me as a > substitute for "okay". Where does it come from? "innit" is perfectly "M'kay" became famous as a result of its being used by a character in Comedy Central's *South Park,* school counselor Mr. MacKey. According to http://www.lambtron.com/content.php?content=life Mr. MacKey is based upon a real person from Fairplay, Colorado, where Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, grew up: "Trey's school counselor was the inspiration for Mr. Mackey, he was known to have said 'M'kay' on occasion." > alright with me because it is what Taiwanese and Japanese speakers tend > to say and write instead of the correct tag question, so I associate it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Santa Rosa then, you will be hearing from me. I like Santa Rosa. Too > bad it's still California, though. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >> When in Rome, . . . Using their slang correctly means, at least, that >> they will understand what one is saying. I never use these terms [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "Trey's school counselor was the inspiration for Mr. Mackey, he was > known to have said 'M'kay' on occasion." See also: http://www.southparkx.net/pages/lyrics/movie03.html SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > "CyberCypher" <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message > > "m'kay" is not at all understandable to me as a substitute for > > "okay". Where does it come from? > > "M'kay" became famous as a result of its being used by a character > in Comedy Central's *South Park,* school counselor Mr. MacKey. And it should be understood that the character used it to mean essentially "I don't have any actual argument; just accept what I'm saying." At least in the episodes I've seen. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't |learn anything at the Harvard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Business School. (650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen | Harvard Business School http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ } "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoisNOSPAM@mninter.net> writes: } }> "CyberCypher" <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message }> > "m'kay" is not at all understandable to me as a substitute for }> > "okay". Where does it come from? }> }> "M'kay" became famous as a result of its being used by a character }> in Comedy Central's *South Park,* school counselor Mr. MacKey. } } And it should be understood that the character used it to mean } essentially "I don't have any actual argument; just accept what I'm } saying." At least in the episodes I've seen. At least suspect that you're missing a thing or two. Appearances to the contrary, the show wasn't written for eight-year-olds. SignatureR. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net> You didn't see the movie? > } "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoisNOSPAM@mninter.net> writes: > } [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > At least suspect that you're missing a thing or two. Appearances to > the contrary, the show wasn't written for eight-year-olds. I always allow for missing a thing or two, but Mr. MacKey, and especially this trait, appear to be a straightforward parody of the prevalent "Just say 'No'" theory of education. Pray, what subtleties am I missing. [...] > By the wey, Rey, I'll be in San Rafael in January, so if you're in > Santa Rosa then, you will be hearing from me. I like Santa Rosa. > Too bad it's still California, though. I'm 10 miles closer to San Rafael now after I moved south on Hwy 101 to Cotati (just north of Petaluma). My house is easy to find. (707) 795-8178. We could have a micro-boink and laugh about cocksuckin' C**per-Pooper. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Cotati (just north of Petaluma). My house is easy to find. (707) >795-8178. We could have a micro-boink and laugh about cocksuckin' C**per-Pooper. Safest way to do it. "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <aman@sonic.net> wrote on 07 Dec 2003: > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (707) 795-8178. We could have a micro-boink and laugh about > cocksuckin' C**per-Pooper. Great! See you in about 7 weeks then. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > We could have a micro-boink and laugh about cocksuckin' > C**per-Pooper. Laugh about doing what to him? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The law of supply and demand tells us 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that when the price of something is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |artificially set below market level, |there will soon be none of that thing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |left--as you may have noticed the (650)857-7572 |last time you tried to buy something |for nothing. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke > > We could have a micro-boink and laugh about > > cocksuckin' C**per-Pooper. > Laugh about doing what to him? [All your posts from Sunday just showed up here.] As a literate fellow with a good memory, you ought to remember that I use _cocksuckin'_ and _motherfuckin'_ (both without the <-g>) in the *figurative* sense as adjectives. That semi-literate a.shole (cocksuckin' C**per) is still confused about the difference between figurative _cocksuckin'_ and literal _cocksucking_. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman >> > We could have a micro-boink and laugh about >> > cocksuckin' C**per-Pooper. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >(cocksuckin' C**per) is still confused about the difference between >figurative _cocksuckin'_ and literal _cocksucking_. Now tell us that you drop the "r" in "cocksucker" 'cause you're just joshin' and being figurative. Fuckin' liar. "Am I still amusing you, you cocksucking evil sh.t-hole?" Rey Aman, 9-23-03, in a burst of quality repartee. Fuckin' liar. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 10 Dec 2003: >>> > We could have a micro-boink and laugh about >>> > cocksuckin' C**per-Pooper. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "Am I still amusing you, you cocksucking evil sh.t-hole?" Rey Aman, > 9-23-03, in a burst of quality repartee. Fuckin' liar. You just cannot appreciate maledicta bona when they are aimed at you. I think that's the contrapositive of what you said to me, that I can appreciate them only because they are not aimed at me. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Cooper: >That semi-literate a.shole >(cocksuckin' C**per) is still confused about the difference between >figurative _cocksuckin'_ and literal _cocksucking_. Let's see if I can clear things up for him. Cooper, yo momma does figurative cocksucking (well, she probably used to do literal, back in her day too). But what Michael Jackson does is literal cocksucking. > "innit" is perfectly > alright with me "Alright" is all wrong with me. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > "innit" is perfectly > > alright with me > > "Alright" is all wrong with me. Pourquoi, pray? Edward SignatureThe reading group's reading group: http://www.bookgroup.org.uk >>> "innit" is perfectly >>> alright with me >> >> "Alright" is all wrong with me. > > Pourquoi, pray? Actually, "alright" is probably all ready a lost battle (I would not use it in a formal piece of writing). The one that we still have a fat chance of winning is "alot". SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>>> "innit" is perfectly >>>> alright with me [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The one that we still have a fat chance of winning is "alot". There is meanwhile a reverse process at work, albeit jocularly (for now, but I don't trust 'em an inch) -- e.g. "a whole nother". -- Ross Howard > "Simon R. Hughes" wrought: >>>>> "innit" is perfectly alright with me >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There is meanwhile a reverse process at work, albeit jocularly (for > now, but I don't trust 'em an inch) -- e.g. "a whole nother". Yes, MWCD10 dates it at 1956, and AHD4 lists it also. Both dictionaries mark it as informal. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > Actually, "alright" is probably all ready a lost battle (I would > not use it in a formal piece of writing). Probably you wouldn't use "all right" in that meaning, in a formal piece of writing, either. You'd say "acceptable" or some such. "Alright" is not by any means a recent innovation. It's in the same class as "almost", "although", "altogether", "almighty", and it enables a useful distinction with "all right" == "entirely correct". According to Mark Israel's FAQ, Fowler even took up its defense at some point, based on the last point. For these reasons, I am *prescriptively* in favor of "alright". SignatureThis e-mail is a spam trap. Send to "moliver" at the obvious domain name for my organization (the whole school, not just the department). >> Actually, "alright" is probably all ready a lost battle (I would >> not use it in a formal piece of writing). > > Probably you wouldn't use "all right" in that meaning, in a formal > piece of writing, either. You'd say "acceptable" or some > such. True enough. > "Alright" is not by any means a recent innovation. It's > in the same class as "almost", "although", "altogether", [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > point, based on the last point. For these reasons, > I am *prescriptively* in favor of "alright". You sinner! SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>"Alright" is not by any means a recent innovation. It's >>in the same class as "almost", "although", "altogether", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You sinner! As an example of the distinction, note that a cooler-than-lukewarm Christian might sing, "Jesus is just alright with me". SignatureThis e-mail is a spam trap. Send to "moliver" at the obvious domain name for my organization (the whole school, not just the department). > >>> "innit" is perfectly > >>> alright with me [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually, "alright" is probably all ready a lost battle (I would > not use it in a formal piece of writing). Do you mean that "alright" is incorrect and should be "all right" or "allright"? For shame, I am 46 years old, well (read expensively) educated, and have been taught "alright" since kindergarten. Though I find "alright" rather better suited to chat than to formal writing. > The one that we still have a fat chance of winning is "alot". I'll write to my MP forthwith. Something should be done, and we need a pointless gesture at this stage of the war (Blackadder IV). Edward SignatureThe reading group's reading group: http://www.bookgroup.org.uk "Edward" <teddysnips@hotmail.com> wrote... > I'll write to my MP forthwith. Something should be done, and we need > a pointless gesture at this stage of the war (Blackadder IV). No, no -- alot earlier than Blackadder. 'Twas Pete & Dud, back in the 1960s. "Beyond the Fringe". Dudley Moore was a pilot, and Peter Cook was his C.O. "Off you go, and, Smithers ..." "Yes, Sir?" "Don't come back". "Goodbye, Sir, or is it 'Au Revoir'"? "No, Smithers." Matti matti-nospam@totally-official.com spake thus: > "Edward" <teddysnips@hotmail.com> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1960s. "Beyond the Fringe". Dudley Moore was a pilot, and Peter Cook was > his C.O. No, no, and thrice no. 'Twas Peter Cook and Jonathan Miller. SignatureDavid ===== teddysnips@hotmail.com spake thus: > I'll write to my MP forthwith. Something should be done, and we need > a pointless gesture at this stage of the war (Blackadder IV). Er, no. Beyond the Fringe. We need a futile gesture at this stage; it will raise the whole tone of the war. Get up in a crate, Perkins, pop over to Bremen, take a shufti. Don't come back. Goodbye Perkins. God, I wish I were going too. SignatureDavid ===== >I'll write to my MP forthwith. Something should be done, and we need >a pointless gesture at this stage of the war (Blackadder IV). Stolen from "Beyond the Fringe". SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". > >I'll write to my MP forthwith. Something should be done, and we need > >a pointless gesture at this stage of the war (Blackadder IV). > > > Stolen from "Beyond the Fringe". Thanks Don, David and Matti. Wonder how much else was half-inched by Messrs Curtis and Elton. Edward SignatureThe reading group's reading group: http://www.bookgroup.org.uk teddysnips@hotmail.com spake thus: > > >I'll write to my MP forthwith. Something should be done, and we need > > >a pointless gesture at this stage of the war (Blackadder IV). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks Don, David and Matti. Wonder how much else was half-inched by > Messrs Curtis and Elton. Perhaps more homage than theft. SignatureDavid ===== Rey: >Add "LOL" and "ROTFLMAO" and similar cretinicities. Those are only online abbreviations. No one really says "LOL" or "ROTFLAMO", just like they don't say "BRB", "TTYL, etc. Well, they're actually kind of starting to be said. But it's mostly as a online spoof/diss/joke type of thing. Rey: >Questions: What *did* people use before Homer Simpson (?) introduced >"duh"? LOLOLOLOLOL, Rey! Homer didn't introduce "duh". DUHHHH! I think "duh" is probably older than Homer. Homer started "d'oh!", which isn't nearly as cool as "duh"! Franke: >Even YJ uses words instead of grunts to express his scorn. "Duh" IS a word. A grunt would be like "ughh!" or "ooooooh!" or "ahhhhh!!!". > This feeds directly into what Mike Oliver and I have been > discussing: prohibitions. "From Aug. 11 through Wednesday, 18 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > carrying required medication. The rules about "pills" include both > prescription and non-prescription "pills". In most schools I'm familiar with, the rule appears to be that children are *not* allowed to carry required medication, whether prescription or non-prescription. Such medication is to be deposited with the school nurse and dispensed by the nurse. An exception is apparently made for rescue inhalers for asthmatics, although many schools seem to be unaware of the fact that they are required to make this exception and kids get in trouble for it. > Zero-tolerance leads to zero common sense, it seems. You got it. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes |closest to applying... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com spake thus: > > This feeds directly into what Mike Oliver and I have been > > discussing: prohibitions. "From Aug. 11 through Wednesday, 18 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > schools seem to be unaware of the fact that they are required to make > this exception and kids get in trouble for it. Does each US school have a full-time nurse? They are now almost unknown in the UK primary sector - the local Junior school, with about 400 pupils, gets visited by a local authority nurse about 6 half-days per year. School secretaries are often first-aid trained instead. SignatureDavid ===== > Does each US school have a full-time nurse? Chances are, no. >> Does each US school have a full-time nurse? > >Chances are, no. In this area, no. There are school nurses employed by the Health Department that are assigned to several schools. Monday at one, Tuesday at another, and so on. tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > >> Does each US school have a full-time nurse? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Department that are assigned to several schools. Monday at one, > Tuesday at another, and so on. So the child may have to wait a few days to access his medication? SignatureDavid ===== >tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >So the child may have to wait a few days to access his medication? No. The school nurse doesn't have anything to do with the student's medication. Medication is left at the Attendance Office or some other administrative desk. The school nurse does things like dealing with head lice, checking out suspected cases of child abuse or eating disorders, and such. A school nurse will have twenty or so schools on her rotation. tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > >tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > disorders, and such. A school nurse will have twenty or so schools on > her rotation. Sorry, I'd lost the attribution. It was Evan who said: > In most schools I'm familiar with, the rule appears to be that > children are *not* allowed to carry required medication, whether > prescription or non-prescription. Such medication is to be deposited > with the school nurse and dispensed by the nurse. This is why I asked whether all schools have a full-time nurse. If not, this process breaks down. SignatureDavid ===== >tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >This is why I asked whether all schools have a full-time nurse. If >not, this process breaks down. Evan is in California, and I'm in Florida. His comments pertain to what is evidently done in California schools, and mine to what is done in Florida schools. To eliminate confusion, any time any American says something to the effect of "this is how we do it here", a disclaimer should be added that "here" is limited to the writer's specific state or locale. Since we don't have a national police force, a national education program, or a national whatever-comes-up-next, the European reader should assume the meaning of "here" to be only there. Evan is not trying to mislead you into thinking that all US schools have on-location school nurses, and I'm not trying to mislead you into thinking that no US schools have designated school nurses. We just get lazy and refer to what we know about and assume you understand that things may be done differently "there". > Evan is in California, and I'm in Florida. His comments pertain to > what is evidently done in California schools, and mine to what is done [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > program, or a national whatever-comes-up-next, the European reader > should assume the meaning of "here" to be only there. How certain are you that the policies on, say, student possession of medication are the same in all school districts in Florida? When talking about American public schools, you also have to bear in mind that administration and even educational policy are very much local matters. So as far as I'm concerned, Coop, you're only speaking of the Orlando region of Florida. As Fran's comments indicate, there's also substantial differences between public and private schools. All's I can tell you is, I went to a secondary school that was basically public, but we never had to go to any school nurse in order to get prescription, let alone non-prescription, medication. The idea that a school would prevent (or try to prevent -- what do they do, Coop, drug tests? Random searches? Cameras in rest rooms?) a middle-school or high-school student from being able to carry around a bottle of aspirin or antihistamines, or even lawfully-prescribed medication, is outrageous, Coop, but I'm not surprised to see you defending the practice, since you defend whatever the status quo is. (I'll assume that this is the status quo, though I'm skeptical.) The elementary and secondary schools I attended each had a full-time nurse, BTWTATIN. Is there a better way, Coop? Yes. Let kids bring any lawfully-obtained medication to school as they please. Police non-lawful usages of such medication, and non-lawfully-obtained or -possessed drugs if you must. I can't see why even you don't realize that this is a preferable policy. Your kids never had allergies? >> Evan is in California, and I'm in Florida. His comments pertain to >> what is evidently done in California schools, and mine to what is done [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >How certain are you that the policies on, say, student possession of >medication are the same in all school districts in Florida? I'm not. But, nowhere did I say that all schools in Florida have such a policy. I didn't even touch on that. I said that schools in Florida don't have school nurses in each school. > When talking >about American public schools, you also have to bear in mind that >administration and even educational policy are very much local matters. >So as far as I'm concerned, Coop, you're only speaking of the Orlando >region of Florida. Despite the fact that your comment didn't address - in any way - what I said, the above is a correct observation. It may very well be that some schools in Florida have full-time school nurses on location and I'm not aware of it. In general, though, I have a pretty good idea of the Florida school budget situation and can make a pretty educated guess that none of the Florida counties have the budget for a full-time in-school nurse. I know you like to find fault with what I say, but it would be nice if you'd actually follow the thread and pick apart what I do say and not what you would have liked me to say so you could fault it. >As Fran's comments indicate, there's also substantial differences between >public and private schools. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >high-school student from being able to carry around a bottle of aspirin or >antihistamines, or even lawfully-prescribed medication, is outrageous, Unless you just got out of secondary school in the last couple of years, you are dealing with what was and not what is. The policy you are referring to - students banned from being in possession of pills in school - is usually in place in a school that has experienced problems in this area. It's usually an individual school policy, but it can be a school district policy. It is in effect in the high school that my kids would go to if they were still in school and in a public school. Now, how sure are *you* that the school you attended has the same rules today that they had when you were in school? Do you have that school frozen in time like some sort of "Happy Days" episode? >Coop, but I'm not surprised to see you defending the practice, since you >defend whatever the status quo is. (I'll assume that this is the status >quo, though I'm skeptical.) It's just the opposite of the status quo if you are referring to banning the possession of pills in schools. It is reacting to the current climate. What I am in favor of is recognizing today's problems and dealing with today's problems with the best available solution. > I know you like to find fault with what I say Not true, Coop. When you're right, I rejoice. > >All's I can tell you is, I went to a secondary school that was basically > >public, but we never had to go to any school nurse in order to get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in school - is usually in place in a school that has experienced > problems in this area. Coop, I got out of secondary school almost 20 years ago (Jeeeeeezus! [(c) 2003 Ross Howard]). But Coop, the problem of drug use among school kids was *worse* when I was in high school in the mid-'80s than it is today, and no amount of bragging and boasting from Young Joey and his generatiots can change that fact. On 10 Dec 2003, R F wrote -snip- > Coop, I got out of secondary school almost 20 years ago > (Jeeeeeezus! [(c) 2003 Ross Howard]). But Coop, the problem of > drug use among school kids was *worse* when I was in high school > in the mid-'80s than it is today, You're absolutely positive about that? Stats? SignatureCheers, Harvey Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs) > On 10 Dec 2003, R F wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stats? I don't know any stats about "the problem of drug use", but stats on "drug use" exist. There's a study called "Monitoring the Future" (conducted by the University of Michigan and sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse) that's been going on since 1975, the tables for which can be found at http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/02data.html In 1982, the year I graduated high school, 49.4% of high school seniors reported haven taken "any illicit drug" in the past year. In 2002, the number was 41.0%. Limiting it to the past 30 days, the numbers went from 32.5% to 25.4%. Summarizing Year 30 days 1982 2002 1982 2002 ------ ------ ------ ------ Any drug 49.4 41.0 32.5 25.4 Not marijuana 30.1 20.9 17.0 11.3 Marijuana 44.3 36.2 28.5 21.5 Inhalents 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 Hallucinogens 8.1 6.6 3.4 2.3 Cocaine 11.5 5.0 5.0 2.3 Heroin 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.5 Other Narcotics 5.3 7.0 1.8 3.1 Amphetamines 20.3 11.1 10.7 5.6 Sedatives 9.1 7.0 3.4 3.0 Tranquilizers 7.0 7.7 2.4 2.9 Althought there have been increases in some of the less common drugs (heroin, tranquilizers, and "other narcotics") and inhalent use has remained at a steady (low) level, the overall trend is clear. A high school senior in my day was 28% more likely to have taken an illicit drug in the past month than his counterpart today and was 20% more likely to have done so in the past year. He was 32% more likely to have used marijuana and 50% more likely to have used a drug other than marijuana. He was more than twice as likely to have used cocaine or amphetamines, and 13% more likely to use sedatives. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > On 10 Dec 2003, R F wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > Stats? I hadn't notice the "mid-'80s" and focused on the "20 years ago". Looking at the tables, 2002 is basically the same as 1987, although cocaine use didn't get down to modern levels until 1990. Things kept declining (from a high around 1978 or 1979, earlier for some drugs) until about 1992, when they started rising again until about 1997-1999 (still, for some drugs), reaching mid/late-'80s levels, and then holding steady or starting to decline again. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it |suggests handing it over to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |lizard. (650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> On 10 Dec 2003, R F wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/02data.html I saw that site, but didn't use it because I couldn't determine if the drug usage was in or out of school. The discussion was about bringing things to school to be used in school Was it that study, or another, that commented that the figures were admittedly skewed because a great deal of the drug use was by teens that had dropped out of school? They couldn't count drop-outs as being part of the school population. That's an interesting argument. If they dropped out of school because of drug use, then - presumably - their in-school drug use would have been high. > >I don't know any stats about "the problem of drug use", but stats > >on "drug use" exist. There's a study called "Monitoring the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I saw that site, but didn't use it because I couldn't determine if > the drug usage was in or out of school. They don't distinguish. > The discussion was about bringing things to school to be used in > school I thought that the discussion was about bringing things to school to be used whenever, because it was seen as evidence of illicit drug use. While the over-the-counter medicines may well be used during school hours (or afterward--remember, we're talking about keeping a bottle in your purse or backpack), I'd guess that most illicit drug use is and has always been outside of school. It's possible that there is more in-school use these days, but I'd want to see some numbers before I believed that it had gone significantly up while the overal use has gone significantly down. > Was it that study, or another, that commented that the figures were > admittedly skewed because a great deal of the drug use was by teens > that had dropped out of school? They couldn't count drop-outs as > being part of the school population. This one specifically says "high school students" and "Grade 12", so I presume that they limited it to students. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I saw that site, but didn't use it because I couldn't determine if >> the drug usage was in or out of school. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >be used whenever, because it was seen as evidence of illicit drug >use. OK, either way. But. I don't see how it could pertain to after-school drug use if the drug use was only after school. The aim of a school's drug tolerance program is to keep drugs out of school. The higher goal may be to keep kids off drugs, but I think the rules address the issue at the narrower level. > While the over-the-counter medicines may well be used during >school hours (or afterward--remember, we're talking about keeping a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >numbers before I believed that it had gone significantly up while the >overal use has gone significantly down. As I've said several times, I don't see a school administrator initiating a rule without some indication of a need for the rule. These people aren't creating rules like "no propeller beanies in class" just have something to do. They're closer to it than we are. It's a pretty good proving of the smoke/fire adage. Where the administrator does impose a rule without any problem in his school that indicates a need for the rule is when some district or other higher-level source asks for blanket compliance. Or, when a theoretical problem comes under scrutiny. A school doesn't have to have an extant problem with kids bringing guns to school to enact a rule that says the kids can't bring guns to school. >> Was it that study, or another, that commented that the figures were >> admittedly skewed because a great deal of the drug use was by teens [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >This one specifically says "high school students" and "Grade 12", so I >presume that they limited it to students. That does, in my opinion, skew the figures. The problem kids were problems when in school and probably influenced other kids. Just because the problem kid is not currently enrolled doesn't mean he's no longer part of the problem. He's probably the source for the current students. > As I've said several times, I don't see a school administrator > initiating a rule without some indication of a need for the rule. > These people aren't creating rules like "no propeller beanies in > class" just have something to do. I suspect that in most cases the need for a rule boils down to either "the legislature said 'Thou shalt have a rule'" or "our lawyers said that we need one to cover our a.ses". > Where the administrator does impose a rule without any problem in > his school that indicates a need for the rule is when some district > or other higher-level source asks for blanket compliance. Or, when > a theoretical problem comes under scrutiny. A school doesn't have > to have an extant problem with kids bringing guns to school to enact > a rule that says the kids can't bring guns to school. I agree. But what's the excuse for extending it to "imitation firearms" (squirt guns?) and "dangerous objects of any kind" (pocket knives?)? > >> Was it that study, or another, that commented that the figures > >> were admittedly skewed because a great deal of the drug use was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > no longer part of the problem. He's probably the source for the > current students. I'm confused. Earlier it appeared that you were saying that it was improper to consider drug use off school grounds since that wasn't the problem we were discussing, but now you appear to say that it's improper to *not* consider contemporaries of students who are unlikely to be at school. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the |channel on our televisions...... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus" (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> As I've said several times, I don't see a school administrator >> initiating a rule without some indication of a need for the rule. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"the legislature said 'Thou shalt have a rule'" or "our lawyers said >that we need one to cover our a.ses". There's a lot of truth to that. So, why are we criticizing the school administrators when we should be criticizing the legislature (mostly lawyers) or the lawyers? They're lawyers. They should be able promulgate the rule as well as come up with it. >> Where the administrator does impose a rule without any problem in >> his school that indicates a need for the rule is when some district [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >firearms" (squirt guns?) and "dangerous objects of any kind" (pocket >knives?)? You really need an excuse? If I'm a teacher, I'm not going to get up close and personal with a kid with a backpack that shows the outline of gun it. I'm calling 911. I don't want to look like an idiot when they pull a Whammo squirt gun out of the backpack. I also don't want panic in my class because some kid is waving a play gun and the other kids don't recognize it as such. Jeez, Evan. You bring up worrying about primary school kids needing a phone because they might be abducted or raped unless they can call for help, but you have no objections to fake guns and pocket knives in Josh's playmates hands. >> >> Was it that study, or another, that commented that the figures >> >> were admittedly skewed because a great deal of the drug use was [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >improper to *not* consider contemporaries of students who are unlikely >to be at school. I don't know where you get the idea that I consider it improper to consider drug use off-grounds, but I did want to keep the focus on pills in class and drug use in schools. You sure you want to go with "proper" or "improper" when we're talking about drug use? I'm not melding the pills-in-class theme to the drug study. They happen be in the same thread, but new topics do arise now and then. In this case, I just wonder about the validity of saying "drug use by high-schoolers is down by x%" when we're not sure when the drop-outs fit in. Were they high-schoolers in the beginning of the period measured but not at the end? > >> As I've said several times, I don't see a school administrator > >> initiating a rule without some indication of a need for the rule. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (mostly lawyers) or the lawyers? They're lawyers. They should be > able promulgate the rule as well as come up with it. I don't believe that I was criticizing the administrators. I said, implicitly, that the policy was idiotic. That it may have been the least-cost solution to a perceived legal problem doesn't make it less so. The only thing I'd criticize them for is not having the guts to say "No. That's just dumb." Or, worse, for trying to justify it. > >> Where the administrator does impose a rule without any problem in > >> his school that indicates a need for the rule is when some [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of gun it. I'm calling 911. I don't want to look like an idiot when > they pull a Whammo squirt gun out of the backpack. To my mind, those two sentences contradict one another. If you call 911 because you see a third grader with a squirt gun, you are *going* to look like an idiot. > I also don't want panic in my class because some kid is waving a > play gun and the other kids don't recognize it as such. So ban "realistic" immitations or some such. And don't allow them to be "waved about" in school. But I can see this extension. I just don't see it as being as obvious, lacking any history of problems, as a rule banning real guns in class. > Jeez, Evan. You bring up worrying about primary school kids needing > a phone because they might be abducted or raped unless they can call > for help, but you have no objections to fake guns and pocket knives > in Josh's playmates hands. I have no objections to an elementary school kid having a squirt gun in their backpack or a Swiss Army knife in their pocket. There are, of course, reasonable rules that can be set about what you are allowed to *do* with them in school, lest they cause a disruption. I am, indeed, far more concerned about the dangers he will face--largely from adults--when he is away from home and school. I'm sure that if cell phones had been around when I was a kid, my parents would have wanted me to have one for their own piece of mind. > >> >> Was it that study, or another, that commented that the figures > >> >> were admittedly skewed because a great deal of the drug use [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > consider drug use off-grounds, but I did want to keep the focus on > pills in class and drug use in schools. Okay. Then we can safely ignore kids that age who aren't likely to be in school. > You sure you want to go with "proper" or "improper" when we're > talking about drug use? I don't see why not. > I'm not melding the pills-in-class theme to the drug study. Okay. You appeared to be doing so. > They happen be in the same thread, but new topics do arise now and > then. In this case, I just wonder about the validity of saying > "drug use by high-schoolers is down by x%" when we're not sure when > the drop-outs fit in. Were they high-schoolers in the beginning of > the period measured but not at the end? The question was "In the last 30 days" and "In the last twelve months", asked of current 12th graders. The same questions[1] were asked back in 1982 as in 2002. So it would seem safe to assume that any changes represent a valid trend. Unless you want to further postulate that the usage has gone down among kids who stayed in school through high school but skyrocketed among those who dropped out.[2] For that, I'd want to see data. [1] Roughly. I can detail the changes if anybody's concerned. [2] And even then I doubt that enough kids drop out to allow it to have any significant effect. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Your claim might have more 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |credibility if you hadn't mispelled Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"inteligent" kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> You really need an excuse? If I'm a teacher, I'm not going to get up >> close and personal with a kid with a backpack that shows the outline [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >911 because you see a third grader with a squirt gun, you are *going* >to look like an idiot. You want to read the para over again? A second reading might clarify the perceived contradiction. >> I also don't want panic in my class because some kid is waving a >> play gun and the other kids don't recognize it as such. > >So ban "realistic" immitations or some such. Yep. Make it easy for the teacher. "Miss Jones, if you see a student waving a gun-like object, your first objective is to determine if the object is a real gun or not. Your second objective is to determine if the object is a realistic imitation or a unrealistic imitation. What? You're not familiar with guns yourself? You wouldn't know a .38 Police Special from a Buck Rogers Ray Gun? My God! Don't they teach *anything* in teacher's school any more?" >> I don't know where you get the idea that I consider it improper to >> consider drug use off-grounds, but I did want to keep the focus on >> pills in class and drug use in schools. > >Okay. Then we can safely ignore kids that age who aren't likely to be >in school. As far as the pills in class rule, yes. >> You sure you want to go with "proper" or "improper" when we're >> talking about drug use? > >I don't see why not. One has "proper" table manners. It is "improper" not to acknowledge wedding gifts. Seems like we need something a bit grittier for discussing drug use. >> I'm not melding the pills-in-class theme to the drug study. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >[2] And even then I doubt that enough kids drop out to allow it to > have any significant effect. As I indicated in my first mention of this, It's not my idea. One of websites that deals with this type of survey pointed out the problem and identified it as a problem. The "expert" seemed to feel it had effect. Fontana: >the problem of drug use among school kids >was *worse* when I was in high school in the mid-'80s than it is today, >and no amount of bragging and boasting from Young Joey and his generatiots >can change that fact. I KNOW it was! As was the smoking problem. The only thing that's wrose now, I think, is the drinking and the DUI. CERTAIN drugs have become more popular with my generation, like E. But, herion and coke, and especially crack abuse have gone way down! > Fontana: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I KNOW it was! As was the smoking problem. The only thing that's wrose now, I > think, is the drinking and the DUI. I can believe that. What I noticed even when I was in high school was that illicit drugs were more popular mong the older kids, the ones in the higher grades, and, beginning in my grade, alcohol was clearly the drug of choice for the younger kids. There was some sort of Post-Tet cultural revolution thing in all this. I noticed the same development in college. There was the clear sense that illicit drug use was something associated with an increasingly marginalized subculture, itself closely associated with an older generation in significant ways. I'm generalizing, of course. (You can argue that my use of "illicit" here is silly, since possession of alcohol by teenagers was Against The Law, in theory, but I don't know how else to express it ATPIT.) > CERTAIN drugs have become more popular > with my generation, like E. Yes. I remember some kids my age taking Ecstacy right around the time I graduated from high school; it seemed to be a relatively new sort of thing. > But, herion and coke, and especially crack abuse > have gone way down! My understanding is that heroin usage actually went up among young people in the '90s. Fontana: >> But, herion and coke, and especially crack abuse >> have gone way down! > >My understanding is that heroin usage actually went up among young >people in the '90s. I think it did during the 90's, but it's since gone down in the 00's, I'm pretty sure. I think it peakes early to mid 90's, didn't it? >Is there a better way, Coop? Yes. Let kids bring any lawfully-obtained >medication to school as they please. Police non-lawful usages of such >medication, and non-lawfully-obtained or -possessed drugs if you must. I >can't see why even you don't realize that this is a preferable policy. That's naive. I'm not a high school kid, and high school kids are smarter than I am. All I have to do to fool you is take an empty vial of a prescribed allergy medicine, or a Midol container, and fill it up with my illicit drug of choice. I can sit there in class an pop whatevers from my vial and you are blissfully ignorant. Tell me how you would "police" non-lawful usage. Do you wait until the kid flops on the floor in convulsions or hits the zombie point from his "allergy" medication? You're good at ducking the hard questions, but do try this one: as a teacher, how do you police the non-lawful usage or possession? You've been cagy about personal details, but I assume that you don't have children and that you base most of your views of life today on sitcom reruns. If you can't sample real life today in the world of teenagers and schools, at least tune in a show like "Boston Public" that presents a more current view of what goes on. They closed "Arnold's", Areff. Times have changed. Over the years, I've noticed how many people change their views on how things should be done in school by the administration when their own kids enter school. I know I changed mine. I might have agreed with you in 1969. Not in 1999. > >Is there a better way, Coop? Yes. Let kids bring any lawfully-obtained > >medication to school as they please. Police non-lawful usages of such [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > up with my illicit drug of choice. I can sit there in class an pop > whatevers from my vial and you are blissfully ignorant. Is consumption of an illegal drug by a student the worst thing in the world, Coop? You don't seem to consider the harm that comes of taking action under your 'zero tolerance' policy. > Tell me how you would "police" non-lawful usage. Do you wait until > the kid flops on the floor in convulsions or hits the zombie point > from his "allergy" medication? You're good at ducking the hard > questions, but do try this one: as a teacher, how do you police the > non-lawful usage or possession? The same way the police police it, Coop. If there's *probable cause* to believe that a student has illicit drugs, or is using same, fine, take action. But if a student is seen with a bottle of aspirin -- an over-the-counter medication that a *child* can legally purchase in These United States -- that's not probable cause, Coop. Why should a teacher have more power than a cop? At least in a public school (= BrE "state school"). If you want to have private schools with draconianly repressive rules, BMG and get 12 CDs for the price of one while you're at it. > If you can't sample real life today in the world of > teenagers and schools, at least tune in a show like "Boston Public" > that presents a more current view of what goes on. Oy! You think that show is accurate? In Real Life, Coop, (a) Jeri Ryan (former Miss Illinois, BTW) wouldn't have given up her lawyer job to become a teacher in a Boston public (= BrE 'state comprehensive') high school; (b) no public school teacher, and not too many private school teachers, looks like Jeri Ryan -- even you have to agree with me there; (c) at least one or two of the teachers in a Boston public high school would have at least mild sorts of Boston accents (instead we get Michael Rappoport's very authentic Flatbush Type 3 and Fyvush Finkel's archaic Lower East Side); (d) a substantial plurality of the students would have at least mild sorts of Boston accents (instead they all sound like they're from Boulder or Scottsdale) ... shall I go on? > They closed "Arnold's", Areff. Times have changed. I recognize that times change, Coop. Ownership of Arnold's passed from Pat Morita, who went to California to mentor the Karate Kid, to Al Molinaro. Al Molinaro, like Mr. C, was one of the few characters on _Happy Days_ to have a believable Northern Midwestern accent, though it's hardly Milwaukeean (Molinaro was born in Kenosha, W'scansin, which is in Chicaugaleeant). > Over the years, I've noticed how many people change their views on how > things should be done in school by the administration when their own > kids enter school. I know I changed mine. I might have agreed with > you in 1969. Not in 1999. Coop, are you saying that parents should be in charge of the schools? Because I don't think they should. As Young Joey might say, the 'rents are the least important constituency. LOLOLOL! Youth Power! >> >Is there a better way, Coop? Yes. Let kids bring any lawfully-obtained >> >medication to school as they please. Police non-lawful usages of such [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >world, Coop? You don't seem to consider the harm that comes of taking >action under your 'zero tolerance' policy. In one of you many misinterpretations of my general stance, you said that I prefer the status quo. I pointed out that what I prefer is not the status quo, but adjusting to the times. Look, for example, at Coricidin. It's a common over-the-counter cold medicine made by Schering-Plough. Not that different from Tylenol in that anyone can purchase it and it looks like a legitimate pill for a kid to be carrying. Now, look at http://www.coricidin.org/ . It's one of the current fads of the high school groups as a means of getting high. And dead. Look at http://www.drugfreeaz.com/news/articles_dxm.html for an article about teen use of the product. You think I'm exaggerating? See http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/28/3e361759d97af for an account of a local girl that died as a result of taking Coricidin. Robotussin, a common over-the-counter cough medicine is also being abused. Is it OK to let a kid have Vick's Vapo-Rub Inhaler in class? Just to clear a stuffy nose? Maybe. Maybe the kid is enhancing the effect of Ecstasy. See: http://www.seacoastonline.com/2000news/rock/r10_13e.htm >> Tell me how you would "police" non-lawful usage. Do you wait until >> the kid flops on the floor in convulsions or hits the zombie point [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >over-the-counter medication that a *child* can legally purchase in These >United States -- that's not probable cause, Coop. Yes it is. Most certainly. If the rule is "no pills of any kind in class", spotting a bottle of aspirin in possession of a kid in class meets any definition of probable cause. >Why should a teacher have more power than a cop? Equal is some ways because the teachers, like the cops, are enforcing rules set down by the governing body. The school, in this case. >> If you can't sample real life today in the world of >> teenagers and schools, at least tune in a show like "Boston Public" >> that presents a more current view of what goes on. > >Oy! You think that show is accurate? I stand by my comment - clearly viewable in this pane - that the show presents a "more current view of what goes on". It's a more current view than you seem to have. I'm always willing to discuss the pros and cons of a TV show as a source of entertainment. To wander off about Jeri Ryan's role, in this discussion, is irrelevant. Thus, snipped. Be clear, by the way, about what "zero tolerance" means and what aspect of zero tolerance I support. If the rule is "no pills", zero tolerance is "no pills of any kind by anyone" and I support that. If the rule is "caught with pills are you are automatically suspended for three days, that's zero tolerance in the application of the punishment and I do not support it. Zero tolerance does not, in itself, mean anything unless you specify what you do not tolerate. > You think I'm exaggerating? See > http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/28/3e361759d97af > for an account of a local girl that died as a result of taking > Coricidin. Pay especial attention to Both Kirklen and Lawenda said the majority of overdosing on these over-the-counter drugs, such as Coricidin, occurs in conjunction with the use of alcohol or another drug. "It is rare that we see a story where Coricidin or any other drug containing DXM is all that the person took," Lawenda said. Of course kids will find ways to get high. Draconian rules aren't going to stop that. All it will do is force kids to find new and different things to abuse. And inconvenience the kids who have legitimate need to use the things now banned. > Robotussin, a common over-the-counter cough medicine is also being > abused. And kids sniffed airplane glue when I was in school. > >> Tell me how you would "police" non-lawful usage. Do you wait > >> until the kid flops on the floor in convulsions or hits the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > class", spotting a bottle of aspirin in possession of a kid in class > meets any definition of probable cause. It's probable cause that the kid has violated an arbitrary rule. It is not probable cause that the kid is using illicit (outside the school) drugs. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Whatever it is that the government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |does, sensible Americans would prefer Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that the government do it to somebody |else. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >Of course kids will find ways to get high. Draconian rules aren't >going to stop that. All it will do is force kids to find new and >different things to abuse. The meaning of "Draconian" seems to have changed with the recent over-use of the word. What was once used to describe a severe and cruel law is now used to describe the inconvenience of not having pills in their possession during the six or so hours a day that a student is in the classroom and having to store those pills a couple of hundred yards away. >And inconvenience the kids who have >legitimate need to use the things now banned. What's banned? Leaving pills in the Administration Office in the same building is not banning something. I've not heard or read that any legitimate pill has been banned. Or, like the diminished definition off "Draconian", is the meaning of "banned" now something on the order of "less than immediately at hand"? Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: >>Of course kids will find ways to get high. Draconian rules aren't >>going to stop that. All it will do is force kids to find new and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > student is in the classroom and having to store those pills a > couple of hundred yards away. I used "procrustean" in an earlier post: W3NID: 2 : that is marked by complete disregard of individual differences or special circumstances and that arbitrarily often ruthlessly or violently forces into conformity with or subservience to something (as a system, policy, doctrine) *procrustean methods* *procrustean techniques* *procrustean legislation Wall Street Journal* I agree with your objection to the use of Draconian in this case. The rules are extreme, but not unusual; they might be enforced in a cruel manner, though. >>And inconvenience the kids who have >>legitimate need to use the things now banned. > > What's banned? Possession of pills of any kind by students. That is clear. The students are allowed to bring them to school only on condition that they check them at the door (with the designated pill receiver). Any student caught with pills on campus has the pills confiscated and is probably punished for possessing them rather than checking them in. > Leaving pills in the Administration Office in the > same building is not banning something. Yes, it is. It's banning possession of pills of any kind by students. Notice that the definition of "ban) (vt) is, according to W3NID: 2 : to prohibit especially by legal means or social pressure the performance, activities, dissemination, or use of *ban a political party* *ban a book* *good manners ban slovenly dress in restaurants* *a bill to ban birth-control literature* Now you're just being polemical for no good reason. It's obvious that Evan meant that possession of pills of any kind by students was banned/prohibited. > I've not heard or read that any legitimate pill has been banned. > Or, like the diminished definition off "Draconian", is the > meaning of "banned" now something on the order of "less than > immediately at hand"? Possession of pills of any kind, legitimate or illegitimate, by students is prohibited/banned. What is difficult to understand about that? And why are you so quick to engage in polemics here? Do you really think that there is a substantial difference between what you are saying and what Evan said? Such a nitpicking difference may be appropriate in court, but it certainly isn't appropriate in afriendly newsgroup like AUE, at least not when addressing someone like Evan when he makes a statement whose meaning is perfectly clear to a pedantic nitpicker like me. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >> Leaving pills in the Administration Office in the >> same building is not banning something. > >Yes, it is. It's banning possession of pills of any kind by students. >Notice that the definition of "ban) (vt) is, according to W3NID: Nope. The pills are not banned. The action of bringing the pills into the classroom is banned, but the pills are not banned. The student has full access to the pills by going down the hall to the office. Evan said: "And inconvenience the kids who have legitimate need to use the things now banned." Evan knows the difference between a thing and an action. Therefore, it's clear that he's referring to the pills (the things), and not the action, being banned. The concept is no different than a store prohibiting you from bringing your purse or shopping bag into the store and requiring that you check the purse or shopping bag at the entrance. The purse or bag, and their contents are not banned. Bringing the purse or bag in is banned. You said: >Now you're just being polemical for no good reason. It's obvious that >Evan meant that possession of pills of any kind by students was >banned/prohibited. and: > What is difficult to understand about that? and: >And why are you so quick to engage in polemics here? and: >Such a nitpicking difference may be >appropriate in court, but it certainly isn't appropriate in afriendly >newsgroup like AUE, at least not when addressing someone like Evan >when he makes a statement whose meaning is perfectly clear to a >pedantic nitpicker like me. Thank you for your examples of using polemics. Examples are even better than explanations. And, easier to come by. >Do you really >think that there is a substantial difference between what you are >saying and what Evan said? By aue standards, yes. You might notice, if you wander around the group and just read posts without looking for a chance to engage in polemic exchanges, that there is usually some discussion of usage. This is not a group that excuses slight differences in usage. The people that post here even feel that "that" instead of "who" results in a substantial difference in expression. Or, at least, difference enough to comment. WARNING: Snipping and rearrangement has been used in this reply. The snipper and rearranger feels no guilt about doing so. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: >>> Leaving pills in the Administration Office in the >>> same building is not banning something. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nope. The pills are not banned. You don't understand English, do you. The sentence you are responding to means that possession of pills of any kind by students is banned. To ban is to prohibit. In simple terms, it means that possessing the pills is not allowed. See how that works? > The action of bringing the pills into the classroom is banned, but > the pills are not banned. That's what I said. I'm glad to see that you finally understood it. > The student has full access to the pills by going > down the hall to the office. This is another issue and need not be brought up here. I think you don't want to say "full access" simply because that impliess that any time a student wants to take a pill, all that student needs to do is go to the office and ask for and it will be given. I doubt that this would be policy. But that's another quite hypothetical issue. > Evan said: "And inconvenience the kids who have > legitimate need to use the things now banned." Evan knows the > difference between a thing and an action. Therefore, it's clear > that he's referring to the pills (the things), and not the action, > being banned. Well, he's right. They are banned from classrooms, banned from bing in kids' pockets, banned from being in kids' lockers, and banned from being in kids' bookbags. Let's get really pedantic and nitpicky, if that's the route you want to go. Evan's sentence is interpretable in more than one way. I choose to give him more latitude than you seem to be willing to give him because I know that he's a rational thinking person who knows how to use language very well. Clarifications may be required in some circumstances, but if you think he's being to narrow in his statement, you can always ask for a clarification before you attack, just to make sure that you aren't being too literal in your interpretation. But that would not occfur to a man of your caliber, I know. > The concept is no different than a store prohibiting you from > bringing your purse or shopping bag into the store and requiring > that you check the purse or shopping bag at the entrance. The > purse or bag, and their contents are not banned. Bringing the > purse or bag in is banned. That final sentence is what I meant by "possession is banned". The penultimate sentence is nonsense. The purse --- if it's large enough --- and the bag --- let's call it a backpack for the sake of argument, and because you haven't specified what kind of bag you mean, I will specify one kind --- are definitely banned. They may not be brought it, full or empty, because it is possible for a shopper to put store merchandise into those containers (purse and backpack type of bag) and take them out of the store without paying. A paper, cloth, or plastic bag that folds up and fits into one's pocket, OTOH, cannot be seen, so it might get into the store, but it probably won't be allowed out of the store unless it's empty and still in one's pocket. The contents of purses and bags may or may not be banned, depending up what they are, but assuming it's nothing dangerous, I'll give you that one. > You said: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Thank you for your examples of using polemics. Examples are even > better than explanations. And, easier to come by. You don't seem to understand polemics either. But you certainly are an expert at polemics. >>Do you really think that there is a substantial difference >>between what you are >>saying and what Evan said? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in polemic exchanges, that there is usually some discussion of > usage. If you had anything to contribute about usage other than your own preferences or what you read in the newspapers or hear on TV, I might accept what you have to say as worth more consideration, but you don't --- not that your usages are idiosyncratic all the time; they are, in fact, rather commonplace, which is a good thing because it means that they are usually understandable. And when you go beyond your capacity, it is also clear, because your misusages are also rather commonplace and easily understandable. > This is not a group that excuses slight differences in usage. > The people that post here even feel that "that" instead of "who" > results in a substantial difference in expression. Or, at least, > difference enough to comment. That just happens to be a long-time hotly contested usage issue in the prescriptive and descriptive linguistics/usage wars, so naturally it will be a target. Those who use "that" are prescriptively substandard by definition. But that is also commonplace, so you win again. > WARNING: Snipping and rearrangement has been used in this reply. > The snipper and rearranger feels no guilt about doing so. That's right. You are intellectually dishonest and proud of it. We all know it, so there's no need for you to crow about it. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >> The student has full access to the pills by going >> down the hall to the office. > >This is another issue and need not be brought up here. Wha? It's essential to the discussion. Absolutely essential. > I think you >don't want to say "full access" simply because that impliess that any >time a student wants to take a pill, all that student needs to do is >go to the office and ask for and it will be given. That's exactly how it's done. For example, a girl brings in a bottle of Midol, leaves it at the school office, and has full access to one of the pills anytime she goes to the office and asks for one. She's excused from class if necessary. Why do you attempt to discuss things when you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about? Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: >>> The student has full access to the pills by going >>> down the hall to the office. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Why do you attempt to discuss things when you have absolutely no > idea of what you're talking about? So you are determined to continue to make an a.s of yourself by dishonestly snipping and rearranging my posts. You have gone off the deep end. Why are you so desperate in your pitiful attempts to best me. Are you having erectile problems. That's probably it, isn't it? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >deep end. Why are you so desperate in your pitiful attempts to best me. >Are you having erectile problems. That's probably it, isn't it? What was snipped that in any way affected the comments addressed? Nothing was rearranged. Below is your entire rant...err...post. Find what is in this post that was snipped in my reply that would alter your meaning in any way. Find any rearrangement. Please do this. I am really curious to see what imagined slights have you in such a tizzy. The only thing that I can think of is that you are somehow under the impression that I should reply to each and every point you try to make. I assure you, that's not going to happen. I'm not going to address infantile sh.t-slinging or inanities about erectile disfunction. As far as "besting" you, there's no need. You've been in self-destruct mode for some time. You make these long, rambling posts with about half the contents devoted to non-related asides, weird sh.t like claiming a joke was used as an allegory, and petty little personal comments. You think that has to be "bested"? In most cases - as you have above - you don't even address the issue at all. My post pointed out that you have absolutely no understanding of the way things are done regarding the issue at hand. Rather than acknowledge that you are dead wrong, or offer some explanation for your completely erroneous statement, you fly off on a tangent. Hey, it's your foot. Keep shooting. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: > On 11 Dec 2003 06:55:35 GMT, CyberCypher > <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nope. The pills are not banned. You don't understand English, do you. The sentence you are responding to means that possession of pills of any kind by students is banned. To ban is to prohibit. In simple terms, it means that possessing the pills is not allowed. See how that works? > The action of bringing the pills into the classroom is banned, but > the pills are not banned. That's what I said. I'm glad to see that you finally understood it. > The student has full access to the pills by going > down the hall to the office. This is another issue and need not be brought up here. I think you don't want to say "full access" simply because that impliess that any time a student wants to take a pill, all that student needs to do is go to the office and ask for and it will be given. I doubt that this would be policy. But that's another quite hypothetical issue. > Evan said: "And inconvenience the kids who have > legitimate need to use the things now banned." Evan knows the > difference between a thing and an action. Therefore, it's clear > that he's referring to the pills (the things), and not the action, > being banned. Well, he's right. They are banned from classrooms, banned from bing in kids' pockets, banned from being in kids' lockers, and banned from being in kids' bookbags. Let's get really pedantic and nitpicky, if that's the route you want to go. Evan's sentence is interpretable in more than one way. I choose to give him more latitude than you seem to be willing to give him because I know that he's a rational thinking person who knows how to use language very well. Clarifications may be required in some circumstances, but if you think he's being to narrow in his statement, you can always ask for a clarification before you attack, just to make sure that you aren't being too literal in your interpretation. But that would not occfur to a man of your caliber, I know. > The concept is no different than a store prohibiting you from > bringing your purse or shopping bag into the store and requiring > that you check the purse or shopping bag at the entrance. The > purse or bag, and their contents are not banned. Bringing the > purse or bag in is banned. That final sentence is what I meant by "possession is banned". The penultimate sentence is nonsense. The purse --- if it's large enough --- and the bag --- let's call it a backpack for the sake of argument, and because you haven't specified what kind of bag you mean, I will specify one kind --- are definitely banned. They may not be brought it, full or empty, because it is possible for a shopper to put store merchandise into those containers (purse and backpack type of bag) and take them out of the store without paying. A paper, cloth, or plastic bag that folds up and fits into one's pocket, OTOH, cannot be seen, so it might get into the store, but it probably won't be allowed out of the store unless it's empty and still in one's pocket. The contents of purses and bags may or may not be banned, depending up what they are, but assuming it's nothing dangerous, I'll give you that one. > You said: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Thank you for your examples of using polemics. Examples are even > better than explanations. And, easier to come by. You don't seem to understand polemics either. But you certainly are an expert at polemics. >>Do you really think that there is a substantial difference >>between what you are >>saying and what Evan said? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in polemic exchanges, that there is usually some discussion of > usage. If you had anything to contribute about usage other than your own preferences or what you read in the newspapers or hear on TV, I might accept what you have to say as worth more consideration, but you don't --- not that your usages are idiosyncratic all the time; they are, in fact, rather commonplace, which is a good thing because it means that they are usually understandable. And when you go beyond your capacity, it is also clear, because your misusages are also rather commonplace and easily understandable. > This is not a group that excuses slight differences in usage. > The people that post here even feel that "that" instead of "who" > results in a substantial difference in expression. Or, at least, > difference enough to comment. That just happens to be a long-time hotly contested usage issue in the prescriptive and descriptive linguistics/usage wars, so naturally it will be a target. Those who use "that" are prescriptively substandard by definition. But that is also commonplace, so you win again. > WARNING: Snipping and rearrangement has been used in this reply. > The snipper and rearranger feels no guilt about doing so. That's right. You are intellectually dishonest and proud of it. We all know it, so there's no need for you to crow about it. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 12 Dec 2003: >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >>> Wha? It's essential to the discussion. Absolutely essential. No, it's not essential to the discussion. One needs hard data to discuss this. Otherwise, all one can do is talk about how things ought to be or how things might get screwed up. That is a waste of time. >>>> I think you >>>>don't want to say "full access" simply because that impliess [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>> That's exactly how it's done. Where is your evidence that this is done anywhere? >>> For example, a girl brings in a >>> bottle of Midol, leaves it at the school office, and has full [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> Why do you attempt to discuss things when you have absolutely no >>> idea of what you're talking about? This was written before Evan's latest post that demonstrates what can and did go wrong in a couple of cases of this zero-tolerance nonsense. You present only the hypothetical best-case scenario. I had an idea of what I was talking about, but because I had not concrete evidence to support my hypothesis, I refrained from discussing it. You, on the other hand, blithely asserted without a jot, tittle, iota, mote, or smidgen of evidence "exactly how it's done". But my point was that that's not how it is always done, you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about, and Evan produced evidence showing that you don't know what you are talking about: with you, the status quo (zero- tolerance and confiscation of all medications) is hunky-dory, as Richard might say. >>So you are determined to continue to make an a.s of yourself by >>dishonestly snipping and rearranging my posts. You have gone off [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nothing was rearranged. You stripped the context, the first few lines. Even if you had snipt the imaginary sh.t I slang at you, at least acknowledging that the post you are replying to did not begin with that sentence of yours followed by that sentence of mine would not have made my sentence as incongruous as it is without a context. You failed to indicate that you had snipt anything. By doing so, you rearranged the post to make those first statements of this post the first statements of the other post. But you don't see that. > Below is your entire rant...err...post. Consistently klever and so predictable. > Find what is in this post that was snipped in my reply that > would alter your meaning in any way. Find any rearrangement. See about 13 lines above. > Please do this. I am really curious to see what imagined slights > have you in such a tizzy. No slights real or imagined, just your lack of respect for anything that you haven't written yourself or don't agree with. You are intellectually dishonest and think for some reason that your disregard of the conventions of intellectually honest posting is akin to Mort Sahl's political iconoclasm back in the 50s and 60s. But you're just another old fart in a rocking chair who thinks he knows what's best for everybody else. > The only thing that I can think of is > that you are somehow under the impression that I should reply to > each and every point you try to make. Not at all. > I assure you, that's not going to happen. I'm not going to > address infantile sh.t-slinging or inanities about erectile > disfunction. It's "dysfunction", by the way. And I seem to have hit your hot button there. I'll bet that the only hard-ons you've had in years are the ones you get when you write your Usenet posts. > As far as "besting" you, there's no need. You've been in > self-destruct mode for some time. You make these long, rambling > posts with about half the contents devoted to non-related asides, Then stop reading and replying to my posts. You're an addict, it seems. > weird sh.t like claiming a joke was used as an allegory, Okay, I can't expect someone who disdains literature in favor of hack writers to understand what an allegory is and how a joke might be allegorical. Just for your edification, though, here is the first definition of the word from W3NID: 1 a : the written, oral, or artistic expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience Sure, it goes on to point out things like Bunyan's novel and Spenser's long poem, but the definition fits the structure of the joke: Newcomer and Oldtimer are the two characters. Telling a joke is the action. And the generalization or truth about human conduct or experience is that newcomers are treated differently from oldtimers until they've been there long enough to be accepted into the group.. You must think that an allegory is something sacred and that a profane ("not sacred" as opposed to "vulgar" or "obscene") joke called an allegory is impossible or a sacrilege. Small-minded and narrow-minded you are. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 12 Dec 2003: > >>>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: >>>>> I think you >>>>>don't want to say "full access" simply because that impliess [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Where is your evidence that this is done anywhere? Down to this, eh? The weakest argument possible. >>>> For example, a girl brings in a >>>> bottle of Midol, leaves it at the school office, and has full [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >This was written before Evan's latest post that demonstrates what can >and did go wrong in a couple of cases of this zero-tolerance nonsense. I have no idea what post you're referring to. About telephones? >You present only the hypothetical best-case scenario. I had an idea of >what I was talking about, but because I had not concrete evidence to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that's not how it is always done, you accused me of not knowing what I >was talking about, and Evan produced evidence ??? >showing that you don't >know what you are talking about: with you, the status quo (zero- >tolerance and confiscation of all medications) is hunky-dory, as >Richard might say. I repeat: you don't know what you're talking about. You had no idea, no clue, no knowledge. (The entire opening act was snipped.) >> What was snipped that in any way affected the comments addressed? >> >> Nothing was rearranged. > >You stripped the context, the first few lines. Good Lord. >Even if you had snipt >the imaginary sh.t I slang at you, at least acknowledging that the post >you are replying to did not begin with that sentence of yours followed >by that sentence of mine would not have made my sentence as incongruous >as it is without a context. Incredible. >You failed to indicate that you had snipt >anything. By doing so, you rearranged the post to make those first >statements of this post the first statements of the other post. But you >don't see that. Damn! And here's me thinking rearrangement means moving something from one place to another place. This was probably the first time you ever saw the opening lines of a post snipped, or parts of post snipped only the remaining part commented on. By anyone in the group. No wonder you were shocked. >> weird sh.t like claiming a joke was used as an allegory, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human >conduct or experience Is there something in there somewhere that the story used as an allegory has to be somehow, if even remotely, appropriate? You'd think there would be. Let's summarize: 1. Joey called you a "semen-filled a.shole". 2. You expressed your displeasure at this. 3. I said something to the effect that if it was unacceptable to call people obscene terms, then you should tell Rey that you consider him to be doing unacceptable things. 3. You said something to the effect that Rey does so jokingly, but Joey was not joking. 4. You presented a hoary old joke with the punch line being "some people can't tell a joke" and called it an allegory. 5. Note carefully that your position is that Rey allegedly jokes and Joey doesn't. 6. Conclude from that a joke about telling jokes applies. Either your conclusion is that Rey can't tell a joke properly or that Joey was just joking and your contention that he isn't joking is ..... awww, sh.t. This is too obvious to have to explain. By the way, Rey insists - and that word is not really strong enough - that he is not joking. So, neither Rey nor Joey is joking. But, let's not kick a dead allegory. (Snipped the usual wandering around) > >Of course kids will find ways to get high. Draconian rules aren't > >going to stop that. All it will do is force kids to find new and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > off "Draconian", is the meaning of "banned" now something on the order > of "less than immediately at hand"? What about medical privacy, Coop? Why should the school principal have to know when I take an aspirin or three? Your draconian rule is at least halfway towards banning the pills, yes. What about medical privacy, Coop, I say? Kids have no privacy interests? Even you don't believe that. > high-school student from being able to carry around a bottle of aspirin or > antihistamines, or even lawfully-prescribed medication, is outrageous, You're getting carried away. The drugs that ADD (what is the new name? ADHS or something?) sufferers use, have frequently been sold on campus (or stolen and sold) because they are a bit like speed. I don't know whether the rule about handing in drugs to the administration or school nurse (where there is one) is applied in all Australian schools, but I think it is in most. Even aspirin and paracetamol are potentially dangerous, especially for young people. When needed, they are (usually) readily available to school children from the nurse or someone else who is able to monitor just how many pills the kids are popping per day. SignatureRob Bannister > > high-school student from being able to carry around a bottle of aspirin or > > antihistamines, or even lawfully-prescribed medication, is outrageous, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > school children from the nurse or someone else who is able to monitor > just how many pills the kids are popping per day. Things may have changed from the years I was teaching in US public schools. But at that time, school nurses could _not_ administer dosages of simple aspirin, as that would involve diagnosing and prescribing medications. Instead, the nurses called the parents to arrange for the student to be taken home. Now, with prescription and other medications, written permission from the parents was required for the nurse to keep and mete out dosages to the students. Of course, since those days, (1976 and before) I understand that teachers, fellow-students and administrators must be constantly on guard about how students are dosing themselves. Back then, strange behavior + frequent nips into the lockers to sip at pop cans, observed by the teacher, might be reason to ask the administration to investigate possible alcohol consumption on school property. >>>high-school student from being able to carry around a bottle of aspirin > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Instead, the nurses called the parents to arrange for the student to be > taken home. In my part of Australia at least, it has long been impossible to send children home. There is no-one there to care for them, and, unless it is a real emergency requiring hospitalisation, the parents are certainly not going to time off work. In my last school, we had a bigger problem with students from SE Asia: frequently father was doing business in the USA, mother doing the same in Hong Kong or Singapore, and the child was actually living with a (maybe) cousin not much older than him- or herself. I still remember the time when, if the temperature went over 41 degrees, school was closed and everyone went home. That stopped about the end of the 70s. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 10 Dec 2003: >> high-school student from being able to carry around a bottle of >> aspirin or antihistamines, or even lawfully-prescribed >> medication, is outrageous, > > You're getting carried away. The drugs that ADD (what is the new > name? ADHS or something?) It's not a new name but a slightly different syndrome: ADD = attention deficit disorder; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactive disorder. > sufferers use, have frequently been sold > on campus (or stolen and sold) because they are a bit like speed. So you too are in favor of punishing everyone for the crimes of the very few. > I don't know whether the rule about handing in drugs to the > administration or school nurse (where there is one) is applied in > all Australian schools, but I think it is in most. > > Even aspirin and paracetamol are potentially dangerous, Almost anything taken in excess is harmful. This is a weak argument. Automobiles are significantly more dangerous than most illegal drugs, and so is legal alcohol, but the users of those items are not punished en masse for the abuses of a few. The argument is without merit. > especially > for young people. When needed, they are (usually) readily > available to school children from the nurse or someone else who is > able to monitor just how many pills the kids are popping per day. That parenthetic qualifier is potentially the difference between life and death for some kids who suffer from allergies. If the drugs that some kids need are not always available when they are needed, then they might as well not be available at all, IMHO. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 10 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So you too are in favor of punishing everyone for the crimes of the > very few. Not at all. I don't think inability to self-administer drugs is a punishment. I did say elsewhere, that I thought the punishment in the Louisiana case was excessive. >>I don't know whether the rule about handing in drugs to the >>administration or school nurse (where there is one) is applied in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > punished en masse for the abuses of a few. The argument is without > merit. We are talking about school children. Only a few of these are allowed to bring cars to school and they are certainly not allowed alcohol. You cannot in fairness compare adults and children. >>especially >>for young people. When needed, they are (usually) readily [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > some kids need are not always available when they are needed, then > they might as well not be available at all, IMHO. The qualifier was with regard to analgesics only. Important medication is always easily available and they are, of course, allowed to carry asthma puffers. The strange thing with girls' period pains, is how many women teachers are totally unsympathetic, but some girls would swallow a bottle of Panadol (over the counter paracetamol) or whatever a day if they were not controlled. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: >> Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 10 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Not at all. I don't think inability to self-administer drugs is a > punishment. It sho'nuff ain't no privilege, now, is it? > I did say elsewhere, that I thought the punishment in > the Louisiana case was excessive. Seems clear that it was given all the media attention it engendered. >>>I don't know whether the rule about handing in drugs to the >>>administration or school nurse (where there is one) is applied in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > allowed to bring cars to school and they are certainly not allowed > alcohol. You cannot in fairness compare adults and children. In many societies and cultures, children are considered adults once they reach 13. Just because high-tech cultures infantilize their progeny until 18-21 for economic reasons, there is no reason to assume that all minors are incapable of making good, mature decisions about how to live their lives. I've known a few kids who were more mature than a lot of adults. >>>especially >>>for young people. When needed, they are (usually) readily [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The qualifier was with regard to analgesics only. But the rules on possession seem to make no distinction of any kind in the Lafayette case --- according to the newspaper reports, that is. > Important > medication is always easily available Ideally, yes, but in reality? It's too hypothetical to quibble over, but Burns and Robert Burton did not say " The best laid schemes o’ mice and men Gang aft a-gley; And leave us naught but grief and pain For promised joy." and "There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip." (The Anatomy of Melancholy) for nothing. > and they are, of course, allowed to carry asthma puffers. The > strange thing with girls' period pains, is how many women > teachers are totally unsympathetic, but some girls would > swallow a bottle of Panadol (over the counter paracetamol) or > whatever a day if they were not controlled. Were it not for the lawyers, the insurance companies, and litigious parents, teachers wouldn't have to be police officers. I understand the realities of this situation, but if parents did a better job bringing up their kids, it wouldn't be necessary to expect teachers and school administrators to liable for their behavior. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: >>Not at all. I don't think inability to self-administer drugs is a >>punishment. > > It sho'nuff ain't no privilege, now, is it? Why are you changing the subject? Who mentioned privileges? >>I did say elsewhere, that I thought the punishment in >>the Louisiana case was excessive. > > Seems clear that it was given all the media attention it engendered. > >>We are talking about school children. Only a few of these are >>allowed to bring cars to school and they are certainly not allowed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about how to live their lives. I've known a few kids who were more > mature than a lot of adults. Maybe, but you certainly don't teach in a high school or you wouldn't even think about giving 13-15 year olds the same treatment as adults. Of course, it is undoubtedly a minority of kids who behave stupidly and, it is true, the majority do suffer for the sins of the few. Isn't that precisely what happens in adult society? In the last couple of decades, but even more so since the 11 September, more and more restrictions have been introduced to protect the majority from the few. It is annoying, at times very annoying, but we have not yet discovered a better way. >>>>especially >>>>for young people. When needed, they are (usually) readily [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in the Lafayette case --- according to the newspaper reports, that > is. You've changed the subject again. I gave a slight qualifier, because I was not sure that kids would be able to receive aspirin or similar on demand. At that point, I was not discussing the rule about possession. However, 'possessing' drugs (whether considered by some to innocuous because they are freely available in supermarkets or whether dangerous) is against the rules of most Australian schools, and I fully support this, knowing what can happen if there is no rule. It is impossible for a busy school teacher to know at a glance whether one particular pill is good or bad, so it only makes sense to stop kids from carrying them. Obviously, even this is open to abuse. Not all schools have a qualified nurse on the premises at all times and not all notes permitting a student access to a drug are genuine. >>Important >>medication is always easily available > > Ideally, yes, but in reality? It's too hypothetical to quibble over, Why is this hypothetical? I don't know what happens in Louisiana - the previous case over using the word 'gay' makes the place a bit suspect - but I am describing a real, school situation in which I worked for many years. There was always a queue of little girls outside the medical centre, but they always got looked after. >>and they are, of course, allowed to carry asthma puffers. The >>strange thing with girls' period pains, is how many women [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bringing up their kids, it wouldn't be necessary to expect teachers > and school administrators to liable for their behavior. Now who's into a hypothetical scenario. This will never happen. In fact, in today's world where nearly half of the students in a school have only one parent, who is working very hard, things have got worse. SignatureRob Bannister > > Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why are you changing the subject? Who mentioned privileges? I took it in the sense of Tevye's "I realize, of course, that it's no shame to be poor. But it's no great honor either!" It may not be precisely a punishment, but not being able to possess medication is certainly at the very least an inconvenience (potentially a large one, depending on where the child is going after school). And if it isn't a punishment, it's only because the implied "We can't trust you not to abuse the ability" was decided before the student had a chance to do anything wrong. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |This isn't good. I've seen good, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |and it didn't look anything like Palo Alto, CA 94304 |this. | MST3K kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 12 Dec 2003: >> Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why are you changing the subject? Who mentioned privileges? You think it's not a punishment, but I think it's not a privilege and is a punishment. That means that I think it's right that cannot be given or taken away by the schools or the state. My 7-year-old is quite capable of self-administering the drugs his doctor prescribes for him when he's sick. Until last year, we gave those drugs to his teacher --- who undoubtedly had been given drugs to administer to one or more of the other 34 children in her 1st-year class --- so she was not only a teacher, but a dispenser of medicine. Now that my son can administer his own drugs, his teacher does not need to be burdened with what I see as an extraneous and onerous duty. [...] >> I've known a few >> kids who were more mature than a lot of adults. > > Maybe, but you certainly don't teach in a high school or you > wouldn't even think about giving 13-15 year olds the same > treatment as adults. Right, I don't teach in an American, British, or Australian high school, but I did teach in a Japanese high school for four years and in a Taiwanese high school for one, in addition to teaching for an additional 4 years in what used to be a junior college (includes 10th-12th grades in high school) that is now a university. I have 9 years' worth of high school teaching, and I have few problems making distinctions between the way minors and adults need to be treated and in what ways minors are less competent than adults. > Of course, it is undoubtedly a minority of > kids who behave stupidly and, it is true, the majority do suffer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at times very annoying, but we have not yet discovered a better > way. I don't think that stripping the majority of its rights because of the potential danger of the few is an acceptable price to pay for an impossible-to-achieve safety or for the illusion of safety in an inherently unsafe world. The desire to make the world a safer place by outlawing clear and present dangers is reasonable, but because of mass hysteria, too much of what people say and do these days is seen as a potential danger to society. This is nonsense. The fearful are crying for protection from an undetectable and unstoppable few. Maybe we can take a cue from _Farenheit 451_ and show how well the government is doing its job by presenting on TV a daily round-up and execution (staged, of course) of potential terrorists and drug- abusing school children. [...] >> But the rules on possession seem to make no distinction of any >> kind in the Lafayette case --- according to the newspaper >> reports, that is. Oops. I referred to the wrong case. Lafayette was were the boy was punished for saying "gay"; it was another place that expelled a girl for carrying Tylenol. Sorry about that. > You've changed the subject again. I gave a slight qualifier, > because I was not sure that kids would be able to receive aspirin > or similar on demand. At that point, I was not discussing the rule > about possession. It seems to me that the inability to self-administer drugs --- even analgesics --- is the result of a lack of possession, which lack exists because the right to possess even analgesics has been taken away for the convenience of the school authorities and its insurance company and not the good of the students. > However, 'possessing' drugs (whether considered by some to > innocuous because they are freely available in supermarkets or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > know at a glance whether one particular pill is good or bad, so it > only makes sense to stop kids from carrying them. And as hundreds of stories from the California newspapers point out, there are a huge number of automobile accidents in California cause by illegal immigrants who drive cars in that state without a legal drivers licence and without the required liability insurance. The CHP cannot check out every driver of every car, so it makes sense to stop everyone from driving a car in California. > Obviously, even this is open to abuse. Not all schools have a > qualified nurse on the premises at all times and not all notes > permitting a student access to a drug are genuine. All solutions and systems are open to abuse; nothing is perfect, but choosing the most repressive and arbitrary dictatorial solution seems to be popular when dealing with children. This ensures only that the children will grow up to repeat the mistakes of their parents and teachers. >>>Important >>>medication is always easily available [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the previous case over using the word 'gay' makes the place a bit > suspect - Again, my mistake for referring to the wrong school and the wrong case. > but I am describing a real, school situation in which I > worked for many years. There was always a queue of little girls > outside the medical centre, but they always got looked after. Then perhaps you ought to read Evan's post about the asthmatic girl in Pennsylvania. >>>and they are, of course, allowed to carry asthma puffers. The >>>strange thing with girls' period pains, is how many women [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Now who's into a hypothetical scenario. This will never happen. I know it won't. > In fact, in today's world where nearly half of > the students in a school have only one parent, > who is working very hard, things have got worse. Yes, and now parents expect the shools to raise their children for them and bitch when the schools do not adequately fulfill the parents' responsibilities as the parents would like them to. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Yes, and now parents expect the shools to raise their children for > them and bitch when the schools do not adequately fulfill the > parents' responsibilities as the parents would like them to. And it is this, plus increasing frivolous litigation, that forces school authorities to make rules that may seem ridiculous and which, in some cases, are. SignatureRob Bannister > Of course, it is undoubtedly a minority of kids who behave stupidly One of the problems being that it's an ever-changing minority. I think the teenager who never does anything stupid is pretty rare. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. > The qualifier was with regard to analgesics only. Important > medication is always easily available and they are, of course, > allowed to carry asthma puffers. Of course. Now. In some states. And some schools even know that they're required to allow it. Just before the beginning of this school year, the Bristol Township School Board in Pennsylvania decided that students with asthma must keep their emergency inhalers in the school office, rather than on hand. ... Although school officials have often taken zero-tolerance laws against drugs in schools to mean that even asthma medicine must be kept locked in the office -- which obviously defeats the purpose of rescue inhalers like quick-acting bronchodilators -- in the past few years many states passed bills specifically exempting inhalers from such rigidly interpreted rules. Pennsylvania become one of them, to a fair amount of publicity, almost a full year before the Bristol Township School Board decided to deny asthmatic students easy access to their own medicine. On September 27, 2000, the state's House Education Committee voted unanimously to require its public school districts to let students carry asthma inhalers. This was partly in response to "The Flagpole Mom" (as the media dubbed her), a Pennsylvania mother who chained her lawn chair to her son's elementary school flagpole for 19 days to protest the school's asthma inhaler policy. Similar laws are in place in Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. But ignorance and obstinacy among school officials often trump even their own local laws. ... In Salem, Oregon, Carolyn Berry's repeated argument that her daughter Kim needed her inhaler on-hand went nowhere. The school's response was essentially, "If they made an exceptions for asthma meds, where would it end?" Even a near-disaster when the P.E. teacher insisted she run around the track at the height of pollen season didn't change the situation. "At the end of the half-mile, Kim was wheezing terribly," Berry recalls. "The track was a block from the middle school, so she had to walk (with assistance) back to the school office, at which point they had to track down the person with the key for the med drawer and wait for her inhaler to be found. I tried talking to the school administration again, and was told the same story I was always told. It seems to be the party line." http://reason.com/0204/fe.cs.asthma.shtml SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs |to be repeated. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>The qualifier was with regard to analgesics only. Important >>medication is always easily available and they are, of course, >>allowed to carry asthma puffers. > > Of course. Now. In some states. [terrifying examples snipped] That is shocking. If those sorts of attitudes are common, then I'm not surprised at the Louisiana affair. Nevertheless, I reserve my position re. the /principle/ of not carrying drugs. I think, in my Australian experience, I have come across other exceptions like the asthma things - a particular student had some life-threatening disease/syndrome; all teachers were informed and the student was allowed to carry and take whatever drug it was whenever necessary. It is possible to have a rule and make exceptions. It is also possible to have a set punishment for breaking rules and still make exceptions. Not so, it would seem, in some parts of Louisiana. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 12 Dec 2003: >>>The qualifier was with regard to analgesics only. Important >>>medication is always easily available and they are, of course, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That is shocking. If those sorts of attitudes are common, then I'm > not surprised at the Louisiana affair. The idea that making an exception in one case will open the door to having to make exceptions in more and more cases until the rules are eviscerated is a common American fear. > Nevertheless, I reserve my position re. the /principle/ of not > carrying drugs. I think, in my Australian experience, I have come [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > make exceptions. Not so, it would seem, in some parts of > Louisiana. Americans are into equal treatment for everybody these days, so there's a "what's good for one is good for all" mentality in most bureaucratic and many judicial settings. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > >Sorry, I'd lost the attribution. It was Evan who said: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > get lazy and refer to what we know about and assume you understand > that things may be done differently "there". I never thought anybody was trying to mislead me, and I'm well aware that the US is a large and disparate country (I've been in 38 of the States). I'm just trying to ascertain whether Evan's statement above indicates that every school (in his area, or in the US, either would be interesting) has a full time nurse. I would be surprised if that is the case. SignatureDavid ===== >I never thought anybody was trying to mislead me, and I'm well aware >that the US is a large and disparate country (I've been in 38 of the >States). I'm just trying to ascertain whether Evan's statement above >indicates that every school (in his area, or in the US, either would >be interesting) has a full time nurse. I would be surprised if that >is the case. I happen to be more aware of the Florida situation than many non-school-affiliated people might be since my wife works for the State of Florida public health department and the school nurses are also employed by the public health department. I've met several of them at various PHD functions that I've attended with my wife. > tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > This is why I asked whether all schools have a full-time nurse. If > not, this process breaks down. By the time my children were in middle school, the public schools in Norwalk had nurses on duty at least part of every day. My daughter had to go to the school nurse to get medication, or I would have had to go myself to the school to give it to her. When she was away in California at boarding school, that was theoretically also the case, and the school had 24 hour nursing coverage, but no-one made any fuss if she carried her own painkillers, or cold remedies. It's one of the differences between private and public schools in the US: public schools seem to have no flexibility in the application of their rules at all. Fran "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... > kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > half-days per year. School secretaries are often first-aid trained > instead. A full-time nurse was certainly unknown in my own UK primary school, in the 1950s. Yes, the school secretary dealt with the cuts and bruises. Mind you, the school only had around 250 pupils. Matti >> This feeds directly into what Mike Oliver and I have been >> discussing: prohibitions. "From Aug. 11 through Wednesday, 18 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >schools seem to be unaware of the fact that they are required to make >this exception and kids get in trouble for it. Schools here have a similar rule, but most schools don't have a school nurse on premises. They usually have a nurse's office though. The pills are left there, and someone from administration has to retrieve them. There are the expected flaps over this rule, and they seem to usually be about Midol (a pill that females take to alleviate menstrual cramps). Having never experienced menstrual cramps, I have no idea how urgent the need for relief is. > > More from the land of freedom of speech: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Article at http://tinyurl.com/xwmn What to do in the face of such utter idiocy? SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoisNOSPAM@mninter.net> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >> > More from the land of freedom of speech: >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What to do in the face of such utter idiocy? Laugh, cry, or spit. It won't matter. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoisNOSPAM@mninter.net> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Laugh, cry, or spit. It won't matter. Teach them all generative grammar. Make a difference. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >> > More from the land of freedom of speech: >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >What to do in the face of such utter idiocy? What is idiotic? The rule about a student not allowed to have pills in their possession, the penalties for breaking the rule, the zero tolerance aspect, or the specific handling of this incident? >>> > More from the land of freedom of speech: >>> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >in their possession, the penalties for breaking the rule, the zero >tolerance aspect, or the specific handling of this incident? All of the above? SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". >>What is idiotic? The rule about a student not allowed to have pills >>in their possession, the penalties for breaking the rule, the zero >>tolerance aspect, or the specific handling of this incident? > > All of the above? Good answer! >>> What is idiotic? The rule about a student not allowed to have pills >>> in their possession, the penalties for breaking the rule, the zero [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good answer! I thought it was a question. It is not a good answer for reasons that I have given in a reply to RF. I would, however, think the last 2 or 3 parts are relevant. SignatureRob Bannister >> Good answer! >> > I thought it was a question. It is not a good answer for reasons that I > have given in a reply to RF. I would, however, think the last 2 or 3 > parts are relevant. No, RF is right, and you are wrong. SignatureThis e-mail is a spam trap. Send to "moliver" at the obvious domain name for my organization (the whole school, not just the department). >>> Good answer! >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, RF is right, and you are wrong. Is this Holy Writ, or might you perhaps give reasons? SignatureRob Bannister > >>> > More from the land of freedom of speech: > >>> > Boy punished for talking about gay mom > >>> > http://tinyurl.com/xbq4 > >>> > On cnn.com today. > >>> The state of Louisiana is on a roll. Another "Zero Tolerance" case there > >>> is covered in today's Shreveport Times. > >>> Bossier School Board upholds Advil expulsion > >>> Girl had over-the-counter pills in purse at school > >>> A student expelled from Parkway High for a year for having Advil, an > >>> over-the-counter pain reliever, will not be allowed to return to the > >>> school. > >>> Article at http://tinyurl.com/xwmn > >>What to do in the face of such utter idiocy? > >What is idiotic? The rule about a student not allowed to have pills > >in their possession, the penalties for breaking the rule, the zero > >tolerance aspect, or the specific handling of this incident? > All of the above? Editor's note: Remove question mark; suggest replacing it with exclamation point. > >"Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> A student expelled from Parkway High for a year for having Advil, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in their possession, the penalties for breaking the rule, the zero > tolerance aspect, or the specific handling of this incident? I think that pretty much covers it. At least it's a good start. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little |practice, writing can be an kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog! (650)857-7572 | Calvin http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> >"Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> A student expelled from Parkway High for a year for having Advil, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I think that pretty much covers it. At least it's a good start. I suppose, once again, I stray from the group-think I don't go along with the penalty, zero tolerance, and the specific handling. I do go along with students not being allowed to have pills in their possession at school. One of the ways I go about making up mind on an issue like this is to put myself in the position of the participants. What would I do if .....? In this case, I put myself in the position of the teacher. You cannot ignore the facts that drugs in the form of pills are prevalent in schools, that drugs in the form of pills are dangerous, and that schoolchildren are not aware of the dangers. The "responsible" people in schools are supposed to be the teachers. So, in the role of the teacher, I notice some pills in a kid's backpack. How am I supposed to handle that? Am I supposed to assume that the pills are something innocuous like aspirin or Midol? You think kids aren't smart enough to put "bad" pills in a Midol bottle? Am I supposed to whip out a pharmaceutical test kit and determine if they are "good" pills or "bad" pills? Without some sort of guidance in the form of a rule or a policy you more or less force me to pretend not to notice. I can't determine if the pills are "good" or "bad", I can't challenge the student because I'm not stupid enough to believe that kid will give me an honest answer, and - really - I can't do anything to live up to the responsibility that being a teacher imposes on me. There are some solutions available. I can send the pills to someone else in the school to determine if they are "good" pills or "bad" pills. That requires a Pharmaceutical Officer in the school. Now, if my role playing is reflective of real life, I'm teaching in a school that is under-funded and doing without things like a full teaching staff, adequate equipment, a good library, and probably even enough basic supplies unless I buy some out of my own pocket. How can the school add a Pharmaceutical Officer? That leaves me with one solution: no pills of any kind in my classroom. None. Not Midol, not aspirin, not a prescribed medication. None. If a student needs to take a pill of some kind, let the student drop the pills off at the Attendance Office and go there to take one. Oh, and make the student bring a note from home that indicates that parent is aware that the student is taking some sort of pills. I can't see another solution. If you can, don't just say the rule is "idiotic". Tell me what the other solution is. Make it practical. I don't go along with the suspensions. They aren't an effective deterrent. They penalize the good students that get caught with aspirin, and reward the kids that don't want to be in school anyway. I'd just confiscate the pills, send a note home with the kid that states the school's policy - and why there is such a policy - and require that the parent acknowledge receiving the note. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >>> > More from the land of freedom of speech: >>> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the zero tolerance aspect, or the specific handling of this > incident? All of it. That's how I read Maria's statement. And I agree with her. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >>>What to do in the face of such utter idiocy? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >All of it. That's how I read Maria's statement. And I agree with her. S'fine. How about, though, that you explain how you would handle the teacher's problem as I have done in another post. Leave me out of it. Just present your own solution to the very real problem of a teacher dealing with kids that bring both "good" pills and "bad" pills to class. Do a little role playing. Become the administrator in charge of the school and come up with a plan that you would feel is acceptable and effective. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: >>>>What to do in the face of such utter idiocy? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the school and come up with a plan that you would feel is > acceptable and effective. Here is the short answer to your question. There is no acceptable or effective plan that allows teachers or administrators to deal with their daily duties in primary or secondary schools in America. Too many people are ready to pounce on them. They always have only a Hobson's choice. I have already said that I'm amazed that anyone still works for the public primary and secondary schools in America. I wouldn't. I would not allow myself to be in a situation where I was expected to be that kind of behavioral policeman. I've already discussed this. I understand the problems school administrators and teachers have because of the litigious nature of so many Americans. I have friends who have taught in public schools in the USA. I have taught in private high schools in Japan and Taiwan. That's bad enough, but we didn't have that kind of problem --- litigiousness, that is, not pills. That such incidents occur at all, though, tells me that there are too many inflexible people in the schools and too many rapacious potential litigants and lawyers in American society. That's stating the obvious, I know, but as with my other statement of the obvious, it doesn't seem to be unnecessary. If both were as obvious as they seem, then such things would not happen and there would be no zero-tolerance policies, only more or less reasonable solutions to sometimes difficult problems made even more difficult by dogmatism and slavish obedience to ofttimes procrustean rules. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >sometimes difficult problems made even more difficult by dogmatism and >slavish obedience to ofttimes procrustean rules. Trying not to be confrontational here, but what you have done is only to comment on the system without offering any form of plan or program to deal with very real problems. You're entitled to do so, but *someone* has to propose a plan to solve the problem if there is a problem. The usual situation is that someone does go out on a limb and come up with a plan, and then others pick it apart and criticize it. This is why I'm very empathetic to the problems the school administrators face. They're the ones out on the limb that have put the best plan they can come up with in place, and then have to sit back and hear other people criticize the plan without offering a better solution. My "plan", in my role-playing mode, is the best I can come up with. If you don't agree with that plan (banning all pills in the possession of students), then you are obligated to come up with a better plan if you expect me to take your criticism seriously. In other words, you have *not* provided a short or long answer. You have provided only an observation. Worse, your observation is that no plan can be effective or acceptable. That says that the teacher in my example can only throw up his hands and let the inmates run the asylum. That, to me, is not responsible. That's why I bristle when someone says "Idiotic" without adding any proposed better way. That, to me, is a cheap shot and an evasion of responsibility. > That's why I bristle when someone says "Idiotic" without adding any > proposed better way. That, to me, is a cheap shot and an evasion of > responsibility. Those of us living in other countries can identify idiocy when we see it. We have no responsibility in the US. If you want us to take up some sort of responsibility there, give us the vote. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >> That's why I bristle when someone says "Idiotic" without adding any >> proposed better way. That, to me, is a cheap shot and an evasion of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >see it. We have no responsibility in the US. If you want us to >take up some sort of responsibility there, give us the vote. The responsibility isn't to the US. Wherever you live there are similar problems and similar solutions - or plans - offered. You can criticize the plan or you can suggest a better plan. If you only criticize, don't expect to be taken seriously. Consider two men in a lifeboat afloat in the middle of the ocean and the boat springs a leak. One of the men - I'll call him Simon - is the type that finds fault with everything but offers no solutions. The other man - I'll call him Tony - is practical enough to offer solutions but his solutions aren't always the best plan. Simon looks at the leak and says "We're doomed." Tony looks at the leak and says "I'll stick my toe in the hole and block the water from coming in, and maybe we'll stay afloat until we're rescued." Simon says "That's idiotic. You're toe won't block all the incoming water, and you'll need your toe free if we have to swim for it." Tony says "OK, I'll wad up my shirt and stick it in the hole to block the water." Simon says "That's a stupid plan. The shirt will get soaked and water will still seep in." Tony says "OK, I'll wrap my shirt around my shoe and hold that over the hole and less water will seep in." This goes on with Tony offering plans and Simon criticizing each of them and saying they won't work, but Simon never offers a plan of his own. In the meantime, the water is pouring in and the boat is starting to sink. Finally, Tony gets fed up with the process and grabs Simon and forces his head into the hole saying "Ha! A dense object that absorbs nothing and is of no other use is the best solution to this problem." Sometimes any plan is better than no plan. >>> That's why I bristle when someone says "Idiotic" without adding any >>> proposed better way. That, to me, is a cheap shot and an evasion of [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Sometimes any plan is better than no plan. First, you don't know what plan anyone who complains here may or may not have. Secondly, even if we did have a plan, the only political influence most of us have is the vote (no point in complaining, then, says you; time to complain even louder, says I). Thirdly, you used "you're" when you should have written "your". Fourthly, it is refreshing to see you acknowledge that the allegorical boat is sinking. Lastly, if you and I found ourselves together in a lifeboat, and you began to gainsay me, you'd drown, no matter whether I survived or not. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >First, you don't know what plan anyone who complains here may or >may not have. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Thirdly, you used "you're" when you should have written "your". I did that. The three paras above rather summarize our thinking processes, don't they? I bang stuff out and don't read it over to catch my errors, and you read the words carefully and don't grasp meaning. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 06 Dec 2003: [...] > Trying not to be confrontational here, but what you have done is > only to comment on the system without offering any form of plan or > program to deal with very real problems. I don't think you're being confrontational here. I agree. I have offered no plan. I thought it was fairly clear that my remarks implied that there is no plan that will work to the satisfaction of enough people to make it viable. > You're entitled to do so, but *someone* has to propose a plan to > solve the problem if there is a problem. I also thought that it was clear that I implied that all too often these plans create more problems to solve rather than solving the problems they were created to deal with. > The usual situation is that someone does go out on a limb > and come up with a plan, and then others pick it apart > and criticize it. There is virtue if it leads to a better plan, but no virtue if it is done merely to carp. > This is why I'm very empathetic to the problems the school > administrators face. I am too. I used to be a school administrator. For 4 years in Tokyo I was the director of an EFL program in a girls high school. I created the curriculum, advertised for, interviewed, and hired the teachers. I supervised the entire thing. That's one reason I will never be an administrator again. We had no such serious problems in our high school, but I saw from the inside what school administrators have to deal with, and even though it was nothing compared to what American school administrators have to deal with, it was enough to turn me off. But what about the students? Can't you empathize with them? You used to be a student once. You used to be a kid. If you felt that your teachers didn't trust you and were constantly threatening to kick you out of school, wouldn't you be resentful all the time in school? I would. > They're the ones out on the limb that have put the best plan > they can come up with in place, and then have to sit back > and hear other people criticize the plan without offering > a better solution. This is a bit black-and-whitely put, I think. Sometimes criticism can be constructive and point out real weaknesses in a plan. Sometimes it is just nastiness. That's the way people are. But the plan was most likely worked out by the school district's attorneys and insurance company lawyers. The latter two groups are the ones who have the most power in contemporary America. If the insurance company won't cover it, it doesn't happen. If the lawyers say it won't fly, then it doesn't happen. These things are too important for mere principals and other school administrators to create. > My "plan", in my role-playing mode, is the best I can come up > with. If you don't agree with that plan (banning all pills in the > possession of students), then you are obligated to come up with a > better plan if you expect me to take your criticism seriously. Your plan is Zero Tolerance. It is based on the assumption that because some students bring illegal drugs to school to use themselves, to give to friends, or to sell, that all students cannot be trusted. Rather than dealing with the sociopaths in the schools, it treats everyone as if they were all exactly the same. It's very much like the WalMart mentality: in discount stores it is impossible to walk in wearing a backpack, but at fancy department stores, no one insists that people wearing backpacks store them in free coin lockers because the store owners are sure that such people are going to steal. Teachers and administrators who punish everyone for the faults of a few are doing the WalMart thing. If they treat all students as potential rule-breakers, they undoubtedly motivate some to become real rule-breakers. You are a businessman. No one who works for you *has to* work for you, and as far as I'm concerned, if you as the owner of a business feel that you cannot trust an employee to do an honest and competent job, then I think you ought to be able to fire that employee without having to face legal action, as long as you can show cause. But the primary and secondary school students are required to be there by law. Even though education is an industry, a school is not a business. > In other words, you have *not* provided a short or long answer. Sure I have. It just isn't the kind of answer you wanted. > You have provided only an observation. Worse, your observation is > that no plan can be effective or acceptable. That says that the > teacher in my example can only throw up his hands and let the > inmates run the asylum. That, to me, is not responsible. Well, to some extent that is true and not true. I am a teacher and I deal with students every day. I make it very clear to everyone in all my classes on the first day of class exactly what my rules are. I never threaten. I explain why each one of my rules exists, and I tell them exactly what they can expect should they violate one or more of them. But I deal with each student on an individual basis and in context. I don't have to worry about lawsuits or irate parents. > That's why I bristle when someone says "Idiotic" without adding > any proposed better way. That, to me, is a cheap shot and an > evasion of responsibility. Any plan that I might come up with would be unacceptable to the lawyers and insurance companies, I'm afraid. I would do just what I do in my current classrooms. I would spell out the rules and the consequences for violating them. However, I would not ban all pills just because some kids might bring hard drugs to school in Advil bottles. I wouldn't punish children for violating an arbitrary and blanket discriminatory rule. I would punish kids giving pills to other students if I saw it happen --- it is illegal and actually quite dangerous for non-physicians to prescribe medicine, even over- the-counter stuff, for others for what should be obvious reasons. I would punish kids for selling pills to other students if I saw it happen. I don't think it's reasonable to punish someone for having headache tablets in her purse. If there was a rule that all prescription medicine had to be checked with the school nurse or school secretary and would be available without fail for students at the required times, then I would simply confiscate the pills and give them to the nurse or secretary, not kick the kid out of school. Advil is not prescription medicine. Next thing you know, kids will not be allowed bring poppyseed bagels to school for lunch. I would try to treat the kids kindly rather than as if I believed they were all criminals --- unless, of course, I did believe a particular kid was a criminal and had some evidence to support that belief. If things are so bad in American schools that these zero-tolerance policies have to be created, implemented, and enforced, then I think the schools that have them ought to hire a team of professionals to patrol the halls, search everyone suspected of breaking the rules, and do what police generally do. I think turning teachers and school administrators into police officers is both stupid and dangerous. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >But what about the students? Can't you empathize with them? You used >to be a student once. You used to be a kid. If you felt that your >teachers didn't trust you and were constantly threatening to kick you >out of school, wouldn't you be resentful all the time in school? I >would. Yes, but you have to choose sides sometimes. My empathy changed from being with the kids to being with the parents when my own kids entered school. In just about any situation, someone wins and someone loses when rules are made. If someone has to lose, then make it the ones who are (usually) less informed, aware, and responsible >This is a bit black-and-whitely put, I think. Sometimes criticism can >be constructive and point out real weaknesses in a plan. Sometimes it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >doesn't happen. These things are too important for mere principals >and other school administrators to create. Granted, though I'd say the usual procedure is for Administration to work out the plan and then have it reviewed by the school's lawyers. It's the lawyer's responsibility to see that the plan doesn't expose the school to law suits. >> My "plan", in my role-playing mode, is the best I can come up >> with. If you don't agree with that plan (banning all pills in the >> possession of students), then you are obligated to come up with a >> better plan if you expect me to take your criticism seriously. > >Your plan is Zero Tolerance. That's not my conception of "zero tolerance" as it is used in schools today. The zero tolerance concept is usually in the discipline or punishment of breaking a rule. If the rule is "You can't have pills in your possession in school or you will be suspended", zero tolerance means that *any* student caught with *any* pills in schools is suspended. This means that a good kid that is found to have a single aspirin in their backpack is suspended. I don't agree with this at all. I do agree that zero tolerance means no pills of any kind by anyone, but I feel the resulting action should be based on the individual situation. Take away the aspirin in the above instance, make it clear to the student that he/she is responsible to know the rules, and then drop it. >It is based on the assumption that >because some students bring illegal drugs to school to use >themselves, to give to friends, or to sell, that all students cannot >be trusted. Rather than dealing with the sociopaths in the schools, >it treats everyone as if they were all exactly the same. Whoa, here. All kids that use drugs are sociopaths? No way. The "good" kids use drugs if only to experiment. I don't know the figures, but it's something 'way over 75% of the high school kids today use, or have used, some from of illegal drug. I would be absolutely amazed if my own two children never smoked a joint or tried something in high school. Neither seems to have been a user of any sort, but I'm sure they did some form of experimentation. >. If they treat all students as >potential rule-breakers, they undoubtedly motivate some to become >real rule-breakers. Go to the average high school in the average city and almost all of the students are rule-breakers or potential rule-breakers. Any parent today that thinks "My kid wouldn't do that" just because the kid is on the honor roll and looks "normal" is fooling themselves. Dangerously. >Sure I have. It just isn't the kind of answer you wanted. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >them. But I deal with each student on an individual basis and in >context. I don't have to worry about lawsuits or irate parents. You're in Taiwan. I have no idea of what the situation is in Taiwan. I don't have any idea of what type of problems you might face. It's a different culture, and I don't make assumptions about different cultures. >> That's why I bristle when someone says "Idiotic" without adding >> any proposed better way. That, to me, is a cheap shot and an [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >unless, of course, I did believe a particular kid was a criminal and >had some evidence to support that belief. >If things are so bad in American schools that these zero-tolerance >policies have to be created, implemented, and enforced, then I think >the schools that have them ought to hire a team of professionals to >patrol the halls, search everyone suspected of breaking the rules, >and do what police generally do. Except for not banning pills, your plan and my plan are the same. My plan said nothing about the punishment. If I had included that, it would be that the punishment should be decided on an individual basis. > I think turning teachers and school >administrators into police officers is both stupid and dangerous. That's exactly why I advocate banning all pills. The teacher shouldn't have to be a policeman and decide what is a "good" pill and what is a "bad" pill. No pills at all allows the teacher deal with a black and white situation and get on with teaching. Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 07 Dec 2003: [... Not much to argue about here.] >>It is based on the assumption that >>because some students bring illegal drugs to school to use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > figures, but it's something 'way over 75% of the high school kids > today use, or have used, some from of illegal drug. I suppose it depends to some extent on how one defines "sociopath". I see all non-prescription psychotropic drug use as antisocial, even when done by a social group at a party. These drugs generally remove one from reality, distort one's perceptions of what used to be considered reality, and put one into a fantasy world. The mind is isolated. I don't think that experimenting is necessarily bad or sociopathic, especially because so many of the parents and grandparents of those kids used those drugs and may still do. I draw a line between using drugs at school and at home or after school and off the school premises. > I would be absolutely amazed if my own two children never smoked a > joint or tried something in high school. Neither seems to have > been a user of any sort, but I'm sure they did some form of > experimentation. I know that my #1 son did. His mother and step-father were big drinkers and pot-smokers. >>. If they treat all students as >>potential rule-breakers, they undoubtedly motivate some to become [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the kid is on the honor roll and looks "normal" is fooling > themselves. Dangerously. True, but such parents are not in touch with their kids. My father and mother had no idea what I was up to when I was a kid, and they would have murdered me had they known. One of my friends in the US was as involved with his kids as a parent could be and he knew his kids very well. There was a mutual trust and respect between them. They talked about everything. His kids would not have done drugs behind his back. They were self-confident enough to know that they didn't need to prove themselves to anyone by doing things they had been brought up to believe were unhealthy and dangerous. [...] > You're in Taiwan. I have no idea of what the situation is in > Taiwan. I don't have any idea of what type of problems you might > face. It's a different culture, and I don't make assumptions > about different cultures. Things are different here. I wouldn't want to compare the two cultures without writing a book about Taiwan first. My #2 son is absorbing both Taiwanese cultural values from living here and going to public school here, but he is also getting some of my cultural values (I won't call them American, just Franke-values). He's different from the other kids that way. [...] > Except for not banning pills, your plan and my plan are the same. > My plan said nothing about the punishment. If I had included > that, it would be that the punishment should be decided on an > individual basis. Which would make it all the more similar to mine. >> I think turning teachers and school >>administrators into police officers is both stupid and dangerous. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and what is a "bad" pill. No pills at all allows the teacher deal > with a black and white situation and get on with teaching. That's a reasonable argument in a country with more lawsuits than registered voters. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > I do agree that zero tolerance means no pills of any kind by anyone, > but I feel the resulting action should be based on the individual > situation. The problem with that is that, if a minority kid is punished more severely than a WASP kid under superficially similar circumstances, there will be a legal and public relations problem whatever the actual merits of the individual situations. The easy and safe solution is one, common, draconian reaction regardless of circumstances. If the rules are well publicized then there shouldn't be a problem unless some parents are egregiously stupid or stubborn. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. "John Varela" <OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote on 08 Dec 2003: >> I do agree that zero tolerance means no pills of any kind by >> anyone, but I feel the resulting action should be based on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > circumstances, there will be a legal and public relations problem > whatever the actual merits of the individual situations. Ach! This merely underscores my objections to American cultural politics. Nothing is free of racist or political motives in the USA. That's a sad reality. > The easy and safe solution is one, common, draconian > reaction regardless of circumstances. That seems to me to violate the individual rights and freedoms of *all* American citizens. Even for minors there should be such a thing as "due process" and "no cruel and unusual punishment" rather than a local one- size-fits-all attitude. It never does in the real world; why should it in the artificial worlds of primary and secondary school? > If the rules are well publicized then there > shouldn't be a problem unless some parents are egregiously stupid > or stubborn. Shouldn't that "unless" be "except when"? Some parents are egregiously stupid and stubborn regardless of the issue. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > That seems to me to violate the individual rights and freedoms of *all* > American citizens. Even for minors there should be such a thing as "due > process" and "no cruel and unusual punishment" rather than a local one- > size-fits-all attitude. It never does in the real world; why should it > in the artificial worlds of primary and secondary school? We come round in a circle to the driving under the influence of alcohol thing. The difference here seems to be that there was no right of appeal and also that the punishment was rather extreme. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 10 Dec 2003: >> That seems to me to violate the individual rights and freedoms of >> *all* American citizens. Even for minors there should be such a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > alcohol thing. The difference here seems to be that there was no > right of appeal and also that the punishment was rather extreme. I've been guilty, but neither arrested nor convicted, of DWI far too many times to feel that the punishments for doing it are generally too severe --- I won't say that there are not cases of injustice about this, though. I don't believe anyone who says that they can drive better when drunk or stoned; too many scientific tests have demonstrated impaired judgment and reaction times caused by imbibing alcohol and ingesting other drugs. I also know that there are no authorities standing around parking lots or in the streets confiscating keys from people planning on going to places where alcohol is served or checking out the sobriety of people who get into their cars after having consumed alcohol. I don't think the analogy holds on that basis alone. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 10 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > demonstrated impaired judgment and reaction times caused by imbibing > alcohol and ingesting other drugs. But you seem to be saying it's OK for kids to carry drugs. Sure, in this case, it was a relatively harmless drug and the punishment was far too severe. > I also know that there are no authorities standing around parking lots > or in the streets confiscating keys from people planning on going to > places where alcohol is served or checking out the sobriety of people > who get into their cars after having consumed alcohol. I don't think > the analogy holds on that basis alone. I didn't get the impression that the teachers in this school were standing around actively looking for kids that had Tylenol or whatever on them, so I don't really see what you're getting at. I have known cases where police waited outside pub car parks. A more blatant one I remember: the police were putting chalk marks on car tyres about 5 pm and picking those cars up when they emerged some hours later. I don't think either of these were bad things. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 11 Dec 2003: >> Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 10 Dec 2003: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But you seem to be saying it's OK for kids to carry drugs. I don't think it's the schools' business unless the kid is caught using drugs, selling drugs, or dispensing drugs for free. The few who would do that either are already known or will soon be found out. Guns, on the other hand, are a seriously different issue. > Sure, in this case, it was a relatively harmless drug > and the punishment was far too severe. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > standing around actively looking for kids that had Tylenol or > whatever on them, so I don't really see what you're getting at. The kid was probably guilty of smoking a cigarette on the school grounds, was chased, ran into the girls room, was caught, by a teacher, and was searched. What was the teacher searching for, a gun, drug paraphernalia, a switchblade knife? I agree that smoking should not be permitted in school, but I don't think that even a dumb teenager is going to hide a burning cigarette in her purse, and mere possession of cigarettes and a lighter or matches is insufficient to establish that the kid had been smoking. If the teacher saw her smoking, then the school could have disciplined the girl for smoking. I don't think she should have been searched. The teacher was on a fishing expedition. > I > have known cases where police waited outside pub car parks. A more > blatant one I remember: the police were putting chalk marks on car > tyres about 5 pm and picking those cars up when they emerged some > hours later. I don't think either of these were bad things. If it's known to the police that the people who spend hours drinking in those pubs routinely drive home drunk, then it's reasonable to me. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >> I do agree that zero tolerance means no pills of any kind by anyone, >> but I feel the resulting action should be based on the individual [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >legal and public relations problem whatever the actual merits of the >individual situations. That, unfortunately, is a very accurate observation. > The easy and safe solution is one, common, draconian >reaction regardless of circumstances. If the rules are well publicized then >there shouldn't be a problem unless some parents are egregiously stupid or >stubborn. Unless? It is an absolute certainty that in any group of parents too large to fit in a phone booth that at least one parent will be egregiously stupid or stubborn. I don't know if anyone's read this already, but there's an interesting article in _Time_ about the problem of discipline in American schools. "Does Kindergarten Need Cops? The youngest schoolkids are acting out in really outrageous ways. Why?" http://tinyurl.com/y7p2 SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > I don't know if anyone's read this already, but there's an interesting > article in _Time_ about the problem of discipline in American schools. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/y7p2 That led to a Taiwanese site at which the document wasn't available. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >> I don't know if anyone's read this already, but there's an >> interesting article in _Time_ about the problem of discipline in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That led to a Taiwanese site at which the document wasn't > available. Hmm. Yes, it did lead to a Taiwaneses site with a "Not Found" message, but lo and behold, a few seconds later the article popped up, sans images and other stuff, but the text was all there. Try again and wait about ten seconds -- it may work. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> I don't know if anyone's read this already, but there's an >>> interesting article in _Time_ about the problem of discipline in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Try again and wait about ten seconds -- it may work. I let the whole thing load, and could read it. It appears that the embedded pages were not available. I prefer cut and paste to "save as". SignatureSimon R. Hughes "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote on 09 Dec 2003: >>>> I don't know if anyone's read this already, but there's an >>>> interesting article in _Time_ about the problem of discipline [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/y7p2 [my site] or http://tinyurl.com/ybtv [Time.com] >>> That led to a Taiwanese site at which the document wasn't >>> available. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I let the whole thing load, and could read it. It appears that > the embedded pages were not available. Yes, I didn't upload the "files" folder. The reason there was a message saying "Unavailable" is that the name of the article in the HTML header is different from the file name. I'll change that. I didn't have time to think about that last night, but now I understand what's going on. > I prefer cut and paste to "save as". Here's the Time.com site version: http://tinyurl.com/ybtv SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote on 09 Dec 2003: >> I don't know if anyone's read this already, but there's an >> interesting article in _Time_ about the problem of discipline in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That led to a Taiwanese site at which the document wasn't > available. I've revised the page. It now contains only text, nothing else from the original magazine page. If anyone wants the original Time page, that's at http://tinyurl.com/ybtv SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote on 09 Dec > 2003: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I've revised the page. It now contains only text, nothing else from the > original magazine page. Thanks, it's easier to read now. > If anyone wants the original Time page, that's at > > http://tinyurl.com/ybtv SignatureSimon R. Hughes |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.