[quote]conner wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
At least it did bring up discussion.
Haha, that it did. This, however, is where I take my leave from serious posting in this thread. It’s just too much work to get nowhere with.[/quote]
I am going to jump on your bandwagon Conner.
Can only say it so many times and it seems to have devolved into name calling.
Thanks for the good discussion posts though.
Celeste
[quote]swivel wrote:
…
jeez-s, within 2 minutes it would have started with jokes in the corner about tag-team t-bagging; quickly escalated to miming the rodeo behind her back; and by the third day someone would’ve taken the open dare to rip cheese while spotting her bench, cause her to drop the bar, marcia brady her own nose, and subsequently miss the prom. then we’re talking a possible million dollar situation like, for realz.
… [/quote]
Exactly. And she seems the type to file a sexual harassment suit.
It seems some are missing the point that she is suing the taxpayers in her community for a million dollars.
Does this seem fair to anyone?
K…the principal was wrong…but…he corrected himself in few days…now this girl is sueing years later??..if it bothered her in any way, she would have sued then…straightup all about the $$$, she could care less about this happening to anyone else at all…
if this my little sister, or daughter…I’d thank the principal for at least thinking about it.
hey for all you people that don’t think anything could ever happen to 1 young girl locked up with a bunch of guys…lets run an experiment and lock 1 hottie up in a male prison…what thats not a good idea??..yeah thought so
so…I should sue cause I can’t be a hooter’s girl then right??..thats gotta be worth like a billion at least…
lets flip the coin a little…what if her parents had not let her in the class…should she sue them? what if she refused to go to that class out of fear…should the school sue her??
[quote]conner wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
In regards to tax dollars, maybe we shouldn’t have had a civil rights movement, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Equal Rights movement because they all cost money.
I’m pretty sure that if all those movements and all that money led up to ONE girl being able to lift pretty pink dumbbells around a group of boys, then I wouldn’t be the only one to have a problem with it.
But, guess what? We aren’t talking about the Civil Rights Movement. Or the American’s with Disabilities Act. We are talking about one girl whom an overly concerned faculty member took hasty, overcautious steps to ensure her well being. THEN ADMITTED HIS WRONGDOING AND STUCK HER BACK IN THE CLASS.
That being said, if any of those movements could have been satisfactorily accomplished through a single, private meeting (like this case), wouldn’t that make a hell of a lot more sense than dragging the issue, and everyone involved, through the mud?
She already proved that her issue could be accomplished without drawing needless attention to it. And, guess what? On this particular occasion, that is exactly what this attention is. Needless. She is flogging a dead horse for what is apparently no other reason but to tear her 15 minutes and million dollars out of the heart of a community that was just genuinely looking out her her wellbeing.
OctoberGirl wrote:
Or are you not only sexist you are ageist too and believe it is okay that “minor” girls are discriminated against? Once they become adults THEN they get equal treatment?
Do I really need to respond to these ridiculously baseless questions simply because I feel the girl is going a little overboard?[/quote]
its not a dead horse.
[quote]julia87 wrote:
conner wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
In regards to tax dollars, maybe we shouldn’t have had a civil rights movement, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Equal Rights movement because they all cost money.
I’m pretty sure that if all those movements and all that money led up to ONE girl being able to lift pretty pink dumbbells around a group of boys, then I wouldn’t be the only one to have a problem with it.
But, guess what? We aren’t talking about the Civil Rights Movement. Or the American’s with Disabilities Act. We are talking about one girl whom an overly concerned faculty member took hasty, overcautious steps to ensure her well being. THEN ADMITTED HIS WRONGDOING AND STUCK HER BACK IN THE CLASS.
That being said, if any of those movements could have been satisfactorily accomplished through a single, private meeting (like this case), wouldn’t that make a hell of a lot more sense than dragging the issue, and everyone involved, through the mud?
She already proved that her issue could be accomplished without drawing needless attention to it. And, guess what? On this particular occasion, that is exactly what this attention is. Needless. She is flogging a dead horse for what is apparently no other reason but to tear her 15 minutes and million dollars out of the heart of a community that was just genuinely looking out her her wellbeing.
OctoberGirl wrote:
Or are you not only sexist you are ageist too and believe it is okay that “minor” girls are discriminated against? Once they become adults THEN they get equal treatment?
Do I really need to respond to these ridiculously baseless questions simply because I feel the girl is going a little overboard?
its not a dead horse.[/quote]
If it isn’t already, it WILL be once the judge decides to put it out of it’s misery.
[quote]conner wrote:
McCracken, the principal, SAID IN A DEPOSITION that he was afraid the woman might get sexually assaulted.
[/quote]
you got it wrong again. since you are retarded, i feel sorry for you. those are the reporters words, not mccracken’s. your refusal to recognize the difference is what is making all of your posts worthless.
how many times until you get it ?
mccracken never said “rape”. nor did he say “sexual assault” so what is your point ? you really don’t see a difference between a “liable situation” and “sexual assualt” and “rape” ?
i will spell it out for you. here is what was said from the article verbatim:
" McCracken said in a deposition that he was afraid Phillips might be sexually assaulted in the class.
‘Having a female with 35 or so male students in an isolated area from the school, it sets a very liable situation in my opinion,’ McCracken said in the deposition. "
at best i would call this sloppy, sensational, reporting. at worst i would call it media bias and misinformation. what would you call it ?
“fair and balanced” perhaps ?
since rape is not the issue alternatives must be sought. it’s that simple. the scenario i suggested was alot more realistic than the 35 guys running a train while the teacher films it idea that was being discussed before.
Does any one remember a time when you could safely sneeze without being sued? No doubt what the principal did was odd (I know my conclusion of the equation girl + guys = rape…?) and improper, but he put her back in the class within a few days.
Are you telling me that the chick was so weak (emotionally) she couldn’t deal with the loss of a few days worth of lifting and now is so emotionally scarred she needs money to wash away the scars?
People are too sensitive these days.
I feel the principal used poor judgement but rectified the problem in the end. The girl missed 3 classes. No big deal. I think the law suit is about money not what is right.
I have 4 children in the public school system. I deal with bad decisions made by teachers and principals all the time. You talk to them and try to resolve the problem. Law suits should be the last resort and should not be over something frivolous. She was allowed back in class, the law suit should be dropped. If they are still going through with the law suit then it is about money.
[quote]swivel wrote:
forgets the metal bucket
[/quote]
What I don’t “get” is why, exactly, you are so adamant on arguing something you are just so offensively ignorant about.
I will ask again: do you have any IDEA what kind of work, exactly, goes into fact checking an article before it gets printed? ANY idea whatsoever? Do you know what the word libel means? Probably not, since a) it’s polysyllabic and b) if you DID you just might get where I’m coming from. The males in the gym class would have a legal field day if some paper ran an article saying they were potential rapists without any real basis stronger than the word ‘liable’.
Reporters can’t put words in people’s mouths. They can’t say someone said something if they didn’t say it.
What, did you honestly expect the reporter to QUOTE THE ENTIRE FUCKING DEPOSITION? Saying he feared sexual assault, then quoting him saying, “I was afraid she would get sexually assaulted” is not only redundant (and wasted ink = wasted space = wasted money), but crappy writing.
Wait, I’ll ask again: do you honestly think that what McCracken was quoted saying was ALL that was said during the deposition? No, I’m serious. I just want to know your thoughts on that particular question. I know, I know, I said earlier you shouldn’t be thinking, but sitting behind my monitor, I’m pretty confident I’m clear of any debris that may result of your 30RPM think-a-thon.
The fact that you are so blatantly out of the loop in regards to basic logical thinking leaves me wondering why I even bothered discussing this with you in the first place.
Honestly, take the training wheels off your noggin before you decide to post anything else. I guarantee if you do, you just MIGHT stumble across an actual point worth making.
P.S., anyone who says “like, for realz.” is hardly on the intellectual high ground for calling someone else retarded.
[quote]conner wrote:
Regardless of what you may think (which, experience tells me you shouldn’t be doing anyhow), reporters don’t run around making shit up. There is an incredibly thorough process involved that ensures they don’t spread misinformation.[/quote]
Ever watched Fox News Channel or read the Washington Times?
[quote]conner wrote:
Reporters can’t put words in people’s mouths. They can’t say someone said something if they didn’t say it.[/quote]
they just did. you read it. you believed it. that’s your problem.[quote]
What, did you honestly expect the reporter to QUOTE THE ENTIRE FUCKING DEPOSITION? [/quote]
no, i expect them to quote the parts that matter.
the anonymous reporter drew an inference on what “a liable situation” means. that inference is specualtion. the reporter(and you) jumped from “liable situation” to " sexually assault " to " rape". hell, nevermind the repoter, it was probably the editor who inserted “rape” and “sexual assault” in there. gives better grip to the headline you know.
anyway, with all the supposed care that went into this anonymously written article, you’re saying actually quoting what the man said, if he said it, is too much to ask for ?
though the article wants you to think that he did, because it makes a better story, the fact remains he never said “rape”. and he never said “sexual assualt”. if he did they would’ve quoted him. like 4realz.
btw did you write that piece of shit article ?
Conner, you fucking rule!
[quote]conner wrote:
swivel wrote:
thanks jacknuts but the words in the first paragraph are the words of an anonymous reporter.
see those marks on the screen that you’ve always thought were indicators of motion ? well, when they’re used with words, we call them “quotation marks”. you should pay attention here; they can sometimes play an important role in a “trial”.
it’s work i know, i know. dammit it’s work. but trust me, it’ll be worth it. you see, this way you’ll develop a true appreciation of what you’re paying for. you know what they say: “the ignorant are the only consumer group who want the least for their money” or whatever.
jacknuts? Oh, my. Well, granted, I’m not as clever as you are with the fifth grade repartee (seeing as how I actually graduated that period some time ago, I’m a tad out of practice), but I think I can whip up a proper response:
First, you should have two ‘Shift’ keys on your keyboard. Before tossing out lessons I learned in second grade, make sure you’ve mastered the basics of first. It gives you a hell of a lot more credibility if your writing doesn’t resemble the tripe I can find scrawled in shit on cave walls.
Second, I’m not paying for anything. I’m not paying for your advice on how to interpret what I read, and I am definitely not paying (in any sense of the word) for posting my response to your knuckle-dragging attempt at coming off as astute.
McCracken, the principal, SAID IN A DEPOSITION that he was afraid the woman might get sexually assaulted.
Well, who said anything about rape? We can argue semantics. I can even point out that rape is a form of sexual assault. But that would be a waste of my time because you have yet to post anything that I would a) give a shit about, or b) give someone else’s shit about.
How about this: we brought up rape because the article mentioned rape. Regardless of what you may think (which, experience tells me you shouldn’t be doing anyhow), reporters don’t run around making shit up. There is an incredibly thorough process involved that ensures they don’t spread misinformation. If we have reason to believe the article is making shit up, it’s useless to even bother discussing it.
Here’s the plan: next time you feel like posting ANYTHING along the lines of your alternative scenario, just stick your head in a metal bucket and hit it with a hammer a few times. Then, you will see what we go through every time we stumble across the useless, mindfuck drivel you call your posts and opinions. Maybe it’ll change your perspective.[/quote]
[quote]Ogree wrote:
Ever watched Fox News Channel or read the Washington Times?
[/quote]
Of course there are exceptions to this, just as there are exceptions to everything. In regards to journalism, someone once said “there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right.” Unfortunately, there are oftentimes errors in reporting that are the result of hasty fact checking in order to meet deadlines.
However, it’s simply ridiculous to view every news article as being full of fictitious material simply because every so often you find errors, misinterpretations, or biases elsewhere. You can always find examples of journalists fucking up- it’s a fast paced, high pressure gig, but let’s not let a few apples spoil the bunch.
[quote]conner wrote:
Unfortunately, there are oftentimes errors in reporting that are the result of hasty fact checking[/quote]
[quote]
view every news article as being full of fictitious material because so often you find errors, misinterpretations, or biases. [/quote]
Thank you for your co-operation.
[quote]swivel wrote:
they just did. you read it. you believed it. that’s your problem.[/quote]
No, my “problem” is that I have to repeatedly stumble through your clusterfuck arguments that have no real basis other than the fact that you just assume all reporters are sensationalist liars.
Either that or you felt good when you thought you made an actual contribution for once, and you just refuse to give up your stranglehold on that warm and fuzzy feeling.
[quote]swivel wrote:
the anonymous reporter drew an inference on what “a liable situation” means. that inference is specualtion. the reporter(and you) jumped from “liable situation” to " sexually assault " to " rape". hell, nevermind the repoter, it was probably the editor who inserted “rape” and “sexual assault” in there. gives better grip to the headline you know. [/quote]
No, it wasn’t the reporter. It wasn’t even the editor. It was Colonel Mustard, in the library, with a candlestick.
[quote]swivel wrote:
anyway, with all the supposed care that went into this anonymously written article, you’re saying actually quoting what the man said, if he said it, is too much to ask for?[/quote]
Just like it’s too much to ask for for you to use the Shift key (unless you forgot to go to class the day they taught you when to capitalize words).
Question: why do you keep tossing the word ‘anonymous’ into your argument? Since when is that word synonymous with “conniving liar?”
Do you honestly think that the reason why the author’s name isn’t printed is because he/she knows the article is full of lies?
Unfortunately for you (and especially me, seeing as how I’m on the receiving end), this article wasn’t written to cater to your idea of what a good report is. That’s why is was printed in ink, not crayons. And why it had big words, and no pictures.
[quote]swivel wrote:
though the article wants you to think that he did, because it makes a better story, the fact remains he never said “rape”. and he never said “sexual assualt”. if he did they would’ve quoted him. like 4realz.[/quote]
You CAN NOT prove he never said rape. You weren’t there. You don’t have a transcript of the deposition. All you DO have is a shitty little train with one track that heads straight on a collision course for every last nerve reasonable, thinking people have.
It’s good to be skeptical, but you are just flat out assuming that it is full of lies for absolutely no reason.
Your entire argument is based upon the fact that you have no faith in reporters or journalists and just assume they are all aspiring fiction writers who purposefully fuck with their stories just to get their rocks off. It’s a ridiculous point of view to have, and believe me, it shows in your arguments.
But, hey, WICKED clever, tossing in the 4realz again. I didn’t see THAT one coming.
[quote]swivel wrote:
btw did you write that piece of shit article ?[/quote]
Damn, you got me. A 20 year old physical therapy college student out of Massachusetts secretly wrote an AP article about a sexual discrimination case in Tennessee…
And I would’ve gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for that darn swivel!
[quote]Arc_1mpuls3 wrote:
conner wrote:
Unfortunately, there are oftentimes errors in reporting that are the result of hasty fact checking
view every news article as being full of fictitious material because so often you find errors, misinterpretations, or biases.
You can always find examples of journalists fucking up
Thank you for your co-operation.
[/quote]
If you have nothing to contribute other than deliberately misquoting me and taking what I say out of context, then why bother posting?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If it were my sister I would probably thank the guy for looking out for her and just remind him to provide more security back there if it is that much of a concern.[/quote]
EXACTLY.
The only ones ‘wronged’ here were perhaps the guys of whom he assumed that they would turn to sexual assault when in a group with a lone girl.
Marc