Boy Suspended for Talking to Mom

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:06 pm

spot wrote: You just accused the poor girl of the lie direct! - how can you complain of ad hominem attacks after that?
please look up 'ad hominem'. google will likely do adequately well. suggesting that someone has lied is not ad hominem.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:06 pm

SILVER SHE FOXXE wrote: Tripe? Tripe? Did ya have to look that one up in the dictionary?

I have one observation...if all the rules made my men were followed to the letter then perhaps ms. lady cop would be working in another profession as there would be no need for cops...right?

why would anyone need to look up tripe in the dictionary? no need for cops? HUH? who are you going to call when you're assaulted?

Post by **spot** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:09 pm

anastrophe wrote: please look up 'ad hominem'. google will likely do adequately well. suggesting that someone has lied is not ad hominem.Good grief... canard, dear boy. canard.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:25 pm

spot wrote: Good grief... canard, dear boy. canard.
what? what are you trying to get across? are you suggesting i don't know what canard means, or are you suggesting that *i* am lying when i point out that suggesting that someone is lying is not implicitly ad hominem?

please, clarity helps the discussion greatly. please, look up ad hominem, and choose a reasonably acute site. better would be to refer to a logic textbook. unsurprisingly, i have one here. if worse comes to worst, i'll begrudgingly type in the specifics, but i'd prefer not having to do your homework for you.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:28 pm

SILVER SHE wrote: and fear not, I won't be ruffling any feathers any further...I'm packing up my opinions and movin on!!! perhaps it's because you got so nasty with Jives for HIS opinion. BYE.

LoveMama · Post by **LoveMama** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:32 pm

lady cop wrote: as one person who "defends all of us" and puts my life on the line, i suppose Jives and i are the only ones who understand why rules are enforced in this instance. i feel for this young man, i really do. i raised three sons and have a big soft spot for teenage boys. his situation is a heartbreaker. but he has to obey the rules or we have anarchy. i am not selective in who i arrest, if they break the law that's it. even if i feel sorry for them. i wish his Mom safe passage.

LC..... I disagree. When the teacher immediately jumped on him....for using his phone during lunch....he told her he was talking to his mom in Iraq. She should have waited for him to finish the call.....then told him it was definitly against the rules to use the cell phone during lunch but seeing that he didn't place the call.....HE only ANSWERED his phone....and OMG........it was him mom. What was he supposed to do.....hang up?? Then I read that when his mom calledl him again on the phone, when he was in the principal's office they wouldn't let him talk to her.

I'm be sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo pissed!

This was a bad decision by the teacher. She was overzealous, should have made an adult "on the spot" decision. This kid didn't have a knife or a weapon in his hand.....just a cell phone.

Lady Cop.....YOU would NEVER Have done what this teacher did. YOU Would have sized up the situation immediately...on the SPOT. Since you'd have found out that the mother called him...he wasn't lying it would have worked out fine.

I believe in rules..don't get me wrong. My daughter who has recently changed schools....(SHE teaches) left the last school because there was never any disipline, the students knew it and some kids got away with "murder" so to speak. Her new school (High School) is much different and she loves it. But MOST problems she can take care of herself because the children respect her and she respects them. Guess that's the difference.

xxxxxoooooo

MAMA

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:36 pm

anastrophe wrote: what? what are you trying to get across? are you suggesting i don't know what canard means, or are you suggesting that *i* am lying when i point out that suggesting that someone is lying is not implicitly ad hominem?

please, clarity helps the discussion greatly. please, look up ad hominem, and choose a reasonably acute site. better would be to refer to a logic textbook. unsurprisingly, i have one here. if worse comes to worst, i'll begrudgingly type in the specifics, but i'd prefer not having to do your homework for you.

:yh_rotfl :yh_clap

maybe we should print an official anastrophe dictionary so people can figure out what you just said. this happens to you a lot, doesn't it? oh, the problems of being clever.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:38 pm

Lovemama, i respectfully note your opinion....and you are right, i take every situation as it presents itself. or try to. ~~~and i love you too, thanks for the beautiful scarf and flowers!! :-4

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 07, 2005 2:40 pm

There is some discrepancy in the story as to where the student was when the call was received/interrupted. I wonder how many other discrepancies there are. Remember that this school is an army base school. Not only are they familiar with the circumstances of the parent being away, there are other students there in the same situation.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:01 pm

anastrophe wrote: i'll begrudgingly type in the specifics, but i'd prefer not having to do your homework for you.I don't see why we shouldn't share the effort, since I'm doing all the work on Vietnam.

You used the word "canard" on the poor girl, giving her the lie direct. It was your word and your attack, not mine on anyone.

I'm perfectly aware that an ad hominem argument is one founded on the preferences or principles of a particular person rather than on abstract truth or logical cogency. Actually, I keep the Oxford English Dictionary open on my computer desktop as a startup item, it helps me a lot over a day's work.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:03 pm

spot wrote: I don't see why we shouldn't share the effort, since I'm doing all the work on Vietnam.
mmm. yes dear.

You used the word "canard" on the poor girl, giving her the lie direct. It was your word and your attack, not mine on anyone.

I'm perfectly aware that an ad hominem argument is one founded on the preferences or principles of a particular person rather than on abstract truth or logical cogency. Actually, I keep the Oxford English Dictionary open on my computer desktop as a startup item, it helps me a lot over a day's work.

wonderful. so we're awaiting your acknowledgement that you didn't have a clue of what ad hominem constituted before you looked it up, and that your accusation that i was employing it was completely misapplied. lovely!

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:03 pm

Jives just liked "Sterring the Pot"! LC also!

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:05 pm

cars wrote: Jives just liked "Sterring the Pot"! LC also! MOI?

..need some sleep, back later!

Post by **spot** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:25 pm

anastrophe wrote: wonderful. so we're awaiting your acknowledgement that you didn't have a clue of what ad hominem constituted before you looked it up, and that your accusation that i was employing it was completely misapplied. lovely!You're so useless at keeping track of a conversation. I looked up the phrase to cut-and-paste the definition, not to find out its meaning. My "accusation" was that you called Silver a liar - the noun "canard" meaning a lie - at which point *you* accused *me* of mounting an ad hominem attack. Which, of course, I hadn't.

If in doubt, read back and digest a while. That way, a defective memory will be less of a liability.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:26 pm

I don't understand the confusion here.

topic: silver characterised the forum as attacking her for various assumed reasons. this is the topic, brought up by herself. that is not only a canard but an ad hominem. instead of continuing the 'debate' she made a false and misleading statement (intentional? can't be known) = canard and used that personalized attack statement to avoid addressing the actual arguement = ad hominem.

by pointing this out anastrophe is stating a valid concern and addressing the topic at hand brought up by silver herself. As soon as she made the statement about being personally attacked it became a topic for debate thereby invalidating your point about anastrophe using ad hominem.

okay. maybe it is confusing.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:31 pm

spot wrote: You're so useless at keeping track of a conversation. I looked up the phrase to cut-and-paste the definition, not to find out its meaning. My "accusation" was that you called Silver a liar - the noun "canard" meaning a lie - at which point *you* accused *me* of mounting an ad hominem attack. Which, of course, I hadn't.

If in doubt, read back and digest a while. That way, a defective memory will be less of a liability.
hopeless and pathetic. your post is riddled with actual ad hominem. i didn't accuse you of ad hominem, i asked what the hell you meant by your pathetically cryptic one liner.

the error here is in my continuing to attempt to engage a Troll. discussion devolves into semantics and niggling details, all intended to draw attention to the troll, and divert attention from anything else.

yes. i've engaged in tit-for-tat ad hominem now. whee.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 pm

koan wrote: I don't understand the confusion here.

topic: silver characterised the forum as attacking her for various assumed reasons. this is the topic, brought up by herself. that is not only a canard but an ad hominem. instead of continuing the 'debate' she made a false and misleading statement (intentional? can't be known) = canard and used that personalized attack statement to avoid addressing the actual arguement = ad hominem.

by pointing this out anastrophe is stating a valid concern and addressing the topic at hand brought up by silver herself. As soon as she made the statement about being personally attacked it became a topic for debate thereby invalidating your point about anastrophe using ad hominem.

okay. maybe it is confusing.
spot is intentionally trying to confuse things. the topic is now about Spot, not about anything else. what a waste.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:34 pm

right. just rechecked.

the ad hominem was correctly used in pointing out that spot tried to discount what anastrophe said by saying he was grumpy etc. Definately ad hominem.

it wasn't used to describe silver but i believe it still applies to both.

still i don't see how anastrophe used ad hominem arguement as he was addressing the topic at hand.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:39 pm

anastrophe wrote: spot is intentionally trying to confuse things. the topic is now about Spot, not about anything else. what a waste.

i take it you are 'not impressed'.

we need a pirate smilie to note when a thread has been hijacked.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:51 pm

koan wrote: i take it you are 'not impressed'.

we need a pirate smilie to note when a thread has been hijacked.

nor am i amused! i blame myself. i'm a sucker for Trolls. my buttons are easily pushed, which is *precisely* what the Troll lives for. and i continue to feed the troll, even as we 'speak'.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat May 07, 2005 5:24 pm

anastrophe,

Don't worry about the TROLLS.. I have been around forums for a long time, I still get fooled by one every now and then.. I learned the hard way, when a poster who is new, or somewhat new and keeps BARKING as I call it ... 9 times out of 10 they are a troll.. :sneaky: You just don't respond to them.. they slither off.. :wah: :wah:

nor am i amused! i blame myself. i'm a sucker for Trolls. my buttons are easily pushed, which is *precisely* what the Troll lives for. and i continue to feed the troll, even as we 'speak'. :-5

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 6:31 pm

CARLA wrote: anastrophe,

Don't worry about the TROLLS.. I have been around forums for a long time, I still get fooled by one every now and then.. I learned the hard way, when a poster who is new, or somewhat new and keeps BARKING as I call it ... 9 times out of 10 they are a troll.. :sneaky: You just don't respond to them.. they slither off.. :wah: :wah:

:-5
that's exactly my problem though! i've been dealing with trolls for nearly twenty years now, believe it or not. but i always fall for it. i trust people to debate fairly and reasonably. i might as well put a 'kick me' sign up as my avatar!

Post by **spot** » Sat May 07, 2005 6:43 pm

anastrophe wrote: that's exactly my problem though! i've been dealing with trolls for nearly twenty years now, believe it or not. but i always fall for it. i trust people to debate fairly and reasonably. i might as well put a 'kick me' sign up as my avatar!Just sit back, for a moment, and look at the thread and what you've done to it. I haven't posted here for ten messages, and you're *still* going on about this stuff.

This is my first Bulletin Board membership since 1993, anastrophe. I came on here at the invitation of one of your senior members, and I suppose I've been here a week. I'm enjoying joining in. There's no reason for you to use such knee-jerk reactions just because my political philosophy is so different to yours. You are more defensive than is seemly. You chase after things you dislike, instead of joining in with the things you do like. That's a recipe for bad feeling. If you don't like a thread, stay out of it and we'll all be content.

I like America. I like Americans. I'm even prepared, after a cooling-off period, to try to like you. Meanwhile, if you'd like to turn on that Ignore function, we can both get some sleep and stop cluttering the threads up.

As for this word Troll, try to see that you use it as a label, and that actually I'm a person. Once you start calling people names like Troll or Commie or Pinko Socialist, you lose touch with the art of conversation altogether. I am not a labelled enemy, I am a person.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 6:59 pm

spot wrote: Just sit back, for a moment, and look at the thread and what you've done to it. I haven't posted here for ten messages, and you're *still* going on about this stuff.

This is my first Bulletin Board membership since 1993, anastrophe. I came on here at the invitation of one of your senior members, and I suppose I've been here a week. I'm enjoying joining in. There's no reason for you to use such knee-jerk reactions just because my political philosophy is so different to yours. You are more defensive than is seemly. You chase after things you dislike, instead of joining in with the things you do like. That's a recipe for bad feeling. If you don't like a thread, stay out of it and we'll all be content.

I like America. I like Americans. I'm even prepared, after a cooling-off period, to try to like you. Meanwhile, if you'd like to turn on that Ignore function, we can both get some sleep and stop cluttering the threads up.

As for this word Troll, try to see that you use it as a label, and that actually I'm a person. Once you start calling people names like Troll or Commie or Pinko Socialist, you lose touch with the art of conversation altogether. I am not a labelled enemy, I am a person.
when you begin debating in good faith, i'll happily withdraw the label, and apologize. time will tell. with the exception thus far of one somewhat syrupy post extolling the virtues of the US, all your other posts have been uniformely anti-american, and looking for ("trolling") anything new you can tar america with.

you're welcome to your opinion. as am i. if you want to post endless drivel impugning america, which you have thus far done, it's dandy. don't begin crying when you get some resistance in return. as you are free to rail against america, i'm free to rail against your railings. it all works out rather well. except of course for poor Silver She Foxx, who ran as fast as her widdle feet could flap once someone actually had the temerity to disagree with her.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 07, 2005 7:06 pm

spot wrote: Don't let him upset you, Silver, he's had a bad day, he's a bit tired and emotional. Try a different thread, perhaps.
to wit. this bon mot was in reply to my post replying to silver-the-whatever. i posted an actual rebuttal to her rantings, and challenged the lie that there is no freedom of speech here which she attempted to foist upon us as reason for storming off in a huff because others had the temerity to disagree with her.

your reply was nothing but personalized attacks. feeble as they were, they constituted ad hominem. i called you on it. you've yet to actually dispute that, which i'll gladly take as your ceding the point by default.

hugs and kisses,

paul

Post by **spot** » Sat May 07, 2005 7:09 pm

anastrophe wrote: your reply was nothing but personalized attacks. feeble as they were, they constituted ad hominem. i called you on it. you've yet to actually dispute that, which i'll gladly take as your ceding the point by default.I was, actually, trying to talk her into coming back instead of leaving in tears. I tend toward gallantry.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat May 07, 2005 7:10 pm

Paul~~~i really admire your cogent and spot-on argument. *applause*...i hate to say troll also, but i knew it when he/she ruined the funniest thing that ever happened here, the rent help needed thread. to quote lady macbeth, "out damned spot". i think i am done with this thread also. it has no bearing on the original topic.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:06 pm

lady cop wrote: i said i felt compassion for this boy and his Mom. and yes, i have some discretion. and i use it. i don't care about traffic crap. i am more concerned with real crime, abuse, drugs, et al. you and i Peg often butt heads but come to some understanding. my only point is that i know why schools enforce the cell phone rule. i have every respect for this child and his mother. but he has to do it on his own time.

Great mindset LC.............Maybe you are right on this one.

What would happen if there were no police to enforce our traffic laws? Would there be mayhem on the highways? Would accidents, injuries and deaths skyrocket?

That is probably the mindset of many people, especially those with statist inclinations. Who would keep the drunks and reckless drivers under control? Isn't that just as important as stopping people from looting, robbing and killing?

Of course, everyone should be responsible for his actions. If a person causes an accident, he should compensate the victims for the damages he did to them. That is the proper way for the law to be applied. And that is why people carry liability insurance -- to protect themselves just in case they are charged with accidents.

But as we all know, most traffic law enforcement is not directed at accident prevention and justice. It is cops roaming around, or sitting around, ready to pounce onto whatever technical violations they can find. The vast majority of these endanger absolutely nobody. Typical examples are not wearing seat belts, rolling stops, running quick-changing lights, and of course, exceeding a speed limit that is more often than not 10, 15, or even 20 mph below the safe speed a person can drive on a given road.

An observant person can quantify to some extent the percentage of traffic stops and citations as related to offenses that actually deserve them. All he has to do is count the number of police stops he sees in a given period of time (a month or two, perhaps) during his daily commuting. He can compare these to the number of serious violations he sees committed by other drivers in the same area and during the same period that actually deserve citations -- the reckless ones that endanger people and property, not technical infractions. Typically, one can see 20 to 50 traffic stops for every violation that is worthy of a ticket. Even though only half of these stops may represent actual citations, the percentage as related to deserving offenses is overwhelming.

The remaining stops are not exactly harmless either. In addition to diverting police attention away from stopping crime, they are frequently a harassment to motorists. It would not be so bad if the police simply informed the motorists of their infractions and let them go right away. Instead, they routinely insist on looking at licenses, insurance papers and registration. They often ask invasive none-of-your-business questions and make requests to search the vehicles. Of course the motorists can say "no," but most are intimidated into complying lest they be further detained to wait for search warrants on real or imagined suspicions that they might be hiding something. Most people don't want to risk wasting that much time.

In recent years, traffic law enforcement has become more abusive than ever. Although speed traps have been around for decades, their numbers and abuses have multiplied greatly. Many local governments have developed strategies to make enforcement an efficient cash cow rather than a safety priority. They have invested huge sums in radar, cameras and other gadgets to nab any hapless motorist who doesn't follow the letter of the law. Signals are sometimes rigged with such a short yellow, it is impossible to avoid running a red light. Fines, penalties and court costs have exploded far out of proportion to inflation and normal living costs. They have imposed minimums on how many tickets each officer must issue lest he be reprimanded or even demoted or laid off. Police are increasingly using roadblocks and checkpoints to stop traffic to scrutinize licenses and "papers," quiz motorists and passengers, and search vehicles for incriminating items and valuables to seize. More and more frivolous "offenses" have been created such as "Click It or Ticket" -- an especially nasty imposition because it is largely financed by federal matching funds.

The timing and manner of much traffic law enforcement is further proof that traffic safety is a lower priority than generating revenue. Everybody knows that late at night when traffic is sparse, the odds of having an accident, especially one involving other vehicles, is greatly diminished. Yet in many areas, the numbers of police during these times are just as great as they are during peak traffic periods -- sometimes greater. Motorists are practically alone and easy targets. They must be especially vigilent -- not for driving safely -- but to avoid any act a policeman might percieve as a justification for a traffic stop and a possible citation. The danger is especially great during holiday weekends when nearly every law enforcement officer is on the prowl instead of where he belongs either protecting us from criminals or spending the holiday at home with his family.

Traffic courts have become kangaroo courts. The defendants tell their stories to judges who routinely presume them guilty and impose heavy fines and court costs. Because of this lack of justice, the great majority of victims simply mail in their tickets along with checks to pay the fines, especially if they are from out of state where going to court would be very time-consuming and costly.

Politicians love this kind of law enforcement. It not only provides extra revenue; it gives the police something "legitimate" to do with time they might otherwise be "wasting." A policeman's duty 95% of the time is standing by watching out for crimes and being available when needed on an urgent call. And yes, there is nothing wrong with spending some of it in coffee and doughnut shops.

In addition, many policemen have accepted traffic duty as safer than going after criminals who would be more likely to attempt to hurt or kill any authorities who got in their way.

How is traffic law enforcement different? Unlike criminal activities, which are pre-meditated wrongs against other people, traffic violations are caused by negligence and carelessness, not by willful attempts to hurt other people. Therefore, imposing criminal penalties for them is the wrong way to keep our highways safe.

What should we do about traffic laws? For the most part, they are reasonable and fair. Everybody who uses the roads should respect the rights of other motorists. And nobody should deliberately intimidate or endanger others.

But where does law enforcement come in? And do we really need it? What would people do if there were no cops around? All one has to do is look at some of the numerous places where that is true. There are many rural roads that have little or no traffic police. Even some Interstates are not patrolled between midnight and 6 am. Are the accident rates any higher there? Police departments do not like to admit it, but the accident and death rates are rarely any higher than other roads that are regularly patrolled and strictly enforced.

Why is this so? The truth is that traffic laws tend to be self-enforcing. There might be a greater number of trivial but perfectly safe infractions. But if a person is reckless in his driving habits, he is more prone to have an accident. He knows he would suffer damage to his car and risk injury or death. His insurance premium would also go up. For 99.999% of the people who drive, these alone are compelling reasons to drive safely and carefully.

In addition, there is another factor that would make driving safer. If there were no traffic police to harass them, motorists would have a greater peace of mind and be able to devote their attention to driving safely instead of diverting some of it to watch out for pirates with blue lights.

One more big bonus would be better police protection. Without the burden of traffic stops (along with drug busts, prostitution and gambling stings, asset forfeitures, and other illegitimate activities), police would be free from counterproductive diversions and have all of their time available to do their real job -- to protect people and their property from thieves, burglars, muggers, robbers, vandals, arsonists, extortionists, murderers, terrorists, and others who commit genuine crimes. When this happens, the police will be more than deserving of some extra days off and some extra time in the coffee shops.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:23 pm

For the most part I agree with BTS but I have lived in NM all of my life and have seen the ravages of drunken driving - our state has one of the highest rates of DUI fatalities in the country. So I have to say that traffic situations are very important in our community. I never drove on major drinking holidays and told my child not to drive those nights because there was a good chance we could be hurt by someone else. So - lady cop - I have to disagree with you there. NM also has one of the highest heroin use rates in the country about 50 miles north of me - it's sad. I have always found the local sheriff (that's what I have in my small community) to be very supportive, prompt, and quite concerned about local problems. We have amber alerts but I have to tell you most of it is drunk driving deaths and domestic violence due to alcohol in our small community so maybe I can't really respond to the bad crime BTS is talking about - except the crack house across the street that's been raided 4 times in 1.5 years. Why can't they shut that down?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:50 pm

lady cop said she was done with this thread (which actually has nothing to do with traffic laws) and I hope that she just ignores what BTS said. How ridiculous. I know people who deserve to have their license taken away for traffic violations. I WAS NEARLY KILLED AS A PASSENGER IN HIS VEHICLE. I don't know how we survived but for my prayers. And all he was doing was speeding on a dirt road on a mountain side.

I WAS ALMOST KILLED BY A SIMPLE TRAFFIC VIOLATION WHICH I PLEADED FOR THE DRIVER TO STOP DOING. (in case you missed it the first time). I've received a speeding ticket before and paid it willingly.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:52 pm

Oh, yeah. My friend's 9 year old son had both his legs broken when he was hit by a car 'simply' jumping a traffic light.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:53 pm

Oh, yeah. The boy was being coached towards being an Olympic gymnist before the accident. Too bad.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun May 08, 2005 12:33 am

just read the BTS screed~~~which i have doubts he wrote himself, not his style. all i said is i use discretion! a broken tail-light as opposed to a DUI. a warning as opposed to an arrest. and the donut reference is offensive and stupid.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 08, 2005 1:25 am

Let's see, the first teacher tells him to put down his phone and disconnects it for him, they are in the principals office he has explained who it was the phone rings again and they won't let him speak to her, understandably he gets upset.

Where is the common sense of the principal? This wasn't a deliberately disruptive kid (O.K. without knowing the people involved, i.e. there might have been a history of disruptive behaviour, it reads that way) he went along with the first teacher explained the situation common sense should have told them to make an exception.

Rules are rules but blind allegiance on every occasion is just stupidity, if you obey the letter blindly you often overlook the intent or the spirit of the law.

Far from enforcing their authority I reckon they have undermined it, people respect the justice and fairness that laws and rules represent and enforce, not the rules and law themselves, they are only a tool.

I would be willing to suspect most pupils and parents think this unreasonable and have lost respect or the school administration as a result.

Re traffic violations. I don't know about the US but in the UK most drivers would rather see more police cars on the road stopping reckless, dangerous driving than have them replaced by speed cameras in places where speeding is not a cause of accidents but generate revunue for the local authorities.

devist8me · Post by **devist8me** » Sun May 08, 2005 1:09 pm

I've been gone for a few days so forgive me for bringing back up such a heated thread. I would have probably been more active in it had I been around.

For starters, I frowned when SilverSheFoxxe took off. I like to read the very opinionated posts here, and the back and forth that occurs. If we didn't have them, all our posting would be, " I love you",...."I love you too"....."I love you more".....etc etc etc

Which leads me to Jives, who I really think can take care of himself! Actually, I've seen it so theres no thinking about it. Anytime someone disagrees with something he says, I just get a cup of coffee and wait patiently for the return I know is coming.

As for the Spot/Anastrophe drama, I got tired of referring to the dictionary.com website to keep up with them LOL. Did learn some new words today though, so thats good. Then realized I forgot what the topic of this thread was about.

Like Babyrider, I put myself in all shoes. Being a kid in high school, I wasn't real great at being diplomatic and mature as I hadn't lived as long as my teachers/administrators, or had the experiences they had. Possibly, this whole ordeal could have gone a lot smoother had the adults practiced a little more patience and understanding of the situation. He reacted maybe in the only way he knew, based on what his life experiences had shown him. Sure, rules are rules, but common sense does play a vital role. I work for a fairly large hospital who has a enormous policy manual. One page at the very beginning allows for not so much the rules to be "broken", but bent a little. That page says something to the effect of each policy is be followed and can be revised at supervisor/managers discretion, based on individual circumstances. Its gotta be a big reason of course, and I can't imagine my boss saying "get off the phone" had my parent called me at work from Iraq. More like, "use my office". Which made me reverse the situation. What if my kid called me from Iraq and I was at work? Telling him to call me later would not happen. That might have been the last time I could talk to him/her.

The school admin have to back the teachers, pretty much, so I can see why they did what they did. But backing off the situation by going from 10 days to 3 days suspension, tells me they don't feel it was handled correctly either. They are "bending" their own policies. I don't buy the "were getting so many phone calls, we need to do something" crock.

As for the teacher, overkill! I am still wondering if the Homecoming Queen did the same thing, if the outcome would have been the same.

(Puts head back in shell.....thats turtle, not to be confused with Troll, which I don't think is the case in this thread. Topics get a little off sometimes, thats it.)

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun May 08, 2005 1:34 pm

I am still wondering if the Homecoming Queen did the same thing, if the outcome would have been the same.

Exactly.

As for dictionary.com, if I have to look up words to figure out what the writer is saying, I just skip the whole post LOL.

hotsauce · Post by **hotsauce** » Sun May 08, 2005 2:10 pm

I feel the saying "rules are made to be broken" looks really good on t-shirts and sounds good in song lyrics. That is about it for me.

You can't go nuts in admin's office.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun May 08, 2005 2:53 pm

Because the boy's version of the story came out first it is the one that everyone remembers.

The teacher says the confrontation happened in a hallway, not outside, and that Francois never said the call was with his mother.

doesn't the story make way more sense if you believe the teacher?

The punishment for violating the phone use policy is that the phone is confiscated until the end of the day. But Francois was suspended for cursing and being defiant, said Parham. That was extended to 10 because ``he did not want to accept the three-day suspension and to agree that he would not use the cell phone openly or curse.''

he refused to take a three day suspension which is why he ended up with ten. the school reduced the suspension because that was the originally intended term and because the phone calls were so intense the secretaries had to take the phones off the hooks.

``We are empathetic to all students whose parents serve in the armed forces ... (but) we do have behavior standards which we uphold,'' said Superintendent John A. Phillips Jr.

there are other students in the same situation but they have not been suspended for any reason. probably they don't have the behavioural history that Francois has.

"We are the school that serves Fort Benning,'' Turner said. ``We're well aware of students with parents overseas.''

Parham said, however, that Francois' behavior at school has been ``a chronic problem.''

And Francois added: ``I'm not a golden child and I've been wrong, but I was right this time.''

From my experience, when people feel they are in the right they often feel justified to stretch the truth to get the result they feel is deserved. If it was just one teacher involved there would be more chance of my doubting the accuracy of both sides but add the principal wanting to suspend him after the original incident only required taking the phone away for the day there has GOT to have been verbal abuse and unacceptable behaviour at play.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun May 08, 2005 4:09 pm

The boy was angry and frustrated with good reason. Had his mother not been hung up on after the second phone call, he may have reacted differently. "Good" kid or "bad" kid should not come into play here. Whether he had been in trouble before or not should have no bearing on this particular issue. As someone else said, if he had been the homecoming queen how would this whole thing have been handled? Because the teacher said he was in the hallway it's the truth? Could it be this teacher is lying to save their job? Do you think the administration is going to stand up for this kid or a teacher? Had the adults in this situation handled it differently, I believe the kid would have too.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun May 08, 2005 5:33 pm

Gosh. I hope I always get to tell my side of every story first.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun May 08, 2005 6:01 pm

I finally found the full report from the school district. Please consider it with at least equal weight to the story told by the boy. Why do I believe the school? Because the feasability of BOTH the teacher and the principal excercising extreme insensitivity is highly unlikely in my mind.

bold print is my addition.

The Muscogee County School District has over 3700 military students enrolled. We have a long and strong relationship with Ft. Benning. Spencer High School has the greatest number of military students of any of our schools. All of our counselors have received training in supporting students whose parents have been deployed, and military personnel serve as Partners in Education in over half of our schools.

When the Spencer teacher approached the young man about using a cell phone on campus, contrary to Board of Education policy which is designed to preserve instructional time and decorum in our schools, the young man did not tell the teacher he was speaking to his mother in Iraq. He indicated he would not comply with a request to turn over his cell phone and used profanity. The teacher escorted the young man to the office, where assistant principals tried to get him to calm himself and to cease the use of profanity. It was only at this point that administrators learned he was talking to his mother in Iraq.

The Guidance Department at Spencer High School has arranged for a number of students to receive calls from parents who are deployed. They would have been happy to do this for this young man. The issue here was not so much the use of the cell phone as it was the choices the young man made in handling the situation. We are empathetic to all students whose parents serve in the armed forces; we do have behavior standards which we uphold.

The school has been in touch with personnel from Ft. Benning. We are endeavoring to have the young man readmitted after a three day suspension, which was the first option for him. It was only after greater defiance and profanity that the suspension was extended. We will ask that the student and his guardian sign a behavior contract indicating that he will comply with the same standards of behavior which apply to all of our students. We will continue to be sensitive to the needs of students whose parents serve our country.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun May 08, 2005 6:57 pm

The thing is, because this is what the school district says, does that make it the truth? Do you think they are going to say "We didn't give him a chance to say who he was on the phone with"? If he was so disorderly and out of control, do you think the school would have reduced his suspension?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun May 08, 2005 7:03 pm

Come on, Peg. I KNOW you can read!

The school only wanted to give him 3 days in the first place. The kid refused to take the three days so it became 10. When they reduced it after talks it is on the condition that he sign a behavioural contract.

BTW Why do you believe the kid over the school?

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun May 08, 2005 7:09 pm

If I felt I were in the right, I would have refused the 3 days too. It's not so much I believe the kid over the school, I just can't understand why people assume it's true because the school said it.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun May 08, 2005 8:09 pm

lady cop wrote: just read the BTS screed~~~which i have doubts he wrote himself, not his style. all i said is i use discretion! a broken tail-light as opposed to a DUI. a warning as opposed to an arrest. and the donut reference is offensive and stupid.
Your stretching it here LC...............

My screed you refered to was a rhetorical response to your assine statement that you could care less about traffic.

Correct me if I am wrong but I see nothing here about a tail lite or dui?

If I recall you made light of cops and donuts on the KC Sherrifs car?

Fair is fair.....

You said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lady cop

i said i felt compassion for this boy and his Mom. and yes, i have some discretion. and i use it.i don't care about traffic crap. i am more concerned with real crime, abuse, drugs, et al. you and i Peg often butt heads but come to some understanding. my only point is that i know why schools enforce the cell phone rule. i have every respect for this child and his mother. but he has to do it on his own time.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun May 08, 2005 8:21 pm

lady cop wrote: i said i felt compassion for this boy and his Mom. and yes, i have some discretion. and i use it. i don't care about traffic crap. i am more concerned with real crime, abuse, drugs, et al. you and i Peg often butt heads but come to some understanding. my only point is that i know why schools enforce the cell phone rule. i have every respect for this child and his mother. but he has to do it on his own time. here is my UNALTERED, UN-TAMPERED-WITH QUOTE. anyone want your quotes messed with by bts?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun May 08, 2005 8:27 pm

lady cop wrote: here is my UNALTERED, UN-TAMPERED-WITH QUOTE. anyone want your quotes messed with by bts?
Still don't take away from the fact you made the assinine statement.

I highlighted because I was replying about that part of your quote.

My reply was about TRAFFIC control or the lack there of it.

Bounce it all you want. You still said it.........