On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
om...

MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.


Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom???

Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school?

Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic)
schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought,
freedom, expression, etc.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument.

"government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a
legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the
description of schools receiving government monies as being
subsidized?

My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It
reminded me of nukular. Nice retype....

And your proposition that "schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed
purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not
a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you
left out a comma).)
http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples

It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because
they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some
belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is
how they define themselves.

Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative,
you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally
employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that
isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the
explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school
is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It
is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find
other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private
education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality
education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be
equally condescending.

Canuck57 wrote:
On 12/01/2010 3:39 PM, Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.


Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual
freedom???


I guess we need to stir them up a little . Huh.

Won't be long before government tells you who will provide you your
health care.

Better like big fat government up your Harry butt...


You're responding to flajim, not me.


--
Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles.

On 12/01/2010 5:53 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

A parent has a choice to home-school, given certain requirements. Children
don't typically have a legal voice of their own. They must usually be
represented by an adult. It's in the best interest of society for the
population to be educated. I suppose you disagree with this.

And given how people make excuses, and get away with it. Might as well
repeal the requirements.

BTW, I think all children should be going physically to a school unless
circumstances are abobiously unavoidable. Such as a family on an island
manning a lighthouse and the nearest school is 100 miles away.

Chop the squakers hair and march to school...

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.

Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom???
Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school?
Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic)
schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought,
freedom, expression, etc.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument.
"government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a
legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the
description of schools receiving government monies as being
subsidized?
My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It
reminded me of nukular. Nice retype....

And your proposition that "schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed
purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not
a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you
left out a comma).)
http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples
It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because
they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some
belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is
how they define themselves.

Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative,
you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally
employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that
isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the
explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school
is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It
is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find
other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private
education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality
education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be
equally condescending.


Depends on the private, religious school. If the school is being run by
fundamentalist christian protestants, it is run to prevent individual
thought, freedom, expression, and so on, and socializing with children
whose parents allow them to think.

Fundamentalist christian protestantism is the american version of
talibanism.



--
Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:06:08 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:56:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:03:04 -0800, jps wrote:


MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.

I'm sure that kid's long hair is preventing all of the other 4 year
olds from learning..... but, then..... it becomes all to obvious when
education is tossed in deference to indoctrination....


That's right! Another example - gay marriage preventing hetero couples from
enjoying their relationships!

Biggest problem with gay.... well most anything.... is that it is so
IN-YOUR-FACE.

I wouldn't, as a hetero, expect to display my sexuality like this in
public. I don't need to see this, my kids don't need to see this, and
my grand kids don't need to see this. Frankly, it gets MUCH worse than
this.... whips, chains, leashes, Corinthian leather.... fine.... keep
it to yourself...
http://tinyurl.com/yrohxb

Sorry, can't transmit mindbleach through the net.....

The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as
equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not
exclusive to the gay population.

Take Mrs. Herring for example. She's clearly into masochism, she
probably just doesn't dress up.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:27:59 -0600, wrote:

snipped for posterity

It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because
they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some
belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is
how they define themselves.

Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative,

Before I'm 'sic-ed' again, that should be "notwithstanding."

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:55:38 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.


Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual
freedom???

Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school?


Individual freedom in a tax-based economy?

How absurd!

jps wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:06:08 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:56:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:03:04 -0800, jps wrote:

MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.
I'm sure that kid's long hair is preventing all of the other 4 year
olds from learning..... but, then..... it becomes all to obvious when
education is tossed in deference to indoctrination....

That's right! Another example - gay marriage preventing hetero couples from
enjoying their relationships!
Biggest problem with gay.... well most anything.... is that it is so
IN-YOUR-FACE.

I wouldn't, as a hetero, expect to display my sexuality like this in
public. I don't need to see this, my kids don't need to see this, and
my grand kids don't need to see this. Frankly, it gets MUCH worse than
this.... whips, chains, leashes, Corinthian leather.... fine.... keep
it to yourself...
http://tinyurl.com/yrohxb

Sorry, can't transmit mindbleach through the net.....

The problem here is that you've been conditioned to think of gay as
equating with S&M and other fetishes, which are certainly not
exclusive to the gay population.

Take Mrs. Herring for example. She's clearly into masochism, she
probably just doesn't dress up.


Oi!

--
Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles.

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:27:59 -0600, wrote:

snipped for posterity
It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because
they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some
belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is
how they define themselves.
Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative,

Before I'm 'sic-ed' again, that should be "notwithstanding."


John Wycliffe spelled it notwiþstondynge.

--
Where others have hearts, right-wingers carry tumors of rotten principles.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:30:45 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:27:59 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:23 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:09:08 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:18 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:34:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
news:tlhpk59lnk13gq1555r75ug5bp89a13rvq@4ax .com...

MESQUITE, Texas -

The parents of a 4-year-old boy disciplined for having long hair have
rejected a compromise from a Texas school board that agreed to adjust
its grooming policy.

The impasse means pre-kindergartner Taylor Pugh will remain in
in-school suspension, sitting alone with a teacher's aide in a
library. He has been sequestered from classmates at Floyd Elementary
School in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb, since late November.

After a closed-door meeting Monday, the Mesquite school board decided
the boy could wear his hair in tight braids but keep it no longer than
his ears. But his parents say the adjustment isn't enough for Taylor,
who wears his hair long, covering his earlobes and shirt collar.

His mother, Elizabeth Taylor, said she'll pull back Taylor's hair in a
ponytail, acknowledging the style will keep him suspended.

According to the district dress code, boys' hair must be kept out of
the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the
collar of a dress shirt. Fads in hairstyles "designed to attract
attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the
classroom or campus is not permitted," the policy states.

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Last year,
a seventh-grader was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His
parents chose to home-school him.

On its Web site, the district says its code is in place because
"students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable
and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members
of the society in which we live."

Taylor said her fight is not over. She and her husband are considering
taking the district to court or appealing to the State Board of
Education.

"I know that there are a whole set of steps we can take," she said.



God forbid individualism. That's too American for Texas.


Where's the outrage by the right for the trampling of individual freedom???

Individual freedoms in a goverment-subsidized school?

Since private (for profit) (and home) schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those "goverment-subsidized (sic)
schools" their expressed purpose is to prevent individual thought,
freedom, expression, etc.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt on both sides of that argument.

"government-subsidized (sic)"? Is that you have issues with a
legitmately hyphenized word construction or that you object to the
description of schools receiving government monies as being
subsidized?

My issue was with "goverment," not the rest of your straw man. It
reminded me of nukular. Nice retype....

And your proposition that "schools are created for the
purpose of segregating children from those...schools...their expressed
purpose is to prevent individual thought, freedom, expression" is not
a sound proposition. (Don't worry. I won't (sic) you (even if you
left out a comma).)
http://www.wordnik.com/words/governm...dized/examples

It is a VERY sound proposition. Private schools are private because
they set themselves apart from "the public" because they espouse some
belief or attitude that sets them apart from public schools. It is
how they define themselves.

Not withstanding that you have assigned fallacy to an interrogative,
you have feigned erudition in clumsily applying a denotation generally
employed in the quoting of an immediate sentential error. And if that
isn't abstruse enough for you, your proposition was confined to the
explicit contention that the expressed purpose of the private school
is to *prevent* individual thought, freedom, expression, and so on. It
is a narrow-minded proposition and can be denied by those who find
other credible reasons to find legal, viable alternatives in private
education that may be as benign as wanting to insure a quality
education for a child. Your entire retort has been banal, if I may be
equally condescending.

Feel free to be as sesquipedalian and stupid as you wish....

Meeting the "strawman" with the ad hominem?