|
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:53:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, Harry wrote: 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? A lot more than will be found in the typical fundie right-wing christian school Does a child have the freedom to choose to not go to school? 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. Jesus is a free-market, libertarian, mercantilist who doesn't believe in the rule of law. You should be able to be buck naked while pleading your case to the Supreme Court. Maybe he and Ted Olson should get together. |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:39:19 -0500, Harry
wrote: 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 notwižstondynge. It's little wonder that the Holy See had has bones exhumed, burned, and dispersed across the waters. (It's my understanding that he had much to do with the development of the English language.) |
Texas Taliban
On Jan 12, 8:33*pm, 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. Not exclusive, but the gay population are EXACTLY the ones who have conditioned us to think of them in this way. Take Mrs. Herring for example. She's clearly into masochism, she probably just doesn't dress up. That's where your viewpoint fell apart. |
Texas Taliban
In article ,
says... 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. My daughter did two years home school, for none of the reasons you stated above but I am sure you are convinced you have it spot on;) |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:01:05 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: 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. You assumptions are so moronic.... and what you don't know about me is so abundant, I won't even go there. Let me just say that an IN-YOUR-FACE gay march in DC, replete with plenty of fetish regalia and open sexual (kinky) activity ruined a family museum outing with my son and sent us into a rapid retreat from the spectacle. I'm all about the freedom of adults to express themselves any way they (in a consenting manner) wish to privately express themselves. Forcing it down other folks throat has earned them a well deserved "down" from other folks... including the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and straight..... Well then, your assumptions must be moronic too, eh? You weren't forced to be there. It was an unfortunate occurance. No one was forcing their lifestyle or beliefs on you or your kids. That's baloney and you know it. |
Texas Taliban
In article ,
says... 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. I agree with this post... |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:16:57 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... 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. I agree with this post... I can predict that you will receive nothing more than a hackneyed retort to you positive affirmation. |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:07:23 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, jps wrote: I find reference to poster's families particularly offensive and I doubt that I am by myself. Gene, take a deep breath along with whomever else finds my reference to Herring's wife being a masochist in poor taste. Herring is an exercise in poor taste and any chance to use him as fodder for humor, however sick you deem it, is fair territory for me. Do your eyebrows constantly furrow? Same with your rectum? |
Texas Taliban
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:18:38 -0600, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:16:57 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... 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. I agree with this post... I can predict that you will receive nothing more than a hackneyed retort to you positive affirmation. In other words, the response is not going to be genteel... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com