Texas Taliban
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:33:23 -0500, Harry
wrote:

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.

I really wasn't trying to go there, but since you have.... one of the
chairs at my college developed a very general program to aid home
schoolers in learning teaching strategies, how to spot learning
disabilities, etc......

The program never happened. She was absolutely vilified by the
fundies, not only verbally, but in writing on forums and blogs. Purely
an US agin' THEM (public/worldly heathen) argument that held no
substance, but was all about how folks had been indoctrinated.

I've had better than 37 years to see this over and over and over......
whether religious, cultural, socioeconomic, whatever, it all comes out
the same...... indoctrination over education......

I know lot's of young athletes who are home schooled so they can spend
more time working on their sport and participate in national events.
Penn-Foster is popular, and there are a few other good secular home
school programs. When I home schooled my daughter for two years it was
not as easy to find secular programs, but there are plenty of them out
there now. Back then, we actually worked with the school and combined
two programs along with a lot of material from the school in town. She
was able to attend some functions too. As to your long history of hate
and bigotry against anything non-secular, this line of thought from you
is not unexpected but still, way off the mark as usual...;)

Texas Taliban
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:42:11 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:31:28 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:33:23 -0500, Harry
wrote:

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.

I really wasn't trying to go there, but since you have.... one of the
chairs at my college developed a very general program to aid home
schoolers in learning teaching strategies, how to spot learning
disabilities, etc......

The program never happened. She was absolutely vilified by the
fundies, not only verbally, but in writing on forums and blogs. Purely
an US agin' THEM (public/worldly heathen) argument that held no
substance, but was all about how folks had been indoctrinated.

I've had better than 37 years to see this over and over and over......
whether religious, cultural, socioeconomic, whatever, it all comes out
the same...... indoctrination over education......

I know lot's of young athletes who are home schooled so they can spend
more time working on their sport and participate in national events.
Penn-Foster is popular, and there are a few other good secular home
school programs. When I home schooled my daughter for two years it was
not as easy to find secular programs, but there are plenty of them out
there now. Back then, we actually worked with the school and combined
two programs along with a lot of material from the school in town. She
was able to attend some functions too. As to your long history of hate
and bigotry against anything non-secular, this line of thought from you
is not unexpected but still, way off the mark as usual...;)


Your bigotry is showing. Secular vs. non-secular is not an issue
beyond some weighted geographic issues....

The vinegar bottle is an equal opportunity depriver...

You taught your daughter. I've taught hundreds of folks in the last
few decades. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you lack
depth of experience.

And you have homeschooled for an appreciable time?

Texas Taliban
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 12/01/2010 5:20 PM, Harry wrote:
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?

We certainly cannot allow that. We cannot have harmony without
conformity. right?

Might as well just call us a herd of sheep. Maybe even brand you wih a
RFID and mini explosive if you misbehave.


Except for Sarah Palin, of course.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Texas Taliban
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
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
m...

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!


I'm getting maveriky... :) Amazingly, I agree with Dick Cheney on this...
Palin is unqualified.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Texas Taliban
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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...


Actually, homeschooled kids tend to do better academically.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Texas Taliban
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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...



Sure... well, the good news is that you don't have to worry about it.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Texas Taliban
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
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.....


There's plenty of "opposite" sex out there. I don't think that's going to be
a cogent argument when it gets to the SC.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Texas Taliban
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
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.....


Come on... that sort of thing has been going on for a while. You left right?
What's the problem?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Texas Taliban
 

Gene wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:33:23 -0500, Harry
wrote:

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.

I really wasn't trying to go there, but since you have.... one of the
chairs at my college developed a very general program to aid home
schoolers in learning teaching strategies, how to spot learning
disabilities, etc......

The program never happened. She was absolutely vilified by the
fundies, not only verbally, but in writing on forums and blogs. Purely
an US agin' THEM (public/worldly heathen) argument that held no
substance, but was all about how folks had been indoctrinated.

I've had better than 37 years to see this over and over and over......
whether religious, cultural, socioeconomic, whatever, it all comes out
the same...... indoctrination over education......


I inherited a couple of fundie relatives, a young couple, who are home
schooling their kids not because they think they can offer them a better
education, but to keep them from "mixing" with kids whose parents are
more moderate and liberal. Their words. In other words, they want to
raise isolated automatons.



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

Texas Taliban
 

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:18 -0800, jps wrote:

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?
.
I'm not ASSUMING anything.

You weren't forced to be there.

It was THE PUBLIC. People are supposed to act in a CIVIL manner in
PUBLIC. They didn't.

It was on THE MALL..... it ruined EVERY family's chance at a day at
the museums.... it was WRONG.

I wasn't forced to be there.... WE were forced to LEAVE.

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.

Oh.... fine. So I get to explain to an 8 year old why one woman is
dragging another around by a dog leash. Adults G/L/T/S could
reasonably act the way these folks were acting at the local swing
club, but not in public and not in front of kids. Tell you what, you
take your kids and grand kids to the local gay bar for fun.... I'm
headed to Chuckie Cheese with mine.....


The explanation is... some people are a bit strange. If a child asks a
direct question at that age, they should get as direct an answer as
possible.

--
Nom=de=Plume