Conference back40::soapbox

    Not I, unless it was by accident.
    
    Don't those dolts know they can restrict access to sites like that?

Was the student 5 years old?

I think the student was about 9-10 years old.

  heck, a couple years back, an acquaintance (a good guy, too) was outright
 FIRED, right here at Digital, for having a picture of a naked lady on his
 screen.

  Quite right, too, in my view.  As to the kid, he better shape up or be
 ready for a world of hurt.

  bb

	Good thing I only have naked men on mine. :-)

    
    	What do you have against naked women, bb?
    

Or what would he _like_ to have against them...

    filthaaa.

    I have not persmission to publicly post (and thus will not) the memo
    that went multiple times through our organization that such material is
    grounds for immediate dismissal.  Referenced policy (mumble) on
    appropriate use of tools and networks.
    
    On the kid:  What is the URL? (;-)
    
    No, really, if he was warned, the action appears appropriate.

    Why the heck doesn't the school have network nanny or any of the other
    child-secure packages available?  Are kids allowed free access without
    supervision?  that is akin to leaving an entire library open to kids,
    including the closed stacks.
    
    meg

    From what I heard on TV, the school _did_ have some network
    nanny-style programs installed (more than one, it sounded like).
    They're not 100% bullet-proof, apparently.

    The kid was building his own page.  No doubt brought in his favorites
    from Dad's GIF collection in on a floppy.

    Oops, revisted .0  Just visited a forbidden site.  This can happen by
    accident these days, with the wierd stuff search engines can through at
    you.
    
    No, nanny software is not any sort of guarantee.  And it can really
    hose your system due to the unfriendly "hacks" typically used to ensure
    that kids can't disable it.
    
    Took me days to uscramble my Dad's PC after he put on Compuserve's
    package before the Grandkids came to visit.
    
    

    
    Two Marshfield high school students were suspended FIVE DAYS
    for a posting a death threat (which they signed from their
    Principal, nice touch boys) against President Clinton.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 844.14 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Two Marshfield high school students were suspended FIVE DAYS

    Why are you making a big deal about the FIVE DAYS?  Too long
    a suspension?  Not long enough?

  Well, I dunno why mr_bill shouted five days, but then as you know, I
 dunno cryptish...

  but it seems relevant...the internet SCOTUS case will be very interesting.

  I'm hoping against hope the court allows regulation, myself, as with tv.

  your friendly sledge, bb

|       Why are you making a big deal about the FIVE DAYS?
    
    Uh, are any of these better?
    
    TWO Marshfield high school students were suspended five days.
    Two MARSHFIELD high school students were suspended five days.
    Two Marshfield HIGH SCHOOL students were suspended five days.
    Two Marshfield high school students were suspended five days.
    TWO MARSHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL students were suspended FIVE DAYS.
    
    
    BTW, the Scotch[TM] Tape teacher is now on indefinite paid leave.
    
    								-mr. bill

Another kid was suspended for five days for using mouthwash (zero tolerance for
alcohol program + mouthwash has alcohol = five days suspension).  So I guess
the question might be:  Are the crimes of death threats against presidents
and using mouthwash equal, at least in terms of deserving equal punishments?

    
    	RE: .17
    
    	Well, Diane, it's hard to argue with that logic.
    
    	I, for one, wouldn't know where to start.
    

Have anybody here been carded when buying mouthwash?

Local story - heard on the radio today, and recalling from memory:

Some number of students (approx 15 I think, not sure of the ages) were
suspended on the drug bit. Apparently, some kid was giving out pieces of
AlkaSeltzer and telling his friends it was candy. Har Har. The school defended
their decision, saying that the offending kids "made bad choices". GMAFB.

>   <<< Note 844.17 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

	 So the answer is that there was no reason that you shouted
	 FIVE DAYS?  Okay, just checking.  I like to at least _try_
	 to understand what it is you're getting at.

|   So the answer is that there was no reason that you shouted
|   FIVE DAYS?
    
    No, that's not the answer.
    
|   Okay, just checking.
    
    And it warms my heart so deeply.
    
|   I like to at least _try_ to understand what it is you're getting at.
    
    So, why "_try_?"  Why not "try," "*try*," "TRY,"  "_TRY_," or "*TRY*?"
    
    								-mr. bill

    TTWA:
    
     Does he think he gets style points for being obscure?

nano-points maybe.

  .24
    
>     Does he think he gets style points for being obscure?

	Apparently.  That's the only explanation I can come up
	with, at least.

    who wrote _Jude, the Obscure_?

  hardy

  bb

    
|	Apparently.  That's the only explanation I can come up
|	with, at least.
    
    I'm sure you can _try_ harder, at least.
    
    
    You do notice that *you* haven't added much to this topic, or haven't
    you noticed?
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 844.29 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    I'm sure you can _try_ harder, at least.

       I asked you a direct question.  You chose to give me a non-answer.
       That's as hard as I'm willing to try.  If you choose not to be
       understood, well, that's your prerogative, isn't it?

>    You do notice that *you* haven't added much to this topic, or haven't
>    you noticed?

       What does that have to do with it?  Here - I'll answer for you,
       since you seem incapable of it: Nothing.

|>    You do notice that *you* haven't added much to this topic, or haven't
|>    you noticed?
|
|      What does that have to do with it?  Here - I'll answer for you,
|      since you seem incapable of it: Nothing.
    
    I asked you a direct qusetion.  You chose to give me a non-answer.
    That's as hard as I'm willing to try.  If you choose not to be
    understood, well, that's your prerogative, isn't it?
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 844.31 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

|>    You do notice that *you* haven't added much to this topic, or haven't
|>    you noticed?

	Surely this was rhetorical question, no?  You think I wouldn't
	know that I haven't yet contributed anything to this topic?

	Well, anyway, I can see that you have no interest in explaining
	your own entry.  So be it.

	

    
    	Diane, maybe he'll answer if I ask him.
    
    	Mr. Bill, what was the reason behind the emphasis on "five days"?
    

|   Are the crimes of death threats against presidents and using mouthwash
|   equal, at least in terms of deserving equal punishments?
    
    The crimes of murdering people and murdering fewer people can be equal,
    at least in terms of deserving equal punishments.
    
    
    But there aren't enough facts presented in the mouthwash packing student
    case and the threat against the president case to make an informed
    judgement one way or the other, is there?
    
    								-mr. bill

  .33  Shawn, not to change the subject, but I notice you haven't
       contributed much to this topic.  Did you notice that?  And
       while we're at it, how's your pool game going?

|    	Mr. Bill, what was the reason behind the emphasis on "five days"?
    
    Because five days is longer than one day (I bet you did not know that),
    and a five day suspension is a harsher penalty than a one day
    suspension (I bet you did not know that either).
    
    The only reason I empahsized the penalty was to make sure folks
    wouldn't miss the penalty.   (Which exposes my confidence in the
    reading ability of some 'boxers, nothing more.)
    
    								-mr. bill

   I guess he likes you better, Shawn.  You're cuter, I suppose.

    
    	Ahah!!  An answer.  Would have been rather simple to reveal this
    	15 or so replies ago, yes?
    
    	5>1?  I don't know about that.  I typed
    
    	if 5>1 then print "5>1"
    
    	at my $ and it gave me an error, so apparently it's some sort of
    	mathematical anomaly that can't be processed.
    
    
    	"Harsh" is a subjective term, Mr. Bill.
    
    	If I were planning on meting a harsh penalty to a teenager, the
    	last thing I would would be to give him/her a week off from school
    	so that [s]he could play video games and watch TV.  I think I'd
    	rather make him/her go to school for a few Saturdays in addition
    	to attending all week long.
    

|    	If I were planning on meting a harsh penalty to a teenager, the
|    	last thing I would would be to give him/her a week off from school
|    	so that [s]he could play video games and watch TV.
    
    It's really a plot by the Principal to teach the child the value in
    questioning authority.
    
|   	I think I'd rather make him/her go to school for a few Saturdays in
|   	addition to attending all week long.
    
    You've seen _The_Breakfast_Club_?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	mb3lon:  Do not ask questions if you have not been
    		 participating in the topic.
    
    	mb4lon:  Do not explain yourself.  Ever.
    

    
    -mr. bill, the Breakfast Club was made in my neighborhood, it was a
    movie about the North Shore high schools. i highly doubt all high
    schools operate that way. jmho.

              <<< Note 844.37 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


  > You're cuter, I suppose.

   I seriously doubt that.

   daryll

Let's ask Glen.

    
    	This is definitely one instance where I hope I'm the ugly one.
    

    
    
    
    Sure ......   :-)

    
    	Hey!!
    

	Shawn.... you??? Ugly???? 

    No-tolerance drug policy ends up a bit flat
    
    Associated Press, 03/24/97 22:01 
    
    BREMERTON, Wash. (AP) - Sixteen middle school students who were
    suspended for three weeks for sampling bits of Alka Seltzer tablets
    will be allowed to return to class, their principal decided Monday. 
    
    One other student - the boy who brought the fizzing antacid to Mountain
    View Middle School and told classmates it was candy - must complete a
    three-day suspension. 
    
    ``I thought I was trying to be cool but I guess it wasn't so cool,''
    Andy Wessels told KING-TV. 
    
    Parents argued that the district overreacted after the students were
    suspended last week for violating the no-tolerance drug policy. 
    
    ``Zero tolerance for drugs doesn't mean zero intelligence for
    application or implementation of the policy,'' parent John Richmon
    said. 
    
    Principal Flint Walpole waived the suspensions after meeting with
    parents, but said all 17 must attend a special class Tuesday on choices
    and decision-making, such as not putting unidentified objects in one's
    mouth. 

How about a "Just Say No! to Stupidity" campaign?

Reminds me of the Devo song "D.A.R.E. to be stupid."  (Punctuation added
just to make a point.)

>    ``Zero tolerance for drugs doesn't mean zero intelligence for
>    application or implementation of the policy,'' parent John Richmon
>    said. 
    
     I wonder what Mr. Bill thinks about this? 

    > Principal Flint Walpole waived the suspensions after meeting with
    > parents, but said all 17 must attend a special class Tuesday on choices
    > and decision-making, such as not putting unidentified objects in one's
    > mouth. 
    
    On PBS's "Barney" this morning, Barney had the kids blindfolded,
    seated at a table, encouraging the kids to take bites of unidentified
    things on the table.
    
    
    re: Presidential death threat
    
    The kids got off easy, imho.  Unlike some of the other silly stuff
    kids are getting suspended for these days (e.g., kissing), this is
    serious stuff, even if they had no intention or ability to carry
    it out.
    
    By the way, educators these days are in disagreement on the whole
    matter of suspension.  Many kids, especially those with no parent at
    home during the day, see a suspension as free time off to play video
    games and the like.  In fact, some schools have adopted "in-school
    suspensions", in which the kids have to come to school but must spend
    the day in the principal's office.  Which must thrill the principal,
    but that's why they get paid the big bucks.
    
    As for these Marshfield kids, the school superintendent said that
    the kids "received a powerful lesson from their government", which
    to me is  1) debatable, and  2) an interesting way to put it.
    
    I'd like to believe that they'd have received the same punishment and
    attention had they typed up the letter on an old Smith-Corona in typing
    class and mailed it off to the White House via good old U.S. Mail.
    
    Chris

|>   ``Zero tolerance for drugs doesn't mean zero intelligence for
|>   application or implementation of the policy,'' parent John Richmon
|>   said. 
|    
|    I wonder what Mr. Bill thinks about this? 
    
    Uh, mr. bill agrees with intelligent application of rules.  You've
    obviously got me confused with someone else.
    
    (I note that Medved, filling in for Ruuuuuuuuuusssssssssssshhhhhhhh,
    was still ranting about the three week suspension a couple of hours
    ago.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    >Uh, mr. bill agrees with intelligent application of rules.
    
     For small values of intelligent.

|                 -< you sure have a funny way of showing it >-
|   >Uh, mr. bill agrees with intelligent application of rules.
|    
|    For small values of intelligent.
    
    Small values of intelligent for soapbox moderators.  I cut you folks a
    lot of slack, given some of the members you all have to deal with.
    (Been there, done that, didn't like it.)
    
    But for the secret service and their application of the rules (the two
    Internet death threatinging students committed a felony you know) seems
    they used a wee bit of good judgement in letting the school discipline
    the students.  And it seems to me the Principal used a wee bit of
    judgement in giving out a FIVE DAY (just for you, di) suspension
    to the two students.
    
    
    But you know better, huh?  
    
    How would *you* have intelligently applied the rules in this case?
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 844.54 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>  I cut you folks a
>  lot of slack

	Oh.  I, for one, am ETERNALLY GRATEFUL (just for you, bill) to
	you.  What a pip.

    
    	ETERNALLY GRATEFUL is capitalized to set it apart from TEMPORARILY
    	GRATEFUL, I guess?
    

|	Oh.  I, for one, am ETERNALLY GRATEFUL (just for you, bill) to
|	you.
    
    Your welcome.
    
    								-mr. bill

>                   <<< Note 844.56 by BUSY::SLAB "Cracker" >>>

	I'll never tell.  Maybe if you try harder, I'll consider
	ignoring you less often though.

We really do need a "Dope Slap" note.

    
    	RE: .58
    
    	Now there's something to strive for.
    
    
    
    	8^)
    

    >Small values of intelligent for soapbox moderators.  
    
     ooh, how Browkeresque.
    
    >I cut you folks a lot of slack, 
    
     For which we are eternally grateful, I assure you.
    
    >How would *you* have intelligently applied the rules in this case?
    
    We didn't disagree on those cases. Where we disagreed was when you gave
    your blanket support to the suspension of the toy toting tot without
    any indication whatsoever that such a level of sanction was
    appropriate. /hthbibid

  I REALLY liked the secret service letting the principal whose name
 they forged on the assassination threat choose their punishment !!

  bb

    Would'a been even more ghoulish had they given the punishment
    delegation to some unaccountable sadistic types like shop teachers
    or gym teachers.
    
    Chris

|   Where we disagreed was when you gave your blanket support to the
|   suspension of the toy toting tot without any indication whatsoever that
|   such a level of sanction was appropriate. /hthbibid             
    
    What "blanket support?"
    
    Because I need to know *MORE* about a story than what shows up on
    Page One of the Boston Herald you call that "blanket support?"  (Cute pic
    of Joshua, btw.)
    
    The *only* disagreement we have is that "he is five" and "it was a toy"
    are sufficient facts to condemn a teacher and a vice-principal for
    the OUTRAGE of suspending the child for a day.  I need more to go on
    here, that's all.
    
    
    And to take a look at how the rest of the story tones down the
    OUTRAGE about "stupid administrator tricks."  Look at the Speedy
    Alka Selzter Case.  Conservatives were going NUTS about how stupid
    it was to suspend for 15 DAYS, yet the end result of intelligent
    application of the rules was that some kids got suspended for 1 day,
    and the prankster got suspended for 3 days.  Frankly, that seems about
    right for doing something so totally stupid.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	Mr. Bill, do you realize how stupid they sounded in considering a
    	15-day suspension at all?
    
    	Why didn't they reason it out and come to the 1-day conclusion in
    	the first place?
    

|    	Mr. Bill, do you realize how stupid they sounded in considering a
|    	15-day suspension at all?
|    
|    	Why didn't they reason it out and come to the 1-day conclusion in
|    	the first place?
    
    So now it's just style over substance that's the issue?
    
    Is "mandatory penalty" or "minimum penalty" that can be readily
    overruled
    
    any different in substance
    
    than a penalty range?
    
    
    Both require intelligent application of rules.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 844.64 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    What "blanket support?"

	842.77 seems to indicate that you think the act of bringing
	a toy gun to school justifies suspension.  no qualifiers.

    
|	842.77 seems to indicate that you think the act of bringing
|	a toy gun to school justifies suspension.  no qualifiers.
    
    No "must" there huh?
    
    See also 842.163.
    
    I'll repeat it here, complete with the original <strong></strong>.
    
|   [If the vice-principal] *WAS FORCED* by the rules to suspend the child
|   because rules is rules, then I'll join with the 'box rabble in condemning
|   such foolishness.
    
    I suspect a vice-principal of an elementary school is able to make the
    judgement of when it's appropriate to suspend a five year old for
    bringing a toy gun to school and when it is not appropriate to suspend
    a five year old for bringing a toy gun to school.
    
    You suspect that a vice-principal is a blathering idiot.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   Another kid was suspended for five days for using mouthwash (zero
|   tolerance for alcohol program + mouthwash has alcohol = five days
|   suspension).
    
    Is it *possible* that the child was not being entirely truthful
    about why he *DRINKS* Scope?
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 844.68 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    You suspect that a vice-principal is a blathering idiot.

	I suspect you won't be able to show where I indicated this.

|	I suspect you won't be able to show where I indicated this.
    
    Isn't that a surprise.  Just as you weren't able to show where I gave
    the vice-principal "blanket support."
    
    Can you understand how "...how you say, dumb" might be misread as
    an indictation that you didn't think it was a bright idea to suspend
    the five year old?
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 844.71 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Can you understand how "...how you say, dumb" might be misread as
>    an indictation that you didn't think it was a bright idea to suspend
>    the five year old?

	Yes, certainly.

    
    Yes of course, the actions were those of a blathering idiot.
    
    But you certainly aren't calling the vice-principal a blathering idiot.
    
    								-mr. bill

 how much alcohol in Scope ?

  bb

Just checked a bottle of Cool Mint Listerine.

Alchohol: 21.6%  !!!!

/john

re .74:

According to a news report it was something like 23% range (46 proof).

I believe mouthwashes use something called "specially denatured alcohol",
denatured in such a way that it's not harmful if swallowed but attempts
to get drunk by drinking it will make you feel sick enough to decide that was
a bad idea.

>   <<< Note 844.73 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Yes of course, the actions were those of a blathering idiot.

	Those are your words - not mine.
    
>    But you certainly aren't calling the vice-principal a blathering idiot.

	That's correct - I'm not.  The decision appears to have been
	a joint decision, and I feel it's a stupid one (perhaps made because
	rules are rules and they felt they "had no choice but to suspend" him),
	but I have called no-one a blathering idiot.  I haven't even mentioned
	the vice-principal specifically, let alone indicate that I think
	"a vice-principal is a blathering idiot".

  

    although, we may be getting close to hearing someone called one :-).

    
    My stepson was suspended earlier this year for one day. His first day
    in a new class he went into the "Marilyn Manson" page on the WEB....
    His explanation was that he didn't get to read the schools "by-laws" on
    this since he was a late addition to this class, the school
    agreed that this was the case but rules are rules are rules are rules...

	re .-1

	Exactly what did the rule say to forbid accessing a Marilyn Manson
	page?

	No crap pages?

/john

|   The decision appears to have been a joint decision, and I feel it's a
|   stupid one
    
    Suspending a child for using mouthwash is - how you say, dumb.
    Suspending a child for *DRINKING* mouthwash is - how you say, smart.
    
    
    Feel free to "feel" a decision is stupid all you want.  Without all the
    facts, all you've got is your "feeling."
    
    								-mr. bill

    I'll buy that.
    
    Hey, look, we send our kids to school, and we don't want the school to
    let our kids do anything stupid or dangerous (outside of the regular
    cirriculum, that is).  We excoriate them if they allow kids to get
    drunk on school time.  So, maybe we should cut a little slack when they
    don't allow kids to have alcohol on school property.

>   <<< Note 844.81 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Feel free to "feel" a decision is stupid all you want.

	Oh gosh, thanks.  First you're cutting me slack as a moderator
	and now this!  What a banner week.

    Whatever happened to detention, anyway? Whatever happened to phone
    calls to parents from teachers and administrators? How did it happen
    that teachers and administrators came to limit their responses to a
    single one: suspension?

    conflict is an uncomfortable thing to deal with?

    
    It's nice when they say,"I'll punish you by sending you home for the
    next 2 days."  

    
    You've got to admit the boy's story is weak. After all, it's a 
    school, and schools have bathrooms, and bathrooms have sinks,
    and ....
    
    
    drinking mouthwash ......   YUK!

    
    	RE: .85/.84
    
    	It's a power-trip thing.
    

    
    	RE: .80
    
    	There are probably some rather bad things on most of their pages,
    	although most of it is probably obscenities that you hear in the
    	hallways at school anyways.
    

 My son came over with a Marilyn Manson CD one time.  I took one look
 at the song titles, read some of the "lyrics" and listened to part of
 one cut on the CD..and into the trash it went.


 Jim

    
    	"Burn the witches, burn the witches ..."
    
    
    	Jim, you're a terrible person.
    

    and there is a question of someone's constitutional rights having
    been trampled. 

    
|   Whatever happened to detention, anyway? Whatever happened to phone
|   calls to parents from teachers and administrators? How did it happen
|   that teachers and administrators came to limit their responses to a
|   single one: suspension?
    
    Uh, gosh.  Could it be that teachers and administrators *don't* limit
    their responses to a single one: suspension?
    
    Could it be possible that the *vast* majority of the time, discipline
    does *NOT* involve suspension.
    
    Could it be possible that the *vast* majority of the time when a
    student is suspended, the student's and parent's self-serving stories
    don't even pass on-the-face-of-it plausibility.
    
    Could it be possible that you don't hear boo about the *vast* majority
    of school discipline actions?
    
    
    Nah, there's only a half a dozen kids who have been suspended this
    school year, and you've heard about EVERY SINGLE ONE of them in Soapbox.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

so say boo.

    
    Sing "Hey to you -- good-day to you"
    Sing "Bah to you -- ha! ha! to you"
    Sing "Boo to you -- pooh, pooh to you"
    And that's what you should say!
             

  .93

     Gee whiz.  I'm, like, wicked sarcastic, but I could take lessons
     from Billy. ;>

I know this will come as a huge surprise to most of you, but I spent
quite a bit of time in detention as a lad.  Mostly for being a wiseass or
not doing my homework.  It does turn into a little club after a while.

On the other hand, if we did something really bad we got caned or
plimsolled.  This happened to me the time that I cut off Alan Weaver's
tie at the knot.  Although, I was let off with a warning when I hit Alan
Weaver on the head with a brick, even though it did him a lot more harm.
I think they Our form master, Mr Williams (we called him Yogi, but I don't
know why) was a vicious sadist git who would actually take a run up
before he delivered the blow, as if he was bowling a cricked ball.
Consequently, we didn't do really bad things a lot.

There was a point to this.  But I've forgotten it.







[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    
    	Colin, I think your point might have been "I was disciplined prop-
    	erly and look how I turned out.  So if you want your kids to be
    	just like me, take notes."
    
    	Or I guess it could have been "Why didn't I hit Alan over the head
    	with a brick more often?  The little snot deserved it".
    

    >Could it be possible that the *vast* majority of the time, discipline
    >does *NOT* involve suspension.
    
     For what level of violation? A 5 year old taking a hunk of plastic
    into school causes a suspension of five days, reduced to one only when the
    punishment sees the light of day and the administrators think better of
    it. How much less serious of an offense is there?
    
    >Could it be possible that the *vast* majority of the time when a
    >student is suspended, the student's and parent's self-serving stories
    >don't even pass on-the-face-of-it plausibility.
    
     I suppose you consider this to be in some measure a refutation of
    something I've said, a most baffling turn of events. On the other hand,
    it does provide a vehicle for you to beat your chest, one of your most
    favoritest pastimes. Does Marsden think his father is Tarzan?

>     For what level of violation? A 5 year old taking a hunk of plastic
>    into school causes a suspension of five days, reduced to one only when the
>    punishment sees the light of day and the administrators think better of
>    it. How much less serious of an offense is there?


  If I understand Mr. Bill correctly, he would put adminstrative evaluation
  above parental evaluation, that the lack of a contribution by the admin
  folks to the article makes it incomplete (agreed) and as such, may
  be lacking facts which the mother would not want published.

  Now, I suppose if little Joshua pistol whipped his classmates, he would
  have a point.

  Obviously the mother has something to hide (conspiracies are 
  everywhere) with motivations differing from improving the current
  administrative practices.

  And we all know that Mr. Bill is not a nutter ... so he must be right,
  5 year olds with toys not withstanding ....

  Doug.

>  If I understand Mr. Bill correctly, he would put adminstrative evaluation
>  above parental evaluation, 
    
    This seems apparent. I wonder, however, how he would have reacted if
    the teacher who taped the mouth of Holly hummer had been supported by
    the administration.
    
>    that the lack of a contribution by the admin
>  folks to the article makes it incomplete (agreed) 
    
     Nobody has disputed this.
    
>    and as such, may be lacking facts which the mother would not want
>    published.
    
    Nobody's disputed that either.
    
    All we asked him to do was to provide any evidence whatsoever that
    _given the facts as presented_ justified the suspension, for which we
    were entertained by a clumsy tapdance.
    

    Well,
    
    the Springs has a zero tolerance policy for drugs and weapons,
    including plastic replicas and squirt guns.  A pocket knife can cause a
    student to be expelled, especially if the child doesn't fit the
    demographic norms for the area.  (90+% of expulsions are inflicted on
    minority students and are in the platic gun variety, not anything
    particularly heinous.)  
    
    However, hitting another child with a rock, shoe or fist is punishable
    at most by Afterschool detention or Staturday school.  One has to
    wonder why actually inflicting harm on another body is less harmful to
    the student population than possesion of a squirt gun.  
    
    meg

|   I wonder, however, how he would have reacted if the teacher who taped
|   the mouth of Holly hummer had been supported by the administration.
    
    No effect on my reaction.
    
    In that case, there was "no dispute" about the significant facts.
    Not tough to come to a conclusion there.
    
|>   that the lack of a contribution by the admin
|>  folks to the article makes it incomplete (agreed) 
|    
|    Nobody has disputed this.
    
    You come to a conclusion and condemn the administration IN SPITE of
    the incomplete article.  I won't jump to such a conclusion.
    
|>    and as such, may be lacking facts which the mother would not want
|>    published.
|    
|    Nobody's disputed that either.
    
    You come to a conclusion and condemn the administration IN SPITE of
    the fact that Mom might not have told the whole truth.  I won't jump
    to such a conclusion.
    
|   All we asked him to do was to provide any evidence whatsoever that
|   _given the facts as presented_ justified the suspension, for which we
|   were entertained by a clumsy tapdance.
    
    All I've asked you to do is support your blanket condemnation of
    the administration - IN SPITE of the *ADMITTED* lack of facts,
    IN SPITE of the *ADMITTED* bias of the Mom.
    
    -----
    
    You know what lack of facts are, don't you?  For example, suspending a
    student for *gasp* USING mouthwash, how absurd, what kind of idiots are
    there at these schools, yada yada yada.
    
    Oh, the kid was *DRINKING* mouthwash?  Nevermind.
    
    								-mr. bill