PDA

View Full Version : 7 yr old assaulted....


Capt. Murphy
19-06-06, 23:38
Liberals in Lexington Massachusetts have taken to beating up the seven year old children of their political opponents.
This disgusting tactic should be ousted on the front pages of every newspaper across the nation, yet you've heard nary a word about it.
Here are the specs:
A number of months ago, as first reported by yours truly, Superintendent Paul Ash decided to have his second grade teachers begin reading "fairy-tale" about two princes getting it on homosexual style to be read in the classrooms under his direction. The book was called "King and King."

In reaction parents from the Estabrook School decided to plead with Ash as to whether this book should be allowed. The all powerful Ash laughed and went on his way.
Somewhat disheartened by this response the parents then made the completely over-the-top request of being notified when such material would be presented in the classroom - especially if it knowingly violated their conscience and their religious convictions.
Growing somewhat angry the all powerful Ash shot the parents a verbal middle finger by retorting, "Estabrook has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. We couldn't run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed. Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal."
This profane sort of arrogance didn't sit well with one of the parents by name of David Parker. He went to the school to discuss it directly with Ash. When Parker refused to leave without being heard by the all powerful Ash he was arrested. Remember Parker's only request was to be notified when homosexuality or transgenderism was to be discussed.
Word spread amongst the liberal activist groups around the area. Nasty letters began to be written to local newspapers in an effort to get Parker to back down. When that didn't work a nasty web-site was created to spread the anti-Parker venom via the internet and rally the call to other activist groups nationwide. On the day of Parker's hearing the Ash/Nasty coalition turned out dozens of adults to demonstrate hate-filled nastiness against Parker as he entered and exited the courthouse. All in an attempt to get him to shut up. The nasties even convinced the school district to post anti-Parker newspaper stories on the bulletin boards throughout the schools as another means of intimidation.
None of it worked!
Instead on April 27 Parker and another family from the school district filed a federal civil rights suit against the school district. This made Ash and the other nasties even angrier and some of them decided to get even.
At the courthouse hearings and many of the protests outside Parker's home the nasties had used children to hold up hateful signs and demonstrate alongside their nasty parents. They also recruited young children to participate in angry anti-Parker demonstrations outside the school and to engage in letter writing campaigns.
But on May 17 they crossed the line.
That was the day that 10 of these thug-kins grabbed David Parker's 7 year old son, dragged him behind the corner of the school, well out of sight from the school officials, and proceeded to punch him in the groin, stomach, and chest, before he dropped to the ground when they then kicked and stomped on him. Several of the alleged thug-kins were children of the adults who had been protesting Parker, several of them - not even in the same class as Parker's child. It also needs to be pointed out that May 17 was a targeted date because that is the anniversary of changing the marriage definitions in the state of Massachusetts to include homosexual unions. Emotions among many activists were running very high on this day.
The school district "investigated" and did determine that the attack was pre-meditated. Shockingly they decided no punishment necessary for the 10 thug-kins who were serving as political hit men for the activists in Lexington.
All of this happening because one father wished to reserve the right to teach his own family's faith-based views on sexuality.
I support the lawsuit that David Parker is bringing against Ash, and the Estabrook School District. Standing up is always the right thing to do. His legal fees are growing and if you are interested in making a donation to help - as I have - I would encourage you to. I would also encourage you to drop an e-mail to Paul Ash or place a phone call - either way it is obvious that Ash believes that he is unaccountable to the parents of his district. It's also very sad that Ash's compadres have sunk to the level of assaulting the seven year old child of David Parker in their attempts to shut him up.
But then again liberals don't believe in absolutes, morality, or the law - so why should we be surprised?
-----------------------------

Source (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/KevinMcCullough/2006/06/18/201655.html)

Comments please.

tha_mattster
19-06-06, 23:41
whats a liberal? i thought that was just someone who is centre-right politically?

DREWY
19-06-06, 23:46
While I agree that assaulting seven year old children is not on and legal proceedings should be forthcomming, should you have private details like home phone numbers displayed here? This opens up other cans of worms later on down the track. (other than this I take your stand)

Capt. Murphy
19-06-06, 23:54
should you have private details like home phone numbers displayed here? Well, they are in the source anyway. :confused: So either way they're going to be seen.

And I don't see anyone closing or deleting topics like the ones that ask for fellow members' full name, age, etc... But that's another topic for another day.

edit: But I'll go ahead and edit my post to remove them. But I'll still leave the source.

edit2: Looks like tlr already did. :)

tlr online
19-06-06, 23:55
I have edited your post Capt. Murphy. I appreciate the details were part of the original document, but I would prefer keeping them off our forum for legal reasons.

And you're right. If true (and not political spin) then this is disgraceful.

Angel666
20-06-06, 00:13
If it is true I'm in the same boat as you Cpt. Murphy, but I'm not willing to take anything at face value today. The child did nothing to deserve such treatment and it is disgusting. I say leave childeren out of politics and let the "adults" figure things out. Childeren don't have any place in a political campaign.

Geck-o-Lizard
20-06-06, 00:28
I don't see why the blame for that is being laid on liberals. It was homophobic parents who encouraged their kids to use violence as a solution, and horribly misguided kids (and adults, unless I'm misinterpreting that) who decided to actually do it. There's no similarity between homophobic thuggery and liberalism. :confused:

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-06-06, 00:36
homophobe? :rolleyes: People seem to be throwing that term around like crazy. One of the most ridiculous terms I've ever heard.

Geck-o-Lizard
20-06-06, 00:40
I'd say that beating up a 7-year-old kid over an issue of homosexuality is a pretty good justification for using that word, Melonie.

DREWY
20-06-06, 00:46
Regardless of the words used it's not a good thing to see children used as footballs, whether it be figuratively or otherwise

Wolfguard
20-06-06, 02:31
Since when is a difference of opinions or beliefs equal to a "phobia," i.e. an irrational fear of something? If the story is true, it actually depicts when and how.

I don't see why the blame for that is being laid on liberals. It was homophobic parents who encouraged their kids to use violence as a solution, and horribly misguided kids (and adults, unless I'm misinterpreting that) who decided to actually do it. There's no similarity between homophobic thuggery and liberalism. :confused:
I was under the impression it was the pro-Ash group, i.e. the pro-gay group who beat the religious kid, Parker:


"Word spread amongst the liberal activist groups around the area. Nasty letters began to be written to local newspapers in an effort to get Parker to back down. When that didn't work a nasty web-site was created to spread the anti-Parker venom via the internet and rally the call to other activist groups nationwide. On the day of Parker's hearing the Ash/Nasty coalition turned out dozens of adults to demonstrate hate-filled nastiness against Parker as he entered and exited the courthouse. All in an attempt to get him to shut up. The nasties even convinced the school district to post anti-Parker newspaper stories on the bulletin boards throughout the schools as another means of intimidation.

None of it worked!

Instead on April 27 Parker and another family from the school district filed a federal civil rights suit against the school district. This made Ash and the other nasties even angrier and some of them decided to get even.
At the courthouse hearings and many of the protests outside Parker's home the nasties had used children to hold up hateful signs and demonstrate alongside their nasty parents. They also recruited young children to participate in angry anti-Parker demonstrations outside the school and to engage in letter writing campaigns.

But on May 17 they crossed the line.

That was the day that 10 of these thug-kins grabbed David Parker's 7 year old son, dragged him behind the corner of the school, well out of sight from the school officials, and proceeded to punch him in the groin, stomach, and chest, before he dropped to the ground when they then kicked and stomped on him. Several of the alleged thug-kins were children of the adults who had been protesting Parker, several of them - not even in the same class as Parker's child. It also needs to be pointed out that May 17 was a targeted date because that is the anniversary of changing the marriage definitions in the state of Massachusetts to include homosexual unions. Emotions among many activists were running very high on this day.



So it was the kids belonging to the pro-Ash group who beat the religious kid, and the term/label "homophobia" doesn't even come into play. If any "phobia" label is to be assigned in this case (due to hatred and violence,) it would most likely be "Religionophobes" or "Heterophobes."

Angel666
20-06-06, 02:34
I still think the childeren should not have been involved at all. And I agree with you WolfGaurd.

Wolfguard
20-06-06, 02:39
I still think the childeren should not have been involved at all. And I agree with you WolfGaurd.
Yes, no matter the outcome, all the kids involved are scarred in one way or another...

PirateRose
20-06-06, 02:48
I hate the world. =D

Jacob x5
20-06-06, 07:02
It's absolutely disgraceful that the 7 year old child was 'beaten up', because not only is that child not anything to do with it anyway (it is his father they are after), but the father is only taking a stand anyway, and even that is nothing to get worked up about, let alone 'having a go at' the man's son!

tomblover
20-06-06, 08:23
It truly disgusts me that people can be so idiotic! :mad: Poor poor child, I want to cradle him right now and tell him everything is alright... :( Sometimes I just want to assault all the effing, evil people all around the world! :mad:

gazhammer
20-06-06, 08:41
How the hell can the authorities let this kind of thing go on in this day and age?:cen:

The World, ladies and gents, is going to Hell and i'm just glad i wont be around TOO much longer to see it happen in person!:mad:

I know this wont go down to well, but i'd just grab my M16 and blow the F*CK out of this "Ash" guy and all his cronies!, the thing is there are always more freaks to take their place!:(

I just hope there is no such thing as reincarnation, who'd want to come back to this World that we live in, thats what i want to know?:confused:

Mona Sax
20-06-06, 09:09
Beating up a kid over political issues is sick. However, it's just as sick to use the incident for anti-liberal propaganda. It seems to me that conservatives call everything they don't like "liberal". The founding fathers of the U.S. were liberals, for Chrissakes!

Virusbuster
20-06-06, 09:31
The whole thing is just sad, using their own kids to beat up a 7 year old kid merely because they were after the kid's father. What he did in the first place might not have been the smartest thing to do, but going for his son instead is disgusting. If this was because of political issues, I'm pretty sure this won't help them much.

@Mona: I agree with you on that, it seems like any criminal, and anyone else who does anything wrong out there, is labelled as liberal. Unless, of course, he or she is very conservative, but then they probably hide it. I myself may not be american, but I have views that put me on the liberal side. Still, I do not allow anyone to say that I have no morality, or that I don't respect the law.

Mona Sax
20-06-06, 10:16
The whole thing is just sad, using their own kids to beat up a 7 year old kid merely because they were after the kid's father. What he did in the first place might not have been the smartest thing to do, but going for his son instead is disgusting. If this was because of political issues, I'm pretty sure this won't help them much.
That's just what I doubt, the whole story sounds very unbelievable (overly sarcastic and hateful style, mixing of facts and assumptions, implication of motives, invitation to terrorize a political opponent by publishing his phone number). I think the whole story rather went like this (pure speculation):

- Paul Ash - a liberal superintendent - decides to let his teachers tell their classes about homosexuality.
- Homophobic father David Parker doesn't want his son to learn about it and tries to find out when exactly Ash plans to have homosexuality mentioned so he can - illegally - keep his kid from going to school on these days.
- Parker harasses Ash and refuses to leave the school when he's told to (He can tell his son whatever he wants at home, but he has no right to decide what's taught at school).
- A bunch of schoolkids are ****ed off at their classmate's weird father and beat Parker jr. up.
- Some bitter conservative guy sees a chance to bash political opponents and turns the whole thing into an anti-liberal horror story. Even the article mentions that only some of the bullies were children of liberals.

I don't think it's a coincidence the story didn't make it into the newspapers. :rolleyes:

interstellardave
20-06-06, 10:59
I can't verify this story but I will say that, IMO, American schools are little more than propoganda mills... that has been true for decades (again, IMO).

Geck-o-Lizard
20-06-06, 11:44
[edit] I was going to initiate debate with you, Wolfguard, but this article's so biased it's full of rubbish; it's not debateable material. This is after I've had a look for other material online and found some that immediately conflicted with what this article's saying. I'll post links shortly...

[edit2]Okay, there's 1 article to be found in Google, and dozens of sites replicating McCullaugh's article in their "news" sections. I found a couple of comment-and-reply opinions sites but they're mostly biased and unuseful. Arg.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06061410.html

I originally asked (before editing to find more information) how it was liberals and pro-gay groups that initiated the violence here. I don't see the connection. I just see the same "justification" for violence that most thuggish people use, completely regardless of their political preference.

Strongest example (that I can think of) of what I'm talking about is those already-violent people who join the military because they want to kill, not for patriotic or honest reasons, yet use patriotism as their reason for joining up when asked about it - but the image of the military is not tainted by that. There are people who become interested in politics and activism simply because they like picking fights with people, and that's what I'm seeing here. Nothing to do with actual liberalism and pro-gay attitudes.

Capt. Murphy
20-06-06, 15:02
Well if the beating up of the child wasn't bad enough - they are indocrinating something like this book to 2nd Graders.:mad: I don't know about everyone else - but the schools didn't start telling me about 'sex' (male and female organs, systems, you know -all the scientific stuff ;) ) until I was in 6th grade. Now I don't really know what this book says or goes into but I know if I was a parent - and it's MY CHILD - I should have the right to know what my child is being taught and when. This -not telling the parents of when the material will be read to them- reeks of... Something terrible. Like holding your children captive and teaching them something they have no business even learning about at that age. Does little Bobby really need to know about sodomy that bad?:confused:

I watched America's Most Wanted one night and it talked about a man in Utah (he was a "religious leader") that would teach the children of the people living in that town. He said a bunch of very bigoted and racist things about "black, homosexual, drug abusers in Hollywood" :rolleyes:. To me, this falls along the very same lines -- just: on the opposite end of the spectrum. :mad:

Mona Sax
20-06-06, 15:59
Well if the beating up of the child wasn't bad enough - they are indocrinating something like this book to 2nd Graders.:mad: I don't know about everyone else - but the schools didn't start telling me about 'sex' (male and female organs, systems, you know -all the scientific stuff ;) ) until I was in 6th grade. Now I don't really know what this book says or goes into but I know if I was a parent - and it's MY CHILD - I should have the right to know what my child is being taught and when. This -not telling the parents of when the material will be read to them- reeks of... Something terrible. Like holding your children captive and teaching them something they have no business even learning about at that age. Does little Bobby really need to know about sodomy that bad?:confused:

I watched America's Most Wanted one night and it talked about a man in Utah (he was a "religious leader") that would teach the children of the people living in that town. He said a bunch of very bigoted and racist things about "black, homosexual, drug abusers in Hollywood" :rolleyes:. To me, this falls along the very same lines -- just: on the opposite end of the spectrum. :mad:
Homosexuality does not equal sex. The book is just a fairytale with two kings. Or has anybody ever complained about Cinderella being too explicit for children? Calm down, it's not a porn novel and it does not contain any description of gay sex.

By the way, for your information: Quite contrary to its former meaning, "sodomy" means sex between humans and animals nowadays.

interstellardave
20-06-06, 16:04
By the way, for your information: Quite contrary to its former meaning, "sodomy" means sex between humans and animals nowadays.

That's beastiality... (just checked... sodomy can mean sex with animals but the primary definition seems to still be just what we all think it means...)

Mona Sax
20-06-06, 16:08
That's beastiality...
Oops, looks like you're right... I didn't know that term was actually still in use. Ah well, live and learn.

Capt. Murphy
20-06-06, 16:11
By the way, for your information: Quite contrary to its former meaning, "sodomy" means sex between humans and animals nowadays.I thought it meant anything other than (female and male) baby making. Like any other form of sexual stimulation with anyone or anything.

Gabi
20-06-06, 16:29
What happened to the child is wrong and out of order - no question there.

But what is wrong with reading a (quote) "fairy tale" about two princes/kings in the first place? I have not seen the book, but I very much doubt that it would be sexually explicit.
And if in fact it did talk about two men who loved each other, then this is just a fact and part of life itself and in my opinion no big deal at all. So, why not read it to children?

I am not familiar with american law, but if Mr. Parker thinks it so horrendous, then maybe he should consider to send his child to a different school.

And has noone noticed the tone in which the whole article is written? So much for objective and unbiased reporting :rolleyes: http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/travesmilies/smilie_daumenneg.gif.


Edit: LOOK WHAT I FOUND (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1582460612/102-7441530-7799300?v=glance&n=283155)

Mona Sax
20-06-06, 17:18
I thought it meant anything other than (female and male) baby making. Like any other form of sexual stimulation with anyone or anything.
Yup, you're right. According to Wikipedia, sodomy means anal and oral sex or sex with animals. I confused it with the German term "Sodomie", which is only used to describe the latter. My mistake. Sorry.

RedTyga
20-06-06, 17:37
I remember looking up sodomy in good ol' Webster and it said it was anal or oral sex, male on male, or sex with animals.

Concerning the article, I agree with Mona and Gabi. That was probably one of the worst articles I have ever read.

Wolfguard
20-06-06, 17:57
Beating up a kid over political issues is sick. However, it's just as sick to use the incident for anti-liberal propaganda.
How are the two "equal?" Physical damage is not on par with verbal retorts in my opinion. Popaganda can be fought with facts, knowledge, information, etc. where as a kid (or anyone else for that matter) being physically assaulted can only be delt with by removing the individual from the beating. Seriously, someone calling me a "brainwashed Jesus freak" doesn't make my "chest, stomach, or genital area" feel pain.


has anybody ever complained about Cinderella being too explicit for children?
I don't really see a purpose for that story either.


"sodomy" means sex between humans and animals nowadays.
I know interstellardave already explained this, but I'd like to clarify that I've actually never heard it attributed to beastiality; I would not have even considered it as a description as anything happening between a human and an animal.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------



[edit] I was going to initiate debate with you, Wolfguard, but this article's so biased it's full of rubbish; it's not debateable material...I've had a look for other material online and found some that immediately conflicted with what this article's saying. I'll post links shortly...

[edit2]Okay, there's 1 article to be found in Google, and dozens of sites replicating McCullaugh's article in their "news" sections. I found a couple of comment-and-reply opinions sites but they're mostly biased and unuseful. Arg.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06061410.html

I originally asked (before editing to find more information) how it was liberals and pro-gay groups that initiated the violence here. I don't see the connection. I just see the same "justification" for violence that most thuggish people use, completely regardless of their political preference.

OK, what inspired those kids to beat up the Parker boy?


According to Mr. Parker, school authorities determined from an investigation into the assault that the beating was indeed planned and premeditated.

OK

"During the recess period, a group of 8-10 kids suddenly surrounded Jacob and grabbed him. He was taken around the corner of the school building out of sight of the patrolling aides, with the taunting and encouragement of other kids. Jacob was then positioned against the wall for what appeared to be a well planned and coordinated assault.”


OK


...his son related that one student in particular performed the actual physical assault while, “many children stood, watched silently, and did nothing as the beating commenced.”

Parker added: "The group of kids surrounded Jacob and he was beaten and punched. Then, as he fell to the ground, another child was heard saying to the group of children, 'Now you all can finish him off,' and as he was down on his hands and knees, the beating continued on his back. Then, fortunately, one little girl ran to contact the oblivious playground aides to stop it.

"Four of the attackers were from Jacob's first-grade class; the others were from other classes at Estabrook.

"The teachers' aide apparently determined that since she could not see external bleeding, and since Jacob apparently was not hit in the face, she did not send him to she school nurse."

The family was immediately notified of the incident.


OK

Parker speculated that the cause of the attack was most likely what he called “displaced aggression.” “If children hear venomous things from their parents, the children do internalize this,” he said.


Wow, that's a term I'm very familiar with due to my time spent with wolves and wolfdogs. When an animal wanted to confront another animal (sometimes violently) and could not get to them due to either a chain or a fence, the animal(s) would BITE at the object(s) which held them back. If we anticipated such a meeting, we would sometimes chain the animal off to a tree so as to not get bitten multiple times.

OK, back to the article - who had the aggression, what was it based on, what inspired it and why did the kids act it out in such a violent manner towards a specific individual?


The topic of Parker's beliefs has become so widespread among the students that Jacob says he overheard his fellow classmates ruminating that perhaps their current principle—who has resigned her position to take up a job elsewhere—was leaving the job because of Jacob’s father. Members of the community itself have organized public demonstrations specifically against Parker, in which their children have taken part. One of these demonstrations is pictured on the right and below. (photos courtesy of MassResistance.com) While prominently displayed in the student library are the back issues of the Lexington Minuteman that specifically deal with Parker’s case, for the children to read.

“We’re trying to be patient and tolerant," said Parker when asked if he was considering pulling his son out of the school. "We’re trying to hang on to the notion that the schools are for every child and for everyone. I don’t feel that we should have to leave for an injustice.”

Ironically, the school prides itself on its long-time involvement in various "Safe School" programs, which are geared to creating school environments "safe" for students who are homosexual.

Parker asked, "Isn't the school supposed to be addressing safety and preventing bullying and violence? Or are such programs only focused on children with homosexual parents? You can be certain that if this happened to a child with homosexual parents more would be made of this and that 'lessons' teaching tolerance and diversity of homosexual behavior normalization would be forced upon the young children."

Well, based on what I read from your article, it seems to be an act of violence based on descrimination of one person's point of view and inacted on the guy's son. Some people might call it "reverse discrimination" but whatevah, let's turn the situation around:

Homosexual parents want a gay fairy tail read.

Hetero parents don't and protest.

Kids surround and beat the kid who's parents are pro-gay.


So what would be the assessment of the situation? I predict it would have been described as an act of "intolerance" based on "homophobia" and "hate." Moreover, the consesus would most likely have blamed the hetero protestors for inspiring violence through "hateful acts" which were displayed through their children.

Geck-o-Lizard
20-06-06, 18:33
My main point was that the initial article was directly attacking "liberals" as the ones responsible for this. How was it "liberal" or "pro-gay" of the parents to aggressively protest Parker's dissatisfaction with the school, and how can 7-year-old children feel strongly enough about matters of politics to beat up one of their own classmates? It was NOT a matter of liberalism; the original article here is slanderous and as provocative as the protesters it's "reporting" about.

(Also, are we all aware that it was originally posted in the author's blog, not published as a news article? Yet it's been re-posted in several places under the category of "news")

Wolfguard
20-06-06, 18:42
My main point was that the initial article was directly attacking "liberals" as the ones responsible for this. How was it "liberal" or "pro-gay" of the parents to aggressively protest Parker's-
While I agree with your point in regards to reporting the original article as "news", I was under the impression you wanted to dismiss that article in favor of the more objective one you posted, hence my refering to yours instead.

Geck-o-Lizard
20-06-06, 19:00
I'm protesting the use of "liberals" as a collective put-down, here suggesting that anyone who isn't right-wing equals a child-beater.

Mona Sax
20-06-06, 19:51
How are the two "equal?" Physical damage is not on par with verbal retorts in my opinion. Popaganda can be fought with facts, knowledge, information, etc. where as a kid (or anyone else for that matter) being physically assaulted can only be delt with by removing the individual from the beating. Seriously, someone calling me a "brainwashed Jesus freak" doesn't make my "chest, stomach, or genital area" feel pain.
Good for you.
I don't really see a purpose for that story either.
Bad for you.


"And now for something completely different..."
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4775/love1tn.jpg

Wolfguard
20-06-06, 22:19
Bad for you.
Not really "bad" for me, just different. ;) I was more into stuff like "Clifford, the Big Red Dog" or animal and dinosaur stuff in regards to childhood books, rather than psudo-romance make-believes. Honestly, Cinderella boarded me to tears.

Wolfguard
20-06-06, 22:21
I'm protesting the use of "liberals" as a collective put-down, here suggesting that anyone who isn't right-wing equals a child-beater.
I feel the same way about the term "homophobe," as if a disagreement is equal to an irrational fear.

Catapharact
20-06-06, 22:24
Wolfguard:

I swear, you and I gonna have to sit down for a cup of tea someday Lol!

Geck-o-Lizard
20-06-06, 23:10
I feel the same way about the term "homophobe," as if a disagreement is equal to an irrational fear.

I used the word earlier because I'd misinterpreted the article, which was stupid and I'm very sorry for having used the term without checking to know what I was talking about. I don't throw about words like that without feeling it's justified to do so. (I read it once over and thought that it was parents & bullies complaining about the book being taught, not people & bullies complaining about parents complaining about the book being taught. Mr. Parker was well within his rights to demand to know what his son was being taught, and this I had no quarrel with. My parents pulled me out a class when I was about 7 once because we were doing Ancient Egypt; they felt that in-depth knowledge of embalming procedures and the gods of death wasn't suitable material for 7-year-old kids to know.)

Apologies. :o

Wolfguard
20-06-06, 23:32
I used the word earlier because I'd misinterpreted the article, which was stupid and I'm very sorry for having used the term without checking to know what I was talking about. I don't throw about words like that without feeling it's justified to do so. (I read it once over and thought that it was parents & bullies complaining about the book being taught, not people & bullies complaining about parents complaining about the book being taught. Mr. Parker was well within his rights to demand to know what his son was being taught, and this I had no quarrel with.
God knows I make mistakes on a consistant basis, so hey, no biggie. :D

My parents pulled me out a class when I was about 7 once because we were doing Ancient Egypt; they felt that in-depth knowledge of embalming procedures and the gods of death wasn't suitable material for 7-year-old kids to know.)
Well...I can understand that. I personally don't think it's 1st grade material. Maybe 4th or 5th.

Apologies. :o
Aw,no worries. BTW - I like how all your posts are written in orange. :cool:

Wolfguard
20-06-06, 23:34
Wolfguard:

I swear, you and I gonna have to sit down for a cup of tea someday Lol!
My friend, I'd be honored to take you up on that offer someday. My treat. :cool:

Geck-o-Lizard
20-06-06, 23:43
Well...I can understand that. I personally don't think it's 1st grade material. Maybe 4th or 5th.

What was really traumatizing was that instead of learning about mummies with my friends, I had to play three-letter-word games on a geriatric BBC computer. :( :p


Aw,no worries. BTW - I like how all your posts are written in orange. :cool:

Hey, thanks. :)

Capt. Murphy
21-06-06, 14:59
When I first heard of this it was on the radio. From that 'ol Pudding Stick Mr. Neal Boortz. I'm thinking that in his "reporting" of this he may have sensationalized what he said was in the book. I should've known. A few things that seem to ruffle his feathers everytime are: Religion (if you tell him you're a Christian), creation/ID, Gay/Homosexual lifestyles, and Drugs. :p

Yes. Neal says to not take everything he says as fact, to look it up, and research the info for yourself... I just didn't realize he meant every little detail. :rolleyes:

"Two Princes getting it on with Gay Sex"... :o :mad:

*feels like such the :cen: fool*

But the kid getting the "Dog Paste" beaten out of him is what fuels this fire. The article I provided may have been written out of spite and anger. Even I was aware of it's harsh tone. But it was the only other one I could find. The other site that had it had a discussion at the bottom... I thought the link without the debating would be better to link to.

And as for the validity of this story (if some of you question it) I don't think someone would put their name/reputation on the line in something that could be proven false.