So everyone else here has evidence that what they are saying is correct…well sorrrrrryyyyyy
blinking, I absolutely assure you that the information sent home to parents said what the theme of the dress-up day was. Elementary school teachers and administrators assume that parents want to know this so as to prepare their children. It’s not like they are going to rely on the children to communicate this important detail.
And really, do you want to be taking swipes at dweebs? On THIS message board in particular???
You were the first one to resort to name calling in our exchange in this thread.
Bullshit!
It made no such requirements. It simply said...
They also planned a PJ day (promoting sex!), 70’s/80’s day (promoting sex in Leisure Suits!), a “Wacky” dress day (promoting clown sex!), and a beach day (promoting sex on the beach!). Damn perverts.
Ah, a big supporter of gay marriage now, are ya?
Actually, yes. That’s the point. You make arguments based on actual facts, or the logical consequences of such. You don’t just say shit that might be true. Thus people are talking about the specific facts, because they’re important.
They don’t “speak for” me. I couldn’t care less what the little rug rats dress up as. I only object to the idea that local residents (and local radio shows) have no business voicing their opinions (even flawed opinions) to the school administration.
BTW, did anyone notice the irony of the talk show on that radio station? It’s called “Crosstalk”. :eek:
My point (again) is - is there not one teacher at that school that thought 'I wonder what would happen if the local radio station heard about us getting the kids dressed as tranvestites."
I find the suggestion that the parents didn’t know the details to be highly implausible. They had three different opportunities to be informed. In fliers sent home with the kids, in a newsletter and from the kids themselves when they dressed up. Your insinuation that they intentionally whithheld information from the parents does not pass a sniff test. You argument that at least one parent should be expected to object is predicated (I think) on your own misperception of what the “dress up” really entailed. Although I wasn’t there, I have had enough experience working schools to be virtually certain that any “cross-dressing” was minimal, done over regular clothes and did not approach anything like serious drag.
The only ‘specific facts’ in this case are from a new story from an online newspaper which I had never heard about before. Are you saying that noone here can make discussion without facts?
Do you mind showing me where I started name-calling? Or is this a feeble attempt at humour?
What the fuck? I posted the actual text in post 84. Can we just stop with the “what ifs?” and get to the “blinkingblinking is an idiot” conclusion?
I’ve been a teacher at schools which did things like this (including events where kids could pseudo-crossdress) and the thought never entered my head that any radio station would be interested. I never once heard anyone on the faculty say “what will Christian radio think?”
I think that you really have the wrong idea about what the dress up really entails.
No. Because the children were not dressing as transvestites. The children do not know what transvestites are. The children thought it would be wacky to dress opposite to what boys do and girls do. The children, the teachers, and the parents understand this is harmless fun for one day.
The teachers did not “get” the kids to dress as anything. It is you and the religious freaks that are extrapolating some unseemly connotation to a dress up day. It’s not making a mountain out of a molehill, it’s making a mountain out of absolutely nothing.
Go back and read some of the threads where it talks about traditions of boys dressing up as girls and vice versa in American schools. This is not some crazy thing that no one’s ever thought of before.
Post #60. You said this:
You called me a moron and accused me of having a “feeble brain.”
I suppose you’re going to quibble that asking “are you a moron?” is not the same as calling me a moron. I reject that kind of weaselling preemptively. It amounts to the same level of discourse. You started this shit, not me.
Easy.
Yup, looks like you insulted him first.
I did say “Are you some kind of moron?” But that was obviously justified by your writing ‘Cite?’ all the time.
But that was just a question though.
Shouldn’t you be still working on that logic problem instead of posting here ?
Clearly you have been able to make a discussion without facts.
I slicked my hair down, wore a sweater vest and slacks, tie, and painted on a mascara mustache. The football team’s girlfriends wore their beau’s jersey.
Asking you to support an assertion is “moronic?”
So? It was an insulting question, which is fine, I can take it, but by lowering the discourse you disqualified yourself from being able to whine about being responded to in kind.
If this is addressed to me, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Not necessarily, at least as far as choral programs go. Many traditionally religious songs are done, simply because they are classical, traditional pieces.
Again, like I said, MY high school did this during Spirit Week (Homecoming). And there were NO objections, as far as I know. It was just something goofy. And I don’t remember any of the guys participating, except for one or two.
I said, in the PARENT’S eyes. Again, I do NOT agree. I’m just sayin’.
I really, REALLY wish someone would stand up to these bigots (CYA) and tell them to fuck off. The kids were NOT BEING FORCED TO PARTICPATE. IF a parent didn’t want them to do so, the kids didn’t have to. Hell, keep the kid home that day if it offends you that much.
blinkingblinking, if anything, the kid would probably be teased for NOT participating.
If everyone’s doing it, no one’s going to make fun of the kid, for fuck’s sake. And if you have objections to name calling, I suggest you stay out of the Pit. You’ve been around here long enough to know that.
They’re probably more likely to make fun of the kid with a goofy name, like that of an instrument, or some Russian madman.