Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 484406)

Every now and then I'd feel a tiny bit sorry for her, and then she'd say something outrageous or offensive or ridiculous, and any sympathy I had would go flying out the window.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 484407)

Agreed. I actually had a few halfway decent exchanges with her over pm in which I could see that a human being existed behind all of the garbage. But then she would fuck it all up.

And she would have disappeared quicker if Penske and Flower had stuck to the plan to ignore her, but they (Penske especially) thought she was entertaining. She was...the first 3 months.

TM

Originally Posted by dtb (Post 484405)

While I cannot cite chapter and verse about why schools do (or do not) have jurisdiction over inter-student contact, even outside of school hours and off school property -- I have no idea what level of scrutiny applies to reviews of laws enacted that grant such jurisdiction, or what the common law says, even in my own state, if I were deciding the matter, I would find jurisdiction. However, I would gladly accept that schools should have jurisdiction over inter-student contact under those circumstances, as it speaks to the education of the child as a whole person/citizen, which doesn't stop at the schoolhouse door. As Bnb noted, private schools (I know, I know, different kettle of fish) exert jurisdiction in those circumstances on that basis.

I don't need any veil of ignorance in order to decide that the right thing to do is deny cover or excuses for children (or anyone, really) to degrade the humanity of another person. Why would the fact that my own child is the perpetrator change that choice?

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484399)

I'm all about "the First Amendment is not absolute." Ask the fucking Rosenbergs about "make no law." But: We Have A Law Against Thing 'A'; Logically We Can Have A Law Against Thing 'B' is definitely not a winning strategy. I read cases against school districts who impose discipline for pure speech acts, and they don't always come out like you'd expect.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 484349)

Serious Flower makes me sad. [sad face]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 484407)

Agreed. I actually had a few halfway decent exchanges with her over pm in which I could see that a human being existed behind all of the garbage. But then she would fuck it all up.

And she would have disappeared quicker if Penske and Flower had stuck to the plan to ignore her, but they (Penske especially) thought she was entertaining. And to be honest, she was...the first 3 months.

TM

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 484417)

I'll mention here that my wife follows Teegan & Sara on Instagram (I am Not Kidding); that should trigger Flower's Id to require that Serious Flower send some shade my way.

Will that help make you less sad, Coltrane?

Not Bob in 2016: He Cares.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 484419)

I assume your purposefully misspelled Tegan to make me think that you don't actually sit around with your wife doing a cappellas version of their songs while co-moderating the local branch of the Tegan & Sara Biggest Fans Ever internet chatting site. Good play.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 484408)

The last time we all (or at least you and me) engaged her until we decided not to. I remember it was a July 1, that was the day we stopped.

"A woman needs a man a career and a child or she is just bitter." You have to sort of admire the beauty of her ugliness.

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 484421)

There was the whole thing about how I was a terrible mother because I was divorced too. That one I don't think I'll ever forget.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 484408)

The last time we all (or at least you and me) engaged her until we decided not to. I remember it was a July 1, that was the day we stopped.

"A woman needs a man a career and a child or she is just bitter." You have to sort of admire the beauty of her ugliness.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484337)

2. But... Most cops aren't against marijuana legalization. They'd love to stop wasting time on enforcement of that mindless prohibition. And replacing the wasted time spent enforcing pot laws with investigations of bullying incidents is, in terms of efficiency and economics, no improvement.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484344)

The harm is that we've already got more than enough idiotic interference on the part of law enforcement and government. We're just getting to the point where govt is realizing it has no business telling people they can't smoke pot, and should not be deciding who can and cannot marry. And so given these strides in paring down its officious interactions with the public regarding these matters, it should now start regulating other private behaviors?

The red tape created by endless do-gooder laws is endless. It hampers our economy. It creates needless bureaucratic work. And it's all counterproductive. The more you teach people to ask the govt for intervention, the more they'll lose the ability to handle the problem on their own.