|
Post by momto4 on Oct 22, 2008 9:29:07 GMT -5
Why is it so hard to accept that people shouldn't have to be forced to have kids at different public high schools? Why is it so difficult to have kids at two high schools? In some previous year it's likely that one of those kids was at MS while one was at HS. I don't see why this is so very different.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Oct 22, 2008 9:31:28 GMT -5
Nice to see he is clearly holding a grudge -- what a prick. Furthermore, the slippery slope argument is extremely weak. Granting an exception for siblings who are currently enrolled (I don't think one would be given if a sibling already graduated, for example) is not unreasonable. And I think if a family were able to get the transfer under this exception, they should be responsible for transportation. M2's statements are reality and a very good reason not to open up this pandora's box. But I do wonder why he felt the need to give a quote like that to the press. He knew his words would just fuel the fire - I just don't think he needed to publicly state that fear of a lawsuit was one of the reasons not to grant exceptions. There are other good reasons that have been publicly stated. He should have had enough good judgement to let those reasons stand on their own. His behavior leads me to believe that he does harbor some lingering resentment. Personally, I could care less if the Administration decides to make exceptions, but they better be very careful if they do decide to go down that road.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Oct 22, 2008 9:44:05 GMT -5
M2's statements are reality and a very good reason not to open up this pandora's box. But I do wonder why he felt the need to give a quote like that to the press. He knew his words would just fuel the fire - I just don't think he needed to publicly state that fear of a lawsuit was one of the reasons not to grant exceptions. Do you really think it matters what reason M2 had given for no exceptions? I don't. No matter what he said, it would have been taken as a direct insult to some in this district. The lawsuit is a very important, valid reason not to make exceptions. Of course, that is only my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Oct 22, 2008 9:53:18 GMT -5
Of course it matters. If he had said it was because he wanted to get back at Tall Grass, it wouldn't have mattered? The irony is that he insulted the whole district, which as justvote intimated, was at the very least unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 22, 2008 9:59:58 GMT -5
THERE IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE. That is simply a scare tactic. I am talking about a very strict, limited exception. Why is it so hard to accept that people shouldn't have to be forced to have kids at different public high schools? And I stand by my words about Metzger. He created this monster. Why is it so difficult to understand that with a big SD like this, making 100's of exceptions to rules makes things complicated both now and in the future, when more people ask for more exceptions based on previous exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Oct 22, 2008 10:36:42 GMT -5
Nice to see he is clearly holding a grudge -- what a prick. Furthermore, the slippery slope argument is extremely weak. Granting an exception for siblings who are currently enrolled (I don't think one would be given if a sibling already graduated, for example) is not unreasonable. And I think if a family were able to get the transfer under this exception, they should be responsible for transportation. If it walks like a pig, and smells like a pig........
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Oct 22, 2008 10:37:50 GMT -5
M2's statements are reality and a very good reason not to open up this pandora's box. But I do wonder why he felt the need to give a quote like that to the press. He knew his words would just fuel the fire - I just don't think he needed to publicly state that fear of a lawsuit was one of the reasons not to grant exceptions. Do you really think it matters what reason M2 had given for no exceptions? I don't. No matter what he said, it would have been taken as a direct insult to some in this district. The lawsuit is a very important, valid reason not to make exceptions. Of course, that is only my opinion. There's no question that M2 is despised by some, which boosts the argument even more. Why would he publicly bring the one issue he knew would have the most negative emotional impact back into the spotlight? I just don't think it served any purpose other than to pour salt in the wound.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 22, 2008 10:45:20 GMT -5
Do you really think it matters what reason M2 had given for no exceptions? I don't. No matter what he said, it would have been taken as a direct insult to some in this district. The lawsuit is a very important, valid reason not to make exceptions. Of course, that is only my opinion. There's no question that M2 is despised by some, which boosts the argument even more. Why would he publicly bring the one issue he knew would have the most negative emotional impact back into the spotlight? I just don't think it served any purpose other than to pour salt in the wound. Here's where I see it differently - he made this quantifiable/objective by stating a fact (there HAVE BEEN threats of lawsuits and the actaul filing of at least one) - any other response would have been more subjective, and opion-based (i.e. "I don't THINK it's a good idea", "I THINK it's a slipperly slope", "I THINK this is unfair to person X", etc.) If he were to simply share his OPINION that there should be no granfathering, would people not respond in a negative way? If you said Yes, I call BS.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 22, 2008 11:35:41 GMT -5
THERE IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE. That is simply a scare tactic. I am talking about a very strict, limited exception. Why is it so hard to accept that people shouldn't have to be forced to have kids at different public high schools? And I stand by my words about Metzger. He created this monster. Methinks someone is reading WAAAAY too much into a comment of fact.........probably due to some hypersensitivity. And as stated say said parents want their cild to go the the school with their twin siblings....all very nice, but ISHA rules would forbid competing in swimming then (or any other sports), which kinda defeats their arguement.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Oct 22, 2008 11:36:02 GMT -5
There's no question that M2 is despised by some, which boosts the argument even more. Why would he publicly bring the one issue he knew would have the most negative emotional impact back into the spotlight? I just don't think it served any purpose other than to pour salt in the wound. Here's where I see it differently - he made this quantifiable/objective by stating a fact (there HAVE BEEN threats of lawsuits and the actaul filing of at least one) - any other response would have been more subjective, and opion-based (i.e. "I don't THINK it's a good idea", "I THINK it's a slipperly slope", "I THINK this is unfair to person X", etc.) If he were to simply share his OPINION that there should be no granfathering, would people not respond in a negative way? If you said Yes, I call BS. No question that it's a quanitifiable/objective fact that the lawsuit is a factor when making the decision to whether or not to grant exceptions. I don't dispute that. I just question his motiviation for PUBLICLY stating this as a reason as M2 knew darn well that this is an emotionally laden issue and that his comments would not be well-received by some. IMHO - he either used bad judgement with those public statements or the comments were made intentionally to garner a reaction. Based on what I know about M2, my personal opinion is that the statement was made deliberately.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 22, 2008 11:43:14 GMT -5
Of course it matters. If he had said it was because he wanted to get back at Tall Grass, it wouldn't have mattered? The irony is that he insulted the whole district, which as justvote intimated, was at the very least unnecessary. I must have missed where he said Tall Grass.......You are reading waaay too much into things.........
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 22, 2008 11:46:04 GMT -5
Here's where I see it differently - he made this quantifiable/objective by stating a fact (there HAVE BEEN threats of lawsuits and the actaul filing of at least one) - any other response would have been more subjective, and opion-based (i.e. "I don't THINK it's a good idea", "I THINK it's a slipperly slope", "I THINK this is unfair to person X", etc.) If he were to simply share his OPINION that there should be no granfathering, would people not respond in a negative way? If you said Yes, I call BS. No question that it's a quanitifiable/objective fact that the lawsuit is a factor when making the decision to whether or not to grant exceptions. I don't dispute that. I just question his motiviation for PUBLICLY stating this as a reason as M2 knew darn well that this is an emotionally laden issue and that his comments would not be well-received by some. IMHO - he either used bad judgement with those public statements or the comments were made intentionally to garner a reaction. Based on what I know about M2, my personal opinion is that the statement was made deliberately. Not being a real big fan M2 anyway, I do agree he would better served(as would the rest of us) if he would just not say anything.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Oct 22, 2008 11:49:33 GMT -5
What's strange about this is that the printed version shows a different heading on this article. It says: Indian Prairie Trustee urges flexibility in boundaries
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 22, 2008 12:13:46 GMT -5
Here's where I see it differently - he made this quantifiable/objective by stating a fact (there HAVE BEEN threats of lawsuits and the actaul filing of at least one) - any other response would have been more subjective, and opion-based (i.e. "I don't THINK it's a good idea", "I THINK it's a slipperly slope", "I THINK this is unfair to person X", etc.) If he were to simply share his OPINION that there should be no granfathering, would people not respond in a negative way? If you said Yes, I call BS. No question that it's a quanitifiable/objective fact that the lawsuit is a factor when making the decision to whether or not to grant exceptions. I don't dispute that. I just question his motiviation for PUBLICLY stating this as a reason as M2 knew darn well that this is an emotionally laden issue and that his comments would not be well-received by some. IMHO - he either used bad judgement with those public statements or the comments were made intentionally to garner a reaction. Based on what I know about M2, my personal opinion is that the statement was made deliberately. Was he supposed to lie? Or was he supposed to make up a reason that wouldn't garner any reaction? I don't think he could have said anything without there being a negative backlash from some that will never "get over" it.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Oct 22, 2008 12:32:45 GMT -5
No question that it's a quanitifiable/objective fact that the lawsuit is a factor when making the decision to whether or not to grant exceptions. I don't dispute that. I just question his motiviation for PUBLICLY stating this as a reason as M2 knew darn well that this is an emotionally laden issue and that his comments would not be well-received by some. IMHO - he either used bad judgement with those public statements or the comments were made intentionally to garner a reaction. Based on what I know about M2, my personal opinion is that the statement was made deliberately. Was he supposed to lie? Or was he supposed to make up a reason that wouldn't garner any reaction? I don't think he could have said anything without there being a negative backlash from some that will never "get over" it. I hear what you're saying and you're right about the negative backlash - it would be there no matter what he said, but he would not have to make up a reason for no excpetions as there are other very good reasons that are not so emotionally charged. I still believe he chose to speak about the lawsuit to deliberately p*ss some people off. It's very difficult to "get over it" - on both sides. I certainly haven't forgotten about the lawsuit and won't for a long time.
|
|