OT-Only in America

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...GNEWS/50223002

Wayne Knight wrote:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...GNEWS/50223002



That's nothing.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008739.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article ,
says...
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...GNEWS/50223002

I'd take that with a grain of salt until all the facts
are in... You see this a lot. Whenever a kid gets in
trouble at school, the school officials are not allowed
to comment because of confidentiality regs, but the kid
(and his or her parents and lawyers) can say any damn
thing without fear of contradiction. I'd be willing to
bet that there's more to this story, but we won't hear
about it for a long time, if ever.

Kevin
--
reply to:
kevin dot vang at minotstatu dot edu

That's what I thought and tried to look around for an article or two on it.
Seems the little tyke was threatening to cut his self and had trouble with
that in the past.

But one comment was right about young nervous systems and all..

john
"Kevin Vang" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...GNEWS/50223002

I'd take that with a grain of salt until all the facts
are in... You see this a lot. Whenever a kid gets in
trouble at school, the school officials are not allowed
to comment because of confidentiality regs, but the kid
(and his or her parents and lawyers) can say any damn
thing without fear of contradiction. I'd be willing to
bet that there's more to this story, but we won't hear
about it for a long time, if ever.

Kevin
--
reply to:
kevin dot vang at minotstatu dot edu

Kevin Vang wrote:
In article ,
says...

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...GNEWS/50223002


I'd take that with a grain of salt until all the facts
are in... You see this a lot. Whenever a kid gets in
trouble at school, the school officials are not allowed
to comment because of confidentiality regs, but the kid
(and his or her parents and lawyers) can say any damn
thing without fear of contradiction. I'd be willing to
bet that there's more to this story, but we won't hear
about it for a long time, if ever.

It's very, very difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which a
policeman would be justified in tazering a six-year-old child.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Kevin Vang wrote:

I'd take that with a grain of salt until all the facts
are in... You see this a lot. Whenever a kid gets in
trouble at school, the school officials are not allowed
to comment because of confidentiality regs, but the kid
(and his or her parents and lawyers) can say any damn
thing without fear of contradiction. I'd be willing to
bet that there's more to this story,

There may be more to the story but we are talking rubber bands here.
This kind of crap ranks up there with the stories you see about kids
suspended and expelled for bringing cold meds and butter knives to
school.

I saw an AP story this morning where the FCC rightfully said The cusing
and violence in Saving Private Ryan was not considered obsence. But
there was a quote in the article which the FCC said "its indecency and
profanity guidelines were not applicable to violent programming."
Basically you can't watch em make the baby but you can watch em kill
the baby.

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

Somewhere along the way, the baby went out with the bath water, and
zero tolerance became an excuse for not having common sense.

Somewhere along the line we have gotten very lost

On 1 Mar 2005 05:51:37 -0800, "Wayne Knight" wrote:


Kevin Vang wrote:

I'd take that with a grain of salt until all the facts
are in... You see this a lot. Whenever a kid gets in
trouble at school, the school officials are not allowed
to comment because of confidentiality regs, but the kid
(and his or her parents and lawyers) can say any damn
thing without fear of contradiction. I'd be willing to
bet that there's more to this story,

There may be more to the story but we are talking rubber bands here.
This kind of crap ranks up there with the stories you see about kids
suspended and expelled for bringing cold meds and butter knives to
school.

I saw an AP story this morning where the FCC rightfully said The cusing
and violence in Saving Private Ryan was not considered obsence. But
there was a quote in the article which the FCC said "its indecency and
profanity guidelines were not applicable to violent programming."
Basically you can't watch em make the baby but you can watch em kill
the baby.

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

I think it is just butane lighters, but...

Somewhere along the way, the baby went out with the bath water, and
zero tolerance became an excuse for not having common sense.

Somewhere along the line we have gotten very lost

While I agree with you, generally and in principle, a couple of questions: what
exactly does "zero tolerance" mean, and how about using "common sense" in the
criminal justice system, such as no appeals for ANY technicality when guilt is
obvious by using common sense? Wait, three questions - who gets to decide
what's "common sense?" Naturally, if the person proposing the system does,
it's, well, the "common-sense approach." OTOH, if someone else does, that
system is a complete and total violation of their human rights, the Bill of
Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and if some lawyer
can convince the jury of it when they sue, contrary to the laws of God, man, and
beast...

TC,
R

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:28:01 GMT, wrote:

On 1 Mar 2005 05:51:37 -0800, "Wayne Knight" wrote:

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

I think it is just butane lighters, but...

It's any type of lighter:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?th...00051980104b15
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com/ - photo galleries
http://www.chocphoto.com/roff

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:41:33 -0500, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:28:01 GMT, wrote:

On 1 Mar 2005 05:51:37 -0800, "Wayne Knight" wrote:

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

I think it is just butane lighters, but...

It's any type of lighter:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?th...00051980104b15

Ah, that explains it - it isn't to be "fully enforced" until April 15...hmmm -
April 15...

TC,
R

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:28:01 GMT, wrote:

On 1 Mar 2005 05:51:37 -0800, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette
lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

I think it is just butane lighters, but...

It's any type of lighter:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?th...00051980104b15

Yah, big deal. So, after the next successful hijacking they make all
the passengers ride naked.

It's the one after THAT that worries me.

Wolfgang
save lives.....arm passengers.