On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Dave Smith wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > You don't remember why he wore that extra pair of gloves? It was to
> > protect him from the cooties of the "real murderer" (it was something
> > contagious, like HIV, which the jury understood as well as they
> > understood the DNA evidence).
>
> Well obviously he didn't like to get the blood of other people on his hands,
> which explains why he used the gloves in the first place. If I had a snug
> fitting pair of gloves that had been wet with blood, dried out and then a year
> and a half later I tried to put them on over top of a dry latex glove I can
> guarantee that I would not be able to get them on without great effort.
>
>

Then there is that factor that leather "draws up" when it is soaking wet
and then allowed to dry - no matter what the "wet" was. The finer the
cure, the finer the leather, and the more the shrinkage.

He couldn't have gotten that glove on his hand with the jaws of life. If
the prosecution had really been trying the case, they would have had a new
pair of gloves of the same make, model, and size to show the difference.
The "bloody glove" was distorted from its original shape and size so
drastically that it was easily discernable on my tv screen.

Elaine, too

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Gene wrote:

> He's GUILTY...he just got away with it.....
>
>
>

That's why they call it "not guilty [under the law]" instead of innocent.

Elaine, too

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...

<snip>

>> I also believe the mother of the boy should have been thrown in jail for
>> "Child
>> endangerment" the one question to ask yourself is: Would you let your child
>> have
>> a sleep-over with a 42 year old person in their bedroom?
>>
>> I don't know about you but I think not.
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> There is less and less competent parenting these days. In more than
> half the American househlds there is no parent at home most of the
> time, an absentee parent is more detrimental to a child's development
> than no parent at all... a foster home or addoption is a far better
> choice for those who'd bring children into the world but choose not to
> parent full time. And with so many single parent households or with
> both mother and father working, chidren are effectively abandoned...
> day care centers are a cop-out rationalization, they're no different
> from kennels... it's no wonder so many of today's youth ends up in
> prison, they are from the cradle made used to a cage. When you foist
> your child upon a Child Day-Care Institution you are still the
> mother/father but you are NOT a parent.

You're trying to get me started right?

I think the school boards should be held criminally responsible for FRAUD!

They're taking tax dollars and "graduating illiterate people" That's taking
money under false pretenses.

I paid for 16 years of private education for 4 daughters. Their education was
My responsibility and I would not abdicate that responsibility to some state
idiots.

Dimitri

On 2005-06-14, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
> On Tue 14 Jun 2005 02:37:51a, notbob wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On 2005-06-14, Nexis > wrote:
>>
>>> any better than the rest of us in the general public if he is guilty of
>>> anything more than a disconnection from reality.
>>
>> If you truly believe that, I think you are suffering from a
>> disconnection from reality.
>>
>> nb
>>
>
> Obviously, you must have been there. Maybe in his bed, too.
>

On 14 Jun 2005 10:05:52 -0700, Sheldon wrote:

> There is less and less competent parenting these days.

We have a local case where a 12 year old was killed by the family pit
bull. Mom just digs the hole deeper and deeper every time she opens
her mouth in subsequent newspaper interviews. There are people who
shouldn't be allowed to have pets or kids... and she's one of them.

http://tinyurl.com/ap9ko
http://tinyurl.com/8lw6l

In article >,
"Dimitri" > wrote:

> You're trying to get me started right?
>
> I think the school boards should be held criminally responsible for FRAUD!
>
> They're taking tax dollars and "graduating illiterate people" That's taking
> money under false pretenses.
>
> I paid for 16 years of private education for 4 daughters. Their education
> was
> My responsibility and I would not abdicate that responsibility to some state
> idiots.

Hear, hear! We would live in a shack (and were prepared to, we lived
in a 900 square ft duplex with three little boys, until this job came
along) before we'd send our kids to public school. We pay for private
school, I homeschool the preschool kids (new decision, the older two
went to preschool) and we do as much fun learning as possible at home.
We live in the woods and there are ample opportunities to teach them
about plants and animals and their dad is a pilot who teaches them about
weather and lift and flying and mechanics. They are better behaved and
much more curious about the world than the kids fed on television and
self-esteem.

Regards,
Ranee (who thinks that self-worth, knowledge and hard work are more
important than self-esteem and has yet to meet anyone who didn't esteem
his/herself a little too much)

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

On 2005-06-14, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> Obviously, you must have been there. Maybe in his bed, too.
>

One need not be there to realize this is one sick puppy. He openly
admits his preference for bedding kids. Also, your childish comment
was uncalled for.

nb

On Tue 14 Jun 2005 11:42:27a, notbob wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2005-06-14, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> Obviously, you must have been there. Maybe in his bed, too.
>>
>
> One need not be there to realize this is one sick puppy. He openly
> admits his preference for bedding kids. Also, your childish comment
> was uncalled for.

Sorry, nb, I apologize. However, I am getting sick of everyone
pontificating about the "truth" they "know"! Unless you have first hand
knowledge, then you simply don't know.

I'll be the first to admit that Michael Jackson is one of the strangest
people ever known to the public. However, that provides no proof of the
acts he was allegedly accused of. If there was clear and irrefutable
evidence of this, he would have been convicted.

Was it impossible that any of this might have occurred? No, anything is
possible, but you can't convict someone on possibility.

--
Wayne Boatwright Õ¿Õ¬
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

"Ranee Mueller" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> Hear, hear! We would live in a shack (and were prepared to, we lived
> in a 900 square ft duplex with three little boys, until this job came
> along) before we'd send our kids to public school. We pay for private
> school, I homeschool the preschool kids (new decision, the older two
> went to preschool) and we do as much fun learning as possible at home.
> We live in the woods and there are ample opportunities to teach them
> about plants and animals and their dad is a pilot who teaches them about
> weather and lift and flying and mechanics. They are better behaved and
> much more curious about the world than the kids fed on television and
> self-esteem.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee (who thinks that self-worth, knowledge and hard work are more
> important than self-esteem and has yet to meet anyone who didn't esteem
> his/herself a little too much)

Many years ago I thought at length about my "obligation" to my children. I came
to 2 conclusions the first was unworkable - leave them with enough money where
they will never have to work. The second was more realistic - give them the
tools to both survive and be successful when I am no longer around to help them.
The only way I could do that is through education. Ergo my obligation was to
make sure they got the best education I could possible give them.

Although I swore I would never subject them to a parochial education (which I
hated) the 3 R's that the nuns POUNDED and I mean pounded into the kids is still
the best possible foundation.

Now they each owe dear 'ol dad a Mercedes. ( a good one)

;-)


Dimitri

On Tue 14 Jun 2005 12:06:06p, Dimitri wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Ranee Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Hear, hear! We would live in a shack (and were prepared to, we lived
>> in a 900 square ft duplex with three little boys, until this job came
>> along) before we'd send our kids to public school. We pay for private
>> school, I homeschool the preschool kids (new decision, the older two
>> went to preschool) and we do as much fun learning as possible at home.
>> We live in the woods and there are ample opportunities to teach them
>> about plants and animals and their dad is a pilot who teaches them
>> about weather and lift and flying and mechanics. They are better
>> behaved and much more curious about the world than the kids fed on
>> television and self-esteem.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ranee (who thinks that self-worth, knowledge and hard work are more
>> important than self-esteem and has yet to meet anyone who didn't esteem
>> his/herself a little too much)
>
> Many years ago I thought at length about my "obligation" to my children.
> I came to 2 conclusions the first was unworkable - leave them with
> enough money where they will never have to work. The second was more
> realistic - give them the tools to both survive and be successful when I
> am no longer around to help them. The only way I could do that is
> through education. Ergo my obligation was to make sure they got the best
> education I could possible give them.
>
> Although I swore I would never subject them to a parochial education
> (which I hated) the 3 R's that the nuns POUNDED and I mean pounded into
> the kids is still the best possible foundation.
>
> Now they each owe dear 'ol dad a Mercedes. ( a good one)
>
> ;-)

How many Mercedes can you drive at once?

--
Wayne Boatwright Õ¿Õ¬
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

"BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> NOT GUILTY
>

this is a surprise? The case was a little short on fact, to say the least.

I am glad to see the 9th circuit's dominions has not adopted the
"guilt-by-innuendo" method of trial used in certain other parts of the
country.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>
> Sorry, nb, I apologize. However, I am getting sick of everyone
> pontificating about the "truth" they "know"! Unless you have first hand
> knowledge, then you simply don't know.

The only truth I know is that he is a man in his 40s who has sleepovers with
young boys. That tells me all I need to know. Whether or not he touched
them inappropriately, fed them booze, showed them porn etc. as the new items
reported, he is pretty sick just to have those sleepovers.

I also consider the parents to be equally culpable for letting their sons
sleep over with a guy who shares his bed with prepubescent boys, a guy who
has a high feminine voice and who has had enough cosmetic surgery to make
himself look like an extraterrestrial. I wouldn't let my kids sleep in the
same bed with any adult, never mind one who is obviously a freak.


> I'll be the first to admit that Michael Jackson is one of the strangest
> people ever known to the public. However, that provides no proof of the
> acts he was allegedly accused of. If there was clear and irrefutable
> evidence of this, he would have been convicted.

It obviously was not a clear cut case, or else the jury would have been out
in an hour or two instead of needed more than 30 hours of deliberation.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-06-14, sf > wrote:
>
> > "If the glove don't fit, you must aquit!" That was smoke/mirrors and
> > a lot of bad acting that the jury swallowed hook line and sinker.
>
> Tell 'em, sf. That was the most blatant pile of steaming dung
> presented in the whole trial. What the Hell were the oversized ill
> fitting pvc gloves on OJ's hands he was trying to slip the evidence
> gloves over? What was the pretext for their use? Gee, can I arch my
> hands to make it look like gloves don't fit, specially over another
> pair of oversized high-friction gloves! "Smoke/mirror" is an
> understatemnt. It was pure bullshit and the jury and judge should
> have seen through it.
>
> nb

apparently all the jurors in California are ignorant and unable to tell
truth from fiction - unlike those of us who can tune in for a 10 minute fox
news recap and really know
what's going on, thus not having to endure all that tedious trial evidence
and interpretations given from two sides.
where do they get so many jurors who don't agree with the fox analysts?
It's a crime.

In article >, "Dimitri"
> wrote:


> I think the school boards should be held criminally responsible for FRAUD!
>
> They're taking tax dollars and "graduating illiterate people" That's taking
> money under false pretenses.


They are providing an educational environment. There's a saying, "You can
lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink". There are some
pretty well-educated students coming out of public schools. What's the
difference between those kids and the kids who are illiterate? I'll give
you a hint, it isn't the teachers!


> I paid for 16 years of private education for 4 daughters. Their
education was
> My responsibility and I would not abdicate that responsibility to some state
> idiots.


There are a lot of state idiots in California. None of them actually do
any educating. Education is strictly under local control, although the
state keeps passing more and more ridiculous laws and regulations. They
seem to feel that they can improve education by passing laws and raising
the standards, all the while cutting back the funding. California has one
of the lowest per pupil spending rates in the US. I wonder why education
is in trouble? The latest law is that no textbook can be longer than 200
pages! It doesn't matter what the level or area is. The thought is that
students should be getting their details off the internet, so the
textbooks should have general stuff and lots of URLs pointing to where to
get the details. Of course, the poorer schools tend to have fewer high
speed connections, and poor families sometimes have little or no computer
access at all at home.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

150 years ago in the US, no one thought anything odd when two males slept
in the same bed. They weren't ***. That was the way it was if the inn was
full or a guest came over. And there were two beds for the family.

60 years ago, men and boys in the extended family in much of the US slept in
the same bed when guests were over, or when it was below zero outside and
the oil stove was downstairs, and no one thought badly of it. No ***, no
pedophilia to it.

Today, there must be a wall between anyone over 40 and anyone under 40, and
an adult present whenever men are around children, because "we all know"
that adult males chase children for sexual gratification
- why do we know this? Because the viewer has a boring life and she watches
too much Oprah and Jerry Springer and has such a boring life they are not
like the guests? Or is it because all the brothers, the Uncle Bobs, are
pedophiles that you have to invite over?

Sad state of affairs when every close relative in the US is thought of as a
potential pedophile, and every bit of aberrant behavior is seen as an
indication of irreparable harm to another.

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

Of course, Rush has been telling everyone they are all equally as expert as
some person who has spent their life in a particular field, so after being
pandered to long enough, it figures that much of the country might get
ignorant and kind-of-pregnant.

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:10:04 -0500, notbob > wrote:
>
> >On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com > wrote:
> >
> >> NOT GUILTY
> >
> >Oh swell! More reinforcement for Michael to continue his perverted
> >antics. That jury ...or perhaps the judge... should be put up on
> >charges.
>
> I wasn't a juror who was presented with all the evidence and testimony
> available and neither were you, but I've thought all along that
> Jackson isn't guilty as this prosecutor has presented the charges.
> From what I can infer, he is likely asexual and so disconnected with
> reality, so unable to exercise good judgment that he really thinks he
> can be playmates with these kids. The bit where he said - and proudly
> - in a national interview that he slept platonically with the boys
> was more or less a "tell," as they say in gambling, for me. He
> actually sees no problem with an adult male sleeping with juvenile
> males b/c he's just "one of the boys" himself with no sexual agenda.
> And he *has* no sexual agenda b/c he is asexual, IMHO.
>
> I actually have used the term "Michael Jackson Syndrome" to define a
> person who is so wealthy and famous that they have no one around them
> with the power to give him or her a reality check, just a bunch of
> flunkies on his or her payroll. Who in Michael Jackson's entourage is
> gonna say, "Hey, Michael, maybe putting young boys in your bed is a
> reeeally bad idea and sends out reeeally bad signals..." YMMV, but I
> think the only thing MJ is likely guilty of is being an idiot and
> surrounding himself with more idiots.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
> AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA
>
> "If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
> old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
> waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."
>
> -- Duncan Hines
>
> To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On Tue 14 Jun 2005 12:20:20p, Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, nb, I apologize. However, I am getting sick of everyone
>> pontificating about the "truth" they "know"! Unless you have first
>> hand knowledge, then you simply don't know.
>
> The only truth I know is that he is a man in his 40s who has sleepovers
> with young boys. That tells me all I need to know. Whether or not he
> touched them inappropriately, fed them booze, showed them porn etc. as
> the new items reported, he is pretty sick just to have those sleepovers.

I totally agree. However, that was not the charge.

> I also consider the parents to be equally culpable for letting their
> sons sleep over with a guy who shares his bed with prepubescent boys, a
> guy who has a high feminine voice and who has had enough cosmetic
> surgery to make himself look like an extraterrestrial. I wouldn't let
> my kids sleep in the same bed with any adult, never mind one who is
> obviously a freak.

The parents, IMO, are more at fault than Jackson.

>> I'll be the first to admit that Michael Jackson is one of the strangest
>> people ever known to the public. However, that provides no proof of
>> the acts he was allegedly accused of. If there was clear and
>> irrefutable evidence of this, he would have been convicted.
>
> It obviously was not a clear cut case, or else the jury would have been
> out in an hour or two instead of needed more than 30 hours of
> deliberation.

You're absolutely right.

--
Wayne Boatwright Õ¿Õ¬
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dimitri"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I think the school boards should be held criminally responsible for FRAUD!
>>
>> They're taking tax dollars and "graduating illiterate people" That's taking
>> money under false pretenses.
>
>
> They are providing an educational environment. There's a saying, "You can
> lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink". There are some
> pretty well-educated students coming out of public schools. What's the
> difference between those kids and the kids who are illiterate? I'll give
> you a hint, it isn't the teachers!
>
>
>> I paid for 16 years of private education for 4 daughters. Their
> education was
>> My responsibility and I would not abdicate that responsibility to some state
>> idiots.
>
>
> There are a lot of state idiots in California. None of them actually do
> any educating. Education is strictly under local control, although the
> state keeps passing more and more ridiculous laws and regulations. They
> seem to feel that they can improve education by passing laws and raising
> the standards, all the while cutting back the funding. California has one
> of the lowest per pupil spending rates in the US. I wonder why education
> is in trouble? The latest law is that no textbook can be longer than 200
> pages! It doesn't matter what the level or area is. The thought is that
> students should be getting their details off the internet, so the
> textbooks should have general stuff and lots of URLs pointing to where to
> get the details. Of course, the poorer schools tend to have fewer high
> speed connections, and poor families sometimes have little or no computer
> access at all at home.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
>

Local control my ass:

LA unified spends over 9 BILLION DOLLARS OF TAX MONEY A YEAR and it ain't
enough.

http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/com...xsum200203.pdf

See page 22.

Have you really looked at a Mickey Dee's or Denny's Menu? They're PICTOGRAPHS!

Sure there are some exceptions but good lord man, the system is BROKEN.

See what Sheldon started.

Dimitri
Getting off the soap box.

;-)

Dimitri wrote:
> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dimitri"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I think the school boards should be held criminally responsible for FRAUD!
> >>
> >> They're taking tax dollars and "graduating illiterate people" That's taking
> >> money under false pretenses.
> >
> >
> > They are providing an educational environment. There's a saying, "You can
> > lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink". There are some
> > pretty well-educated students coming out of public schools. What's the
> > difference between those kids and the kids who are illiterate? I'll give
> > you a hint, it isn't the teachers!
> >
> >
> >> I paid for 16 years of private education for 4 daughters. Their
> > education was
> >> My responsibility and I would not abdicate that responsibility to some state
> >> idiots.
> >
> >
> > There are a lot of state idiots in California. None of them actually do
> > any educating. Education is strictly under local control, although the
> > state keeps passing more and more ridiculous laws and regulations. They
> > seem to feel that they can improve education by passing laws and raising
> > the standards, all the while cutting back the funding. California has one
> > of the lowest per pupil spending rates in the US. I wonder why education
> > is in trouble? The latest law is that no textbook can be longer than 200
> > pages! It doesn't matter what the level or area is. The thought is that
> > students should be getting their details off the internet, so the
> > textbooks should have general stuff and lots of URLs pointing to where to
> > get the details. Of course, the poorer schools tend to have fewer high
> > speed connections, and poor families sometimes have little or no computer
> > access at all at home.
> >
> > --
> > Dan Abel
> > Sonoma State University
> > AIS
> >
>
> Local control my ass:
>
> LA unified spends over 9 BILLION DOLLARS OF TAX MONEY A YEAR and it ain't
> enough.
>
> http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/com...xsum200203.pdf
>
> See page 22.
>
> Have you really looked at a Mickey Dee's or Denny's Menu? They're PICTOGRAPHS!
>
> Sure there are some exceptions but good lord man, the system is BROKEN.
>
> See what Sheldon started.

Me? I never brought up any educational system, especially not the CA
educational system... how could I, they don't have one. hehe

Sheldon

On 2005-06-14, -- > wrote:
> 150 years ago in the US, no one thought anything odd when two males slept
> in the same bed.

I'm sure it's not as big a deal as you make it out to be, even today.
It's one thing for cousin Freddy to sleep with uncle Gus during a
family reunion or a cold night or Ishmeal bunking with Queequeg when
the inn is full. It's quite another when a 40 year old man invites 12
year olds to his bed when he has bedrooms and bunks aplenty. In
Michael's case, there are no valid reasons to invite kids into his bed
other than questionable ones. MJ didn't pay *millions* of dollars to
hush up something that didn't happen.

nb

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in
:

>> I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the
>> world who find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and
>> needs serious therapy, but attacking him through his music is
>> just silly. It may not be your cup of tea, but that hardly makes
>> him a "no-talent" performer.
>
> Yes, and lots of people eat at McDonalds but that does not make it
> good food. Lots of people read romance novels but that does not
> make them good writing. Lots of people watch soap operas but that
> does not make them good drama. Need I continue?

De digustibus et coloribus non disputantur.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:34:23 -0700, (Dan Abel) wrote:

>They are providing an educational environment. There's a saying, "You can
>lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink". There are some
>pretty well-educated students coming out of public schools. What's the
>difference between those kids and the kids who are illiterate? I'll give
>you a hint, it isn't the teachers!

I'm a product of public education and a public school teacher. I make
it a point of pride to have all of my first graders reading on grade
level or above by the end of the year.

My brothers and sister are all products of public school. I'll send
my children to public school.

My older brother and I both attended an extremely rural and, sad to
say, subpar K-12 school. I moved away and graduated from high school
in a different state. My brother stayed and graduated from the rural
school. He is a successful civil engineer with a master's degree. My
bachelor's degree is in finance and my master's degree is in
elementary education. If you are motivated and interested, you will
learn.

Tara

OB Food: The lunchroom at my school used to make some delicious
homemade food -- really tasty soups, chili, yeast rolls. This year,
we have a new "dietician" in charge and she is concerned with only the
bottom line. The homemade food has been replaced with lots of
prepackaged, mediocre, frozen dishes.

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:10:04 -0500, notbob > wrote:
>
> >On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com > wrote:
> >
> >> NOT GUILTY
> >
> >Oh swell! More reinforcement for Michael to continue his perverted
> >antics. That jury ...or perhaps the judge... should be put up on
> >charges.
>
> I wasn't a juror who was presented with all the evidence and testimony
> available and neither were you, but I've thought all along that
> Jackson isn't guilty as this prosecutor has presented the charges.
> From what I can infer, he is likely asexual and so disconnected with
> reality, so unable to exercise good judgment that he really thinks he
> can be playmates with these kids. The bit where he said - and proudly
> - in a national interview that he slept platonically with the boys
> was more or less a "tell," as they say in gambling, for me. He
> actually sees no problem with an adult male sleeping with juvenile
> males b/c he's just "one of the boys" himself with no sexual agenda.
> And he *has* no sexual agenda b/c he is asexual, IMHO.
>
> I actually have used the term "Michael Jackson Syndrome" to define a
> person who is so wealthy and famous that they have no one around them
> with the power to give him or her a reality check, just a bunch of
> flunkies on his or her payroll. Who in Michael Jackson's entourage is
> gonna say, "Hey, Michael, maybe putting young boys in your bed is a
> reeeally bad idea and sends out reeeally bad signals..." YMMV, but I
> think the only thing MJ is likely guilty of is being an idiot and
> surrounding himself with more idiots.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
> AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

I totally agree and have from the beginning. He is also guilty of
being really, really strange. I thought all along that Sneddon's
vendetta-ish case was so weak that if MJ's lawyers couldn't get him
acquitted, they would have to be the most incompetent lawyers ever.

I do hope MJ does manage to fade away into nothingness, as far as being
newsworthy goes.

N.

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ps.com...

<snip>

>> Local control my ass:
>>
>> LA unified spends over 9 BILLION DOLLARS OF TAX MONEY A YEAR and it ain't
>> enough.
>>
>> http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/com...xsum200203.pdf
>>
>> See page 22.
>>
>> Have you really looked at a Mickey Dee's or Denny's Menu? They're
>> PICTOGRAPHS!
>>
>> Sure there are some exceptions but good lord man, the system is BROKEN.
>>
>> See what Sheldon started.
>
> Me? I never brought up any educational system, especially not the CA
> educational system... how could I, they don't have one. hehe
>
> Sheldon

Damn when you're right you're right!

;-)

Dimitri

Wow. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that there is no such thing as
homeschooling and that failing to put my kids in preschool was the same
as child abuse. Even if I agreed with the first premise, which I don't,
I just don't think I am up to doing all of the kids' schooling, I cannot
fathom how missing out on sandboxes and fingerpaints with loads of
children instead of with a few children is somehow child abuse.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

Ranee Mueller wrote:
> Wow. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that there is no such thing as
> homeschooling and that failing to put my kids in preschool was the same
> as child abuse.

Last I looked, preschool was still not required. In the near future, though,
I anticipate that all children will be required to attend federally-run
preschools in the interest of homeland security so that they may all be
turned into mealy mouthed little stormtroopers with "W"'s on their chests
whose only means of self-defense is to run behind the nearest flag (just
MHO, of course).


> Even if I agreed with the first premise, which I don't,
> I just don't think I am up to doing all of the kids' schooling, I cannot
> fathom how missing out on sandboxes and fingerpaints with loads of
> children instead of with a few children is somehow child abuse.

It isn't. It's a missed opportunity for socialization with loads of other
little sandthrowers and paintflingers from families with different
backgrounds and priorities, but it's not abuse.

<this was not a political broadcast>

I don't recall ever hearing that MJ was related to these children he
had for sleepovers. And, most importantly, it is pretty naive to think
that 60 to 150 years ago pedopilia was not a possibility or probality when
adult men slept in the bed with male children -- relatives or not.
Happened more than people want to admit.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, -- wrote:

> 150 years ago in the US, no one thought anything odd when two males slept
> in the same bed. They weren't ***. That was the way it was if the inn was
> full or a guest came over. And there were two beds for the family.
>
> 60 years ago, men and boys in the extended family in much of the US slept in
> the same bed when guests were over, or when it was below zero outside and
> the oil stove was downstairs, and no one thought badly of it. No ***, no
> pedophilia to it.
>
> Today, there must be a wall between anyone over 40 and anyone under 40, and
> an adult present whenever men are around children, because "we all know"
> that adult males chase children for sexual gratification
> - why do we know this? Because the viewer has a boring life and she watches
> too much Oprah and Jerry Springer and has such a boring life they are not
> like the guests? Or is it because all the brothers, the Uncle Bobs, are
> pedophiles that you have to invite over?
>
> Sad state of affairs when every close relative in the US is thought of as a
> potential pedophile, and every bit of aberrant behavior is seen as an
> indication of irreparable harm to another.
>
> ------------------

Ranee Mueller > said:

> Wow. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that there is no such thing as
>homeschooling and that failing to put my kids in preschool was the same
>as child abuse. Even if I agreed with the first premise, which I don't,
>I just don't think I am up to doing all of the kids' schooling, I cannot
>fathom how missing out on sandboxes and fingerpaints with loads of
>children instead of with a few children is somehow child abuse.

Some people are just plain nuts. Anyone who has read your posts over time
knows that you are a *very* intelligent woman, and well capable of home
schooling your children.

I'm far too scatter-brained to attempt what you're doing. You have my
admiration and respect. Your detractor is an idiot.

Carol

--
CLICK DAILY TO FEED THE HUNGRY
United States:
http://www.stopthehunger.com/
International:
http://www.thehungersite.com/

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:22:53 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>I wasn't a juror who was presented with all the evidence and testimony
>available and neither were you, but I've thought all along that
>Jackson isn't guilty as this prosecutor has presented the charges.
>From what I can infer, he is likely asexual and so disconnected with
>reality, so unable to exercise good judgment that he really thinks he
>can be playmates with these kids. The bit where he said - and proudly
>- in a national interview that he slept platonically with the boys
>was more or less a "tell," as they say in gambling, for me. He
>actually sees no problem with an adult male sleeping with juvenile
>males b/c he's just "one of the boys" himself with no sexual agenda.
>And he *has* no sexual agenda b/c he is asexual, IMHO.

But there's the pornography...

I don't believe he is asexual, but obviously socially dysfunctional.
And guilty.

The creep dodged a bullet. Despite losing, the prosecution did a good
thing because the case put Sicko's behavior in the spotlight so that
it's unlikely he'll go back to his old ways with little boys anytime
soon.

It's really too bad he didn't use his fortune for therapy instead of
gratification.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Ranee Mueller wrote:
> Wow. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that there is no such thing as
> homeschooling and that failing to put my kids in preschool was the same
> as child abuse. Even if I agreed with the first premise, which I don't,
> I just don't think I am up to doing all of the kids' schooling, I cannot
> fathom how missing out on sandboxes and fingerpaints with loads of
> children instead of with a few children is somehow child abuse.

Well, there's something to be said for becoming socialized with
children of as many of the various ethnicities/races as possible,
otherwise they can experience/inflict social trauma and develop
predjudices that will drive/haunt them throughout their lives... but
then I'm an extremely strong proponent of public schools and actually
would like it very much were it legislated that public school *must* be
attended by all children, with parochial/home schooling only permitted
as an adjunct at the parent's discretion and on their own time and
expense... although I'd much prefer that parochial shooling be
abolished entirely, it is a definite precursor to all manner of
intolerance. And no one can convince me that home schooling in of
itself can provide more than a mediocre and very limited education at
best. And I really can't comment on preschool... when I grew up
preschool consisted of large groups of neighborhood kids playing on the
streets and in the hallways of tenements, at that time were far safer I
have to say than your own living rooms today... didn't need any
fercocktah organized Neighborhood Watch then, that's when it was
invented... every mother's and little old lady's snoopy eyes were
riveted on the streets and everywhere, better than the CIA, FBI, and
KGB combined.

And school is like recipes, merely a guide, kids gotta wanna learn on
their own... the intelligent person's education ends in the grave.

Sheldon

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:52:57 GMT, Dimitri wrote:

> I think the school boards should be held criminally responsible for FRAUD!
>
> They're taking tax dollars and "graduating illiterate people" That's taking
> money under false pretenses.
>
Where is the responsibility of parent and child in your equation? You
make it sound like all a teacher has to do is open up a child's head
to pour in the information and if the information doesn't stick, it's
the school board's fault.

> I paid for 16 years of private education for 4 daughters. Their education was
> My responsibility and I would not abdicate that responsibility to some state
> idiots.

Glad you took responsibility for their education. Sorry you feel the
way you do about public education, but it's also obvious you didn't
even try it. If more people like you stayed, holding ALL parties
responsible, maybe public education wouldn't be in the mess you
perceive it to be in at this point.

As people like you flee - only the worst of the worst remain. So,
public education becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. You can point
your finger and act holier than thou, but the fact remains that you
and your children weren't there holding up your end of the deal. You
opted out. You ran, leaving only those who are on the left side of
the Bell Curve to take the very tests you can now point to and claim
you made the correct decision.

Damsel wrote:
> Ranee Mueller > said:
>
> > Wow. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that there is no such thing as
> >homeschooling and that failing to put my kids in preschool was the same
> >as child abuse. Even if I agreed with the first premise, which I don't,
> >I just don't think I am up to doing all of the kids' schooling, I cannot
> >fathom how missing out on sandboxes and fingerpaints with loads of
> >children instead of with a few children is somehow child abuse.
>
> Some people are just plain nuts. Anyone who has read your posts over time
> knows that you are a *very* intelligent woman, and well capable of home
> schooling your children.
>
> I'm far too scatter-brained to attempt what you're doing. You have my
> admiration and respect.
>
> Your detractor is an idiot.

That's a sad comment, were you home schooled? Then you haven't a clue.
Home schooling is an antiquated concept held by some obstinate
agenda-driven simple minded who'd wish to return to the simpler times
when there was nothing else... home schooling is a last resort, like
canned chow mein and frozen pizza, immediate satisfaction but without
depth or breadth. Home schooling is in modern times a devise of those
who would shield their children from the real world... they are the
idiots, the FEARFUL IDIOTS... scared to death that their children will
discover how ignorant their parents truly are. A good parent wants
their chidren to exceed them, not hold their children back.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > said:

>Damsel wrote:
>> Ranee Mueller > said:
>>
>> > Wow. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that there is no such thing as
>> >homeschooling and that failing to put my kids in preschool was the same
>> >as child abuse. Even if I agreed with the first premise, which I don't,
>> >I just don't think I am up to doing all of the kids' schooling, I cannot
>> >fathom how missing out on sandboxes and fingerpaints with loads of
>> >children instead of with a few children is somehow child abuse.
>>
>> Some people are just plain nuts. Anyone who has read your posts over time
>> knows that you are a *very* intelligent woman, and well capable of home
>> schooling your children.
>>
>> I'm far too scatter-brained to attempt what you're doing. You have my
>> admiration and respect.
>
>That's a sad comment, were you home schooled? Then you haven't a clue.

During my pre-school years (which Ranee is discussing), I wasn't formally
home schooled, but my parents taught me grammar, manners, etc., and I had
lots of social interaction with other kids. I lived in a brand new
subdivision, and there were kids everywhere.

> Home schooling is an antiquated concept held by some obstinate
>agenda-driven simple minded who'd wish to return to the simpler times
>when there was nothing else... home schooling is a last resort, like
>canned chow mein and frozen pizza, immediate satisfaction but without
>depth or breadth. Home schooling is in modern times a devise of those
>who would shield their children from the real world... they are the
>idiots, the FEARFUL IDIOTS... scared to death that their children will
>discover how ignorant their parents truly are. A good parent wants
>their chidren to exceed them, not hold their children back.

Ranee is helping her younger children to prepare for "real" school. She's
not trying to provide their entire formal education.

Were you the person who wrote that e-mail?

Carol

--
CLICK DAILY TO FEED THE HUNGRY
United States:
http://www.stopthehunger.com/
International:
http://www.thehungersite.com/

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:42:21 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:39:53 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> That does it. If I ever get the urge to go out and kill some one or
>> have sleepovers with little boys, I am going to go to California, the
>> place where you can get away with murder if you have enough money.
>>
>"If the glove don't fit, you must aquit!" That was smoke/mirrors and
>a lot of bad acting that the jury swallowed hook line and sinker.

Yeah, and if they had had the trial where the murder occurred, i.e.,
Brentwood, you might have had a different outcome. For one thing, you
might not have had a judge who lost complete control of his courtroom
to the lawyers involved, and you might also have had an ADA who wasn't
grandstanding. *That* trial was one massive cluster f*ck.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

In article . com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:

> Damsel wrote:
> > Ranee Mueller > said:
> >
> > > Wow. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that there is no such thing as
> > >homeschooling and that failing to put my kids in preschool was the same
> > >as child abuse. Even if I agreed with the first premise, which I don't,
> > >I just don't think I am up to doing all of the kids' schooling, I cannot
> > >fathom how missing out on sandboxes and fingerpaints with loads of
> > >children instead of with a few children is somehow child abuse.
> >
> > Some people are just plain nuts. Anyone who has read your posts over time
> > knows that you are a *very* intelligent woman, and well capable of home
> > schooling your children.
> >
> > I'm far too scatter-brained to attempt what you're doing. You have my
> > admiration and respect.
> >
> > Your detractor is an idiot.
>
> That's a sad comment, were you home schooled? Then you haven't a clue.
> Home schooling is an antiquated concept held by some obstinate
> agenda-driven simple minded who'd wish to return to the simpler times
> when there was nothing else... home schooling is a last resort, like
> canned chow mein and frozen pizza, immediate satisfaction but without
> depth or breadth. Home schooling is in modern times a devise of those
> who would shield their children from the real world... they are the
> idiots, the FEARFUL IDIOTS... scared to death that their children will
> discover how ignorant their parents truly are. A good parent wants
> their chidren to exceed them, not hold their children back.
>
> Sheldon
>

All the more reason to home school....... ;-)

TOO many kids are being graduated that still cannot read or compose a
decent sentence with a high school diploma. And still don't understand
how to work fractions.

It's pretty sad that our public schools are getting so bad.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:06:06 GMT, "Dimitri" >
connected the dots and wrote:

~Many years ago I thought at length about my "obligation" to my
children. I came
~to 2 conclusions the first was unworkable - leave them with enough
money where
~they will never have to work. The second was more realistic - give
them the
~tools to both survive and be successful when I am no longer around to
help them.
~The only way I could do that is through education. Ergo my obligation
was to
~make sure they got the best education I could possible give them.

Good thinking. I have a cousin who grew up to inherit a trust fund
that allows him to do whatever he wishes, so he follows his favorite
bands around selling jewelery, and talks about doing great things for
society.

If he hadn't the money, he'd be teaching kids, probably in some school
that needs good teachers and is glad they got one.

maxine in ri

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:20:35 GMT, Tara > wrote:

<snip>

>My older brother and I both attended an extremely rural and, sad to
>say, subpar K-12 school. I moved away and graduated from high school
>in a different state. My brother stayed and graduated from the rural
>school. He is a successful civil engineer with a master's degree. My
>bachelor's degree is in finance and my master's degree is in
>elementary education. If you are motivated and interested, you will
>learn.

<clap! clap!> Absolutely. The dear aulde dad, God rest him, grew up
during the Depression to a mother with a 3rd grade education in
backwoods Alabama. His father died when he was 13 (car accident) and
the only schooling he had was backwoods Alabama schools, obviously. He
was #1 in his graduating class, not that that would have gotten him
anywhere given the school system, but he enlisted in the Army at 18 to
get an education, (there's a hazy part here in my memory that has
something to do with going to an officer prepartory program), but
mercilessly haunted his state senators and eventually got an
appointment to West Point. He also knew that his education was
substandard and stayed up nights, locked in the men's room (only place
that was lighted at night) studying, trying to get up to speed with
his far better educated classmates. When he graduated, it was likely
the proudest day in his family's history.

As you said, if you are motivated and interested, you will learn. I
couldn't be more proud of the dear aulde dad. And he put all his kids
through college.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

< snipped other stuff >

>> Your detractor is an idiot.
>
> That's a sad comment, were you home schooled? Then you haven't a clue.
> Home schooling is an antiquated concept held by some obstinate
> agenda-driven simple minded who'd wish to return to the simpler times
> when there was nothing else... home schooling is a last resort, like
> canned chow mein and frozen pizza, immediate satisfaction but without
> depth or breadth. Home schooling is in modern times a devise of those
> who would shield their children from the real world... they are the
> idiots, the FEARFUL IDIOTS... scared to death that their children will
> discover how ignorant their parents truly are. A good parent wants
> their chidren to exceed them, not hold their children back.
>
> Sheldon

Absolutely beautifully said. Every word.

"MarjorieB" > said:

>< snipped other stuff >
>
>>> Your detractor is an idiot.
>>
>> That's a sad comment, were you home schooled? Then you haven't a clue.
>> Home schooling is an antiquated concept held by some obstinate
>> agenda-driven simple minded who'd wish to return to the simpler times
>> when there was nothing else... home schooling is a last resort, like
>> canned chow mein and frozen pizza, immediate satisfaction but without
>> depth or breadth. Home schooling is in modern times a devise of those
>> who would shield their children from the real world... they are the
>> idiots, the FEARFUL IDIOTS... scared to death that their children will
>> discover how ignorant their parents truly are. A good parent wants
>> their chidren to exceed them, not hold their children back.
>
>Absolutely beautifully said. Every word.

IT'S ****IN' PRE-SCHOOL!!!!!!!! Get a grip, you two!

Carol

--
CLICK DAILY TO FEED THE HUNGRY
United States:
http://www.stopthehunger.com/
International:
http://www.thehungersite.com/

Damsel wrote:
> "MarjorieB" > said:
>
> >< snipped other stuff >
> >
> >>> Your detractor is an idiot.
> >>
> >> That's a sad comment, were you home schooled? Then you haven't a clue.
> >> Home schooling is an antiquated concept held by some obstinate
> >> agenda-driven simple minded who'd wish to return to the simpler times
> >> when there was nothing else... home schooling is a last resort, like
> >> canned chow mein and frozen pizza, immediate satisfaction but without
> >> depth or breadth. Home schooling is in modern times a devise of those
> >> who would shield their children from the real world... they are the
> >> idiots, the FEARFUL IDIOTS... scared to death that their children will
> >> discover how ignorant their parents truly are. A good parent wants
> >> their chidren to exceed them, not hold their children back.
> >
> >Absolutely beautifully said. Every word.
>
> IT'S ****IN' PRE-SCHOOL!!!!!!!! Get a grip, you two!
>
> Carol

Look at yourself, you're the one who has yet to have a grip on anything
your entire life... gotta be that fercocktah teflon dress. <G>

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > said:

>Look at yourself, you're the one who has yet to have a grip on anything
>your entire life... gotta be that fercocktah teflon dress. <G>

I've gripped plenty, young man.

Carol

--
CLICK DAILY TO FEED THE HUNGRY
United States:
http://www.stopthehunger.com/
International:
http://www.thehungersite.com/