http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/update-on-kemp-case-for-minions-of.html
>I doubt that practice of leaving the restraints on in class meets Florida restraint standards, but the administrative staff did not recommend the aide to Professional Standards. <
You had better keep looking through those standards, then. A restraint restrains. I'm no expert, but if a harness is left on, it doesn't atually do any restraining until it is attached to something. I'll guess that the old aide left the harness on all day but never used it to restrain the student to a chair. When you find out the facts, let the Minions of Light know.
>At this juncture the administrative trio of Smiley, Morris, and Sosa entered the room, and one of the women said she "didn't want to lose my job" when she spotted the harness restraining the student while Steve engaged in securing the other student. <
Yes, this was the point I was making. I'm glad that Lee thinks similarly.
>I have filed charges for child abuse against Smiley, Sosa, Morris, and Kipley--the last-named for for abetting the child abuse by not investigating my charge and not even acknowledging that she got it, which prolonged the danger to the children under the care of the three negligent administrators and the aide who did not remove the restraints when they entered the room in the morning. <
Steve Kemp assures us all that no abuse occurred. Lee has changed her tune from "potential abuse" back to "abuse". Plus, now Lee writes that the aide was negligent for not removing the harness and is therefore worthy of having a child-abuse charge filed against him or her.
I love exploring the issues!
>Ms. Griffin, who poses as teachers' friend did not show herself as much of a friend to teachers or to special-needs students either in this demonstration of her wanting to escape from the responsibility of dealing with it. <
Close your parenthesis, you illiterate bozo.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Deemed to be a danger.
I have been held to task for quoting things out of context. I will make a direct quote, only to have someone tell me that I miss the overall tone, gist, vibe, or whatever has been written. Would that writers actually wrote what they mean clearly rather than relying on readers to pick up the general feeling.
Here is an example from Lee's blog. She makes the bits she likes red. Luckily, the writer of the original article makes Phyliss's position clear. I'll make it red too, but bigger.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/update-on-kemp-case-for-minions-of.html
A new report on the issue of restraints and seclusion of special education students show widespread use in public schools throughout the nation. Some child rights and education rights advocates believe that the restraints amount to abuse and neglect of these students. Furthermore, the use of these restraints often times causes serious personal injuries and the wrongful death of special education students.
Under Florida law, school officials can restrain a special education student who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others in the school environment. Muscumeci and others believe that Florida law is too vague and that children are often restrained when there is no danger at all to themselves or others. In public schools, some students are restrained for convenience of the teacher or staff rather than for the safety and welfare of the student. You can read more about Phyliss Muscumeci's efforts and the problems of restraints of special education students at Child Advocacy Groups and Mom Seek to End Restraints of Special Education Students in Florida and Other States.
http://www.floridachildinjurylawyer.com/2009/01/national_advocacy_group_and_fl_1.html
Damn you, passive voice. Deemed by whom? The teacher? The aide? The administration? The parents? The janitor?
Interesting stuff. Especially the bit about "believe to be abuse".
Here is an example from Lee's blog. She makes the bits she likes red. Luckily, the writer of the original article makes Phyliss's position clear. I'll make it red too, but bigger.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/update-on-kemp-case-for-minions-of.html
A new report on the issue of restraints and seclusion of special education students show widespread use in public schools throughout the nation. Some child rights and education rights advocates believe that the restraints amount to abuse and neglect of these students. Furthermore, the use of these restraints often times causes serious personal injuries and the wrongful death of special education students.
Under Florida law, school officials can restrain a special education student who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others in the school environment. Muscumeci and others believe that Florida law is too vague and that children are often restrained when there is no danger at all to themselves or others. In public schools, some students are restrained for convenience of the teacher or staff rather than for the safety and welfare of the student. You can read more about Phyliss Muscumeci's efforts and the problems of restraints of special education students at Child Advocacy Groups and Mom Seek to End Restraints of Special Education Students in Florida and Other States.
http://www.floridachildinjurylawyer.com/2009/01/national_advocacy_group_and_fl_1.html
Damn you, passive voice. Deemed by whom? The teacher? The aide? The administration? The parents? The janitor?
Interesting stuff. Especially the bit about "believe to be abuse".
Sunday, June 21, 2009
She did write "abuse", didn't she?
Her sentiments will now remain in the classic quotes section.
Hang on! Maybe she was told she had no standing because everyone knew that abuse didn't happen - even Goader himself! Filing a charge of abuse would be ludicrous when even the teacher aide maintains that no abuse (nix, nada, none, ixnay on the abusay, etc.) occurred.
I think Kipley must have been saving Lee the humility of being shot down by the person she was rooting for.
Hang on! Maybe she was told she had no standing because everyone knew that abuse didn't happen - even Goader himself! Filing a charge of abuse would be ludicrous when even the teacher aide maintains that no abuse (nix, nada, none, ixnay on the abusay, etc.) occurred.
I think Kipley must have been saving Lee the humility of being shot down by the person she was rooting for.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Ring ring ... ring ring ... Click. Hello? Hello, Kettle. This is Pot.
The board looks the other way and allows the outrages against teachers to go on. The head of the Professional Standards is a woman with a home-ec degree who doesn't know how to punctuate; the administration just hired her husband, who has a high school degree. for an accounting position that required a bachelor's degree and experience. which four of the applicants have. This was payoff for all the dirty work the Professional Standards head has done for the superintendent and board, one infers.
Come on. At least get your own punctuation correct in the same sentence that you slam others.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The hypocrisy.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/postcards-from-edge.html
Here is the steaming turd in the water pipe from Lee's response.
I write:
Now, you've written that any citizen can file a complaint if they know of abuse, and also that most child abuse is inferred not known.
Lee's responds:
That's right.
(Lee has a rant here to distract.)
I write:
Would you therefore support someone who saw Kemp keeping those retarded children in a junk-filled room, inferred from the available evidence that abuse was occurring, and filed a complaint?
Lee responds:
I would not.
Hypocrite. Either you support someone who infers child abuse and files a complaint or you don't. Make up your mind.
Here is the steaming turd in the water pipe from Lee's response.
I write:
Now, you've written that any citizen can file a complaint if they know of abuse, and also that most child abuse is inferred not known.
Lee's responds:
That's right.
(Lee has a rant here to distract.)
I write:
Would you therefore support someone who saw Kemp keeping those retarded children in a junk-filled room, inferred from the available evidence that abuse was occurring, and filed a complaint?
Lee responds:
I would not.
Hypocrite. Either you support someone who infers child abuse and files a complaint or you don't. Make up your mind.
Lee can't infer her way out of a wet paper bag.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/postcards-from-edge.html
For goodness' sake! We're all meant to accept that Lee Drury de Cesare can infer the finer points of child abuse cases and legislation, yet she can't infer that John__D is Antigrammargrinch. I think I'm about to give up on this dopey cow.
I can't be bothered colour-coding it all. Look at her blog for her edits.
(Many accept that the pronoun "they" can be singular. If I've got to move up from mangled homophones, Vinegartits had better move up from this. )
Gentle Readers: Here is another anti-lee specimen that makes AntiGrammargrinch look like one of the seraphim. I attract the strangest people. lee
-----Original Message----- From: John__D [mailto:noreply-comment@blogger.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:58 AM To: tdecesar@tampabay.rr.com Subject: [Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch] New comment on I Nevcr Take the Fifth. John__D has left a new comment on your post "I Nevcr Take the Fifth": >
I know in all senses that the three administrators named allowed, even promoted, child abuse of the severely retarded children.< ____________________________________________________- John D wades in:
This is a strong call about what you know. As for my protecting child abusers, you infer too much. I think you're doing Steve Kemp more harm than good. You write that his was "an innocent mistake by [what I presume is] an uninformed teacher" and also that the three administrators were guilty of abuse by putting disabled children in a room with junk lining the walls. Good. You got angled parentheses around an editorial comment in a quote right.
All Steve has to do is tell me so, and I will stop. I think keeping his case in the limelight has made the ROSSAC thugs deal with it a fairer way than they would have had nobody knew about it and had everything gone on behind closed doors as is the usual mode.
I believe that if Steve's case had not been publicized, he would be fired by now and trying to scare up a way to make a living to feed himself and keep a roof over his head.
Lack of attention to the thuggeries of ROSSAC when it wants to get rid of somebody was Mr. Erwin's problem. Nobody knew his case was going on and how the administration and board colluded to shut him up about crime on school grounds that various higher ups probably profited from and shut him down by firing him and depriving him of his pension.
I wish I had been doing Mr. E's PR. People would have known what a dirty deal the administration and board were pulling off in plain view with no audience but poor Mr. Erwin, the victim. I am glad he finally gave up on the system and took the ROSSAC thugs and the board to court and won his Whistleblower suit because the jury did not believe the board's and administration's lies. Nobody would if they heard them. The taxpayers paid $165,000 for board and administration crime.
That "innocent mistake" was abuse, wasn't it? I'll be honest and admit that all I know is what I've read on blogs - but if someone specifically trained for the job had done the same thing that Steve Kemp had innocently done, they Pronoun-antecedent disagreement would have been child abusers in your eyes, wouldn't they?
It's a contingency question. I would need to know all the data. One could say that this is another instance of the administration's and board's dopey management skills. It is OK for the boys to be restrained on the bus but not in the classroom. I'd like somebody to try to justify that disparity.
And one of these "boys," the one Goader was chasing while he hooked the lighter one to a chair while he chased the big fellow to try to keep him from escaping into the hall, weighed 175 pounds.
The administrators left the disabled children in a junk-filled room? So did Steve Kemp, didn't he?
No, he stayed in there with the retarded children and tried to keep them from pulling the stuff down on their or other people's heads and tried to conduct a class in whatever the retarded children do in class.
I don't believe that this fact is disputed by any party, is it?
I don't dispute it, but I would insist on giving it context.
It's a despicable situation, but Steve Kemp was there doing his best as a teacher while letting disabled children stay in that junk-filled room and, by your standards, abusing them.
Steve is not litigious. I am. I would have screamed bloody murder and perhaps called the cops if I had thought of it.
Now, you've written that any citizen can file a complaint if they (he or she knows) know of abuse, (no comma: You separate coordinate subordinate "that' noun clauses.) and also that most child abuse is inferred (comma for contrasting element) not known.
That's right. I got an email recently from a fellow who says an administrator in one of the schools lures boys into his office to have them take off their shoes so that he can play with their feet. He asked me what to tell the mother to do, that he is afraid the administration would cover it up if he told her to bring it to ROSSAC. They would: the guy is percipient. I told him to help the mother bring this issue straight to the State Education Committee's Professional Standards and Ethics Committees. I told the fellow (a teacher) to stick with the mother to buck her up and not to let her waiver.
This foot-fetish administrator is not a genital pedophile, but he may be working up to it. How do I know? I infer it. I am a nurse and have read a bazillion psychiatric case histories and every word Freud has written on pedophilic fetishes among all the other pathologies people suffer. I am afraid this guy will get away with this preliminary activity with the boys' feet and amp up his pedophilia.
Look what hideous things happened to the children in the Irish schools for poor children run by Christian Brothers and Sisters of Mercy. The Christian Brothers taught my husband in high school. The Sisters of Mercy rant the hospital where I trained as a nurse.
Foot fetishism has a long sexist history. The foot-binding practices of the Orient come under this fetish. The men didn't want the women to be able to run away if they wanted to rape them. Answer: bind the girls' feet when they are babies so that the foot doesn't grow normally and cripple the girls' locomotion.
Don't try to pull another Sgt. Joe Friday again on me and grill me. I will post your emails but will not answer them. I won't answer you or anybody on this foot case.
Would you therefore support someone who saw Kemp keeping those retarded children in a junk-filled room, inferred from the available evidence that abuse was occurring, and filed a complaint?
I would not. Steve had the situation thrust upon him; he did not create it. The ones who put the classroom for the retarded children in a dangerous, junk-filled room are guilty of directed child abuse.
I welcome feedback on these comments from you or your readers. I will stand corrected on anything I have misconstrued, but I think (know?) that I'm on the money. If you want administrators' heads to roll, Steve Kemp as the actual doer of the action will have to watch his head roll too if you get your way.
No, he won't, sugarbritches. Not as long as I can stand on a podium and squawk and pull myself up to a CRT screen and compose stirring defenses of him to the state bureaucracy. I shall flail away until Steve says he no longer wants my help.
Your case is one of hunger for attention. I infer--bordering on knowing--that you did not get enough attention as a child. So you want Granny Lee's attention now. Do I know this for sure? No, but I am betting on my intuition.
I will bet my three best pairs of Manola Blahniks that I am onto your personality disorder. Don't disesteem intuition. It is the inchoate intelligence we all have but can't attach analytic terms to. It's the gut feelings of our innards telling us what's really going on outside. Women have intuitive skills more than men because women are lucky enough not to take themselves as seriously as guys do, and women take care of people all their lives from babies to dying parents and grandparents. Women are at home in emotion mine fields.
I want as many people as possible to have blogs about the school system--especially teacher blogs because teachers see the schools from the inside. The schools are now run by a bunch of thugs and need as much attention trained on the thugs as possible.
You should have your own blog and come to the school board meetings and watch the board, ask for public-information documents from the Public Affairs Office, and speak out. Don't try to make me your Charlie McCarthy. I won't play that role again. lee
For goodness' sake! We're all meant to accept that Lee Drury de Cesare can infer the finer points of child abuse cases and legislation, yet she can't infer that John__D is Antigrammargrinch. I think I'm about to give up on this dopey cow.
I can't be bothered colour-coding it all. Look at her blog for her edits.
(Many accept that the pronoun "they" can be singular. If I've got to move up from mangled homophones, Vinegartits had better move up from this. )
Gentle Readers: Here is another anti-lee specimen that makes AntiGrammargrinch look like one of the seraphim. I attract the strangest people. lee
-----Original Message----- From: John__D [mailto:noreply-comment@blogger.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:58 AM To: tdecesar@tampabay.rr.com Subject: [Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch] New comment on I Nevcr Take the Fifth. John__D has left a new comment on your post "I Nevcr Take the Fifth": >
I know in all senses that the three administrators named allowed, even promoted, child abuse of the severely retarded children.< ____________________________________________________- John D wades in:
This is a strong call about what you know. As for my protecting child abusers, you infer too much. I think you're doing Steve Kemp more harm than good. You write that his was "an innocent mistake by [what I presume is] an uninformed teacher" and also that the three administrators were guilty of abuse by putting disabled children in a room with junk lining the walls. Good. You got angled parentheses around an editorial comment in a quote right.
All Steve has to do is tell me so, and I will stop. I think keeping his case in the limelight has made the ROSSAC thugs deal with it a fairer way than they would have had nobody knew about it and had everything gone on behind closed doors as is the usual mode.
I believe that if Steve's case had not been publicized, he would be fired by now and trying to scare up a way to make a living to feed himself and keep a roof over his head.
Lack of attention to the thuggeries of ROSSAC when it wants to get rid of somebody was Mr. Erwin's problem. Nobody knew his case was going on and how the administration and board colluded to shut him up about crime on school grounds that various higher ups probably profited from and shut him down by firing him and depriving him of his pension.
I wish I had been doing Mr. E's PR. People would have known what a dirty deal the administration and board were pulling off in plain view with no audience but poor Mr. Erwin, the victim. I am glad he finally gave up on the system and took the ROSSAC thugs and the board to court and won his Whistleblower suit because the jury did not believe the board's and administration's lies. Nobody would if they heard them. The taxpayers paid $165,000 for board and administration crime.
That "innocent mistake" was abuse, wasn't it? I'll be honest and admit that all I know is what I've read on blogs - but if someone specifically trained for the job had done the same thing that Steve Kemp had innocently done, they Pronoun-antecedent disagreement would have been child abusers in your eyes, wouldn't they?
It's a contingency question. I would need to know all the data. One could say that this is another instance of the administration's and board's dopey management skills. It is OK for the boys to be restrained on the bus but not in the classroom. I'd like somebody to try to justify that disparity.
And one of these "boys," the one Goader was chasing while he hooked the lighter one to a chair while he chased the big fellow to try to keep him from escaping into the hall, weighed 175 pounds.
The administrators left the disabled children in a junk-filled room? So did Steve Kemp, didn't he?
No, he stayed in there with the retarded children and tried to keep them from pulling the stuff down on their or other people's heads and tried to conduct a class in whatever the retarded children do in class.
I don't believe that this fact is disputed by any party, is it?
I don't dispute it, but I would insist on giving it context.
It's a despicable situation, but Steve Kemp was there doing his best as a teacher while letting disabled children stay in that junk-filled room and, by your standards, abusing them.
Steve is not litigious. I am. I would have screamed bloody murder and perhaps called the cops if I had thought of it.
Now, you've written that any citizen can file a complaint if they (he or she knows) know of abuse, (no comma: You separate coordinate subordinate "that' noun clauses.) and also that most child abuse is inferred (comma for contrasting element) not known.
That's right. I got an email recently from a fellow who says an administrator in one of the schools lures boys into his office to have them take off their shoes so that he can play with their feet. He asked me what to tell the mother to do, that he is afraid the administration would cover it up if he told her to bring it to ROSSAC. They would: the guy is percipient. I told him to help the mother bring this issue straight to the State Education Committee's Professional Standards and Ethics Committees. I told the fellow (a teacher) to stick with the mother to buck her up and not to let her waiver.
This foot-fetish administrator is not a genital pedophile, but he may be working up to it. How do I know? I infer it. I am a nurse and have read a bazillion psychiatric case histories and every word Freud has written on pedophilic fetishes among all the other pathologies people suffer. I am afraid this guy will get away with this preliminary activity with the boys' feet and amp up his pedophilia.
Look what hideous things happened to the children in the Irish schools for poor children run by Christian Brothers and Sisters of Mercy. The Christian Brothers taught my husband in high school. The Sisters of Mercy rant the hospital where I trained as a nurse.
Foot fetishism has a long sexist history. The foot-binding practices of the Orient come under this fetish. The men didn't want the women to be able to run away if they wanted to rape them. Answer: bind the girls' feet when they are babies so that the foot doesn't grow normally and cripple the girls' locomotion.
Don't try to pull another Sgt. Joe Friday again on me and grill me. I will post your emails but will not answer them. I won't answer you or anybody on this foot case.
Would you therefore support someone who saw Kemp keeping those retarded children in a junk-filled room, inferred from the available evidence that abuse was occurring, and filed a complaint?
I would not. Steve had the situation thrust upon him; he did not create it. The ones who put the classroom for the retarded children in a dangerous, junk-filled room are guilty of directed child abuse.
I welcome feedback on these comments from you or your readers. I will stand corrected on anything I have misconstrued, but I think (know?) that I'm on the money. If you want administrators' heads to roll, Steve Kemp as the actual doer of the action will have to watch his head roll too if you get your way.
No, he won't, sugarbritches. Not as long as I can stand on a podium and squawk and pull myself up to a CRT screen and compose stirring defenses of him to the state bureaucracy. I shall flail away until Steve says he no longer wants my help.
Your case is one of hunger for attention. I infer--bordering on knowing--that you did not get enough attention as a child. So you want Granny Lee's attention now. Do I know this for sure? No, but I am betting on my intuition.
I will bet my three best pairs of Manola Blahniks that I am onto your personality disorder. Don't disesteem intuition. It is the inchoate intelligence we all have but can't attach analytic terms to. It's the gut feelings of our innards telling us what's really going on outside. Women have intuitive skills more than men because women are lucky enough not to take themselves as seriously as guys do, and women take care of people all their lives from babies to dying parents and grandparents. Women are at home in emotion mine fields.
I want as many people as possible to have blogs about the school system--especially teacher blogs because teachers see the schools from the inside. The schools are now run by a bunch of thugs and need as much attention trained on the thugs as possible.
You should have your own blog and come to the school board meetings and watch the board, ask for public-information documents from the Public Affairs Office, and speak out. Don't try to make me your Charlie McCarthy. I won't play that role again. lee
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Let's sort out an issue, then.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-nevcr-take-fifth.html
I get a post dedicated to my question after posting it here.
I'll avoid levity. There is a possible typo that hinders my comprehension. Was Kemp a uniformed teacher or an uninformed teacher. This is a serious question, and a straight answer is important to me.
Does your post answer my question? Not directly, no. But as you write that "one does not see most child abuse", you seem to be writing that no one sees it and that no one could therefore know.
I'll make my question clearer based on your post, and I'll ask that you remember that you allege that I'm a Stanford-Binet lower-quartile dweller when you draft your answer.
Did you know the abuse occurred, or did you infer it?
a) You knew it.
b) You inferred it.
John D: The three administrators against whom I filed Professional Standards charges not only disrespected Steve and tried to turn his innocent mistake by an uniformed teacher into a crime, but they themselves all three--Smiley, Sosa, and the other one whose name I get mixed up (Morris, I think)--also put severely disabled children into a room with junk piled on the walls, an accident-prone situation.
And they threw Kemp into taking care of these children without paying any attention to his lack of training to care for severely retarded children--his specialty is teaching reading to children who have trouble with the skill. They as well didn't give him a word of orientation or make themselves available for consultation as their job descriptions say they should. That administrative behavior constitutes child abuse in my book.
And the Secretary of Education's Professional Matters committee online says both teachers and administrators are liable to lose their licensces for child abuse--not just teachers. In addition, it does not mention a qualification to file a complainte except the knowledge that a child or children were abused. Ms. Kipley probably with Ms. Elia's help as well as that of Linda Cobbe made up the "standing" objection to my filing the charge. One does not appear on the Secretary of State's site for Professional Behavior breaches.
One does not see most child abuse. He or she infers it when seeing evidence of child abuse as I did when I was an emergency-room nurse, or people infer it from other situations such as the one I describe above involving Kemp and the careless administrators. I also witnessed child abuse when I worked as court observer for domestic violence for almost a year in Pinellas County courts.
I hope this answers your question. lee drury de cesare
John__D has left a new comment on your post "Sherlock Holmes Rides Again": >I need also to know where you got your information that I do not have "standing" to file a Professional Standards charge. The written material you sent me does not mention such impediment. The Secretary of State's Web site's Professional Practices Section says otherwise. The Education Secretary's language suggests anybody who knows of child abuse should report it.
I get a post dedicated to my question after posting it here.
I'll avoid levity. There is a possible typo that hinders my comprehension. Was Kemp a uniformed teacher or an uninformed teacher. This is a serious question, and a straight answer is important to me.
Does your post answer my question? Not directly, no. But as you write that "one does not see most child abuse", you seem to be writing that no one sees it and that no one could therefore know.
I'll make my question clearer based on your post, and I'll ask that you remember that you allege that I'm a Stanford-Binet lower-quartile dweller when you draft your answer.
Did you know the abuse occurred, or did you infer it?
a) You knew it.
b) You inferred it.
John D: The three administrators against whom I filed Professional Standards charges not only disrespected Steve and tried to turn his innocent mistake by an uniformed teacher into a crime, but they themselves all three--Smiley, Sosa, and the other one whose name I get mixed up (Morris, I think)--also put severely disabled children into a room with junk piled on the walls, an accident-prone situation.
And they threw Kemp into taking care of these children without paying any attention to his lack of training to care for severely retarded children--his specialty is teaching reading to children who have trouble with the skill. They as well didn't give him a word of orientation or make themselves available for consultation as their job descriptions say they should. That administrative behavior constitutes child abuse in my book.
And the Secretary of Education's Professional Matters committee online says both teachers and administrators are liable to lose their licensces for child abuse--not just teachers. In addition, it does not mention a qualification to file a complainte except the knowledge that a child or children were abused. Ms. Kipley probably with Ms. Elia's help as well as that of Linda Cobbe made up the "standing" objection to my filing the charge. One does not appear on the Secretary of State's site for Professional Behavior breaches.
One does not see most child abuse. He or she infers it when seeing evidence of child abuse as I did when I was an emergency-room nurse, or people infer it from other situations such as the one I describe above involving Kemp and the careless administrators. I also witnessed child abuse when I worked as court observer for domestic violence for almost a year in Pinellas County courts.
I hope this answers your question. lee drury de cesare
John__D has left a new comment on your post "Sherlock Holmes Rides Again": >I need also to know where you got your information that I do not have "standing" to file a Professional Standards charge. The written material you sent me does not mention such impediment. The Secretary of State's Web site's Professional Practices Section says otherwise. The Education Secretary's language suggests anybody who knows of child abuse should report it.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Why I seldom could be bothered to comment on the issues: censorship! Vinegartits flushes the First Amendment.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/sherlock-holmes-rides-again.html
I left a comment on this blog entry, quoting Lee from here.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/ground-skirmishes-to-defend-democracy.html
"I need also to know where you got your information that I do not have "standing" to file a Professional Standards charge. The written material you sent me does not mention such impediment.
The Secretary of State's Web site's Professional Practices Section says otherwise. The Education Secretary's language suggests anybody who knows of child abuse should report it."
I didn't keep a copy of the post, but I suggested that the key word is "knows". After all, that's what even the mighty English teacher of 28 years inferred from the website.
I opined that Kipley, Cobbe and whoever else alleges that Lee has no "standing" may have done so because to have "standing" to file a complaint, one must "know" something: not "have heard", "think" or "assume". (This is naturally speculation on my part, and I can't speak for Kipley et al.)
I then asked Lee how she "knows" that that abuse took place. She has not published my post or replied.
Her silence shouldn't incriminate her, but it makes me wonder. Normally this cow is never lost for words. You'd think she would have cut me down with some witty retort.
To all my detractors who have asked why I don't comment about issues, I say this: when I asked a genuine question about an issue, Vinegartits clammed up and censored me to boot. I invite all of you to suggest how Lee "knows" of the abuse about which she filed a complaint.
Until then or until she answers my question, I'll use my First Amendment right to say that based on the evidence she doesn't "know" diddly squat.
I left a comment on this blog entry, quoting Lee from here.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/ground-skirmishes-to-defend-democracy.html
"I need also to know where you got your information that I do not have "standing" to file a Professional Standards charge. The written material you sent me does not mention such impediment.
The Secretary of State's Web site's Professional Practices Section says otherwise. The Education Secretary's language suggests anybody who knows of child abuse should report it."
I didn't keep a copy of the post, but I suggested that the key word is "knows". After all, that's what even the mighty English teacher of 28 years inferred from the website.
I opined that Kipley, Cobbe and whoever else alleges that Lee has no "standing" may have done so because to have "standing" to file a complaint, one must "know" something: not "have heard", "think" or "assume". (This is naturally speculation on my part, and I can't speak for Kipley et al.)
I then asked Lee how she "knows" that that abuse took place. She has not published my post or replied.
Her silence shouldn't incriminate her, but it makes me wonder. Normally this cow is never lost for words. You'd think she would have cut me down with some witty retort.
To all my detractors who have asked why I don't comment about issues, I say this: when I asked a genuine question about an issue, Vinegartits clammed up and censored me to boot. I invite all of you to suggest how Lee "knows" of the abuse about which she filed a complaint.
Until then or until she answers my question, I'll use my First Amendment right to say that based on the evidence she doesn't "know" diddly squat.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Gerunds 101
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/bullies-complaining-about-bullies.html
Bart, who is gay, had gay students' telling him they wanted to commit suicide because of the bullying they endured in the schools.
This is obviously ridiculous. What would one do here?
Bart had gay students tell him they wanted to commit suicide.
That's right; no apostrophe. "Tell" functions as a verb. "Telling" functions as a participle.
>Since this school was in Olson's district, I wrote her to complain about this teacher with his Bible's torturing the gay student.<
This is just as stupid. The Bible obviously wasn't doing any torturing.
>Nor did she fulfill a promise to Bart Birdsall to attend to a gay student being bullied at the time when she was sending out asinine emails to people complaining about a teacher with a Bible on his desk torturing a gay boy by telling him he would land in hell for being gay.<
See? Is it the desk's torturing? A teacher's torturing? Could she be bothered following her own stupid rules?
She could have nearly argued the first one, but she's illiterate, so she missed it.
>I am never one to suffer obnoxious public servants in silence. I wrote back to La Olson with one of my crisper rebukes and called the principal. She stopped the teacher from torturing the student and made him remove the Bible from his desk, good administrator that she was.
Suddenly, bullying is getting not only local but national attention, and things are looking up for abused children. This is no thanks to board members like Ms. Olson who has sat on the board forever and never raised a finger to intervene, although she promised Bart Birdsall that she would.<
This is bizarre. Olson never intervenes, but she intervened when the teacher was torturing the student. This is flawed.
Ms. Olson, Dr. Lamb, and Ms. Kurdell, all on the board when Dr. Lennard and his two ghouls Hamilton and Davis, were systematically torturing Mr. Erwin, trying to run him crazy, claiming his was crazy, trying to fire him, and trying to deprive him of his pension until Mr. Erwin shut them down with the jury's help in his Whistleblower suit against the board.
Another comma would have offset "Hamilton and Davis". This one comma separates the verb from its subject. There is no excuse for this one. As Vinegartits writes, "You don’t have “personal choices” in where to put punctuation, Sugarbritches. You either [sic] put the commas in the right place, or you are illiterate."
I wish her granddaughter luck with her teaching career. I hope that grammar hypocrisy isn't hereditary.
Bart, who is gay, had gay students' telling him they wanted to commit suicide because of the bullying they endured in the schools.
This is obviously ridiculous. What would one do here?
Bart had gay students tell him they wanted to commit suicide.
That's right; no apostrophe. "Tell" functions as a verb. "Telling" functions as a participle.
>Since this school was in Olson's district, I wrote her to complain about this teacher with his Bible's torturing the gay student.<
This is just as stupid. The Bible obviously wasn't doing any torturing.
>Nor did she fulfill a promise to Bart Birdsall to attend to a gay student being bullied at the time when she was sending out asinine emails to people complaining about a teacher with a Bible on his desk torturing a gay boy by telling him he would land in hell for being gay.<
See? Is it the desk's torturing? A teacher's torturing? Could she be bothered following her own stupid rules?
She could have nearly argued the first one, but she's illiterate, so she missed it.
>I am never one to suffer obnoxious public servants in silence. I wrote back to La Olson with one of my crisper rebukes and called the principal. She stopped the teacher from torturing the student and made him remove the Bible from his desk, good administrator that she was.
Suddenly, bullying is getting not only local but national attention, and things are looking up for abused children. This is no thanks to board members like Ms. Olson who has sat on the board forever and never raised a finger to intervene, although she promised Bart Birdsall that she would.<
This is bizarre. Olson never intervenes, but she intervened when the teacher was torturing the student. This is flawed.
Ms. Olson, Dr. Lamb, and Ms. Kurdell, all on the board when Dr. Lennard and his two ghouls Hamilton and Davis, were systematically torturing Mr. Erwin, trying to run him crazy, claiming his was crazy, trying to fire him, and trying to deprive him of his pension until Mr. Erwin shut them down with the jury's help in his Whistleblower suit against the board.
Another comma would have offset "Hamilton and Davis". This one comma separates the verb from its subject. There is no excuse for this one. As Vinegartits writes, "You don’t have “personal choices” in where to put punctuation, Sugarbritches. You either [sic] put the commas in the right place, or you are illiterate."
I wish her granddaughter luck with her teaching career. I hope that grammar hypocrisy isn't hereditary.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Apostroph-Lee
http://es-kay.net/?p=1137
>... Tom Galagher said that the reason Steve had got no notice of the charges’s end was that his lawyer and the board lawyer had “settled it months ago.” I didn’t get that impression from reading Steve’s blog. I understood him to say he learned that his charge was at an end when he read his name on a class schedule for next fall. lee drury de cesare<
She still doesn't get it, the illiterate bozo. I've already taught her how to show possession of regular plurals. There's no way I'd sit next to her on the bus.
>... Tom Galagher said that the reason Steve had got no notice of the charges’s end was that his lawyer and the board lawyer had “settled it months ago.” I didn’t get that impression from reading Steve’s blog. I understood him to say he learned that his charge was at an end when he read his name on a class schedule for next fall. lee drury de cesare<
She still doesn't get it, the illiterate bozo. I've already taught her how to show possession of regular plurals. There's no way I'd sit next to her on the bus.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Now, who's the liar?
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/antigrammargrinch-surfaces-again.html
Lee Drury de Cesare is a damned liar. I've got this email, and it reads grown-up's. (See the post below.)
I've a message for the anonymous poster who is littering Casting-Room Couch at the moment: You can accuse people of lying all you like, but I've got proof that Vinegartits edits her emails before she posts them on her blog. What else do you think she edits? She isn't honest enough to stand by what she has written.
She's gutless.
Surfaced? I never left.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/antigrammargrinch-surfaces-again.html
This is laughable. Vinegartits confused the homophones “it’s” and “its” in her recent email to Linda Cobbe. I emailed the entire list to alert everyone to Vinegartits’s homophone illiteracy, and sent a cc to Vinegartits herself. Vinegartits tries to rip into my grammar and syntax, but fails miserably. Read this!
I wrote this:
Unfortunately, I don't think that she has the mental capacity to remember what she has filed or what she has asked for if she can't master simple English language concepts and is clearly illiterate.
Lee wrote:
>Antigrammargrinch expresses himself thusly [“thus” is already an adverb]:"... if she can't master simple English language concepts and is clearly illiterate." This locution should read "...if she can't master simple English (hyphenate for two words acting as a single adjective before a noun) language concepts, she is clearly illiterate."<
Those ellipses are misleading, Vinegartits. Your readers don’t know what has been elided. They would assume that “she is clearly illiterate” is the principal clause. I thought it was odd that I would have made such an error until I checked my email.
My principal clause is “Unfortunately, I don't think that she has the mental capacity to remember what she has filed or what she has asked for”. I added an adverbial subordinate clause of condition with a compound predicate.
My sentence reads thus:
Unfortunately, I don't think that she has the mental capacity to remember what she has filed or what she has asked for if she can't master simple English language concepts and [if she] is clearly illiterate.
You, Vinegartits, are changing the meaning of what I wrote. I wrote that you don’t have the mental capacity if you can’t master concepts and that you don’t have the mental capacity if you are clearly illiterate. I was not writing that you were illiterate because you can’t master the concepts; I was writing that you were illiterate as well that you can’t master the concepts.
So there’s nothing wrong with my grammar and syntax. It pains me that I construct a clear and correct sentence to explain myself and that I have to explain it to a lower-quartile dunderhead who can’t recognise homophones.
But I’ll try your advice. (I’ll include the rest of my sentence, though.)
Vinegartits thinks I should have written this:
Unfortunately, I don't think that she has the mental capacity to remember what she has filed or what she has asked for if she can't master simple English language concepts, she is clearly illiterate.
Have a long look. Have another long, hard look just to be sure.
That’s right. Lee Drury de Cesare, English teacher of 28 years with PBK membership and all her wonderful knowledge of grammar, wants to correct my syntax with a comma splice.
Boo, Vinegartits. No one likes your grammar bullying. You hassle enough people about their homophone errors and won’t stop emailing the same tired old cracks about “your” and “you’re”, but then you admonish me and say I need to move up from homophones. I could get sharper, but it would be wasted on comma-splicing dullards like you.
At no time did I suggest that you were senile, either.
>Meanwhile, Antigrammargrinch needs to move up to something a little more complicated in the English language than mangled homophones if he is going to joust on grammar's grown-up's turf<
The turf of grown-up of grammar? You meant “grown-ups”, didn’t you? “Grammar’s grown-ups’ turf”. Wow. How do you do it, you apostrophe-mangling airhead, in a sentence bidding me to move to something more complicated?
>if she can't master simple English (hyphenate for two words acting as a single adjective before a noun) language concepts<
If the compound adjective is a no-brainer and clear, the hyphen is not needed.
This is laughable. Vinegartits confused the homophones “it’s” and “its” in her recent email to Linda Cobbe. I emailed the entire list to alert everyone to Vinegartits’s homophone illiteracy, and sent a cc to Vinegartits herself. Vinegartits tries to rip into my grammar and syntax, but fails miserably. Read this!
I wrote this:
Unfortunately, I don't think that she has the mental capacity to remember what she has filed or what she has asked for if she can't master simple English language concepts and is clearly illiterate.
Lee wrote:
>Antigrammargrinch expresses himself thusly [“thus” is already an adverb]:"... if she can't master simple English language concepts and is clearly illiterate." This locution should read "...if she can't master simple English (hyphenate for two words acting as a single adjective before a noun) language concepts, she is clearly illiterate."<
Those ellipses are misleading, Vinegartits. Your readers don’t know what has been elided. They would assume that “she is clearly illiterate” is the principal clause. I thought it was odd that I would have made such an error until I checked my email.
My principal clause is “Unfortunately, I don't think that she has the mental capacity to remember what she has filed or what she has asked for”. I added an adverbial subordinate clause of condition with a compound predicate.
My sentence reads thus:
Unfortunately, I don't think that she has the mental capacity to remember what she has filed or what she has asked for if she can't master simple English language concepts and [if she] is clearly illiterate.
You, Vinegartits, are changing the meaning of what I wrote. I wrote that you don’t have the mental capacity if you can’t master concepts and that you don’t have the mental capacity if you are clearly illiterate. I was not writing that you were illiterate because you can’t master the concepts; I was writing that you were illiterate as well that you can’t master the concepts.
So there’s nothing wrong with my grammar and syntax. It pains me that I construct a clear and correct sentence to explain myself and that I have to explain it to a lower-quartile dunderhead who can’t recognise homophones.
But I’ll try your advice. (I’ll include the rest of my sentence, though.)
Vinegartits thinks I should have written this:
Unfortunately, I don't think that she has the mental capacity to remember what she has filed or what she has asked for if she can't master simple English language concepts, she is clearly illiterate.
Have a long look. Have another long, hard look just to be sure.
That’s right. Lee Drury de Cesare, English teacher of 28 years with PBK membership and all her wonderful knowledge of grammar, wants to correct my syntax with a comma splice.
Boo, Vinegartits. No one likes your grammar bullying. You hassle enough people about their homophone errors and won’t stop emailing the same tired old cracks about “your” and “you’re”, but then you admonish me and say I need to move up from homophones. I could get sharper, but it would be wasted on comma-splicing dullards like you.
At no time did I suggest that you were senile, either.
>Meanwhile, Antigrammargrinch needs to move up to something a little more complicated in the English language than mangled homophones if he is going to joust on grammar's grown-up's turf<
The turf of grown-up of grammar? You meant “grown-ups”, didn’t you? “Grammar’s grown-ups’ turf”. Wow. How do you do it, you apostrophe-mangling airhead, in a sentence bidding me to move to something more complicated?
>if she can't master simple English (hyphenate for two words acting as a single adjective before a noun) language concepts<
If the compound adjective is a no-brainer and clear, the hyphen is not needed.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
More homophone trouble in formal communication
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/06/step-by-weary-step-do-we-protect.html
>Please consider this a formal complain of breech of professional standards by Supervisor Sosa in the Special Ed division.<
I was going to make a post to respond to Vinegartits's post about my email, but I found this first. The illiterate cow has more homophone trouble than anyone she has pointed her finger at, especially in her formal writing.
I'll post my response to her bagging me later. It's a corker, but I want to give her a chance to dwell on how I'm going to nail her. She'll read this and go back and check the email and her post, realising (if she is as good as she says she is)) that she has stuffed up big time and tried to correct my writing with what she has always maintained is a grammar felony. Curious? Watch this space.
I'll even make a post about an issue for a change, although I am primarily concerned with Vinegartits's misfiring grammar and punctuation.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Homophone illiteracy in formal communication.
>If the school system does not have one, it's management is highly remiss in professionalism.<
This is a common error among illiterate idiots. "It's" always means "it is" or "it has". For all other cases, use "its". More specifically, "its" is the possessive form of the pronoun "it".
the management belonging to it = its management
Lee alleges that she has a perfect recollection of what she has filed, written and sent, but she can't master this simple homophone in a formal communication. I've half a mind to email everyone on the list and warn them of her illiteracy and therefore credibility.
>That trick was played on me when I filed against Dr. Hamilton for using the emails for his personal pursuits a couple of years ago when Ms. Elia and Ms. Kipley had cooked up charges against Bart Birsall for using the school emails for his persoal business. <
The ability to proofread a formal communication is another issue.
>Women Must Demand a New Council of Trent and Demand Equal Representation on It or Not Accept the Vatican's Rules Coming Out of it. Fair Is Fair, Fellows.
Ms. Elia used apocryphal information to hang a charge on Kemp because he has an education blogs, and blogs' commenting on anything about the schools are an anathema to the administration and school board. <
The possessive-before-gerund rule is yet another. No wonder Vinegartits's students were confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
