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.