I posted the comment below to Lee's blog. She did not publish it. She did, however, publish another comment that I made directing Bart here. She knows that I am too smart for her censorship and for her stomping on the First Amendment.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2010/08/i-dont-think-this-is-john.html
>Blogger William said...
I can not find your name anywhere on your site. Lee DeCesare signs her attacks on people, and she tends to fight for taxpayers. She is not scared to sign her name to anything she says or writes. I think you should do the same. Bart Birdsall
January 29, 2008 7:24 PM<
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8374641311303554733&postID=3250701688637306093">
Strange, given that you didn't know I had a blog, don't you think?
Again, Bart, what is the design purpose of coaxial cable? You wonder why I don't raise issues; none of you will answer.
Again, Bart, read my original comments on the blog for the "why". Are you a slow learner or something?
Vox, you have abused me plenty. You are lying, delusional, or both. And you write like a 4-year-old.
>I only defend the Little People. They have no defense, and I could care less about the people who sit in positions of power. They can fend for themselves ... I have really no empathy or sympathy for the people who hold the reins of power. They usually have the money and knowledge and confidence to defend themselves. <
Wow, Bart, you discriminate against people pretty blatantly. If I wrote "I only defend people who aren't gay; I could care less about the homosexuals", you'd have your panties in a bunch, wouldn't you? Now here is an issue. Why do you discriminate against someone based on their position?
You write it doesn't matter - then why ask, Bart? Tell you what; you go and continue to do whatever strikes your fancy, and respect the fact that I'm doing what strikes mine.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
She still can't punctuate.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2010/02/godfathers-mouthpiece-speaks-for.html
"These are members of your county delegation in Tallahassee; they are Senators Storms Comma here, airhead Justice, and Joyner.
Here are all of your delegation's names of the delegations = delegations'. Lee never could use an apostrophe properly. names: drop them a line of instruction or rebuke."
"These are members of your county delegation in Tallahassee; they are Senators Storms Comma here, airhead Justice, and Joyner.
Here are all of your delegation's names of the delegations = delegations'. Lee never could use an apostrophe properly. names: drop them a line of instruction or rebuke."
Friday, January 22, 2010
Bullying defined for schools
(a) "Bullying" means systematically and chronically inflicting physical hurt or psychological distress on one or more students and may involve:
1. Teasing;
2. Social exclusion;
3. Threat;
4. Intimidation;
5. Stalking;
6. Physical violence;
7. Theft;
8. Sexual or racial harassment;
9. Public humiliation; or
10. Destruction of property.
Now class, remember that this only applies to students according to the legislation. Unless you're Steve Kemp - then it can apply to you. But it you're Vinegartits and you systematically inflict distress to Falliero et al (all school employees, no?) with name-calling and public humiliation, then it's okay.
I think I'll file a bullying complaint. I mean, it's all there in black and white on the internet that Lee bullies school employees.
1. Teasing;
2. Social exclusion;
3. Threat;
4. Intimidation;
5. Stalking;
6. Physical violence;
7. Theft;
8. Sexual or racial harassment;
9. Public humiliation; or
10. Destruction of property.
Now class, remember that this only applies to students according to the legislation. Unless you're Steve Kemp - then it can apply to you. But it you're Vinegartits and you systematically inflict distress to Falliero et al (all school employees, no?) with name-calling and public humiliation, then it's okay.
I think I'll file a bullying complaint. I mean, it's all there in black and white on the internet that Lee bullies school employees.
Harassment defined for schools
(b) "Harassment" means any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of data or computer software, or written, verbal, or physical conduct directed against a student or school employee that:
1. Places a student or school employee in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person or damage to his or her property;
2. Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student's educational performance, opportunities, or benefits; or
3. Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school.
This is the definition that Lee is always quoting.
1. Places a student or school employee in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person or damage to his or her property;
2. Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student's educational performance, opportunities, or benefits; or
3. Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school.
This is the definition that Lee is always quoting.
Illiteracy within her writing of others' illiteracy.
I was trying to find Lee's post where she bangs on about the bullying and harassment legislation and stumbled on this classic.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2010/01/playbook-for-griffins-challengers.html
>Employers don't think inability to punctuate, to write literate sentences, and even to construct reports are trivial.
The subject of "are" is "inability". "Inability" is singular. Employers don't think inability ... is trivial.
Make up your mind, you illiterate idiot. Bart and Vox think it's all trivial. Unless you're doing it, of course - then you're a hero.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2010/01/playbook-for-griffins-challengers.html
>Employers don't think inability to punctuate, to write literate sentences, and even to construct reports are trivial.
The subject of "are" is "inability". "Inability" is singular. Employers don't think inability ... is trivial.
Make up your mind, you illiterate idiot. Bart and Vox think it's all trivial. Unless you're doing it, of course - then you're a hero.
Lee hates free speech!
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2010/01/john-d-gets-his-comeuppance.html
Lee won't post the following comment. I'll keep posting it until she does. Free speech and First Amendment, my arse!
Perhaps Vox would like to define harassment. Or would she like to throw in the metaphorical towel also?
Bart says the homophobes can do and say what they like as long as gay students are not harassed. How does he feel about Lee de Cesare? Is she allowed to say and do what she likes under her freedom of speech umbrella as long as nobody is harassed?
You antinitpickers are all for stopping harassment right up until someone asks you what it actually is.
Yes, I am ambulatory. I'm sure that there is something that you deem witty or clever marching with ill-deserved confidence towards the conversation.
I'll pay your bill when you can direct me to the part of the law that supports your claim. What do you make of the following, bozo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Now, Vox, define harassment. Or are you whimpering out of the ring? You're as bad as Bart make me out to be when I wrote that I hadn't read any further in his post. You've made up your mind that you won't be asking me any more questions.
Lee won't post the following comment. I'll keep posting it until she does. Free speech and First Amendment, my arse!
Perhaps Vox would like to define harassment. Or would she like to throw in the metaphorical towel also?
Bart says the homophobes can do and say what they like as long as gay students are not harassed. How does he feel about Lee de Cesare? Is she allowed to say and do what she likes under her freedom of speech umbrella as long as nobody is harassed?
You antinitpickers are all for stopping harassment right up until someone asks you what it actually is.
Yes, I am ambulatory. I'm sure that there is something that you deem witty or clever marching with ill-deserved confidence towards the conversation.
I'll pay your bill when you can direct me to the part of the law that supports your claim. What do you make of the following, bozo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Now, Vox, define harassment. Or are you whimpering out of the ring? You're as bad as Bart make me out to be when I wrote that I hadn't read any further in his post. You've made up your mind that you won't be asking me any more questions.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Joint ownership
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2010/01/john-d-gets-his-comeuppance.html
The Council of Trent Goes to the Mattresses in the Crossfire of John D's and Bart Birdsall's Nitpicking Joust;
There is only one joust, so it must be jointly attributed to John D and Bart Birdsall.
Edit: the crossfire of John D and Bart Birdsall's Nitpicking Joust
Ding! Yet another round goes to Antigrammargrinch on points. Bart won't even don his gloves.
The Council of Trent Goes to the Mattresses in the Crossfire of John D's and Bart Birdsall's Nitpicking Joust;
There is only one joust, so it must be jointly attributed to John D and Bart Birdsall.
Edit: the crossfire of John D and Bart Birdsall's Nitpicking Joust
Ding! Yet another round goes to Antigrammargrinch on points. Bart won't even don his gloves.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Response to Bart Birdsall
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2010/01/john-d-gets-his-comeuppance.html
When I made the post, I had read no further, Bart. My point was that irregularities stood out and I had questions before going any further. I'm sorry that you misconstrued this.
How many times were you in your metaphorical boxing ring and said "Oh, I'm not going to duke it out with you"? You say there's no point debating with someone like me who nitpicks over things; Lee's punctuation pettiness must have you fairly reeling!
I find it strange that you don't like this nitpicking business, yet you were pushing for certain wording in a harassment policy. I'd like to know what the wording was and the wording you were duking it out for.
Tell you what; you're all for freedom of speech until someone gets harassed. Define harassment for me. Duke it out with me. If you can't handle duking it out with some nitpicking emailer, I would find it hard to believe that you duke it out with the Mike Tysons of the world.
Is the First Amendment upheld in courts when someone feels harassed? You mention that it is not upheld when it incites violence, but what about harassment? I look forward to your expert comment.
Lee won't post the following comment. I'll keep posting it until she does. Free speech and First Amendment, my arse!
Perhaps Vox would like to define harassment. Or would she like to throw in the metaphorical towel also?
Bart says the homophobes can do and say what they like as long as gay students are not harassed. How does he feel about Lee de Cesare? Is she allowed to say and do what she likes under her freedom of speech umbrella as long as nobody is harassed?
You antinitpickers are all for stopping harassment right up until someone asks you what it actually is.
When I made the post, I had read no further, Bart. My point was that irregularities stood out and I had questions before going any further. I'm sorry that you misconstrued this.
How many times were you in your metaphorical boxing ring and said "Oh, I'm not going to duke it out with you"? You say there's no point debating with someone like me who nitpicks over things; Lee's punctuation pettiness must have you fairly reeling!
I find it strange that you don't like this nitpicking business, yet you were pushing for certain wording in a harassment policy. I'd like to know what the wording was and the wording you were duking it out for.
Tell you what; you're all for freedom of speech until someone gets harassed. Define harassment for me. Duke it out with me. If you can't handle duking it out with some nitpicking emailer, I would find it hard to believe that you duke it out with the Mike Tysons of the world.
Is the First Amendment upheld in courts when someone feels harassed? You mention that it is not upheld when it incites violence, but what about harassment? I look forward to your expert comment.
Lee won't post the following comment. I'll keep posting it until she does. Free speech and First Amendment, my arse!
Perhaps Vox would like to define harassment. Or would she like to throw in the metaphorical towel also?
Bart says the homophobes can do and say what they like as long as gay students are not harassed. How does he feel about Lee de Cesare? Is she allowed to say and do what she likes under her freedom of speech umbrella as long as nobody is harassed?
You antinitpickers are all for stopping harassment right up until someone asks you what it actually is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
