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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Finally, I answer your loaded question here.
Goader's comment:
John_D— Apparently, the “D” is Not for Debate
I have not responded to your question about coaxial TV cable because you were trying to bait me, and that is my job. The time has come to entertain your bit of political theatre.
Your tagline question goes like this, “What is coaxial TV cable designed to do?” The answers provided are, “Carry signals to a TV set” or “Tie up students.” The question is loaded so that the only reasonable answer is, “Carry signals to a TV set.” Further, you designed the question to impugn my version of the actions I took on a certain day in June 2008. On that day, I looped a coaxial cable through two stainless steel rings located on the back of a harness worn by a profoundly mentally disabled child. This child was known to run away and previously had been found wandering amid traffic. I was watching two equally disabled children that day, and use the term children loosely. These were two grown men standing about six feet tall but with the mental capacity of a one-year-old.
No one was ever “tied up” as you so maliciously propound. Rather, he wore a restraint harness that was used for keeping him in his seat on the bus to and from home. Something is used to thread through the harness rings and secure him to the bus. Since it is in the back, he cannot release himself. I used the harness, as it was designed, only in a student desk chair instead of a bus seat. The coaxial cable never touched the individual at any time.
A few people including two administrators lied by stating the cable was around the student’s waist. Those lies were never found to be true, and the police report accurately describes how the cable was used.
Things are often used for purposes other than that for which they were specifically designed. For example, I have used a paper clip to reset my router and release the cd drive on my laptop.
The purpose of your inquiry was to criticize my using it in the way I did. Had you depicted its use accurately, I would have respected your view and differing opinion. However, you framed the question in such a way as to inflame the situation. Further, by not describing the way it was used accurately, you revealed your clear bias in the argument. You tried to bait me rather than debate my actions that day. Now, I have cleared the air.
My response:
The "D" is not for "debate"? You ratbag. I have been asking this question for ages and you've written nothing.
Coaxial's design purpose has nothing - NOTHING - to do with restraint.
It's that simple.
"I looped a coaxial cable through two stainless steel rings located on the back of a harness worn by a profoundly mentally disabled child."
"Things are often used for purposes other than that for which they were specifically designed."
So you didn't use the coaxial cable for the purpose for which it was designed. We agree on that then, yes?
Post a Comment