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.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
I can't work out this logic.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/12/when-in-doubt-nag-dammit-nag.html
>Please consider this a formal complaint against Principal Morris of the Special Ed division .... The three's job descriptions detail those obligations that they
they either didn't know or ignored.<
So Kemp didn't know his obligations, but someone else is responsible. Morris didn't know her obligations, but you want to make a formal complaint. Have I got this correct?
Mr Cocks? I suppose that is Vox being funny again, isn't it, Lee?
A stupendous retelling, Goader? Perhaps. Do you agree with its accuracy, though? Was (or is) there abuse of retarded children?
Have I interpreted Lee correctly? Goader didn't know his obligations, but his superiors are responsible; Morris perhaps didn't know her obligations yet receives a request for a formal complaint?
Is lying through one's teeth a yardstick by which we judge people? Of course lawyers be discouraged from doing so. What about posters/bloggers who lie through their teeth also? Should they be allowed to lie through their teeth because they don't work for ROSSAC?
I look forward to reading your replies regarding this issue, but I won't get my hopes up!
Vox Populi said...
Kandy's hubby (RIP marriage to kandy) is back. How I've misled him. I mean missed him.
1:18 PM
Yeah, Vox, and I've been shagging Bart ever since I left the bitch.
You'll post Vox's potty mouth and gay taunts, Lee. Extend me the same, thank you.
LEE DIDN'T PUBLISH THE ABOVE COMMENT. SHE'LL ALLOW VOX'S POTTY MOUTH, BUT NOT MINE
Bloggers give their opinions on things. It is one thing for Lee to give her opinion and take on how the ROSSAC thugs mistreat teachers. She has that right. It is a whole different matter when a school board attorney representing a governmental agency lies through his teeth on camera at a school board meeting. Surely, you must know that. There is a huge difference.
Ahh, "opinions". I didn't question bloggers' opinions versus lawyers' lies. I questioned bloggers' lies versus lawyers' lies.
Now, can YOU see the difference?
My questions about abuse and obligations remain. Can you see the difference between lawyers who are pressed to give an answer to their claptrap and bloggers who remain surprisingly quiet?
>Please consider this a formal complaint against Principal Morris of the Special Ed division .... The three's job descriptions detail those obligations that they
they either didn't know or ignored.<
So Kemp didn't know his obligations, but someone else is responsible. Morris didn't know her obligations, but you want to make a formal complaint. Have I got this correct?
Mr Cocks? I suppose that is Vox being funny again, isn't it, Lee?
A stupendous retelling, Goader? Perhaps. Do you agree with its accuracy, though? Was (or is) there abuse of retarded children?
Have I interpreted Lee correctly? Goader didn't know his obligations, but his superiors are responsible; Morris perhaps didn't know her obligations yet receives a request for a formal complaint?
Is lying through one's teeth a yardstick by which we judge people? Of course lawyers be discouraged from doing so. What about posters/bloggers who lie through their teeth also? Should they be allowed to lie through their teeth because they don't work for ROSSAC?
I look forward to reading your replies regarding this issue, but I won't get my hopes up!
Vox Populi said...
Kandy's hubby (RIP marriage to kandy) is back. How I've misled him. I mean missed him.
1:18 PM
Yeah, Vox, and I've been shagging Bart ever since I left the bitch.
You'll post Vox's potty mouth and gay taunts, Lee. Extend me the same, thank you.
LEE DIDN'T PUBLISH THE ABOVE COMMENT. SHE'LL ALLOW VOX'S POTTY MOUTH, BUT NOT MINE
Bloggers give their opinions on things. It is one thing for Lee to give her opinion and take on how the ROSSAC thugs mistreat teachers. She has that right. It is a whole different matter when a school board attorney representing a governmental agency lies through his teeth on camera at a school board meeting. Surely, you must know that. There is a huge difference.
Ahh, "opinions". I didn't question bloggers' opinions versus lawyers' lies. I questioned bloggers' lies versus lawyers' lies.
Now, can YOU see the difference?
My questions about abuse and obligations remain. Can you see the difference between lawyers who are pressed to give an answer to their claptrap and bloggers who remain surprisingly quiet?
Monday, December 7, 2009
What comma splice drugs is Lee on?
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/12/suelching-false-rumors.html
>In fact, I encouraged her to run and kicked in a campaign contribution to her kitty, I believe she loves her husband and two little boys and that her husband loves her, On top of this, Mark Hart is a devoted Catholic who still suffers from guilt about his affair with Motel 8 Pole Girl Falliero. <
>I trust that his Scandinavian wife beats the Hillsborough school board Motel 8 adventuress Falliero with the same 7-iron ... <
Sexist.
>The wife should also scratch La Jennifer's nose as she did Tiger's and should finish off the school board's Delta Dawn by yanking out a couple of handsful of that dyed faux teeny bopper hair. <
You're kidding, teacher!
>In fact, I encouraged her to run and kicked in a campaign contribution to her kitty, I believe she loves her husband and two little boys and that her husband loves her, On top of this, Mark Hart is a devoted Catholic who still suffers from guilt about his affair with Motel 8 Pole Girl Falliero. <
>I trust that his Scandinavian wife beats the Hillsborough school board Motel 8 adventuress Falliero with the same 7-iron ... <
Sexist.
>The wife should also scratch La Jennifer's nose as she did Tiger's and should finish off the school board's Delta Dawn by yanking out a couple of handsful of that dyed faux teeny bopper hair. <
You're kidding, teacher!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
John_D CENSORED yet again.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-do-these-guys-pass-bar.html
Vinegartits will publish comments about my being someone's gay husband so that everyone can have a laugh, but she wouldn't post my reply. Typical. First amendment, my queynte.
My reply:
>Most posts on this subject say that nothing at all was found.<
Okay, Goader. "Most" obviously didn't cut it for you. Try this:
Most posts I have read on this subject say that nothing was found at all.
Better? I ddn't say that there was an effort to hide facts. What it seems and what it is are two different things. Esse quam videri.
If I can find spare time, I'll sift through your older posts and try to find your writing that they found indicators of abuse. Or you could provide a link for me, if you like. I would like to know if there is a post on this blog [Casting Room Couch] that outlines that there were indicators of abuse. I'd welcome that link also.
Goader, have you ever mentioned in a post that the CPI deemed that coaxial cable was not designed for restraining students? Click, click, click. Sorry, my ruby slippers ain't finding it. Could you please provide a link?
4:25 PM
John__D said...
"it was not in good judgment to use a tool (coaxial cable) not designed and approved to restrain students."Damn straight. "Not designed" is one thing. "Not approved" is another.I hadn't realised that the CPI had found verified indicators of abuse, neglect or abandonment. Most posts on this subject say that nothing at all was found.Thanks for posting the link. It certainly is good to have all the info.
2:27 AM
Anonymous said...
lee i can't find this guy (the attorney) in the florida bar member search.
12:39 PM
Goader said...
John_D, you make it seem like there was a concerted effort to hide facts about my case from readers like you. You are being disingenuous by promulgating—actually fabricating—the existence of a conspiracy where none existed. Perhaps you were not reading "Goader" when I first wrote about the case and subsequently revealed the facts, including the coaxial cable and the finding of abuse by the Child Protective Agency representative. Just because you are finding out about all the facts now does not mean a conspiracy existed.
2:58 PM
Anonymous said...
Is John D. Candy Olson's gay husband?
Vinegartits will publish comments about my being someone's gay husband so that everyone can have a laugh, but she wouldn't post my reply. Typical. First amendment, my queynte.
My reply:
>Most posts on this subject say that nothing at all was found.<
Okay, Goader. "Most" obviously didn't cut it for you. Try this:
Most posts I have read on this subject say that nothing was found at all.
Better? I ddn't say that there was an effort to hide facts. What it seems and what it is are two different things. Esse quam videri.
If I can find spare time, I'll sift through your older posts and try to find your writing that they found indicators of abuse. Or you could provide a link for me, if you like. I would like to know if there is a post on this blog [Casting Room Couch] that outlines that there were indicators of abuse. I'd welcome that link also.
Goader, have you ever mentioned in a post that the CPI deemed that coaxial cable was not designed for restraining students? Click, click, click. Sorry, my ruby slippers ain't finding it. Could you please provide a link?
4:25 PM
John__D said...
"it was not in good judgment to use a tool (coaxial cable) not designed and approved to restrain students."Damn straight. "Not designed" is one thing. "Not approved" is another.I hadn't realised that the CPI had found verified indicators of abuse, neglect or abandonment. Most posts on this subject say that nothing at all was found.Thanks for posting the link. It certainly is good to have all the info.
2:27 AM
Anonymous said...
lee i can't find this guy (the attorney) in the florida bar member search.
12:39 PM
Goader said...
John_D, you make it seem like there was a concerted effort to hide facts about my case from readers like you. You are being disingenuous by promulgating—actually fabricating—the existence of a conspiracy where none existed. Perhaps you were not reading "Goader" when I first wrote about the case and subsequently revealed the facts, including the coaxial cable and the finding of abuse by the Child Protective Agency representative. Just because you are finding out about all the facts now does not mean a conspiracy existed.
2:58 PM
Anonymous said...
Is John D. Candy Olson's gay husband?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Go away, Vox.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-my-blog-and-ill-use-it-as-mood.html
>no he's still just trying to derail the discussion, lee.<
Naturally you would support and empathise the board when they allege that Lee is trying to derail a discussion at a meeting.
You people give it, but you can't take it. I couldn't care if you never wrote a keystroke to me. Just don't. I've been happy for two years listing Lee's hypocrisy at my blog, and I've never looked for attention. I've posted on this blog many times and no one responded. Lee loves burying the comments. That's fine, too.
I just didn't like being told to STFU. Now, FO, Vox, so I can get back to what I was doing.
>no he's still just trying to derail the discussion, lee.<
Naturally you would support and empathise the board when they allege that Lee is trying to derail a discussion at a meeting.
You people give it, but you can't take it. I couldn't care if you never wrote a keystroke to me. Just don't. I've been happy for two years listing Lee's hypocrisy at my blog, and I've never looked for attention. I've posted on this blog many times and no one responded. Lee loves burying the comments. That's fine, too.
I just didn't like being told to STFU. Now, FO, Vox, so I can get back to what I was doing.
The denigration of women - check your Chaucer.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28089922&postID=3151165497187783770&page=1
>Anonymous said...
I sad bad Photoshop pic blogger posted of you. Well, I saw you in person at a meeting, and you're one classy lady. Well dressed and in good shape. Why do some sickos feel the need to denegrate women?<
>Why do some sickos feel the need to denegrate women?<
No, clown. I am satirising Lee. (One woman.) You know - satire? Like when Chaucer wrote about a queynte? Or is that denigrating women, too?
>Anonymous said...
I sad bad Photoshop pic blogger posted of you. Well, I saw you in person at a meeting, and you're one classy lady. Well dressed and in good shape. Why do some sickos feel the need to denegrate women?<
>Why do some sickos feel the need to denegrate women?<
No, clown. I am satirising Lee. (One woman.) You know - satire? Like when Chaucer wrote about a queynte? Or is that denigrating women, too?
Lee, tell Vox to lay off.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/11/lock-and-load-time-to-mosey-on-down-to.html
Lee, you had better advise Vox to lay the [insert truncated profanity here] off. If she isn't going to address me directly but in third person, I am still going to respond to her.
It's not my anonymous comment. This is ironic. My original question was about anonymity. I hope that someone from the school board alleges that your "anonymous" poster about homeless people was actually you.
>He has no first amendment rights here.<
Why,? Aren't we in America anymore? Vox has had the hide to say that I'm anti-American if I'm against the constitution (which I wasn't?!) and now tells me that I have no free speech. Oh, I'll contribute to the issues if you like, Vox, and I'll whistle the Star-Spangled Banner while I do.
Again I ask: what are your contributions to casting room couch? Calling everyone criminals with no proof, making fun of people's physical appearance with a bit of name-calling and telling Lee how wonderful she is. Teachers all over the country must be so glad to have you aboard.
>I am not the subject here, nor is John. The subject is the corruption of the school board and improving the world in general for all of us.<
One of the recurring themes about the school is bullying. You are a bully, Vox. Lee is a bully. If this truly is the subject (and Lee is writing to all and sundry complaining that it is) then why not take a leaf out of Ghandi's book and be the change that you want to see in the world?
Vox Populi said...
See, lee. He probably made that anonymous comment. He continues to change the subject TO HIMSELF. John is A TROLL.
I am not the subject here, nor is John. The subject is the corruption of the school board and improving the world in general for all of us.
I don't see John contributing there.
He's just trolling.He has all the hallmarks of a troll.
He has no first amendment rights here. I made a mistake addressing him in the first place. At every opportunity he takes the attention to HIMSELF. This blog isn't to discuss John's obvious lack of insurance coverage or reluctance to visit the EAP at his employer's expense.
I would post this anonymously BECAUSE I CAN. But won't.
Lee, you had better advise Vox to lay the [insert truncated profanity here] off. If she isn't going to address me directly but in third person, I am still going to respond to her.
It's not my anonymous comment. This is ironic. My original question was about anonymity. I hope that someone from the school board alleges that your "anonymous" poster about homeless people was actually you.
>He has no first amendment rights here.<
Why,? Aren't we in America anymore? Vox has had the hide to say that I'm anti-American if I'm against the constitution (which I wasn't?!) and now tells me that I have no free speech. Oh, I'll contribute to the issues if you like, Vox, and I'll whistle the Star-Spangled Banner while I do.
Again I ask: what are your contributions to casting room couch? Calling everyone criminals with no proof, making fun of people's physical appearance with a bit of name-calling and telling Lee how wonderful she is. Teachers all over the country must be so glad to have you aboard.
>I am not the subject here, nor is John. The subject is the corruption of the school board and improving the world in general for all of us.<
One of the recurring themes about the school is bullying. You are a bully, Vox. Lee is a bully. If this truly is the subject (and Lee is writing to all and sundry complaining that it is) then why not take a leaf out of Ghandi's book and be the change that you want to see in the world?
Vox Populi said...
See, lee. He probably made that anonymous comment. He continues to change the subject TO HIMSELF. John is A TROLL.
I am not the subject here, nor is John. The subject is the corruption of the school board and improving the world in general for all of us.
I don't see John contributing there.
He's just trolling.He has all the hallmarks of a troll.
He has no first amendment rights here. I made a mistake addressing him in the first place. At every opportunity he takes the attention to HIMSELF. This blog isn't to discuss John's obvious lack of insurance coverage or reluctance to visit the EAP at his employer's expense.
I would post this anonymously BECAUSE I CAN. But won't.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Lee's views on the First Amendment
You would like this one, Vox.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28089922&postID=114800803467888235
>I will publish your chicaneries that I detect on this blog. You are going to sue me for telling the truth? Bring it on, ma'am. Bring it on if you dare. I have always wanted to be a martyr for the First Amendment. How much more glamorous a role can I get to enter into my eternal resume? My children will put on my Brooksville tombstone: "Dear Old Mom--Great Cook and Martyr for the First Amendment."<
No, I reckon Lee's children will write "Liked the First Amendment when it suited, but would not apply it consistenly, let alone die for it."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28089922&postID=114800803467888235
>I will publish your chicaneries that I detect on this blog. You are going to sue me for telling the truth? Bring it on, ma'am. Bring it on if you dare. I have always wanted to be a martyr for the First Amendment. How much more glamorous a role can I get to enter into my eternal resume? My children will put on my Brooksville tombstone: "Dear Old Mom--Great Cook and Martyr for the First Amendment."<
No, I reckon Lee's children will write "Liked the First Amendment when it suited, but would not apply it consistenly, let alone die for it."
Lee de Cesare - elderly female writer of vile stuff
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/10/first-bullying-charge.html
>The Board lard-asses attend so many political banquets and sundry eating opportunities in the high and gluttony office of school board members that they have waxed fatter than fat. Being overweight and an aficionado of food wretched- excess goes along with the role of political functionaries. No prissy linguistics killjoys need protest that "lard-ass" is a vulgarity. The word has an impeccable linguistic history, having been found on the caves of Lescaux of our prehistoric ancestors along with the bison drawings. "Lard-asses" moves along nicely in the language of the human race and is, in fact, a term that finds its place in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales as well as in comic masterpieces through the ages. <
Oh, you can write "lard-ass" but not "arse"! Hypocrite.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/08/error-erron-on-walll.html
>Linda says that the redaction was on separate paper with the Board's logo at the top. But that does not change the school's undermining the legitimacy of the Sheriff's investigation. That is dumb diplomacy to cover Tom Gonzalez's lazy ass. lee <
http://es-kay.net/?p=1182
>Is John a polymath, or is he just beating his chest and pretending to be one? I have met my share of machno grammarians in the faculty lounge who didn’t know their ass from their elbow.<
Vile, vile, vile!
>The Board lard-asses attend so many political banquets and sundry eating opportunities in the high and gluttony office of school board members that they have waxed fatter than fat. Being overweight and an aficionado of food wretched- excess goes along with the role of political functionaries. No prissy linguistics killjoys need protest that "lard-ass" is a vulgarity. The word has an impeccable linguistic history, having been found on the caves of Lescaux of our prehistoric ancestors along with the bison drawings. "Lard-asses" moves along nicely in the language of the human race and is, in fact, a term that finds its place in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales as well as in comic masterpieces through the ages. <
Oh, you can write "lard-ass" but not "arse"! Hypocrite.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/08/error-erron-on-walll.html
>Linda says that the redaction was on separate paper with the Board's logo at the top. But that does not change the school's undermining the legitimacy of the Sheriff's investigation. That is dumb diplomacy to cover Tom Gonzalez's lazy ass. lee <
http://es-kay.net/?p=1182
>Is John a polymath, or is he just beating his chest and pretending to be one? I have met my share of machno grammarians in the faculty lounge who didn’t know their ass from their elbow.<
Vile, vile, vile!
Lee will make up any excuse. You be the judge.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/11/lock-and-load-time-to-mosey-on-down-to.html
>I received bitter email from John D. and deleted it. The fellow is sicko. His words will no longer appear in Casting-room-couch's pages. Goodbye to all that. His next Internet Provider will probably be Chattahoochee. lee
Posted by twinkobie at 10:56 AM <
This alleged "bitter" email is the previous post on this blog. A particularly vile message as Lee writes below? No, it pales in comparison with Vox Populi's blog and comments she made to me on Lee's blog, and even with comments that Lee herself makes.
Thanks to the first-time poster for reiterating such things as free speech and the First Amendment. Lee's followers will probably think that you are me, but we know better.
Vulgar potty mouth? Arse? Lee de Cesare has used the term herself. When I find where she has done so, I'll post it here. Disrespecting women and the elderly? Rubbish! Lee writes that her age demands civility? Does she really want me to treat her differently based on her age? Discrimination is rife at casting room couch.
But so is hypocrisy. Lee has kittens if someone on the board makes any allusions to her mental capacity and gets her stinky knickers in a twist while crying, "I don't have Alzheimer's." (No one said she did?!) Amazingly, below she writes that she is not completely sure of my mental wellness.
(She has also written about determining mental illness here: http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/07/council-of-trent-aka-as-hillsborough.html >Now you and Steve Hegarty and perhaps others of the board and administration have apparently plotted to prevent my signing up for comment on agenda items because as Mr. Hegarty says, "they" think I am "confused" and don't know what I am talking about. Pray tell me if a licensed physician especially a psychiatrist has made this judgment and provide his or her name and also whether any of the people responsible for banning me from commenting on public issues marked with citizen-comment privilege on the Web-site agenda are licensed physicians, or are you and they practicing medicine without a license?<)
You're a hypocrite, Lee, but neither your age nor your sex will change the fact.
Finally, Lee bets that my comments will be on my blog. Even the lowliest board member with a Home-Ec degree from a cereal box can work out that I wrote that clearly in the post I made. Durr, teacher. Your comprehension skills are in the toilet again.
>Anonymous said...
Lee, I am a long time reader and first time commenter. I applaud your efforts at stopping the corruption of the school district, however, I must say I think you should allow john's comments. No matter how much we disagree with him, it is his first amendment right to be heard. That is what makes this country great. I don't understand how you can criticize the board for suppressing free speech while at the same time blocking john's comments. I hope you will reconsider your decision and allow his comments.
7:40 PM
twinkobie said...
I thought before I dropped John. He sent me a particularly vile message when I said I was cutting him out of the blog.
I don't mind criticism and correction--especially humorous, but I do mind a vulgar potty mouth. Humor is one thing. Vulgar vitriol is another. In addition, I am an elderly grandmother. John showed no respect for either women or the elderly when he wrote vile things on my blog. Young people have to observe some boundaries in their communication with us older people. Our age if nothing else demands civility from young people, COMMA SPLICE, YOU ILLITERATE BOZO And I must say I usually get respectful attention from most young people. John has crossed the line, and I don't intend to welcome him back over it. My patience finally wore out.
I am not completely sure of John's mental wellness. I think he needs therapy. I hope he gets it. John has his own blog's free-speech privileges on Antigrammargrinch. You can continue to read him there. But you won't be able to read him on my blog any longer.
He says he will continue to send me posts although I don't print them. I bet they will be on his blog. Read them there by all means. lee<
>I received bitter email from John D. and deleted it. The fellow is sicko. His words will no longer appear in Casting-room-couch's pages. Goodbye to all that. His next Internet Provider will probably be Chattahoochee. lee
Posted by twinkobie at 10:56 AM <
This alleged "bitter" email is the previous post on this blog. A particularly vile message as Lee writes below? No, it pales in comparison with Vox Populi's blog and comments she made to me on Lee's blog, and even with comments that Lee herself makes.
Thanks to the first-time poster for reiterating such things as free speech and the First Amendment. Lee's followers will probably think that you are me, but we know better.
Vulgar potty mouth? Arse? Lee de Cesare has used the term herself. When I find where she has done so, I'll post it here. Disrespecting women and the elderly? Rubbish! Lee writes that her age demands civility? Does she really want me to treat her differently based on her age? Discrimination is rife at casting room couch.
But so is hypocrisy. Lee has kittens if someone on the board makes any allusions to her mental capacity and gets her stinky knickers in a twist while crying, "I don't have Alzheimer's." (No one said she did?!) Amazingly, below she writes that she is not completely sure of my mental wellness.
(She has also written about determining mental illness here: http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/07/council-of-trent-aka-as-hillsborough.html >Now you and Steve Hegarty and perhaps others of the board and administration have apparently plotted to prevent my signing up for comment on agenda items because as Mr. Hegarty says, "they" think I am "confused" and don't know what I am talking about. Pray tell me if a licensed physician especially a psychiatrist has made this judgment and provide his or her name and also whether any of the people responsible for banning me from commenting on public issues marked with citizen-comment privilege on the Web-site agenda are licensed physicians, or are you and they practicing medicine without a license?<)
You're a hypocrite, Lee, but neither your age nor your sex will change the fact.
Finally, Lee bets that my comments will be on my blog. Even the lowliest board member with a Home-Ec degree from a cereal box can work out that I wrote that clearly in the post I made. Durr, teacher. Your comprehension skills are in the toilet again.
>Anonymous said...
Lee, I am a long time reader and first time commenter. I applaud your efforts at stopping the corruption of the school district, however, I must say I think you should allow john's comments. No matter how much we disagree with him, it is his first amendment right to be heard. That is what makes this country great. I don't understand how you can criticize the board for suppressing free speech while at the same time blocking john's comments. I hope you will reconsider your decision and allow his comments.
7:40 PM
twinkobie said...
I thought before I dropped John. He sent me a particularly vile message when I said I was cutting him out of the blog.
I don't mind criticism and correction--especially humorous, but I do mind a vulgar potty mouth. Humor is one thing. Vulgar vitriol is another. In addition, I am an elderly grandmother. John showed no respect for either women or the elderly when he wrote vile things on my blog. Young people have to observe some boundaries in their communication with us older people. Our age if nothing else demands civility from young people, COMMA SPLICE, YOU ILLITERATE BOZO And I must say I usually get respectful attention from most young people. John has crossed the line, and I don't intend to welcome him back over it. My patience finally wore out.
I am not completely sure of John's mental wellness. I think he needs therapy. I hope he gets it. John has his own blog's free-speech privileges on Antigrammargrinch. You can continue to read him there. But you won't be able to read him on my blog any longer.
He says he will continue to send me posts although I don't print them. I bet they will be on his blog. Read them there by all means. lee<
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
First Amendment be hanged!
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/11/evil-may-come-and-evil-may-go-but.html
>A reluctant farewell to John D, whose comments I will no longer print. Those who want to follow his blog, go to AntiGrammargrinch. I wish John well but allow him no more free rides for his vitriol on my blog. May his house be safe from tigers. lee drury de cesare<
Reluctant my arse! You've always been gutless. You're too gutless to answer straightforward questions and too gutless to admit when you're wrong.
I don't particularly care if you don't publish my comments. It proves that you don't give a rat's arse about the First Amendment or free speech. I'll keep posting them because you'll keep reading them. I'm still going to call you on all your rubbish. I can post all I like at my blog (as you suggested all that time ago).
Twit!
>A reluctant farewell to John D, whose comments I will no longer print. Those who want to follow his blog, go to AntiGrammargrinch. I wish John well but allow him no more free rides for his vitriol on my blog. May his house be safe from tigers. lee drury de cesare<
Reluctant my arse! You've always been gutless. You're too gutless to answer straightforward questions and too gutless to admit when you're wrong.
I don't particularly care if you don't publish my comments. It proves that you don't give a rat's arse about the First Amendment or free speech. I'll keep posting them because you'll keep reading them. I'm still going to call you on all your rubbish. I can post all I like at my blog (as you suggested all that time ago).
Twit!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Bring it on, Vox.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/10/this-says-it-all.html
>I apologixe for calling you a moron. I still think you are one<
Then you just called me one again, didn't you, Vox? Your apologies count for nothing.
>john_d if you'd care to curse me in email you feel free, you big brave manly man.<
I'll move this away from this [casting room couch] blog as Lee has requested and accept your offer, Vox. What is your email address?
You can also feel free to call me a moron at http://antigrammargrinch.blogspot.com/
so the whole world can read it if they choose.
>I apologixe for calling you a moron. I still think you are one<
Then you just called me one again, didn't you, Vox? Your apologies count for nothing.
>john_d if you'd care to curse me in email you feel free, you big brave manly man.<
I'll move this away from this [casting room couch] blog as Lee has requested and accept your offer, Vox. What is your email address?
You can also feel free to call me a moron at http://antigrammargrinch.blogspot.com/
so the whole world can read it if they choose.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Go away vox.
>Do you want school district administration to bully teachers? If not, what do you think of much of the CONTENT of Lee's blog?<
I find it hypocritical, Anonymous. Lee is a bully herself.
>john d is an anti-american
Seriously, Vox, how do you or many of the posters here add to the discussion? "Yeah, they're all criminals! Homeless people could do better!" You're kidding, right? Moron, big baby, John D(ufus) - more name-calling? Is that your contribution?
>I stand by my words and I feel certain they DO apply to your ummm situation... I do apologize for the fact that the above behavior did irritate me along with something he said about you in a post long forgotten. <
Vox, your apology is as hollow as your head! And then you justify your vulgarity by saying that it feels really really good.
>I'm normally above that behavior, reserving it for the most vile among us. John_d is probably NOT the most vile among us.<
You're right here, Vox. I've seen your blogs, and the most vile person around here is you. If you're a teacher, I'm effing scared for your students.
I find it hypocritical, Anonymous. Lee is a bully herself.
>john d is an anti-american
Seriously, Vox, how do you or many of the posters here add to the discussion? "Yeah, they're all criminals! Homeless people could do better!" You're kidding, right? Moron, big baby, John D(ufus) - more name-calling? Is that your contribution?
>I stand by my words and I feel certain they DO apply to your ummm situation... I do apologize for the fact that the above behavior did irritate me along with something he said about you in a post long forgotten. <
Vox, your apology is as hollow as your head! And then you justify your vulgarity by saying that it feels really really good.
>I'm normally above that behavior, reserving it for the most vile among us. John_d is probably NOT the most vile among us.<
You're right here, Vox. I've seen your blogs, and the most vile person around here is you. If you're a teacher, I'm effing scared for your students.
Vox is allowed to swear, but I'm not. It's effing obvious.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28089922&postID=4845135783129943578
>Sometimes Vox uses vulgarities, but she truncates them so that they come across as funny, not offensive to anyone but you is my judgment.<
Now, that's a strong call, Lee. My opinion is that Vox is a stupid, foul-mouthed queynte. Go and read her blogs.
If I called someone a stupid faggot and then suggested that in my opinion it was not offensive to anyone but Bart Birdsall, would you accept that logic? No, you wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect you to do so either.
Vox's truncated profanities don't come across as funny at all. Where do you draw the line? Is writing "mo'fo'" acceptable?
It seems that free speech extends only to the vernacular deemed acceptable by the censor. Yes, you are the teacher, and you make all the calls. Some of them are duds.
I agree to abbreviate on your site anything profane I write to Vox, but if you are willing to sit back as the teacher and let one kid in your class tell another to shut the f#$% up while calling him a motherf#$%er, then I see you in a whole new light. Especially when the kid defends himself.
Go and read all your bullying legislation again, especially the name-calling bits. PLeae show me where "truncated" name-calling is okay and where name-calling is fine as long as the person being called the name is the only one who takes offence.
>Sometimes Vox uses vulgarities, but she truncates them so that they come across as funny, not offensive to anyone but you is my judgment.<
Now, that's a strong call, Lee. My opinion is that Vox is a stupid, foul-mouthed queynte. Go and read her blogs.
If I called someone a stupid faggot and then suggested that in my opinion it was not offensive to anyone but Bart Birdsall, would you accept that logic? No, you wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect you to do so either.
Vox's truncated profanities don't come across as funny at all. Where do you draw the line? Is writing "mo'fo'" acceptable?
It seems that free speech extends only to the vernacular deemed acceptable by the censor. Yes, you are the teacher, and you make all the calls. Some of them are duds.
I agree to abbreviate on your site anything profane I write to Vox, but if you are willing to sit back as the teacher and let one kid in your class tell another to shut the f#$% up while calling him a motherf#$%er, then I see you in a whole new light. Especially when the kid defends himself.
Go and read all your bullying legislation again, especially the name-calling bits. PLeae show me where "truncated" name-calling is okay and where name-calling is fine as long as the person being called the name is the only one who takes offence.
Vox Populi, as eloquent as ever. Neurotic bitch.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/10/this-says-it-all.html
>That's the name: Priscilla Ryan. I can't find it with search engines. But now I will remember it. And I will take this readers assessment of the Ms. Ryan's abilities.<
Lee, the illiterate buffoon, still doesn't know when to use an apostrophe.
>The next board meeting is November 3. I did not attend the last two, but I will go to this meeting and print out a copy of my reader's letter below and hand it to one of the people at the end of the board to pass to the board members. I want them to confront how dismal is the public attitude toward their behavior. Watch and see how I do at this attempt to shame them. lee <
3 comments:
John__D said...
Are you going to provide the poster's name to the board? Normally you rail against anonymous blather.
1:52 AM
Vox Populi said...
STFU john d, you moronic mfer...
12:32 PM
Anonymous said...
John D. would love for people to be revealed instead of staying anonymous. He probably loves the idea of teachers being tortured in Professional Standards for petty reasons. He obviously believes big wigs need protecting while the financially poor peons get beaten down by the big wigs.
My response: (Let's see if Vinegartits posts it.)
As I wrote, it is Lee who usually rails against anonymous posters. You people can't read.
No, Vox, YOU shut the fuck up. Don't call me a motherfucker either, you gutless sack of shit. Is that the best you've got? I hope that Lee reads your comments out at the next board meeting. I might submit my own letter to the board outlining my views on the calibre of Lee's posters.
>That's the name: Priscilla Ryan. I can't find it with search engines. But now I will remember it. And I will take this readers assessment of the Ms. Ryan's abilities.<
Lee, the illiterate buffoon, still doesn't know when to use an apostrophe.
>The next board meeting is November 3. I did not attend the last two, but I will go to this meeting and print out a copy of my reader's letter below and hand it to one of the people at the end of the board to pass to the board members. I want them to confront how dismal is the public attitude toward their behavior. Watch and see how I do at this attempt to shame them. lee <
3 comments:
John__D said...
Are you going to provide the poster's name to the board? Normally you rail against anonymous blather.
1:52 AM
Vox Populi said...
STFU john d, you moronic mfer...
12:32 PM
Anonymous said...
John D. would love for people to be revealed instead of staying anonymous. He probably loves the idea of teachers being tortured in Professional Standards for petty reasons. He obviously believes big wigs need protecting while the financially poor peons get beaten down by the big wigs.
My response: (Let's see if Vinegartits posts it.)
As I wrote, it is Lee who usually rails against anonymous posters. You people can't read.
No, Vox, YOU shut the fuck up. Don't call me a motherfucker either, you gutless sack of shit. Is that the best you've got? I hope that Lee reads your comments out at the next board meeting. I might submit my own letter to the board outlining my views on the calibre of Lee's posters.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Subtle.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/10/grammar-is-forever.html
John__D said...
>Such ideologues demand that everybody think as they do; they accept no other views but their own as allowable.<
Where does "You don’t have 'personal choices' in where to put punctuation, Sugarbritches. You either put the commas in the right place, or you (sic) are illiterate" fit in with this philosophy? Do tell.
4:15 AM
Lee will never answer this or any questions like it. She is chickenshit.
Lee writes:
>This lack in sensitivity to the uses of language shows deficiency in sensitivity to subtleties of the use of language.
Such negative commentators reveal their barren ability to sense gradations in language or in anything. They display an understanding that lacks sensitivity.<
Check out these subtleties and gradations of language.
>Fom your NYT column: "The Los Angeles Angels are not like most other teams."
Mr. Tyler Kepner:
Sports writers write some of the best prose in newspapers. But that does entitle them to make subject-verb agreement errors.
The "Los Angeles Angels" is plural in form but singular in meaning. Your "are" should be "is."<
Game on, sportswriters. Make all the subject-verb errors you like!
John__D said...
>Such ideologues demand that everybody think as they do; they accept no other views but their own as allowable.<
Where does "You don’t have 'personal choices' in where to put punctuation, Sugarbritches. You either put the commas in the right place, or you (sic) are illiterate" fit in with this philosophy? Do tell.
4:15 AM
Lee will never answer this or any questions like it. She is chickenshit.
Lee writes:
>This lack in sensitivity to the uses of language shows deficiency in sensitivity to subtleties of the use of language.
Such negative commentators reveal their barren ability to sense gradations in language or in anything. They display an understanding that lacks sensitivity.<
Check out these subtleties and gradations of language.
>Fom your NYT column: "The Los Angeles Angels are not like most other teams."
Mr. Tyler Kepner:
Sports writers write some of the best prose in newspapers. But that does entitle them to make subject-verb agreement errors.
The "Los Angeles Angels" is plural in form but singular in meaning. Your "are" should be "is."<
Game on, sportswriters. Make all the subject-verb errors you like!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Lee explains what Steve Kemp is trained for.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-appeal-for-help-i-know-that.html
>Mr. Kemp has no academic credentials in caring for profoundly retarded children. His special-ed education is in teaching children who have trouble reading to read better.<
Tell me, was he qualified to restrain students? Just wondering - because he did. Obviously part of his training was how to tie quick-release knots.
>This stationery boy had still worn what apparently was a bus restraint.<
And he delivered newspapers in his spare time. Lee still has trouble with the homophones "stationery" and "stationary".
Ziggy said...
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw the new poll you put up!
October 15, 2009 11:39 PM
John__D said...
There are many ways to respond to that. I'm going through a how-can-I-of-limited-power-possibly-know-what-people-mean phase. For instance, Vox Pop and OMG would laugh at my not having a life and being a sad case. I find it laughable yet disturbing that someone could be deluded enough to maintain that particular design purpose for coax. But that is my opinion. If someone were to maintain that another purpose for toe joints was to pop them in the principal's office, I don't think Goader would be have the same enthusiasm about serendipitous design purposes.
October 16, 2009 7:45 PM
Goader said...
Actually, I didn't have to know how to tie a quick-release knot, because the coaxial cable's design wouldn't allow a knot to cinch. By its very design the coaxial cable only accommodated a "quick-release" knot. What a perfect design it was, but you already knew that.
October 18, 2009 5:51 AM
Goader said...
Ziggy—You almost fell out of your chair laughing when you saw the new poll. You are easily amused, aren't you Zigster. Be careful reading John_D's comments, you might hurt yourself.
October 18, 2009 5:56 AM
John__D said...
>His special-ed education is in teaching children who have trouble reading to read better.< >Actually, I didn't have to know how to tie a quick-release knot, because the coaxial cable's design wouldn't allow a knot to cinch.<
Okay, Goader, did part of your training include how to restrain students?I've just tied a knot with coax, and it cinches. I guess it must be how the knot is tied. I can tie a quick release knot in rope that cinches easily.
>What a perfect design it was, but you already knew that.<
Do you now have the power to "know" what I'm thinking? Or is this another of your unexplainable jokes? I know that it's your opinion that someone created coax for the purpose of tying quick-release knots.
Coax cable is not perfectly designed for tying quick-release knots - but you knew that, didn't you!
Keep trying!
(Feel free to cast a vote - or have you?)
October 19, 2009 3:30 AM
>Mr. Kemp has no academic credentials in caring for profoundly retarded children. His special-ed education is in teaching children who have trouble reading to read better.<
Tell me, was he qualified to restrain students? Just wondering - because he did. Obviously part of his training was how to tie quick-release knots.
>This stationery boy had still worn what apparently was a bus restraint.<
And he delivered newspapers in his spare time. Lee still has trouble with the homophones "stationery" and "stationary".
Ziggy said...
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw the new poll you put up!
October 15, 2009 11:39 PM
John__D said...
There are many ways to respond to that. I'm going through a how-can-I-of-limited-power-possibly-know-what-people-mean phase. For instance, Vox Pop and OMG would laugh at my not having a life and being a sad case. I find it laughable yet disturbing that someone could be deluded enough to maintain that particular design purpose for coax. But that is my opinion. If someone were to maintain that another purpose for toe joints was to pop them in the principal's office, I don't think Goader would be have the same enthusiasm about serendipitous design purposes.
October 16, 2009 7:45 PM
Goader said...
Actually, I didn't have to know how to tie a quick-release knot, because the coaxial cable's design wouldn't allow a knot to cinch. By its very design the coaxial cable only accommodated a "quick-release" knot. What a perfect design it was, but you already knew that.
October 18, 2009 5:51 AM
Goader said...
Ziggy—You almost fell out of your chair laughing when you saw the new poll. You are easily amused, aren't you Zigster. Be careful reading John_D's comments, you might hurt yourself.
October 18, 2009 5:56 AM
John__D said...
>His special-ed education is in teaching children who have trouble reading to read better.< >Actually, I didn't have to know how to tie a quick-release knot, because the coaxial cable's design wouldn't allow a knot to cinch.<
Okay, Goader, did part of your training include how to restrain students?I've just tied a knot with coax, and it cinches. I guess it must be how the knot is tied. I can tie a quick release knot in rope that cinches easily.
>What a perfect design it was, but you already knew that.<
Do you now have the power to "know" what I'm thinking? Or is this another of your unexplainable jokes? I know that it's your opinion that someone created coax for the purpose of tying quick-release knots.
Coax cable is not perfectly designed for tying quick-release knots - but you knew that, didn't you!
Keep trying!
(Feel free to cast a vote - or have you?)
October 19, 2009 3:30 AM
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Write to possible future governors and show your illiteracy
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/10/nail-them-before-election-they-become.html
>After observing the Hillsborough County schools for two years after the administration and board manufactured a Professional Standards charge against my gay friend Bart Bartsell, I have become something of an expert on board and administration corruption past and present.<
>Citizens should not have to listen to pious false promises made by gubernatorial candidates about what reverence they have for teachers, students, schools, etc but that, once elected, the governor ignores.<
>The school attorney, Tom Gonzalez, sits mute during this Constitutional shutdown of a citizen's Constitlutional right to approach elected officials for redress of grieviences. <
>I request that you provide specific pledges in plain English about what you, Ms. Sink, and you, Mr. McCollum comma will do as governor to clean up the corruption of school board and administration in Hillsborough County, especially in hiring and shutting down teachers' and citizsens' free-speech rights.<
>After observing the Hillsborough County schools for two years after the administration and board manufactured a Professional Standards charge against my gay friend Bart Bartsell, I have become something of an expert on board and administration corruption past and present.<
>Citizens should not have to listen to pious false promises made by gubernatorial candidates about what reverence they have for teachers, students, schools, etc but that, once elected, the governor ignores.<
>The school attorney, Tom Gonzalez, sits mute during this Constitutional shutdown of a citizen's Constitlutional right to approach elected officials for redress of grieviences. <
>I request that you provide specific pledges in plain English about what you, Ms. Sink, and you, Mr. McCollum comma will do as governor to clean up the corruption of school board and administration in Hillsborough County, especially in hiring and shutting down teachers' and citizsens' free-speech rights.<
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Dumb Lee demonstrates her illiteracy to First Lady
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/10/first-lady-to-first-lady-call-for-help.html
>Please review my letters to Mr. Mueller, make a judgment of my claims, and if, as I will hope, you see that I have a point that you will request your husband to ask Mr. Mueller to investigate the school system of Hillsborough County for administration and board corruption. <
The great English teacher of 28 years stuffs up yet again.
Edit:
Please review my letters to Mr. Mueller, make a judgment of my claims, and if, as I will hope, you see that I have a point, request your husband to ask Mr. Mueller to investigate the school system of Hillsborough County for administration and board corruption.
A little parallel construction goes a long way.
As First Lady of our miniscule city,
That's "minuscule", you illiterate bozo. I hope the President ignores your crap based on your illiteracy. You don't have the decency to check your work before sending it to the President. Is that the amount of respect you afford him?
>Please review my letters to Mr. Mueller, make a judgment of my claims, and if, as I will hope, you see that I have a point that you will request your husband to ask Mr. Mueller to investigate the school system of Hillsborough County for administration and board corruption. <
The great English teacher of 28 years stuffs up yet again.
Edit:
Please review my letters to Mr. Mueller, make a judgment of my claims, and if, as I will hope, you see that I have a point, request your husband to ask Mr. Mueller to investigate the school system of Hillsborough County for administration and board corruption.
A little parallel construction goes a long way.
As First Lady of our miniscule city,
That's "minuscule", you illiterate bozo. I hope the President ignores your crap based on your illiteracy. You don't have the decency to check your work before sending it to the President. Is that the amount of respect you afford him?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Does the FBI know that a comma splice is a felony?
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/09/still-working-on-fbi-essay-lee.html
I love this rot. Lee writes to the FBI and has the hide to mention that Hamilton doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". She has mouthed off that she was going to check her work so there weren't any errors. I hope the FBI grammar division doesn't find out about this one.
>The seated boy on whom Steve used the cord looped to the back of the bus restraint was supposed to have this bus restraint removed when he arrived in the classroom according to state restraint law, this removal should have happened before Steve entered the room. <
I love this rot. Lee writes to the FBI and has the hide to mention that Hamilton doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". She has mouthed off that she was going to check her work so there weren't any errors. I hope the FBI grammar division doesn't find out about this one.
>The seated boy on whom Steve used the cord looped to the back of the bus restraint was supposed to have this bus restraint removed when he arrived in the classroom according to state restraint law, this removal should have happened before Steve entered the room. <
Monday, August 31, 2009
Cherabim (sic)? Singular? (sick)
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/08/pole-girl-has-opponent-thank-you-all.html
Pole Girl Has an Opponent! Thank You, All Cheribs and Seraphs (Oddly Enough, the Singular of these is "Cherabim" and "Seraphim": Go Figure
Is this illiteracy or stupidity? Here's my response.
I'll figure.
One cherub.
Two cherubim or two cherubs.
One seraph.
Two seraphim or seraphs.
So the plural is "cherubim", and neither the singular nor the plural is "cherabim" (sic).
Cherib, cherab - Honestly, are you illiterate or something?
Pole Girl Has an Opponent! Thank You, All Cheribs and Seraphs (Oddly Enough, the Singular of these is "Cherabim" and "Seraphim": Go Figure
Is this illiteracy or stupidity? Here's my response.
I'll figure.
One cherub.
Two cherubim or two cherubs.
One seraph.
Two seraphim or seraphs.
So the plural is "cherubim", and neither the singular nor the plural is "cherabim" (sic).
Cherib, cherab - Honestly, are you illiterate or something?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
She's innumerate!
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/08/getting-in-some-licks-for-sisterhood.html
Ten dollars says that none of her readers corrects her. What beggars belief is how she got those numbers!
>You have 20 command-staff people. http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/2005_Organizational_Structure/Structure.htm.
1. One is a woman; women are almost 51 percent of the county's population;
2. 3 have what looks like Hispanic names; Hispanics are 22.8 percent of the population;
3. Three faces tell me they are black men; blacks are 16.6 percent of the population;
4. The rest are white Anglo-Saxon born-in-the-cotton-wadding-of-the-unfair-affirmative-action-plan-for-too-often-dumb white males, titular lords of the universe, not from ability but from cheating.
According to my math that makes your staff .5 percent women;15 percent Hispanics; 6.6 blacks; 78 percent white guys. Those percentages are obscenely out of line with the population distribution.<
Holy crap! Your maths is terrible! Honestly, your ignorance in a basic life skill such as percentages is deplorable.
One out of twenty is five per cent. Two out of twenty is two lots of five per cent - ten per cent.
What I find truly disturbing is that any comments you have made about teachers' pay and a pay rise of such-and-such percent were based on something of which you have no idea.
Now, try those numbers again. See me after class if you are still innumerate.
Ten dollars says that none of her readers corrects her. What beggars belief is how she got those numbers!
>You have 20 command-staff people. http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/2005_Organizational_Structure/Structure.htm.
1. One is a woman; women are almost 51 percent of the county's population;
2. 3 have what looks like Hispanic names; Hispanics are 22.8 percent of the population;
3. Three faces tell me they are black men; blacks are 16.6 percent of the population;
4. The rest are white Anglo-Saxon born-in-the-cotton-wadding-of-the-unfair-affirmative-action-plan-for-too-often-dumb white males, titular lords of the universe, not from ability but from cheating.
According to my math that makes your staff .5 percent women;15 percent Hispanics; 6.6 blacks; 78 percent white guys. Those percentages are obscenely out of line with the population distribution.<
Holy crap! Your maths is terrible! Honestly, your ignorance in a basic life skill such as percentages is deplorable.
One out of twenty is five per cent. Two out of twenty is two lots of five per cent - ten per cent.
What I find truly disturbing is that any comments you have made about teachers' pay and a pay rise of such-and-such percent were based on something of which you have no idea.
Now, try those numbers again. See me after class if you are still innumerate.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Vox Pop supports Lee's inability to understand what quotation marks do.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-bet-this-riles-up-blogaroos.html
This is getting ridiculous. Here's my response I posted.
"You don't like "my goodness", Vox? I'll use some of your abbreviated profanity instead, perhaps.
Lee posted her comment before Creamcheese's comment "clearing it up", but AFTER Creamcheese's original post that contained the quote in quotation marks.
Interestingly, Creamcheese's post was punctuated correctly so that the meaning was clear, yet Lee "didn't quite understand". You, however, write and punctuate like an imbecile so that few could work out wtf you are on about.
"no one misinterpreted her intention"? Whom tf did "her" refer to in your post?
Write clearly please, you name-calling bimbo."
This is getting ridiculous. Here's my response I posted.
"You don't like "my goodness", Vox? I'll use some of your abbreviated profanity instead, perhaps.
Lee posted her comment before Creamcheese's comment "clearing it up", but AFTER Creamcheese's original post that contained the quote in quotation marks.
Interestingly, Creamcheese's post was punctuated correctly so that the meaning was clear, yet Lee "didn't quite understand". You, however, write and punctuate like an imbecile so that few could work out wtf you are on about.
"no one misinterpreted her intention"? Whom tf did "her" refer to in your post?
Write clearly please, you name-calling bimbo."
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Issues, no. Grammar bullying, yes.
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/07/council-of-trent-aka-as-hillsborough.html
Lee's lame points can be easily refuted as usual. However, while she is busy picking on one lonely typo (her writing is regularly riddled with them) she shows us that she can't construct a sentence.
Mr. Practising as a good American that citizens have a First-Amendment right to abuse elected officials when they approach them for redress of grievances.
Now, the point was this: Is the poster qualified to make judgements as a matter of law?
Lee's lame points can be easily refuted as usual. However, while she is busy picking on one lonely typo (her writing is regularly riddled with them) she shows us that she can't construct a sentence.
Mr. Practising as a good American that citizens have a First-Amendment right to abuse elected officials when they approach them for redress of grievances.
Now, the point was this: Is the poster qualified to make judgements as a matter of law?
Monday, July 6, 2009
Who wrote what?
Lee meant to carve up a poster on Goadr's blog, but she hasn't yet worked out that it is Goader's writing she is dissecting. Shhhhh ... I think she is sleeping.
http://es-kay.net/?p=1182&cpage=1#comment-3013
Beyond the homophone problem pointed out by one writer above, Ms. Gladstone needs help with punctuation and grammar.
Inviting the reader’s indulgence of her slapdash performance is graceless and unprofessional.
A comma goes after “Spell Check” inside the quotation marks for the introductory adverbial clause. In addition, “750 plus” and “less than one percent” are hyphenated adjectives before a noun.
There exists no justification for the quotation marks around “onstage.” Ms. Gladstone does not use the word in a special sense; she uses it in its ordinary sense.
“The teacher being” should be “the teacher’s being”: possessive before the gerund.
“This” in the next-to-the-last sentence of the second-from-the-bottom paragraph has no antecedent.
I consider Ms. Gladstone’s breezy, self-indulgent excuse for illiteracy in herself and in any teacher unacceptable. There is no reason why this teacher or other teachera could not have learned grammar and punctuation in their formal educational career of twelve or more years.
Ms. Gladstone’s error-ridden performance shows that she should get out her 9th-grade grammar primer and study it from cover to cover. To teach, she must catch up on what she failed to learn during her education years.
The correct use of language forms the basis of education. If a person cannot master grammar and punctuation in classrooms over the years of his or her formal education, that person does not belong in the classroom as a teacher.
Illiterate teachers produce illiterate students.
However, to add bonhomie to this criticism, I will join Ms. Gladstone in her moldy solecism: I ain’t kidding, folks.
Lee Drury De Cesare
http://es-kay.net/?p=1182&cpage=1#comment-3013
Beyond the homophone problem pointed out by one writer above, Ms. Gladstone needs help with punctuation and grammar.
Inviting the reader’s indulgence of her slapdash performance is graceless and unprofessional.
A comma goes after “Spell Check” inside the quotation marks for the introductory adverbial clause. In addition, “750 plus” and “less than one percent” are hyphenated adjectives before a noun.
There exists no justification for the quotation marks around “onstage.” Ms. Gladstone does not use the word in a special sense; she uses it in its ordinary sense.
“The teacher being” should be “the teacher’s being”: possessive before the gerund.
“This” in the next-to-the-last sentence of the second-from-the-bottom paragraph has no antecedent.
I consider Ms. Gladstone’s breezy, self-indulgent excuse for illiteracy in herself and in any teacher unacceptable. There is no reason why this teacher or other teachera could not have learned grammar and punctuation in their formal educational career of twelve or more years.
Ms. Gladstone’s error-ridden performance shows that she should get out her 9th-grade grammar primer and study it from cover to cover. To teach, she must catch up on what she failed to learn during her education years.
The correct use of language forms the basis of education. If a person cannot master grammar and punctuation in classrooms over the years of his or her formal education, that person does not belong in the classroom as a teacher.
Illiterate teachers produce illiterate students.
However, to add bonhomie to this criticism, I will join Ms. Gladstone in her moldy solecism: I ain’t kidding, folks.
Lee Drury De Cesare
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Abuse, abuse, and more abuse.
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.
>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.
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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Exactly how stupid are you, Lee?
http://leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com/2009/05/here-we-go-again-wearing-them-down.html
>I would like a copy of those reasons for rejecting the emails of Lee Drury De Cesare.<
Vinegartits wonders why her emails get marked as spam. Read the stats.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=17.902 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.240, BAYES_50=0.001, CUSTOM_FS_COMBO=5, CUSTOM_FS_GSPOT=5, CUSTOM_FS_MEMBER=1, CUSTOM_GIRLS=0.01, CUSTOM_IRS_SARASOTA=4, CUSTOM_MEET_COMBO=5, CUSTOM_SEX=3.8, CUSTOM_STOCKS23=0.01, CUSTOM_STOCKS_COMP=0.01, CUSTOM_STOCKS_MARKET=0.01, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARASOTA=-2, SARASOTA_COUNTY=-2, SARASOTA_COUNTY_SB=-1.7, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=2]X-Spam-Score: 17.902X-Spam-Level: *****************X-Spam-Flag: YES
She's got a sexual reference attached to her blog name and wonders why the spam filter blocks her. Dopey old bitch.
Commas are another issue.
>Should you deny my request, or any part of the request, please state in writing the basis for the denial, including the exact statutory citation authorizing the denial, as required by s. 119.07(1)(d), F.S. <
This comma separates a compound object, Vinegartits. But you only know that when you pick on others.
>I will contact your Public Affairs office within 48 to discuss when I may expect fulfillment of my request and payment of any statutorily prescribed fees.<
Poor proofreading in a formal communication.
>I would like a copy of those reasons for rejecting the emails of Lee Drury De Cesare.<
Vinegartits wonders why her emails get marked as spam. Read the stats.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=17.902 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.240, BAYES_50=0.001, CUSTOM_FS_COMBO=5, CUSTOM_FS_GSPOT=5, CUSTOM_FS_MEMBER=1, CUSTOM_GIRLS=0.01, CUSTOM_IRS_SARASOTA=4, CUSTOM_MEET_COMBO=5, CUSTOM_SEX=3.8, CUSTOM_STOCKS23=0.01, CUSTOM_STOCKS_COMP=0.01, CUSTOM_STOCKS_MARKET=0.01, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARASOTA=-2, SARASOTA_COUNTY=-2, SARASOTA_COUNTY_SB=-1.7, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=2]X-Spam-Score: 17.902X-Spam-Level: *****************X-Spam-Flag: YES
She's got a sexual reference attached to her blog name and wonders why the spam filter blocks her. Dopey old bitch.
Commas are another issue.
>Should you deny my request, or any part of the request, please state in writing the basis for the denial, including the exact statutory citation authorizing the denial, as required by s. 119.07(1)(d), F.S. <
This comma separates a compound object, Vinegartits. But you only know that when you pick on others.
>I will contact your Public Affairs office within 48 to discuss when I may expect fulfillment of my request and payment of any statutorily prescribed fees.<
Poor proofreading in a formal communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
