On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:43:56 GMT, ByTor <ByTor@no-spam>
wrote:
>In article <dr0fjv4fvcjqorotg4r48ro6f5oafsbvt9@no-spam>, ob110ob@no-spam
>says...
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:06:50 GMT, ByTor <ByTor@no-spam>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ps27jv0o88ucdefaq9dmmvr0oab7pffs4p@no-spam>, ob110ob@no-spam
>> >says... while attaching C4 explosives to computer and foaming at the
>> >mouth!
>> >
>> >> Oh come off it...
>> >
>> >Curious question for ya.....I've basically followed your thread.
>> >
>> >What type of "security" would you propose for this "special" school?
>> >Who will foot the bill?
>> >I mean if they are targeted as much as is stated(which I'm not
>> >disputing), would'nt special security be an issue?......
>>
>> That's another question entirely since the "targeting" under
>> discussion is of a kind that exists when gays are in the public
>> environment that this is supposed to correct. As someone else
>> here said, being located in Greenwich Village, there's an
>> extremely low expectation of outsider attacks. So no, I don't
>> see any reason to think that special security is needed.
>
>Hmmmmm, interesting, I actually think it would be a part, not seperate,
>question of the issue. Public environment? Why not make it a private
>school than? Why is it a "public" responsibility? I mean don't get me
>wrong, education is every students right, it is our systems obligation
>to comply and that is already being done now without seperatism.
Yes, it has been going on that way, but now they've come to
recognize a problem that they have reason to believe that
separatism might solve.
>1) What about the E.O.E (Equal Opportunity Employment) will only Gay
>teachers, Janitors, Principals, etc., only be hired?
I don't think it will be needed to extend this to the staff,
since the staff are under the schools control and authority, if
they perform well in their roles regardless of their own
orientation, there should be no problem.
>2) What about non-gay students, will they be allowed to attend?
I don't see a problem with non-gay students attending, except
that they may not want to be identified as gay, as they would be
for merely attending a school known to be for gays. So I would
find it difficult to imagine that many non-gays would apply.
>3) Will non-gay students be teased & attacked? How will that be
>confronted? Or does gay children not exhibit that type of behavior?
Here I think you are misconstruing the type of attacks that are
being attenuated. Here... Let's give it a try:
There's one kind of "attack/teasing" that will be pretty generic,
"four-eyes" for kids wearing glasses and like that. Okay, maybe
a little bit insensitive, but it's not like there's any
"constituency" against people who wear glasses and such. Get it?
With the first cry of "Homo", in a regular school, one doesn't
know what to think, and there is also a possibility that there is
real physical danger being threatened. Why? Well, I'm not sure
you are familiar with the term "latent homosexual"? These are
people who suspect that they are homosexuals, they aren't sure,
don't know for sure, but for some reason they suspect that they
may be. Well, they can be incredibly dangerous people because
they will go to great lengths to either prove that they aren't or
deny that they are or might be.
There are also those who may take their religious teachings to
heart and take matter into their own hands to deliver a vision of
justice they feel is proper. All of which can interfere mightily
with the mission of education. The school doesn't have to be in
a continuous uproar to still be a hostile place for gay children.
>
>After all I would think that if the above first two questions are
>answered yes would that not be in fact "reverse discrimination?" I mean
>after all the non-gay population is part of the issue no?
>
>I would think the entire spectrum is to be looked at, not seperating the
>"different" issues. All of these will also fall under the umbrella of
>approaching the undertaking of a project like this. It appears to me
>that this issue is more of a political issue/statement and those
>motivations should be questioned first. When it comes to political
>involvement sometimes people tend to forget the welfare of the people
>that may be affected because they have succumbed to their own personal
>statements and only regard their own motivations. Isn't that basically
>how our political arena works, screw the people, lets see where we can
>benefit. Very blinding and scary isn't it.........
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
In article <p0vhjv8v2uuovsdsta8mtjhn05n4a35aol@no-spam>, ob110ob@no-spam
says...
> >> That's another question entirely since the "targeting" under
> >> discussion is of a kind that exists when gays are in the public
> >> environment that this is supposed to correct. As someone else
> >> here said, being located in Greenwich Village, there's an
> >> extremely low expectation of outsider attacks. So no, I don't
> >> see any reason to think that special security is needed.
> >
> >Hmmmmm, interesting, I actually think it would be a part, not seperate,
> >question of the issue. Public environment? Why not make it a private
> >school than? Why is it a "public" responsibility? I mean don't get me
> >wrong, education is every students right, it is our systems obligation
> >to comply and that is already being done now without seperatism.
>
> Yes, it has been going on that way, but now they've come to
> recognize a problem that they have reason to believe that
> separatism might solve.
Ok, point taken......But, it still brings up a statement you make below.
>
> >1) What about the E.O.E (Equal Opportunity Employment) will only Gay
> >teachers, Janitors, Principals, etc., only be hired?
>
> I don't think it will be needed to extend this to the staff,
> since the staff are under the schools control and authority, if
> they perform well in their roles regardless of their own
> orientation, there should be no problem.
Ok, this I can concede.........
>
> >2) What about non-gay students, will they be allowed to attend?
>
> I don't see a problem with non-gay students attending, except
> that they may not want to be identified as gay, as they would be
> for merely attending a school known to be for gays. So I would
> find it difficult to imagine that many non-gays would apply.
This is a good point, did not think of it like that....Kids are already
worried about their images..... ;0)
>
> >3) Will non-gay students be teased & attacked? How will that be
> >confronted? Or does gay children not exhibit that type of behavior?
>
> Here I think you are misconstruing the type of attacks that are
> being attenuated. Here... Let's give it a try:
> There's one kind of "attack/teasing" that will be pretty generic,
> "four-eyes" for kids wearing glasses and like that. Okay, maybe
> a little bit insensitive, but it's not like there's any
> "constituency" against people who wear glasses and such. Get it?
Here is what I mentioned above about looking below to your statement
here, "constitutional." Is it not a correlation that other kids are
harrassed & assaulted based on their ethnic orientation? Forget about
calling someone pimple face, tubby, geek, nerd, etc., Is it not in fact
that this is also a "constitutional issue that is protected by laws and
the "public" school system, yet, to this day, has not made any special
arrangements to use "seperatism" to solve the problem? So, again, why is
the "Gay" issue so unique???
Don't get me wrong but if "constitutional" is the issue here than
establishing a Gay "public" school seems to set the trend for "public"
black, white, hispanic, chinese, japanese, buddhists, catholic, etc.,
schools to follow because they will also claim they are violated.......I
personally don't see the supporting justification to say that "Gays" are
more prone to attacks than lets say "whites" in a black school & vice
verse.......I'd like to see some studies if you have them? I'm not being
a smart-ass now, I'm actually interested in reading this..... ;0)
>
> With the first cry of "Homo", in a regular school, one doesn't
> know what to think, and there is also a possibility that there is
> real physical danger being threatened. Why? Well, I'm not sure
> you are familiar with the term "latent homosexual"? These are
> people who suspect that they are homosexuals, they aren't sure,
> don't know for sure, but for some reason they suspect that they
> may be. Well, they can be incredibly dangerous people because
> they will go to great lengths to either prove that they aren't or
> deny that they are or might be.
So putting them in a "Gay" school will help them decide if they are? I'm
not sure I'm following you here......There is a lot of speculation that
a Gay school will promote homosexuality....Well I think you know as well
as I do where that comes from....I on the otherhand really don't
subscribe to that but what you are saying seems to give those the
impression that you are confirming what they are insinuating.....As I
said, I'm not sure I grasp this part of what you are stating.
>
> There are also those who may take their religious teachings to
> heart and take matter into their own hands to deliver a vision of
> justice they feel is proper. All of which can interfere mightily
> with the mission of education. The school doesn't have to be in
> a continuous uproar to still be a hostile place for gay children.
As I stated above, I think we know who "those" are. If you mean
resorting to justice in the sense of actually committing a crime? Than
they should be "punished" as well as anybody else that breaks the
law....Violence is never an answer......Weeeeeelll, I don't know about
that, after being strung along by a mortgage company for 3 months and
than denied at a critical moment, I think I had some "Violent"
feelings....Pricks............ ;0)
>I would think the entire spectrum is to be looked at, not seperating
>the "different" issues. All of these will also fall under the umbrella
>of approaching the undertaking of a project like this. It appears to me
>that this issue is more of a political issue/statement and those
>motivations should be questioned first. When it comes to political
>involvement sometimes people tend to forget the welfare of the people
>that may be affected because they have succumbed to their own personal
>statements and only regard their own motivations. Isn't that basically
>how our political arena works, screw the people, lets see where we can
>benefit. Very blinding and scary isn't it.........
There is one thing that I would have to admit to, and it appears that
most on usenet spout without clout.....I finally updated myself on the
issue & never realized that the NYC school was already "private" and is
approved to officially open in Sept....My bad, I admit it.... :0)
I have also seen that the city is being sued for this:
http://www.neoflux.com/archive/data/003160.shtml
But I have a suspicion now? The special interest groups that supported
this school when it was private, I have to ask, are they running out of
money and cannot support their statement/issue anymore????
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Just another issue for the "conspiracy" elite... (LOL)
