| Author | Post |
|---|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:28 pm |
|
Apache Mom wrote:
In your last post alone you have called a statement based on the statistics provided by the police departments of both Glendale and Peoria “illogical.” Really? Is that because those statistics disprove you argument in regard to kids leaving the campuses for lunch? Or do you not understand numbers? Here’s a hint: 2 + 2 = 4. It really is that simple.
Actually Apache Mommy, as the father of four teenagers, I know for a fact the odds of my cars coming back without a dent on any given day are 1 in 3 at best. So for the police department to come back with such a silly statement as this, they must have been smoking something....
|
AnneR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
But never mind all that. I see that Apache Mom has slapped you around . . . again. Seems your own words have come back to bite you. But, as is your habit, you attack someone else to distract attention from something you don't want others to read. So, as a service to everyone on the board, here's Apache Mom slapping AREYOUKIDDING ME back in her place:
AREYOUKIDDING ME, I absolutely love reading your posts. Your leaps of . . . ummmm . . . “logic” continue to amaze me.
In your last post alone you have called a statement based on the statistics provided by the police departments of both Glendale and Peoria “illogical.” Really? Is that because those statistics disprove you argument in regard to kids leaving the campuses for lunch? Or do you not understand numbers? Here’s a hint: 2 + 2 = 4. It really is that simple.
As for the election results, there is very much a logical explanation: most people didn’t know for whom they were voting. You claim Knecht and Murphy ran on a platform of closing campuses, but we both know that isn’t true. Closing campuses was not mentioned in either Mrs. Knecht’s or Mr. Murphy’s campaign literature, or on their campaign web sites (I have copies if you wish to examine them . . . oh for want of a scanner!). The lunchtime policy was not an issue that was mentioned in newspaper endorsements. Throughout the campaign it was mentioned only once, and briefly at that, during one candidate forum. I was one of less than 30 people to attend that forum.
To further prove that people didn’t know who they were voting for, I turn to an irrefutable source on this matter: AREYOUKIDDING ME.
In a March 30 post on this forum you stated, “What is a bit ironic is I do not support Kathy Knecht, voted for her in last election but will not if she runs again…” In other words, you didn’t realize who you voted for. What is shocking is that this comes from you, someone who claims they attend or watch every governing board meeting, and someone who claims to be well informed.
But, clearly, you weren’t . . . then or now.
Dance all you want, but as I said before, the atmosphere of animosity we currently find ourselves in is the creation of the sanctimonious members of the UPC. Had they not created an issue out of the lunchtime policy, none of this silliness, including an attempted recall, would have ensued. If you want to blame someone for this mess, find a member of the UPC, that is, if you can find them. Like cowards, they have dropped out of sight, leaving others to clean up the mess they left.
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:22 pm |
|
| Grammar not grammer, try again honey.
|
AnneR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:21 pm |
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME wrote: AnneR wrote:
Who proof reads your shoddy material?
Dear Summer's Eve:
I thank you so much for your assistance in my writing. I have some experience with this and the key is when you are attempting to do this, make sure your words and sentences are correct. "Proof reads" is actually not two words.
Don't mention it, we are all here to help each other, right??
Actually, in this case it is. My oh my, your grammar really sucks.
Last edited on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:25 pm by AnneR
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:12 pm |
|
| Dadof3...you already know what all the fuss was about....people trying to control others and force their ways onto everybody. And yes...she has had lunch off campus without my daily sign-out. She will continue to do so. Joe Bernier
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:12 pm |
|
Good grief, do you ladies, and I use the term loosely, actually enjoy arguing all day long over grammar and old issues that have been hashed over a million times? I don't think bashing on Joe or anybody else is doing anyone any good is it? This is starting to sound like an old Batman comic with those balloons and WHAM! and all that. Take that! No, YOU take that!! I double dare you!! Well, I triple dare you!! So there!!
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:09 pm |
|
AnneR wrote:
Who proof reads your shoddy material?
Dear Summer's Eve:
I thank you so much for your assistance in my writing. I have some experience with this and the key is when you are attempting to do this, make sure your words and sentences are correct. "Proof reads" is actually not two words.
Don't mention it, we are all here to help each other, right??
|
Apache Mom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 11:05 pm |
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME, I absolutely love reading your posts. Your leaps of . . . ummmm . . . “logic” continue to amaze me.
In your last post alone you have called a statement based on the statistics provided by the police departments of both Glendale and Peoria “illogical.” Really? Is that because those statistics disprove you argument in regard to kids leaving the campuses for lunch? Or do you not understand numbers? Here’s a hint: 2 + 2 = 4. It really is that simple.
As for the election results, there is very much a logical explanation: most people didn’t know for whom they were voting. You claim Knecht and Murphy ran on a platform of closing campuses, but we both know that isn’t true. Closing campuses was not mentioned in either Mrs. Knecht’s or Mr. Murphy’s campaign literature, or on their campaign web sites (I have copies if you wish to examine them . . . oh for want of a scanner!). The lunchtime policy was not an issue that was mentioned in newspaper endorsements. Throughout the campaign it was mentioned only once, and briefly at that, during one candidate forum. I was one of less than 30 people to attend that forum.
To further prove that people didn’t know who they were voting for, I turn to an irrefutable source on this matter: AREYOUKIDDING ME.
In a March 30 post on this forum you stated, “What is a bit ironic is I do not support Kathy Knecht, voted for her in last election but will not if she runs again…” In other words, you didn’t realize who you voted for. What is shocking is that this comes from you, someone who claims they attend or watch every governing board meeting, and someone who claims to be well informed.
But, clearly, you weren’t . . . then or now.
Dance all you want, but as I said before, the atmosphere of animosity we currently find ourselves in is the creation of the sanctimonious members of the UPC. Had they not created an issue out of the lunchtime policy, none of this silliness, including an attempted recall, would have ensued. If you want to blame someone for this mess, find a member of the UPC, that is, if you can find them. Like cowards, they have dropped out of sight, leaving others to clean up the mess they left.
|
AnneR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 10:48 pm |
|
AREYOURKIDDING ME wrote: "I have heard the completely illogical argument that the chances are "infinitesimal"that there will be a lunchtime accident involving young, inexperienced drivers going to lunch in automobiles with a limited time to get back to class. I have heard these over and over from the shepherd and and the sheep."
Who proof reads your shoddy material?
|
AnneR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 10:44 pm |
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME wrote: "No, Apache Mom, if you want to blame anyone for this mess, blame the flock of sheep in which you are a member. "
Don't you mean "of which?" Good God your grammar sucks.
|
AnneR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 07:22 pm |
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME wrSummers Eve has contributed two posts to this debate. Amen Apache and calling me a douche bag. Mom must be proud of you, I'm sure.
She is, because she knows in two simple posts that I have proven myself to be far more intelligent than you.
Last edited on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 07:43 pm by AnneR
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 07:05 am |
|
AnneR wrote: Apache Mom wrote:
Amen Apache Mom!
Summers Eve has contributed two posts to this debate. Amen Apache and calling me a douche bag. Mom must be proud of you, I'm sure.
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 06:59 am |
|
I have heard Apache Mom's statistics several times in the past. I have heard several times the scoreboard she quotes: 2600 to 1500 in the battle of the surveys. I have heard the completely illogical argument that the chances are "infinitesimal"that there will be a lunchtime accident involving young, inexperienced drivers going to lunch in automobiles with a limited time to get back to class. I have heard these over and over from the shepherd and and the sheep.
But the one statistic that has always been so difficult for the flock to explain away was the election statistic. We had two candidates who very openly said they would close the campuses. This didn't seem to matter to a majority of the voters. You see, in case anyone has forgotten, Knecht and Murphy won. The voters apparently felt that the closed campus issue was not the most important issue on earth, as the flock apparently does. Maybe, just maybe, some of the 2600 people who answered the survey were saying we'd rather have the campuses open, but if they are not, we can live with that (which is exactly my stance). Apache Mom will quote this 2600 statistic over and over again, but I think we all agree it is meaningless when it is stacked up against the election statistic.
I have stated this more than once, but once these board members are voted in, there is nothing that binds them into voting a particular way. You can form committee after committee, but a board member doesn't have to listen to anything that comes out of a committee. You know why? Because a majority of the voters said they can. Period.
And, now, we have the failed recall. If the will of the people were as strong as the flock repeatedly maintained, it should not have mattered that the recall was obviously mismanaged. I think a majority (there's that troublesome word again flockeys) of the voters recognized this for what it was - a father who let his daughter say some very inappropriate things to a board member, the board member rightfully reacted to it, and the dad was out for a pound of flesh. There was no support for this recall because the majority of the voters recognized this for what it was: a simple act of vengeance.
No, Apache Mom, if you want to blame anyone for this mess, blame the flock of sheep in which you are a member. You all could never accept and couldn't understand that the election was lost. But, in America, that's how our system works. This fall, you get another chance to change your precious lunch policy. If you win, hopefully the other side will not act like a bunch of spoiled children as our flock of sheep have.
Last edited on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 07:48 pm by AREYOUKIDDING ME
|
PUSD Teacher
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 03:49 am |
|
Apache Mom wrote:
"I find it extremely amusing that this entire closed campus mess, and the ensuing messes like the recall that have come as a result, have been tossed at the feet of Joe Bernier.
The atmosphere of animosity we currently find ourselves in is the creation of the sanctimonious members of the UPC. It is this group that made up the closed campus issue out of whole cloth. Not a single parent complained about the former policy of allowing juniors and seniors to leave campus for lunch, but the UPC decided to make it an issue. While they and their handful of followers certainly made a lot of noise, they never represented the opinions of this community.
In response, the district formed a committee to study the issue, of which I was a member. UPC tried to load up the committee with their members, and did a pretty good job of it. The problem, however, was that they were out numbered by members of the community who didn’t agree with them. During the meetings themselves, UPC members tried to intimidate committee members by shouting them down, and by refusing to play by the same rules as the rest of the committee. When it became clear early on that the majority of the community wanted some type of open campus policy, the UPC tried to hijack the committee in the press, claiming that they were in the majority, and that this was about “safety.”
After “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction,” no two bigger lies have ever been told.
60 % of committee members voted for a lunchtime policy that allowed some flexibility in allowing junior and seniors to leave campus for lunch. In an online poll conducted by the district before the committee’s report was brought before the governing board, 54% responded in the same manner (What makes this really funny is that UPC members posted directions on how to vote multiple times in this survey on this very forum . . . and still didn’t get a majority). As a result, the governing board adopted a policy that allowed juniors and seniors to leave campus provided they had parent permission and a 2.0 GPA. In a survey of parents taken after this policy was implemented, 69% said they were satisfied with the policy. All of these figures, in case you’re wondering, are still available on the district’s web site.
This committee was also presented traffic statistics from both Glendale and Peoria. What those statistics showed was that students were more likely to get into car accidents before or after school. According to police statistics, the chances of getting in an accident at lunch are infinitesimal. In fact, they showed that for the six previous years, there were no recorded car accidents involving PUSD students at lunch. If this had really been about safety, as tenretni claims, then the movement would have been to disallow students to drive to school at all. Ironically, there was a bill before the state legislature at the same time that would have required you to be 18 to obtain a drivers license that would have ended the whole argument. Our obnoxious friends from the UPC were conspicuously silent about that.
The current school board chose to ignore the will of its parents and community when it voted to close the campuses. Both Kathy Knecht and Diane Douglas talked often of the 1500 or so signatures collected by the UPC as evidence that the community wanted to close the campuses. They ignored the more than 2600 signatures Joe Bernier collected saying they wanted options.
If you want to blame someone for this mess, find a member of the UPC, that is, if you can find them. Like cowards, they have dropped out of sight, leaving others to clean up the mess they left."
And the truth shall set you free. Thanks Apache Mom.
|
AnneR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
Apache Mom wrote:
"The atmosphere of animosity we currently find ourselves in is the creation of the sanctimonious members of the UPC...While they and their handful of followers certainly made a lot of noise, they never represented the opinions of this community...
When it became clear early on that the majority of the community wanted some type of open campus policy, the UPC tried to hijack the committee in the press, claiming that they were in the majority, and that this was about “safety.” After “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction,” no two bigger lies have ever been told...
The current school board chose to ignore the will of its parents and community when it voted to close the campuses. Both Kathy Knecht and Diane Douglas talked often of the 1500 or so signatures collected by the UPC as evidence that the community wanted to close the campuses. They ignored the more than 2600 signatures Joe Bernier collected saying they wanted options...
If you want to blame someone for this mess, find a member of the UPC, that is, if you can find them. Like cowards, they have dropped out of sight, leaving others to clean up the mess they left."
Amen Apache Mom!
|
JamesT
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 01:48 am |
|
Adam, this may come as a surprise, but I agree with you. My comments were made to point out the overabundance of hypocrisy on this forum. Folks scream at Joe Bernier and want him held accountable, and in doing so hold him to a higher standard that those we elected. There is something seriously wrong with that picture, but that's what happens when you bring politics into the school business.
As for the election, I will not vote for a single incumbent on this board in November 2008, or in November 2010. None of them are serving our community well. As the old saying goes, "Throw the bums out!"
|
Adam Maras
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 01:29 am |
|
JamesT wrote: The better question is, how can PUSD enforce its rules and regulations when two governing board members are in flagrant violation of the state law? If the govening board doesn't have to obey the rules, why should Joe or anyone else?
I feel I need to respond to this comment.
If we, as a community, start thinking along these lines (that if the Governing Board is above the law we can be too), we will do nothing but incite more tension between (and I apologize in advance for my use of these labels) the "openers" and the "closers." It will become nothing more than yet another point of argument as to why the "openers" are troublemakers and the "closers" are in the right. It'll become yet another point of criticism directed toward the Governing Board itself, which, to be completely honest, is entirely useless at this point, because the community doesn't seem to be interested in going through the process of recalling any of the Board members. Non-constructively complaining about our current board isn't going to do a single thing in the near future; if we want to do something about our Governing Board, we're going to have to do it in 201 days, at the polling places for the general election. What can we do between now and then? Find candidates for the election, and try to constructively lobby our current Board to consider the interests of the community above their own interests. We, as a community, as a whole community needs to take the high road when it comes to the issues facing the school district! While petty bickering may be considered fun or a nondestructive outlet for our political anger, it's not doing a darn thing to rectify the situation facing the parents, students, community members, and district staff that are directly affected by the choices made by the Governing Board. I'm curious as to why our community can't see past the petty differences and step forward to try to build consensus among the people; there are these two camps, two factions that seem to exist for the sole purpose of arguing with each other regarding decisions made by the Board. I admit that no body of people will ever agree with each other 100% on every issue, but I do wholeheartedly believe that the people that comprise the voting population of this school district are capable of seeing past the politics, deceit, and agendas, and take notice of the real issues that are facing the children and young adults of this country. I'm a firm believer in the idea that education, as a national issue, trumps most (if not all) of the other issues in importance. That being said, for the education system to work the way it was intended to work, politics need to be set aside, and the good of the students of our country need to be the chief concern of the people who are voting on, influencing, or making decisions on the issues that will determine whether or not today's students can successfully fill tomorrow's jobs and offices, and whether or not that generation will be able to prepare the generation after them for the same task.
Those of you that have been following the politics of the district, or at the least have been reading this forum, will know that I have registered with the county to be a candidate for a Governing Board seat during the upcoming general election. I'm currently a high school student-- I know how important education is to me, and to everyone around me. I know how important education is to the county. I know how important education is to the state. I know how important education is to the entire country. I know that education isn't particularly important to certain members or groups in our community, and I know that some aspects of education aren't important to some of the members currently "serving" on the Governing Board. I'm running for a position on that Board because I understand that importance, and have no political agenda, save for the obvious agenda of fixing some of the mistakes that were made in the governing of this school district. I truly wish more people see the big picture and stop bickering and fighting over petty details when there's a more important fight: the battle to prepare today's students for tomorrow's responsibilities.
Every student, every day, prepared to meet tomorrow.
Why isn't someone standing for every student, every day?
|
Apache Mom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 01:16 am |
|
Simple: the issue never came up until they brought it up. There was no movement in the community to do this. As parents, most of us saw this as something that came out of left field. As a parent of a high school-aged child at the time, this never came up at parent meetings, booster club meetings or any other meetings with parents. Never.
But, for the sake of argument, lets say I'm wrong about that. It still doesn't matter, because each time the school district asked its parents and community what they wanted, they always answered that they wanted some option that would allow juniors and seniors to leave campus. ALWAYS.
What cannot be argued is that the sanctimonious crap spewed by the UPC is what divided this school district. That chasm continues to grow, and not a single one of them are around anymore to clean up the mess they made.
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 12:47 am |
|
| Apache, I have to ask how do you know "not a single parent" complained before the UPC did? How could you possibly know if people had or had not complained? You come off as sanctimonious as you say those other people are unless you can back that up.
|
JamesT
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 12:42 am |
|
Thanks for the explanation Apache Mom. Almost this entire forum has been dedicated to spin in an effort to hide the facts you presented so clearly.
|
JamesT
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 12:40 am |
|
tenretni asks, "HOW is it possible that PUSD allows you to get away with this flagrant disregard of the rules??? HOW did you earn the hall pass to do whatever the hell you want, where the rest of us believe that we are required to abide by the rules imposed by the PUSD and governing board???"
The better question is, how can PUSD enforce its rules and regulations when two governing board members are in flagrant violation of the state law? If the govening board doesn't have to obey the rules, why should Joe or anyone else?
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 11:50 pm |
|
| Joe, if you're so thinking you're getting your way as you put it, then what was all the fuss about? Plus, have your kids actually left campus without you doing a daily sign-out?
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 11:44 pm |
|
Tenretni, RUKidding....I find it very interesting that you would call us sheep, when it is you guys who are blindly following the governing board members who have made these decisions while openly admitting to doing no research on the matter.
You accuse me of breaking the rules....what rules do you speak of. I'm following the policy, word for word. No where does it state I must go in daily. You guys just can't handle the fact that we are getting our way. We aren't hurting anybody...there is no credit (or incentive) for staying on campus at lunch. And the FACT is closed campuses are more dangerous than open ones. That's the truth....do your own research before you continue to spread the lies of "safety".
FYI...the "original" closed campus policy didn't even allow for any of us to pick up our students for lunch, at all. You were even controlled to sign outs on a "limited basis for documented medical appts"....remember that?
Even if you choose to follow this newer policy....your parents (grandparents) or sister/brother (aunt/uncle), can't pick them up. I call B.S. on that too. My mother in law will ALWAYS be able to pick up my kids, the schools can't (nor should they ever try) prohibit that from happening. Joe Bernier
|
Apache Mom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 99 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
I find it extremely amusing that this entire closed campus mess, and the ensuing messes like the recall that have come as a result, have been tossed at the feet of Joe Bernier.
The atmosphere of animosity we currently find ourselves in is the creation of the sanctimonious members of the UPC. It is this group that made up the closed campus issue out of whole cloth. Not a single parent complained about the former policy of allowing juniors and seniors to leave campus for lunch, but the UPC decided to make it an issue. While they and their handful of followers certainly made a lot of noise, they never represented the opinions of this community.
In response, the district formed a committee to study the issue, of which I was a member. UPC tried to load up the committee with their members, and did a pretty good job of it. The problem, however, was that they were out numbered by members of the community who didn’t agree with them. During the meetings themselves, UPC members tried to intimidate committee members by shouting them down, and by refusing to play by the same rules as the rest of the committee. When it became clear early on that the majority of the community wanted some type of open campus policy, the UPC tried to hijack the committee in the press, claiming that they were in the majority, and that this was about “safety.”
After “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction,” no two bigger lies have ever been told.
60 % of committee members voted for a lunchtime policy that allowed some flexibility in allowing junior and seniors to leave campus for lunch. In an online poll conducted by the district before the committee’s report was brought before the governing board, 54% responded in the same manner (What makes this really funny is that UPC members posted directions on how to vote multiple times in this survey on this very forum . . . and still didn’t get a majority). As a result, the governing board adopted a policy that allowed juniors and seniors to leave campus provided they had parent permission and a 2.0 GPA. In a survey of parents taken after this policy was implemented, 69% said they were satisfied with the policy. All of these figures, in case you’re wondering, are still available on the district’s web site.
This committee was also presented traffic statistics from both Glendale and Peoria. What those statistics showed was that students were more likely to get into car accidents before or after school. According to police statistics, the chances of getting in an accident at lunch are infinitesimal. In fact, they showed that for the six previous years, there were no recorded car accidents involving PUSD students at lunch. If this had really been about safety, as tenretni claims, then the movement would have been to disallow students to drive to school at all. Ironically, there was a bill before the state legislature at the same time that would have required you to be 18 to obtain a drivers license that would have ended the whole argument. Our obnoxious friends from the UPC were conspicuously silent about that.
The current school board chose to ignore the will of its parents and community when it voted to close the campuses. Both Kathy Knecht and Diane Douglas talked often of the 1500 or so signatures collected by the UPC as evidence that the community wanted to close the campuses. They ignored the more than 2600 signatures Joe Bernier collected saying they wanted options.
If you want to blame someone for this mess, find a member of the UPC, that is, if you can find them. Like cowards, they have dropped out of sight, leaving others to clean up the mess they left.
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
Adam Maras wrote: While those people are blindly spouting off that they're helping students and others be safer by restricting them, other members of the community (namely Joe and Preston) have actually brought forth solid data regarding recent local school traffic incidents and trends, along with data from other school districts in this state and other states.
Really, again, I missed this. I admit, however, that I nodded off during 95% of these speeches. Can you name one bit of solid data that was presented because I honestly don't recall even one??
|
justiceforall
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 09:28 pm |
|
| I don't understand either. Please enlighten me.
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 09:25 pm |
|
| I am sorry to say I don't understand why these two statements made by Adam Maras are not completely contradictory. Please dumb it down for me to understand.
|
Adam Maras
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 09:07 pm |
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME wrote: First, you basically said Joe and Preston influenced you and now you are saying they didn't, which is it?? These statements appear to be contradicting each other, don't they?
I said no such thing. What I stated a very long time ago is that, though I agree with some of the points they make, they did not influence me in any way. Is that simple enough for you to understand?
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 08:35 pm |
|
Adam Maras wrote:
I didn't have the whole picture about everything that was going on until "very recently," as you would say. I was introduced to a lot of the politics of the situation by Preston, Joe, and some of the others involved in their operations. However, it wasn't until I had been to the meetings, spoken to the Board members, talked to the community, and listened to district staff that I realized Joe's approach wasn't (in my opinion) the right way to go about things. If you had taken the time to actually read the discussion you're currently flaming, you would see my previous comments on this topic. As I've stated below, I have been a pawn in nobody's "game." My comments and actions were entirely my own and were not a part of anyone else's agenda.
First, you basically said Joe and Preston influenced you and now you are saying they didn't, which is it?? These statements appear to be contradicting each other, don't they?
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Re: Is there a single word for `sheep-like' ?
I guess you can say sheep I found this:be If a group of people are (like) sheep, they all behave in the same way or all behave as they are told, and cannot or will not act independently.
So you can say you are sheep.
Last edited on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 08:58 pm by AREYOUKIDDING ME
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 318 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 08:29 pm |
|
Adam Maras wrote: (namely Joe and Preston) have actually brought forth solid data regarding recent local school traffic incidents and trends, along with data from other school districts in this state and other states. The data presented has been looked at with a blind eye, so to speak. Consider the lunch policy from last year; juniors and seniors that had parent permission and kept their grades up were the students who were allowed to leave campus for lunch. Coincidentally, without generalizing too much, I believe I can say that this is the subset of students who would be least likely to drive recklessly or cause accidents. Am I unreasonable in making that statement?
Yes
|
Adam Maras
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 07:06 pm |
|
tenretni, I'm surprised that you've managed to become yet another of the individuals who have somehow allowed themselves to believe the "safety" argument put forth by certain members of the Board and the community. While those people are blindly spouting off that they're helping students and others be safer by restricting them, other members of the community (namely Joe and Preston) have actually brought forth solid data regarding recent local school traffic incidents and trends, along with data from other school districts in this state and other states. The data presented has been looked at with a blind eye, so to speak. Consider the lunch policy from last year; juniors and seniors that had parent permission and kept their grades up were the students who were allowed to leave campus for lunch. Coincidentally, without generalizing too much, I believe I can say that this is the subset of students who would be least likely to drive recklessly or cause accidents. Am I unreasonable in making that statement?
|
tenretni
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
Joe: HOW did you get the "policy changed"?? Last I heard from PUSD admin is that high school campuses are closed. Period.
JOE--- for one moment, would it be possible for you to focus on something other than yourself and your daughters (who, for some reason cannot seem to tolerate lunch on campus)? Perhaps then you would realize that the MAIN reason the campuses are CLOSED is due to SAFETY. You, as a parent, are free to sign your daughter(s) out during lunch [on a daily basis], if it's so unbelievably important for them to eat "outside the box" (your words, Joe, not mine). However, it's re-assuring to most of us to see how well the students in PUSD have acclimated to the new policy, and [according to site administrators] life on campus is so much calmer (and SAFER) now that students are on campus [during lunch--- where they belong] rather than racing off campus to eat "outside the box" (again -- your words, not mine). PUSD (including governing board) is responsible for the students during the school day (which includes the LUNCH RECESS--- whether you agree with me or not, it's not even worthy of discussion --- the LUNCH RECESS is STILL part of the school day) I personally resent the fact that you defy the PUSD rules, and you ENCOURAGE your children to also defy the rules. What kind of example are you setting, Joe??
AND, another important question: HOW is it possible that PUSD allows you to get away with this flagrant disregard of the rules??? HOW did you earn the hall pass to do whatever the hell you want, where the rest of us believe that we are required to abide by the rules imposed by the PUSD and governing board??? Jeeeezzzz.... if we were to follow the rules according to Joe, all hell will break out in the PUSD... is that what you want???? Which brings me back to my original question from a previous post: WHY not do us all a favor and home school your kids, Joe???
|
Adam Maras
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
justiceforall wrote: You used kids like your daughter, Adam Maras, and Preston like pawns in a chess game.
If you had taken the time to actually read the discussion you're currently flaming, you would see my previous comments on this topic. As I've stated below, I have been a pawn in nobody's "game." My comments and actions were entirely my own and were not a part of anyone else's agenda.
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 06:02 pm |
|
You guys crack me up...most of you don't even know the entire story. We are not defeated, we got the policy changed (from the "original" closed policy), we are having lunch off campus, no one can stop us, we retained our choice. Where is the defeat? Joe Bernier
P.S. Gadfly...I like the post about the rules....so true.
|
justiceforall
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:27 pm |
|
Joewrites4rights wrote: The positive from all of this, (attitude taught by the governing board, no less) the students discovered they only need their parents permission to leave campus at lunchtime, not the schools. The procedure of going in everyday to sign them out is unenforceable, and we don't have to do it.
The question that begs to be asked:
Why didn't you do this from the very first?????? Why did you have to create such chaos? I'm not sure I would teach this message to my kids, but that is your personal choice. There have been some references to Bill Gates and the speech he gave. You really need to read it. I'm not sure the bosses in the workplace often care what your attitude (or your daddy's attitude) is to the rules. Their response will be if you don't like my rules, go work somewhere else.
|
justiceforall
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:18 pm |
|
Joewrites4rights wrote:
I thought you all might want to hear the truth from the horses mouth. Yes, I filed the recall papers.....on the students behalf. I even helped gather some signatures. But it was the student's recall.
Joe,
Please! This was your recall,100%. You used kids like your daughter, Adam Maras, and Preston like pawns in a chess game. This was nothing but your game, you were massacred in the chess game, and now it's time to take your pieces home and not play these games anymore.
|
justiceforall
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 02:32 pm |
|
Joe Bernier
You got your ass kicked and your credibilty is in the negative range, Time to go away.
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 12:56 pm |
|
| I'm not seeing how eating lunch off campus is considered 'out of the box', unless you mean Jack in the Box.
|
rdg7359
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 12:53 pm |
|
Joewrites4rights wrote: Backwards internet.....funny that you would quote a genius that became what he is today by defying his perceived authority of the time. They also used to ridicule and chastise him relentlessly for his "out of the box" thinking.
The difference between your thinking and mine is easy to see. You say life is not fair, get used too it.....I say life is what you make it....fair or not...do something about it!!!
Fact: We are out of the box that you choose to remain in. Have fun in there....Joe Bernier
Spoken like a defeated man that once stood high on his soap box yelling about Constitutional Rights and State Statutes now reduced to mediocrity with a dose of humility.
Pay up sucker!
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 169 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 08:20 am |
|
RULE 1
Life is not fair - get used to it.
RULE 2
The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world
will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel
good about yourself.
RULE 3
You will NOT make 40 thousand dollars a year right out
of high school. You won't be a vice president with
car phone, until you earn both.
RULE 4
If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a
boss. He doesn't have tenure.
RULE 5
Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your
grandparents had a different word for burger flipping
they
called it Opportunity.
RULE 6
If you mess up,it's not your parents' fault, so don't
whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
RULE 7
Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as
they are now. They got that way from paying your bills,
cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about
how cool you are. So before you save the rain forest
from the parasites of your parent's generation, try
delousing the closet in your own room.
RULE 8
Your school may have done away with winners and losers,
but life has not. In some schools they have abolished
failing grades and they'll give you as many times as
you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the
slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
RULE 9
Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get
summers off and very few employers are interested in
helping you find yourself. Do that on your own time.
RULE 10
Television is NOT real life. In real life people
actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
RULE 11
Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for
one.
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 04:46 am |
|
Backwards internet.....funny that you would quote a genius that became what he is today by defying his perceived authority of the time. They also used to ridicule and chastise him relentlessly for his "out of the box" thinking.
The difference between your thinking and mine is easy to see. You say life is not fair, get used too it.....I say life is what you make it....fair or not...do something about it!!!
Fact: We are out of the box that you choose to remain in. Have fun in there....Joe Bernier
Last edited on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 04:49 am by Joewrites4rights
|
tenretni
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16th, 2008 03:10 am |
|
Joe: I thought you might find this interesting -- and you may want to pass it along to your kids and their friends:
"Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept sets them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!"
|
tenretni
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16th, 2008 02:56 am |
|
You must be kidding, Joe. You are actually encouraging your children, and other students, to simply ignore the rules because "they" (presumably - the admin?) can't tell you (presumably - the parent?) what to do?
Joe: Why do you have your children enrolled in the public school system if you refuse to follow "their" rules? Next we'll hear from you is that "they" cannot force your children to take math (because that's just not fair) or "they" cannot force your children to abide by the dress code (because that, too, is not fair). Come on, Joe. Give it up. Once and for all, just give it up (PLEASE). And be sure to send that check to County Elections Dept for your recall committee's failure to file proper paperwork, okay?? (I think it's $400, but you might want to check with Hope at County Elections to confirm before you write the check.)
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 07:07 pm |
|
| Joe, As much as I haven't agree with you on lots of stuff surrounding this issue, I do agree with you that people should back off your daughter and stop mentioning her name. From one dad to another.
|
rdg7359
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 06:05 pm |
|
Joewrites4rights wrote: Wow....looks like trouble at the animal farm. I have just been able to log on for the first time after a long absence from this. I find most of your posts disgusting....especially the post made by someone who doesn't know the entire story and took it upon themselves to ridicule my daughter. A "classic" example of a closer.
I thought you all might want to hear the truth from the horses mouth. Yes, I filed the recall papers.....on the students behalf. I even helped gather some signatures. But it was the student's recall. They learned firsthand what a farce this local school government is. They also learned (sadly) that their principals are not there for them. When the students started to organize and gather signatures, they were squelched by the schools they attend.....they were not allowed to gather and collect signatures at school (not even during THEIR lunchtime). They discovered firsthand how much their leaders (the principals) are against them and how much their student councils are NOT about student government, even the school appointed leaders of the student councils admit they have been reduced to nothing more than school site workers whose only task is to provide free services to the community and school. The PUSD should rename the course from "Student Government" to "Student Spirit Coordination and Free Workers". Why are the student councils doing cheerleader work? (that's a another issue)
The positive from all of this, (attitude taught by the governing board, no less) the students discovered they only need their parents permission to leave campus at lunchtime, not the schools. The procedure of going in everyday to sign them out is unenforceable, and we don't have to do it.
Example: As you all know....I, as a parent, have personally gone to the school's attendance office and signed my daughter out for her assigned lunch period. I signed her out for every lunch period for the rest of the school year. She can leave. No one from the school can (legally) stop her. She is not violating any policy by leaving campus at lunch (she has her parents permission, that's all that is needed). If the district has a problem with that, that will remain THEIR problem....they can try and punish me as the parent.
The most important thing I have learned is this: We have people in charge that "think" they have power over us.....but they don't. They don't because we never gave them the power, more importantly.....we don't have to.
It's good to be free, try it!!! Joe Bernier
See how easy that was Joe. All that whining and crying about your rights and all this time the power was in your hands. It only took you close to an entire school year to realize this, good for you Joe!
As for you student followers, welcome to the real world of politics!
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 03:35 pm |
|
Wow....looks like trouble at the animal farm. I have just been able to log on for the first time after a long absence from this. I find most of your posts disgusting....especially the post made by someone who doesn't know the entire story and took it upon themselves to ridicule my daughter. A "classic" example of a closer.
I thought you all might want to hear the truth from the horses mouth. Yes, I filed the recall papers.....on the students behalf. I even helped gather some signatures. But it was the student's recall. They learned firsthand what a farce this local school government is. They also learned (sadly) that their principals are not there for them. When the students started to organize and gather signatures, they were squelched by the schools they attend.....they were not allowed to gather and collect signatures at school (not even during THEIR lunchtime). They discovered firsthand how much their leaders (the principals) are against them and how much their student councils are NOT about student government, even the school appointed leaders of the student councils admit they have been reduced to nothing more than school site workers whose only task is to provide free services to the community and school. The PUSD should rename the course from "Student Government" to "Student Spirit Coordination and Free Workers". Why are the student councils doing cheerleader work? (that's a another issue)
The positive from all of this, (attitude taught by the governing board, no less) the students discovered they only need their parents permission to leave campus at lunchtime, not the schools. The procedure of going in everyday to sign them out is unenforceable, and we don't have to do it.
Example: As you all know....I, as a parent, have personally gone to the school's attendance office and signed my daughter out for her assigned lunch period. I signed her out for every lunch period for the rest of the school year. She can leave. No one from the school can (legally) stop her. She is not violating any policy by leaving campus at lunch (she has her parents permission, that's all that is needed). If the district has a problem with that, that will remain THEIR problem....they can try and punish me as the parent.
The most important thing I have learned is this: We have people in charge that "think" they have power over us.....but they don't. They don't because we never gave them the power, more importantly.....we don't have to.
It's good to be free, try it!!! Joe Bernier
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | | | |
