Sunday, August 14, 2005

CRC's Public Forum Allows Their Side Only

I hate to get into this, but to tell you the truth it is kind of upsetting. A second person has just had their comments on the CRC forum blocked.

See, here at this web site we have a blog format where somebody -- usually it's me -- posts something about a news story or something, and then anyone can comment. The very best is when people who disagree with our point of view come here and try to explain. Well, they're often snotty and sarcastic, but at least they're hearing what we say, and they do have a chance to express themselves if they care to. Sometimes the comments section gets a little wild. People aren't real careful about spelling and don't exactly work up an outline before they write something, so sometimes it's just a little ... woolly. But it's real time, it's people talking to one another, and it's often fascinating to watch them interact. I love our comment section.

I have never deleted anybody's comments because of the opinion they expressed. Some stuff, name-calling, pointless obscenity, sarcasm without a message ... I will delete. It's been quite a while since I had to delete anything. What opinion a person expresses has nothing at all to do with my decision.

I've been told that the CRC Forum actually has a thread titled "Slander from TeachTheFacts." It's about some things that were said here when the CRC member told the school board, with well-rehearsed indignation, that you could "meet hot gay men" from the web page of a "gay club" at a high school.

There have been some comments, and apparently quite a discussion over there, about this. Some CRC members actually seem to have seen how it works, they've seen the search engines, and they still think it's terrible that a student can get to a gay dating site through a search engine. My assessment is like the cartoon on Alex's blog that says: "You suck at the Internet." They just don't seem to understand how all this works, and think it all needs to be censored and blocked -- these web sites link to all kinds of things, including Christian sites, but all the CRC sees is gay, gay, gay.

So we learn:
Can you believe this? I was in a discussion there, and the administrator blocked me from saying anything! I can still read what other people write, but even if somebody responds to my last comment, I can't say anything back, because they've locked me out.

Here's what I said:
This is a real education for me -- at least two of you guys seem to be for real about this!

Do you think the school district should have like a sealed-off part of the Internet, where students can only reach things that CRC approves of? Is that what this is about -- a new model of computer communications divided into subsystems?

What about students who really do want to meet gay singles in their area?

Or what about the Students Against Drunk Driving at Walter Johnson? Their web site tricks you -- when you try to go to their "national organization" it diverts you to a web site with a text box -- I typed "sex" into that text box, and it gave me links to 671,000,000 web sites. Will the CRC tell the school board at their next meeting that the Students Against Drunk Driving are promoting illicit sexual behaviors?

I just wonder what kind of world you think you live in.

So later I checked back to see if anybody has had anything to say, and here's what I saw, a message from the Administrator.

It is very simple. This is a click-see world. I don't care if google responds with 10000 ads for anal sex if you type in gay. The point is, without typing anything in, you can go from a MCPS approved web site, to hot gay singles ads without ever typing in anything. That is a form of tacit approval. This "search engine" defense is truly bizarre. This forum exists to discuss the welfare of children in the MCPS. The fact that children can go to google and type in anything is not relevant to this forum. They can get detailed plans using google to build a nuclear dirty bomb, but that does not make that an issue to be discussed here. CRCprecious made her point. It has been discussed to death. Let us all move on.

The funny thing is how they seem to need to control the discussion. They'll tell you themselves, they don't want two sides to a discussion. If you're not talking about what their administrator wants you to talk about, then they'll just lock you out.

Let me say, I've seen this other places, too. I belong to a couple of high-school Yahoo groups, and there is a certain faction that takes this weird approach -- as soon as anyone says anything vaguely "liberal" sounding, these people tell them to shut up. I've seen it at both my kids' high schools.

What they seem to want is for everyone to say the same thing, so they can all pat themselves on the back and tell themselves what a massively important political movement they represent. They don't need a bunch of wimpy stuff like "reasons" -- they know what they believe already, and there's no sense beating it to death with a bunch of blabbering.

Here at, we have a Yahoo group where people can share information and opinions. Almost as soon as we formed the group, people from the other side joined it under fake names. We do consider that group to be an "insider" discussion, more for planning things and noting relevant current events than for debating whether gay people are going to hell or not. But still, we've had several occasions where people from the other side try to impose their alien beliefs on us.

One time I volunteered to remove those people from the list. It'd be easy. And we had a big discussion, and it seemed clear that the majority of TeachTheFacts people did not want to remove the outsiders. They were probably good for keeping our views rigorous and well-defined, and besides it doesn't seem fair to exclude people just because they don't agree with us.

So we have this interesting kind of distinction between the two sides. Our side encourages the discussion, to a fault. We want to hear what the other side thinks, and sometimes some of us even agree with some of what they say. For instance, some of the stuff about STDs -- I think a lot of us agree with the CRC's doctor who says there ought to be more in the curriculum about STDs, especially as they are spread by homosexual behavior. Sounds good to us, some of us would support having a section of the sex-ed curriculum that helped gay students understand what to do to prevent the spread of disease.

The other side does not "do nuance." They don't care what anybody else thinks, they already know what they believe, and contrary opinions are just a kind of background noise, like a mosquito buzzing.

The CRC Forum threw out another person earlier this week, on similar grounds. Just didn't like what the person was saying. Couldn't stand the fact that somebody would have their own opinion and didn't ask permission before they expressed it.

In that case, the administrator wrote:
It is also unacceptable to reprint major "opinion pieces" from a web site that is in direct oposition to the CRC, ever.

That would be us. They don't want to hear anything from Ever.

We remember when the first Recall message board was set up. Oh, how the nuts amused themselves! It was a madhouse, they were threatening people and saying crazy stuff, and they finally had to put a password on it and keep the rest of the world from seeing what they were saying. I remember the CRC President apologizing to the school board for threats that were made against them. It was something else. So I understand their admin wanting to keep a lid on things.

But man, there is a big difference between monitoring and controlling threatening messages and telling people that the topic has been "discussed to death" and that it's time to move on.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is, without typing anything in, you can go from a MCPS approved web site, to hot gay singles ads without ever typing in anything. That is a form of tacit approval.

Is this actually true? I recall having to actually type in "gay" in order for any results to be shown.

August 14, 2005 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Bush recently expressed his view that ID "theory" should be included in biology class along with the theory of evolution because he "felt like both sides ought to be properly taught...”

It's a shame the CRC doesn't agree that both sides' views should even be discussed. No opposing views in the debate about sexual orientation are permitted on their message board and they support the old curriculum with its complete lack of information about sexual orientation.

Their constant refusual to even entertain a simple civilized discussion with people who's views are not precisely in lock-step with their own shows their true colors.


August 14, 2005 8:17 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

First Anon, on the Outlook Club main page there is an icon that says "Stop the Hate." If you click on that icon, it takes you along a dead link to a search engine site that offers "Popular links" on the left, and "Popular Categories" on the right. The list of Popular Categories has about 50 items, including Artwork, Jewish singles, Texas Holdem, Work From Home, and "Queer." If you click "Queer," you go to a list of "Sponsored links," which includes "Queer friends and romance," "Shop gay friendly biz," "Queer," and "A queer store." Beneath that is a list of six "Top sites," one of these seems to have a gay theme, the rest are dating services, mostly, for straight people.

I think that if you followed one of the sponsored links, you could indeed end up at a gay dating service with racy wording without actually entering "gay" into a search engine. It is equally easy to end up at a Christian Singles site, or reading about Gundam Wing, whatever that is, maybe a Japanese TV show?

So the big difference is, one of the search engines available from the Outlook Club has a link -- one of many -- labelled "Queer," which takes you, after a couple more clicks, to sites with gay stuff, some of which may be offensive to the CRC.

August 14, 2005 11:28 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon Two, there is a distinction to make here. People reading or talking among themselves should surely be advised to learn about both sides of an issue, even where one side is scientific fact and the other side is wishful thinking. Students in school, though, do not need to be taught, side-by-side, Copernican and flat-earth theories. We are not providing them a service by teaching them what the Ku Klux Klan believes alongside their lessons on Martin Luther King.

People discussing on an Internet message board might bring up any weird point of view. What the President advocated was teaching as science a philosophy that has no scientific merit. You and I may wonder what intelligence lies behind the universe -- many scientists have private ideas about this -- but our speculations should not be taught as scientific fact in the public schools.

August 14, 2005 11:35 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

You can only join discussions if you ONLY agree with their wacky homophobic postings. It figures....

Below is what was sent to me from a FORMER CRC message board participant of which CRC kicked off last weekend for challenging them.

Not so public right...?

Kay R


From Recall website about their new forum.


Launch of a New Public Web Forum

The CRC invites you to join discussions about what is happening in schools regarding sex-ed, family values, parental rights and other issues that have come to our attention as we worked to defeat the MCPS pilot curriculum.


What was posted last Saturday ON THE CRC SO CALLED PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD!

From CRC Message Board Admin:

An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry LLJ22, you are banned from using this forum!

Reason: You are defeating the purpose of this forum. Constant refutation of even the slightest point(s) is not productive. Cool your jets.


August 14, 2005 12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From CRC One-sided message board:

National PTA and Gay advocacy (Michelle Turner)
« on: July 01, 2005, 04:27:23 pm »

National PTA recently held its annual convention in Ohio. PTA, an organization supposedly promoting the safety and well being of our children, promoted a gay advocay group by allowing them to set up a display table at the converntion. All this under the guise of creating a safe school environment.

Interestingly enough, the National PTA refused to allow PFOX-Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, to set up a table for the convention. PFOX works with family and friends of those either living a gay lifestyle or working to come out of it.

This is the same organization that the MCPS Board of Ed refuses to admit exists and denies the need for students to know that there is help if they choose to change feelings of same sex attraction.


Re: National PTA and Gay advocacy (CRC EXEC)
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2005, 07:46:45 pm »

This reminds me of that line from Orwell's Animal Farm story: "All Animals are Equal... but some are more equal than others."

So how can someone call for a comprehensive sex ed program and not include these people in the discussion of sexual variations?

I think Judge Williams would challenge this if MCPS continues to deny PFOX equal opportunity to be at least discussed in the new curriculum.

What are the teachers going to do when a child asks about "ex-gays"? Isn't this how the process to change the current curriculum was initiated?


Johnny Garza
Re: National PTA and Gay advocacy
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2005, 06:16:41 am »

I not in favor of the idea of labeling young kids with a sexual orientation and then telling them they will have to live with that label the rest of their lives and there is nothing they can do about it. We all know that some people start out hetero and move to homosexual and vice versa. Happens all the time. Why do the extremists fear ex-gays so much?

August 14, 2005 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point I was trying to make is that even W thinks boths sides should be heard while opponents to tolerance in MCPS sex ed cancel the right to post on their message board if you express a view contrary to theirs.

Of course voodoo does not belong in a science class any more than it belongs in health class. The same is true of all religions -- they do not belong in our public school system.


August 14, 2005 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(More musings from CRC Message Board)

Gay Straight Club CRC Precious--Retta
« on: June 12, 2005, 07:34:35 pm »

Parents need to be aware of the following:

Montgomery County School System is still promoting one viewpoint of homosexuality and still promoting religious points of view that are favorable to the homosexual agenda . Even though Dr.Weast pulled the health curriculum that promoted these views, MCPS continues to allow its website to be used by a Gay Straight Club at Walter Johnson High School that uses the school facilities, school personnel as sponsors and school time to promote misleading and factually incorrect information.
Take a look at this website and read their Mission Statement

Take a look at the website and read the resources that are provided for the children to go to. Some of these websites link to sites that have nothing to do with the subject matter. e.g. Safer Sex Information goes to filchyboy which has nothing to do with safer sex.
Some of these links encourage students (minors) to seek counseling from non-professional personnel and go to adult homosexual social affairs. One link states that condoms are 99% safe.

Children are not required to seek their parent’s permission to go to these clubs but the children need the parent’s permission to take the health class that will be discussing sexual variations. In other words, a child, who could be as young as 14 without his parent's knowledge or permission can be participating in club activities at school that promote and even encourage the homosexual and transgender lifestye. Transgender is a mental disorder according to the American Psychiatric Handbook of mental disorders.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 06:24:05 pm by crcretta »


Johnny Garza

Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2005, 06:48:11 am »

What if a guy wants to be a cat? Is this ok. Should he have surgery to add wiskers and long ears? Start walking on all fours? Is there any difference?


Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2005, 03:00:44 pm »

It is ok for a tenager to be transformed into a cat. We must respect peoples right to be as absurd as they want to be - otherwise you will injure their self-esteem. However, once so transformed, all the other MCPS students must beinstructed in hairball removal, scratch pads, purring, etc., so the cat can be fully acceptable as a co-equal.


Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2005, 03:28:48 pm »

Does this mean the school has to provide Kitty Litter?


Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2005, 04:43:01 pm »

Hey, you guys are real funny. And that's really all that's important, that you have somebody to laugh at: you can call it "moral superiority." Anyway, there was nothing about transgenderism in the MCPS curriculum, so it doesn't matter.


Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2005, 05:06:15 pm »

May be that you are right. I guess the attempt at humor here is to try and "lighten up" the discussion. When behavioral variations that are almost statistically insignificant are included in a school curriculum, one has to take a step back and truly ask - Whats next? How far do we go to be all inclusive (to the possible detriment of the majority) and at what cost? So the cat analogy sort of hit the nail on the head.


CRC admin
Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2005, 04:40:13 pm »

The politically correct term is "Teeney Litter". Of course, those with "Trans -species" disorder should be included in the deliberations of the new CAC.



Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2005, 06:28:56 pm »

First of all, the original posting about transgender was incorrect. Secondly, there was nothing "included in the school curriculum" about the topic, other than a definition for teachers which was not to be shared with the class.

And speaking about "statistically insignificant," how bout them ex-gays?


Johnny Garza

Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2005, 07:41:19 am »

I guess the bottom line as it relate to the schools is that we should not encourage 8th graders to choose a sexual orientation, then tell them that the label permanent and non-changeable. People do change orientations, why force a label on a child or even an adult for that matter?


Re: Gay Straight Club
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2005, 01:17:28 pm »

I think this brings us full circle to cats as parents.

August 14, 2005 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, there you have the musings of some CRC members in a "NUT" shell.

August 14, 2005 2:46 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

That would be ... "Johnny Garza"?

August 14, 2005 9:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home