Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Report on the Board Meeting

I was just looking around at the blogs, and see that Maryland Politics Watch has published David Fishback's notes from the school board meeting yesterday. I had seen this piece earlier in email, and was impressed by its thoroughness. I didn't take any notes at the meeting -- long story, I ended up being separated from my notebook -- but the sound of David's furious scribbling was audible all the way across the room. Nearly drowned out the speakers.

Not really.

Here's the most thorough and accurate description of the Board meeting that you will see. David Fishback puts the corporate media to shame:
There was the expected public comment from the CRC/PFOX people attacking the Superintendent's proposal in its entirety and complaining about the "gay agenda" and the like. (Contrary to one press report, there were not 15 people testifying to their point of view. They had five people speaking at Public Comments.) No one on the BOE even responded to their statements, other than to say, with respect to a lawsuit, "bring it on."

Jim Kennedy of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Teachthefacts.org, Christine Grewell of Teachthefacts.org, Matthew Murgia of the CAC, and I all spoke generally in support of the proposal, while noting the glaring omission of basic information, notably the medical consensus that homosexuality is not a disease or a disorder. In my testimony, I noted that this is information that all four recently-elected BOE members supported for the curriculum during the campaign and that the CAC had overwhelmingly recommended inclusion of that information.

The Superintendent and the Staff presented the program, touting it as a great advance, which it is, but without really commenting on the substance of the CAC's disagreements with what was not included. The Staff noted that it was including a statement in the 8th Grade curriculum that was already in the 10th Grade curriculum: That sexual orientation is "innate and is a complex part of one's personality."

This seems to be the Staff's way of conveying that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Dr. Rachel Moon, who was one of the American Academy of Pediatrics experts who were consulted at the start of the MCPS revision process, noted that the experts would prefer that sexual orientation information be provided earlier in Middle School than 8th Grade and stressed the need to give kids information, although she did not address the CAC recommentations that were not included by the Staff.

CAC Chair Dr. Carol Plotsky noted that there were some important things that the CAC would have liked to have include. She said that she hoped that after the pilot fileld testing the rejected CAC recommendations would be revisited and included.

BOE President Nancy Navarro said that information needs to be presented in the context of tolerance and that the Staff proposal "begins to achieve our goals." She said that we should see how the field testing goes.

BOE Member Steve Abrams said the BOE should defer to the Staff and see how the field testing goes.

BOE Member Patricia O'Neill addressed the issue of a lawsuit. She said, "See you in court." She then moved to amend the 8th Grade Lesson to include a statement from the American Psychological Association that the medical community has determined that homosexuality is not an illness.

Mr. Abrams responded that there have been some animal studies suggest that sexual orientation can be changed, and said he would vote against the proposal if Ms. O'Neill's amendment was included.

BOE Vice President Shirley Brandman spoke in support of Ms. O'Neill's amendment.

Mr. Abrams responded that it should be opposed because it was not from the Staff.

BOE Member Sharon Cox said that it is good to make it clear that sexual orientation is innate, and that students need to know that homosexuality is within "the normal range of human experience." She then said that she knew that the BOE would be sued no matter what. She added, however, that she "didn't want to give them an additional handle." She also repeated what I heard the Staff said to the experts and CAC Chair Plotsky during a teleconference on Friday: If we add the O'Neill amendment, then what do we say when someone asks about transgender?

Ms. Cox completed her coments by saying that the BOE should let the pilot go forward and see what kinds of questions come up. So she would not want to include Ms. O'Neill's suggestion "at this moment."

New BOE Member Chris Barclay (he was appointed when Valerie Ervin ascended to the County Council as a result of the November election) asked very good questions about what happens when a child asks if homosexuality is an illness. Ms. Navarro then asked BOE attorney Judy Bresler to address the BOE and Bresler gave some very confusing answers about what the guidance counselors could say. One thing that was suggested by Staffer Betsy Brown was that the American Psychological Association document that was drawn upon for the curriculum was available as a resource for the guidance counselors. This still seems unclear. Unfortunately, these exchanges derailed Mr. Barclay's inquiries. Ms. Brown said that that students will ask these questions of their guidance counselors.

Student BOE Member Sara Horvitz responded that students will NOT seek out their guidance counselor -- that very few students have any kind of relationship with their guidance counselor. She also though that the "fleeting sexual attraction" CAC bullet point should be included now, as well.

Ms. Cox then said, "I'm just talking about the pilot now. Let's see how it goes."

Ms. Horvitz responded that "questions will come up. We should do it now."

Ms. Navarro again said that the BOE should move forward now and see how the field testing goes.

The vote on Ms. O'Neill's motion was 4-4, so it failed. Ms. O'Neill, Ms. Brandman, Ms. Horvitz and BOE Member Judy Docca, voted in favor. Ms. Navarro, Ms. Cox, Mr. Barclay, and Mr. Abrams voted against.

Ms. Horvitz's motion was defeated by, I think, a vote of 6-3. Ms. Brandman, Ms. Horvitz, and Dr. Docca were the affirmative votes.

Mr. Barclay, however, reiterated that he wanted to see how the field testing went, and that he has "an expectation that things will be added."

Ms. Brandman urged that the BOE hear all the questions raised the course of the field testing. How that will be done has not yet been established.

The BOE then unanimously approved the curriculum for piloting.

Now. Don't you feel like you were actually there?

Of course, he left out the most important part, which is, naturally, the CRC's opinion about it.

56 Comments:

Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

The vote on Sarah's amendment was 6-2. And her amendment, to the best of my ability to hear what was being said -- the sound often did not carry well because of the wind generated by Ruth Jacobs' football and flag -- was an amendment of the O'Neill amendment to add the "fleeting same-sex attraction" bullet, and not all of them.

January 10, 2007 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Ben Elkind said...

I'm pretty sure that David was right and the vote was actually 5-3... it got the same vote as O'neill's amendment just without O'neill

January 10, 2007 9:30 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

OK, well I was straining to hear, but Retta was holding up her sign blocking the view for everyone behind her. I thought that Sarah had moved to include the whole package... It will be interesting to see a replay of it.

JimK

January 10, 2007 9:59 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

You can see a replay of the January 9, 2007 Board of Education meeting here.

I just reviewed the segment with the vote on Ms. Horvitz's amendment and Ben is correct. Ms. Horvitz, Dr. Docca, and Ms. Brandman voted in favor of it.

January 11, 2007 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"She then said that she knew that the BOE would be sued no matter what. She added, however, that she "didn't want to give them an additional handle." She also repeated what I heard the Staff said to the experts and CAC Chair Plotsky during a teleconference on Friday: If we add the O'Neill amendment, then what do we say when someone asks about transgender?"

This is the real reason the professionals associations statements were not included. If it is stated that homosexuality is not a disease because of the APA statement but then not noted that the APA considers transgender a disease, it would cinch the viewpoint discrimination suit.

Of course, they could tell the truth but that wouldn't be promoting transgenderism which is one of the goals of the gay agenda.

As it is, David's notes might be helpful to CRC's court case.

January 11, 2007 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, the student's amendment would have improved the curriculum and lessened the chance of CRC's success in court.

But, alas, it wouldn't support the gay agenda.

January 11, 2007 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""""Anonymous said...
BTW, the student's amendment would have improved the curriculum and lessened the chance of CRC's success in court.

But, alas, it wouldn't support the gay agenda."""
well duh, the hole point is to get as manny kids to try the gay lifestyle. when children taste the forbiden fruit then they are less likly to condem it. and like we always say the younger the better.

January 11, 2007 1:33 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

anon
you are pathetic. Your comments deserve no other response.

Andrea

January 11, 2007 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and rear you get an HIV test yet?

January 11, 2007 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone sees BS (Bad Spelling) Anon's sickening obsession, which is exemplified by his quote today "like we always say the younger the better"

January 11, 2007 3:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

come on now anon like you never heard a gay man say that before.

January 11, 2007 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 11, 2007 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 11, 2007 4:30 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I'm pulling the plug, Anon.

JimK

January 11, 2007 4:35 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said (in his typical broken english) "the hole point is to get as manny kids to try the gay lifestyle. when children taste the forbiden fruit then they are less likly to condem it. and like we always say the younger the better.".

Anonymous, just because you have same sex attractions and are tempted by the forbidden fruit doesn't mean everyone is. Most people are straight and even if tempted to try gay sex they most certainly aren't going to like it and become "hooked". Also very telling that you said "like we always say the younger the better.". Now if you'll just reveal who you are so people can keep their children away from you.


Jim, how about you pull the plug permanently on Anonymous and bar him from TTF for good? He's just projecting his self-loathing on others in a destructive way and delaying seeking the help he so obviously needs to accept himself and have a healthy adult sexual relationship.

January 11, 2007 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"come on now anon like you never heard a gay man say that before." January 11, 2007 4:25 PM

The only person with obsessively twisted fantasies about children is you BS Anon. AndreaR's right, you are pathetic. Randi's right too, parents should be warned to keep their kids away from you.

January 11, 2007 7:04 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Randi, et al, I deleted a number of Anon's posts this afternoon. I think it's more than one person, each more offensive than the previous one.

Remember, these guys suffered a major loss this week. They're a little more wound up than usual.

But it sure makes it clear what we're up against, doesn't it?

JimK

January 11, 2007 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Randi, et al, I deleted a number of Anon's posts this afternoon. I think it's more than one person, each more offensive than the previous one."

Well, if it's not you, this bad spelling and grammar guy with the ugly phrases is likely some other TTFer. There's no other explanation. The timing and manner of the comments too consistently plays into the TTF hand.

"Remember, these guys suffered a major loss this week."

I think this is a fantasy you're having. The Board approved a curriculum by a committee they specifically picked to produce a foregone conclusion. The committee went way overboard, however, so the new proposal will be much easier to alert the public to.

And alerted they will be.

The only real change in status was that the threat of potential litigation forced the removal of highly dubious statements implying scientific evidence proving gay agenda points. CRC won that point.

The new debate over the promotion of homosexual self-identification among students has only just begun. Starting a new controversy is hardly a victory for TTF.

"They're a little more wound up than usual."

I myself haven't been on much the last couple of days. The other anon appears to be a fictitious character that pops up at the most beneficial time for TTF.

"But it sure makes it clear what we're up against, doesn't it?"

The ultimate twisting of facts. TTF supports and has the backing of the most wealthy county in America. The victimhood feign is ridiculous.

January 12, 2007 9:32 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, nobody in TTF is going to take the time to pretend to be an jerk. Why would we, when we've got you?

Think about it. We don't need to invent a straw man: straw men come to us.

The committee did not produce any curriculum. A team of pediatricians developed the curriculum, working with MCPS staff. The committee reviewed the material, but in the end, remember, we wouldn't even vote to endorse it -- the school district followed a lot of our recommendations, but not the most important ones. So, the school district could've picked anybody for that committee, it didn't matter, because the committee only evaluated and offered suggestions, and had no authority to see that they were accepted.

You can say that "CRC won that point," and that's cool, maybe they'll put away their marbles and go home. But looking at them on TV and in the news, I don't think they're really feeling they won anything -- they say this is worse than the last one.

Boo-hoo.

JimK

January 12, 2007 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"they say this is worse than the last one"

Well, it is, but in a different way. And one that will be a lot easier to impeach. No one wants to have a curriculum telling kids they'll feel much better if they self-identify as gay. If some kid is gullible enough to believe it, they will face a host of social problems which will hinder them at a crucial time in their life. Even the parents who generally shrug off most of the liberal slant from the public schools will have pause ar this.

January 12, 2007 10:21 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, it seems to me that the conrerstone of your argument is that straight kids will self-identify as gay.

Why would they do that?

JimK

January 12, 2007 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, it seems to me that the conrerstone of your argument is that straight kids will self-identify as gay.

Why would they do that?"

I think it might happen to confused kids across the spectrum. Even it there is this group of kids that is innately gay, they would be better off not doing this at this time in their life. It wouldn't be an easy genie to bottle back up.

The reason they might do it is because of the postitive portrayal of it in the curriculum.

Simply teaching them what homosexuality is and its consequences would have been sufficient. There is no reason to promote it.

January 12, 2007 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jim you can dish it out but you can't take it. the only reason you remove my posts is that they hit to close to home. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings but the truth hurts and the only way you all are going to get better is if you start faceing the truth. The fact that Dr. Weast destroyed records of sexual abuse in the montgomery county schools only underscores this fact. The fact that the Board let him get away with it only underscores there willingness to hide the truth. take a guess who they were protecting the victoms or the perverts.

January 12, 2007 12:18 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Could you give us the details there, Anon? Maybe a link?

JimK

January 12, 2007 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"CRC won that point..Starting a new controversy is hardly a victory for TTF."

If CRC "won" then why are they discussing suing MCPS again? This is America and we are all free. The only people fomenting controversy are those who advocate shoving glbt people in the closet and locking the door.

"Well, if it's not you, this bad spelling and grammar guy with the ugly phrases is likely some other TTFer. There's no other explanation. The timing and manner of the comments too consistently plays into the TTF hand...I myself haven't been on much the last couple of days. The other anon appears to be a fictitious character that pops up at the most beneficial time for TTF."

Me thinks the anonimouse doth protest too much.

"TTF supports and has the backing of the most wealthy county in America. The victimhood feign is ridiculous."

PFOX is the spawn of FRC, part of the Dobson's empire. The suers are represented on a pro bono basis by Liberty Counsel, part of Falwell's empire. Do we need to remind readers of the "wealth" of those empires? This is a local school board issue and the suers are backed by well-funded national radical right religious groups.

January 12, 2007 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kids are not the most rational beings in the world and are easy to manipulate scores of studies show this especially when confronted by a figure of authority which depending on the age and self-esteem of the kid could be any adult. They crave attention and will misbehave just to get it. That’s why most victims of sexual abuse are children.

January 12, 2007 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 12, 2007 4:33 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "No one wants to have a curriculum telling kids they'll feel much better if they self-identify as gay.".

The point is anonymous that no gay kid should be punished for freely expressing that they're same sex attracted, just as no heterosexual kid is punished for freely expressing that their opposite sex attracted. Kids need to be taught that its wrong to oppress people for being gay so that when they grow up the cycle of abuse can be broken.

January 12, 2007 7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The point is anonymous that no gay kid should be punished for freely expressing that they're same sex attracted,"

Unless you're talking about general social disapproval, no one is punishing these poor kids. but every has the right to disapprove of whatever they want to.

"Kids need to be taught that its wrong to oppress people for being gay"

If you mean by "oppress" to disapprove of, then you're wrong. Gays should receive the same protections as everyone else. They don't have a right to be liked.

"so that when they grow up the cycle of abuse can be broken."

Like what abuse? Come off it.

January 12, 2007 9:09 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Randi writes,

Kids need to be taught that its wrong to oppress people for being gay so that when they grow up the cycle of abuse can be broken.

Ever read "Lord of the Flies"?

Yes, I could not agree more...children must be taught to be kind and good as it is not a natural instinct of humankind (though one of the defining features of liberalism is the belief in the innate goodness of man). That is why I have taught my two daughters repeatedly that the one thing that would perhaps hurt me the most is to find out that they had been cruel or unkind to someone else.

Both of my girls know that both of their parents have close gay/lesbian friends...people that come to our home, share our meals and our lives. This is increasingly happening across the US, contrary to what any activists says...and while it tears some families apart, it strengthens others.

Then again, one does not need to be gay/lesbian to be "oppressed" (read: teased mercilessly)...all you have to be is different. And this I know from first hand experience as a child with a learning disability that placed me in the "retard class" (what my peers called the class I was placed in; EH, the Educationally Handicapped, now called "Special Ed"). Oppression can manifest itself in many ways...and the only answer to that is to teach goodness.

January 13, 2007 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin said, "one does not need to be gay/lesbian to be "oppressed" (read: teased mercilessly)...all you have to be is different."

Being "teased mercilessly" is NOT the extent of the "oppression" of glbt people.

In the best cases, glbt people are denied basic civil rights like marriage and adoption and are therefore denied the uniquely American right to the pursuit of happiness, which is much worse than than being "teased mercilessly" IMHO. In the worst cases, they are murdered by those who fear and loathe them for being different.

January 13, 2007 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Tish said...

Hey, guys?
Jim, Randi, Dana, Andrea, Bea? Are you seeing what I am seeing?

Has the annony-one just BLAMED sexual abuse of children on the abused children?

"crave attention and will misbehave just to get it. That’s why most victims of sexual abuse are children."

Wow. Just when you think he's fallen to the bottom of the cesspool, he finds a drain to a lower tank.

January 13, 2007 10:27 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Yes, Tish, and you'll notice that's right about where I pulled the plug on him. I'll only put up with so much of this.

In a way it's good to have some of these guys here, so the casual reader can realize that there really is a ... problem. But sometimes I feel I just need a shower after I read this stuff.

JimK

January 13, 2007 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In a way it's good to have some of these guys here, so the casual reader can realize that there really is a ... problem. But sometimes I feel I just need a shower after I read this stuff."

There's a whole lot of truth here. Jim reads every one of these comments before they go up. And yet he lets this guy post all this ugly and crass stuff up here with the prerequisite bad language and spelling. Why doesn't he just delete it? He rarely does.

Meanwhile, he deleted a suggestion I made the other day that he delete this obnoxious-anon stuff.

Easy to see without looking too far it's TTF propaganda- and it's shameless.

January 13, 2007 11:52 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Meanwhile, he deleted a suggestion I made the other day that he delete this obnoxious-anon stuff.

If I did that, it wasn't because you suggested deleting something. It would have been the way you said it.

In these past couple of years, I have only deleted a handful of comments. Illiterate-Anon gets rude and personal sometimes, and I just start deleting everything of his after a point, until he goes away. When that happens, it's possible that anybody who comments under the name "Anonymous" might get the hatchet.

Yet another reason to take responsibility for your words.

JimK

January 13, 2007 12:02 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Anonymous writes,

Being "teased mercilessly" is NOT the extent of the "oppression" of glbt people.

Please...do tell.

In the best cases, glbt people are denied basic civil rights like marriage and adoption and are therefore denied the uniquely American right to the pursuit of happiness, which is much worse than than being "teased mercilessly" IMHO.

"Basic civil rights"? I know...I know...we have been over this territory quite alot. Marriage and adoption are NOT civil rights, just ask any polygamist...this is so much like asserting that two plus two equals five. Sorry, it just is not so, no matter how much you might whine, cry, moan and complain.

In the worst cases, they are murdered by those who fear and loathe them for being different.

And when that happens they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Claiming victimhood though emotionally disempowering is where all the cheap poltitical points are to be scored these days...sigh.

January 13, 2007 1:28 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I said "The point is anonymous that no gay kid should be punished for freely expressing that they're same sex attracted,"

Anonymous said "Unless you're talking about general social disapproval, no one is punishing these poor kids. but every has the right to disapprove of whatever they want to."

Gay kids are the victims of verbal and physical assaults at much higher rates than straight kids and this is a direct result of your "general social disapproval" - they are being punished. No one has a moral right to disapprove of behavior that isn't hurting anyone.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.

I said "Kids need to be taught that its wrong to oppress people for being gay"

Anonymous said "If you mean by "oppress" to disapprove of, then you're wrong. Gays should receive the same protections as everyone else. They don't have a right to be liked."

I mean its wrong to verbally and physically assault and ostracize gay kids. Its wrong to disapprove of people who aren't hurting anyone. Racial minorities don't have a right to be liked either, but I doubt you're going to go around proudly proclaiming that. Its just as bigoted to be saying the same thing about gays.

I said "so that when they grow up the cycle of abuse can be broken."

Anonymous said "Like what abuse? Come off it.".

You're despicable. "You're gay" is the most popular insult out there and you're trying to deny that gays are treated badly. Gay kids suffer verbal and physical attacks much more often then straight kids and are more likely to miss or drop out of school because of it.

January 13, 2007 5:27 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin said "children must be taught to be kind and good as it is not a natural instinct of humankind (though one of the defining features of liberalism is the belief in the innate goodness of man).".

Well, we agree on the first part, but to say one of the defining features of liberalism is the belief in innate goodness of man is absurd. While some believe this so do some conservatives and it is no more accurate a statement than to say one of the defining features of conservatism is the belief in the innate evil of man.

Anonymous said "In the best cases, glbt people are denied basic civil rights like marriage and adoption and are therefore denied the uniquely American right to the pursuit of happiness, which is much worse than than being "teased mercilessly" IMHO."

Orin said "Basic civil rights"? I know...I know...we have been over this territory quite alot. Marriage and adoption are NOT civil rights, just ask any polygamist...this is so much like asserting that two plus two equals five. Sorry, it just is not so, no matter how much you might whine, cry, moan and complain."

Yeah, right Orin. This is like how you tried to say the marriage ammendments that define marriage as man/woman aren't a ban on gay marriage but you couldn't explain why gays aren't allowed to marry if that's the case.

Your ninth ammendment says something to the effect that the enumeration of certain rights in the constitution does not eliminate unenumerated rights which are retained by the people. The people have the right to marriage and adoption, it is a civil right. But gays are denied the right to marry the one person they love most, a right given to heterosexuals AND polygamists. Gays are denied their civil rights, its you that's trying to make 2+2=5. The sky hasn't fallen in those jurisdictions that allow gays to marry, the sun still comes up and not a single straight couple's marriage has ended because the gays down the street got married. You're opposition to equal marriage is solely due to anti-gay animus. When your children are adults and its no longer fashionable to hate gays they'll look at your anti-gay history with shame.

January 13, 2007 5:52 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "In the worst cases, they are murdered by those who fear and loathe them for being different."

Orin said "And when that happens they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Yeah, right orin. Once in a while. When they don't mount a "gay panic" defense and get a light sentence or get off because they claim the victim came on to them and that justified their attack.

January 13, 2007 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Tish said...

Jim, I wasn't criticizing your choices about allowing/deleting anon's comments. I just wanted to make sure that readers don't miss Anon's opinion that chldren who are sexually abused have been abused because they are misbehaving to get adult attention.

January 13, 2007 10:33 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

It's unbelievable, isn't it? These guys do us a real service by letting us know how they think. I woulda never imagined ...

I almost never delete any of their stuff because of its reprehensible content, usually just if they get personal or if they're just being rude without saying anything.

JimK

January 13, 2007 10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

…….Tish said...
Hey, guys?
Jim, Randi, Dana, Andrea, Bea? Are you seeing what I am seeing?

Has the annony-one just BLAMED sexual abuse of children on the abused children?

"crave attention and will misbehave just to get it. That’s why most victims of sexual abuse are children."

Wow. Just when you think he's fallen to the bottom of the cesspool, he finds a drain to a lower tank.
January 13, 2007 10:27 AM

Tish!!! Don’t try to think, it is beyond your capabilities!

Children are more likely to be abused because their desire to get attention often puts them in to situations and around adults who will take advantage of them.
Only a complete fool would misunderstand what I was saying, but then look at my audience.

One in three girls and one in six boys will be sexually assaulted before they reach the age of 18 56% of these assaults will be before the age of 12 the most likely age for a boy to be sexually assaulted and sodomised is 4 years old. If you were to build a shrine fore all the children in this country that are sexually assaulted, with there names on it like the Vietnam Memorial each and every year you would have to build a memorial the size, and with as many names as the Vietnam Memorial, you would have to build one every month of every year for the rest of your life. According to the FBI.

Trish are you a pervert?

January 14, 2007 1:42 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous asked "Trish are you a pervert?"

We know you are anonymous. You said about sex: "That's what we say, the younger the better.".

January 14, 2007 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous asked "Trish are you a pervert?"

We know you are anonymous. You said about sex: "That's what we say, the younger the better.".

Thanks Randi its nice to know that a gay man like yourself finaly admits that your are all child molesters. I was just quoting gay men and your confirmed it. pervert.

January 14, 2007 4:54 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, that was me quoting you from January 11, 2007 1:33 PM when you admitted to being a child molester. When people quote others they say they are doing so and put the text in quotes, as I did when I quoted you. You didn't do that at January 11, 2007 1:33 PM as you were speaking for yourself.

I am a bisexual woman, not a gay man. Unlike you I don't get turned on by children.

January 14, 2007 11:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JimK said...
Anon, nobody in TTF is going to take the time to pretend to be a jerk.
Nobody at TTF has to pretend they all are jerks.


Though one of the defining features of liberalism is the belief in the innate goodness of man
The funny part of this bs is that they believe it.


Randi Schimnosky

I am a bisexual woman,(like anyone belives that
) not a gay man. Unlike you I don't get turned on by children. (I bet you do.)

Now are you a natural woman or are you a byer type who was born a man but thinks it’s a woman? Or are you a gay man pre knife. Not that it matters because I think you lie and I think you are turned on by children or you would not be hanging out with jimK. Who has bogged about his attraction for young girls.

January 15, 2007 2:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think you lie and I think you are turned on by children or you would not be hanging out with jimK. Who has bogged about his attraction for young girls."

And you repeatedly bring up NAMBLA and pedophiles. So what's your point? Do you think that discussing something means more than an interest in discussing it? If so, look in the mirror.

January 15, 2007 1:38 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, you're the one always bringing up sex with children. Obviously you're the only one that's interested in that.

January 15, 2007 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, it's always 2 + 2 = 5 for Orin because his "answer" to same sex marriage is to always bring up polygamy. Sorry I failed to specify that I'm talking about equal rights for living human couples.

As far as polygamists go, with multiple wives popping out babies biologically related to the father, adoption is not an issue. But since you brought it up, please point us to data on American polygamists who have been brutally murdered because someone feared and loathed their polygamy in the last decade.

Orin asked, "Ever read "Lord of the Flies"?"

Yes, and I've read "The Jungle Book" too. They're both fiction. Do you expect people to base their views of the innate goodness vs. original sin debate on fiction? I guess so, since the concept of original sin comes from the Bible which is full of fiction.

January 16, 2007 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you expect people to base their views of the innate goodness vs. original sin debate on fiction?"

You don't have to. Get a history book about the 20th century.

It started out with most of the world's educated class thinking we were on the verge of humanist utopia.

January 16, 2007 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then we got atheist Stalin, anti-Christian Hitler, atheist Mao and all their buddies.

They weren't fiction.

January 16, 2007 4:11 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous January 16, 2007 4:11 PM

Anonymous Hitler was a proud Christian. There is no reputable evidence to dispute this.

January 16, 2007 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So other anon listed numerous quotes from a book written by Hitler's secretary about Hitler's disdain for Christianity.

Hitler actively tried to replace Christianity with something called "Positive Christianity". It was an Orwellianism. He didn't believe in Jesus.

We're still waiting for you to show us something about Jesus that Hitler believed in.

January 16, 2007 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then we got atheist Stalin, anti-Christian Hitler, atheist Mao"

Is that all we got? What about Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi...

January 17, 2007 11:04 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 16, 2007 11:52 PM said "So other anon listed numerous quotes from a book written by Hitler's secretary about Hitler's disdain for Christianity."

As I explained in detail on this thread

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/01/on-not-declaring-victory.html#comments

at January 16, 7:49 PM those comments were forgeries by the anti-christian Bormann. The English translations include quotes attributed to Hitler that don't exist in the German versions. The idea that Hitler possessed such beliefs and they never came out in his verifiable public records where he supports Christianity and Jesus is ridiculous.

"Hitler actively tried to replace Christianity with something called "Positive Christianity". It was an Orwellianism. He didn't believe in Jesus.".

Wrong. Hitler clearly believed in Jesus.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter...To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

On the 4th of June, 1922, as Hitler entered Stadelheim prison for inciting a riot, he compared himself with Jesus when he told his followers:

"Two thosand years ago the mob of Jerusalem dragged a man to execution in just this way." [Toland, p.115

For Jesus himself testified , that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.

-John 4:44



And Hitler wrote:

"...that is why the prophet seldom has any honor in his own country."

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Throughout the history of Christianity, priests and religious leaders have excommunicated those who desecrated the image of the Lord. Hitler appears just like a medieval priest when he wrote:

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"In the Bible we find the text, 'That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.' This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day."
-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 10 April 1923

[The Bible quote comes Jesus speaking in Revelation 3:16]

"The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them."

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933



"Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity."
-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922


"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity....

For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26 Aug. 1934 [Baynes]

"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie."
-Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party (quoted from John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope"

The quotes showing Hitler's dedication to Christianity go on and on and on:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

January 17, 2007 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Phentermine said...

Nice design of blog.

August 13, 2007 3:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home