Sunday, February 17, 2008

The Hypothetical Pedophile and Other Adventures in Petition-Monitoring

Another interesting day, more or less. Tiring. The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever have to have their petitions in to the Board of Elections by COB Tuesday. They need 25,000 signatures. Their newsletter earlier today said they had 22,362. Those are raw, unvalidated signatures, and usually twenty or thirty percent are invalid, so they need quite a few more. They might make it, I don't know. I started out my day checking on Leisure World. There was nobody there, so I drove out to the Giant on Watkins Mill, in Gaithersburg. Two people had the petitions, one at each end of the walkway. I talked with both of them, and they both said the same thing. They were concerned about pedophiles going into the ladies room.

In reality, they are trying to repeal a law that prevents discrimination on the basis of gender identity. There isn't anything about pedophiles in it. Pedophiles are bad, everybody's against pedophiles, and this is a great thing to say to get people to sign your petition, no matter what it's about. Both women I talked to felt it was a very real possibility that pedophiles would be able to lurk in ladies locker-rooms when this law goes into effect, and that they not only could but would do that. It creates a loophole, they both said. All a pedophile has to do is say they're transgender, and they can go into the ladies room and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

I love learning about how people think, it's so fascinating talking to these nice people -- well, one was nicer than the other -- and seeing their ideas. Let me look at this from a different angle. Let's say the law was not passed, it didn't exist, it's the same as it was last month. A guy is a pedophile, he goes into the ladies locker-room, what do you think happens?
  • Say he goes in, uses the stall, pees, leaves. Guess what -- there's no law against that. Nobody checks your criminal history when you go to use a bathroom, and there's no law that says men can't use the women's restroom.
  • Say he goes in, there's a kid there, and he looks at the kid lewdly, maybe he is becoming aroused. Now what happens? He can be arrested for peeping.
  • Say he goes in, there's a kid there, and he grabs the kid and tries to fondle him or her. What happens? Busted on sex charges.

Now we'll compare that with the way things will be under the gender identity nondiscrimination law, we'll imagine it is now in effect. A guy is a pedophile, he goes into the ladies locker-room.
  • Say he goes in, uses the stall, pees, leaves. Same thing -- there's no law against that. He can say he's transgender if he wants but there's no need to.
  • Say he goes in, there's a kid there, and he looks at the kid lewdly, maybe he is becoming aroused. Now what happens? He can be arrested for peeping. What if he claims to be transgender? No problem, he goes to jail anyway, peeping is a crime.
  • Say he goes in, there's a kid there, and he grabs the kid and tries to fondle him or her. What happens? Busted on sex charges. Claims to be transgender, no difference, busted, you can't molest children.

There is simply no logic that concludes with anybody getting away with anything, just by claiming to be transgender. Men can go in the ladies rooms now, there's never been a law against it in our county. You don't even have to claim you're transgender. As it is now, even pedophiles can go in the ladies room, there is simply no law against it. They don't need a "loophole," it's just legal.

Both the women also made comments about how bad the world is, how many bad people there are out there. It seemed like a funny way of looking at things, but that's how they feel, the world is frightening and dangerous, and if there's any bad thing that can be done, somebody will do it. You see where that goes: you have to make explicit laws against everything dangerous, harmful, or frightening. You can't leave a loophole where somebody could do something, everything we do needs to be regulated by law.

Anyway, at Watkins Mill while we were there the Giant manager came out and told them they had to leave. I enjoyed talking to the one lady, she was extremely conservative but intelligent. I respect somebody trying to protect their kids from danger and from exposure to bad influences. She did believe that it had to be entirely her way, though, there was no room for compromise, she was clear about that. That means that she has to withdraw from society in order to have the lifestyle she wishes. And she's done that, she took her kids out of school because of what they were being taught in fourth grade. Okay, fine for her, she did the right thing. The rest of us want our kids to learn things; if you don't, you should pull them out of school.

After that, we drove all the way across the county to Takoma Park, to the Arliss Giant, where three men were getting signatures. Here they are:



This guy was the worst:



This was a weird scene.

First of all, this is downcounty, this is the liberal part of MoCo. But they had three of the rudest, most obnoxious guys in the world there, and the store was backing them. Our loyal TTF member Andrea was out there with a sign, and management made her stand out in the parking lot. They wouldn't let her stand near the petition handlers. One of the CRW petition people told her that it would have been good if she had been aborted. I suppose that means he's pro-choice?



Actually, I'm going to take some of Andrea's description from the comments section of the previous post -- she says it better than I can:
I did not call people names during my time at the Giant(well, not to their faces)- but I was called a facist by short baseball cap guy and told I should have been aborted by fat white haired plaid shirt guy(two of the three Showwer nuts). Short guy seeing that a 5'1woman of more than 50 years was a threat- because I was armed with the TRUTH- tried to intimidate me. He told me I had to leave, he yelled at me to leave, told me the police told him I had to leave- I told him to bring the police to tell me to leave. He tried the "we have a permit from Montgomery County and you don't. " I didn't leave. I have faced angry war supporters, anti-feminists, US Secret Service- outside the Burmese embassy, Riot police at the Supreme court- when Burma wasn't something the whole US congress was against and nearly smashed by Philly police horses- at a Flyers Stanley Cup parade. Not to mention my travels in Asia, the Middle East and South America. So I am not gonna be scared by short baseball cap guy, old fat plaid shirt guy and not- all-there sweater hat guy.

However, short baseball cap guy did intimidate the manager of the Arliss Giant- which is one of the two dirtiest worst stocked Giants in MC- Blair Giant- you go second. I guess his mgmt skills are similar in all situations. I had spoken to the manager and I say he told me I could pass stuff out- he says he didn't and told me I had to get off the property. I think Jim will blog the rest of the story-but suffice it to say- I did stay in the parking lot with my homemade sign and our flyers. Short baseball cap guy-if you read this- I've been working on the other side of hatred and facism for 40 years- it will take more than a bigoted blowhard like you to get me gone.

Yes, Andrea has carried a sign once or twice. She is not one you push around.

I went in to find a manager and figure out why our person was kicked off the property while the CRW people were not. I talked with Aaron Williams, who said that they had gotten permission ahead of time. When we asked him who had told him that, he started by pointing out the window to the petition people, but then said he had seen something that said they had permission. He wouldn't show us anything or give us a name of who had given permission. It was very sketchy. We explained what the situation was, and complained that Giant was taking sides in this.

We told him that the petition people were out there insulting people, and he said he'd heard that, too. I told him he ought to go out there and see what was going on, and he said he would, but he never did. The Arliss Giant provided protection for these people, and made sure the opposing opinion was not heard.

After a while the police came. They talked to the petition guys, trying to find out how long this was going to be going on. Answer, about another hour. Then they came over to us and said we had to stand in the parking lot.

Theresa Rickman came out for the excitement:



These guys at Arliss Giant were saying anything to get signatures. I heard them telling somebody that the law would require men and women to use the same bathroom. A few people signed, not many.

There wasn't much to do there, so we went all the way back to the other side of the county, to Fallsgrove. Where's that, you say? It's in Rockville, on the far side of 270, it's one of those planned communities like Rio or Kentlands. I'd never been there before. The CRW had a table in front of the Safeway. We talked to the lady for a while. To her, it's all about bathrooms. She said the referendum wasn't to repeal the law, but to fix it.

At all these places I asked the people why they didn't get involved while the law was being developed. There were plenty of hearings, public comments, lots of chances to call your council member and tell them what you wanted. But as far as I know, the CRW didn't get involved at all until right at the end, when the Council was about to vote on it. Then they just got mad about it all. That's the way they are. They don't respect our processes or the rule of law. How many have told me that a referendum is "democracy?" No, having the citizens vote on bills that they have no knowledge about is not the way a democracy works. In our country, we elect people, and they have people who keep them informed, they debate the issues intelligently, they learn about the different aspects, and then they decide.

This really is the part that gets me. We have a system of government where we elect representatives and they do the work. You don't vote on every little thing. As somebody said today, if we did that, Virginia would still have segregated drinking fountains. The shower-nuts like to talk as if this is "democracy," but it's not the form of democracy we practice in the US. Oh, there is a provision for calling a referendum, but the way this should work is that interested parties participate in crafting the wording of the bill in the first place. They didn't bother to do that, just wanted to throw a tantrum when it didn't come out the way they wanted. Just like the way they wanted to recall the school board when they didn't like the new sex-ed curriculum.

Later, I was home and just thinking about dinner, when the phone rang. Maryanne was out at Fallsgrove, and there were five people with petitions, too many for her. Could I go out there and help? When I got there it was dark, there were three people at the table and Maryanne seemed to have that under control. A couple of us showed up. I noticed a lady with a clip pad out in the middle of the parking lot, picking off people as they walked up from their cars. We wandered over there, and she asked if we were registered voters. Yes. Then she started telling us about the new law and how it would allow sexual predators to go into the ladies room.

I asked her how that would work. The answer was that they just had to say they were transgender and then you couldn't make them leave. I said, let's say a guy goes into the ladies room and he's leering at the women: he will be arrested under the peeping tom law. You can't do that. A guy can't look at other guys in the men's room, women can't look at other women, it doesn't matter if you're transgender or not. She said the new law would make it more complicated, but couldn't explain beyond that one word.

She said her sister in law or somebody had been in Macy's, and a transgender person was adjusting their nylons and you could see everything. I pointed out that exposing your genitals is against the law, whether you're transgender or not. Then, as I asked more about it, it wasn't clear what you could see. Was the person wearing panties? She didn't know. So, whatever, I don't think anything really happened except that they were offended because a transsexual person was wearing nylons. The fact is, you can't expose yourself to people, it's against the law, and that won't change.

I asked her, if a person has changed their sex, so that a man has become a woman physically, do you think she should be able to use the ladies room? She seemed to think that made sense. Then we talked about stalls and doors, and how do you know if a person has the genitalia of one sex or the other? About that point, she said she needed to get moving, she had work to do. I hung around for a little longer, Maryanne had made another friend and they were talking, then we all went home for dinner.

23 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim. The reason the Muslim doctor was repeatedly asking you not to take her picture is because it is against a Muslim women's religon to be photographed.

And you posted it on the internet.
Nice.
Theresa

February 18, 2008 12:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The very idea of seeking signatures promoting discrimination
in a public place with the potential for anyone to take photographs----newspapers, tv or otherwise.

She was in a public place promoting
CRW(hatever) hateful bigotry and anyone could have taken a picture of that.

Nice Theresa...

February 18, 2008 1:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Men can go in the ladies rooms now, there's never been a law against it in our county."

They generally can't and it's not because of any law. It's because the owners of the bathroom have a policy forbidding them to. This law, that CRC is trying to overturn, takes the right to set their own policies away from the owners of the property.

"You don't even have to claim you're transgender."

But this new law makes this unverifiable claim a Fastpass. If a patron "presents" himself as a woman, the owner of the bathroom must let him use any bathroom he wants to.

"As it is now, even pedophiles can go in the ladies room, there is simply no law against it."

No, they can't. And there's no need to get the law involved.

BTW, do you think there should be a law against it?

"Both the women also made comments about how bad the world is, how many bad people there are out there. It seemed like a funny way of looking at things, but that's how they feel, the world is frightening and dangerous, and if there's any bad thing that can be done, somebody will do it. You see where that goes: you have to make explicit laws against everything dangerous, harmful, or frightening. You can't leave a loophole where somebody could do something, everything we do needs to be regulated by law."

Funny you should so deceitfully say this. The petitioners aren't suggesting any laws. They're trying to overturn regulation.

Do you feel like a liar?

"She did believe that it had to be entirely her way, though, there was no room for compromise, she was clear about that. That means that she has to withdraw from society in order to have the lifestyle she wishes. And she's done that, she took her kids out of school because of what they were being taught in fourth grade. Okay, fine for her, she did the right thing. The rest of us want our kids to learn things; if you don't, you should pull them out of school."

You notice that everything in this paragraph represents Kennedy putting words in someone else's mouth. Think of how long he must have meditated to come up with this elaborate fantasy about a lady at Giant.

February 18, 2008 6:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That picture of Andreary was so sad. Standing out there on perfectly dry pavement. Couldn't you have photoshopped in a few sprinkles, just to protect her reputation for snarling in the face of the weather?

February 18, 2008 6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How many have told me that a referendum is "democracy?" No, having the citizens vote on bills that they have no knowledge about is not the way a democracy works."

This is an old Communist trick- calling their point of view "knowledge".

If the referendum is on the ballot, there will be plenty of opportunity between now and next November for all sides to make their case to the public. Public discussion is a frightening thing to those who hold radical lunatic views.

TTF is scared of the the educated voters.

"In our country, we elect people, and they have people who keep them informed, they debate the issues intelligently, they learn about the different aspects, and then they decide."

Someone apparently didn't inform them that most places with this type of law make an exemption for religious institutions. When elected officials make a bad decision because their advisors didn't inform them, there is a process to overturn it. It's called the system of checks and balances.

Obviously, when the citizens have to take this step, the elected officials should start thinking about what it means for their prospects of re-election. Some rascals will likely be thrown out.

"The shower-nuts like to talk as if this is "democracy," but it's not the form of democracy we practice in the US. Oh, there is a provision for calling a referendum, but the way this should work is that interested parties participate in crafting the wording of the bill in the first place. They didn't bother to do that, just wanted to throw a tantrum when it didn't come out the way they wanted."

CRC participated in the process. As Theresa has amply documented CRC testified against the bill. The Duch and Dana show confirmed this but said they dismissed CRC because they seemed like "religious nuts" and they wanted to get rid of the bill. The bias of this statement alone should be cause for some resignations.

February 18, 2008 7:03 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa said The reason the Muslim doctor was repeatedly asking you not to take her picture is because it is against a Muslim women's religon to be photographed.

And you posted it on the internet.
Nice.


Theresa, I have three thoughts on that.

1. Now I understand why you never see a photograph of a Muslim woman in the news. Oh, wait, just a minute, you see that every day.

2. I am not Muslim and am not obligated to maintain their prohibitions for them.

3. If she had said that it violated her religious beliefs to have her picture taken, I probably wouldn't have photographed her, out of respect. Instead she simply refused to speak to us, except to mutter, Don't take my picture.

This is America, and we are allowed to take photographs of events that occur in public places. A number of your signature gatherers told me not to take their pictures, almost as if they were ashamed of themselves.

JimK

February 18, 2008 7:58 AM  
Blogger Christine said...

Funny you should so deceitfully say this. The petitioners aren't suggesting any laws. They're trying to overturn regulation.

Do you feel like a liar?


No, the petition seekers are the liars -- you get a different story out of each one of them. According to a petition signature seeking man at Arliss Road Giant, the petition is to "rewrite the law" passed by the County Council. According to a petition signature seeking lady at the Safeway at Fallsgrove, the petition is to "change the wording of the law about bathroom access." According to one of the folks collecting petition signatures at Northwest High School, the petition is to get "a religious exemption" added to the law. And according to a lady who pulled her kids from MCPS after 4th grade because of health education, the law needed to be changed to close what she described as a "big loophole." Every petitioner I spoke to suggested lots of ways to rewrite the law.

"She did believe that it had to be entirely her way, though, there was no room for compromise, she was clear about that. That means that she has to withdraw from society in order to have the lifestyle she wishes. And she's done that, she took her kids out of school because of what they were being taught in fourth grade. Okay, fine for her, she did the right thing. The rest of us want our kids to learn things; if you don't, you should pull them out of school."

You notice that everything in this paragraph represents Kennedy putting words in someone else's mouth. Think of how long he must have meditated to come up with this elaborate fantasy about a lady at Giant.


It's no elaborate fantasy, but an accurate report of a conversation that took place this weekend. I was at the Giant and participated in the conversation with Jim and this petition seeking lady. She said it was the "fourth grade" sex education program in MCPS that made her pull her kids from school. She said sex education is best left up to the parents. I pointed out the sex education classes on human sexuality are optional except for one COMAR provision ("The local school shall make arrangements to permit those girls not participating in the total program in Focus Area Two to receive instruction concerning menstruation.") that requires girls be educated about menstruation because some parents never bother to educate them about that. She agreed that such education is necessary, but she maintained that she pulled her kids from MCPS because she feared her kids learning the information contained in the fourth grade health education curriculum.

February 18, 2008 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Theresa-you need glasses- along with some humanity(I think the glasses are a possibility). When you yelled out the number of signatures to "Chris"- it was my friend, Tina.

How pathetic Anon likes to make fun of me. Many people came up to me and thanked me for being there- decent people- people who gave their names- unlike short baseball cap guy(could it be pathetic loser anon?) and loser Anon. People like you hide in the shadows and lie- people like me aren't ashamed to be photographed and have my name attached to what I'm doing. Why would we use photoshop?- we leave that to you and the fearful sad liars you support.

February 18, 2008 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon

Jim said a number of the petitioners asked him not to take their photos "almost" as if they were ashamed. I think the people are ashamed- they don't mind being bigots but they don't want anyone -say at work or in their neighborhood -to know. We know the proud bigots like Theresa, Johnny, Michelle, Ruth and Steina but the people they have recruited- with lies or the truth- seem quite reluctant to admit they are doing this.

Heck,I'm posting Jim's photo of me in my office

February 18, 2008 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, the petition seekers are the liars -- you get a different story out of each one of them."

The referendum is to overturn the law regulating gender segregation in, among other places, public bathrooms.

When you and Jim and all the TTF minions argue that CRC is trying to regulate bathrooms, you are lying.

"It's no elaborate fantasy, but an accurate report of a conversation that took place this weekend. I was at the Giant and participated in the conversation with Jim and this petition seeking lady. She said it was the "fourth grade" sex education program in MCPS that made her pull her kids from school."

She may have said she pulled her kids because of the sex ed program but Jim totally imagined the words he put in her mouth. The problem with the sex ed program is not that it teaches too much but that it teaches too little.

February 18, 2008 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went to the Container Store location, as stated on the NIMS website, at 1:00 p.m., but alas, they must have all been in the shower since no one was trying to collect signatures. I hung around for about 1/2 hour, walking up and down the entire sideways outdoor mall, but I could never find anyone. By the way, I changed my version of the flyer to read: "Don't Support the Lie: Decline to Sign."

February 18, 2008 9:05 AM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

Theresa,

Regarding photographs, there is no such blanket rule in Islam.

A minority interpret the prohibitions against making "images" to also include any photographs. Your CRW person is highly unlikely to be such a woman, as I'll explain later.

Most Muslims, today, interpret the text to be about making, as a Christian would also say, "craven idols". The rule was intended to end the worship of idols etc. For this reason most also do not want Muhammad to be represented in image.

You have passed on a viewpoint about this matter that is line with the Taliban. That is one of the reasons why, they claim, and if you recall, they destroyed those ancient and priceless statues of Buddha several years ago. Most Muslims would feel that was an act of vandalism, rather than a requirement of Islam.

And, frankly, if that woman was such a fundamentalist she wouldn't have been standing around in public without her husband (or other suitable male chaperone) and she certainly would NOT have been approaching male strangers. Where was her burka?

It's bad enough you revert to "my religion forbids it" any time you desire to bully people, but you really should not be doing it on behalf of another religion as well.

Face it: you think that Muslim woman is going to hell, unless she converts, don't you?

(Along with the gays and the transgenders).

Have you discussed your attitude with her, hmmm?

Jim: Theresa's winding you up, all else aside.

February 18, 2008 9:06 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Two other things just popped into my head:

1) The reason Theresa's minions hate having their picture taken (baseballcapguysmoker pulled his jacket up around himself when Jim appeared with his camera) is the same reason they continue to blog anonymously --SHAME.

2) I noticed one of the Anons used the term "Fastpass." Now, I would have said "EZPass," because that's what I use. So it got me to thinking about all we've heard here for months, about how the pedophiles are just waiting for this law to go into effect (apparently having finished with their prey in the 100+ other jurisdictions with such a law) to target the young girls in Montgomery County.
How would they know this? It has never happened, so one can't extrapolate from a prior experience. There's been no movie nor television program about this very issue, nor book that I know of, so one can't claim that he read it or saw it somewhere.

So, i ask, how do these Anons know just what pedophiles are planning to do here, when none of us do?

Just asking. No wonder they choose to remain anonymous.

February 18, 2008 9:30 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

One other thing: you still haven't produced any documentation of the law here in the County that shows that bathroom sex-segregation has been mandated by law.

That's because it hasn't been, and this bill changes nothing.

February 18, 2008 9:31 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Dana,

I believe you owe Theresa an apology. Making disparaging comments about masculine attributes of her appearance is exactly the same kind of unecessary and hurtful treatment many transwomen are subjected to on a daily basis. We should not be propagating that type of behavior if we do not want to receive it ourselves. We are better than that.

Theresa,

Even though I disagree vehemently with what you are doing, I'm sorry you were subjected to that. If this has made you self-conscious about your appearance, I can probably give you some make-up and hair-styling tips -- I have some experience in the matter -- Jim knows how to contact me.

Peace,

Cynthia

February 18, 2008 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

Theresa -
since i have seen you respond on this blog - i have something to say. I just read the ridiculous lies you printed about me and Dana in your latest release this morning...

You didnt mention that the older woman that you mentioned - the 61 year old-grandmother, greeted Dana as in a very friendly manner as if she knew her personally, and was greeted back by Dana in the same way. Dana ignored her the entire time she was there except for that greeting, basically ignored her, and talked with me instead. Then she left.

We did not "surround her", as you so aptly misharacteized it.

You also didnt mention that the other woman with her, was about my age, and probably a few inches taller than me. Since i am 5'9 and 1/2 - not even quite 5'10, and weigh maybe a whopping 155 if that when soaking wet, it kind of leaves the question, why would you lie about such a thing as my physical size, in order to get your point across ?

I have to look a full head height up at Dana myself, whenever i see her, so i know that you have lied about that.

After Dana left a few minutes later, and after exchanging pleasantries with the elder woman, i was then alone in that hall with two of your supporters.

Another decline to sign supporter, a VERY small woman stood outside and handed out her flyers very peaceably to potential signers of your petition.

It is not physically possible that one person - ME - then, could "surround" anyone as you have stated. one person cannot surround either one, nor two people at the same time.

that is simply physically impossible.

Since i know my own height and weight much better then you, you may wish to retract some of your assertions.

You also didnt tell everyone that even though i had a emotionally charged debate with your representatives, in which i was continuously insulted and disrespected by both of your supporters, they keot the debate going as much as i did. The elder lady even tried to psychoanalyze me and asked me very personal questuions about my family, my childhood, and told me there was something wrong with me and that i should go and get help to have it taken out of me. I notice no one mentioned any of this. You see, i was actually ther. You were not.you have printed lies, some of which were witnessed as much as you say you have your own witness. whatever.

I was even called a crude and hurtful name to my face - an older Chrisitan woman engaging in crude name calling nearly the moment we began talking.

When we were ALL finished and leaving me the bulidong at the very same moment, i reached out my hand to her, told her "no hard feelings, right - were just soldiers on the front lines - which she took my hand, shook my hand, in front of 2 witnesses, and acknowledged me with a smile.

She didnt happen to tell you i also admitted to her face that i got emotional with her, and apologized for any offense, did she ?

Little bit different than what you described.

How come you didnt show the photo of Jeff giving ME a hug ? Too human or too comapssionate to actually share such truth with your supporters ?.

That really stinks. I think what you did this morning was wrong, and dishonest and mispresentative. You have lied about myself and Dana both.

I would still once again like to extend my offer. You are welcome in my home or any other moderated forum of your choice, and expect to be treated with courtesy, hospitality, and mature intelligence.

Not lies, insults and distortions of people that you have never even met personally (me, for instance)....

This has already gone far enough. too far. I can take the insults, but not the very real lies.

At that point i must respond and ask that go about your goals in another way instead of printing dirty lying character assasinations of me.

Dont go acting all moral and then do something like that please. It's not right. You know it, I know it, and now, anyone that ever reads this blog, including yourself knows it.

Retract those please, and go about your business in an ethical manner.

I hold no grudge with you or any of your supporters - i dont agree with what your doing and i dont like being characterized as some illegitimate freak and all the other nice terms you and your people use to describe us instead of actually treating us with any form of civil decency and respect.

and as most of your people that have already met me will actually tell you - we have left in most cases, including with Dr. Jacobs on Tuesday Night - with very pleasant conversation under the circumstances, and a hug that SHE herself willingly gave right back to me as we parted copmpany that night.

She actually told me, in a very pleasant and non-comabtive manner, that she would be more than willing to continue dialogue with me, but that she had to get back to her practice due to things backing up on her like her billings (an exact quote, by the way) and that she agrees with me on mature intelligent dialogue instead of this constant childish rock throwing...

She said that maybe such dialogue would have to wait to take place until after all of this was over... I accepted that on the spot as she left, and thanked her very much for finally speaking to me with real decency and human acknowledgement.

Please do the same.

Another (Mr. Zhang at the chinese school) left me with a solid handshake and acknowledgement of no hard feelings or ill intent.

You should follow the example of some of your own folks that you have out here on the front lines.

Correct these lies please.

Thank you,

Respectfully,

I am,


Maryanne A. Arnow

February 18, 2008 9:40 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

Theresa and anon keep saying that their people are not lying to any one. Both Theresa and Anon have said in this thread that they are trying to overturn the law.

When I asked Muslim-Lady-Doctor and her screamer friend, "Are you saying that you want to overturn the anti-discrimination law?" they both were adamant, shaking their heads and saying "No." The Muslim-Lady-Doctor said, "We just want to change it to make it better."

So who has the story straight? Is the goal to overturn the law or re-write it?

February 18, 2008 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rio Theresa is that fake fur you are wearing in your photo or does PETA need to pay you a visit?

Maybe people need to picket your house with "a hateful bigot lives here" signs.

If the fur is real PETA may need to be there too.

No wonder the North Chevy Chase school parents were always calling you out on your hateful activities.

Ted

February 18, 2008 9:46 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

No, Ted. No one needs to go to Theresa's home. I know you are joking, but it is not helpful.

TeachTheFActs.org does not send anyone to the homes of our friends in opposition. I say that as an elected Director of the organization.

February 18, 2008 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana wrote, "Oh, poor Theresa. Lies and lies and lies.

Sorry, dear, but your signatures will be part of the public record. Like voter registration information, phone numbers, etc. You want to play in the public sphere, just deal with it. And if you're so proud of what you're doing, why aren't your signers proud to let the wowrld know how they feel?"

_____

It will be interesting to see whose names appear on the petitions.

All public record for the public to see and get copies of.

And no dear Tish will anyone go to Theresa's house(don't be so serious). People already know what a bigot she is in her own neighborhood.


Ted

February 18, 2008 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

-Jim, that was one of the most entertaining posts
-Yay Andrea!
-Maryanne A. Arnow, again, you’re an inspirational bastion of civility.

~~~~~
And now...

"Let's say the law was not passed, it didn't exist, it's the same as it was last month. A guy is a pedophile, he goes into the ladies locker-room..."

See now there’s where you go wrong. In fact that’s just mocking the situation. Obviously if the guy was a pedophile, his very first thought would have been, “How can I exploit The Montgomery County Anti-Discrimination Law.”

**After a lengthy and exhaustive search on the entarnet...**:

"Let’s see… race…religion…disability…AH YES! Gender Identity.

Hmmm, how can I easily exploit this easily exploitable anti-discrimination policy for those who are…Gender Identitied?


THEN he would think about running into the nearest "facility" containing "shared nudity," just as soon as they opened up the next morning, but only after stopping off at the thrift store to pick up a dress, size 12 high heels, and used make up, to ensure that his 5 o’clock shadow, Adam’s apple, and profusely hairy legs were completely invisible from there to "facility" containing "shared nudity."

Yes indeedie-o. Wake the kids, phone the neighbors…run for your lives.

February 18, 2008 2:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

That's quite a picture of Theresa. She should be supporting this anti-discrimination law. She rather than Dana is the one more likely to be questioned as to whether or not she should be in the ladies room.

February 18, 2008 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually the 'fat white haired plaid shirt guy' jokingly said when asked if he was also anti-abortion, 'No, I'm pro-life, but I might have allowed your mother an exception to choose abortion.' My assumption was that you would have been happy for her to have had that choice, guess not. - Craig Koch

October 11, 2010 6:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home