You can't make this stuff up

FredHayek wrote: Soulshiner very funny! Good parody. Lol.

I am smiling too but perhaps for different reasons.


<Well, we don't know if the parent signed a copy of the Mary Blair Absolutes. That says that after the 3rd absolute broken, the student will be formally suspended. The story doesn't tell us whether this was the actual 3rd one or if they did it for a first offense. The absolutes are laid out very clearly and he broke one by his own admission. If the parents had a problem with this, why didn't one say something BEFORE this situation? Schools are usually very good at notifying parents of their policies.>

SS fair questions but to me the question should be is the onus on the parents be asking these questions or on the school to have policies that are more in line with common sense, IMO.

That raises the question of where do you draw the common sense line?

My on line policy for all my years on line until a while ago was not to read the
TOS, just use common sense and treat people with respect. It worked fine until PineCam. I actually found myself drilling into the TOS to see what if anything I had done wrong. I do not want to live that way but it seems to be the trend.

You can't sign a contract and then claim it's not binding because you didn't read it. The onus is on you.

I feel the common sense deal is not quite right because there is not a lot of common sense when someone is trying to protect their ass. Also, you are assuming that everyone has the same common sense, which we all know is not true.

For example, it is common sense that your kids can serve as alter boys at a Catholic church and the church would keep them safe from harm, but we all know that that bit of common sense was not used by the Catholic church and many children were abused. Common sense would dictate that the church elders would immediately take action once they found out about the abuse and contact the authorities and take steps to make sure it never happened again, but that didn't happen.

The question is: Did the child in question break the publicized rules? Yes.

You may not agree with the posted speed limit on a road, but if you drove faster and were caught doing it, you pay the price. We may not agree with some of the rules around us, but I think teaching your kids that the rule makers are wrong after the kids were caught breaking them is not the best parenting. If you disagree with a rule, teach your children how to change it by example. Going to the local news station and giving the child attention for breaking the rule and disagreeing with it teaches the child that if you whine enough and complain enough, you will get your way, which we then see in the temper tantrums and controlling behavior children exhibit today.

The question I would ask you is: If your child broke a publicized rule, how would you handle it? If your child was caught shoplifting, would you complain to the news media that there were no clear signs that shoplifting is illegal and how would a 7 year old know it was? If your child punched another child in class, would you complain to the media that there was no clear signs that that was breaking a publicized rule?

Is it up to the school or the parents to ensure the children follow the posted rules? My answer is both.

Well said. I will have to think about that.

Good point about the parents trying to protect their kids. In my day, if I got into trouble at school, I got into more trouble when I got home. Now the trend seems to be to defend the child.

Soulshiner wrote:
The question is: Did the child in question break the publicized rules? Yes.

But did he, and were the rules clearly made available to the parent prior to the incident? That is not at all clear.

Another point, I understand the kid is a "special needs" student. My understanding is that the boy was throwing invisible grenades into box containing evil forces which he was trying to destroy in order to save the world.

There is a link to the Absolutes in the link in the OP. According to the Denver Post, they were shared with all parents in the community and are posted on the school's website.

"District policy does not prohibit imaginary weapons, but Superintendent Stan Scheer said individual schools are permitted to add enhancements to the general student code of conduct. “It fell under that set of local policy they have in the building, and it was shared with all parents in the community at the beginning of the year,” Scheer said."

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... z2KGNQwQhB

That article also says the school says there is more to the story but they don't share student info. That's between the school and the parents, as it should be. The parents are the ones who took it to the media and now this child and his behavior are the discussion of strangers who can now pass judgement on him and them. That's on them as well.

Where did you see this child is a special needs student? Why does that make a difference? A google search shows nothing about the child being a special needs student. The save the world title came from the mother. Could be she is trying to make it seem like it should be okay and message boards are running with it, using to call into question why this "patriotic" little boy is being punished for his "hero" like behavior.

The OP says the boy was throwing invisible grenades, that is correct. It is also against the Absolutes that the parent received. It's the second one: "No weapons (real or play), illegal drugs (including tobacco) or alcohol". So he was in violation of the Absolutes. Whether his parents read the notice or not is on them.

Like BB said, many people do not read the rules or contracts they have signed until some type of infraction occurs. Kind of the same way that many people don't read the instruction manual and try to build or operate something and only read the document when there is a problem.

Then I agree with you... she is at fault. Both for breaking the agreement in the second place, and signing such asinine clap-trap in the first place.

Soulshiner wrote: There is a link to the Absolutes in the link in the OP. According to the Denver Post, they were shared with all parents in the community and are posted on the school's website.

"District policy does not prohibit imaginary weapons, but Superintendent Stan Scheer said individual schools are permitted to add enhancements to the general student code of conduct. “It fell under that set of local policy they have in the building, and it was shared with all parents in the community at the beginning of the year,” Scheer said."

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... z2KGNQwQhB

That article also says the school says there is more to the story but they don't share student info. That's between the school and the parents, as it should be. The parents are the ones who took it to the media and now this child and his behavior are the discussion of strangers who can now pass judgement on him and them. That's on them as well.

Where did you see this child is a special needs student? Why does that make a difference? A google search shows nothing about the child being a special needs student. The save the world title came from the mother. Could be she is trying to make it seem like it should be okay and message boards are running with it, using to call into question why this "patriotic" little boy is being punished for his "hero" like behavior.

The OP says the boy was throwing invisible grenades, that is correct. It is also against the Absolutes that the parent received. It's the second one: "No weapons (real or play), illegal drugs (including tobacco) or alcohol". So he was in violation of the Absolutes. Whether his parents read the notice or not is on them.

Like BB said, many people do not read the rules or contracts they have signed until some type of infraction occurs. Kind of the same way that many people don't read the instruction manual and try to build or operate something and only read the document when there is a problem.

The mother said it when she was on KHOW, she didn't use the term "special needs" the term used was IET (individual Education track) or something like that, I'd have to go find the podcast to get the exact wording. And it is provable that the school changed its posted rules days after the incident.

Now the school is saying the kid wasn't suspended for throwing imaginary grenades.

Sometimes you really can't make this stuff up.

FredHayek wrote: Now the school is saying the kid wasn't suspended for throwing imaginary grenades.

Sometimes you really can't make this stuff up.

The imaginary grenades was revised to rocks so they could cover their asses.