|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by DeepThought
(deep.42.thought@gmailEARTH.com)
on 08:52 PM January 8th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Psychological instigation, especially by the passive-agressive female participant, can be the cause of MANY couples' fights and arugments, I've seen this in person and from others. In this case, all that was different about the male's site was apparently that he used blunter wording in anger for being humiliated online. He was INSTIGATED, and yet apparently he's the only one at fault. Nice.
If the school decides to take action, they'd BETTER also expell the instigator as well... making a website devoted to mocking a student by calling him a "queer" is an understandable cause of anger... and in any case, I don't understand the school getting involved. Is any of that under their jourisdiction? I know that the internet isn't covered under US free speech laws, but in terms of a US institution arresting a citizen... eh?
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:23 AM January 9th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe both students, as in the boy and the girl were arrested along with the 18 year old who help the boy set up his website...as stated in the article.
"Both students were arrested, as well as 18-year old Joseph Sanchez, who was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Authorities say Sanchez helped the younger male set up and maintain his website. The pair called themselves the "8-Ballas," and targeted students they called "The Preps."
It’s my understanding that the Internet actually is covered under the first amendment, i.e. that the government can’t suppress free speech. Now under private property rights the person owning the server would have the right to boot the boy, girl or anyone else off their server(s) if they violated the TOS
What is disturbing is government officials were involved in shutdown and suppressing speech in this case and then justify doing this under zero tolerance by using the argument..."That's when you worry about something escalating or becoming the next Columbine and these days you have to take threats seriously."
Did words follow into actions or is this just a thought crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:29 AM January 9th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe both students, as in the boy and the girl were arrested along with the 18 year old who help the boy set up his website... as stated in the article.
"Both students were arrested, as well as 18-year old Joseph Sanchez, who was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Authorities say Sanchez helped the younger male set up and maintain his website. The pair called themselves the "8-Ballas," and targeted students they called "The Preps."
It’s my understanding that the Internet actually is covered under the first amendment, i.e. that the government can’t suppress free speech. Now under private property rights the person owning the server would have the right to boot the boy, girl or anyone else off their server(s) if they violated the TOS
What is disturbing is government officials were involved in shutdown and suppressing speech in this case and then justify doing this under zero tolerance by using the argument..."That's when you worry about something escalating or becoming the next Columbine and these days you have to take threats seriously."
Did words follow into actions or is this just a thought crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm such an idiot. I totally jumped the gun on that one.
The first line says all three were arrested and while its vague, I suspect it does mean all three (including the girl).
I really recommend this article be pulled, otherwise, we're going to look awfully biased like our feminist sisters. ;)
Gee, if I keep this up, think I might get in with the Washington Post?
--bandersnatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 10:30 AM January 9th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Even if they had not arrested her, simply assuming every time nothing would happen because she's a girl sounds just like the "male privilege" talk turned around sometimes.
There are more than enough cases with hard evidence to report about..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 11:20 AM January 9th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
N. J. is right; let's wait and see how the three are actually disciplined before ranting about female privilege.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:41 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"Even if they had not arrested her, simply assuming every time nothing would happen because she's a girl..."
I disagree. There has been such a clear modus operandi established by gender feminist influenced "officials," that I think it best to draw the proverbial line in the sand before another injustice is done to any male, and the line should be drawn each and every time a case like this appears.
It is unfortunate some reported facts were misconstrued, but the pattern of abuse against males by: schools, courts, and news papers makes it imperative to point out the historical, anti-male prejudice that is in operation in today's society. We don't need to wait until we see more victims. The "CRIMINALIZE MALES Factory" is working at full efficiency and needs to be challenged just as soon as more raw materials (fresh male victims) are fed into its hopper.
There are over 270 women's commissions in the U.S., and only one for men's commission struggling to survive in New Hampshire. There are over 700 women's studies programs with thousands, if not tens of thousands of classes, and only one such program for men, that I heard exists in Washington state. These gender feminist dominated societal institutions expend as much effort (if not more) vilifying men as they do empowering women. Consequently, all males have two strikes against them before they ever get to the plate in any endeavor in modern western society.
"You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows." Bob Dylan
Sincerely, Ray
False Feminist Statistics Create Hate Laws
Misandry is the #1 Hate Crime in America
Courts Are Sexist and Hateful Against Men
Societal Policies Without a Men's Commission Are Societal Poison
California Commissions by Gender
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Bannersnatcher, I think the admins should keep it up as an example for feminist, politicians and journalist dupes who can’t bring themselves to admit that they too can be mistaken or make an error in judgment. It’s refreshing to see such honesty when one makes an error unlike say, feminists scientist...cough,cough... when they make a mistake, generally they will attempt to twist in the most agonizing ways to distort the error(s) into the truth until, with egg dripping from there faces... uh, we made a mistake...maybe, but it’s still a patriarchal conspiracy to point out our mistakes.
I’ve heard the Washington post is losing 4000 subscribers a month and at this rate there isn’t going to be a Washington post to write for. Anyways, they wouldn’t know what to do with someone who was truthful. ;-)
Tyler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the kind words. :D
Cheers!
--bandersnatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I sent an email to the site admins asking them to either pull this article or change the title to something like "Look, a girl got arrested for bullying males!" etc.
--bandersnatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says:
>>>
Which is certainly wtrong of her, but not, strictly speaking illegal. It then says:
>>
which indicates that, while she was cruel, he was threatening violence. He crossed the line when he made threats, if that is indeed what the poems do.The article ALSO says:
>>
So the boy was NOT, as you attempted to claim, the ONLY one arrested for this. Your inital post was misleading at best.
Peace,
Blessed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmm, I have been edited for quoting the story. I guess pointing out an obvious error in the reasoning of the inital complaint is not allowed. OK. I can find other, less slanted sights to go.
Peace,
Blessed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by DeepThought
(deep.42.thought@gmailEARTH.com)
on 03:02 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Ahm, I think you just have no idea how to work this message board system, and hid the quote in ">"s or ""s, thus making it appear invisible. If anyone wanted to totally ruin your point, they could have either:
a) Removed your post
b) Letter A plus a ban
c) Removed the section of your post where you actually ARGUED and pointed out the inconsistancy. Logical thinking helps sometimes.
The fact that you, through your own ignorance, hid the article's quotes in your message and then jumped to accuse a GIANT CONSPIRACY is kind of ironic, considering the subject matter of your original post.
And in my opinion, if you run a site where you proudly proclaim yourself to be a "nazi", your statements should be taken with a grain of salt anyway.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:50 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Blessed,
I was the anonymous poster who pointed this error out to bandersnatch
I believe you’ve jumped the gun or in this case forgot to jump when the gun went off.
bandersnatch, has already admitted his error nearly eleven hours before you posted.
See Blessed, everyone can make a mistake...even I made a mistake by referring to bandersnatch to bannersnatcher...hehe, sorry bandersnatch.
Tyler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 06:52 AM January 10th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"hmm, I have been edited for quoting the story."
Your trying to convince people that the moderators for this site are simultaneously providing a link to an article and trying to hide it's contents? A bit far fetched, don't you think? As others have pointed out, it looks more like an error in your usage of the system.
"I guess pointing out an obvious error in the reasoning of the inital complaint is not allowed."
Well, isn't that still there? Not only in your post but in others as well? This site is actually very admirable in it's refusal to censor unpopular ideas or opinions.
"OK. I can find other, less slanted sights to go."
Well, don't stick around on my account. But, speaking of 'less slanted' sites, I happened to take a look at your Feminazi Central forum and couldn't help but notice you left out the importance of the female perspective to feminism in your various definitions. Feminism is, obviously, about women and women's experiences, their lives, their dignity, etc. It is a female-based veiwpoint. Certainly men's experiences and men's lives are not part of the feminist view. A viewpoint which is concerned with men's experiences you may or may not agree with, but it isn't a feminist viewpoint is it?
So in order to account for the importance of women's experiences and women's points of view in feminism, I'd suggest the following modifications to your definitions below. Feel free to use them on your website.
Feminist: A person with the odd notion that women are the only people who matter.
Radical Feminist: A person with the odd notion that women are the only people whose rights matter.
Ultra-radical Feminist, A/K/A/ Feminazi: A person with the odd notion that women are the only people whose rights matter--and who treats others accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:00 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"The school system is taking it seriously as well, and will decide Friday whether to expel the three students for the remainder of the school year. All of the students involved are honor students."
It appears the girl is one of the 3 students being considered for disciplinary action by the school. It appears there is a girl, #1, who started this (surprise) taunting and bullying, and it appears a boy, #2, escalated this, and it appears and 18 year old boy number #3, helped the underage boy set up his web site, and is getting hit with the harshest punishment. Whatever happened to girls mature faster than boys?
"Both students were arrested, as well as 18-year old Joseph Sanchez, who was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor."
From this sentence we see that "both" students were arrested (underage boy and girl) "as well as" the 18 year old boy, who is facing harsher charges merely because of his age. So in addition to school discipline, this trio is looking at criminal charges possibly being brought against some of them. It would be really "illuminating" to know what was written down by the police officers in the "arrest report." Who really said what and when? Why were things said, and in response to what? I have serious doubts about police abilities to "objectively" figure that out without employing their biased gender feminist training (aquired in domestic violence training classes).
This is all a very basic news report, lacking in "in-depth" details and facts about what was specifically said and who said it. It will be interesting to see who winds up with the most serious problems for "bullying" and who winds up with the least. I suspect the 18 year old boy is going to have serious problems. I have my suspicions that the girl's instigation will be looked at more as "free speech" and her expressions will be considered as "girl power," or a form of female empowerment, where she was just expressing herself in the face of "systematic patriarchal oppression."
Our bigoted educational system, and our bigoted legal system, have no real sense of "equal rights," or "equal protection," or "equal justice," when it comes to enforcement of all the man-hating gender feminist policies and laws on the books that are used to destroy the lives of innocent males. Title IX and Sexual Harassment laws are prime examples of the "male-hating" that is present in all educational systems in America today. Given the feminist training of police in the area of domestic violence it's pretty clear who the police "automatically" look at as the "dominant aggressor," or "primary aggressor." With the male-hating bigotry that exists in our social institutions today a male has little chance of getting justice or a good education.
Sincerely, Ray
Government Is Sexist & Hostile Against Men
There's No Excuse for Abuse - Unless You're a Woman
Men Are Not Disposable!
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:18 AM January 10th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of the fact that both were arrested, the article suggests that his actions were worse than hers. Starting a rumor that someone is gay in high school is a way of getting them attacked, potentially multiple times, not to mention the damage done to him by being outcast from his society as a result. He retailiated with some threatening poetry that would certainly not lead to any damage to her.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
