Text 49726, 271 rader
Skriven 2007-04-20 09:13:32 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
     Kommentar till en text av bob klahn
Ärende: Headache
================
20 Apr 07 01:54, bob klahn wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> 16 Apr 07 19:30, bob klahn wrote to Roy Witt:

 bk>>>  ...

 bk>>>>>>>  With that sort of problem, she shouldn't be working with
 bk>>>>>>>  children anyway.

 RW>>>>>> So your prejudices finally come out.

 bk>>>>>  There is no prejudice there. People who are mentally unstable,

 RW>>>> That is a prejudice towards mentally unstable people. It's
 RW>>>> also against the law, just like it's against the law to be
 RW>>>> a racist.

 bk>>>  It is not against the law to prevent mentally unstable people
 bk>>>  from being in a position of authority over children.

 RW>> But it is against the law to discriminate against them.
 RW>> Which is where I was going with that thread and seems to
 RW>> have gone over your head.

 bk>  Oh, it's not against the law to be a racist, just immoral.

Oh yeah? Try painting some swasticas on the walls of a jewish temple and
drawing attention to your racist act by standing at the curb, waving a
Nazi flag.

 bk>  It's against the law to discriminate on the basis of race...
 bk>  sometimes, but not all the time.

Oh shit...I split the line again...oh well, not to worrry, you were wrong
on the first count and wrong on the second count as well.

 bk>  And it's not against the law to discriminate against someone who
 bk>  is unable to do the job, and do it safely. No matter what race,
 bk>  sex, age, or handicap.

I witnessed this during my tenure as a manufacturing engineer at a fare
collection systems builder in San Diego.

"You can't fire me, I'm your token nigger!" said the black who had just
ruined $75,000 dollars worth of fare collection equipment being built for
the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority in SF.

"I can fire you, because I'm replacing you with another token!" said the
supervisor who was firing that person.

And he did, but he wasn't black, he was yellow.

 bk>>> Or, for that matter, even working with them at all.

 RW>> More discrimination.

 bk>  You seem to think discrimination is always illegal.

You're the one who's always throwing discrimination in the face of those
who argue with you...turn around is fair play.

 bk>  In the real world, it's not. Not only is it not always illegal, it's
 bk> not even always wrong. You can discriminate *IN FAVOR* of people of
 bk>  exceptional promise, and it's not the least bit illegal.

LOL! Yeah, but that's not called discrimination... :o)

 bk>>>  Or do you favor putting children at risk for your personal
 bk>>>  desire to help a mentally unstable person?

 RW>> There is a big difference in putting those children at risk
 RW>> by having them associate with a mentally ill person, in a
 RW>> mental ward and in a classroom where the Principal, Vice
 RW>> Principal and other teachers check on the class from time

 bk>  There can be a very big difference, but you have to show the
 bk>  teacher is supervised enough to prevent damage. Unless the
 bk>  supervisors are there often, and for extended periods, you can't
 bk>  show that.

A trained or experienced person (such as myself) can easily tell when
someone with a chemical imbalance is off their meds.

 bk>  Essentially you would need two teachers in the classroom. Her
 bk>  and one to keep her grounded. Or someone competent to judge her
 bk>  stability.

 RW>> to time. BTW, these weren't children in the sense that they
 RW>> were small and wouldn't know a mentally ill person from a
 RW>> person deemed to be not mentally ill.

 bk>  You did not specify that.

 bk>>>>>  which is what you described, should not be allowed in a position
 bk>>>>>  where they can damage or harm children. How many children are
 bk>>>>>  you willing to allow be harmed for the benefit of that woman?

 RW>>>> That woman, had a tenth grade English class where she
 RW>>>> taught people like Ceppa to speak without stuttering, she
 RW>>>> took the students who had failed English before being
 RW>>>> assigned to her class and taught them English like no other
 RW>>>> teacher they had met in thier scholastic life. Her students
 RW>>>> were so grateful for her help, they visit her even 20 years
 RW>>>> after they graduated from high school.

 bk>>>  So, are you saying she is now mentally unstable?

 RW>> Yes, her mental state got to be too much for her to
 RW>> continue teaching, so she quit.

 bk>  IOW, your complaints are baseless. When she could perform the
 bk>  job she did. She was removed, or removed herself, when she could
 bk>  not perform the job anymore.

 bk>>> Your description was of someone seriously unstable.

 RW>> Now, in the present...

 bk>  And no, in the present, is when she's been removed from the job.

 bk>>> If it was a trivial variation why did you bring it up?

 RW>> Her mental illness progressed from an episode a year to
 RW>> several. It got to the point where she wasn't capable of
 RW>> maintaining her meds, as all Manic Depressive people do.

 bk>  Which is, in and of itself, reason to remove her from the job.

 RW>> Once they feel stable, they feel like they don't need the
 RW>> meds any longer. That eventually results in another episode.

 bk>  IOW, she was not reliable.

 RW>>>> You're judging a person because she has a mental disorder
 RW>>>> that, in your mind, is as crazy as a loon.

 bk>>>  You are the one who described her as having episodes that
 bk>>>  disable her.

 RW>> And you were the one discriminating against her just
 RW>> because she was mentally unstable.

 bk>  And when it comes to working with children, why is that a
 bk>  problem? Remember, they don't make laws just for her.

 bk>>> You know nothing at all if you think "crazy as a loon" is the
 bk>>> standard for not working with children.

 RW>> I've got a lot more experience with it than you could ever
 RW>> hope to have.

 bk> ...I will not say it...I will not say it...I will not say it...

 bk>  Oh hell! I will say it.

 bk>  I can believe you have a lot more experience being crazy as a
 bk>  loon that I could ever hope to have.

 bk>  Ok, I said it. I tried to stop myself, but I failed. Sob!

 RW>>>>>> The people like
 RW>>>>>> Chumpside aren't worthy of equal treatment.

 bk>>>>>  Fuck you.

 RW>>>> Sorry, I don't go that way.

 bk>>>  Yeah, anyone who goes off on a flame like that does go that way.

 bk>  Thanks for admitting that you're a faggot.

 bk>>>  You can't carry on any discussion without resorting to flames,
 bk>>>  can you.

 RW>> I'm not the one who said 'fuck you'...you're the flamer
 RW>> here.

 bk>  You twisted a discussion of a woman you know who is mentally
 bk>  unstable into a flame toward Wayne.

 bk>>>>> Don't push that bull shit toward me. Your hate is an acid eating
 bk>>>>> you from the inside.

 RW>>>> LOL! There's no hate in me, it's all projected onto

 bk>>>  ...

 bk>>>  So, you admit you are projecting. That's a start,

 RW>> You're just as projective...talk to your therapist...

 bk>  If I am ever as bad as you I will get a therapist.

 bk>>>>> ... Why do republicans hate America's Veterans so much?
 bk>>>>> <Alternet>

 RW>>>> Why do Dems hate America and want to surrender to the
 RW>>>> terrorists? (See; Congress)

 bk>>>  It now becomes clear.

 bk>  Tell me why a large number of retired generals are saying our
 bk>  army is breaking. Including Colin Powell. Tell us why the
 bk>  administration tries to pass off the situation in Iraq as
 bk>  improving and all light at the end of the tunnel, but can't get
 bk>  the officers there to appear on camera parroting their party
 bk>  line. Could it be because, if the officers there go on camera
 bk>  and talk about it, they will tell the truth and America will
 bk>  discover the situation is as bad as they say, and getting worse?

 RW>>>> Why do Dems fraternize with the
 RW>>>> enemy? (See; Pelozi)

 bk>>>  Or the republicans who visited syria before and after Pelozi?

 RW>> How many of them stooped to their level and wore a burka?
 RW>> Only one, Pelozi, the American traitor.

 bk>  It's a hajib, not a burka. It's a headscarf, not a whole
 bk>  body covering.

 bk>  She wore it while visiting the Tomb of John the Baptist. A holy
 bk>  site. It is appropriat to dress appropriately when visiting holy
 bk>  sites. I do believe John the Baptist is a holy figure to
 bk>  Christians as well as Muslims.

 bk>  Now, if you have a problem with american political figures
 bk>  wearing a head covering while visiting Islamic holy sites, guess
 bk>  you have to name a couple more traitors.

 bk>   One, Laura Bush, first traitor. And Laura Bush did it first.

 bk>   Guess that makes Condi Rice second traitor, as she did it also,
 bk>   before Pelosi.

 bk>  Pelosi went bare headed during the rest of her visit to Syria.
 bk>  You can see for yourself.

 bk>  These two are photos of Pelosi on her visit, bare headed. The
 bk>  first while meeting Asad, the second out in public.

 bk>  www.snipurl.com/pelosi1
 bk>  www.snipurl.com/pelosi2

 bk>  These two are the same video, the first quicktime, the second
 bk>  windows media. It's from Hannity and colmes. They were trashing
 bk>  pelosi, but the video shows her bare headed in public during
 bk>  her visit to syria.

 bk>  www.snipurl.com/pelosi3
 bk>  www.snipurl.com/pelosi4


 bk> BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 bk> ... "I love California.  I practically grew up in Phoenix."  --
 bk> Quayle
 bk>  * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 bk> --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 bk>  * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)


The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but
that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan


                R\%/itt

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)