And still another thing:

I pointedly noted that someone had claimed that "local Abington courts" would have the ability to exert jurisdictional authority. This was a source of wonderment, both because no such independent entity exists, but also because any such presumption by the Distict Justices [for example] cannot be honored within the "unified judicial system" enforced by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Public/AboutTheCourts.htm

As I wrote weeks ago, Abington is no place for hate...but Abington also should not be a place for feel-good legislation that hadn't been thought-through.

The solicitor was avoiding sounding in favor of the bill, because as soon as he appeared biased, the ordinance could be remanded, if challenged, which has occurred in the past due to a solicitor's constructive bias in support of outside entities.

Hartmann, among it's numerous flaws, fails to apprehend the fact that the Human Relations Act mentions all 8 classes given protected status each and every time special rights are given, thus conspicuusly not stating "orientation" as a covered class each time, including in the sections regarding local governments setting up commissions. Moreso, the Hate crimes law section regarding "orientation" was found unconstitutional after Hartman.

It is truly unfortunate that you were mistreated by that young woman, and subjected to the hit-and-run double insult. Welcome to the ranks of the "haters" ! Thank you from the untold majority who seeks morality, good government, transparency, and allof the elements we yearn for as decent citizens !

@ MM

I do not understand your points.

First, the Solicitor need not evince "bias" if he is simply asked to corroborate anticipated legalities within the proposed ordinance, and I have never heard of a "remand" occurring [nor can i appreciate any mechanism by which it could transpire] after any type of challenge to the tenets of an ordinance. Whether this action could be construed as favoring some external entity that might subsequently become an litigant appears to be, at best, conjecture; what sort of hypothetical would accommodate this scenario?

Second, it appears you are corroborating the view that the Commonwealth hasn't empowered localities to enforce anything related to "orientation"; is this a correct conclusion?

Third, my only lament about being "mistreated" by the "haters" is that they may have learned from others that they can feel so smug in their rejection of a smidgeon of potential challenge...delivered on an adult-level, without emoting, without attacking.

The solicitor in Abington has been only mildly supportive of the ordinance and probably "supportive," mainly as a function of what questions were asked him by Commissioners. But nevertheless, he has not raised the serious constitutional and statutory shortcomings of the bill, leading his demeanor to be perceivable as one- sided. Therefore he was careful to avoid any glowing support at Thursdays meeting in order to avoid appearing overtly supportive of the bill, for the reason I stated.

As to the Human Relations Act, I was only giving an example of how Hartmann is a threadbare decision that would not stand up to serious review by the Supreme Court should the occasion ever arise.

If I could espouse about the teenager episode - our entire educational infrastructure has now evolved to the point where schools - and the GLSEN clubs - encourage young activists to not think, but rather, to react - and often obscenely.

@MM

It would seem your three independent and educated observations are totally corroborative of multiple points I have made in the interim.

I might add that the teenager who claimed to have been physically assaulted because of his sexual orientation should be aggressively encouraged to report the crime, for he undoubtedly knows who attacked him...assuming he didn't fabricate the tale.

Well said, Albert. There are many of this type of legislation throughout Pennsylvania and the country. Check the number of lawsuits filed and the "pandora's box" they opened. Why is everyone so afraid to protect citizens? And why do those whom this law doesn't directly affect feel so strongly that they must complain about it? Dr. Sklaroff has certainly put a lot of energy into it.

Yes i have studied the issue and, as emphasized in my opening comments, i concur with the sentiments of the intent of the ordinance, but would not want it to have been adopted without first having rectified fundamental defects therein.

For that one incident, but the bullying from others will intensify. Bullying which if reported will lead to more hidden bullying. It is a really sad thing, but many who are intensely bullied end up hurting themselves because they have no where else to turn.

you are so sure of yourself; isn't it possible that bullying would decrease if people learned of the consequences thereof?

You seem so sure of yourself as well, but the answer is no it will not decrease. Students tend to resent those who get their friends detentions. It only stands to reason that the resentment would intensify with bringing charges. What is truly needed is strong anti-bullying programs that empower teachers and administrators to teach tolerance and act upon those who do not display it. In many school districts the hands of teachers and administrators have been tied so they cannot actively prevent the bullying (this goes for all types of bullying as well as having it based on sexual orientation). You should see the film that was recently released "Bully" for more information. For information regarding the sexual orientation bullying, you should check this article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

no where in this article is the concept of law-enforcement raised, a highly problematic defect that undermines its credibility

I never said anything about law enforcement was in the article. I merely said it demonstrated what happens when the hands of the people working in schools are tied. I'm fairly certain the bullying which ended the lives described in the article could not be prosecuted anyway. Bullying is not always physical and usually the mental torture students are forced to endure is much worse anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/new-jersey-weighs-new-bul_n_773531.html

Here is an example of how an incident led to legislation that has subsequently led to the conviction of the bullying-roommate.

This model should be applied to the local lad who claims he was assaulted...which, the last time I checked, is a crime.

That was after a suicide and it was a college (Also, not to be a stickler, but the kids in Columbine weren't being bullied, they were the bullies... sorry, it just bothers me when news sources get that wrong). The legislation is a step in the right direction.

Yes, assault is a crime and should be punished, but as I have said before, the bullying of the student would only intensify and be driven to areas where that student has no protection if he presses charges. Bullying is a more institutional problem than the assault described and, again, as I have said before, the mental is worse than the physical. Pressing charges treats the immediate symptom but leaves the cancer to grow.

citing the college/high-school venue is a distinction-without-a-true-difference, and it is entirely plausible that a high-profile arrest...with follow-up [for one effort doesn't preclude another] could prove effective in addressing root-causes

I have to disagree with you on both counts. College v. high school is a huge difference of venue. Just think of the difference in living situations, independence, and a student's ability to retreat to a comfort zone. Also, although it is not a perfect comparison by a long-shot, there are many high-profile arrests made for murder every year and people still manage to kill one another. You are also asking one student to risk extreme psychological damage just on the hope that this arrest will get others to not bully. I know that if that was my child I would not want to risk his well-being on the chance that one arrest with follow through programs (which should be in place already anyway) will stop bullying.

your mind-reads are incorrect in both contexts

high-school is the focus, while college is the metaphor that led to legislation that is applicable to the high-schools...with the intent to ensure the law is enforced

and the assumption that the accuser will sustain psycho-damage always is extant, but must be subject to counseling rather than being denied

in short, you incorrectly assume that I am "asking one student to risk extreme psychological damage just on the hope that this arrest will get others to not bully," for i am asking him to come-clean rather than merely engaging in public testimony...which would predictably have a comparable effect upon his local potential-bullyers [without any potential upside benefit]

I wasn't trying to read your mind and yes the proposed legislation applies to both college and high school. I was merely saying the situations of students in both types of institutions are vastly different and a one-size-fits-all approach most likely would not work. That being said, I did agree with you that it was a step in the right direction.

Of course the student will most likely need counseling. Many seek it and still end up hurting themselves because of the bullying which is still not addressed.

If a student being bullied reports it, the students will know who did it and that student will then be bullied more. Secrets don't stay secrets for long in high schools.

I like your aim and I am extremely happy that you are committed to ending bullying in schools for any reason (sexual orientation, weight, looks, religion, sex, etc.), I just disagree with you that asking students to report and press charges is the best way to handle it. To me it seems too risky for the already psychologically compromised children.

you avoided the gravamen of my major point; if he already went-public, then there is no reason why he shouldn't press-charges...assuming there are any "charges" that can truly be pressed [all the rest of the criteria...high-school...counseling...are "constants"]

He went public that it happened, but did he name names?

Also, even if he did name the student who assaulted him, if no charges are pressed then there is less of a reason for a more intensified bullying.

of course he didn't name his accuser, but the fact that this info is allegedly on-tap would subject him to greater intimidation...than would be his status if he came-clean [for he would be subject to immediate protections that otherwise are not being proffered]

I disagree that there would be any protections offered that would actually stop the bullying (again, mental over physical). What that student did was brave enough. There is no need to further endanger him.

one cannot pledge anything would undoubtedly "stop" anything, but do you not think that Chief Kelly would want to know who had been the alleged perpetrator?

I'm sure he would, but yet again, I think that would be too risky for that student. I do not think the arrest would stop the bullying, it would only make it worse.

would you defer to the expertise of the individual who is most responsible for law-enforcement in Abington?

Not in a matter of child psychology.

so you don't think law enforcement trumps psychological concerns...that could be addressed in conjunction with any criminal action?

and you don't think that Chief Kelly couldn't acquire the necessary consultative input so as to address this parameter of the allegation?

I have already made clear what I believe. Restating it with legal terms makes no difference. Child's well being trumps everything. The counseling might not save him from the damage that could be done.

and do you not assume [falsely] that Chief Kelly would be unable to take the accuser's psychological status into account?

Of course he would take it into account. I just do not think he is equipped to handle such a problem and counseling would not protect the student either. Please do not become condescending with your statements as we have had a fairly decent discussion up to this point.

My point is simple: If the student names his assailant and presses charges, no matter what the police, the school, or a counselor does, that child will most likely have his bullying experience intensified. As someone concerned for that student's well-being, I would not advise him to take that route.

so, essentially, you assume that any police involvement would automatically enhance this student's risk; this allows for bullying to succeed, notwithstanding any potential "adult" intervention.

and you assume he would be unable to involve any psychological support for the crime victim, notwithstanding the fact that this is a constant component of his occupation

and all of your assumptions are not generated as an expert, based on your feelings; would you not allow for an expert to involve all other available experts to resolve this issue?

I've made my case clear and simple. No amount of dropping condescending tones and use of the word "expert" will change my mind. For now though I must stop responding as I have other things to take care of now (Please do not start in your previous way of saying "defeated" or somehow otherwise "won" this discussion. We disagree on how to resolve this issue and I do not agree with your resolution but we both agree that bullying for any reason is bad. Please focus on that, rather than the small details of whether or not this student should report the assault.)

you falsely accuse me of bullying you when i invoke the concept of invoking an expert, despite the fact that this is a recognized differentiation between opinion-makers [such as bloggers] and those whose occupations [training, experience, knowledge, expertise] is available to resolve conflict

You "lose" when you hide from such a reasonable mechanism to strategize and, quite frankly, you may be covering-up for a false-accusation in the process [such as was just revealed in Rochester]

You make me sigh. You stoop to saying the student might be lying? That is low.

Stop trying to "win."

Also, the chief of police is an expert in law enforcement, not child psychology. To assume he would be is a mistake on your part.

Now, as you have returned to your old ways of attacking those who disagree with you I discontinue this conversation with you. Hopefully the next discussion we have can be free from such insults and condescension and we can actually make it productive so that a mutually beneficial idea can come about.

Good night.

I confess.

I purposefully held-out raising the prospect of whether the student was lying [noting how his female-friend covered for him when he was gently poked...orally] until you claimed you were posting for the final time.

I knew I could entice you to attack my statement, despite the fact that I was merely raising the possibility, in conjunction with a contemporaneous revelation of another false-accusation [remember the Duke lacrosse team?].

It worked.

An expert in law enforcement [as you would know if you were attending his Wednesday-p.m. classes] has broad experiences and has other experts routinely on-tap.

And, no, I didn't attack you ["those who disagree with you"] to "win" the argument; rather, I raised a possibility that must be weighed by law enforcement...and by any reasonable individual who seeks truth, regardless of whether it fits one's expectations.

I didn't insult you, and any perception of condescension is merely a projection on your part.

I did expose your transparency and reflex attitudes, notwithstanding the possibility of error.

When you reject simply acquiring a consultation from an expert, you reveal your egocentrism...and fear of being demonstrated to be in-error.

Again, when defeat looms, we go ad-hominem...so predictable, so sad.

@ Marc

1. I was wondering how long it would take for you to weigh-in.
2. Your anecdote is not controlling; your conclusion that kids shouldn't report bullying must be supported by school authorities before it is authentic.
3. Your assumption that bullying is worse now than it was a quarter-century ago is also undocumented, particularly noting that it is now receiving far greater scrutiny.

@ Sklaroff

1. It pleases me that someone of your self-righteousness eagerly anticipates my thoughts on such matters.
2. The purpose of my anecdote was not to be controlling o,r as Albert P. pointed out, to "win" an argument. It was merely to state that my own experience has shown that reporting bullying only made it worse. But it your "theories" hold more truth for you that's up to you on how you wish to perceive reality.
3. You know what they didn't have in response to bullying when I was in school? Shootings. You know what else they didn't have in school at the time? Prayer. Maybe bullying hasn't gotten worse, maybe it has...but I can tell you with certainty that the REACTION to bullying has gotten much worse in the past 25-30 years. Again...I shouldn't need to document the obvious. You can certainly try to document it yourself (or prove otherwise) if you so wish. My intent was not to convince anyone of one thing or another but rather it was to share my own personal experiences in the matter and use that to "weigh in" so to speak.

The "weight" of your effort is hardly hefty, both because of your undocumented [and unreasonable] assertion that bullying shouldn't be reported and because of your claim that some other factor [such as the absence of public school prayer...which the SCOTUS banned c/o Abington almost a half-century ago*] somehow has influenced the perception thereof and the reaction thereto.

* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_v._Curlett

It would be desirable were the input of this entity to have been entertained PRIOR to the issuance of this Ordinance; it has been contacted nevertheless for belated input.

Again, I humbly accept your accolades, recognizing that focusing upon specifics will often denude opposing arguments.

I would concur, although I would disagree with the assertion that I can't "get along" with Albert. I'm trying to help him see-the-light and, sometimes, this process becomes protracted. Ultimately, it would appear that businesses will not wish to subject themselves to potential public humiliation [no matter how unjustified] by choosing to locate in Abington, although this may be a difficult concept to prove.

Mr. Sklaroff, do you have any friends who aren't exact mental copies of yourself? As so many people have said you are obsessed with winning arguments and you would never think you are wrong because you have assumptions and bias yourself. You want Albert to "see the light?" How conceited are you? Also, does this make you the "bringer of light?" I trust you get the reference. All insults aside though, you should consider other points of view, especially when you comment on everything everyone else says and always disagree and pounce when people can no longer take your long-winded explanations and accusations. I have mostly found that when people claim to have all of the answers they really have none.

Without appearing excessively finicky, I try to root-out truths from baseline biases.

I did not state that I disapproved of the desire for the ordinance, for example; rather, I noted that "homework" had to be completed before it was adopted.

Going ad-hominem [which seems to have become a communicable disease here @ Patch, of-late] doesn't resolve issues, whereas references/documentation helps to develop consensus...assuming this is a shared-endpoint.

BTW, I have associations with people with whom I disagree, as those who are involved with the leadership of the RMCA have recently experienced.

I do not apologize for being correct, and I remain open-minded if in-error; deal with it....

For someone with a large vocabulary you sure love to use ad-hominem. This comes as a strange contradiction as you repeatedly call people brainless dems or something to that order. You frequently attack the man, although usually with being rude than outright insults. You are blinded by your own conceit. Enjoy that. I'm sure everyone around you does, because who wouldn't love you?

You got it; I blog extensively because I want to be loved.

That's why I consistently abrade both R's and D's, right?

Try again, and perhaps you'll reformulate my motives successfully.

This isn't blogging, it's commenting on articles posted on a local news website.

Also, sarcasm... learn how it works.

You advise that I should "consider other points of view, especially when you comment on everything everyone else says and always disagree and pounce when people can no longer take your long-winded explanations and accusations."

Just "keepin' 'em honest...without 'spin'...'cause I'm lookin' out for you" readers @ Patch, as does Bill O'Reilly @ FNC. Your characterization, far from being charitable in any way, is unnecessarily [and inaccurately] sweeping in its scope and intensity...although it does capture the potential impact of my blogging/critique.

Protected classes? Do you mean like the protected classes which are outlined in the Federal laws? Do you mean the laws that prohibit discrimination based on age, ethic origin, physical disability, Vietnam Veteran status, sex, and religious beliefs? Do you believe the laws which protect those classes of people are discriminatory and should be overturned? Seriously? Those laws were enacted to protect those people for a very simple reason----they were often the victims of real discrimination. Were those laws overturned? No! Do you really believe that all of this is just a fairy tale and we are inventing victims? Get real! Open your heart and your brain will follow.

Betty, how do you propose that any such bias will be provable?

Your mindreading is even more troubling.

The Clergy were attempting to share wisdom derived from personal/professional experience, regardless of where it led; it shouldn't be discounted because it was not in-accordance with your beliefs/goals.

As was noted explicitly, you apparently still need to be reminded that there is no "separation" of church/state in the Constitution; it was a phrase coined subsequently by Jefferson.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

I did not "accost" the teenager; I asked him but two levels of question [without forcefulness, thus the use of the word "terse"] predicated solely upon his public comments. I asked if he had reported the event and if-not/why-not. This hardly constitutes the level of potential abuse you ascribe to the event and, just perhaps, it is this type of hypersensitivity that also informed the initial encounter that he touted.

That is why people may NOT need any type of pseudo-protection...from a risk that is merely imagined.

@ Sklaroff
You said: "The Clergy were attempting to share wisdom derived from personal/professional experience, regardless of where it led; it shouldn't be discounted because it was not in-accordance with your beliefs/goals."

I find this strange because when others here have shared the same sort of wisdom from our personal & professional experience (namely Albert, Eric, Justice & myself) YOU are the one who is seemingly discounting it because it does not mesh with your own personal beliefs. Maybe you should practice a bit of what you preach?

I was defending the Clergy against unjustified critique, whereas I am critiquing your far more pedestrian input; the contrast should have been readily apparent.

Why is the clergy's response and feelings on this matter any more important than mine? Who exactly, between myself and the clergy, do you think has more say in the matter? Someone who was bullied growing up or a group of individuals who in recent years have fallen more and more under scrutiny for their often improper and illegal relationships with children?

@ Lombardi

Ah, your prejudices emerge! You would assume to condemn the entire field of ministry [and their potential to provide unique professional insights] because of a few pedophiles...tsk-tsk.

You create a false-choice, and I won't bite; everyone has input, and no one should be excluded [as you attempt to do, alas, in vain].

This is why I monitor your input [and that of others] time-permitting, for someone has to teach you some respect for your "elders" [pun unintended]!

And I will reiterate my point since you own bias prevented you from doing so:
The clergy's say in this matter has no more say than my very own, nor than that of anyone else who has given their opinion on the matter here or at the meeting. So if you're going to defend the clergy for attempting to share the wisdom derived from their own personal and professional experience then you should also defend everyone else here for doing the same. Likewise, the details learned from the information from the clergy should be taken at no more greater face value than that of the same level (if not greater) of anecdotal evidence than anyone else here.

I have no bias against the clergy. I was merely stating a fact that members of the clergy, both locally and throughout the United States, have been accused AND convicted in recent years with more and more frequency for inappropriate relationships with minors. To take this opinion on such a matter with greater merit than those of us who are speaking from actual EXPERIENCE regarding bullying is foolish.

I'm certainly not invalidating their input. I'm just saying that those of us who have experienced bullying certainly have more to say than those with theoretical evidence.

As for your feelings that you need to monitor my input and teach me to respect my elders, that's just another example of your constant condescending tone throughout Patch and your favor towards only those with similar political beliefs and moral values.

Your logorrhea serves only to compound the previously-established diagnosis.

You impugn people as a group, a tendency noted in other collectivists, notably D's.

The value [or irrelevance] of each lay/expert opinion/input should stand/fall on merit.

You would do better to try to document [and thereby generalize] your assertions.

The suasive power of an anecdote is dwarfed by that of a competent authority.

@Sklaroff

Allow me to put this into a nutshell what it seems like are your feelings on this and you can let me know, as specifically as possibly [I give you this assignment] if I am incorrect in what I believe you are saying:

Beliefs of the clergy regarding bullying are: 1) Insightful 2) Based upon their professional experience 3) Worthy of believing

Beliefs of those here and at the meeting who have spoken in regards to bullying from first-hand experience are: 1) Biased 2) Creates a false sense of a need of 'pseudo-protection' 3) Needs factual evidence to back it up.

Would you say this is correct based on the statements you've made here? If not, I would appreciate further clarification.

@ Lombardi

You purposefully corrupt my statements to distance yourself from your prior error.

It won't work with me, even if others may have been controlled by such tactics.

Thus, the "nutshell" is solely of your own making, and you probably could easily fit therein.

I'm not purposefully doing anything of the sort. In fact, I asked you to clarify what I had wrong if that was the case and you did not offer any clarification. So that either means that I am not wrong in what I pulled together from your statements based on the comments of the clergy vs. the comments by others or you are just continuing to avoid answering questions when you realize that the answers don't paint you in a favorable light. Common for those with issues regarding self-esteem and ego issues.

@ Lombardi

You assemble knowingly pejorative lingo and request that I concur?

No, I won't play in that game; my comments are explicit...deal with them!

No. I'm assembling what I believe is the gravamen of your points and I have explicitly asked you that if my summarization of your points is inaccurate to please specifically and pointedly advise where the inaccuracies lie. You have had multiple opportunities to respond directly to the question and instead of state specifically what I had wrong you have chosen to merely repeat in a number of different ways that I am wrong in how I've summarized your statements. So I will allow you one last opportunity to save face, good Doctor. Would you care to expand on exactly how I was incorrect in assembling the basics of the statements in question (in this particular string of comments) or do you instead choose to continue to evade this line of questioning and [in turn] admit that you care not to contest the truth to my summarization with any facts of your own?

"Deal with it" seems to be your natural response when challenged for additional information or clarification and I wonder if maybe that is a sign that you yourself do not have the full breadth of details or facts to back up your own beliefs and opinions in such matters, which is something that seems extraordinarily relevant to a number of your comments towards others.

You did not capture my essential concept regarding the professionalism that clergy and the police would predictably bring to a given situation of lawlessness, and you have not addressed the impact of your own global condemnations [as inappropriate and as unjustified as they are]. Nevertheless, I will edit accordingly what you wrote by inserting a key qualifier [which is intuitive]:

"Beliefs of the clergy regarding bullying are SOMETIMES: 1) Insightful 2) Based upon their professional experience 3) Worthy of believing.

Beliefs of those here and at the meeting who have spoken in regards to bullying from first-hand experience are SOMETIMES: 1) Biased 2) CAPABLE OF CREATING a false sense of a need of 'pseudo-protection' 3) IN-NEED OF factual evidence to back THEM up."

{Parallelism has been corrected, as secondary-gain to this editing process.}

You would, perhaps, have drawn a comparable conclusion "SOMETIMES" had you attended; perhaps, also, you might wish to watch the video...catch the name of the lad who issued the allegation...and inquire gently [for yourself] to probe the credibility of his tale-of-woe [or ask a friend to do so].

I find it disgusting, yet typical of you, to doubt the integrity and truth behind the statements made by the bullied teen. Why is it that only the people whose thoughts and opinions you disagree with are the ones who must prove anything. That sort of closed-mindedness towards anything you don't believe in is exactly why reporting bullying often (or SOMETIMES) does not result in anything more than making it worse. Because the people who think they are authority figures do nothing but demand proof and when that proof cannot be provided (even though it IS true) it makes the situation even more unbearable for the victim.

It would be like me asking you that I'll trust each individual among the clergy who spoke against the ordinance when you can prove to me that they did not molest anyone. It would be foolish of me to ask such a thing and poses no significance to the statements they made, but at the same time it attacks the integrity of the message-bearer which is what you did and what you are continuing to do.

You want to bring everyone to the "light" yet you are amongst the most closed-minded people who comment here. And as Joseph mentioned above...this is NOT blogging. It's commenting. I would suggest you look up the difference (I know you love giving out homework so there's some for you).

Now I leave you to dismiss my statements by calling this an ad-hominem attack allowing you to continue to ignore the merits of what I (& others) have been saying.

@ Lombardi - I

Let's transcend your predictable "disgust" to analyze your flawed analysis.

I did not "doubt the integrity and truth behind the statements made by the bullied teen"...merely by raising the prospect that he might be exaggerating what may have transpired; do you reflexly concur with every allegation [recalling the Duke Lacrosse debacle] that serves merely to conflate your worldview? What's wrong with noting these are "allegations" that could be false?

You then inquire [absent a question-mark, rendering this an "interrogatory statement" as per William Safire...a phrase he coined during a conversation in 1995] as follows: "Why is it that only the people whose thoughts and opinions you disagree with are the ones who must prove anything." I apply initial skepticism to all input, particularly my own.

You then compound your erroneous projections: "That sort of closed-mindedness towards anything you don't believe in is exactly why reporting bullying often (or SOMETIMES) does not result in anything more than making it worse." And "SOMETIMES" it doesn't, don't you agree?

[to be continued]

@ Lombardi - II

And, lest you "stop digging" when you are already 6'-deep, you add: "Because the people who think they are authority figures do nothing but demand proof and when that proof cannot be provided (even though it IS true) it makes the situation even more unbearable for the victim." I am suggesting that proof is indeed available and could be produced [e.g., witnesses?]. Would you mind it if he were merely asked to provide the who, what, where, when, why, how?

Unwilling to restrain yourself, you create a totally disconnected metaphor: "It would be like me asking you that I'll trust each individual among the clergy who spoke against the ordinance when you can prove to me that they did not molest anyone." No, it wouldn't; THAT is why I ensured the word "SOMETIMES" was inserted...so that you would be less inclined to misquote me. Of course, that you stooped so low [in desperation] isn't surprising, but it is no less illegitimate.

You climax thusly: "It would be foolish of me to ask such a thing and poses no significance to the statements they made, but at the same time it attacks the integrity of the message-bearer which is what you did and what you are continuing to do." No, it would be wise for you to probe his assertions, for you certainly have no problem doing so in my case; you give him a pass, while you aggressively attack my observations [incorrectly, of course].

[to be continued]

@ Lombardi - III

It is partially true, as you note, that "You want to bring everyone to the 'light'yet you are amongst the most closed-minded people who comment here." I'm eager to help the reader appreciate key-truths, minus your obfuscation, but this doesn't preclude my maintaining a "CLASSICAL" Liberal-Mind [in counterdistinction to how it has been corrupted notably during this millennium as per BHO].

You then request definitional input: "[T]his is NOT blogging. It's commenting. I would suggest you look up the difference (I know you love giving out homework so there's some for you)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog

"A blog (a portmanteau of the term web log)[1] is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order so the most recent post appears first.... most good quality blogs are interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments and even message each other via GUI widgets on the blogs and it is this interactivity that distinguishes them from other static websites.[2] In that sense, blogging can be seen as a form of social networking. Indeed, bloggers do not only produce content to post on their blogs but also build social relations with their readers and other bloggers...."

Thus, this encompasses the word "comment" and, therefore, your nit-picking effort [and that of Joseph] cannot survive even superficial scrutiny.

[to be continued]

@ Lombardi - IV

You end with another negative-prediction: "Now I leave you to dismiss my statements by calling this an ad-hominem attack allowing you to continue to ignore the merits of what I (& others) have been saying."

Having proven its falsity, we must now return to [1]--your having admitted I was correct, [2]--your not having retracted your prior sweeping accusations, and [3]--your responsibility to rectify errors in your "blog/comment/posting" that have been distilled...for your edification and enjoyment.

-30-

And allow me to in turn analyze YOUR flawed analysis.

You said: "I did not "doubt the integrity and truth behind the statements made by the bullied teen".

Ok...then what did you do?

You then follow that up with "..merely by raising the prospect that he might be exaggerating what may have transpired."

Doctor...do you understand exactly what doubting integrity and truth means? If you think he's exaggerating then...YOU think HE'S lying. You've now delved into defeating your own statements in the very same sentence. When you're looking up the definition to blogging, also be sure to check out "exaggerating" and "lying."

And there's the nitpicky grammar lesson that usually occurs immediately when your argument goes spirallng towards defeat. The question mark was inadvertently left out.

@ Lombardi

Regarding: "If you think he's exaggerating then...YOU think HE'S lying."

You are grossly flawed.

The key-distinction [as was carefully prophylaxed] between "lying" and asserting something erroneous is intent; he may not realize that there is any disconnect between his perceptions and what actually transpired.

That is why you - and your cohorts - should encourage him to report his experience to the authorities...who are best equipped to address its myriad implications.

Now, answer my specific/referenced queries and stop confabulating!

I agree that this should have been included, but, to be fair, the mentally handicapped are covered under Pennsylvania law already while sexual orientation is not. In the end, though, I do think it would send a better message if it really was truly an all inclusive ordinance.

i believe they are covered under the ADA

http://nsarco.com/listofdisabilities.html

i am blogging/commenting on a social-commentary site hosted by a 3rd party.

Now, do YOUR homework supra!

Blogging and commenting are not interchangeable words. I'm trying to educate you on the matter but your refusal to take even the smallest amount of criticism from anyone who you disagree with is preventing you from accepting that information. It's fine if you want to continue misusing the word -- I'm just trying to help you.

And to give you more insight into what this very website is, allow me to provide to you the information on PATCH taken from the site itself:

QUOTE
What is Patch?

Simply put, Patch is a new way to find out about, and participate in, what’s going on near you.

We’re a community-specific news and information platform dedicated to providing comprehensive and trusted local coverage for individual towns and communities.

We want to make your life better by giving you quick access to the information that’s most relevant to you. Patch makes it easy to:

Keep up with news and events
Look at photos and videos from around town
Learn about local businesses
Participate in discussions
Submit your own announcements, photos, and reviews
UNQUOTE

This is not a blog. Not yours. Not mine. Not anyone else's. Your comments here is not a form of blogging (even though your multi-part diatribes sometimes treat it as such). And with that I'll drop that particular subject because I'm just flogging a dead horse here.

thanx, now do your homework, as assigned [on multiple occasions, in myriad ways] supra

this was your first good idea of the day

What is my homework assignment actually? I haven't been able to discern an actual question to which you are seeking an answer or response as opposed to the countless rhetorical questions in your own myriad of disjointed and long-winded comments. If you have a question in which you genuinely want me to answer and not provide you with information that you will choose to ignore, then I will gladly answer. So please...give me a summary of question you want answered honestly supra.

You need only hit "control-F" to "find" all the question-marks, and to reply accordingly.

You can start with addressing the categories of concerns that I previously articulated:

http://abington.patch.com/articles/abington-to-advertise-anti-discrimination-hearing

Here are a few more:

What business would want to locate in a region where--for whatever reason--it would be forced to defend a hiring/firing decision publicly while fending-off claims of sexism?

Where is the burden-of-proof when, as is famously noted, an individual may wonder how to regain his/her reputation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Donovan

Indeed, how does government crawl into the mind of another individual to gauge occupational "intent"?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1290885.html

Hartman is touted as serving as the legal foundation for this effort, but note this key-conclusion therein:

"...[T]he Ordinance violates Section 2962(f) of the Home Rule Law, which states that a home rule municipality “shall not determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers ․ except as expressly provided․” 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(f). The trial court found that the Ordinance places duties and responsibilities on businesses, occupations and employers and that there is no statute, including the PHRA, which expressly authorizes municipal legislation dealing with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.   Therefore, the trial court held that, to the extent that the Ordinance does so, it is ultra vires.  (Trial Ct. Op. at 14.)"

How do you defend the rationale for this ordinance, when it is based on quicksand?

Do you concur that it is problematic [and perhaps instructive] that the Solicitor failed to weigh-in on the legality of this effort?

What "local Abington courts" would have the ability to exert jurisdictional authority?

if he reports the assault, perhaps justice will be done, no?

how did you "know" there were no witnesses?

do you not deny the possibility that the authorities could handle both the felony-allegation and the potential counseling fall-out that could result?

do you not see a role for input of clergy when invoking their professional capabilities?

do you not think that Chief Kelly would want to know who had been the alleged perpetrator?

would you defer to the expertise of the individual who is most responsible for law-enforcement in Abington?

do you not assume [falsely] that Chief Kelly would be unable to take the accuser's psychological status into account?

would you not allow for an expert to involve all other available experts to resolve this issue?

why do you condemn all input from the clergy as "a group of individuals who in recent years have fallen more and more under scrutiny for their often improper and illegal relationships with children"?

how were you bullied?

why did you discount tthe credibility of the definition from Wikipedia without even providing proof that it was erroneous?

After you have answered these queries, you can double-back to my four-part series and discern the specific challenges contained therein.

After reading your multi-part treatise, I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of answering your litany of questions because I don't think you really care about my answers. You only ask questions to try and pick apart the answers to prove your own beliefs correct. I'm not interested in participating with that sort of disingenuous line of questioning.

@ Lombardi

I care...I really CARE...I REALLY CARE!

[The question that emerges, unfortunately, is, do you?]

@ Lombardi

I exhaustively honored your request ["So please...give me a summary of question you want answered honestly supra."] simply by distilling a bunch of prior observations [that you had pointedly ignored, as they had accumulated].

You renege on your pledge by spinning a vacuous rationalization ["I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of answering your litany of questions because I don't think you really care about my answers. You only ask questions to try and pick apart the answers to prove your own beliefs correct. I'm not interested in participating with that sort of disingenuous line of questioning."]

Creating a tantrum for yourself and then conveniently assuming it had been triggered simply by listing a few distilled queries [promptly, @ your request], this is childish...indeed infantile.

So you choose not to honor your commitment...so sad, but so revelatory!

I chose not to answer your questions because most of them were completely irrelevant to our particular discussion and a portion of the few remaining on-point questions were misleading. As someone with a law degree you should know better than that.

@ Marc

First of all, I do not have a law-degree; secondly, however, it is "cute" that you would retroactively opt-out of fulfilling your pledge to complete your homework.

Victor, assuredly, would either "fail" you or allow you to be granted [temporarily] an "I" [for "incomplete"] until you will have expeditiously completed your assignment.

@Sklaroff
You're an Internet troll (look it up). The best advice is not to feed the trolls.

@ ML

Again, with the accusations...

Just admit you don't want to do your homework and recede...unless of course the "dog ate it."

I don't know; let's find out!

You're asking to prove the unprovable. Your reasoning is flawed.

Asking someone to prove that unwitnessed bullying occurred is like asking a priest to prove God exists. Sometimes it must be taken in faith without proof.

how do you know it wasn't witnessed?

I don't. And even if it was, witnesses often keep quite due to the idea of "Snitches get stitches"

so if you don't know, let's find out

and your "snitches" quote is antithetical to the norms of law-enforcement, so it's best ignored

first, it must be discerned if there were no witnesses; otherwise, it's akin to wondering how much sound is heard when one claps astride the tree.

second, you are presumptuous and self-contradictory to aver that an infraction of the law isn't a matter for law-enforcement

Wow. You are conceited. To think that you can answer an age old question... just... wow.

Also, you are far too obsessed with the law. Go start prosecuting everyone who jaywalks.

Transcend, please, your amazement that I could toss your tangential, absurdist pseudo-metaphysical comment back-atcha and recognize that a "reductio ad absurdum" argument simply won't survive the scratch-and-sniff test.

Absurdist? A question that has remained unanswered (and famously so) since the early 1700s is not absurdist or psueo-metaphysical. It just is. It is a question of philosophy and you have missed the point. You really are just the most conceited person I have ever encountered. As Mark said you do not care about others' answers, just "showing them the light". You really are the "bringer of light." Seriously, look it up. Maybe then you'll stop using the phrase. And again, you aren't blogging. Maybe you should create a blog, then see how many people view it (use google analytics) and then gauge if people actually want to read your nonsense.

your abrasiveness doesn't absolve you from responding to the focused-observation that "you are presumptuous and self-contradictory to aver that an infraction of the law isn't a matter for law-enforcement"

It does. You should reread everything written and realize that what I wrote states what I believe: A CHILD'S PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING TRUMPS A SIMPLE ASSAULT PROSECUTION.

from your extensive knowledge-base, please provide one article that concludes that it is always psychologically damaging to a child when he/she reports abuse

and when you can't, start walking-back your multiple assertions, for you surely must soon reccognize you have placed yourself into a dead-end posture

Why don't you do the same from the opposite end? Oh... you can't... because it is impossible from either end. At least I recognize that. I work in a school and have taken classes in child psychology. I assume you haven't. I therefore assume I know more about this than you. Stop treating everyone else like the burden of proof lies on them.

the entire weight of jurisprudence supports my view that we are a nation of laws that must be enforced

noting your claimed-expertise in child-psyche, you should be able to rattle-off any number of studies that would support your notion

No one was talking to you.

This being a public-venue, Victor merely weighed-in following review of your flawed input; perhaps you should not ignore his observation.

Stop defending the absurd. You're crazy.

Also, you are more quick to answer any response, therefore showing that you are in more need of a life than anyone else responding here.

I am not "crazy" because I can so very adroitly parry your comments; they are such easy-pickins!

You are seriously an idiot... that's why discussing things with you is so difficult. It is near impossible speaking with a fool.

"sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"

is this the type of name-calling that you learned how to emit during your schooling [both as student and teacher]?

Most serious studies are not posted online (you know, because they are serious). But here is a simple article which states what has previously been said about reporting bullying and why students do not do it.

http://www.education.com/reference/article/why-kids-do-not-report-bullying/

Yet again, go out after jaywalkers and people who drive slightly above the speed limit if you are so worried about every single infraction.

And it's "but words will never hurt me." At least get it right...

"words" = calling me "names"

do you really think referring to me as a fool or as an idiot will further your cause?

Getting you to stop behaving foolishly? Possibly.

@ JF - I

As my mother used to say, "now we're cooking with GAS!"

Your reference fails to support your assertion.

First, it does not support your conclusion, for it merely discusses why bullying is under-reported; indeed, it notes: "Schools cannot help if children do not entrust them with information. So why don't children report bullying?" Authorities are stopped from assisting if they are kept ignorant of facts, a lamentation that constitutes the theme that is developed throughout the rest of this article.

[to be continued]

You clearly did not read the full article. It states that students should not be put in the same room. In other words, one should not know that the other reported.

@ JF - II

The explanations are as follows: Adults Rarely Intervene; Students Fear Retaliation and a Reputation as a "Rat"; Students Don’t Want to Lose Power; Students Don’t Recognize Subtle Bullying; and Students Feel Ashamed, Afraid, or Powerless.

These may or may not be applicable in the instant-case, although the remedy recommended certainly is:

"What Can Adults Do?

"If we want children to talk to us and ask for help, we need to invite them to report. And effective adult follow-through is critical. This means 'walking the talk' of bullying prevention, and addressing the power imbalances that put children who bully, those who are bullied, and bystanders at risk of perpetuating abuse. Bringing children who bully and those they bully into the same room to talk is not advisable. Intervening, making plans for behavior change, and continuing to check in on an individual basis with the students involved is best.

"Adults can also give young people tools to help them evaluate when and how to report. Teaching about the distinction between reporting (telling to keep someone safe) and tattling (telling to get someone in trouble), for example, can help them make responsible decisions. This, in turn, can empower everyone in schools to help prevent inequity and suffering."

[to be continued]

@ JF - III

One must conclude that your single literature-citation supports my viewpoint, namely, that Adults must not tolerate reluctance to report...and must demonstrate that they will invite/accommodate/act accordingly.

Q.E.D.

{"You lose!"}

@ JF - IV

You falsely claim "You clearly did not read the full article. It states that students should not be put in the same room. In other words, one should not know that the other reported."

Uh, no, YOU didn't read the entire article. One of the remedies is to separate the kids, but how could that transpire in the absence of reporting?

{Translation: "You Lost; Stop Digging!"}

Way to prove me right and show you do not actually read your sources. (check my explanation below). Now as you have fully lost (as you like so much to couch discussions in a win-lose scenario). I must go and make dinner because as Victor wanted me to have one, I do have a life, unlike you Mr. Sklaroff.

As you dine, ponder this:

You have demonstrated the "Way to prove me [Sklaroff] right and show you do not actually read your sources. (check my explanation ABOVE AND below). Now as you have fully lost (as you like so much to couch discussions in a win-lose scenario), [you may wish to try to fill-in the tunnel-hole you have excavated for yourself]."

{Translation: "Tell the kid to file a report with the authorities, ASAP!"}

You ignore my definition and my explanation still.

Come clean implies that there was wrong doing on the person's part who must "come clean." Someone with such a high verbal score should know that. Your assumption he is lying is just uncalled for and your supreme need for "justice" is absurd.

As I said before, if you are so worried about authorities cracking down on every single legal infraction, please start with things that will not psychologically injure children.

Also to go along with my definition, the article I gave you defined tattle: "tattle (telling to get someone in trouble)" which is essentially what you want them to do.

First, the thrust of the article you cited remains to emphasize the need to invoke the authorities...as long as the kid can feel something substantive will result; the "tattle" discussion was secondary.

Second, claiming the kid should "come clean" infers the need for him to divulge particulars to an authority-figure will will act accordingly; for now, you cannot deny the possibility that he has mis-perceived what may have transpired.

This is truly becoming tiresome, noting that you have been reduced to quoting phrases totally out of context to support your now-discredited contentions.

Here is the full quote, provided supra:

"Adults can also give young people tools to help them evaluate when and how to report. Teaching about the distinction between reporting (telling to keep someone safe) and tattling (telling to get someone in trouble), for example, can help them make responsible decisions. This, in turn, can empower everyone in schools to help prevent inequity and suffering."

So, when you ask "what do you want them to do?" you prove the argument that, yes, they must be helped to learn how to rule-out tattling and rule-in reporting...and to pursue the latter course.

{Translation: "Are you now lost among the kangaroos?"}

Reporting v. tattling, you should learn the difference because based on what you wrote, you clearly do not. Reporting to the police is the highest form of tattling. Ask any child and they will agree.

The quoted source wants the adults should take control and notice and students (not the ones being bullied) should report it. This means the burden of reporting should not really be on the bullied, but on the bystanders. In other words, leave the poor kid alone and try harder to stop the bullying before it starts.

If you are going to pretend that you have intelligence, please raise your reading comprehension.

"Reporting to the police is the highest form of tattling. Ask any child and they will agree."

First of all, if you are truly a teacher, you should know that you have committed a grave grammatical error; you used a plural pronoun ["they"] to represent a singular ["child"] antecedent.

Second, I would suspect that a reasonable person...and Chief Kelly...would not concur that informing an authority figure--such as a police-officer--of a crime is the :"highest form of tattling."

Tattling entails an effort to attain personal secondary-gain, not to report dutifully a crime.

And you are mind-reading this interpretation into the citation, for its thrust is overtly otherwise.

You write "The quoted source wants the adults should take control and notice," but how is this to transpire if they are left ignorant...at your behest?

No where does it state [or imply] that "students (not the ones being bullied) should report it." [imagine the situation where no one can serve as a witness, as you have previously conjured]

So, your conclusion [" the burden of reporting should not really be on the bullied, but on the bystanders. In other words, leave the poor kid alone and try harder to stop the bullying before it starts."] is completely fabricated, not surprising after you have been demonstrated to resemble the emperor who sports no clothing.

How did you do in your SAT-Verbal? I got a 687 in 1969. {...and an 800 in Math [twice] in 1969} You may wish to brush-up!

Actually I got a 780 in verbal and a 730 in math (hats off to you for beating me in math, but I was always more of a word person anyway). The grammatical error is not actually wrong because if you do not wish to choose a specific "he" or "she" you are allowed to use the form "they." Maybe you should brush up.

Now for substance (ad hominem... eh?)

"Tattling entails an effort to attain personal secondary-gain, not to report dutifully a crime."

Tattling does not entail an effort for personal secondary-gain. It is about getting others in trouble (please check some sources as you are so adept). What else would you expect reporting to the police would do?

As for what I said before, the article basically implies (thus my call for greater reading comprehension on your part) that adults and bystanders need to be more aware of what is happening. Please be calm and reread so you can actually comprehend what was written.

Once again my life calls. Do I need to repeat that you should find one as well? Maybe with your free time you should start patrolling the streets of Abington or Philly. Not to stereotype, but try starting with North Broad or parts of Cresmont (really I'm just going by crime rates and local neighborhoods so don't look too much into it). I'm sure you would be able to find plenty of crimes to report that might not cause children psychological damage.

"Note that this and that are used with singular nouns. These and those are used with plural nouns."

http://www.englishgrammar.org/demonstrative-pronouns/

{Clearly, singular-singular and plural-plural are linked.}

*

tat·tle (ttl)
v. tat·tled, tat·tling, tat·tles
v.intr.
1. To reveal the plans or activities of another; gossip. See Synonyms at gossip.
2. To chatter aimlessly; prate.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tattle

{Clearlly, reporting dutifully to the authorities isn't consistent with idle-chatter.}

*

Therefore, you hide behind a truism ["adults and bystanders need to be more aware of what is happening"] to obfuscate the fact that you are foolishly trying to defend an obvious grammatical error and an even more obvious word-usage gaffe.

First of all, it's "Crestmont"...not "Cresmont."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crestmont_Farms,_Philadelphia,_Pennsylvania

Secondly, perhaps you would want to set a fine example of crime-reporting by encouraging the young-lad to 'fess-up!

My apologies for the misspelling of Crestmont.

You are still wrong about tattle:

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/tattle

No one uses it to mean gossip. Go ask an English teacher or literally anyone besides you (in fact you even used it in another sense in an earlier post).

My grammar is also still right (you didn't address a single part of my reasoning for the correct grammar).

All of this is besides the point because you do like to go ad hominem yourself.

I still maintain to tell the cops is to tattle to the highest authority. Also, what does the person who was assaulted have to "come clean" about? Why are you assuming the victim to be at fault? That's some pretty backwards logic there.

At the very least you have to give me the tattle thing. Even if the definition from "freedictionary.com" doesn't agree, all people use it the way I described and provided a link for. If you don't admit that you do seriously prove that you are a fool who does not care whether or not you are wrong, just that you "win," which is not a very good way to get people to actually agree with you.

I "give" you what you merit...and that remains NOTHING!

You agreed you misspelled "Crestmont," you can't defend the erroneous pronoun, and you dismiss my referenced-definition.

If this represents intellectual honesty, what would you ever admit to having substantively done erroneously?

*

And note, finally, that I state the young-un should tell the AUTHORITIES what had happened, "come clean" with the who/what/where/when/why/how...because it is vital to uproot evil, wherever it may reside. He may be correct [and the perpetrator must be called-out], he may have misperceived [and may then himself merit counseling] or the truth may lie in-between [and all parties may then require individualized guidance].

This is how problems are solved, rather than denied. We all want to be out-of-the-closet, right?

@ KF - per-request

"Intervening, making plans for behavior change, and continuing to check in on an individual basis with the students involved is best."

{Translation: "You are approaching the core-of-the-earth; do you really aspire to emerge in Australia?"}

I only wish you had been granted the opportunity to testify for it is obvious that you harbor individual expertise that the Commissioners would have benefited from having heard discussed.

Places of religion are excluded, don't be silly and think that just because your religion discriminates that everyone should.

What religion do you think I follow?

And, BTW, why does your name ["Joseph Finnick"] not "Google"?

The tattle discussion is not secondary. It is primary. The article specifically states for students to not tattle, or in more current terms, "rat." There is no more despised rat than one that goes to the cops (I'm sure the Chief would agree). Seriously, you are not nearly an expert in this whereas I work in a school and know better. Mark also provided anecdotal evidence to support what I said.

Your specific religion does not matter to me. What mainmorality wrote claimed that the government is saying religion is outmoded. I was responding to that. There are all sorts of religions that do things that are illegal (polygamy, smoking marijuana, etc.) and these are not allowed either. Why should discrimination be tolerated?

My name does not google because I go by my middle name. I am unsure why you so wish to look me up anyway since you have no desire to go ad hominem.

The point about tattling ["Teaching about the distinction between reporting (telling to keep someone safe) and tattling (telling to get someone in trouble), for example, can help them make responsible decisions."] was portrayed as a secondary concern, and the key-goal is to encourage behavior that is viewed as "telling to keep someone safe."

If approaching the police is perceived as excessively threatening, school authorities should be notified; wouldn't you want to know of any such activity within your classroom?

Finally, assuredly, your assumption is erroneous: "There is no more despised rat than one that goes to the cops (I'm sure the Chief would agree)."

Most people have grown to condemn "don't ask...don't tell" approaches to sexuality-issues, and no school should be deemed to be an oasis for crime.

I would hope that those who would "blink" rather than deign even to involve school personnel on problems that could escalate if not resolved, would reassess their postures.

This is nothing against the police. They do a fine job and deserve respect. This is a matter of child psychology, something you and Mr. Sklaroff refuse to acknowledge. The expulsions probably did not end the behavior, just made it more underground. Ask anyone who has studied behavior modification: punishment does not work to change behavior. That is education 101.

how do you know it went :"underground"?

how can you aver we avoid dealing with child-psyche, when we consistently note that authorities [police and school] are able to tap such resources?

how can you decry any type of punishment/criticism for committing a felony?

Most times a behavior is punished, people still try to get away with it but out of sight of those able to punish (think people speeding, but slowing down when they see a cop). That is how I know. How do you know it doesn't? Assault is a misdemeanor (usually). And as said repeatedly by others on here, counseling is rarely enough so those sources that the police are able to tap and I'm sure they would do their best, are not enough. The problem is more systemic. You are trying to treat the symptoms and not the cause.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the definition of tattle.

First of all, regarding "Tattling," you are invited to Wait...for Godot.

Second, even if "Most times a behavior is punished, people still try to get away with it but out of sight of those able to punish (think people speeding, but slowing down when they see a cop)," but this admittedly is not a universal phenomenon. So you must deal with the possibility that law enforcement can both protect the innocent and spur improvement of the guilty.

If "That is how I know," your ability to fantasize knows no bounds. I never claimed to "know" otherwise, except to adhere to the rule-of-law.

"Assault is a misdemeanor (usually)," but aggravated assault is a felony. Thus, it is vital to discern precisely what happened in a given altercation...lest issues get out of control [recalling Sanford].

How do you know "counseling is rarely enough"? How do you know "those sources that the police are able to tap and I'm sure they would do their best, are not enough"? And how do you know school-based counseling couldn't help? And, recalling a prior query, would you not want to know of such activity within your classroom?

The problem may or may not be "more systemic," and I am "trying to treat the symptoms" AND "the cause," for I would want to discern what it is [unlike the path you follow, whereby you deny yourself the possibility of determining the "cause.".

As you reply to these queries, please reference your assertions.

Where are any of your references? Legitimate education studies are published and therefore not available online for free. I actually studied this. You have not. All of your questions could be turned right back at you. I love how you refuse to acknowledge any time you are ever wrong. It really supports how much people should trust your views.

i cited your reference, now answer the questions...or rescind your assertions

So your citation is me? That makes no sense... even for you that's a stretch. I already told you why I cannot provide sources, please read my responses next time.

my [extensive] citation is supra

if you wish to defer providing a literature-reference, just ans wer the prior queries, directly derivative of your assertions.

Citing me is crazy, especially when you do not actually cite me correctly. You just raise questions based on a vague reading of what I wrote. I answered all questions already. Reread my responses and realize that I unlike you studied this but cannot supply you with studies because they are not published for free online. Can't you ever admit when someone knows more on a subject than yourself (other than the police)?

spoonfeed time

"Would you not want to know of such activity within your classroom?"

Should be reported by bystanders to avoid tattling.

Mr. Sklaroff, you have not actually said anything of substance in a while and our conversation is at the point where you want me to literally repeat myself so you don't have to actually read what I previously wrote. I am discontinuing this conversation and claiming, much in your fashion, that I "won" because you have nothing new or provable to say and you are no where near an expert. Have a pleasant evening.

If there are no bystanders, would you want to know if a student in your classroom had been subject to bullying?

yes

you libs will do anything to suppress speech-freedom, when you don't like what's being conveyed...how sad

God wrought something in the ordinance? Cool! I knew he would embrace everyone made in his image. Take a note....it's not only the American thing to do, now it's also the Christian thing to do. Go Abington!

"OMG...If we let the gays marry then what's next? People marrying dogs? Marrying their toasters?!?"

The examples you are providing are not valid examples -- you're using hyperbole (just like I did) to try and make a point and that never works. The Anti-Discrimination Ordinances currently in place (new and old) protect those who support the U.S. Constitution and support those who believe in the Freedom of Speech.

I think you're confusing the reasons for an Anti-Discrimination Ordinance with something that it's not. Time limits are not discrimination. Only allowing ME to speak for 3 minutes but allowing YOU to speak for 15 minutes would be discrimination. Telling a kid that he is not allowed to have Bible Study class in a public school after hours is not discrimination, because the students can't have organized studying of the Koran, the Torah, the Satanic Bible or any other religious book either.

Well, I have documented such "discrimination" as ML depicts, both with regard to the biased imposition of time-limits and the prejudicial refusal to allow only some out-of-township speakers to proceed.

The thrust of the above argument is to express overall wonderment regarding what I have painstakingly documented, namely, that this is BAD LAW.

I spoke yesterday-p.m. with one of the individuals who spoke in favor thereof during the Public Hearing, and pointed-out just a few of the known-defects that were articulated [and never rectified] during public-comment. He admitted that he spoke on behalf of his religious institution, despite the fact that neither he nor anyone who was a member of this entity had actually demonstrated evidence of having READ the document. Yes, as I noted in my intro, this was akin to Pelosi's rationale for passing ObamaCare ASAP ["Pass it, and then we'll find out what's in it."] No, this is not good-government. And, notably, the D's appear--during this millennium, in particular--to have exerted a monopoly over promulgating this pattern of "leadership."

[BTW, the aforementioned individual admitted only to having "skimmed" commentary on Patch, on this page. He claimed the defects in the ordinance could be amended, but I noted that damage on multiple levels (personal, legal) could transpire in the interim.]