It should be noted that the discussion...
http://abington.patch.com/articles/abington-passes-anti-discrimination-ordinance
...culminated with "Joseph Finnick" refusing to reply to a key-question:
"If there are no bystanders, would you want to know if a student in your classroom had been subject to bullying?"
...along with a bunch of other questions.

This reflected both his intellectual and operational bankruptcy-of-ideas, and the absence of any reply from others of his ilk, to me, documents the importance of involving "adults" when dealing with a potentially-explosive issue such as this.

It is, perhaps, worthwhile, to recap the status of the pending-questions that arose during this extensive back-and-forth, for he pointedly refused to acknowledge the gravamen of the issues-at-play...
"you must deal with the possibility that law enforcement can both protect the innocent and spur improvement of the guilty"
...even as he delivered predictable ad-hominem parries...
"You are seriously an idiot... that's why discussing things with you is so difficult. It is near impossible speaking with a fool."
...rather than grappling with spoon-fed contradictions.

It should also be noted that this discussion entailed my having countered everyone delivering accolades for the passage of this ordinance...
Marguerite Sexton, Albert P, Eric Elvanian, Marc Lombardi, Protector, Betty Smith, Justice
...while sidestepping interpretive problems therewith...
including the Township Solicitor
...that the Commissioners also discussed [prior to ignoring them].

So that the new-reader can get up-to-speed rapidly, here is the article that was cited by Mr. Finnick [who has failed to divulge his last name]:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/why-kids-do-not-report-bullying/

It noted kids' reticence to report problems to the authorities was based upon the following: 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.

I concluded [based upon the summary @ the end of the article, infra]: "Adults must not tolerate reluctance to report...and must demonstrate that they will invite/accommodate/act accordingly."
...which could cause unnecessary $-liabilities.

Contradicting his desire to keep bulling "in the closet" within a failed conceptualization of "don't ask, don't tell," the article cited by "Finnick" issued this conclusory challenge:

"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."

Perhaps it would be wise for those who would condone muzzling these kids, instead, to take-heed of this challenge.

And, just perhaps, as a result thereof, the motivation to deal with the problematic details of this ordinance would be enhanced in the process.

Lest there be any ambiguity, note this quote from Abington Junior High School Principal Mark Pellico:

"Bullying in schools is a reality that can have a long lasting impact....[The program] raises awareness of the issues in our schools and creates a common language for students and teachers to recognize and report bullying incidents.”

Now, "Finnick" must rectify his cover-up rationalization with the reality-testing that the Abington School System is now promoting.

This discussion must not divert attention to the flaws of the ordinance, summarized both in the beginning of the prior Patch-page AND on an earlier Patch-page...
http://abington.patch.com/articles/abington-to-advertise-anti-discrimination-hearing
...and it will be of-interest to note whatever might be adopted on the MontCo-level.

Rather than rehash these issues, only one key-citation from the legal literature will be recapitulated here [Hartman]:

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

"...[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.)"

The Solicitor's silence--in this particular regard--was deafening.

To be fair, it is best to summarize the viewpoint that was conjured in-opposition to my perspective...prior to skewering it.

It was claimed that the police were ill-equipped to handle this issue, despite the fact that they could be viewed as part of a team-of-experts that would be mustered to confront "bulling" concerns. It was further claimed that this would be inherently "tattling" absent in the input of a witness, a posture that led to my having formulated the question [left unanswered] that was posted in the "parent" portion of this blog. And it was claimed that my focus on this issue could be redirected to other facets of law-enforcement. [These arguments were rephrased, absent pejorative lingo.]

My baseline posture is that further study was needed, specifically, along the lines that I carefully had articulated; that Abington is "no place for hate" has been manifest by programs that, as per admissions by advocates of the ordinance, have not been pursued PRIOR to the promulgation of new-law [that could scare-off business, that could unfairly injure reputations, that could subject the Township to avoidable liability....].

What most of the people commenting on this story seem to be missing is that this poor young man was allegedly the victim of a crime, possibly a hate crime. A crime victim has the ultimate right to report or NOT report an incident to the police. The reasons for not reporting a crime are countless and it is inappropriate to judge this poor student for not reporting when you have no idea what his background is or his reasons for not reporting. Also, by continuing to pick on him and make comments about him not handling his own situation correctly you are bullying him yourself. Show some respect for this child and his family.

I learned a bit more about this young lad, Mr. Cory Gibbons, this-p.m.

Apparently, he has volunteered @ the Abington Library to help people use computers.

One such individual--of geriatric age, whom I've known for decades--whom he helped in the library said to me unambiguously that this young lad had offered to provide private tutoring to him, an offer he had declined.

Thus, this enterprising youth is apparently using his "volunteer" position for private $-gain.

FYI.

Dear Sklaroff,

You're a dick.

Sincerely,
Humanity

I learned a bit more about this young lad, Mr. Cory Gibbons, this-p.m., @ a community gathering; a number of people complimented me on my assertiveness.

Apparently, he has volunteered @ the Abington Library to help people use the computers.

One such individual--of geriatric age, whom I've known for decades--whom he helped in the library said to me unambiguously that this young lad had offered to provide private tutoring to him, an offer he had declined.

Thus, this enterprising youth is apparently using his "volunteer" position for private $-gain.

FYI.

*

Here is the quote from this innocent teenager, c/o the Times Chronicle:

“I speak for myself and my fellow pupils when I say as tomorrow’s future leaders we do not and will not support a community where discrimination and ignorance are still in existence,” said 16-year-old Cory Gibbons.

*

I spoke with numerous people tonight regarding this situation, including a number of public figures; no one knew if any official policy statement regarding the desirability of encouraging students to report alleged-bullying episodes to the Authorities, had been adopted [on either the county or township level] by either commissioners or school boards.

The situation will be presented to the Abington School Board on Monday.

*

Finnick has been reduced to obscene name-calling and, thus, I have requested that his postings be banned on Patch.

Name calling is better than bullying a child.

Thanx.

Notably, it appears there is no opposition to my summary of my views, both related to the schooling-aspect of this problem and to the ordinance-defects.

Squawk!

Does that mean you support my view that reporting should be encouraged?

Did my comment lead you to believe it as such?

To make it easier...I'll restate what I said and make the more important words stand out.
I think the ANONYMITY offered by THE POLL will result in a TRUTHFULNESS from students that YOU WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN OTHERWISE and I commend the JHS and the school district for taking this very important step.

The results of an ANONYMOUS poll do not necessarily yield a consensus that the reporting should also be ANONYMOUS.

Therefore, I pose the following question to you, as well:

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

I do concur!

My last comment in making my statement a little more clear for those not paying attention:
Anonymous reporting of bullying is the only way to get an honest report of bullying, whether it's from the victim or someone who witnessed the bullying, and help protect the physical and emotional health of the children involved.

Thus, it appears you concur that REPORTING should occur.

[You may wish to convey these sentiments to "Finnick"!]

If you put as much effort into trying to understand what other people are saying rather than trying to twist and disect what others are saying in order to prove your own thoughts right, there would be about 1/2 the amount of comments on Patch as there are now. Allow me to further clarify my statment one final time:
I am NOT saying that I concur with any of your previously posted thoughts/statments on this issue and I am certainly not giving a blanket statment to such effect that all bullying should be reported. What I said was THE ONLY WAY TO GET AN HONEST REPORT OF BULLYING IS TO HAVE SUCH REPORTS BE DONE WITH ANONYMITY.

Allow me to draw a parallel to help make it easier for you to understand and more difficult for you to twist back around on me or anyone else: The best way to fight a fire is with water, but not ALL fires are best fought with water. Some fires, such as those that are electrical in nature, are better fought using a chemical suppressant whereas water would only make it worse.

Is that a little more clear? I hope so, because I am done explaining it.

And for the record: replace all mentions of "statment" with "statement."

Pivotal, here, is the fact that you concur that all fires must be fought.

This contrasts with acquiescing to a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality.

This allows for strategizing, and it does not allow for institutionalized-denial.

This allows for the authorities to invoke all available resources available to be mustered.

Let's see if your-pal "Finnick" concur with your fundamental intervention....

You may not concur with all of my statements [spelled correctly] related to this generic issue, but it would be helpful were you to ID any with which you agree.

Should that ever occur on this news site [correct terminology used] I will certainly comment to that effect.

"Pivotal, here, is the fact that you concur that all fires must be fought."

That's not true, and I never said such a statement. What I said was that "the best way to fight a fire is with water." I used not such all-inclusive statment as you somehow contrived from what I wrote.

And for the record -- not ALL fires SHOULD be fought. Ask any firefighter and they will tell you that some fires are best left to burn out on their own while prophylactic actions are taken to help prevent that fire from spreading.

As noted infra, your-guy "Finnick" expressed his personal "agree[ment] with Marc [yourself] that reporting anonymously should be done."

One cannot know how/whether to fight a fire if its existence has not first been ID'ed, right?

Just like "Finnick," it seems that you are incrementally moving towards my viewpoint!

If you think I am "incrementally moving towards [your] viewpoint" please rest assured that this is about as close as we will ever come to being of the same mindset on this matter. You can try to argue semantics and word choice until your heart's content, but I stand by my belief that the key to solving any crisis involving bullying is not centered upon reporting the acts. It's instead by doing anonymous research such as that which the AJH is doing which may help open the eyes of those around (and not immediatly involved).

Once you concur with the performance of anonymous research...and the reporting of bulling [by whatever mechanism]...then you should attain a comfort-level with the following: If the RESULTS of such research would entail encouraging kids to report bulling, it should be done.

You cannot simply stop-short after research/information has been attained, for it is then necessary to figure-out what to do about it; this syllogism is applicable both to the acquisition of anonymous [generic] perceptions and to the follow-up of a report [specific] regarding any problematic incident.

Again, I congratulate you [and "Finnick"] for continuing to corroborate the substance of my postings.

Again, you are drawing your own conclusions. I have not concurred with your throughts on reporting bullying. Not in the least. You can add as many of your own words to my comments with brackets to twist them around but it wont work. Neither Joseph nor myself have agreed with you in respect to the necessity to "report" bullying.

We have only agreed with one another (Joseph and myself) that the anonymous poll is a great step in finding out how much bullying exists without the knowledge of staff & administrators (and possibly other students) and in coming up with ways to prevent it.

First, your endorsement of this anonymous survey necessarily tethers to its outcome, and this could easily entail the need [as per the referenced article] to deal with reports [anonymous or otherwise] of bullying.

Second, I believe we established that--regardless of how one decides to confront the existence of a particular type of fire, or even whether to create brush-fires around it, to limit its ultimate scope--you would want to know of the existence of that raging fire.

This is the source of my gratification, and I thank you [and "Finnick"] for your gracious contribution to that emotional status; such an achievement is truly uncommon when commenting/blogging, and it clearly bespeaks your capacities to evolve in a positive fashion [even if it has to result from a certain degree of prodding].

Please don't be condescending. I did not "evolve." I've always been this way. Stop trying to seem superior.

"First, your endorsement of this anonymous survey necessarily tethers to its outcome, and this could easily entail the need [as per the referenced article] to deal with reports [anonymous or otherwise] of bullying."
That's not only a lot of supposition on your part but it also brings about your own hypothetical results. Therefore this entire portion of your statment is invalid.

"Second, I believe we established that--regardless of how one decides to confront the existence of a particular type of fire, or even whether to create brush-fires around it, to limit its ultimate scope--you would want to know of the existence of that raging fire."
Sometimes a fire is discovered without being reported by anyone (i.e. -- A pan on my range catches fire, I grab an extingisher and put out the fire. The event is never reported but the fire itself is put out). So in that case, what you say has been established is not correct.

"This is the source of my gratification, and I thank you [and "Finnick"] for your gracious contribution to that emotional status; such an achievement is truly uncommon when commenting/blogging, and it clearly bespeaks your capacities to evolve in a positive fashion [even if it has to result from a certain degree of prodding]."
So here is what I'm not sure why you're patting yourself on the back. You can continue your delusion if you wise, but I think it's been made abundantly clear by both myself and Finnick that you are incorrect in your assumption.

this last comment is addressed infra

I view this clarification as representing an incremental improvement in your stated-stance; for you now "agree with Marc that reporting anonymously should be done."

This contrasts with his most recent posting regarding fire-fighting; you guys should get your acts together, if some consensus is to emerge from these exchanges.

But know that reporting information to policemen is not always "tattling," so I guess we still have a ways to go, with you....

You have no where to go with me. I do not need to "see the light." I have stated previously, as had Marc, that reporting needs to be done anonymously and I had said repeatedly that bystanders are the best to do this. Really, Sklaroff, read.

"This contrasts with his most recent posting regarding fire-fighting; you guys should get your acts together, if some consensus is to emerge from these exchanges."

This is a very telling statement in regards to your psyche. It's clearly a "With Sklarfoff" & "Everyone Else" sort of world if you think that any belief that opposes your own has to have a mutual consensus.

I don't know Joseph Finnick. Never met the guy. (He seems decent enough.) Wouldn't know all of his beliefs nor, personally, do I particularly care. We are not going to agree 100% on everything and we are not even going to agree on how we disagree with you. The sooner you learn this, and the sooner you get away from turning everything here into a win or lose debate, the better it will be for everyone who chooses to comment on any of the articles on Patch.

As long as you concur with "reporting" [by whatever mechanism," you are answering the initial query in the affirmative, namely, that you [as a teacher] would indeed want to know of any bulling among your students.

Furthermore, although "bystanders are the best to do this," their absence must not preclude communication [anonymous or otherwise] of what transpired.

Now that these fundamental points have been established, in many respects, my work here is done.

Your level of conceit amazes me. These were established a long time ago, you just refused to acknowledge them because you wanted to seem like you "won."

I think I should continue to ask you age old philosophical questions so I can find out the world according to Sklaroff and be wowed. You already got the tree falling (though you asked yet again if there were people to hear it when it was clearly stated there were none) so how about you answer what is the sound of one hand clapping? (no cheating and closing your fingers into your palm); is nothing something?; or do we have free will? I'm sure you will be able to best centuries of the world's best thinkers.

I have been handling tag-team blogging, here, for a sustained period; I even listed the dramatis personae as part of my "case summary" supra. So part of this process is rectifying input when you-guys refer to each-other; it is that portion of the quote that served as the foundation for my comment...which you have failed to confront.

I don't know what's worse: The fact that you still keep referring to this as "blogging," the fact that you qualify your statements/comments as "case summary" (as if we were in a courtroom?), or the sense that everything is an argument that must be won or lost.

First of all, commenting. You are commenting, not blogging. You can apply to blog for Patch in the Local Voices section. Please stop refering to this as blogging (someone who is bothered by misuse of words or grammar such as yourself can understand how this bothers me).

Second of all, if you cannot follow my comments, then don't. I always answered your questions (usually before asked). You just never seem to read the response.

Hi Guys!

I'm really trying to remain on-topic as I comment on this blogging site [is that ok?] by noting that you are concurring with the need for the authorities to know what's transpiring [full-bore, absent-ambiguity].

The rest truly is "commentary."

*facepalm*

Still not a blogging website. This is a local news website with a blogging section (this is not the blogging section) but thank you for your consideration.

Yes, school officials need to know what is going on, but, as I was saying before, this comes down to the difference between reporting and tattling as to how it gets done. Ideally, administrators and teachers need to have the awareness of their classroom and bullying behaviors so that reporting does not need to be done. This is, however, not an ideal world, which is why anonymous reporting should be instituted so that people are not meant to get in trouble (as it would be difficult to validate claims anyway) but it is to create awareness of a problem so it can properly be addressed.

And I TOO am trying to remain on-topic when I note that neither Josepn nor myself have ever concurred with your statement that authorities need to know what's transpiring in order to prevent bullying.

i'm going to start another thread, to preclude excess-scrolling up-and-down

BTW, a clarification is in-order [along with a reply] to this query:

"I don't know what's worse: The fact that you still keep referring to this as "blogging," the fact that you qualify your statements/comments as "case summary" (as if we were in a courtroom?), or the sense that everything is an argument that must be won or lost."

First of all, when dealing with 3+ alternatives, you would want to know which is "worst" [because "worse" would be applicable to 2 alternatives].

Second, I will merely suggest that an argument is putatively "won" when one side doesn't change his position while those representing opposing viewpoints have unambiguously done so.

Concur with your view that " every school administration was doing its very best to help kids in dealing bullies."

This cannot occur in a vacuum; it must learn of what is transpiring, or it won't be able to do anything, let alone "its very best."

Let's see if Lombardi and Finnick can share in the rejoicing of your heart!

You're agreeing with a spammer. I hope you didn't click the link. If you did, you should probably run a virus-scan on your computer.

Thanx for the heads-up!

But her heart appears to be in-the-right-place.

Don't you agree?

Spambots don't have hearts.

[what would i encounter if i double-clicked over her hyperlink?]

Marc, SKYNET is allowed to be concerned for our children too.

I don't accept your congratulations because this is what I have always stated. I congratulate you for finally reading what I wrote. I have cited the need for a bystander frequently and bullying instances are usually near impossible to prove so it is difficult to actually punish, which, as previously stated, doesn't change behavior anyway.

You falsely assumed everything reported would yield punishment, despite the fact that I clearly delineated three generic outcomes [yesterday]; one would be focused on ensuring the perceptions of the individual who reported an aberration were helped to mesh with what may actually have transpired, and this would involve "counseling."

Also, that you have abandoned reliance on a "bystander" in ALL instances is what I found particularly refreshing.

I like to state that I take no such congratulations because my beliefs haven't altered from my original view, nor has any of your input changed any of my beliefs. So please stop giving yourself credit for something that hasn't taken place. And I'd like to note that your amalgamation of my persepective is not accurate.

I'll worry about my typos when you start calling this news site what it is and stop calling it a blog or your comments here "blogging." Fair enough? I will congratulate you upon that occurence.

Lastly, I'm not saying that awareness should be suppressed. Again, you're putting your own spin on this.

<----------- You "The Point" ----------------->

The original argument was about reporting to the police, which I was completely against and still am. Anonymous reporting in the said survey is truly ideal as it does not name any names (as any reporting should). A general reporting of something happening to someone in a given area is what should be done (therefore it is anonymous as to who is reporting and the exact instances). Again, ideally this will be done by bystanders. Also again, counseling doesn't always help the bullied so it should not be the crutch relied on to help.

Regarding your three above-points....

#1

Your endorsed performing this anonymous survey, and this posture necessarily tethers to its outcome; this could easily entail the need [as per the referenced article] to deal with reports [anonymous or otherwise] of bullying, to satisfy student-desires. Specifically, you attempted to reject everything because you accused me of relying upon "supposition," but you must accept the possibility that the survey COULD result in reaching a conclusion that supports reporting [as long as the culture of the institution mandates the authorities will have "listened" to the complaint]. Clarifying such "hypotheticals" is a standard debating-approach, and it's not limited to a classroom enterprise.

#2

You attempted to undermine the need to report ALL fires by claiming an individual could extinguish his own frying-pan conflagration. I would not rely upon a student to accomplish this end, for he/she remains a "minor" and cannot be saddled with such over-reaching self-imposed high-risk responsibilities-duties.

#3

You claim my assumptions regarding yourself and Finnick are incorrect, but you fail to ID what's problematic. Indeed, this is a pattern on your part, because [as requested earlier] you have not ID'ed statements I have made with which you agree.

Assuming the above comment is for me based upon my other comment above, I'll say this regarding your hypothetical questions:

If this were a courtroom (or a debate) which is how you treat every discussion in the comments on Patch, questions assuming facts and hypothetical questions are improper. The only time a hypothetical question is appropriate is if there is a vast amount of evidence to back it up and, in this case, there is none.

If I WAS to answer any of your hypothetical questions, a "yes" answer still would not constitute the truth when the hypothesis ends up not conforming to the facts.

In order for any hypothetical questions to be answered with any validity, I would need to be an expert in the subject and all other evidence (both supporting and to the contrary) would need to be taken into consideration.

So I stand by my statments in supra.

#2
You're drawing your own incorrect conclusion and twisting my words. Read it again. I'm not going to re-summarize my thoughts on either the case at hand OR the analogy I drew to someone who knows how to read.

#3
Consider the fact that I did not ID what I agreed with you on because, perhaps, there is nothing in which we agree. Congratulations! You're learning to comprehend what other people are writing! I think it's wonderful that Finnick and I have been able to help you make such wonderful progress in this. We're very proud for having taken part in helping you come so far in so little time.

[Thanx for shifting the discussion to this thread; it increases the chance that nothing will be lost-in-cracks.]

Marc, you write "I'm not saying that awareness should be suppressed," so you agree it should be reported [somehow]...which has been my posture from jump-shot.

"Finnick," you write "The original argument was about reporting to the police, which I was completely against and still am. Anonymous reporting in the said survey is truly ideal as it does not name any names (as any reporting should). A general reporting of something happening to someone in a given area is what should be done (therefore it is anonymous as to who is reporting and the exact instances). Again, ideally this will be done by bystanders. Also again, counseling doesn't always help the bullied so it should not be the crutch relied on to help."

I think you miss the point of a survey, as characterized by the school principal. "The program] raises awareness of the issues in our schools and creates a common language for students and teachers to recognize and report bullying incidents."

He wants *incidents* to be reported; there is no qualifier related to "generality," police, anonymity, bystanders....get it?

How WRONG you are!

"The only time a hypothetical question is appropriate is if there is a vast amount of evidence to back it up and, in this case, there is none."

Having experience being deposed, I can state with authority that no such "vast amount of evidence" is necessary to exist, prior to being posed with a hypothetical.

Thus, evasion fails; confront facts!

You write: "I did not ID what I agreed with you on because, perhaps, there is nothing in which we agree."

Clarity is in-order; you raise the "hypothetical" that "perhaps" there is no overlapping view; does this "mean" that "definitely" there is no concurrence?

I did not say I agree with the principal's statements, just the survey which will help raise awareness within the school. Although, it is also a two-way street as there is no qualifiers for anything specific within the incidents. Get it?

You have been reduced to splitting-hair.

You concur with the survey, but not its stated-purpose?

Puh-leeeeeeze!

You split the hair first and yes, sometimes you agree with only part of something, which in this case is to raise awareness and create a common language to recognize bullying. This sort of thing happens all the time.

modern-liberal rhetoric: "moral egalitarianism is controlling"

classic-liberal discourse: "deal with facts, devoid of obfuscation"

*

I do not split-hair, you do.

When I write that I support something, I do not subsequently attempt to demarcate a subset thereof...particularly when it represents the thrust of the argument.

Here, you retroactively reject the key-component of what you wrote you endorsed.

SOOOOOOOOOOO, SAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

Your first two sentences are completely off topic and so I will not address them.

Sklaroff, to be more fair, I never actually said I support exactly what is being done. I merely said, "a prevention program (like the one above)" is the best course of action. I did not state that the exact program is correct or that I approve of everything with it. I am for preventative measures. Even you should agree that reporting/tattling is a reactive form of dealing with a problem. Also, I would hardly call the reporting of specific instances (again even though it is never stated that specific instances, names, etc. should be reported) "the key component" of this program. Actually this is the smallest component because the program (if you cared to read into it) is mostly for preventative measures and creating a safe learning environment.

my focus has been on the allegation of physical abuse, notwithstanding anything you may write regarding the desirability of overall prevention measures

i do NOT agree "that reporting/tattling is a reactive form of dealing with a problem."

and your claim that "the reporting of specific instances...[is not] the key component of this program [because a]ctually this is the smallest component" directly contradicts the point made yesterday by the county-official [with whom i spoke] regarding the importance of pouncing upon such information--if nothing else--as a great "teaching moment" for all concerned

"Here, HERE!"

[couldn't have written it more succinctly]

Specifically, therefore, it would appear apt for the Abington Township School District personnel to contact Mr. Corey Gibbons to learn of the incident during which he claims he was physically abused for having been gay.

Wow... are you really doing this? I know the kid was brave enough to stand up and say something at the meeting, but should you really be doing this? Do you have no concern for this child? You seriously need to realize what you are doing right now and please delete your comments.

uh, yeah, i am; the effort will be "tracked" during the next school board meeting, as well.

the meeting is scheduled to start @ 7:30 p.m. this upcoming Monday; the comments-section is not delayed to the end [if memory serves] and you may wish to provide desired counter-point to what you can anticipate I will say

I anticipate more of the same from you. Nothing new as you have stated nothing new since you started commenting. You have just continued your ingnorant rants and publically antagonized a minor. I hope you are proud of your words because you make me ashamed of the human race.

when he claimed to have been physically assaulted, Mr. Corey Gibbons functionally "Emancipated" himself from being perceived solely as a "Minor."

you decline the opportunity to express your views where they might have maximal impact, compared with my having explored the issue--and articulated conclusion--@ the County Commissioner meeting

the contrast is telling

The claim of being assaulted does not emancipate someone from being a minor just as assaulting someone does not emancipate them from being a minor. I decline going to the meeting because I am unavailable. Again, please stop antagonizing a minor. It is people like you who make students not want to come forward about being bullied. You are going way over the line and if you have any shred of decency you will voluntarily delete your comments that use the student's name.

the student revealed his name, it's in the public-realm, and deleting it from Patch will not enhance appreciably any level of anonymity you would retroactively wish upon him

his claim of having been physically assaulted raises the stakes irreversibly, and you should not tolerate crime being committed in Abington, particularly within its schools

perhaps you will wish to ensure one of your ideological colleagues is present, if only to attempt to provide counter-point to my cogent-point

Just because someone was brave enough to speak publically doesn't mean they want some one rudely using it all over a more public website that can be easily accessed by anyone.

Your "cogent" (if you can call it that) point is not worth any of my colleagues' time as it is no longer worth mine. I only ask you to delete your uses of this student's name as right now you are cyber bullying this minor.

you claim i am "rudely...cyber-bulllying" simply by querying on a logical follow-up level

perhaps you attempt to transfer a level of discomfiture that has proven unsettling

the alternative is tacit endorsement of a potential-felony that, if ignored, could escalate

No, you are cyber-bullying a child. Please be the adult you can be and delete all uses of his name.

i note that you have failed to refute my key-concern regarding your postings:

"the alternative is tacit endorsement of a potential-felony that, if ignored, could escalate"

i have no personal experience in Abington regarding bullying, except to the degree to which i "called-out" Mr. Cory Gibbons simply by asking him if he'd reported his allegations to the school authorities

when i detected vagaries in-policy and idiocy on-line, i simply focused on remedying the former by applying quotations [particularly dealing with the need to refute "tattling" concerns] derivative of the latter

that is why i will suggest that a formalized policy-statement be concluded among all interested parties for, if nothing else, it appears there is a need for enhanced clarity

that is also why i will call upon school authorities to interview Mr. Cory Gibbons

i'm available @ 215=459-4877, 26 hours/day, 8 days/week

Sklaroff, what you are doing right now is bullying this student. Please stop being a jerk.

your expansile definition of "bullying" is not endorsed by the high-level law-enforcement county-official with whom i spoke yesterday

perhaps this approach poisons your other postings, explaining why you have been so consistently incorrect, as corroborated by an individual whose responsibility it is to address such issues

would you disapprove of the formulation of a unified approach to this problem, enmeshing people from township/county, school/police, parent/student, counselor/taxpayer?

I'm done with your nonsensical arguments. I just ask you to be an adult and stop bullying this child.

perhaps the diagnosis is that you [via transference] feel that i am bullying you [via postings that isolate your denial-efforts]

No. You are cyber bullying a child. Any school official could tell you so.

i'll be sure to inquire of the members of the school board whether my efforts have been inappropriate; one of your pals may wish to attend, in order to do so

indeed, perhaps Mr. Corey Gibbbons would want to be present, as well, to present his viewpoints/observations/suggestions

I think you keep using his name to further annoy me. You are being inappropriate and accusatory toward a minor. The worst part is that you do not even really know this child and yet you feel free to use his name in this public forum. I'm even sure that if the school board told you that you were bullying that you would just disagree with them and find "facts" to support your claims. I am done with this conversation and with you forever because you are truly a monster of a human being. You disgust me on a personal level. I hope you never have extended contact with children who are bullied as I am positive you will only make matters worse.

you simply project your insecurities regarding the abject collapse of your entire rhetorical-artifice when you accuse me of having been accusatory towards Mr. Corey Gibbons

[we chatted]

this article is of-interest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/school-bullying-overall-v_n_1076986.html

You do not tell truth. Your level of conceit knows no bounds. Most likely the only people who agree with you just don't understand your bloated language (stop using "supra" and "infra" no one is impressed). THIS IS COMMENTING NOT BLOGGING. Your arguments are far from cogent. You are not teaching anything other than by coming forward students who have been bullied will be attacked in public by jerks like yourself. You should go back and read Veronica Corningstone's posts. She makes a lot more sense than you do.

i humbly acknowledge accolades, particularly because efforts are always goal-oriented

As you have researched the child who you bullied, I have researched you Mr. Sklaroff. Here is the type of person you are:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/98D0129P.pdf

For someone who doesn't like government spending, you do like frivolous lawsuits that waste your own money and attempt to waste others'.

This matter was settled and represented a David/Goliath effort; the hospital-in-question no longer exists...and I was the first victim of AHERF's effort to control its Medical Staff [a scandal that led to AG-investigation and bankruptcy].

My litigation was intended to protect all physicians from being manipulated by the peer review process but, unfortunately, I encountered an unaccommodating judge.

Your research from the 90's reflects desperation, for you have expanded ad-hominem to avoid dealing with key-issues; attend the School Board meeting on Monday and let's see whose efforts prevail.

You went ad-hominem on a child! Do you not see your hypocrisy?

From the 90s or later, it doesn't matter because reading that opinion gave me all the satisfaction I need. You demonstrated the same type of "arguments" in that case and you ware handily defeated in a court of law showing that your "arguments" do not hold water.

you draw conclusions - as has been your pattern - without dealing with facts

in that case, a "peer review" effort was initiated that met fundamental criteria [as per admissions of those who participated therein] of neither the PA Peer Review Protection Act nor the National Healthcare Quality Improvement Act

you are grasping @ straws if you can draw any degree of satisfaction from awareness of this event, for it serves as a diversion from fundamental concerns

the arguments in that case were entirely different from what is transpiring in this blogging/comment-site, for it had to do with efforts of Administration to change the bylaws [inter alia] to control physicians [and transfer $ from grants to operating-funds to slush-funds]

You lost the case and your arguments were baseless and difficult to follow according to the opinion. So you can stop trying to defend that. Again, this is a local news website which you are spamming with your constant comments. Please don't use the word blogging because that is something completely different and there is no such thing as a commenting website. As to connecting your fake arguments here with your fake arguments in your frivolous lawsuit, I merely say that they are the same nonsensical "I'm right because I'm right and you're wrong because I say so" that you demonstrated previously. Did you read Veronica Corningstone's comment? Because she dealt with your "facts." Stop trying to ruin this young man's (stop calling him "lad" it makes you sound condescending) reputation. He has done nothing to you to create your bullying.

In the meantime I leave you with a quote that I think summarizes your mindset very well:

Adult: I got two queens, two jacks and an ace

Kid: I win.

Adult: Why do you win?

Kid: I got a two, a four, a ten, an eight and a six.

Adult: I don't understand. Why do you win?

Kid: Because I win.

Other Adult: What's the name of that game?

Kid: I win.

Yes, you are the kid in this situation.

The opinion did not end the matter; in a settlement, no one loses [by definition].

My arguments are well-referenced and are goal-directed; you obfuscate [and curse].

The lad's actions/words are targeted as grist for development of on-point policies..

Your under referenced opinions are often not goal directed (Attacking the kid for asking if a senior citizen wanted extra tutoring? Yeah, really goal directed.). My comments were meant to get you to think about what you were writing. Obviously nothing can cause you to do that. Maybe it's because even you can't stand to read your writing as it is often grammatically confusing and attempts to use words in novel ways that cause more confusion (the court opinion also said your writing is difficult to read, apparently you didn't get the hint in the last 20ish years).

Did you read Veronica's comment yet? It deals with your problems so you don't have to waste everybody's time on Monday.

i articulated my goals, which transcend the young-lad's fate; policies are needed, for example, so that young'uns such as this young-lad are not provided a stage upon which they can victimize the elderly

It's not victimizing the elderly to ask someone if they would like private tutoring. You are just trying to smear this kid's reputation and it is unwarranted. It is cyber bullying.

it could be, if it's viewed as inappropriate because he has not warned library personnel of this little extra-curricular [$-making] activity

You're stretching there. Just offering tutoring services is not inappropriate. It's not like he threatened to stop helping the gentleman in the library during his volunteer time unless he paid him for tutoring. Also, do you know that the library doesn't know that he tutors for money as well? The fact that he tutors might be why they brought him in as a volunteer in the first place. Your logic on this one is not right at all. Really you are just trying to be a character assassin for no reason other than you want to bully this child who came out and said he was bullied. Veronica stated simply that it his choice and his choice alone whether or not to file a police report and there could be a variety of reasons for not reporting it. What is your reason for bullying him here? Is it to satisfy your ego? Are you compensating?

i did; the young-lad may indeed have been victimized, and it's up to the Authorities to deal with this issue [not you, not me].

On the other hand, he may not have been and, thus, it would actually be desirable for both the young-lad and his parents to discern what prompted him to go public with his accusation.

So, this is why the school environment must be monitored, as per...
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20120416_Inquirer_wins_Pulitzer_Prize_for_school_violence_series.html
...which dramatized the risks of ignoring potential problems.

You obviously still didn't read her comment.

i did, and her content has been integrated within my battle-plan

Battle plan? Seriously?

You really didn't respond to her at all. You just repeated what you already said in your same condescending, bullying ways.

Yes, "seriously," for reasons aforementioned.

Again, come on Monday-p.m. and watch the show!

[Try to withhold expletives, for they won't advance your cause.]

I already told you that I cannot attend, but try to not be a condescending [expletive withheld] because it will not advance your cause.

Your repeated actions against this student are positively reprehensible and I hope that NO ONE you know ever has to suffer through the way that you refuse to let this situation die down. You make every effort to keep putting this kid's name out there and do so purposefully and with obvious ill intention. When you were chided for bringing up the student's name you "noted it had already been released publicly by the student, but the chair advised that it hadn't been done under his aegis..." and you "respected this request." Why are you refusing to continue to respect this request.

Your actions disgust me, and I hope everyone takes the opportunity to explain to you why what you're doing is wrong and more harmful to this child than anything that you THINK you are doing to make things "better." If anything, this is the sort of action that the ne Anti-Discrimination Ordinance should be protecting people from.

I would recomments that you read this site in its entirety to see if what you are doing is helpful or hurtful: http://www.stopbullying.gov/index.html

And then take a long look at yourself and your actions to see why a number of things that you are doing can be seen more as bullying than that what you say you are trying to stop.

recomments = recommend

There is nothing on Duncan's website that I violated and, further, I respected the request of the leader of the meeting of the School Board to reflect what transpired under his aegis.

Show me something specific that you allege I violated when dealing with Mr. Corey Gibbins' words/deeds [which y'all have not been able to defend]; show me where Patch requests withholding proper-nouns of people who have testified publicly regarding a given issue [and who have voluntarily divulged their demographics in the process].

Your ego and narcissism prevent you from recognizing the obvious: every time you mention this boy's name you put him in harm's way. Stop it. Your actions are disgusting and downright harmful & malicious.

PATCH'S ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (pt 1)

Acceptable Use Policy
Communities thrive when people care about each other, and as such, Patch expects all of its users to be respectful of others. If you notice any violation of this Acceptable Use Policy or other unacceptable behavior by any user, please report it to support@patch.com.

You are solely responsible for the Content that you post on the Service or transmit to other users. By using the Service, you agree that you will not hold Patch responsible or liable for any Content from other users that you access on the Service.

While we encourage people to be honest and post what’s on their mind, there are some types of Content that we simply can’t allow on Patch. We’ll go over some of the prohibited items below, but these are merely examples and the list is not intended to be exhaustive.

We understand that everyone has different opinions, but Patch will make the sole determination as to whether Content is acceptable for the Service. (Someone has to be in charge, right?)

(PART 2)
Without limitation, you agree that you will not post or transmit to other users anything that contains Content that:

•is defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive;
•infringes or violates another party's intellectual property rights (such as music, videos, photos or other materials for which you do not have written authority from the owner of such materials to post on the Service);
•violates any party’s right of publicity or right of privacy;
•is threatening, harassing or that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;
•promotes or encourages violence;
•is inaccurate, false or misleading in any way;
•is illegal or promotes any illegal activities;
•promotes illegal or unauthorized copying of another person's copyrighted work or links to them or providing information to circumvent security measures;
•contains “masked” profanity (e.g., F@&#)
•contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; or
•contains any advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation.

I have not violated Patch Policy and there is no evidence to support the allegation that I am somehow hurting Mr. Corey Gibbons each time I type his name.

This video reflects how I feel about you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg9Uyncl-fE

ad-hominem appears to be your dependable refuge, just as "patriotism" [to the GOP] and "social justice" [to the D's] serves a waste-basket role...when rhetoric needs to be invoked to avoid confronting facts

I must say that invoking Ferris was imaginative, but hyperlinking to a vulgar quote is far more denigrating to yourself, than to me

Strong words from someone who is bullying a child.

Please give specifics - how were they addressed?

dunno

It is the victim's right to report. Victims are not required to report anything. There are many reasons that could be given, most of them personal and related to the extra bullying that could take place.

Mentioning the child's name is extremely inappropriate. Speaking as a teacher, mentioning a child's name without that child's (or parent's) consent is extremely inappropriate. The way Sklaroff has been using it has been accusatory and insulting as well.

Joseph pretty much nailed it. Constant repeating of the student's name (when not only irresponsible but unneccessary) only brings the student's identity further into the light. When you consider WHY he was being bullied in the first place, can't you see why this could be a bigger problem?

What I really take an issue with is that Sklaroff's first approach was to treat the victim as a liar -- the worst possible thing you could do. Frankly, I think the experience & advise of a teacher (Mr. Finnick) is much more valuable here than the advice & recommendations of the guy who heckled Mayor Bloomberg about the "Ground Zero Mosque" when he came to Philly a few years ago and states on his RedState account that he's worried about fighting Islamacism in 2013 (Sklaroff).

I see no evidence that the District or the politicians serving Abington are covering up bullying. I think that the reaction Sklaroff gets when he speaks at meetings across our state (seemingly EVERY meeting across the area, ad nauseum) is based upon his years of erratic behaviour, outlandish beliefs, frivolous lawsuiits and narcissistic posturing -- not the particular message du jour that he's going on and on and on and on and on about.

I never stated I was against reporting. I actually do think that if it is handled correctly reporting is very useful. I stated that I was against forcing students to report, which is what Sklaroff was advocating and still is by repeatedly mentioning the student's name.

I am also against forcing students to go to the police (also advocated by Sklaroff).

If student A does not name names at the recorded public forum, no (if no weapon is involved). Depending on the type of weapon (knife or gun vs a book used in a violent manner) involved this is a large-scale concern so the weapon would make it necessary for police to be contacted.

In order to discern the particulars [as per the qualifiers conjured by "Finnick"], the school Authorities need to become routinely involved.

I might add that the fact that there was generalized awareness of these entries [by the Abington School Board members] was emblematic of the new-media; "Patch" is to be commended [and I kidded its editor by suggesting I may have served to increase its "traffic" single-handedly, simply by fending off the taunts arising from multiple quarters].

In the confusion, many counter-queries were left unresolved, not the least of which was the query by Axil [which I had raised in a comparable form, earlier]. The difference, now, however, is that I have validated my input ["walked the talk"] and, thus, can conclude that these efforts were justified. If ONE case of "bullying" is now scrutinized and prophylaxed as a result thereof, this would have proven productive!

Kudos to Patch and also to the iconoclasts in the community who have the guts to speak up for their principles. I love that Dr. Sklaroff has made peace with being labelled "erratic" by those who don't (or can't) see beyond his tongue-in-cheek remarks and pot-stirring (and button-pressing) and learn that the issues he raises are based on reason and solid ideals?

Not unless it is habitual and spread out (in which case it would be a wonder if adults had no idea it was happening).

How about 2 beatings within 6 months of each other? How about an attack with a pointed stick? Seriously, who gets to decide whether a beating is a 'boys will be boys' situation or a crime that warrants an investigation? And many would argue that in the past the district has been less than forthright about bullying issues. Why not make policy more clear so parents can have more trust that things won't get swept under the rug?

Stop summarizing. Again, no one is impressed.

Stop crying ad-hominem. You are the king of ad-hominem rants.

Speaking as a teacher who knows bullying, you are bullying this child. You always talk about wanting to hear from experts but fail to pay attention when someone who knows more than you gives advice. The fact that you continually use his name shows your bad taste and desire to rile up others because you like to trap people in your own little pseudo-intellectual games.

You just want the last word so you can pretend you "won."

as predicted supra, the comment infra has "grown tiresome and repetitive and pedestrian"

Sklaroff Translation: I have nothing else to say, infra, supra... I'm smart.

It's not about pushing things under the rug. It is about giving the power to report to the victims instead of forcing the situation.

2 beatings within 6 months in the same school? By the same kid? Stick isn't a wide-scale weapon.

A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. That's what I've been trying to say.

School authorities and psychologist first. They are the experts and should know the best next steps to take.

I do work for a public school district, but trust me, I have friends who work at charter schools and they operate in much the same manner. I am not saying that administrators should have total power to decide which violent crimes to report. That ultimately resides with the victim (as I have stated repeatedly). Also, I am not fully aware of how other school districts work (as is hard to do unless you work in the district) but from all of my experiences working in schools, administrators, teachers, and psychologists all have the best interests of the children in mind. To believe otherwise without direct knowledge of individuals (again, you must say individuals because it would be wholly wrong to say it is the same with everyone at every school) that they have something else in mind is just wrong and insulting to the education field.

The first part we disagree fundamentally on, so to each his own.

The second part, I have to wonder what teachers and psychologists you have been speaking to. I know many in several different districts/charters and not a single one of them would say that administrators do not have the student's best interest in mind and that they are not allowed to speak up or act when they see bullying.

If things are getting better with the new principal than it is not policy, it is individuals, as I have said before. It seems too drastic to force victims to go to the police rather than trust people to do their jobs (especially since the majority are in education to help children). I do not work in Abington, so I cannot comment on how bullying is handled currently or with the old principal but I have seen their policies and those are correct. It all has to do with actually following those good policies already in place.

More individuals. You cannot paint the entire profession with the same brush.