I post the following, recent comment, because it's particularly viscous and reveals a very poor grasp of what personal and slanderous attacks actually are not to mention some pretty wooly reasoning. I don't think this person was ever on the school debating team.
"What has identity got to do with it. These are my comments. Identifying myself would just give you the very excuse to do what you've done all along - attack on a PERSONAL basis!"
Introducing yourself is a pretty basic courtesy in human society. Remaining anonymous and simply shouting abuse reduces your comments to an ugly noise.
"You guys are so righteous about your character's being attacked. What exactly do you think you've been doing all along. You have published blatantly personal attacks from the very start, on the school, on the people that run the school, on the parent body assisting the school, and now even on the environmental committee. Attacks which are to be frank, absolute fabrications of what you believe is the truth."
Here you seem not to understand the nature of critique. Of course if someone does something I don't agree with I am able to comment on this. If it's reasoned and focusses on the action, or opinion and the consequences thereof this is a reasonable critique.
If, for example and as in this case, you claim the chemicals pose no harm and I suggest they do I am not attacking you personally at all. I am attacking your opinion. This is what a grown up argument looks like. I make my position clear and where you disagree you offer your reasons for doing so. So far the school has singularly failed to offer any reasoned argument in support of the policy they've followed for more then 5 years.
You are now also saying I'm lying. As you'll see as the details of this saga come to light, the fabrications didn't originate here. Here's just one example for you to contemplate; the matter I raised (and which was reported on in the EHC meeting minutes of 27 May) regarding my allegation that certain teachers had felt they'd been threatened and which "the school" claimed no knowledge of can no longer be denied. It has now been confirmed that indeed this complaint was made in January by the teachers yet "the school" continues to deny this and to thereby imply I was being malicious. How do you explain that?
"As a concerned parent, I have been doing investigations of my very own ALL THE WAY ALONG and what you are doing is (to be frank) DISGUSTING!"
So you've been doing investigations "all along" and you evidently didn't ever think that what you learned was of any real concern. I find that quite surprising. Don't you think that after doing some basic research it would be a bit complacent to decide that there was nothing to worry about? Have you made any of your finding known to anyone?
You have every right to think that what we're doing is disgusting, that's your subjective and emotional opinion. This is a very emotive topic and I understand your frustration at not being able to adequately respond to this continued scrutiny of the schools policies. Policies I feel are woefully inadequate and may even prove to be disastrous. Time will tell and ultimately public opinion will judge which approach was the most sensible.
"If you want to pass the comments you have, then have the COURAGE to publish mine!"
Oh, I'm not short on courage, that I assure you. You know exactly who I am and I will stand behind what I write here. I've now published yours although your comment "anonymous or not" is something of a paradox....how can I publish your comment as not anonymous? Is this an indication of your powers of reasoning? If so, I fear for your children.
No comments:
Post a Comment