Radio frequency ID chips

carolina guy said:

Or just opt-out entirely. Non-violent, completely legal, deprives them of the funding they were searching for, and protects the kids from the indoctrination offered by the government schools.

Click to expand...

A big +1 to that.

It's backwards thinking to resort to methods of "nullifying" the chips, rather than not submitting to them in the first place.

Grapeshot said:

Here comes the new technology - chips the size of a grain of sand that could be placed/embedded anywhere, even in school books carried by students. You can run, but you can't hide type of thing.

http://email.wnd.com/HM?a=ENX7CqoMqZqZ8SA9MKJVIXTnGHxKLt7yVfcStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_Hhe-ud1Kg

Click to expand...

Grape, that seems to be tinfoil hat type reading.

The government would never think of using any of this tech to violate our rights.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/14/hitachis-rfid-powder-freaks-us-the-heck-out/

I am sure you've figured out that we're in agreeance on that worry.

eye95 said:

I agree with that. I do not agree with breaking bones or rearranging dental work to fix this.

BTW, the solution is entirely in parents' hands. Don't send your kids to public school. Advocate for vouchers. Don't advocate violence. And, especially, don't do it here.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. I remember when my sister and I were having serious problems with the school principal. Elementary school, and my mom used to go to junior high with him. They didn't like each other. He made it a point to spank us whenever he could. Calls from our mom didn't work. Calls by other family members didn't work. calls to the school district office only made it worse.

Then the one day my grandpa took time off from work, walked into the principal's office and dragged him by the shirt collar over his desk, never got another swat again (from THAT principal, at least). Sometimes you have to show some form of physical presence to help enhance the feeling that their behavior towards your kids somehow is not appreciated.

Back when I was newly married my oldest step daughter was spanked by a teacher, not the principal. We were in the process of packing my wife and her kids up for a move, and the principal refused to talk to us even on the phone. Big mistake. Small city, search the old phone book and fake being friends from college days, and after a while you find family that tells you where their at. Go by at 11pm and when you knock you make sure they hear you. Then spend the next hour in their living room lecturing them on assaulting your step daughter when the principal is still half asleep.

Next day get a call from the school and they apologized for the misunderstanding and the teacher, it turns out, was suspended for a week.

Trust me. Expounding your feelings face to face really does help a lot and it removes any chance of misunderstandings.

Your grandfather should have been arrested for assault.

eye95 said:

Your grandfather should have been arrested for assault.

Click to expand...

HAHA, but not the guy that was beating on two kids?

Perhaps if the "correct" way had made a difference (calling the school principal; calling the school board) and not made the "beatings" worse, then it could've been avoided!

YOUR LOGIC ESCAPES ME!

I'll be dam*ed if I allow someone to beat on my kids! I don't care what they've done. I am capable of punishing my children; I do not need some idiot to beat on them because he disliked me in school!

KYGlockster said:

HAHA, but not the guy that was beating on two kids?...

Click to expand...

I did not say that. Please do not dishonestly imply that I did. I do not know if what the principal did was an assault. I know that what the grandfather did was. So I only spoke to what should happen to the grandfather. He should have been arrested for assault.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

I did not say that. Please do not dishonestly imply that I did. I do not know if what the principal did was an assault. I know that what the grandfather did was. So I only spoke to what should happen to the grandfather. He should have been arrested for assault.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

It certainly APPEARS that way.

You defended the principle's actions by saying the grandfather should've been arrested, or that is how it appears. You made no mention of the acts of the principle (which I must say are worse than an old man grabbing someone up by the shirt collar). You chastized the grandfather for proving a point (the point being that the principle doesn't like violence, so why should he use violence on children) but not the principle for a much harsher action.

When you express resentment towards one person's actions and not another's it seems that you are supporting one over another.

Eye, with that aside, you bet. He should have been arrested. Tell you what- let's dig up his grave and put him in jail. 1979 is not 2012.

Eye, back in those days there were an awful lot of good LEOs out there. Now my perception of a good LEO is likely different than you perception. Back then I think (but I don't know for sure) nearly every deputy would have sided with him. What do you "think" he should have done? Hire a lawyer? Watching my grandfather yank that sorry SOB over his desk has got to be THE BEST rehabilitation I could have gotten anywhere. You've never been in rehab, I can tell.

Here's one for ya- Back years ago I was going to a job interview. This guy jumps my fence and beats the crap out of me because he felt like it. The fact is the cops were too stupid to do their jobs- there was an active video camera that caught it all. IN MY YARD. What did they do? They asked HIM, someone that doesn't live there, for permission to get the camera. He says no. They do nothing. I get home and the camera is destroyed. Brilliant $&%^# Idiots. $6,000 in medical bills and thousands in counseling bills. Rehab. For being assaulted. And what did it do besides pay for someone elses mortgage? I started packing a .45 everywhere I went. No CCP. Uh, you're a real stickler for obeying the law. You want my name, address then, and the telephone number of the PD there? Oh, that won't matter. The few goods cops I personally knew already knew I was packing. In fact, two of them showed me how. I get you their names and the number of the PD and you go call them, Eye.

So what's the relevance here? Big one- the best rehab would have been if they guy tried it again and I knew it was coming, I'd have put him in ICU. THAT is the best rehab. Or do you have a suggestion for handling this? Uh, like....?

Eye, you criticize way too early. You don't know but a small part of the story and you're saying who should be arrested for what.

eye95 said:

Your grandfather should have been arrested for assault.

Click to expand...

I got $5 that says the star witness, the principal, would decline to testify or even press charges. The last thing he would want is to have a school investigation into why the kid's grandfather came to the school--he definitely wouldn't want his disciplinary procedures brought to light. That sort of thing gets press, too, depending on the size of the burg. The school district can cover over it for a time as long as its just the kid's parents, but when it goes legal with an assault charge, the situation escalates.

Logan 5 said:

--snipped--

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the principle point that this site has a specific rule against an illegal activity being promoted. By your continued defense (recommendation?) of such you give the impression that two wrongs make a right - that is decidedly not the case.

The means/methods you describe are retaliatory vigilantism and outside legal means; therefore, not acceptable on OCDO.

I fear that you are taking some replies entirely too personally as witness the manner in which you responded. Those replies were directed at the acts as reported - addressed the known facts.

Grapeshot said:

I think you are missing the principle point that this site has a specific rule against an illegal activity being promoted. By your continued defense (recommendation?) of such you give the impression that two wrongs make a right - that is decidedly not the case.

The means/methods you describe are retaliatory vigilantism and outside legal means; therefore, not acceptable on OCDO.

I fear that you are taking some replies entirely too personally as witness the manner in which you responded. Those replies were directed at the acts as reported - addressed the known facts.

Click to expand...

He's speaking of different days Grape. Back then, you settled things without the 'help' of the police. Also back then the idea of suing over something like that was just too, weird.

So, while it might not be legal/acceptable now, it was, if not legal, at least acceptable back then.

It used to be perfectly legal for school students to bring their guns to school. Some you had leave the gun in the back of the class room and other schools you just had to leave it in the principal's office.

I think that the point Logan was making that the parents should go in and talk to the school staff personally and if that does not work then sue (spank?) them in a court of law.

I wudda liked to have been a fly on the principals wall that day to be sure.

As to the legality of Gramps' actions, it does not appear that the principal was too concerned about legalities or charges would have been pressed. Remember, the principal was likely a member of the same community in which Gramps also resided. I commend Gramps for keeping the "discussion"....."private."

KYGlockster said:

It certainly APPEARS that way.

You defended the principle's actions by saying the grandfather should've been arrested, or that is how it appears. You made no mention of the acts of the principle (which I must say are worse than an old man grabbing someone up by the shirt collar). You chastized the grandfather for proving a point (the point being that the principle doesn't like violence, so why should he use violence on children) but not the principle for a much harsher action.

When you express resentment towards one person's actions and not another's it seems that you are supporting one over another.

Click to expand...

I did not defend the principal (not principle). I lamented the grandfather's actions. One can lambaste the actions of one person without commenting on the actions of another, especially when he feels he does not have enough information to make a judgment about the actions of the other. So your last sentence is just so much conclusion-jumping idiocy.

Moving on. I'm done with this moronic sub-discussion.

Citizen said:

I got $5 that says the star witness, the principal, would decline to testify or even press charges. The last thing he would want is to have a school investigation into why the kid's grandfather came to the school--he definitely wouldn't want his disciplinary procedures brought to light. That sort of thing gets press, too, depending on the size of the burg. The school district can cover over it for a time as long as its just the kid's parents, but when it goes legal with an assault charge, the situation escalates.

Click to expand...

You are almost surely right. That does not change the fact that walking into a principal's office, grabbing him, and dragging him across the desk is a crime, a felony in many States. If the principal was exercising his power over the children in an illegal way, have him arrested. If he is properly following policy on spanking, but you have a problem with how he implements policy, take the children out of that school. Committing a crime is a stupid way to solve the problem. And, remember, this was all brought up to justify violence to solve school policy problems and to advocate for such, against board rules, here on OCDO.

My point in this thread, even in this aside about the grandfather, is that we at OCDO should not in any way be seen as advocating for violence to solve problems like this. It only feeds the antis in their zeal to ban guns in schools and more generally. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

eye95 said:

I did not defend the principal (not principle). I lamented the grandfather's actions. One can lambaste the actions of one person without commenting on the actions of another, especially when he feels he does not have enough information to make a judgment about the actions of the other. So your last sentence is just so much conclusion-jumping idiocy.

Moving on. I'm done with this moronic sub-discussion.

Click to expand...

My apologies for a misspelled word. Perhaps I could go back and search some of your posts and critique your work as well, as I am sure there are some mistakes somewhere.

Yes, one can do as you have stated; however, you specifically stated the grandfather should have been arrested, without any mention of what should've happened to the principal (being as his actions were the more severe of the two most would look for a mention of those actions as well). To any conclusion-jumping idiot (myself apparently), that would APPEAR you are siding with the actions of the principle over those of the grandfather.

However, I am done with this moronic discussion! Now don't you reply.

KYGlockster said:

My apologies for a misspelled word. Perhaps I could go back and search some of your posts and critique your work as well, as I am sure there are some mistakes somewhere.

Yes, one can do as you have stated; however, you specifically stated the grandfather should have been arrested, without any mention of what should've happened to the principal (being as his actions were the more severe of the two most would look for a mention of those actions as well). To any conclusion-jumping idiot (myself apparently), that would APPEAR you are siding with the actions of the principle over those of the grandfather.

However, I am done with this moronic discussion! Now don't you reply.

Click to expand...

Answered twice prior and clearly so - post #68 & #75.

Continuing in this vein is counter productive.

Grapeshot said:

I think you are missing the principle point that this site has a specific rule against an illegal activity being promoted. By your continued defense (recommendation?) of such you give the impression that two wrongs make a right - that is decidedly not the case.

The means/methods you describe are retaliatory vigilantism and outside legal means; therefore, not acceptable on OCDO.

I fear that you are taking some replies entirely too personally as witness the manner in which you responded. Those replies were directed at the acts as reported - addressed the known facts.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I kinda see what you mean. Kinda. Grape, what I see the problem being is the lack of open communication between the schools and the parents. When they do not communicate they fail to proactively avoid the altercations that hit the headlines. How often is it a student does something that hits the headlines? Not often, but when it does happen, the student gets what they want- to be heard. They want to be heard by everybody because they feel that nobody is listening. Out of all of those school shootings, how often was the lack of open communication between the school and parents questioned? I don't recall, I'm sorry. But it has happened and it has been an issue.

I'll cease with what you see as vigilantism, I really didn't see it as that, but if you say the rules were violated, I'll take your word for it.

Logan 5 said:

snip... lack of open communication between the schools and the parents. When they do not communicate they fail to proactively avoid the altercations that hit the headlines. How often is it a student does something that hits the headlines? Not often, but when it does happen, the student gets what they want- to be heard. They want to be heard by everybody because they feel that nobody is listening. Out of all of those school shootings, how often was the lack of open communication between the school and parents questioned?

Click to expand...

Logan, you presume, community, schools and students & caregivers, want communication. unfortunately, as our school systems continue to degrade as they have over the last several decades, the perception of education has changed to where caregivers basically want someone to raise their offspring by feeding and teaching little johnny or susie how to be good citizens and such. the school systems are overwhelmed with providing breakfast, lunch, and after school snacks to their charges. oh wait, forgot to throw a 'quality' education into the mix. quality being relative per se.

a consession...there is a breakdown on communication within this triad which isn't shared equally. as the community gets older they see no reason to support what they perceive is a faltering educational system, the education system is overwhelmed w/having to provide continued criteria leved on them by the community and caregivers as well as a significant lack of support from both the community as well as the students & caregivers, and the majority of the students & caregivers truly do not care about the quality of the education they receive.

when our society gets over the mentality they are satisfied that this country's HS graduates can only function at a seventh grade level then we will have succeeded in assuring the lines of communication are open.

wabbit

ps: hs gradates of color are in some cases not even to the seventh grade level.

ncwabbit said:

ps: hs gradates of color are in some cases not even to the seventh grade level.

Click to expand...

COMMENT REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Spoken sarcastically but still could be misconstrued

It's true of all groups of HS students it's jut's that it happen more often in "colored" students. It must because the system of teaching is racist just ask a few people on here about that.

This thread is going decidedly off topic. Are we done with ID chips?