Update on accused coaches - Page 2

Junker · #16 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 10:07am

Kind of related, but telling comment. I teach 5th grade and we're starting a program to get more dads into the school setting and I'm the school liason. We have a lot of stay at home mothers that voluteer frequently. When we started talking about getting the men into the school, a teacher, and many agreed, that we should make sure we get background checks on the volunteers just to make sure none are on the sex offender registry. I've never heard anyone suggest that with any of our predominately female volunteers. I just found that kind of interesting.

Smitty · #17 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 10:13am

Quote:

Originally posted by Junker
Kind of related, but telling comment. I teach 5th grade and we're starting a program to get more dads into the school setting and I'm the school liason. We have a lot of stay at home mothers that voluteer frequently. When we started talking about getting the men into the school, a teacher, and many agreed, that we should make sure we get background checks on the volunteers just to make sure none are on the sex offender registry. I've never heard anyone suggest that with any of our predominately female volunteers. I just found that kind of interesting.

That's a very smart move for the school to cover it's a$$. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the vast majority of sex offenders are male. Although they should also check the background of the females, when you think sex offender, isn't it a man's image that comes to mind?

Junker · #18 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 10:32am

I agree Smitty. I just thought it was kind of funny (as in interesting) since we have mothers in here all the time and it's never been brought up, but as soon as men are coming in, we need to check them out. A nice illustration of stereotypes.

rainmaker · #19 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 11:00am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.
[/B]

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter? [/B][/QUOTE]

My point wasn't that I don't trust men, or that it's okay to assume that men are abusers. My point was that it's cynical to assume that, and I don't want to think that way. I resist that kind of "bottom line", because I don't like what it does to my own life. Get it?

Jurassic Referee · #20 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 11:04am

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter? [/B]

My point wasn't that I don't trust men, or that it's okay to assume that men are abusers. My point was that it's cynical to assume that, and I don't want to think that way. I resist that kind of "bottom line", because I don't like what it does to my own life. Get it? [/B][/QUOTE]I went back and re-read your post...and found that I misread it and missed your point. I apologize.

rainmaker · #21 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 11:14am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter?

My point wasn't that I don't trust men, or that it's okay to assume that men are abusers. My point was that it's cynical to assume that, and I don't want to think that way. I resist that kind of "bottom line", because I don't like what it does to my own life. Get it? [/B]

I went back and re-read your post...and found that I misread it and missed your point. I apologize. [/B][/QUOTE]

Apology accepted.

rainmaker · #22 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 11:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male. What do you expect?"

Every night, when I walk the dextering beagle...

...and speaking of Dexter, anyone know where he's been lately?

Dan_ref · #23 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 11:52am

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter?

My point wasn't that I don't trust men, or that it's okay to assume that men are abusers. My point was that it's cynical to assume that, and I don't want to think that way. I resist that kind of "bottom line", because I don't like what it does to my own life. Get it?

I went back and re-read your post...and found that I misread it and missed your point. I apologize. [/B]

Apology accepted. [/B][/QUOTE]

Wait a second here.

It is customary, even required in some circles, that when someone takes offense to something said it us up to the offender to make an apology before any explanation is offered. And regardless of how badly the offending comment was misinterpreted the offended person is never, ever required to say anything stronger than "next time be more sensitive".

ChuckElias · #24 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 12:05pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Wait a second here.

It is customary, even required in some circles, that when someone takes offense to something said it us up to the offender to make an apology before any explanation is offered. And regardless of how badly the offending comment was misinterpreted the offended person is never, ever required to say anything stronger than "next time be more sensitive".

Wait a second here.

If I'm Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy, what twisted version of Emily Post does that make you?!?!?!

Dan_ref · #25 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 12:07pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Wait a second here.

It is customary, even required in some circles, that when someone takes offense to something said it us up to the offender to make an apology before any explanation is offered. And regardless of how badly the offending comment was misinterpreted the offended person is never, ever required to say anything stronger than "next time be more sensitive".

Wait a second here.

If I'm Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy, what twisted version of Emily Post does that make you?!?!?!

Mr. Keeping it real.

WhistlesAndStripes · #26 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 12:14pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.
[/B]

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter? [/B][/QUOTE]

Don't forget about Mary Kay Laterneau, the teacher that was bangin the elementary school kid, went to jail, popped out a couple kids at state expense, and is no MARRIED TO HIM!!

brianp134 · #27 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 12:22pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter? [/B]

Don't forget about Mary Kay Laterneau, the teacher that was bangin the elementary school kid, went to jail, popped out a couple kids at state expense, and is no MARRIED TO HIM!! [/B][/QUOTE]

I almost forgot about her. How old is he now? Must be about 14 yrs old

WhistlesAndStripes · #28 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 01:15pm

Quote:

Originally posted by brianp134

Quote:

Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter?

Don't forget about Mary Kay Laterneau, the teacher that was bangin the elementary school kid, went to jail, popped out a couple kids at state expense, and is no MARRIED TO HIM!! [/B]

I almost forgot about her. How old is he now? Must be about 14 yrs old [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I think he's about 19 or 20. And they're living happily ever after. I had a brother that worked with her ex-husband at Alaska Airlines in Anchorage. After that whole mess, he left Washington and moved to Alaska.

Jurassic Referee · #29 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 02:46pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter?

My point wasn't that I don't trust men, or that it's okay to assume that men are abusers. My point was that it's cynical to assume that, and I don't want to think that way. I resist that kind of "bottom line", because I don't like what it does to my own life. Get it?

I went back and re-read your post...and found that I misread it and missed your point. I apologize.

Apology accepted. [/B]

Wait a second here.

It is customary, even required in some circles, that when someone takes offense to something said it us up to the offender to make an apology before any explanation is offered. And regardless of how badly the offending comment was misinterpreted the offended person is never, ever required to say anything stronger than "next time be more sensitive".

[/B][/QUOTE]Shut up.

Dan_ref · #30 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 03:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter?

My point wasn't that I don't trust men, or that it's okay to assume that men are abusers. My point was that it's cynical to assume that, and I don't want to think that way. I resist that kind of "bottom line", because I don't like what it does to my own life. Get it?

I went back and re-read your post...and found that I misread it and missed your point. I apologize.

Apology accepted.

Wait a second here.

It is customary, even required in some circles, that when someone takes offense to something said it us up to the offender to make an apology before any explanation is offered. And regardless of how badly the offending comment was misinterpreted the offended person is never, ever required to say anything stronger than "next time be more sensitive".

[/B]

Shut up. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm offended.