On 11/28/07, tsfardaya@netzero.net wrote:
Diversity, more correctly, social engineering, is a Democrat issue. Republicans believe that every person should be evaluated by "the content of his character, not by the color of his skin."
I earlier stated that unsavory alliances are sometimes necessary. The Republicans could not come to terms with the Greens because the Republicans insisted on a platform and policy statements. Such an understanding would include, for example, no rent control, a core Green issue. In contrast, the Rock Bottoms got nothing except ego gratification.
On 11/27/07, lpw22@earthlink.net wrote:
Once again, your opinion, not mine. Since when has diversity been an issue for Democrats only? Or am I to believe that you chose to exist in a world where everyone looks alike, acts alike and believes the same? What a boring existence. Sounds like some people I know down South. My typed conversations are over. I will be what I chose to be and you may stay coddled in your own beliefs.
By the way.......if associating with the Greens is so dreadful, why then did members of our town committee secretly meet with Jean long before there was a "Bottom Line"?
And as far as speaking for myself..........I do that with no regret for anything I have ever said or done. You on the other hand still choose to remain anonymous. That is truly regrettable. For if one can type it or say it, one should be man (or woman) enough to sign their name to it.
On 11/27/07, tsfardaya@netzero.net wrote:
Nothing that I wrote remotely qualifies as a rant. Your responses speak for themselves, however.
You assert that the Windham schools are not the absolute worst. This is technically true, but very little separates them from the absolute worst. Your diversity palaver places you solidly in the Democrat camp. You complicate the straightforward and use this as an excuse for failure.
You should check out the official Republican platform sometime and then compare it with the Democrat/Green platforms. Your beliefs obviously do not comport with those of Republicans. You should end the masquerade and formally affiliate with the Democrats/Greens.
On 11/26/07, lpw22@earthlink.net wrote:
For the last time, I defend no one. They must speak for themselves. I simply stated what I felt to be true about the perception of our party for the general public. It is your right to disagree. I will never change your mind, nor will you change mine. Your rantings show inordinate anger. The public school system is a complicated one and until you are in the thick of it, very difficult to understand why things are the way they are. I have never believed that Windham Schools are the best, but neither are they the worst. Much of what our children learn are life lessons that cannot be measured with numbers. My four children have learned tolerance for differences among people, an appreciation for diversity and an understanding of human nature. None of this can be measured by a test. In life, though, these tools will bear them a great deal of skills beyond what has been measured by tests. They have dealt with each stage of their lives with grace and integrity. I daresay that the schools had something to do with these abilities. It's too bad that you cannot know them, for they are well-grounded and good people.
I cannot defend positions of the school system at present, because I am simply a parent. I advocate for my children when necessary, but my youngest is now a junior and soon my affiliation with the WPS will be over. I will always, however, see beyond test scores and my association with the schools and so many of the students over the years of field trips, classroom activities and the many friends of my children allows me some degree of knowledge that only looking at scores does not allow. I can only hope that you will take the time to meet the varied student population of the schools......athletes, student council members, band members, drama members, valedictorians, young mothers, latino, black and white students. When you do that, you will know that we are not complete failures......we have great kids in Windham.
On 11/26/07, tsfardaya@netzero.net wrote:
I derive nothing from intimidating you, although the facts apparently do. What Barton has done has no bearing on the impropriety of your comrades. Barton should not have accepted the donation, but that is a far cry from colluding with a supposedly adversarial party (teachers) to solicit funds for them.
It is beyond question that a corporate board of directors exists to represent shareholders. Management and employees are adversarial and subordinate to them. When directors forget whom they represent, fraud and bankruptcy ensue.
The Board of Education has forgotten its role. Little wonder that the system is a disaster; but what else could one reasonably expect from a Board with so little managerial background? Why they bother to run when state takeover is but a matter of time defies logic. Why do you defend such incompetence?
On 11/25/07, lpw22@earthlink.net wrote:
Am I supposed to be intimidated? I feel it is you who are the intimidated one for you continue to send emails with no signature. What are you fearful of? Don't bother to respond...it will be more of the same game of words. May I remind you though, that James Barton also received the endorsement of the teachers and accepted the donation from the union. The sour grapes that so vividly come through your messages is music to my ears. I have never asked for the endorsement from the teachers' union or any other. Please direct your feelings to those that have.
On 11/25/07, tsfardaya@netzero.net wrote:
The facts are the facts. Your elusiveness does not change them. You have evaded the same issues for years. Your failure to reply has been disseminated to the Town Committee.
In addition, I also remind you of the unsavory collusion of the Board of Education with the Teacher's Union. Such collusion violates every precept of corporate governence.
On 11/24/07, lpw22@earthlink.net wrote:
I will say again, I will not respond to an email which has no signature.
On 11/23/07 tsfardaya@netzero.com wrote:
You did not answer the question about the principles to which "moderate republicans" adhere. The likely explanation is that "moderate republicans" have no principles, as evidenced by their office tenures.
With respect to your barbs against Edelman running as a Libertarian for State office, he did so because he cannot support a governor who tacitly endorses eminent domain abuse by doing nothing about Keloe.
With regard to dual loyalty, you would do better to look among your associates. They made common cause with a Green. If you examined the official Green platform, you would find it not significantly different from the Communist Party platform. Although sometimes unsavory alliances may sometimes be necessary, the Rock Bottoms exacted no concessions or promises from the Green.
Your group also suffers from a real credibility gap. You, for example, decried Kramer as unfit for human habitation as an excuse to build a new school. You asserted that Windham needed a new school to reverse declining test scores. Then, as now, this made no sense; scores continued to freefall. Surely you also recall Dan Lein's tearful withdrawal from running for the State legislature in the name of party unity. No sooner had the tears fallen, than he broke his word by primarying. And then there is Jay Handfield, who declared that "there is no difference between Democrats and Republican in Windham."
You and your associates have established nothing but a track record of dismal failure in every regard. You provide no indication that you have experienced an epiphany that would now enable you to govern rationally. So, why don't you just give the people of this town a break and officially defect to your Democrat/Green comrades?
