Posted on 06/21/2006 5:59:32 AM PDT by seanmerc
More related to David Parker.
You're wasting your time. You have these NON-THINKING robots, that just can't understand that every time one of these bogus stories go forth, the credibily of all of us on this side is damaged. That's why its important to do self-policing.
Thank you for the ping.
"You're wasting your time. You have these NON-THINKING robots, that just can't understand that every time one of these bogus stories go forth, the credibily of all of us on this side is damaged. That's why its important to do self-policing."
I can see you're right. What's really amusing is that if you go look at post 18, Antoninus in his reply to me (first option) seriously proposed a scenario that I was going to list as a joke -- school officials employing little kids to beat the Parker boy. Amazing.
I think Parker had every right to go in 14 months ago and demand the opt-out and he deserved a better answer than he got. But this latest thing is either crazy paranoia or grasping for publicity.
Now let's see, who else can we think of who's shamelessly using his or her child for publicity?
Wonder if that's because you pulled out an article that was 9 months old? Perhaps you could explain to us buddies exactly what the relevance is to the issue of this thread which is the bogus story of the abduction and beating of the Parker boy? Help us all out here.
I suggest you seek first to understand then to be understood...
If you get beyond the headline and read the complete posting you will note that the issue of this thread entails the complete history of David Parker opposing the homosexual agenda in the public school system...
As much as you would like to imply Mr. Parker's son was not led to a secluded area by others -it happened. As much as you would like to imply the beating did not happen -it did. Even if refering to what I consider to be the biased investigative report from the School administration puiblished by the Superintendent one can see it did in fact happen:
PRESS RELEASE: June 16, 2006On May 17, several first graders were involved in a disagreement over who would sit where in the cafeteria. As a result, upon going outside one child took another by the hand and brought him to a third student in an area of the playground that is somewhat difficult for the adults to see. (The student who was hit said that he went willingly.) All children who saw agreed that the third student then hit the student who had been brought to him two to four times in the chest/abdomen (children’s accounts vary) and he fell to his knees. The student who was hit says he was hit when down; the other children say he wasn’t. One child reports that one student held the arm of the student who was hit; however, the child who was hit and the other children did not report this. The children involved named five children who were nearby watching but not directly involved. Several other students were close enough to see a cluster of students but not close enough to see what was happening. The student who did the hitting suggested that others also hit, but none of them did so.
-far from bogus...
As to what the issue or issues are here is really a matter of perspective -I see one camp that opposes the homosexual agenda and as such supporting David Parker's efforts AND see another camp that simply wishes to villify David Parker without comment on anything else... (may I suggest this camp start an anti-David Parker ping list on DU rather than persisitently hijacking homosexual agenda topics involving Mr. Parker to push the villify David Parker agenda)
Anyway, the issue involves far more than the diversionary and irrelevant straw men you attempt to repeatedly hoist up in your crusade to villify Mr. David Parker... e.g. David Parker arrested himself...
Post #19 sums up quite well what you attempt e.g. "The accusation illustrates another characteristic of the culture war: arguments are mixed with vicious personal attacks"
BTTT.
If anyone trusts the MSM to report the facts in an impartial mannter on this or any issue that has anything at all to do with the homosexual agenda, then I've got some great deals for you!
Just freepmail me or my agents in Nigeria for details.
Addendum - this Fox article isn't bad at all. But I can imagine the press in MA.
Initial Report by Mass Resistance
About halfway down you'll see a statement by David Parker that starts out with:
We understand that skirmishes happen on the playground. What concerns us greatly is the premeditated, well planned and coordinated nature of the assault.That definitely seems to be at odds with what some of your detractors have said.
And then there is: June 19, 2006 email update
Sorry if this has already been brought to attention.
Hey, that's real cute DB. Did you make that up all by yourself? No, of course not.
If you get beyond the headline and read the complete posting you will note that the issue of this thread entails the complete history of David Parker opposing the homosexual agenda in the public school system...
Yes I read the article. The issue was about the "beating" of the boy, and whether Parker's infamous history led to it. But you and your friends, now knowing the original articles have been completely debunked, can only go back to the Parker crusade of a year ago, which is not the issue. Wonder why no one on your side seems a bit concerned about the boy?
As much as you would like to imply Mr. Parker's son was not led to a secluded area by others -it happened.
I implied nothing. I said he was not dragged behind the school by a group of boys encouraged by their gay loving parents planned well in advance. You don't see a difference?
As much as you would like to imply the beating did not happen -it did.
I didn't say there were no punches thrown. I said he was not beaten repeatedly by 8 to 10 boys, who after he was down, kicked him, and then someone said "Let's finish him off". You don't see any difference?
And so much for the story that it was planned well in advance (1st graders?) and encouraged by the adults. Are you telling me that your repeated embrace of the original article has now softened a bit to the realization that perhaps the real story is somewhat different?
As to what the issue or issues are here is really a matter of perspective -I see one camp that opposes the homosexual agenda and as such supporting David Parker's efforts AND see another camp that simply wishes to villify David Parker without comment on anything else...
Without comment? It appears the truth camp is the only one commenting. As for vilification, your little group invented the term. I would love to simply discuss the whole issue without the personal attacks. Try it sometime.
(may I suggest this camp start an anti-David Parker ping list on DU rather than persisitently hijacking homosexual agenda topics involving Mr. Parker to push the villify David Parker agenda)
So questioning the truth and substance of an article posted is hijacking? We've been trying to discuss the alleged abduction and beating of Jacob, while you folks want to talk about homosexual agendas. Who's doing the hijacking?
Anyway, the issue involves far more than the diversionary and irrelevant straw men you attempt to repeatedly hoist up in your crusade to villify Mr. David Parker... e.g. David Parker arrested himself...
Ah yes, the old "truth is just a straw-man" routine. You use that term a lot. You might just look up the meaning some time. Saves a bit of embarrassment.
Post #19 sums up quite well what you attempt e.g. "The accusation illustrates another characteristic of the culture war: arguments are mixed with vicious personal attacks"
Tell you what DB, you list all the personal attacks by those who questioned this story, and I'll list all of them by you and your friends. Deal?
So tell me which seems more likely to you:
1) A bunch of 6-year-olds got together and decide they hate Parker because his daddy raised a stink at the school 14 months ago and daddy doesn't love homos like he's supposed to so they beat the boy up, or...
2) The Parker boy and another kid got in a silly argument over a lunch seat and they took it out to the playground. Then daddy and some of his supporters decide to use the incident for political purposes, following the example of a bunch of liberals we know.
If you vote for number 1 I have lots of swampland -- oops, luxury water property -- I want to talk to you about.
Damn, this pisses me off. I can't believe that conservatives are "stretching a story". Are you sure?
I tend to favor David Parker's version...
Even the version from what I consider to be the biased investigative report from the School administration published by the Superintendent confirms it was a premeditated, well planned and coordinated assault: Even if referring to what I consider to be the biased investigative report from the School administration published by the Superintendent one can see it did in fact happen:
On May 17, several first graders were involved in a disagreement over who would sit where in the cafeteria. As a result, upon going outside one child took another by the hand and brought him to a third student in an area of the playground that is somewhat difficult for the adults to see. (The student who was hit said that he went willingly.) All children who saw agreed that the third student then hit the student who had been brought to him two to four times in the chest/abdomen (children’s accounts vary) and he fell to his knees. The student who was hit says he was hit when down; the other children say he wasn’t. One child reports that one student held the arm of the student who was hit; however, the child who was hit and the other children did not report this. The children involved named five children who were nearby watching but not directly involved. Several other students were close enough to see a cluster of students but not close enough to see what was happening. The student who did the hitting suggested that others also hit, but none of them did so.
premeditated - "one child took another by the hand and brought him to a third student in an area of the playground that is somewhat difficult for the adults to see" - the student was waiting
well planned - "one child took another by the hand and brought him to a third student in an area of the playground that is somewhat difficult for the adults to see" -evident by the premeditated coordination
coordinated - "one child took another by the hand and brought him to a third student in an area of the playground that is somewhat difficult for the adults to see" - the students worked together...
assault - "All children who saw agreed that the third student then hit the student who had been brought to him two to four times in the chest/abdomen (children’s accounts vary) and he fell to his knees. The student who was hit says he was hit when down; the other children say he wasn’t. One child reports that one student held the arm of the student who was hit; however, the child who was hit and the other children did not report this" clearly an assault...
Of course I can't be absolutely sure. I'm not going to pretend I know any more than anybody else for certain. But my opinion is that it's very unlikely that kids this young are part of a scheme cooked up by parents or administrators to get this boy. If the kids were older maybe, but at this age? Yes, I think the truth is being stretched or warped. So do a lot of other people on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.