|Re: Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine [Archive]

View Full Version : |Re: Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine

Kane

October 9th 03, 06:23 PM

On 09 Oct 2003 16:54:40 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>Hey, Billy!
>
>Unbelievable. What state?

Texas, Conroe, a Houston suburb, Caney Creek Highschool.

Don't you even bother to read before you go off all stupid?

>There are some twists to this story. The school may DISLIKE THIS
KID, and want
>him out.

Naw, CPS did it. They set him up.

>Or the School Board is incredibly stupid.

Do you know something we don't? The Zero tolerance policy isn't a
school board matter. They don't get to overrule state or federal law,
or didn't you know that? Even the reporter got that wrong, but if you
had read you'd have found out better later in the article.

I wonder if the reporter "may DISLIKE THIS" schoolboard?

This particular law is state. As in (if you had read) "But school
officials say that Brandon had been warned about loaning his inhaler,
and that new state laws mean their hands are tied when it comes to
zero tolerance and drugs."

The poster gave you the clickable URL. Couldn't you get your little
twig to push the button on your mouse?

>You can die, as the Mom says, very quickly too, from an asthma
attack.
>Especially in the autumn, which is a terrible season for pollens and
mold.

Yep. Obviously CPS was at fault. They should have protected the child
from pollens and mold.

>Hope the SB is ready to pay out.

School board? Why? they didn't make the law. They simply have to
follow it. Sad, idnit? But not as sad as your life.

Tell Billy you are sorry for forwarding his post and lying...there's a
good Cabbage.

This reporter the one that taught you to write, Bark?

Kane

>
>Billy sent in: And a FELONY, too?? ;-((
>
>
>
>
>>Subject: Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend
medicine
>>From: "billy f"
>>Date: 10/9/2003 8:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/100803_local_inhaler.html
>>
>>
>>ABC13 Eyewitness News
>>(10/08/03 - CONROE) - There's controversy over a school's zero
tolerance
>>drug policy. Some say it's gone too far. A 15-year-old faces
expulsion after
>>giving an inhaler to his girlfriend during an asthma attack that
happened at
>>school.
>>
>>Boyfriend and girlfriend, 15-year-olds Brandon Kizi and Andra
Ferguson are
>>both asthma sufferers and both students at Caney Creek High School.
At
>>least, they were, until Andra began suffering an asthma attack at
school.
>>
>>"I couldn't breathe, and I was just very short of breath," recalled
Andra.
>>"My chest was tightened up and it was hurting."
>>
>>Brandon described the incident. "Her face was turning a little
reddish-pink
>>and she looked pale, as far as I could see. I loaned her my inhaler.
I
>>walked her to the nurse's office and loaned her my inhaler."
>>
>>That's when the trouble started. The school nurse called the school
police,
>>who arrested Brandon. They charged him with a felony, namely
distributing a
>>dangerous drug for loaning out his prescription inhaler. Andra's
mother
>>thinks that's wrong.
>>
>>"His (inhaler) is the very same thing. And he has had my permission
to give
>>her that medication any time she forgets it," said Sandra Ferguson.
>>
>>But school officials say that Brandon had been warned about loaning
his
>>inhaler, and that new state laws mean their hands are tied when it
comes to
>>zero tolerance and drugs.
>>
>>Principal Greg Poole told Eyewitness News, "It's hard, it's
difficult. We
>>certainly don't look forward to expelling any kid. But then you have
to
>>consider a kid takes the medication and has an allergic reaction,
and then
>>we have to deal with that issue. So, yes, there is no discretion at
this
>>stage."
>>
>>Brandon now faces mandatory expulsion from school and criminal
charges in
>>juvenile court. His mother is outraged.
>>
>>Theresa Hock said, "It's so unfair. My son was helping her out. And
now he's
>>facing criminal charges. Would they rather have had her die than my
son to
>>help her?"
>>
>>Brandon has a hearing on Friday to determine how long he'll be
expelled for.
>>In addition, he still has to go to juvenile court to deal with that
felony
>>charge.
>>(Copyright © 2003, KTRK-TV)
>>
>>
>
>
>http://www.familyrightsassociation.com Mom oughta contact them.
Folks and
>sites in each state.
>
>
>

Donna Metler

October 9th 03, 09:59 PM

I suppose you realize that if his inhaler had been a different medication,
and the girl had taken harm from it, the school would now be sued by the
parent for not protecting the girl. Prescription medication should NEVER be
loaned or given to another person. If she has athsma and has a prescription
inhaler, she should carry it with her-not expect to borrow her boyfriend's.
Prescription inhalers can have pretty major side effects if used improperly,
or by someone who doesn't need them.

Realistically, the school's hands are tied on this-Zero Tolerance isn't a
local law or board policy. And from a legal standpoint, they'd be a lot more
at risk if they condoned a student passing prescription medication around.

Jenn

October 9th 03, 10:20 PM

In article >,
"Donna Metler" > wrote:

> I suppose you realize that if his inhaler had been a different medication,
> and the girl had taken harm from it, the school would now be sued by the
> parent for not protecting the girl. Prescription medication should NEVER be
> loaned or given to another person. If she has athsma and has a prescription
> inhaler, she should carry it with her-not expect to borrow her boyfriend's.
> Prescription inhalers can have pretty major side effects if used improperly,
> or by someone who doesn't need them.
>
> Realistically, the school's hands are tied on this-Zero Tolerance isn't a
> local law or board policy. And from a legal standpoint, they'd be a lot more
> at risk if they condoned a student passing prescription medication around.
>
>

of course zero tolerance is usually a local policy -- and designed to
relieve people from ahving to exercise common sense

it also teaches kids to have contempt for law and authority

this incident could have been dealt with without expelling a student as
essentially a 'drug pusher' --

Joni Rathbun

October 9th 03, 11:31 PM

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Donna Metler wrote:

> I suppose you realize that if his inhaler had been a different medication,
> and the girl had taken harm from it, the school would now be sued by the
> parent for not protecting the girl. Prescription medication should NEVER be
> loaned or given to another person. If she has athsma and has a prescription
> inhaler, she should carry it with her-not expect to borrow her boyfriend's.
> Prescription inhalers can have pretty major side effects if used improperly,
> or by someone who doesn't need them.
>
> Realistically, the school's hands are tied on this-Zero Tolerance isn't a
> local law or board policy.

Where does it come from then?

And from a legal standpoint, they'd be a lot more
> at risk if they condoned a student passing prescription medication around.
>

Greg Hanson

October 9th 03, 11:32 PM

The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect on the part of
the school, for withholding/delaying inhaler in an asthma attack.

And refuse to drop the case.

This sort of case shows why Zero Tolerance is unconstitutional.

The two kids inhalers are interchangeable.

Laws are supposed to be for the protection of the people, not for the
legal convenience of the government to dictate terms to people.

To delay an inhaler only because of some stupid robotic
bureaucratic "Zero Tolerance" construct is reprehensible.

Next they'll let people DIE rather than give them an
emergency tracheotomy. Neater paperwork.

Much easier to check the boxes on a death certificate
than to argue that Zero Tolerance is stupid.

(Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."

Donna Metler

October 10th 03, 01:30 AM

"Joni Rathbun" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Donna Metler wrote:
>
> > I suppose you realize that if his inhaler had been a different
medication,
> > and the girl had taken harm from it, the school would now be sued by the
> > parent for not protecting the girl. Prescription medication should NEVER
be
> > loaned or given to another person. If she has athsma and has a
prescription
> > inhaler, she should carry it with her-not expect to borrow her
boyfriend's.
> > Prescription inhalers can have pretty major side effects if used
improperly,
> > or by someone who doesn't need them.
> >
> > Realistically, the school's hands are tied on this-Zero Tolerance isn't
a
> > local law or board policy.
>
> Where does it come from then?
In my state, drug distribution-prescription or illegal, is a felony, and any
felony on school property requires a mandatory 1 year suspension or
reassignment to an alternative education setting. This is part of the state
education code.

Giving another student a prescription drug counts as distribution. If the
school took official notice of it at all, they wouldn't have had much
choice. And ignoring it would have risked liability if something had
happened to the girl due to the medication.

It may be different elsewhere
>
>
> And from a legal standpoint, they'd be a lot more
> > at risk if they condoned a student passing prescription medication
around.
> >
>
>

Donna Metler

October 10th 03, 01:33 AM

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect on the part of
> the school, for withholding/delaying inhaler in an asthma attack.
>
The person who committed medical neglect is the one who neglected to provide
the girl with her own inhaler to keep on her person. The school is not
required to provide prescription medication.

> And refuse to drop the case.
>
> This sort of case shows why Zero Tolerance is unconstitutional.
>
> The two kids inhalers are interchangeable.
But, the prescriptions are not.
>
> Laws are supposed to be for the protection of the people, not for the
> legal convenience of the government to dictate terms to people.
>
> To delay an inhaler only because of some stupid robotic
> bureaucratic "Zero Tolerance" construct is reprehensible.
>
Which is why children who need rescue medication are allowed to keep their
own prescription on hand-not use someone else's.
> Next they'll let people DIE rather than give them an
> emergency tracheotomy. Neater paperwork.
>
> Much easier to check the boxes on a death certificate
> than to argue that Zero Tolerance is stupid.
>
> (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better believe that I'm going
to make sure she has an inhaler on her person, that there's one stored at
the school in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level where she's
with one teacher most of the time, that there's one in the teacher's desk,
labeled for her.

I'm not going to assume there is a child in the next desk who uses the same
prescription-nor would I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters inhaler
and give it to another child.

Joni Rathbun

October 10th 03, 01:42 AM

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Donna Metler wrote:

>
> "Joni Rathbun" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Donna Metler wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose you realize that if his inhaler had been a different
> medication,
> > > and the girl had taken harm from it, the school would now be sued by the
> > > parent for not protecting the girl. Prescription medication should NEVER
> be
> > > loaned or given to another person. If she has athsma and has a
> prescription
> > > inhaler, she should carry it with her-not expect to borrow her
> boyfriend's.
> > > Prescription inhalers can have pretty major side effects if used
> improperly,
> > > or by someone who doesn't need them.
> > >
> > > Realistically, the school's hands are tied on this-Zero Tolerance isn't
> a
> > > local law or board policy.
> >
> > Where does it come from then?
> In my state, drug distribution-prescription or illegal, is a felony, and any
> felony on school property requires a mandatory 1 year suspension or
> reassignment to an alternative education setting. This is part of the state
> education code.
>
> Giving another student a prescription drug counts as distribution. If the
> school took official notice of it at all, they wouldn't have had much
> choice. And ignoring it would have risked liability if something had
> happened to the girl due to the medication.
>
> It may be different elsewhere

Ah, well, I was just considering ZT politices.

Joni Rathbun

October 10th 03, 01:47 AM

I wonder if there are any protections provided by Good Sam laws. I
understand the legal issues but a good question has been asked:
What if it had been a life or death situation?

Banty

October 10th 03, 02:40 AM

In article >, Joni
Rathbun says...
>
>
>I wonder if there are any protections provided by Good Sam laws. I
>understand the legal issues but a good question has been asked:
>What if it had been a life or death situation?
>
>

Good Samaritan laws require that you stay within your training.

Banty

Joni Rathbun

October 10th 03, 03:50 AM

On 9 Oct 2003, Banty wrote:

> In article >, Joni
> Rathbun says...
> >
> >
> >I wonder if there are any protections provided by Good Sam laws. I
> >understand the legal issues but a good question has been asked:
> >What if it had been a life or death situation?
> >
> >
>
> Good Samaritan laws require that you stay within your training.
>

Hmm. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that. The Good Samaritan
laws I'm familiar with are meant to provide some protection to
those who voluntarily render aid in good faith, including lay
people who may have no particular training. And, I believe,
some states have laws that make it an offense to NOT render
aid.

Greg Hanson

October 10th 03, 07:26 AM

Well, I hope the mother of the girl sues the bejeebers out of the school
for medical neglect in delaying medical care, withholding the
proper medication for the sake of filling out ever so nice bureaucratic
paperwork.

From a senselessly branched version of this thread:
(Greg Hanson) wrote

> The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect on the part of
> the school, for withholding/delaying inhaler in an asthma attack.
>
> And refuse to drop the case.
>
> This sort of case shows why Zero Tolerance is unconstitutional.
>
> The two kids inhalers are interchangeable.
>
> Laws are supposed to be for the protection of the people, not for the
> legal convenience of the government to dictate terms to people.
>
> To delay an inhaler only because of some stupid robotic
> bureaucratic "Zero Tolerance" construct is reprehensible.
>
> Next they'll let people DIE rather than give them an
> emergency tracheotomy. Neater paperwork.
>
> Much easier to check the boxes on a death certificate
> than to argue that Zero Tolerance is stupid.
>
> (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."

Jenn > wrote

> of course zero tolerance is usually a local policy -- and designed to
> relieve people from [having] to exercise common sense

Whether it's a (click heels) Federal law from on high, a state law,
or simply a school policy, these are poor excuses for typical
bureaucratic lack of common sense.

> it also teaches kids to have contempt for law and authority

Better put than mine, but I wrote that this also could create
a dangerous dampener on the idea of Good Samaritan laws.

> this incident could have been dealt with without expelling a
> student as essentially a 'drug pusher' --

Yup, sends the wrong message. This kind of in-your-face
bureaucratic stupidity might breed a lot MORE people very
sensitive about government bureaucracy stupidity. Truthfully,
you don't have to see much of this sort of thing before you
come to disrespect authority. I just hope they become
activists against moron bureaucracy rather than roving
gangs of thugs.

billy f

October 10th 03, 11:05 AM

The more I read these post the more angry I'm becoming. I can not believe
that their are people out there that actually think that this teenager
should be charged.

The first mistake that they made was admitting that he gave her the inhaler.
By telling their story to the media that have admitted there supposedly
wrong doing. They are young and did know the world could be so cold. If it
was me I would not have given it to her in front of the nurse. If she seen
it I would have just denied it and said that the inhaler was hers or she
never used it. It you read the story both students are on the same
medication. I possibly would have just said it was hers from the start and
it the nurse questioned it I would have peeled the label off before the
police were called. I also would have refused to hand it over to the school.
When the police came I would have said it was hers and said that the nurse
was out to get us. I know it's wrong to lie, but when it comes to something
like this sometimes you have to. At that point it would be her word against
theirs and its possible that no charges would have been filed

That bitch of a nurse could have just ignored what she saw. She did not have
to call the police and anyone who thinks she was right in doing so is just
as evil as she is. She could have told the students that it was aginst the
law and put a little trust in them that they would not have said they did in
infront of her. Once the police were involved there was little the school or
the police could do since Texas now has a zero tolerance policy for drugs in
school with any drugs no matter if its a cold tablet or a inhaler. A policy
that was put into place to keep real drugs out of the schools. I have mild
asthma and I have used a coworkers inhaler before. Within minutes the attack
was gone. What I did was against the law and technically we both could have
been charged taking and giving none prescribed drugs. I have also taken
antibiotics that belonged to a other person that saved me a trip to the
doctor. People do it all the time and if something was to go wrong I would
not tell anyone where I got the medication. It would have been my choice to
take it, no one forced it down my throat. It however is a law that has to be
their and is meant to prevent drug abuse, and even exceptions would make it
legally abused.

When you really think about this it really is not a big deal and mean it
really isn't. In the eyes of the law it might be, but who ever said that
every law was right. I refuse the let the law control my life. I'm a law
abiding citizen, but there are some laws that people have pushed to get past
that are not right. I believe that anyone who lives by the system 100% is
depriving themselves of a happy normal life. Only the weak minded let other
control their lives. The key is to know who you can trust. People really
think they are doing the right thing by "following the law" and I'm sure in
the nurses mind she thought so too. I have lived on all three sides. I have
been friends with people the follow the law 100%, people that break all the
laws and people that use common sense. I can tell you the common sense
thinkers are the best kind of people to be around and I do not trust fully
trust anyone else. I'm talking about people that live their lives the right
way, but do not condemn those that do things differently. In other words if
I know someone that is stealing cable I'm not going to report them. If they
smoke weed or even sell it I'm not going to report them. I may not agree
with what they are doing, but I will not report them. This is why people
trust me and by people having my trust I know things that others do not
know. No one trust that nurse and therefore she is living a life with false
images. People put on a act around her and have probably done so her whole
life. They know by the way she looks and acts that she is miss "holier than
thou." So when someone mistakes her as being someone they can trust and do
something they are not suppose to do it comes as a big shock to her. In her
eyes what those students did was a big deal. In the eyes of a cool normal
person it is not. I'm sure as a child people gave her a hard time for being
this way, but she never knew why.

I think some of you need to learn the differences between what is right and
what is the law. I think you also need to learn that a law can only hurt you
if the wrong people know you have broke it.

Donna Metler

October 10th 03, 12:20 PM

"Joni Rathbun" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wonder if there are any protections provided by Good Sam laws. I
> understand the legal issues but a good question has been asked:
> What if it had been a life or death situation?

I wonder that too-I expect that here, the official paperwork would be done,
but after the child was cleared of the charges, he would be reinstated and
the records expunged, precisely because this was an emergency situation.

>
>

Donna Metler

October 10th 03, 12:26 PM

"billy f" > wrote in message
m...
> The more I read these post the more angry I'm becoming. I can not believe
> that their are people out there that actually think that this teenager
> should be charged.
>
> The first mistake that they made was admitting that he gave her the
inhaler.
> By telling their story to the media that have admitted there supposedly
> wrong doing. They are young and did know the world could be so cold. If it
> was me I would not have given it to her in front of the nurse. If she seen
> it I would have just denied it and said that the inhaler was hers or she
> never used it. It you read the story both students are on the same
> medication. I possibly would have just said it was hers from the start and
> it the nurse questioned it I would have peeled the label off before the
> police were called. I also would have refused to hand it over to the
school.
> When the police came I would have said it was hers and said that the nurse
> was out to get us. I know it's wrong to lie, but when it comes to
something
> like this sometimes you have to. At that point it would be her word
against
> theirs and its possible that no charges would have been filed
I have to wonder how the nurse KNEW it was his and not hers? At least here,
rescue meds are kept on the person, not in the nurse's office, and while I
have typed identification labels on my inhalers, the official prescription
label is on the box, not on the inhaler itself.

>
> That bitch of a nurse could have just ignored what she saw. She did not
have
> to call the police and anyone who thinks she was right in doing so is just
> as evil as she is. She could have told the students that it was aginst the
> law and put a little trust in them that they would not have said they did
in
> infront of her. Once the police were involved there was little the school
or
> the police could do since Texas now has a zero tolerance policy for drugs
in
> school with any drugs no matter if its a cold tablet or a inhaler. A
policy
> that was put into place to keep real drugs out of the schools. I have mild
> asthma and I have used a coworkers inhaler before. Within minutes the
attack
> was gone. What I did was against the law and technically we both could
have
> been charged taking and giving none prescribed drugs. I have also taken
> antibiotics that belonged to a other person that saved me a trip to the
> doctor. People do it all the time and if something was to go wrong I would
> not tell anyone where I got the medication. It would have been my choice
to
> take it, no one forced it down my throat. It however is a law that has to
be
> their and is meant to prevent drug abuse, and even exceptions would make
it
> legally abused.

That's why I said "If the school noticed it officially"-I've (on several
occasions) chosen not to notice something which, by the letter of the law, I
should have addressed-in one case, it was a little girl who had just come
back from an illness, who took a couple of (obvious) tylenol out and asked
to be excused to get a drink. I let her go. While technically, she shouldn't
have had the medication at school, there was no wrongdoing.

>
> When you really think about this it really is not a big deal and mean it
> really isn't. In the eyes of the law it might be, but who ever said that
> every law was right. I refuse the let the law control my life. I'm a law
> abiding citizen, but there are some laws that people have pushed to get
past
> that are not right. I believe that anyone who lives by the system 100% is
> depriving themselves of a happy normal life. Only the weak minded let
other
> control their lives. The key is to know who you can trust. People really
> think they are doing the right thing by "following the law" and I'm sure
in
> the nurses mind she thought so too. I have lived on all three sides. I
have
> been friends with people the follow the law 100%, people that break all
the
> laws and people that use common sense. I can tell you the common sense
> thinkers are the best kind of people to be around and I do not trust fully
> trust anyone else. I'm talking about people that live their lives the
right
> way, but do not condemn those that do things differently. In other words
if
> I know someone that is stealing cable I'm not going to report them. If
they
> smoke weed or even sell it I'm not going to report them. I may not agree
> with what they are doing, but I will not report them. This is why people
> trust me and by people having my trust I know things that others do not
> know. No one trust that nurse and therefore she is living a life with
false
> images. People put on a act around her and have probably done so her whole
> life. They know by the way she looks and acts that she is miss "holier
than
> thou." So when someone mistakes her as being someone they can trust and do
> something they are not suppose to do it comes as a big shock to her. In
her
> eyes what those students did was a big deal. In the eyes of a cool normal
> person it is not. I'm sure as a child people gave her a hard time for
being
> this way, but she never knew why.
>
> I think some of you need to learn the differences between what is right
and
> what is the law. I think you also need to learn that a law can only hurt
you
> if the wrong people know you have broke it.
>
I expect that the charges will be dropped, and the record expunged. That's
what would happen here, anyway.

However, as you stated (and as I have been stating in this thread), once the
police were involved and the boy charged with a felony, the school didn't
have much choice in the matter. And, if the girl had been hurt by the use of
someone else's medication, the school's you-know-what would have been in a
sling.
>

Banty

October 10th 03, 02:03 PM

In article >, Joni
Rathbun says...
>
>
>On 9 Oct 2003, Banty wrote:
>
>> In article >, Joni
>> Rathbun says...
>> >
>> >
>> >I wonder if there are any protections provided by Good Sam laws. I
>> >understand the legal issues but a good question has been asked:
>> >What if it had been a life or death situation?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Good Samaritan laws require that you stay within your training.
>>
>
>Hmm. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that. The Good Samaritan
>laws I'm familiar with are meant to provide some protection to
>those who voluntarily render aid in good faith, including lay
>people who may have no particular training. And, I believe,
>some states have laws that make it an offense to NOT render
>aid.

Lay people are not to practice medicine, and that's what this is. A Good
Samaritan law would apply to rescue, etc., but not to improvised lay field
surgery or giving medicine w/out a prescription. Even EMTs in NYS, who are
covered by a Good Samaritan law, are to instruct a pt to give *themselves* their
epi or nitro.

There may be variations state by state.

THere is a 'Good Samaritan Principle' which actually holds that people are *not*
required to render aid. A few states have something on the books to cover
egregious cases, but with no more than fines. Most states do not requir people
to render any aid at all, exceptions being special relationships like parent to
child.

Banty

bobb

October 11th 03, 03:42 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Donna Metler" > wrote:
>
> > I suppose you realize that if his inhaler had been a different
medication,
> > and the girl had taken harm from it, the school would now be sued by the
> > parent for not protecting the girl. Prescription medication should NEVER
be
> > loaned or given to another person. If she has athsma and has a
prescription
> > inhaler, she should carry it with her-not expect to borrow her
boyfriend's.
> > Prescription inhalers can have pretty major side effects if used
improperly,
> > or by someone who doesn't need them.
> >
> > Realistically, the school's hands are tied on this-Zero Tolerance isn't
a
> > local law or board policy. And from a legal standpoint, they'd be a lot
more
> > at risk if they condoned a student passing prescription medication
around.
> >
> >
>
>
> of course zero tolerance is usually a local policy -- and designed to
> relieve people from ahving to exercise common sense
>
> it also teaches kids to have contempt for law and authority
>
> this incident could have been dealt with without expelling a student as
> essentially a 'drug pusher' --

Rah, Rah, Jenn... Well stated. At least you and a few others exhibit
common sense.

bobb

bobb

October 11th 03, 03:58 PM

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Joni Rathbun" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Donna Metler wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose you realize that if his inhaler had been a different
> medication,
> > > and the girl had taken harm from it, the school would now be sued by
the
> > > parent for not protecting the girl. Prescription medication should
NEVER
> be
> > > loaned or given to another person. If she has athsma and has a
> prescription
> > > inhaler, she should carry it with her-not expect to borrow her
> boyfriend's.
> > > Prescription inhalers can have pretty major side effects if used
> improperly,
> > > or by someone who doesn't need them.
> > >
> > > Realistically, the school's hands are tied on this-Zero Tolerance
isn't
> a
> > > local law or board policy.
> >
> > Where does it come from then?
> In my state, drug distribution-prescription or illegal, is a felony, and
any
> felony on school property requires a mandatory 1 year suspension or
> reassignment to an alternative education setting. This is part of the
state
> education code.

This exhibits the problem with 'special laws'. It wasn't enough that
possession or use of illegal drugs wasn't enough. Legislators had to create
a new law that applied to schools and now that single law has been expanded
to include otherwise law abiding people or are not dealing in illegal drugs.
Another law says it even more wrong to sell illegal drugs within so many
blocks of a school. Selling illegal drugs is less serious further away from
a school?

It's not enough to recognize that we have laws against killing people... we
now have special laws that apply favoring police officers, firemen,
minorites, the aged, legislators, and the list goes on. Obviously their
lives are more important than mine.

Understand that those who pass, promote, or agree with such laws are
pandering to special interest groups without, maybe, being aware of
unintended consequences... or maybe they are. Either way, these legislator
should be recalled or voted out of office. Pandering and catering to
special interest groups should be illegal in itself. These laws violate
equal protection as well as all the rules of justice and fairness.

Consider that selling drugs near a school apply mainly to blacks who live in
the inner city... not the suburbs where school are not a gathering or
meeting place. Intended or not blacks are exposed and arrested under this
provision to a much larger degree than white suburban kids.

Bobb

>
> Giving another student a prescription drug counts as distribution. If the
> school took official notice of it at all, they wouldn't have had much
> choice. And ignoring it would have risked liability if something had
> happened to the girl due to the medication.
>
> It may be different elsewhere
> >
> >
> > And from a legal standpoint, they'd be a lot more
> > > at risk if they condoned a student passing prescription medication
> around.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

bobb

October 11th 03, 04:10 PM

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect on the part of
> the school, for withholding/delaying inhaler in an asthma attack.
>
> And refuse to drop the case.
>
> This sort of case shows why Zero Tolerance is unconstitutional.
>
> The two kids inhalers are interchangeable.
>
> Laws are supposed to be for the protection of the people, not for the
> legal convenience of the government to dictate terms to people.
>
> To delay an inhaler only because of some stupid robotic
> bureaucratic "Zero Tolerance" construct is reprehensible.
>
> Next they'll let people DIE rather than give them an
> emergency tracheotomy. Neater paperwork.
>
> Much easier to check the boxes on a death certificate
> than to argue that Zero Tolerance is stupid.
>
> (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."

Consider the opposite effect. Suppose the kid died and it was demonstrated
that the mere use of any available inhaler would've been a life saving
resource?

There is child laying on the floor gasping for breath.. yet it's illegal to
use an available life-saving resource.

Sorry, I can't loan you my inhaler cuz if I do.. I will be suspended from
school and arrested on a felony charge. If you die, it's not my problem...
it's the state and school policy. Being the law abiding citizen I am it's
not my responsibility or concern.

Who would be getting sued then... and for what?

bobb

bobb

October 11th 03, 04:15 PM

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect on the part of
> > the school, for withholding/delaying inhaler in an asthma attack.
> >
> The person who committed medical neglect is the one who neglected to
provide
> the girl with her own inhaler to keep on her person. The school is not
> required to provide prescription medication.
>
> > And refuse to drop the case.
> >
> > This sort of case shows why Zero Tolerance is unconstitutional.
> >
> > The two kids inhalers are interchangeable.
> But, the prescriptions are not.
> >
> > Laws are supposed to be for the protection of the people, not for the
> > legal convenience of the government to dictate terms to people.
> >
> > To delay an inhaler only because of some stupid robotic
> > bureaucratic "Zero Tolerance" construct is reprehensible.
> >
> Which is why children who need rescue medication are allowed to keep their
> own prescription on hand-not use someone else's.
> > Next they'll let people DIE rather than give them an
> > emergency tracheotomy. Neater paperwork.
> >
> > Much easier to check the boxes on a death certificate
> > than to argue that Zero Tolerance is stupid.
> >
> > (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
> If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better believe that I'm
going
> to make sure she has an inhaler on her person, that there's one stored at
> the school in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level where
she's
> with one teacher most of the time, that there's one in the teacher's desk,
> labeled for her.
>
> I'm not going to assume there is a child in the next desk who uses the
same
> prescription-nor would I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters
inhaler
> and give it to another child.
>
>

Hmm.. have you ever lost your car keys? Left you wallet or purse at home?
Can't find your check book?
Oh, of course not... we live in a perfect world, right?

Even the routine asprin is illegal... which, if I understand correctly.. is
good for most everything, yet in school it's an illegal drug. Let's use
some common sense instead of stupid law and apply intent instead of zero
tolerance.

We are considered a stupid people being ruled by those even more so.

bobb

bobb

October 11th 03, 04:19 PM

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
Joni
> Rathbun says...
> >
> >
> >I wonder if there are any protections provided by Good Sam laws. I
> >understand the legal issues but a good question has been asked:
> >What if it had been a life or death situation?
> >
> >
>
> Good Samaritan laws require that you stay within your training.
>
> Banty
>

It's ironic that the average citizen is immune generally from administering
first aid.. and that's what this girl was doing. Guess these laws don't
apply to kids.

bobb

bobb

October 11th 03, 04:24 PM

"Joni Rathbun" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 9 Oct 2003, Banty wrote:
>
> > In article >,
Joni
> > Rathbun says...
> > >
> > >
> > >I wonder if there are any protections provided by Good Sam laws. I
> > >understand the legal issues but a good question has been asked:
> > >What if it had been a life or death situation?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Good Samaritan laws require that you stay within your training.
> >
>
> Hmm. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that. The Good Samaritan
> laws I'm familiar with are meant to provide some protection to
> those who voluntarily render aid in good faith, including lay
> people who may have no particular training. And, I believe,
> some states have laws that make it an offense to NOT render
> aid.
>
>
I was once told to take red cross training in first aid but don't accept
their registration. Doing so would exempt you from the Good Samaritan laws
and become subject to law suits.

You make a good point... I beleive one is not legally oblidged to
volunteer first aid but if called upon to assist there is no right of
refusal.

bobb

bobb

LaVonne Carlson

October 13th 03, 01:21 AM

Donna Metler wrote:

> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect on the part of
> > the school, for withholding/delaying inhaler in an asthma attack.
> >
> The person who committed medical neglect is the one who neglected to provide
> the girl with her own inhaler to keep on her person. The school is not
> required to provide prescription medication.

Not only are schools not required to provide prescription medication, schools
cannot legally administer prescription medication without a note from a
physician and the child's medication in original packaging.

> > (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
> If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better believe that I'm going
> to make sure she has an inhaler on her person, that there's one stored at
> the school in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level where she's
> with one teacher most of the time, that there's one in the teacher's desk,
> labeled for her.

I would do the same thing!

> I'm not going to assume there is a child in the next desk who uses the same
> prescription-nor would I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters inhaler
> and give it to another child.

How ridiculous this is. Inhaler prescriptions are different. I wonder how
Greg would have responded if the child had died from a reaction to an inhaler
that was not prescribed for the child.

LaVonne

Greg Hanson

October 13th 03, 09:21 AM

> Greg wrote
> The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect
> on the part of the school, for withholding/delaying
> inhaler in an asthma attack.

> Donna Metler wrote
> The person who committed medical neglect is the one
> who neglected to provide the girl with her own
> inhaler to keep on her person. The school is not
> required to provide prescription medication.

Greg wrote
And if she forgets she must DIE or choke enough
that she needs an ambulance or emergency tracheotomy?
How is that not medical neglect of a child?

> LaVonne wrote
> Not only are schools not required to provide
> prescription medication, schools cannot legally
> administer prescription medication without a note
> from a physician and the child's medication
> in original packaging.

> Greg wrote (Sarcasm about bureaucratic mindset)
> (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."

> Donna Metler wrote
> If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better
> believe that I'm going to make sure she has an inhaler
> on her person, that there's one stored at the school
> in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level
> where she's with one teacher most of the time, that
> there's one in the teacher's desk, labeled for her.

Greg wrote
ILLEGAL.
What makes you think it's LEGAL to keep prescription
medication in the teachers desk in a school?

> LaVonne wrote
> I would do the same thing!

Greg wrote
ILLEGAL.
When you get really happy about "letter of the law"
I just love to see you hoisted by your own petard.

It just goes to show that the pitfall traps of
zero-tolerance can even trip up an ""expert"". :)

> Donna Metler wrote
> I'm not going to assume there is a child in the
> next desk who uses the same prescription-nor would
> I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters inhaler
> and give it to another child.

Not even when somebody's choking?
Do you know HOW to do an emergency tracheotomy
or CPR or is it much too "icky"?

Both mothers, both kids, nurse and probably the teacher
all knew that their medications were identical.

The facts should always trump "what if"'s.
Thinking should always trump blind obedience to
one-size-fits-all Orwellian application of law.
(Reckless disregard for "the spirit of the law")

>LaVonne said
> How ridiculous this is. Inhaler prescriptions
> are different. I wonder how Greg would have
> responded if the child had died from a reaction
> to an inhaler that was not prescribed for the child.

That would involve thinking and fact checking.
Try thinking OUTSIDE the bureaucracy, LaVonne.

In regard to the "letter of the law" I again ask you
to read up on Judge Roland Friesler. His history
is all about impeccable legal logic.

Greg Hanson

October 13th 03, 09:29 AM

Greg Hanson

October 13th 03, 09:31 AM

Greg Hanson

October 13th 03, 09:32 AM

Kane

October 13th 03, 12:37 PM

On 13 Oct 2003 01:21:54 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>> Greg wrote
>> The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect
>> on the part of the school, for withholding/delaying
>> inhaler in an asthma attack.
>
>> Donna Metler wrote
>> The person who committed medical neglect is the one
>> who neglected to provide the girl with her own
>> inhaler to keep on her person. The school is not
>> required to provide prescription medication.
>
>Greg wrote
>And if she forgets she must DIE or choke enough
>that she needs an ambulance or emergency tracheotomy?
>How is that not medical neglect of a child?

It sure isn't if the nurse or others call for an EMT wagon, and
administer any first aid available to choking victims. I'm not going
to list any here for asthma, but nurses know them, or better.

And bottled gaseous O2 if pretty common in such settings.

>> LaVonne wrote
>> Not only are schools not required to provide
>> prescription medication, schools cannot legally
>> administer prescription medication without a note
>> from a physician and the child's medication
>> in original packaging.
>
>> Greg wrote (Sarcasm about bureaucratic mindset)
>> (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
>
>> Donna Metler wrote
>> If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better
>> believe that I'm going to make sure she has an inhaler
>> on her person, that there's one stored at the school
>> in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level
>> where she's with one teacher most of the time, that
>> there's one in the teacher's desk, labeled for her.
>
>Greg wrote
>ILLEGAL.

No it's not.

>What makes you think it's LEGAL to keep prescription
>medication in the teachers desk in a school?

I can give my prescription medication to anyone to hold for me. It is
illegal from them to use it for ANY PURPOSE other than to adminster to
me. It is illegal for me to let them with my knowledge and permission.

But it's not illegal for the teacher to hold. She has the legal status
as my representative, in loco parentis, do act on my behalf pertaining
to my child.

Teach better lock the drawer though or place it in her locked little
pin money box.... all teacher had that capacity when I was a kid and I
assume still get a lockable desk or container these days.

>
>> LaVonne wrote
>> I would do the same thing!
>
>Greg wrote
>ILLEGAL.

What an overripe pile of bull****.

>When you get really happy about "letter of the law"
>I just love to see you hoisted by your own petard.

It is not illegal to assign parental rights over to another for
specific instances such as child safety concerns regarding
medications. Teachers administer them as a matter of course unless
they are of a kind that could have adverse reactions, then the duty
devolves to the school nurse.
>
>It just goes to show that the pitfall traps of
>zero-tolerance can even trip up an ""expert"". :)

Just goes to show you been burning horse**** in the hookah far to much
these days. Time to gather up the can harvest and purchase some "good
****" don't yah think?
>
>> Donna Metler wrote
>> I'm not going to assume there is a child in the
>> next desk who uses the same prescription-nor would
>> I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters inhaler
>> and give it to another child.
>
>Not even when somebody's choking?

No, note even when somebody is in dire distress.

>Do you know HOW to do an emergency tracheotomy
>or CPR or is it much too "icky"?

Yes, and yes, and no. I've even done mouth to mouth on valuable
livestock and pets. I notice my wife avoided kissing me for a few days
afterward, well, when it wasn't her cat...then she kissed right after
I brought the nasty little critter back from certain death.
>
>Both mothers, both kids, nurse and probably the teacher
>all knew that their medications were identical.

Aha, now how would they "know" that? The knew the prescriptions were
the same, they did not know if they had been recently changed, they
did not know if the inhalers were intact during the many days the
children had them, and unfilled with anything else. They did not know
the children had not let them out of their possession.

Tragedies do happen when things are taken on trust instead of proof.
Go ask a nurse how she deals with drug delivery, and what happens to
drugs that get out of her personal direct control for a time....

People, including kid people, do strange things with drugs and
dispensers. I want to know where that girls inhaler was and why.
>
>The facts should always trump "what if"'s.

And you threw in speculation unsupported by the known facts. Inhalers
floating around with kids are not secure devices.

>Thinking should always trump blind obedience to
>one-size-fits-all Orwellian application of law.
>(Reckless disregard for "the spirit of the law")

Then you should try it.

>
>>LaVonne said
>> How ridiculous this is. Inhaler prescriptions
>> are different. I wonder how Greg would have
>> responded if the child had died from a reaction
>> to an inhaler that was not prescribed for the child.
>
>That would involve thinking and fact checking.
>Try thinking OUTSIDE the bureaucracy, LaVonne.

You cannot do an analysis on an inhaler content in seconds or even
minutes. Anything could have been in that inhaler. Kids play with such
things, even drop them into unlikely places and in a panic pull them
out and dry them off for fear of catching hell for wasting valuable
meds. Kids have to be careful taugt by their docs and their nurses how
to treat prescription and you can bet they tell them NEVER give our
drugs to another person under any circumstances.
>
>In regard to the "letter of the law" I again ask you
>to read up on Judge Roland Friesler. His history
>is all about impeccable legal logic.

He wouldn't for a moment argue the point here that someone should have
taken an inhaler from one person and given it to another, not unless
the druggist just handed it over and declared it was an exact
duplicate in compound and doseage to the other persons...and even then
you'd probably have to chance being charged.

I know you have real problem with rules there, towelboy, but rules are
our little friends.

They keep that damn honking monster pickup from smashing our little
Honda Civic at the cross streets...even if there is an emergency...by
the way, that's MY monster truck that just smashed your little beater
into tin foil.

Tah. Kane

Donna Metler

October 13th 03, 02:36 PM

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> > Greg wrote
> > The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect
> > on the part of the school, for withholding/delaying
> > inhaler in an asthma attack.
>
> > Donna Metler wrote
> > The person who committed medical neglect is the one
> > who neglected to provide the girl with her own
> > inhaler to keep on her person. The school is not
> > required to provide prescription medication.
>
> Greg wrote
> And if she forgets she must DIE or choke enough
> that she needs an ambulance or emergency tracheotomy?
> How is that not medical neglect of a child?
>
> > LaVonne wrote
> > Not only are schools not required to provide
> > prescription medication, schools cannot legally
> > administer prescription medication without a note
> > from a physician and the child's medication
> > in original packaging.
>
> > Greg wrote (Sarcasm about bureaucratic mindset)
> > (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
>
> > Donna Metler wrote
> > If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better
> > believe that I'm going to make sure she has an inhaler
> > on her person, that there's one stored at the school
> > in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level
> > where she's with one teacher most of the time, that
> > there's one in the teacher's desk, labeled for her.
>
> Greg wrote
> ILLEGAL.
> What makes you think it's LEGAL to keep prescription
> medication in the teachers desk in a school?

WRONG-see, I teach in a public school.
Rescue medications are allowed to be kept on a child's person, and if the
child is too young to keep up with them, the TEACHER is required to do so. I
have had years where I had a fanny pack which I got from the office every
morning and wore all day, which contained several children's rescue meds,
and I have had to be trained in some cases to administer these meds to young
children.

No law requires that a child be kept away from required medications.
>
> > LaVonne wrote
> > I would do the same thing!
>
> Greg wrote
> ILLEGAL.
> When you get really happy about "letter of the law"
> I just love to see you hoisted by your own petard.
>
> It just goes to show that the pitfall traps of
> zero-tolerance can even trip up an ""expert"". :)
>
> > Donna Metler wrote
> > I'm not going to assume there is a child in the
> > next desk who uses the same prescription-nor would
> > I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters inhaler
> > and give it to another child.
>
> Not even when somebody's choking?
> Do you know HOW to do an emergency tracheotomy
> or CPR or is it much too "icky"?
>
> Both mothers, both kids, nurse and probably the teacher
> all knew that their medications were identical.
>
> The facts should always trump "what if"'s.
> Thinking should always trump blind obedience to
> one-size-fits-all Orwellian application of law.
> (Reckless disregard for "the spirit of the law")
>
> >LaVonne said
> > How ridiculous this is. Inhaler prescriptions
> > are different. I wonder how Greg would have
> > responded if the child had died from a reaction
> > to an inhaler that was not prescribed for the child.
>
> That would involve thinking and fact checking.
> Try thinking OUTSIDE the bureaucracy, LaVonne.
>
> In regard to the "letter of the law" I again ask you
> to read up on Judge Roland Friesler. His history
> is all about impeccable legal logic.

Donna Metler

October 13th 03, 05:05 PM

Oh, and one more thing which hasn't been pointed out yet. Inhalers require
mouth contact, which means that by using another child's inhaler, the child
is possibly being exposed to various infectious diseases. While in this case
the two children had almost certainly had mouth-to-mouth contact, this is
another reason to restrict use of an inhaler to the person for which it was
intended. I can't imagine passing an inhaler around is sanitary.

Bottom line-if your child needs medication, MAKE SURE they have the
medication. Period.

Barbara Bomberger

October 13th 03, 05:18 PM

On 13 Oct 2003 04:37:48 -0700, (Kane)
wrote:

>
>It sure isn't if the nurse or others call for an EMT wagon, and
>administer any first aid available to choking victims. I'm not going
>to list any here for asthma, but nurses know them, or better.

The only cure for an asthma attack is pretty much an inhaler, or an
injection of something like ephinephrine. The chances, in a sever
case, of a child making it until the EMT wagon came with the shot is
pretty slim. The chances of the school nurse having the drug is even
slimmer.
>
>And bottled gaseous O2 if pretty common in such settings.
In a sever asthma attack it is generally to late for this alternative.
AGain, the school probably doesnt have it, and will the EMT arrive in
time?

Barb
>
>>> LaVonne wrote
>>> Not only are schools not required to provide
>>> prescription medication, schools cannot legally
>>> administer prescription medication without a note
>>> from a physician and the child's medication
>>> in original packaging.
>>
>>> Greg wrote (Sarcasm about bureaucratic mindset)
>>> (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
>>
>>> Donna Metler wrote
>>> If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better
>>> believe that I'm going to make sure she has an inhaler
>>> on her person, that there's one stored at the school
>>> in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level
>>> where she's with one teacher most of the time, that
>>> there's one in the teacher's desk, labeled for her.
>>
>>Greg wrote
>>ILLEGAL.
>
>No it's not.
>
>>What makes you think it's LEGAL to keep prescription
>>medication in the teachers desk in a school?
>
>I can give my prescription medication to anyone to hold for me. It is
>illegal from them to use it for ANY PURPOSE other than to adminster to
>me. It is illegal for me to let them with my knowledge and permission.
>
>But it's not illegal for the teacher to hold. She has the legal status
>as my representative, in loco parentis, do act on my behalf pertaining
>to my child.
>
>Teach better lock the drawer though or place it in her locked little
>pin money box.... all teacher had that capacity when I was a kid and I
>assume still get a lockable desk or container these days.
>
>>
>>> LaVonne wrote
>>> I would do the same thing!
>>
>>Greg wrote
>>ILLEGAL.
>
>What an overripe pile of bull****.
>
>>When you get really happy about "letter of the law"
>>I just love to see you hoisted by your own petard.
>
>It is not illegal to assign parental rights over to another for
>specific instances such as child safety concerns regarding
>medications. Teachers administer them as a matter of course unless
>they are of a kind that could have adverse reactions, then the duty
>devolves to the school nurse.
>>
>>It just goes to show that the pitfall traps of
>>zero-tolerance can even trip up an ""expert"". :)
>
>Just goes to show you been burning horse**** in the hookah far to much
>these days. Time to gather up the can harvest and purchase some "good
>****" don't yah think?
>>
>>> Donna Metler wrote
>>> I'm not going to assume there is a child in the
>>> next desk who uses the same prescription-nor would
>>> I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters inhaler
>>> and give it to another child.
>>
>>Not even when somebody's choking?
>
>No, note even when somebody is in dire distress.
>
>>Do you know HOW to do an emergency tracheotomy
>>or CPR or is it much too "icky"?
>
>Yes, and yes, and no. I've even done mouth to mouth on valuable
>livestock and pets. I notice my wife avoided kissing me for a few days
>afterward, well, when it wasn't her cat...then she kissed right after
>I brought the nasty little critter back from certain death.
>>
>>Both mothers, both kids, nurse and probably the teacher
>>all knew that their medications were identical.
>
>Aha, now how would they "know" that? The knew the prescriptions were
>the same, they did not know if they had been recently changed, they
>did not know if the inhalers were intact during the many days the
>children had them, and unfilled with anything else. They did not know
>the children had not let them out of their possession.
>
>Tragedies do happen when things are taken on trust instead of proof.
>Go ask a nurse how she deals with drug delivery, and what happens to
>drugs that get out of her personal direct control for a time....
>
>People, including kid people, do strange things with drugs and
>dispensers. I want to know where that girls inhaler was and why.
>>
>>The facts should always trump "what if"'s.
>
>And you threw in speculation unsupported by the known facts. Inhalers
>floating around with kids are not secure devices.
>
>>Thinking should always trump blind obedience to
>>one-size-fits-all Orwellian application of law.
>>(Reckless disregard for "the spirit of the law")
>
>Then you should try it.
>
>>
>>>LaVonne said
>>> How ridiculous this is. Inhaler prescriptions
>>> are different. I wonder how Greg would have
>>> responded if the child had died from a reaction
>>> to an inhaler that was not prescribed for the child.
>>
>>That would involve thinking and fact checking.
>>Try thinking OUTSIDE the bureaucracy, LaVonne.
>
>You cannot do an analysis on an inhaler content in seconds or even
>minutes. Anything could have been in that inhaler. Kids play with such
>things, even drop them into unlikely places and in a panic pull them
>out and dry them off for fear of catching hell for wasting valuable
>meds. Kids have to be careful taugt by their docs and their nurses how
>to treat prescription and you can bet they tell them NEVER give our
>drugs to another person under any circumstances.
>>
>>In regard to the "letter of the law" I again ask you
>>to read up on Judge Roland Friesler. His history
>>is all about impeccable legal logic.
>
>He wouldn't for a moment argue the point here that someone should have
>taken an inhaler from one person and given it to another, not unless
>the druggist just handed it over and declared it was an exact
>duplicate in compound and doseage to the other persons...and even then
>you'd probably have to chance being charged.
>
>I know you have real problem with rules there, towelboy, but rules are
>our little friends.
>
>They keep that damn honking monster pickup from smashing our little
>Honda Civic at the cross streets...even if there is an emergency...by
>the way, that's MY monster truck that just smashed your little beater
>into tin foil.
>
>Tah. Kane

Kane

October 13th 03, 08:00 PM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:18:34 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> wrote:

snipping all the bushwah from Greegor the Whore............

>On 13 Oct 2003 04:37:48 -0700, (Kane)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It sure isn't if the nurse or others call for an EMT wagon, and
>>administer any first aid available to choking victims. I'm not going
>>to list any here for asthma, but nurses know them, or better.
>
>The only cure for an asthma attack is pretty much an inhaler, or an
>injection of something like ephinephrine. The chances, in a sever
>case, of a child making it until the EMT wagon came with the shot is
>pretty slim. The chances of the school nurse having the drug is even
>slimmer.

My adult step daughter is an asthma victim. When she was young I
certainly did check if they epi sticks available for emergency use.
They do and registered nurses (which I believe all school nurses were
at time) and trained PNs (my mother) could administer.

Allergic reactions can kill in minutes, just like asthma..that's why
epi kits are much more common than you think.

Where did you get the idea a school nurse wouldn't have emergency med
supplies? What would be the point of having a school nurse without
them?

>>
>>And bottled gaseous O2 if pretty common in such settings.
>In a sever asthma attack it is generally to late for this
alternative.
>AGain, the school probably doesnt have it, and will the EMT arrive in
>time?

Okay, finally wore me down. I'm dialing up my local schools right
now...

Okay, just back...flash, the school nurse told me not to worry about
my child (like I would at 25 years old) that she has both in a quite
fully stocked EM kit and the proper EM proceedure training.

She is a semiretired NP, who as I recall in our state can legally
dispense prescription drugs, and as I recall can even prescribe. I'm
not sure and didn't ask if that included the psychotropics...but
that's an ot aside.

Where do folks get these ideas that professionals just sit around
manicuring their nails.

We had quite a talk. She does almost 100 hours a year of professional
development training. As a district school nurse covering 2
elementary, two middle schools and a hs, she is one busy lady
apparently but she can't hold her license in this state without that
training and her supplies are rotated and upgraded by the local EMT
county unit every quarter.

School nurses are serious health practitioners, not cooing, asprin
dispensing temperature takers. This one I spoke could do a trach and
has the supplies to, and is legally sanctioned to.

Put my mind at rest, how about yours?

Why not call your local school district and ask if you are concerned.
I know funding is a big problem and many schools that have EMT
companies nearby use them and spread school nurses out over a wider
area than in the past.

The nurse I talked to gave me quite an earfull on school district and
state politics vis a vis her job.

Kane

>
>Barb

Kane

October 13th 03, 08:47 PM

On 13 Oct 2003 11:47:37 -0700, (Michael S.
Morris) wrote:

>Monday, the 13th of October, 2003
>
>Kane, any response from me will have to wait
>something like two weeks. I have every night of
>this week through Saturday taken up with choral
>rehearsals or performances. And then my daughter
>has a Pony Club rating on Sunday.

Pony Club? No kidding. I fielded 3-day teams through the 60's. A
couple of girls went on to tryouts for the US Olympic team. I not only
coached, some were my pupils for a number of years.

I was too large a person for most equestrian contests, though I
personally trained a lot of hunters, showjumpers, and dressage mounts.
A few were bought up by the Japanese ET and some by the NZ ET team.
Mid 60's.

My personal mounts had to run 16-2 and over with plenty of breadth to
carry me comfortably..think, Marshall Dillon's (James Arness...a
one-time - once only - drinking buddy) Buckskin in Gunsmoke..though I
tended to prefer grays and bays).

I started those from bangtails, range bred thoroughbreds, usually
rounded up in their 4th or 5th year...now there was a sport...I did
the rounding up as well as the shipping and finally the training.

>I am impressed with the quickness of your response
>to mine. I am also pleased in my sense that you have
>more or less abandoned trying to reduce my arguments
>to psychologization.

Try pronouncing that out loud. It isn't, to my knowledge an actual
word in use, nor has it been. But lexicographic (and that IS a word
and more pronounceable) creativity is tons of fun.

Your word makes my jaw crack three times saying it. Nice one. I admire
the command it takes to say it. Mine rolls mellifluously off the
tongue, though rather sibilant.

The one below, a creation of mine decades ago, has a similar richness
I think, but again I find it too sibilant. The "sitee" sound is such a
cheap throwaway, used far too much, as is "tion" as in "shun" is in
musical lyrics.

The word first seen in Eric Hoffers works is mine, unless he and I
shared a 100th monkey moment. "Religiosity" sometimes rendered as
"religeosity," (incorrect and I get to decide the spelling) was
introduced into a conversation during a punning marathon at a
mensa-member-heavy party by myself. Just popped out in referrance to
some offensive pushy proselytizing and theosophical based babble.

A number of the folks, mensans and non, were published writers,
essayists, screenwriters, and one well known sci fi author, and what
have you other literary types, and some must have hung out with
Hoffer...I think I recall that being mentioned at some time or other.

>Of course, that tactic has been
>replaced by more insult and bluster,

Oh, I don't think it was entirely insult and bluster, nor did the
insult and bluster I offered replace anything. You still are subject
to psychological examination by me. You are welcome to examine my
posts through any paradigm you wish...of course.....it's a free
country.

>but I do consider
>it progress, in any event.

Just another arrogant bombastic twit remark I see.

>
> Mike Morris
> )

The art of the subtle flame should be more assiduously cultivated.

You are improving, but have a way to go compared to other of my
opponents. I've been whipsawed far beyond your ability.

Myself I prefer the more earthy direct insult.

Character flaw, or attribute? Yah got me.

Kane

Kane

October 13th 03, 08:56 PM

On 13 Oct 2003 19:15:06 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>Just to follow up on my OP:
>
>The North Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled in
>
>Stumbo v DSS (North Carolina, 2003)
>
>that CPA, DSS has an obligation before it WASTES SCARCE RESOURCES to
>investigate internally before it dispatches an employee out to the
home.
>
>BTW, this holding was UNANIMOUS.
>
>Child Protective Services frequently handles easy cases, yet lets
truly abusive
>situations languish.

Then you approve of the founded/unfounded abuse registry to you?

That's all an internal investigation can do. And there is nothing that
says they can't send a worker out even if they find NOTHING at all, or
even evidence of expunged foundings...they are likely NEVER removed
from the databases and it is perfectly constitutional to hold
information for as long as any enforcement agency wishes pending legal
action to remove....and that, dear little Purslane, is exceedingly
hard to squeeze out of the courts.

So basically you have posted non-news about a none issue that isn't
going to change a whit from their efforts there our your efforts here.

More wasted motion. And yet another stumbling block you dip****s throw
in the way of actual reform and actual reformers. Tsk.

Yah never goin to get there from here, Sugar Maple.

Get some Rootone..it'll pep up your Cambium.

R R R R R

bingo bango bongo,

Stoneman

>
>Newsgroup alt support child protective services.
>
>
>I had sent in:
>
> >Subject: Malicious, false CPS allegations of educational neglect NM
>>From: (Fern5827)
>>Date: 10/9/2003 12:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>FWD from http://www.hslda.org
>>
>>False and Malicious Accusations in New Mexico
>>
>>
>>When the Royer family (not their real name) first heard from Child
Protective
>>Services, it wasn't a surprise. They had recently fired an employee
in their
>>family business for destructive behavior, outright lies, and other
problems.
>>When the employee intercepted a phone call complaining about his
conduct, he
>>pretended to be the boss. At this point his job was over: but not,
the family
>>suspects, his destructive influence on their life.
>>
>>
>>A New Mexico social worker left a business card at the Royer's shop,
>>informing
>>them that there had been an allegation of abuse/neglect against
them. When
>>the
>>family called HSLDA, attorney Scott Somerville asked them to provide
written
>>authorization to the social workers to discuss the matter with
attorneys
>>here.
>>Attorney Somerville then contacted the investigator.
>>
>>
>>HSLDA asked the investigator to describe the allegations. She
explained that
>>an
>>anonymous reporter said the child "did no work," that she was "way
behind her
>>grade level," and that "they say she is being homeschooled, but she
really
>>isn't." When they were informed of these allegations the Royers were
>>astonished. Their thirteen-year-old daughter is successfully
completing
>>eighth
>>grade work, using traditional Christian textbooks.
>>
>>
>>Attorney Somerville called Child Protective Services to explain the
>>situation.
>>While the Royers would be happy to prove to any reasonable person
that their
>>child was succeeding academically, they believe that it isn't
appropriate to
>>respond to a false and malicious complaint. HSLDA asked the
investigator to
>>contact her supervisor or an attorney for the agency to address the
problem
>>of
>>malicious reporting.
>>
>>
>>Please pray for this family, and others across the country that are
facing
>>similar situations. By working hard and working together, HSLDA
members are
>>changing the way that Child Protective Services deal with false and
malicious
>>allegations. We will not passively allow evil people to attack our
families
>>by
>>abusing a system that was intended to protect people.
>>
>>
>>FWD Newsgroup alt support child protective services.
>>
>>http://www.familyrightsassociation.com Look, especially for the
New
>>Contacts
>>and New Members area. Networking support within the states to
counter false
>>allegations of neglect and abuse.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>© Site Copyright 1996-2003 Home School Legal Defense Association
>>P.O. Box 3000 · Purcellville, VA 20134-9000 · Phone: (540) 338-5600
· Fax:
>>(540) 338-2733 · E-mail:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Donna Metler

October 14th 03, 01:35 AM

"Barbara Bomberger" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Oct 2003 04:37:48 -0700, (Kane)
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >It sure isn't if the nurse or others call for an EMT wagon, and
> >administer any first aid available to choking victims. I'm not going
> >to list any here for asthma, but nurses know them, or better.
>
> The only cure for an asthma attack is pretty much an inhaler, or an
> injection of something like ephinephrine. The chances, in a sever
> case, of a child making it until the EMT wagon came with the shot is
> pretty slim. The chances of the school nurse having the drug is even
> slimmer.
> >
> >And bottled gaseous O2 if pretty common in such settings.
> In a sever asthma attack it is generally to late for this alternative.
> AGain, the school probably doesnt have it, and will the EMT arrive in
> time?
>
Actually, every school I've taught in has had O2 on hand. If a child in a
class is known to have severe athsma (which, from news reports, this
WASN'T), it will often also be kept in the classrooms. O2 is one of the
things which can abort my severe migraines, and I have been able to get it
when I needed it in the past-which has avoided the worst reactions (my
migraines can lead to seizures), for long enough for my rescue medication to
take effect.

> Barb
> >
> >>> LaVonne wrote
> >>> Not only are schools not required to provide
> >>> prescription medication, schools cannot legally
> >>> administer prescription medication without a note
> >>> from a physician and the child's medication
> >>> in original packaging.
> >>
> >>> Greg wrote (Sarcasm about bureaucratic mindset)
> >>> (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
> >>
> >>> Donna Metler wrote
> >>> If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better
> >>> believe that I'm going to make sure she has an inhaler
> >>> on her person, that there's one stored at the school
> >>> in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level
> >>> where she's with one teacher most of the time, that
> >>> there's one in the teacher's desk, labeled for her.
> >>
> >>Greg wrote
> >>ILLEGAL.
> >
> >No it's not.
> >
> >>What makes you think it's LEGAL to keep prescription
> >>medication in the teachers desk in a school?
> >
> >I can give my prescription medication to anyone to hold for me. It is
> >illegal from them to use it for ANY PURPOSE other than to adminster to
> >me. It is illegal for me to let them with my knowledge and permission.
> >
> >But it's not illegal for the teacher to hold. She has the legal status
> >as my representative, in loco parentis, do act on my behalf pertaining
> >to my child.
> >
> >Teach better lock the drawer though or place it in her locked little
> >pin money box.... all teacher had that capacity when I was a kid and I
> >assume still get a lockable desk or container these days.
> >
> >>
> >>> LaVonne wrote
> >>> I would do the same thing!
> >>
> >>Greg wrote
> >>ILLEGAL.
> >
> >What an overripe pile of bull****.
> >
> >>When you get really happy about "letter of the law"
> >>I just love to see you hoisted by your own petard.
> >
> >It is not illegal to assign parental rights over to another for
> >specific instances such as child safety concerns regarding
> >medications. Teachers administer them as a matter of course unless
> >they are of a kind that could have adverse reactions, then the duty
> >devolves to the school nurse.
> >>
> >>It just goes to show that the pitfall traps of
> >>zero-tolerance can even trip up an ""expert"". :)
> >
> >Just goes to show you been burning horse**** in the hookah far to much
> >these days. Time to gather up the can harvest and purchase some "good
> >****" don't yah think?
> >>
> >>> Donna Metler wrote
> >>> I'm not going to assume there is a child in the
> >>> next desk who uses the same prescription-nor would
> >>> I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters inhaler
> >>> and give it to another child.
> >>
> >>Not even when somebody's choking?
> >
> >No, note even when somebody is in dire distress.
> >
> >>Do you know HOW to do an emergency tracheotomy
> >>or CPR or is it much too "icky"?
> >
> >Yes, and yes, and no. I've even done mouth to mouth on valuable
> >livestock and pets. I notice my wife avoided kissing me for a few days
> >afterward, well, when it wasn't her cat...then she kissed right after
> >I brought the nasty little critter back from certain death.
> >>
> >>Both mothers, both kids, nurse and probably the teacher
> >>all knew that their medications were identical.
> >
> >Aha, now how would they "know" that? The knew the prescriptions were
> >the same, they did not know if they had been recently changed, they
> >did not know if the inhalers were intact during the many days the
> >children had them, and unfilled with anything else. They did not know
> >the children had not let them out of their possession.
> >
> >Tragedies do happen when things are taken on trust instead of proof.
> >Go ask a nurse how she deals with drug delivery, and what happens to
> >drugs that get out of her personal direct control for a time....
> >
> >People, including kid people, do strange things with drugs and
> >dispensers. I want to know where that girls inhaler was and why.
> >>
> >>The facts should always trump "what if"'s.
> >
> >And you threw in speculation unsupported by the known facts. Inhalers
> >floating around with kids are not secure devices.
> >
> >>Thinking should always trump blind obedience to
> >>one-size-fits-all Orwellian application of law.
> >>(Reckless disregard for "the spirit of the law")
> >
> >Then you should try it.
> >
> >>
> >>>LaVonne said
> >>> How ridiculous this is. Inhaler prescriptions
> >>> are different. I wonder how Greg would have
> >>> responded if the child had died from a reaction
> >>> to an inhaler that was not prescribed for the child.
> >>
> >>That would involve thinking and fact checking.
> >>Try thinking OUTSIDE the bureaucracy, LaVonne.
> >
> >You cannot do an analysis on an inhaler content in seconds or even
> >minutes. Anything could have been in that inhaler. Kids play with such
> >things, even drop them into unlikely places and in a panic pull them
> >out and dry them off for fear of catching hell for wasting valuable
> >meds. Kids have to be careful taugt by their docs and their nurses how
> >to treat prescription and you can bet they tell them NEVER give our
> >drugs to another person under any circumstances.
> >>
> >>In regard to the "letter of the law" I again ask you
> >>to read up on Judge Roland Friesler. His history
> >>is all about impeccable legal logic.
> >
> >He wouldn't for a moment argue the point here that someone should have
> >taken an inhaler from one person and given it to another, not unless
> >the druggist just handed it over and declared it was an exact
> >duplicate in compound and doseage to the other persons...and even then
> >you'd probably have to chance being charged.
> >
> >I know you have real problem with rules there, towelboy, but rules are
> >our little friends.
> >
> >They keep that damn honking monster pickup from smashing our little
> >Honda Civic at the cross streets...even if there is an emergency...by
> >the way, that's MY monster truck that just smashed your little beater
> >into tin foil.
> >
> >Tah. Kane
>

bobb

October 14th 03, 03:36 AM

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, and one more thing which hasn't been pointed out yet. Inhalers require
> mouth contact, which means that by using another child's inhaler, the
child
> is possibly being exposed to various infectious diseases.

What happened to the time when it was common and popular to share a soft
drink bottle or can? Fact is, I saw two boys sharing a soda at the 7-11.

Hmm... I once read that kissing spread disease, too. A jokster added.. he
merely stopped reading, instead.

I'm also told many people use their lips and tongues on other various parts
of the body, too. So much for disease, huh?

bobb

While in this case
> the two children had almost certainly had mouth-to-mouth contact, this is
> another reason to restrict use of an inhaler to the person for which it
was
> intended. I can't imagine passing an inhaler around is sanitary.
>
> Bottom line-if your child needs medication, MAKE SURE they have the
> medication. Period.
>
>

Kane

October 14th 03, 04:53 AM

On 14 Oct 2003 00:18:32 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>Cain, you are not a Christian man.

That is correct. But I am an extremely moral one.

Do you recall what Jesus said to he money lenders in the temple as he
scourged them from it? Did he not curse them?

>I have no interest in *shilling* for

Sure you do. Or you wouldn't have made a disclaimer just before you
wrote....

>http://www.hslda.org

See how it works?

But that's alright. Don't miss my ending to this post.

I have powerful disgust for HSLDA. And it's not about some personal
beef as Doug tries to ingenuously claim.

They are one of the prime movers taking us into the hands of the feds.

And by the way, I'm not only a homeschooling parent..through the 60's
and 70s but a homeschooling advocate and activist historically and
currently.

In time not just homeschooling but all US parenting will become more
controlled by more centralized government should HSLDA succeed. It
appears their aim is to federalize parenting with the goal of then
becoming a part of the next administration (hell, they practically are
now in one agency) to then ADMINISTER parents and parenting on THEIR
MODEL.

You really need to look up Christian Reconstructionism and some ties
to HSLDA leadership.

Are you watching TV this evening? One of the most blatant of
propagandist attacks is being mounted against homeschool families
using the unfortunate murder suicide in a family very like the ones
you and your co-conspirators encourge.

The family used the claim of "home schooling" to isolate themselves
from observation bye CPS and being convicted in another state of
abuse.

They were not true home schoolers at all of course, but now, as I've
repeatedly warned, in reaction to the attacks on child welfare
agencies by lying little twits like you and Doug, and the use of
political exploitation by self serving bigots, and individual self
interest, homeschooling is under attack. ... and the solution to the
deaths of "homeschooled" children by each other and by their parents
hand is.........

Yup, you guessed: more government surveillance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/13/eveningnews/main577817.shtml

This evening's special report. Watch for the second half tomorrow
night and remember how you and your asshole buddies here have
supported families keeping CPS out of their homes for investigations.

One more instance a warrant wouldn't have been able to be obtained,
but because of this event and the political hay being made of it
warrants will now be FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE ISSUED.

I have said repeatedly in this ngs, to your asshole buddy Doug
especially, that wholesale solutions to individual problems bring with
it reactions you and all the puny ****ed little anti CPS organizations
cannot stop.

And I have a hunch you will learn one day that HSLDA is not what you
think it is. I believe you will learn it is PART OF THE PROBLEM FOR
HOMESCHOOLERS AND FAMILIES. They are right now pushing an omnibus bill
that is going to result, should it pass, in the biggest leap in
federal control of families this country has seen since the enforced
enrollment of children in the public school systmes in the 1800's.

And they are trumpeting it as a favor to homeschoolers.

HSLDA leadership appears to be planning on delivering the
approximately 2 million strong (times 2, as most are two parent
families) block of homeschooling voters to the Republican party. One
has to wonder what HSLDA leadership expects in return as a right wing
conservative Christian organization with historical ties to the
Christian Reconstructionist movement and other extreme right wing
organizations through by HSLDA leadership.

Look up HSLDA and see if you can find who the board of directors is
made up of, and notice, not a single female. Tell yah anything? A
homeschool support organization that has NO females on the
board...hmmmm.....HSLDA is not primarily about what it says it's about
is it?

I do not believe HSLDA's motives are the pure and humble motives they
declare. I do not simply believe unquestioningly a person's or a
group's stated intent because I want to believe their agenda agrees
with mine.

I ......watch .......what .......they ........do.

And I have a long list of what HSLDA has actually done as opposed to
their claimed intent.

HSLDA has been a thorn in the side of the majority of independent
homeschooling famlies that are NOT fundamentalist christian and follow
schooling guidelines that come from rightwing christian imposed
formats(Look into HSLDA leadership some time) since 1984.

A history of the players at HSLDA and its forerunner organizations and
its subordinate or otherwise connected organizations is a lesson in
organized theopolitical ambition on a scale that will one day, I
suspect, make the Catholic church history look like a blip - if they
aren't stopped.

States where homeschoolers have taken on battles to fight
overregulation and controls by the state have resulted in the right
wing conservative christian homeschoolers calling in HSLDA and the
results have been disasterous.

The rest of the homeschooler were, and still are screwed, by the laws
that ensued. They must register and they be tested and worse in some
states. The very thing they fought and HSLDA cut their legs out from
under them.

The right wingers not only accept state oversight they want it for the
political power that can go with it if their boys (HSLDA) get to
intrude further in federal affairs.

HSLDA associate organizations have been training conservative
christian families in lobbying tactics and weilds them, when it suits
their purpose, as a batteringram on the doors of government...a
government that is not supposed to be based on religion.

The republican conservatives want that activism...and in the end you
aren't going to get less government in families...you are going to get
more, defined by federally funded studies, and even MORE connected to
the carrot of federal funding.

I warned you all early on that CAPTA and ASFA are the classic "You
ain't seen nothin' yet" laws. And I'll tell you again.

That currrent pattern, from the homeschoolers experience who lost in
the states at the hand of HSLDA self proclaimed "help," is right NOW
being pushed in DC by HSLDA and that pattern's major component is an
aquiesence and cooperation on a grand scale to allow MORE intrusion
into families by government...the idea that if one has nothing to hide
one shouldn't mind monitoring of one's family.

And the making of homeschoolers a special favored class. Smart
homeschoolers have been trying to stay out of the federal spotlight
for decades..in fact for a century and a half. Now this. Just like at
the state level when HSLDA "helped."

You are blessed or cursed, as your political bias dictates, with being
a witness to history being made...and it is going to be a nightmare as
it plays out. I hope you are lucky and old enough to die before you
see what is going to happen.

I play the loudmouth lout here for my own purposes, but the military
taught me political and intelligence analysis and using those tools on
my own and expanding on them over the years, and watching my prophetic
score, I am telling you YOU and YOUR ****ed up buddies are being USED
by HSLDA and other forces to gain more political power.

I have been right over 80% of the time when I've taken on a project to
make predictions about...I am telling you you are a fool.

Watch and see if I am not correct.

At first they'll feed you the frosting that says they are going to
protect families through the constitution etc. But you'll find the
cake itself is made of ****. And they'll feed you and the public that
when homeschoolers and other families discover they are forever
defined by federal mandate.

Look at the record of the abuse of constitutional protections that
have fallen even now...the biggest is the concept of states rights.

And the first salvo in this war by the feds on families you fools have
played with for your own ego driven or in some cases, money driven,
reaons has just been fired.

It is the CBS program on this evening that trashes homeschooling in a
way never seen before...though they have taken small lumps for years.

Celebrate or cry.

But know that I spit on you and yours for either your malignant intent
or your rotting stupidity.

>However, I have known some wonderfully committed homeschoolers, and I
salute
>them for taking time with their children.

I've known thousands of them and worked with them and was an active
one through my children's rearing.

So thanks for the accolade....but you don't know the half of it, just
like you and your cohorts maintain your ignorant head up your asses
posture.

Homeschoolers, quietly, and probably not ever very aware and certainly
never crowing about it when they did understand it, have been in the
forefront of fighting for family sovierngty and freedom since the
1850's when the first instance of independent Americans, and new
immigrants, had their children taken away to public schools by
officials holding guns on them.

This has been a colonized nation since because it broke the back of
our independent spirits when the skills and desire to be entrepeneurs
was lost in the school houses of New England that prepared on the
still surviving Prussian model little children for factory and war.

The ONLY place in this country where true independence was taught was
in home schooling, and a few private schools for the privileged. And
now the homeschooling piece is going to be disappearing. Schools of
the privileged won't.

One of the reasons I delurked in these ngs was to point out to you
assholes that have assisted in this next step of destroying family
freedom, while thinking you are protecting it, is that I saw you
clearly as bumbling mislead exploited idiots.

You still are, you babbling twit.

>Often homeschooled children are gifted, or conversely, sometimes they
are
>special needs children.

Oh, you are so insightful...but it sounds more to me like, "twitter
twitter look at me the CPS reformer and the apologist patting the
little homeschool families on the head." Patronizing Bitch.

>Did you know that in PA a Mother got the subsidy extended to her
homeschooling
>her special needs child?

And did you know that the people you shill for, the HSLDA, are the
authors of an omnibus bill that includes a piece to fund homeschoolers
school supplies from federal coffers....and do you understand the
handing over of homeschoolers they are doing for their own political
agendas that that kind of special treatment entails?

The homeschooling community, more especially the ones still around as
early pioneers from the 70's and 80's are screaming their heads off
because THEY SEE this much more clearly. People tried to preempt them
before and were stopped. Some had their asses sued off. HSLDA is the
next evolution in that attempt, and end run around the independent
diverse homeschooler...what makes homeschooling work.

By the way, when this all comes done more that mother will lose that
funding, as will others. And it will be because the public will go up
in arms at special treatment for homeschoolers.

>The Judge ruled that the Mom was providing better services to her
child, than
>that offered by private agencies.

That isn't news. Parents of children with disabilities have had to
take this very tough route for some time now. They are supported
within the homeschooling community big time....check out:

http://www.nathhan.com/google

Don't you EVER do your own research?

>
>Homeschoolers RULE.
>

You know ****, asshole. They don't need **** spouting assholes like
you for support. They are tougher and bigger than you and all the
child abuse apologists in these ngs and their **** filled
organizations.

You are a shallow lying self serving impotent load of low grade horse
**** that fancies Itself as something special.

>Cain has been chastized throughout the 'net for his discourtesy:

Patronizing people is far more discourteous than swearing, you ****ing
bitch.

Which "throughout" newsgroups would that include, you lying Bitch?

**** you and the asshole doug who rides you, and tell him to stop
posting for you. His writting is so easy to spot it makes my pity you
both.

You are a menace to families, as is he.

>>>© Site Copyright 1996-2003 Home School Legal Defense Association
>>>P.O. Box 3000 · Purcellville, VA 20134-9000 · Phone: (540) 338-5600
·
>>Fax:
>>>(540) 338-2733 · E-mail:

Anyone buying into this crap organization would do well to do some in
depth research on leaders, methods, and history....and boy, is there
plenty of it, before deciding they are just nice homeschool lovin'
legal eagles.

http://www.expage.com/page/folchslda
http://www.gomilpitas.com/homeschooling/articles/102299.htm
http://www.hslda.us/freedom.htm

Oh, and especially for Doug the Sycophant Dupe:
http://www.mainstream.com/nhpolitics/courtreports.html

Doug paraphrased: "but but, they HELP families." What a stupid
asshole.

Here's one homeschooler from the cited URL above that tells it like it
is about HSLDA "help":

(Scot Sommerville is a Harvard trained lawyer with HSLDA, and seems to
be a smiling, pleasant appearing mealy mouthed betrayer of
independent-homeschoolers. Kinda like Doug appears to be with
families.)

"While Mr. Sommerville says homeschoolers should hang together, he
most certainly does not mean this. Or rather he means we should hang
together over what HSLDA thinks is important. If he truly meant we
should hang together he would have kept abreast of my family's
struggle in court and encouraged other families to come to the
courthouse in support of my efforts. If he had done so perhaps the
outcome would have been different.

I would also like to comment on his assessment that we "lost". The
case was dismissed and my family was court ordered to submit far less
information to the school department then other families who have not
stood up. The fact that my struggle took so long was due to my lack of
experience and knowledge. I had to learn.

- Kim Engler Bryant"

This isn't the only family that reports betrayal by HSLDA.

Don't be taken in by this conservative rightwing connected While Mr.
Sommerville says homeschoolers should hang together, he most certainly
does not mean this. Or rather he means we should hang together over
what HSLDA thinks is important. If he truly meant we should hang
together he would have kept abreast of my family's struggle in court
and encouraged other families to come to the courthouse in support of
my efforts. If he had done so perhaps the outcome would have been
different.

I would also like to comment on his assessment that we "lost". The
case was dismissed and my family was court ordered to submit far less
information to the school department then other families who have not
stood up. The fact that my struggle took so long was due to my lack of
experience and knowledge. I had to learn.

- Kim Engler Bryant

Don't be taken in by this theopolitically ambitious right wing
christian historicaly connected front gruppen. Look up Mike Farris'
background. Know who you get into bed with.

Do your homework. If you like what you see, well go for it...you get
what you deserve.

Of course your support feeds us to the HSLDA big hungry political
mouth, so don't expect pats on the back for joining up if you do.

Kane

Michael S. Morris

October 14th 03, 05:31 AM

Monday, the 13th of October, 2003

I said:
Kane, any response from me will have to wait
something like two weeks. I have every night of
this week through Saturday taken up with choral
rehearsals or performances. And then my daughter
has a Pony Club rating on Sunday.
Kane:
Pony Club? No kidding.[]

My wife, whence all horsemanship begins in our
household, is simply envious of our daughter's
opportunity in this.

I said:
I am impressed with the quickness of your response
to mine. I am also pleased in my sense that you have
more or less abandoned trying to reduce my arguments
to psychologization.
Kane:
Try pronouncing that out loud.

I like it. I do it roughly psy-koh-loh-jigh-ZAY-shun.

The third meaning in the OED for psychologize is
"to render psychological".

Kane:
It isn't, to my knowledge an actual
word in use, nor has it been.

The first cite to "psychologization" is to
Bentham 1811-1831. There's also one to
Alvin Toffler's _Future Shock_ 1974 "The key to the
post-service economy lies in the psychologization
of all production."

Kane:
But lexicographic (and that IS a word
and more pronounceable) creativity is
tons of fun.

Certainly. For instance in my case "enthymemic" for
"enthymematic" (which I think you rather misunderstood
as pejorative, when it isn't---hidden assumptions are
perfectly accepted rhetorical pracitice, I was just
drawing yours out in order to quarrel with it as not
assumable).

Kane:
The word first seen in Eric Hoffers works is mine, unless he and I
shared a 100th monkey moment. "Religiosity" sometimes rendered as
"religeosity," (incorrect and I get to decide the spelling) was
introduced into a conversation during a punning marathon at a
mensa-member-heavy party by myself. Just popped out in referrance to
some offensive pushy proselytizing and theosophical based babble.[]

Hmm. You must be older than I thought. The first cite
in the OED is to 1382, Wyclif. "The drede of the Lord
is religiosite of kunnyng." There's J. Martineau 1846
"Our author argues from the religiosity of man to the
reality of God." Both of those usages have the meaning:
"religiousness, religious feeling or sentiment." The b.
meaning pejoratesinto: "affected or excessive religiousness",
for example 1799 W. Taylor "Great sticklers for feminine
purity, or prudery, or religiosity."

I said:
Of course, that tactic has been
replaced by more insult and bluster,
Kane:
Oh, I don't think it was entirely insult and bluster,

I wholly agree. I'm just noting that in your first response
to me you tried psychologizing my arguments. You also applied
psychologization to what Ray said. That is, instead of dealing
with what was said as argument, and refuting it as argument,
you posited a psychological reason of the physics-analogue causal
kind for your opponents having said what they said, thus treating those
arguments not as arguments to be addressed by reason but as
dismissable effects of some underlying cause. Thus you treated
your opponents as machines, and not as human beings (not to
mention in the meanwhile ranting on about humanity and empathy
and suchlike). And there is more than one big no-no in doing
that. (The scientific no-no has to do, by the way, with the
ten-decimal-place predictive accuracy of fundamental and
fundamentally controlled experiments in physical theory, and
the corresponding failure of psychology to provide other than
"just-so" stories to explain data sets with correlation
coefficients of twiddles 0.2. Though I add that I
do applaud you for not having defended the Straus, Sugarman,
and Giles-Sims anti-spanking study.)

Anyway, that psychologization stuff seemed to show up with
some regularity in your first attempt to respond to me. It
is a tactic with which Nietzsche's work is shot through. The
whole idea of Christian morality, for instance, especially that
of "turn the other cheek" in the Beatitudes, as a "slave morality"
is precisely a psychologization of Christian ethics. The word
"psychologization" I think is needed to identify a phenomenon
that in fact permeates postmodern discourse.

It's funny---you have not yet comprehended that I am an atheist.
I'm an "approximate" atheist, that is (meaning I'm not evangelical
about it, I have no particular quarrel with theists, I just don't
happen to believe in God). I'm posting to a ".christian" newsgroup
because, well, there are some very smart people playing in the
sandbox, I homeschool, and there seems to be more action here
than in m.e.h-s.misc. Anyway, you apparently see my belief in Natural
Law (which comes from Aristotle, and, well, really, from
Plato's "ageometretos medeis eisito" before that, and certainly
from John Locke's _2nd Treatise_ and from Thomas Jefferson's
understanding of the source of the "inalienable Rights") as
so god-shadowed (ala Nietzsche) that you are just certain
I'm a fundie. The irony is your stuff is so Nietzsche-shadowed
and Freud-shadowed that you don't see the your own ideology.

Kane:
nor did the insult and bluster I offered replace anything.

I certainly agree with you that the insult and bluster did
not follow upon any renunciation of the discredited technique,
more's the pity. Nevertheless, in resorting to insult and
bluster, you weren't resorting to the earlier technique. I
can see through both, and I can handle both, by the way, but
I think we come closer to engaging in an argument
in the case of your trying to insult me than in the case
of your trying ad hominem argument. And, yes, I do mean
to appy "ad hominem" your psychologizations in the technical
sense of arguing so as to dismiss on irrelevant grounds.

Kane:
You still are subject to psychological examination by me.

You aren't capable of it.

Kane:
You are welcome to examine my posts through any
paradigm you wish...of course.....it's a free
country.

Oh, I wasn't saying you were not permitted to try. I
was just saying you could not succeed. And I was saying
that successful argument (defined I think by both opposing
positions being laid out to their expositors' satisfaction,
and to their opponents' understanding---explicitly *not*
defined by any capitulation of one side or the other) was
not at all to be found in that direction.

I said:
but I do consider
it progress, in any event.
Kane:
Just another arrogant bombastic twit remark I see.

"Arrogant" seems to show up a lot in your attempts
at insult. I wonder why? I've only matched you tone
for tone. Think mirror.

Kane:
The art of the subtle flame should be more assiduously
cultivated.

Subtle? I thought I was pretty gentle on you on the
whole logic of the "distraction"/"pain" thing.

Kane:
You are improving, but have a way to go compared to
other of my opponents. I've been whipsawed far beyond
your ability.

Whipsawed? That was Kanga with "random". She went right
to the heart of it. Because the thing you can only see
as random, is certainly not random. And Lewis's
_Abolition of Man_ is psychology, not theology. And
it's not the kind of psychology which took a wrong turn
by the late 19th century and imagined itself to be
science in the same way that physics is science, but it
is psychology in the ancient sense of a branch of moral
philosophy. And it perfectly well explains why it is one
who is not a believer in the Tao (in Lewis's usage there)
would use a word like "random" in that place. It's like
you've totally assumed away the language necessary even to
describe, let alone understand, the phenomenon.

Kane:
Myself I prefer the more earthy direct insult.

Character flaw, or attribute? Yah got me.

Neither, really. Arrogance, maybe, but that
would be hardly worth mentioning.

Mike Morris
)

Doan

October 14th 03, 07:16 AM

On 13 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:18:34 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> > wrote:
>
> snipping all the bushwah from Greegor the Whore............
>
A perfect example of how a "never-spanked" boy turned out.
I wonder how LaVonne feel if her children started calling
other women "smelly ****" and "Whore"?

Doan

Donna Metler

October 14th 03, 11:53 AM

"bobb" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Oh, and one more thing which hasn't been pointed out yet. Inhalers
require
> > mouth contact, which means that by using another child's inhaler, the
> child
> > is possibly being exposed to various infectious diseases.
>
> What happened to the time when it was common and popular to share a soft
> drink bottle or can? Fact is, I saw two boys sharing a soda at the 7-11.
>
> Hmm... I once read that kissing spread disease, too. A jokster added..
he
> merely stopped reading, instead.
>
> I'm also told many people use their lips and tongues on other various
parts
> of the body, too. So much for disease, huh?
>
Nevertheless, schools cannot officially sanction or encourage actions which
are unsanitary-which is why we have to buy new mouthpieces for school
instruments every year, get each group of kids new recorders, etc. All it
takes is one school with an outbreak of a serious disease (like Hepatitis)
to make this happen nationwide-and believe me, it has.

> bobb
>
>
>
> While in this case
> > the two children had almost certainly had mouth-to-mouth contact, this
is
> > another reason to restrict use of an inhaler to the person for which it
> was
> > intended. I can't imagine passing an inhaler around is sanitary.
> >
> > Bottom line-if your child needs medication, MAKE SURE they have the
> > medication. Period.
> >
> >
>
>

Robyn Kozierok

October 14th 03, 02:48 PM

In article >,
Kane > wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:18:34 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> wrote:
>
>snipping all the bushwah from Greegor the Whore............
>
>
>>On 13 Oct 2003 04:37:48 -0700, (Kane)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>It sure isn't if the nurse or others call for an EMT wagon, and
>>>administer any first aid available to choking victims. I'm not going
>>>to list any here for asthma, but nurses know them, or better.
>>
>>The only cure for an asthma attack is pretty much an inhaler, or an
>>injection of something like ephinephrine. The chances, in a sever
>>case, of a child making it until the EMT wagon came with the shot is
>>pretty slim. The chances of the school nurse having the drug is even
>>slimmer.
>
>My adult step daughter is an asthma victim. When she was young I
>certainly did check if they epi sticks available for emergency use.
>They do and registered nurses (which I believe all school nurses were
>at time) and trained PNs (my mother) could administer.
>
>Allergic reactions can kill in minutes, just like asthma..that's why
>epi kits are much more common than you think.
>
>Where did you get the idea a school nurse wouldn't have emergency med
>supplies? What would be the point of having a school nurse without
>them?

I've never known of a school that kept epi on hand for general use.
Children who were known to need it could have their own epi kept at
school for their use, of course (on their person, in the classroom,
or in the nurse's office according to need and policy).

--Robyn

Banty

October 14th 03, 03:31 PM

In article >, Robyn Kozierok says...
>
>In article >,
>Kane > wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:18:34 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> wrote:
>>
>>snipping all the bushwah from Greegor the Whore............
>>
>>
>>>On 13 Oct 2003 04:37:48 -0700, (Kane)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It sure isn't if the nurse or others call for an EMT wagon, and
>>>>administer any first aid available to choking victims. I'm not going
>>>>to list any here for asthma, but nurses know them, or better.
>>>
>>>The only cure for an asthma attack is pretty much an inhaler, or an
>>>injection of something like ephinephrine. The chances, in a sever
>>>case, of a child making it until the EMT wagon came with the shot is
>>>pretty slim. The chances of the school nurse having the drug is even
>>>slimmer.
>>
>>My adult step daughter is an asthma victim. When she was young I
>>certainly did check if they epi sticks available for emergency use.
>>They do and registered nurses (which I believe all school nurses were
>>at time) and trained PNs (my mother) could administer.
>>
>>Allergic reactions can kill in minutes, just like asthma..that's why
>>epi kits are much more common than you think.
>>
>>Where did you get the idea a school nurse wouldn't have emergency med
>>supplies? What would be the point of having a school nurse without
>>them?
>
>I've never known of a school that kept epi on hand for general use.
>Children who were known to need it could have their own epi kept at
>school for their use, of course (on their person, in the classroom,
>or in the nurse's office according to need and policy).
>
>--Robyn

Right.

Nurses do not prescribe medicines. So they cannot keep epi 'on hand' for any
random student. They may keep non-prescription benedryl on hand. They also
will call paramedics, who can use certain medicines. They can keep medicines
prescribed by a physician *for an individual student* for that student, with
appropirate written authorization.

These folks who think students can or even should trade pescription medicines on
each others' recognizance, and that nurses keep an in-house ER stock, clearly
haven't come into contact with the medical profession in any cognizant manner.

Banty

Donna Metler

October 14th 03, 09:53 PM

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Robyn Kozierok
says...
> >
> >In article >,
> >Kane > wrote:
> >>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:18:34 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>snipping all the bushwah from Greegor the Whore............
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 13 Oct 2003 04:37:48 -0700, (Kane)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It sure isn't if the nurse or others call for an EMT wagon, and
> >>>>administer any first aid available to choking victims. I'm not going
> >>>>to list any here for asthma, but nurses know them, or better.
> >>>
> >>>The only cure for an asthma attack is pretty much an inhaler, or an
> >>>injection of something like ephinephrine. The chances, in a sever
> >>>case, of a child making it until the EMT wagon came with the shot is
> >>>pretty slim. The chances of the school nurse having the drug is even
> >>>slimmer.
> >>
> >>My adult step daughter is an asthma victim. When she was young I
> >>certainly did check if they epi sticks available for emergency use.
> >>They do and registered nurses (which I believe all school nurses were
> >>at time) and trained PNs (my mother) could administer.
> >>
> >>Allergic reactions can kill in minutes, just like asthma..that's why
> >>epi kits are much more common than you think.
> >>
> >>Where did you get the idea a school nurse wouldn't have emergency med
> >>supplies? What would be the point of having a school nurse without
> >>them?
> >
> >I've never known of a school that kept epi on hand for general use.
> >Children who were known to need it could have their own epi kept at
> >school for their use, of course (on their person, in the classroom,
> >or in the nurse's office according to need and policy).
> >
> >--Robyn
>
> Right.
>
> Nurses do not prescribe medicines. So they cannot keep epi 'on hand' for
any
> random student. They may keep non-prescription benedryl on hand. They
also
> will call paramedics, who can use certain medicines. They can keep
medicines
> prescribed by a physician *for an individual student* for that student,
with
> appropirate written authorization.
>
> These folks who think students can or even should trade pescription
medicines on
> each others' recognizance, and that nurses keep an in-house ER stock,
clearly
> haven't come into contact with the medical profession in any cognizant
manner.
My school does keep O2 on hand, though-precisely because we have several
students with very severe athsma, and if the rescue meds don't work O2 won't
hurt and can help them breathe until the paramedics arrive.
>
> Banty
>

LaVonne Carlson

October 15th 03, 01:41 AM

Greg Hanson wrote:

Donna Metler wrote

> > If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better
> > believe that I'm going to make sure she has an inhaler
> > on her person, that there's one stored at the school
> > in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level
> > where she's with one teacher most of the time, that
> > there's one in the teacher's desk, labeled for her.
>
> Greg wrote
> ILLEGAL.
> What makes you think it's LEGAL to keep prescription
> medication in the teachers desk in a school?

Because it is LEGAL for a teacher to keep rescue medications when
children are too young to be responsible for the medication themselves.
For older children, the medication may be kept on their person. I've
taught young children in public schools. I've carried asthma inhalers
and kits for children with life threatening allergies.

> > LaVonne wrote
> > I would do the same thing!
>
> Greg wrote
> ILLEGAL.
> When you get really happy about "letter of the law"
> I just love to see you hoisted by your own petard.

Sorry, Greg. It is LEGAL.

> It just goes to show that the pitfall traps of
> zero-tolerance can even trip up an ""expert"". :)

Sorry, Greg. It is LEGAL. You are simply mistaken here.

LaVonne

LaVonne Carlson

October 15th 03, 01:50 AM

Kane wrote:

> On 13 Oct 2003 01:21:54 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
> wrote:

> >> Donna Metler wrote
> >> If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better
> >> believe that I'm going to make sure she has an inhaler
> >> on her person, that there's one stored at the school
> >> in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level
> >> where she's with one teacher most of the time, that
> >> there's one in the teacher's desk, labeled for her.
> >
> >Greg wrote
> >ILLEGAL.
>
> No it's not.

You are correct. It is not illegal, as Greg has claimed nearly a dozen
times a half dozen or so posts.

> >What makes you think it's LEGAL to keep prescription
> >medication in the teachers desk in a school?
>
> I can give my prescription medication to anyone to hold for me. It is
> illegal from them to use it for ANY PURPOSE other than to adminster to
> me. It is illegal for me to let them with my knowledge and permission.
>
> But it's not illegal for the teacher to hold. She has the legal status
> as my representative, in loco parentis, do act on my behalf pertaining
> to my child.
>
> Teach better lock the drawer though or place it in her locked little
> pin money box.... all teacher had that capacity when I was a kid and I
> assume still get a lockable desk or container these days.

If there is a school nurse or person designated to administer
medications, that is the individual who keeps the medication. If there
is no person designated to administer medications or if the medication is
considered a rescue medication, (which can hold true for asthma
inhalers), the teacher keeps it in a locked container or desk, or on her
person when the child is very young or when the children and teacher are
away from the classroom.

For some reason, Greg continues to make the same mistaken claims, over
and over again. Oh, well.

LaVonne

Kane

October 15th 03, 05:37 AM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:07:12 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Kanga Mum" > wrote in message
om...
>> (Kane) wrote in message
>...
>> [snip ]
>> >
>> > Tell you what. Assuming you've never had any training in
calculus,
>> > let's set
>> > up a little experiment. You crack the books and at random times
I'll
>> > swat your
>> > ass with a small board.
>> >
>> [snip]
>>
>> Random?
>>
>> Kanga
>
>I was wondering if someone was going to address that one.
>
>Spanking, done properly, is anything but random.

The child sets up a schedule so they can predict when it's going to
happen? I didn't know that....well, actually I did, but it tends to
come later when the child is so sick in the head they live in dread of
the next unpredictable spanking and MAKE ONE HAPPEN...you know just
that old not waiting for the other shoe to drop.

>Spanking follows a
>specific and known transgression by the child.

Children have a hard time sorting out that Barney is not a dinosaur.
You people are unbelievable in your delusional thinking errors.

And you are cold blooded little ****s to boot.

>In that way, the child
>learns that disobeying his parents can lead to pain and other
>unpleasantness.

He or she learns that the big smelly stink holes (children live close
ass level to adults for a number of years) are dangerous and he or she
better start working out a strategy to survive pretty damn fast...

Those are usually: con the suckers until I'm big enough to boogie on
outahere; find someplace inside myself I can go where I can't feel the
pain; pretend for so long that I love it when mommy and daddy dearest
take to walloping me that I come to believe it as an adult and keep
picking the same kind of sick person to be in my life; etc.

I kinda like the first one best, and I'm also fond of the, "just wait
until they are old, feeble, and dependent on me....r r r "

>
>Ray Drouillard.

Ray Dullard, you don't know ****.

The only reason spanking appears to work is that children are build to
survive it.

All the apparent "obedience" is about how to cope with the betrayal.

Hurry up and twit filter me will yah. I know you are going to have to
pretty soon. Somewhere in that sick little anal retentive uptight
****ed up head of yours there is spot of sanity and truth, and you
wouldn't want me getting anywhere near it. In your confusion your
children might escape before you can thorougly endoctrinate them.

Kane

billy f

October 15th 03, 10:21 AM

That is all propaganda created by the germ-a-phobes. The same people who
brought us antibacterial soap. What they do not understand is when you
shelter yourself from germs your only weakening you immune system. Studies
have shown that children who are exposed to germs from other children when
they are young are less likely to develop a asthma. I think however its safe
to say that it is not a good idea to allow children to share a asthma
inhailer, but if they do and its for a good reason so what! Get over it!
Good point bobb

"bobb" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Oh, and one more thing which hasn't been pointed out yet. Inhalers
require
> > mouth contact, which means that by using another child's inhaler, the
> child
> > is possibly being exposed to various infectious diseases.
>
> What happened to the time when it was common and popular to share a soft
> drink bottle or can? Fact is, I saw two boys sharing a soda at the 7-11.
>
> Hmm... I once read that kissing spread disease, too. A jokster added..
he
> merely stopped reading, instead.
>
> I'm also told many people use their lips and tongues on other various
parts
> of the body, too. So much for disease, huh?
>
> bobb
>
>
>
> While in this case
> > the two children had almost certainly had mouth-to-mouth contact, this
is
> > another reason to restrict use of an inhaler to the person for which it
> was
> > intended. I can't imagine passing an inhaler around is sanitary.
> >
> > Bottom line-if your child needs medication, MAKE SURE they have the
> > medication. Period.
> >
> >
>
>

billy f

October 15th 03, 10:37 AM

Give me a break LaVonne! The chances of anyone dieing from two shots from a
Inhaler is next to none. Do you think a doctor can tell if someone is
allergic to a particular drug? No he prescribes it and if they have a
reaction they then learn that they are allergic to it. Also do you think
that student knew having suffered from asthma for years rather or not she
was allergic to that type of inhaler? I'm sick of hearing the what ifs from
anal retentive people. I can't go to the movies tonight because; what if I
get into a wreak or what if I get robed? Bottom line nothing happen. If
that student didn't give his girlfriend the inhaler a ambulance would have
needed to be call. I wonder who would have had to pay for that? Thank God
and the school district the charges got dropped! I'm not directing that at
you personally LaVonne, but I'm glade some of the people here are not
prosecutors.

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Donna Metler wrote:
>
> > "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect on the part of
> > > the school, for withholding/delaying inhaler in an asthma attack.
> > >
> > The person who committed medical neglect is the one who neglected to
provide
> > the girl with her own inhaler to keep on her person. The school is not
> > required to provide prescription medication.
>
> Not only are schools not required to provide prescription medication,
schools
> cannot legally administer prescription medication without a note from a
> physician and the child's medication in original packaging.
>
> > > (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
> > If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better believe that I'm
going
> > to make sure she has an inhaler on her person, that there's one stored
at
> > the school in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level where
she's
> > with one teacher most of the time, that there's one in the teacher's
desk,
> > labeled for her.
>
> I would do the same thing!
>
> > I'm not going to assume there is a child in the next desk who uses the
same
> > prescription-nor would I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters
inhaler
> > and give it to another child.
>
> How ridiculous this is. Inhaler prescriptions are different. I wonder
how
> Greg would have responded if the child had died from a reaction to an
inhaler
> that was not prescribed for the child.
>
> LaVonne
>
>

billy f

October 15th 03, 11:07 AM

Bravo, Bravo
You have to remember bobb the average person is stupid or should I say
dummied down.

> some common sense instead of stupid law and apply intent instead of zero
> tolerance.
>
> We are considered a stupid people being ruled by those even more so.
>
> bobb
>
>
>

billy f

October 15th 03, 11:14 AM

I agree Doan. Kane was never spanked, either was Ivan and Steve. They are or
were some of the biggest assholes on these groups.

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 13 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:18:34 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> > > wrote:
> >
> > snipping all the bushwah from Greegor the Whore............
> >
> A perfect example of how a "never-spanked" boy turned out.
> I wonder how LaVonne feel if her children started calling
> other women "smelly ****" and "Whore"?
>
> Doan
>
>

billy f

October 15th 03, 11:16 AM

Hey Banty,
Just out of curiosity were you spanked as a child?

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Robyn Kozierok
says...
> >
> >In article >,
> >Kane > wrote:
> >>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:18:34 +0200, Barbara Bomberger
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>snipping all the bushwah from Greegor the Whore............
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 13 Oct 2003 04:37:48 -0700, (Kane)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>It sure isn't if the nurse or others call for an EMT wagon, and
> >>>>administer any first aid available to choking victims. I'm not going
> >>>>to list any here for asthma, but nurses know them, or better.
> >>>
> >>>The only cure for an asthma attack is pretty much an inhaler, or an
> >>>injection of something like ephinephrine. The chances, in a sever
> >>>case, of a child making it until the EMT wagon came with the shot is
> >>>pretty slim. The chances of the school nurse having the drug is even
> >>>slimmer.
> >>
> >>My adult step daughter is an asthma victim. When she was young I
> >>certainly did check if they epi sticks available for emergency use.
> >>They do and registered nurses (which I believe all school nurses were
> >>at time) and trained PNs (my mother) could administer.
> >>
> >>Allergic reactions can kill in minutes, just like asthma..that's why
> >>epi kits are much more common than you think.
> >>
> >>Where did you get the idea a school nurse wouldn't have emergency med
> >>supplies? What would be the point of having a school nurse without
> >>them?
> >
> >I've never known of a school that kept epi on hand for general use.
> >Children who were known to need it could have their own epi kept at
> >school for their use, of course (on their person, in the classroom,
> >or in the nurse's office according to need and policy).
> >
> >--Robyn
>
> Right.
>
> Nurses do not prescribe medicines. So they cannot keep epi 'on hand' for
any
> random student. They may keep non-prescription benedryl on hand. They
also
> will call paramedics, who can use certain medicines. They can keep
medicines
> prescribed by a physician *for an individual student* for that student,
with
> appropirate written authorization.
>
> These folks who think students can or even should trade pescription
medicines on
> each others' recognizance, and that nurses keep an in-house ER stock,
clearly
> haven't come into contact with the medical profession in any cognizant
manner.
>
> Banty
>

Banty

October 15th 03, 11:58 AM

In article >, billy f says...
>
>Hey Banty,
>Just out of curiosity were you spanked as a child?

LOL!

bobb

October 15th 03, 01:34 PM

"billy f" > wrote in message
m...
> Give me a break LaVonne! The chances of anyone dieing from two shots from
a
> Inhaler is next to none. Do you think a doctor can tell if someone is
> allergic to a particular drug? No he prescribes it and if they have a
> reaction they then learn that they are allergic to it. Also do you think
> that student knew having suffered from asthma for years rather or not she
> was allergic to that type of inhaler? I'm sick of hearing the what ifs
from
> anal retentive people. I can't go to the movies tonight because; what if I
> get into a wreak or what if I get robed? Bottom line nothing happen. If
> that student didn't give his girlfriend the inhaler a ambulance would have
> needed to be call. I wonder who would have had to pay for that? Thank God
> and the school district the charges got dropped! I'm not directing that at
> you personally LaVonne, but I'm glade some of the people here are not
> prosecutors.

I ain't gonna worry about something that might happen... cuz it didn't. Of
course, CPS, now worry about the 'mights' and 'ifs' with a probablity
rating of almost nil, nadda, zero.

Hmmm.. why should it be either legal, or illegal, for a teacher to keep a
child's supply of medications in their desks? It's really about morality.
The child should have his/her own medicatioins on their persons just as they
would while not in school. A teacher or school nurse might have extra
medications, but only to be used in case the child forgot to bring
medication from home...much like the forgotten lunch, homework paper, or
book. Just like adults in a rush, kids do not always think of
everything.

We need to get rid of stupid laws.

bobb

>
> "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Donna Metler wrote:
> >
> > > "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > The mother of the girl should sue for medical neglect on the part of
> > > > the school, for withholding/delaying inhaler in an asthma attack.
> > > >
> > > The person who committed medical neglect is the one who neglected to
> provide
> > > the girl with her own inhaler to keep on her person. The school is not
> > > required to provide prescription medication.
> >
> > Not only are schools not required to provide prescription medication,
> schools
> > cannot legally administer prescription medication without a note from a
> > physician and the child's medication in original packaging.
> >
> > > > (Hands in air) "Oh Well, her asthma killed her."
> > > If my child has life threatening athsma, you'd better believe that I'm
> going
> > > to make sure she has an inhaler on her person, that there's one stored
> at
> > > the school in the nurse's office, and, if she's in a grade level where
> she's
> > > with one teacher most of the time, that there's one in the teacher's
> desk,
> > > labeled for her.
> >
> > I would do the same thing!
> >
> > > I'm not going to assume there is a child in the next desk who uses the
> same
> > > prescription-nor would I expect the teacher to whip out my daughters
> inhaler
> > > and give it to another child.
> >
> > How ridiculous this is. Inhaler prescriptions are different. I wonder
> how
> > Greg would have responded if the child had died from a reaction to an
> inhaler
> > that was not prescribed for the child.
> >
> > LaVonne
> >
> >
>
>

bobb

October 15th 03, 01:48 PM

"billy f" > wrote in message
om...
> That is all propaganda created by the germ-a-phobes. The same people who
> brought us antibacterial soap.

Fact is, antibacterial soaps were taken off the market about 20 years ago
because of a number of studies. They were only recently brought back again
and I'm wondering why. Seems like study after study is over-turned. Today
it's good/bad.. tomorrow is bad/good. Good reason to quit reading cuz when
it comes to the government studies, ignorance is bliss.

What they do not understand is when you
> shelter yourself from germs your only weakening you immune system. Studies
> have shown that children who are exposed to germs from other children when
> they are young are less likely to develop a asthma. I think however its
safe
> to say that it is not a good idea to allow children to share a asthma
> inhailer, but if they do and its for a good reason so what! Get over it!

Not just asthma.. there are a number of immunities that develop due to
early exposure of germs.. I really have to wonder why so much attention is
given to food preparation..such as chicken. Years ago, one may have brought
the live chicken inside and wrung it's neck. The sideboards and counter-tops
were not much more than pine boards which were hardly favorable for
cleanliness. Cold water from a cistern pump may have been the only in-door
plumbing for washing. People worry about bathrooms yet many still use the
less than spic-n-span ole two-holer. Ohmygosh.. I just happened to think
about privicacy. Two people using a toliet at the same time! How uncool
that is today.

> Good point bobb
>
>
> "bobb" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Oh, and one more thing which hasn't been pointed out yet. Inhalers
> require
> > > mouth contact, which means that by using another child's inhaler, the
> > child
> > > is possibly being exposed to various infectious diseases.
> >
> > What happened to the time when it was common and popular to share a soft
> > drink bottle or can? Fact is, I saw two boys sharing a soda at the
7-11.
> >
> > Hmm... I once read that kissing spread disease, too. A jokster added..
> he
> > merely stopped reading, instead.
> >
> > I'm also told many people use their lips and tongues on other various
> parts
> > of the body, too. So much for disease, huh?
> >
> > bobb
> >
> >
> >
> > While in this case
> > > the two children had almost certainly had mouth-to-mouth contact, this
> is
> > > another reason to restrict use of an inhaler to the person for which
it
> > was
> > > intended. I can't imagine passing an inhaler around is sanitary.
> > >
> > > Bottom line-if your child needs medication, MAKE SURE they have the
> > > medication. Period.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Greg Hanson

October 15th 03, 02:23 PM

LaVonne wrote
> If there is a school nurse or person designated to administer
> medications, that is the individual who keeps the medication.
> If there is no person designated

But there was.

> to administer medications or if the medication is
> considered a rescue medication, (which can hold true for asthma
> inhalers), the teacher keeps it in a locked container or desk, or on her
> person when the child is very young or when the children and teacher are
> away from the classroom.

Are you contradicting yourself? Your quote (top) used
a conditional IF. Then further down you seem to refute your
own logical IF by allowing for rescue medication in a lock box.

How does your logic let you have it both ways?
IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way?

> For some reason, Greg continues to make the same
> mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well.

And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that. :)

All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness
and inability to think and reason regarding medical care.

Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"?

Defend it to the hilt.

Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you
to defend.

It was stupid and that's why the criminal charges were DROPPED.

About 8 years ago I drove taxicab. People brough in
babies with no child seats, and NEVER buckled up.

I worried about the regulations, knowing that the
fines and record marks could be quite a problem.
But even though they should, police don't enforce
those regulations perhaps viewing it as like on
a city bus where such things are not required.

The letter of the law says one thing, enforcement says
another thing, common sense does not always apply.

A woman with twin infants and no child seats kept
getting me dispatched. I expressed concern.
I told her that next time she will need child seats.
Then I got sent to pick her up again.
A small riot almost ensued, I was cussed out by her
and the cab company put me on a forced time out for
the rest of the day. One persons attempt to do
the right thing is viewed as the wrong thing by
others.

Which was right?
Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented?

Michael S. Morris

October 15th 03, 07:25 PM

Wednesday, the 15th of October, 2003

Kane:
Tell you what. Assuming you've never had
any training in calculus, let's set
up a little experiment. You crack the
books and at random times I'll swat your
ass with a small board.
Kanga:
Random?
Ray:
I was wondering if someone was going
to address that one.

Spanking, done properly, is anything but random.
Kane:
The child sets up a schedule so they can predict
when it's going to happen?

If it's done properly---that is, only as a punishment
for a transgression of a rule that has been laid down
by the parent, then of course the child can predict when
spanking is going to happen.

Kane:
I didn't know that....well, actually I did, but
it tends to come later when the child is so sick
in the head they live in dread of the next
unpredictable spanking and MAKE ONE HAPPEN...you
know just that old not waiting for the other
shoe to drop.

It sure would be sick in the head to believe that
90% of USAmericans are spanking randomly, and that
the children being spanked engage in some sort of
twisted program of masochism in order to bring it on.

Ray said:
Spanking follows a specific and known
transgression by the child.
Kane:
Children have a hard time sorting out that
Barney is not a dinosaur.

So, you figure they're really good at learning
ethical behaviour from heart-to-heart chats with
their parents-as-spiritual-guides.

Kane:
You people are unbelievable in your
delusional thinking errors.

You, on the other hand, are completely
predictable in 1) your use of pop psych
terminology, 2) your resort to insult
in the face of disagreement, and 3) your
inability to marshal any evidence for
what you say.

Kane:
And you are cold blooded little
****s to boot.

Gosh. Now I guess we're really in for it...

Ray:
In that way, the child learns that
disobeying his parents can lead to
pain and other unpleasantness.
Kane:
He or she learns that the big smelly stink holes
(children live close ass level to adults for a
number of years) are dangerous and he or she
better start working out a strategy to survive
pretty damn fast...

Those are usually: con the suckers until I'm
big enough to boogie on outahere; find someplace
inside myself I can go where I can't feel the
pain; pretend for so long that I love it when
mommy and daddy dearest take to walloping me that
I come to believe it as an adult and keep
picking the same kind of sick person to be
in my life; etc.

I kinda like the first one best, and I'm also
fond of the, "just wait until they are old,
feeble, and dependent on me....r r r "

So, deleting the rhetorical nastiness, you claim
children who are spanked live in fear of their
parents? Any evidence for that one?

Kane:
Ray Dullard, you don't know ****.'

This is just poor writing.

Kane:
The only reason spanking appears to work
is that children are build to survive it.

Now, there is the exercise of what some I guess would
call intelligence! Spanking "appears to work"
*because* children are built to survive it. Think
about that for a minute and get back to me.

Kane:
All the apparent "obedience" is about how
to cope with the betrayal.

The betrayal, sure.

Kane:
Hurry up and twit filter me will yah. I know you
are going to have to pretty soon. Somewhere in
that sick little anal retentive uptight ****ed
up head of yours there is spot of sanity and
truth, and you wouldn't want me getting anywhere
near it. In your confusion your children might
escape before you can thorougly endoctrinate them.

So, your resolution to lay off the psychologization
hokum lasted approximately one post. Oh, and this
"there is a spot of sanity and truth, and you wouldn't
want me getting anywhere near it" is not Freudian
how, precisely? It's also not arrogant how, precisely?

Mike Morris
)

Kane

October 16th 03, 02:47 AM

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> LaVonne wrote
> > If there is a school nurse or person designated to administer
> > medications, that is the individual who keeps the medication.
> > If there is no person designated
>
> But there was.

Oh boy, the hookah hacker is back at it again. Unable to follow the
conversation? L wasn't claiming there was no nurse. And in the point
being argued, and the refutation of your nonsense it has zero to do
with anything that the school had a nurse in that particular incident.

>
> > to administer medications or if the medication is
> > considered a rescue medication, (which can hold true for asthma
> > inhalers), the teacher keeps it in a locked container or desk, or on her
> > person when the child is very young or when the children and teacher are
> > away from the classroom.
>
> Are you contradicting yourself? Your quote (top) used
> a conditional IF. Then further down you seem to refute your
> own logical IF by allowing for rescue medication in a lock box.

How is it a contradiction to point out both possibilities?

Shows how much you know about school. Schools don't have school nurses
any more Greegor, unless they are some huge magnet school. School
districts have nurses, or schools have part time nurses if they are
small isolated schools. School districts haven't had the money for
years to have full time nurses, or other services personnel. They
cover districts.

And believe it or not even if they had ONE "rescue" medication means
administer it right ****in' NOW you little **** head. You don't really
think they are supposed to wait for the nurse if it's a rescue
situation, do you?

>
> How does your logic let you have it both ways?
> IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way?

How many pulls on your hookah does it take before your logic
deteriorts completely?

>
> > For some reason, Greg continues to make the same
> > mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well.
>
> And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that. :)

Yes, quite. I noticed that too.

I noticed that you will do just about anything, even appear the
village idiot, to divert others, and I think even yourself, from the
truth of what you have done to that little girl and her mother.

But we aren't going to forget.

Hell, how can we? You are still here.

>
> All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness
> and inability to think and reason regarding medical care.

Yah know if you had anything to lose dummy I'd invite you to run up to
the next person you see down on the street and start doing some rescue
meds adminstration. Given them some asprin too while you are at it.

In fact had there been no inhalator maybe asprin might have
helped..right?

> Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"?

Well considering the issues of infectious diseases, using a health
appliance that administers who know what because no one but the kids
would know what's in it and not even then if some other kids played
around with it, I'd say it's YOU that's obviously a Zombie.

Tell you what. Next time you have a stuffy nose walk down the street
and ask someone for the use of the nasal sprayer.

> Defend it to the hilt.

Absolutely. Most laws pertaining to health issues are extremely well
thought out and often introduced from medical associations to stop
fools like you from being little rescue Annie's that kill people.

When I was much younger I drove a school bus as a community service.
In time I moved on, but the very next year the person that took over
my route tried to cross a dangerous unguarded train crossing, and
forgot the rules because the kids were a little distracting. The rule:
"Stop, open the passenger door, LISTEN..because the train always
sounded it horn on the short approach from a curve."

Took the bus out with about 30 kids on it. Kids everywhere. Badly
injured, most I knew. Locals in the little town heard the crash and
came roaring up in their cars and pickups and started loading kids
into the for a run to the hospital.

The emt's that got there were practically having fist fights to stop
them. The ER docs estmated that half the injured children died because
of rescue trauma inflicted by little assholes like you. The other half
were all emt stabilized before transport. In other words, every child
moved by a non-emt died. Not one died that had the proper treatment
died.

> Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you
> to defend.

Which bureaucratic ineptitude are you referring to? There was non in
that case you are talking about. The girl is alive. The ineptitude was
the evidenced in the girl and the parent's failure to convince her to
carry her meds and or keep a supply at school with her teachers.

It's easy to do the latter. Teachers and the school do NOT want
children dying on campus or anywhere else.

> It was stupid and that's why the criminal charges were DROPPED.

No, the players were stupid and they got a huge break cut for them.
Lucky. Apparently someone thought they might have learned their
lesson. Often the point of laws.

> About 8 years ago I drove taxicab. People brough in
> babies with no child seats, and NEVER buckled up.

Have any wrecks?

> I worried about the regulations, knowing that the
> fines and record marks could be quite a problem.
> But even though they should, police don't enforce
> those regulations perhaps viewing it as like on
> a city bus where such things are not required.
>
> The letter of the law says one thing, enforcement says
> another thing, common sense does not always apply.
>
> A woman with twin infants and no child seats kept
> getting me dispatched. I expressed concern.
> I told her that next time she will need child seats.
> Then I got sent to pick her up again.
> A small riot almost ensued, I was cussed out by her
> and the cab company put me on a forced time out for
> the rest of the day. One persons attempt to do
> the right thing is viewed as the wrong thing by
> others.

At the beginning of this post you tried your best to create a question
about LaVonne and a perceived by you lack of consistency.

You just got through defending "common sense" then claim you tried to
do the right thing and got in gigged for it, yet you want others to do
the right thing and get away with it...hmmm...interesting isn't it?

> Which was right?
> Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented?

Well, so far you've just presented yet another bungled attempt to get
people to forget what you are.

Kane

Kane

October 16th 03, 03:55 AM

(Michael S. Morris) wrote in message >...
> Wednesday, the 15th of October, 2003
>
> Kane:
> Tell you what. Assuming you've never had
> any training in calculus, let's set
> up a little experiment. You crack the
> books and at random times I'll swat your
> ass with a small board.
> Kanga:
> Random?
> Ray:
> I was wondering if someone was going
> to address that one.
>
> Spanking, done properly, is anything but random.
> Kane:
> The child sets up a schedule so they can predict
> when it's going to happen?
>
> If it's done properly---that is, only as a punishment
> for a transgression of a rule that has been laid down
> by the parent, then of course the child can predict when
> spanking is going to happen.

Children predict, before the age of seven, very poorly. That's why you
see a great deal of repetitious behaviors. They are trying to
remember.

One of the most critical of issues is the child below 6 not having the
capacity for abstraction and clear cause and effect reasoning. Parents
are fooled into thinking the child does because they are extremely
good at linear tracking...if they have the opportunity to have a
little ritual repeated.

So in the interests of your children, if you are going to punish them,
make damn sure they did exactly the same things in the exact same way
in the exact same place and preferable at the exact same time so that
you don't extend your cruelty even further.

Or wait until they are seven, and you won't have to use spanking at
all, or very rarely.

>
> Kane:
> I didn't know that....well, actually I did, but
> it tends to come later when the child is so sick
> in the head they live in dread of the next
> unpredictable spanking and MAKE ONE HAPPEN...you
> know just that old not waiting for the other
> shoe to drop.
>
> It sure would be sick in the head to believe that
> 90% of USAmericans are spanking randomly,

Nope...from the child's point of view, below age six, most of what
adults do it only predictable if it is clearly linear....one thing
follows another. It's the forerunner of our tendency to ritualize
things because it so much more predictable hence very comforting.

Put in one random change and the child is once again thrown the curve
ball of the unpredictible and dangerous monster parents.

> and that
> the children being spanked engage in some sort of
> twisted program of masochism in order to bring it on.

Yes, in fact they do, you just are trying to avoid the fact by playing
with words, as usual. But the truth is they can, according to their
bent and the ways in which those "spankings" are administered, go
either way, maschist, or sadist. Enjoy.

I know which way YOU went. You'll do or say anything, hide from
yourself to the most extreme end of not seeing the truth.

>
> Ray said:
> Spanking follows a specific and known
> transgression by the child.
> Kane:
> Children have a hard time sorting out that
> Barney is not a dinosaur.
>
> So, you figure they're really good at learning
> ethical behaviour from heart-to-heart chats with
> their parents-as-spiritual-guides.

No, only by example up to the age of 6 or possibly a bit beyond.
Interestingly the Catholic church (and they have been careful
observers of children for over a thousand years) peg the age of reason
to six years old. In last couple of decades it's been clearly
established by impiracle testing (you do know the two clear cylindars
two pitchers of water test do you not") that there are critical
pathways laid down in the brain that before them true cause and effect
reasoning, that is the capacity for abstraction, is impossible.

What unschooled observers (mostly parents reporting) thought they saw
and would happily babble were things much like you peddle. The idea
that a child will know why they are being hit is prattle. What they
know is that from time to time this insane beast that I thought loved
me losses it and I have to take in in the ass.

And in time it all melts together with all those other factors going
on for the child, and they grow up to be like you, or like victims.

>
> Kane:
> You people are unbelievable in your
> delusional thinking errors.
>
> You, on the other hand, are completely
> predictable in 1) your use of pop psych
> terminology, 2) your resort to insult
> in the face of disagreement, and 3) your
> inability to marshal any evidence for
> what you say.

What evidence have I withheld? You haven't bothered to read them. Did
you miss my posting of the Embry study and a full citation of
professor Embry's bonafides? Why don't you call HIM and argue your
silly bull****?

>
> Kane:
> And you are cold blooded little
> ****s to boot.
>
> Gosh. Now I guess we're really in for it...

You don't know the half of it. If we are unable to stop you with
reason you aren't going to leave much choice. I'm sick and tired what
you assholes are doing to the world and claiming that it's right
because it's time tested and proven.

So was slavery. If you don't think slavery worked ignore the centuries
of pain, labor, and death paid for by black people that you now enjoy
the fruits of.

They created over and over the capital goods that build our economy.

> Ray:
> In that way, the child learns that
> disobeying his parents can lead to
> pain and other unpleasantness.
> Kane:
> He or she learns that the big smelly stink holes
> (children live close ass level to adults for a
> number of years) are dangerous and he or she
> better start working out a strategy to survive
> pretty damn fast...
>
> Those are usually: con the suckers until I'm
> big enough to boogie on outahere; find someplace
> inside myself I can go where I can't feel the
> pain; pretend for so long that I love it when
> mommy and daddy dearest take to walloping me that
> I come to believe it as an adult and keep
> picking the same kind of sick person to be
> in my life; etc.
>
> I kinda like the first one best, and I'm also
> fond of the, "just wait until they are old,
> feeble, and dependent on me....r r r "
>
> So, deleting the rhetorical nastiness, you claim
> children who are spanked live in fear of their
> parents? Any evidence for that one?

Yes. Some who escape make it quite clear when asked. The others learn
to suppress it in various ways...one is to perpetuate it and having
less skill or being more screwed up generation by generation sooner or
later revert to injurious use of the practice.

> Kane:
> Ray Dullard, you don't know ****.'
>
> This is just poor writing.

This is just a poor reply. You don't and neither does he. You have a
set of superstitions that have a couple of thousand years of
cultivation, or more, and fool you into believing your nonsense to the
point you won't examine it critically. You just spout the party line.

>
> Kane:
> The only reason spanking appears to work
> is that children are build to survive it.
>
> Now, there is the exercise of what some I guess would
> call intelligence! Spanking "appears to work"
> *because* children are built to survive it. Think
> about that for a minute and get back to me.

I did before I wrote it. Children are, for the most part, quite hardy.
And they are skilled survivors...think about that for awhile.

Being skilled survivors they develop a lot of ways to make it past the
savagry of being whaled on by the monster parents.

One way is to placate as employees learn to placate a boss, even
expressing gratitude until they can find another job, or parent
substitute. It drives the children way to often to people that who do
not have the young person's best interests at heart.

Another is to behave as little heros, toughing it out.

Another is to clown.

Another is to completely retreat.

>
> Kane:
> All the apparent "obedience" is about how
> to cope with the betrayal.
>
> The betrayal, sure.

Absolutely. You betray them when you betray their nature..their strong
desire to explore their envirinment and enrich their knowledge and
experience.

A lot of parents, more especially the intelligent ones, make the
mistake of thinking their imposed enrichment layed like frosting on
their children is the right way to raise them. They fail to look at
what the child might learn if their lead is followed.

The kid that set fires, for instance, might just need to take a look
at rocketry. The toddler that gets into the kitchen in the middle of
the night and pulls down the flour, sugar, bottles of catchup and does
a Jackson Pollock on the floor tiles may need to explore her art
expressions further.

Not be beat up.

I stopped a 2.5 year old child from smearing feces on her bedroom wall
by telling her parents to get the biggest batch of clay and
fingerpaints and rolls of butcher paper they could find.

They had tried punishment. It didn't work.

That little girl is now about 29, and an electrical engineer. No
connection? No, except the family got into thinking like this for
themselves and at about 8 or 9 got her to quite sticking screwdrivers
into electrical appliances by getting her an experiemental kit.

Like I said, you don't know ****, but I do.

> Kane:
> Hurry up and twit filter me will yah. I know you
> are going to have to pretty soon. Somewhere in
> that sick little anal retentive uptight ****ed
> up head of yours there is spot of sanity and
> truth, and you wouldn't want me getting anywhere
> near it. In your confusion your children might
> escape before you can thorougly endoctrinate them.
>
> So, your resolution to lay off the psychologization
> hokum lasted approximately one post.

Did I say that? Well doggone me anyway. Anal retentive is just a
description of someone that holds in too much. I think I'm accurate in
your case. Let's see.

> Oh, and this
> "there is a spot of sanity and truth, and you wouldn't
> want me getting anywhere near it" is not Freudian
> how, precisely?

Memory is memory. You cannot recall all your memories in one huge
instant flash and you get bits and pieces as you probe or events you
experience trigger recall. That was the mistake, a simple one, that
Freud made. I forgive him.

I don't forgive you for giving your child pain and humiliation and
them so afraid of you they can't express the truth anymore to you
about your savagry.

>It's also not arrogant how, precisely?

Some arrogant about calling you anal retentive when you reply to me in
an anal retentive manner....r r r , I love it.

"It's also not arrogan how, precisely?"

I couldn't have fashioned a more anal retentive example myself.
You are holding back on the world Mike and taking it out on your kids
in such a studied fashion that you've conned yourself that it makes
sense.

In other words Mike, someone made you sick in the head. Your parents?
They didn't mean to, just as you say you don't mean to, but from now
on you'll have to think about it when you spank, and I rather like
that thought.

There is even a slight chance you might get it and stop.

Oh, I loved your responses when I pointed out how children don't have
the knowledge or skill (because they haven't developed the brain
functioning capacity for it before six) to deal with being spanked.

You, and just about every rationalising doofus I've ever debated on
this subject come up with the same thing: you try to pretend we are
too stupid to come up with parenting methods and teaching methods with
enough sophistication to deal with the different ages and stages of
the child.

I wouldn't talk philosophy with a 4 year old. Don't need to. And don't
need to spank him either, as I have far too large a repertoire of
child rearing skills to have ANY rationale for hurting a child to
teach her. And it only take one or two at a time to work just fine.

The only children I've ever had any difficulty with, and that didn't
last long, where those spanked into various forms of survival
behavior....oh, and those whose genetic wiring or chemistry were badly
out of whack...oddly though, I've had good success with the latter
given just a bit of time to work out what was up with their perception
of the world. I can modify, without using pain, even children that see
the world quite differently than most. And I can teach it, and have,
to others.

You are stuck, Mike Morris, badly.

>
> Mike Morris
> )

Tah, Kane

Greg Hanson

October 16th 03, 12:35 PM

> > LaVonne wrote
> > > If there is a school nurse or person
> > > designated to administer medications,
> > > that is the individual who keeps the
> > > medication.
> > > If there is no person designated <snip>

Greg wrote
> > But there was.

Kane wrote
> it has zero to do with anything that the school
> had a nurse in that particular incident.

How could somebody's expression "If there is a school nurse"
have nothing to do with whether or not there is a school nurse?

Kane wrote
> How is it a contradiction to point out both possibilities?

When a person says IF x THEN y, but assumes the resultant
condition y EITHER way, that's Pretzel logic.

Kane wrote
> Shows how much you know about school.
> Schools don't have school nurses any more Greegor,

The ordinary elementary we worked with here had a nurse.
(Generalizations are easy to refute)
But more importantly, the school IN THE INHALER STORY
definately had a nurse. Did you lose track of that?

> unless they are some huge magnet school.

Nope. None involved.

> School districts have nurses, or schools have part
> time nurses if they are small isolated schools.

Nope. Full time.

> School districts haven't had the money for
> years to have full time nurses, or other services
> personnel. They cover districts.

Nope. Not in my limited experience, which is all
it takes to puncture your generalization.

But there WAS a nurse in the case in question,
and so by LaVonne's own logic, THAT person is in
charge of locking up the inhaler, not the teacher
with some inhaler in a drawer.

> And believe it or not even if they had ONE
> "rescue" medication means administer it right
> [e.d.]NOW you little [e.d.]head. You don't really
> think they are supposed to wait for the nurse
> if it's a rescue situation, do you?

Thank you, Kane. You just argued MY stated point.
LaVonne and some others are trying to justify the
bureaucratic delays that leave the girl in the
story choking on her way to the school nurse.
The bureaucrats seem to have little care for urgency.
They care more about "the letter of the law" and
proper bureaucratic chain of command than urgency.
In a conflict between instant emergency care and
officialdom, they side with delay and officialdom.

> > How does your logic let you have it both ways?
> > IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way?
>
> How many pulls on your hookah does it take
> before your logic deteriorts completely?

I don't smoke anything, and don't own any sort
of water pipe, Turkish or otherwise.

Lavonne wrote
> > > For some reason, Greg continues to make the same
> > > mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well.

Greg wrote
> > And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that. :)

Kane wrote
> Yes, quite. I noticed that too.

The things you see often aren't there.
Maybe you should TRY a Hookah, it might help you.

> I noticed that you will do just about anything,
> even appear the village idiot,

Remember, it takes a village idiot to raise a child.

> to divert others, and I think even yourself,
> from the truth

More like your OBSESSION than the truth.

> of what you have done to that little girl
> and her mother. But we aren't going to forget.

You know, Kane, even if the twisted assertions
you and Dan have pushed for so long were true,
the DHS fabrication of a ""Sexual Abuse History""
by caseworkers is a problem so severe that I would
say that anybody who is in favor of Child Protection
such as yourself would see such CPS corruption
as WORSE than even the child abuse you imagine.

To fictionalize and fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History""
and then when it's disproved, REFUSE to correct
such a known falsehood, is a pretty severe violation.

If CPS has to resort to perjury and frame ups to get
child abusers, then they are culpable.

To blame me for their falsehoods about me is nonsense.

In fact, the attitudes you and Dan display your
cynical paranoid fertive imaginations about evil
are partly indirect reflections of the big lie.
Your concept of the truth is very similar to this lie.
Fertive imagination presuming evil deeds that were not.

> Hell, how can we? You are still here.

Of course.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

> > All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness
> > and inability to think and reason regarding medical care.
>
> Yah know if you had anything to lose dummy
> I'd invite you to run up to the next person
> you see down on the street and start doing
> some rescue meds adminstration. Given them
> some asprin too while you are at it.
> In fact had there been no inhalator maybe
> asprin might have helped..right?

If I HAD a hookah, I'd give it to you at this point.

> > Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"?

> Well considering the issues of infectious
> diseases,

The boy and girl were a COUPLE, Kane.
Did you ever even read the story?

> using a health appliance that
> administers who know what because no one
> but the kids would know what's in it

Both mothers, the nurse and the teacher would
have all KNOWN that the two inhalers were identical
medication and dosage.

All of your "who knows what" was in fact known.

> and not even then if some other kids played
> around with it, I'd say it's YOU that's
> obviously a Zombie.

Just in time to look for THE GREAT PUMPKIN, right Kane?

> Tell you what. Next time you have a stuffy nose
> walk down the street and ask someone for the
> use of the nasal sprayer.

I am my own variety of lunatic, I don't need to be you.

> > Defend it to the hilt.
>
> Absolutely. Most laws pertaining to health issues
> are extremely well thought out and often introduced
> from medical associations to stop fools like you
> from being little rescue Annie's that kill people.

Why do you mock Rescue Annie?
The rescue dummy saved more lives than you can dream of.
She was called Resusci-Annie when I practiced the kiss of life.

> The emt's that got there were practically having fist
> fights to stop them. The ER docs estmated that half
> the injured children died because of rescue trauma
> inflicted by little [e.d] like you. The other half
> were all emt stabilized before transport. In other
> words, every child moved by a non-emt died. Not one
> died that had the proper treatment died.

Interesting story. A train obliterates a school bus
and you blame all of the deaths onto the non-emt's?
How long did it take for the EMT's to get there?
What is the average time for EMT's to arrive on
accident scenes?
How many died before the EMT's even arrived?
Sure, I believe that untrained improper first aid can
make things worse or kill people, but your story
reminds me a bit of your demogoguery in other areas.

> > Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you
> > to defend.
>
> Which bureaucratic ineptitude are you referring to?
> There was non in that case you are talking about.
> The girl is alive.

How does that prove there was no bureaucratic ineptitude?

> Have any wrecks?

One where damage indicated it was more like fast deer hit me.
Was a big one moving faster than I was out of a dark lot.
No passengers.

> At the beginning of this post you tried your
> best to create a question about LaVonne and
> a perceived by you lack of consistency.
>
> You just got through defending "common sense"
> then claim you tried to do the right thing
> and got in gigged for it,

Yes, the right thing is generally NOT adhering
to "the letter of the law".

I should point out that somebody ELSE in this thread
began using the expression "letter of the law" as if
prickly technicality is the way to go.

The story was to illustrate that in the gritty real
world, "letter of the law" is a pathetic joke, even
to police officers.

It's the stuff that makes Barney Fife so hilarious.

> yet you want others to do the right thing
> and get away with it.

Put that way, I can't disagree.

> ..hmmm...interesting isn't it?

Yes, fascinating.

> > Which was right?
> > Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented?
>
> Well, so far you've just presented yet
> another bungled attempt to get
> people to forget what you are.

WHAT I am? Objectifying me? Dehumanizing tactic? Hmm..
Is your goal to be remembered, Kane?
Does that explain all of your scatological references?

Kane

October 18th 03, 03:43 AM

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message
>...
> > > LaVonne wrote
> > > > If there is a school nurse or person
> > > > designated to administer medications,
> > > > that is the individual who keeps the
> > > > medication.
> > > > If there is no person designated <snip>
>
> Greg wrote
> > > But there was.
>
> Kane wrote
> > it has zero to do with anything that the school
> > had a nurse in that particular incident.
>
> How could somebody's expression "If there is a school nurse"
> have nothing to do with whether or not there is a school nurse?

The conversation had moved on to the general discussion of teachers
carrying
meds in lieu of nurses, dummy, as in:
I realize it's a stretch for you to keep up with the progress of a
discussion,
given your focusing on punishing children for wetting themselves by
forcing
them to take cold showers, but now the girl is gone for good why not
give it a
try?

In other words, don't be obtuse. Don't be a bore, whore.

>
> Kane wrote
> > How is it a contradiction to point out both possibilities?
>
> When a person says IF x THEN y, but assumes the resultant
> condition y EITHER way, that's Pretzel logic.

You claimed it was a contradiction, not a Pretzel. The reason it
confused you
is that you apparently take a few posts to recognize the conversation
has
moved on or to another level. Obtuse goose.

>
> Kane wrote
> > Shows how much you know about school.
> > Schools don't have school nurses any more Greegor,
>
> The ordinary elementary we worked with here had a nurse.

That's nice. Full time was she? For how many students. You and Dung
seem to be
very good at reducing the argument to your own by slicing of the
content of
others posts. You don't really think anyone misses that, now do you?

> (Generalizations are easy to refute)

Only if they are untrue.

> But more importantly, the school IN THE INHALER STORY
> definately had a nurse. Did you lose track of that?

Of course, since the rest of us were no longer confining ourselves to
the
particulars of that incident but had generalized...so you have nothing
to
refute but your foot. You may take it out of your mouth now and wipe
it off. I
recommend a shower as well.

It didn't say if the nurse was full time. But then we weren't talking
about THAT school anymore..or hadn't you noticed.

> > unless they are some huge magnet school.
>
> Nope. None involved.

>
> > School districts have nurses, or schools have part
> > time nurses if they are small isolated schools.
>
> Nope. Full time.

Tell me the name and location of the school. I don't believe you. And
the
point was, even if on hand one cannot guarantee he or she will be
available
for every emergency that comes up.

> > School districts haven't had the money for
> > years to have full time nurses, or other services
> > personnel. They cover districts.
>
> Nope. Not in my limited experience, which is all
> it takes to puncture your generalization.

You must have exceedingly limited experience. And nothing was
punctured by
your ballon head.

> But there WAS a nurse in the case in question,
> and so by LaVonne's own logic, THAT person is in
> charge of locking up the inhaler, not the teacher
> with some inhaler in a drawer.

I'm sorry, but what is it about LaVonne's post you are replying to,
the one
you quoted with attributions at the head of this post, that says she
was
confining herself to discussing just this singular instance? No,
actually
even in schools with nurses, part time or otherwise, rescue meds are
kept by
the teacher if the parent so requests. You keep trying to pretend you
were a
parent but your knowledge suggests you were little more than a gigolo
and
towelboy.

> > And believe it or not even if they had ONE
> > "rescue" medication means administer it right
> > [e.d.]NOW you little [e.d.]head. You don't really
> > think they are supposed to wait for the nurse
> > if it's a rescue situation, do you?
>
> Thank you, Kane. You just argued MY stated point.

Sorry. You were NOT making that point. You were too busy making
LaVonne wrong
and tripped over your shampoo bottle.

> LaVonne and some others are trying to justify the
> bureaucratic delays that leave the girl in the
> story choking on her way to the school nurse.

They are? How might that be...by suggesting there is more than one
alternative
that was NOT used. It might be possible the parents were remiss in not
thinking about having a spare inhaler with the nurse and another with
the
girls homeroom or PE instructors, or that they trusted her too much to
remember her meds.

And, if you look real closely you'll see there were no bureaucratic
delays.
They were legal ones...and in fact no delay happened. The boy gave her
a shot
of his inhaler, thus circumventing the system, and the law. This
wasn't about
killing a girl, it was about breaking the law.

> The bureaucrats seem to have little care for urgency.

On the contrary. Ambulances can break the speed limit and other
traffic
regulations under certain conditions. I can stop and help someone at
the
roadside and in most instances, unless I so malice, NOT be charged
with a
crime or even worry about a civil sut. On other hand if I have a
perscription
for a drug and administer it I may well be breaking the law.

> They care more about "the letter of the law" and
> proper bureaucratic chain of command than urgency.

On the contrary. No one minded in the least that they boy was willing
to risk
breaking a law. That doesn't change that he did, now does it? I once
broke a
law to save my life. I quite happily paid the fine. Don't you just
wish I
handn't?

> In a conflict between instant emergency care and
> officialdom, they side with delay and officialdom.

Wrong as usual. Instant emergency care wasn't the question. Use of
someone
else's medications was.

> > > How does your logic let you have it both ways?
> > > IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way?
> >
> > How many pulls on your hookah does it take
> > before your logic deteriorts completely?
>
> I don't smoke anything, and don't own any sort
> of water pipe, Turkish or otherwise.

Now do you imbibe then, or do you just hold your breath demanding your
way
until you pass out?

> Lavonne wrote
> > > > For some reason, Greg continues to make the same
> > > > mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well.
>
> Greg wrote
> > > And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that. :)
>
> Kane wrote
> > Yes, quite. I noticed that too.
>
> The things you see often aren't there.

I look at what is written. I comment directly on that. If you think
I'm
inferring something well that's your little problem, now isn't it?

> Maybe you should TRY a Hookah, it might help you.

I'm an oxygen junky, striaght up just as the tree expire it around my
home.
You should try it.

> > I noticed that you will do just about anything,
> > even appear the village idiot,
>
> Remember, it takes a village idiot to raise a child.

Oh? Now I understand your child rearing beliefs much better.

> > to divert others, and I think even yourself,
> > from the truth
>
> More like your OBSESSION than the truth.

My only obsession now is hoping that child isn't unlucky enough to be
returned
to her mother with you still in the house.

I'm also just a tiny bit obsessed with trying to figure out how a real
mother
can take a boyfriend over her own child, but I'm sure you won't let
your
"fiance" visit this ng and discuss it so I guess I'll just have to
bear the
awful burden of never knowing. r r r r

> > of what you have done to that little girl
> > and her mother. But we aren't going to forget.
>
> You know, Kane, even if the twisted assertions
> you and Dan have pushed for so long were true,

They are nothing more than direct responses to what you reveal...and
it gets
better all the time. You never going to cut your losses, are you?

> the DHS fabrication of a ""Sexual Abuse History""
> by caseworkers is a problem so severe that I would
> say that anybody who is in favor of Child Protection
> such as yourself would see such CPS corruption
> as WORSE than even the child abuse you imagine.
>
> To fictionalize and fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History""
> and then when it's disproved, REFUSE to correct
> such a known falsehood, is a pretty severe violation.
>
> If CPS has to resort to perjury and frame ups to get
> child abusers, then they are culpable.

Okay, I give up. Even a low life like you deserves some information,
at least
on the off chance it will help a real parent who really hasn't done
any abuse
or neglect.

Here yah go folks. How to correct erroneous information in a case file
with
child welfare (and you don't even bother to ask if they've take it
out....they
rarely do AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO:

You write a letter, inluding any materials from other sources relevant
to the
correction. You relate the truth (not something we can expect from my
correspondant, but hey, some of you are honest) and then you take that
document to the post office, where you mail it by any of the means
that
insures you get a receipt.

There now isn't that easy? And if you have to show up in court again
for some
reason, or you do decide to sue and the correction is relevant, you
have a
return receipt that someone actually got that note.

In addition, and this if for the technologically less challenged, you
send a
fax, and you send and e-mail.

And finally, if you want to pound that stake completely through the
Count's
heart, you CC everyone you think is relevant: supervisor, branch
manager, any
kind of regional adminstrator, and the director of the agency for the
state,
with any ombudspersons, and all stakeholders, family court judge
involved and
GALs, CASAs, CRBs, and every attorney on all sides in the case, and
last but
not least, the local DA if they are the one's likely to decide on
whether or
not to pursue a TPR.

Your ass is thus covered, and it's only paper, and a bit of time and
proves
you really DO want the child back rather than try to trap the state
into doing
something you can sue for....unless they are too dumb to notice what
you just
did.

How NOT to handle the problem?

By spending your days sitting on your ass out of work by choice,
feeding off
the largess of a lady who can't sort what is and isn't imporant in
life and
WHINING WHINING WHINING even after you have grabbed the brass ring of
gigolo
champions.

> To blame me for their falsehoods about me is nonsense.

You mean to tell us that you have been lying about what you did to the
little
girl and her mother?

You DO have a job?

You did what the court and CPS asked and the child has been returned?

There was no wetting incident, no wetting of pants, no cold shower
punishment,
no Greegor the Whore shampoo girl-towelboy stuff going on at all?

That "Motion" you posted here was all just a joke on Dan and Kane and
other's
that can't stand the righteous little weasel stink of you?

Well, doggone it boy, yah got one over on us. Are we ever blushing...
>
> In fact, the attitudes you and Dan display your
> cynical paranoid fertive imaginations about evil
> are partly indirect reflections of the big lie.

The "big lie" being?

> Your concept of the truth is very similar to this lie.
> Fertive imagination presuming evil deeds that were not.

My imagination is not the least bit "fertive." I put it right out
there was
images your giving a naked six year old girl you aren't related to
punishment
showers and shampooing assists, hands on, and standing by with towels.

> > Hell, how can we? You are still here.
>
> Of course.

<Gag-Retch>

>
> Who is this "we" you are talking about?
>

The folks reading this post. Who did you think? One of your
hallucinations
that insists 6 year old girls that wet themselves are best punished,
and best
punished by getting naked in front of you and taking cold showers?

> > > All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness
> > > and inability to think and reason regarding medical care.
> >
> > Yah know if you had anything to lose dummy
> > I'd invite you to run up to the next person
> > you see down on the street and start doing
> > some rescue meds adminstration. Given them
> > some asprin too while you are at it.
> > In fact had there been no inhalator maybe
> > asprin might have helped..right?
>
> If I HAD a hookah, I'd give it to you at this point.

What would I do with that? I don't collect hookays, cans, or bottles.
I've
better things to do with my time.

> > > Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"?
>
> > Well considering the issues of infectious
> > diseases,
>
> The boy and girl were a COUPLE, Kane.

The first girl I got a crush in in junior hi I only held her hand and
walked
about the campus. You don't know intimate they were or not. And you
don't know
if he had his own inhaler or not. Asthma is common these days and I
pointed
out in another post that kids into dope have put other things in
inhalers.

What we don't know from the story is just how familiar with the boy
and girl
the nurse was or wasn't. She had better not be jumping to conclusions
just
because a teener tells her something. They have been known to slip a
cog or
two on stories before.

> Did you ever even read the story?

Avidly and closely.

> > using a health appliance that
> > administers who know what because no one
> > but the kids would know what's in it
>
> Both mothers, the nurse and the teacher would
> have all KNOWN that the two inhalers were identical
> medication and dosage.

The media can say assume any damn thing they want. I've been badly
misquoted
in news articles. One made what I said into the opposite of my
meaning. Once I
spent 5 minutes, as the admin of a webpage on adoption, explaining to
a cute
little reporer chickie, you know the type, that," No it isn't possible
for on
line perverts to connect with these children, as all families are,
just as in
real live, screened out virtually through a number of means."

You'd believe how they edited it make it turn out that it appeared I
said,
"Yes, the folks that contracted my web design services are pedophiles
selling
children over the interent."

About the same level of Dung talk we get here so often.
>
> All of your "who knows what" was in fact known.
>
You have some insider priveleged information the rest of us lack then?
You
believe, Plantlike, that the media always gets it right and the
stories you
read aren't slanted...mmmmhhhhhmmmmm, yessir you betcha.

> > and not even then if some other kids played
> > around with it, I'd say it's YOU that's
> > obviously a Zombie.
>
> Just in time to look for THE GREAT PUMPKIN, right Kane?

I do believe your little shower attendant has taken up the dressmaking
trade
and is giving us a demonstration of how to make a dress from
wholecloth.

Trading insults with you is like a grown man forcing a little six year
old
girl to strip naked and get into the cold shower...it's waaaay too
easy.

I almost feel guilty.

>
> > Tell you what. Next time you have a stuffy nose
> > walk down the street and ask someone for the
> > use of the nasal sprayer.
>
> I am my own variety of lunatic, I don't need to be you.

We are officially sorry for you. Now go get a job. Even folks with
developmental disabilities can and do work. They don't sit around
whining
about how badly they are mistreated.

> > > Defend it to the hilt.
> >
> > Absolutely. Most laws pertaining to health issues
> > are extremely well thought out and often introduced
> > from medical associations to stop fools like you
> > from being little rescue Annie's that kill people.
>
> Why do you mock Rescue Annie?
> The rescue dummy

Yeeeeeessssssss?

> saved more lives than you can dream of.

The two I hauled around and conducted classes with, one adult sized
and one
infant, never recued a soul, not one.

> She was called Resusci-Annie when I practiced the kiss of life.

I sure hope you were not in one of my CPR classes. And don't get
carried away
with your rescue fantasies. It's exactly the problem I pointed out
above. Did
you get any training in when NOT to use CPR, and can you remember
them?

We had a lot of fun with the ones we used with my company. I'm
reminded of the
post...well, I'll let you read it yourself..

http://www.playgroundlaw.com/cgi-bin/browse.pl?sid=594

>
>
> > The emt's that got there were practically having fist
> > fights to stop them. The ER docs estmated that half
> > the injured children died because of rescue trauma
> > inflicted by little [e.d] like you. The other half
> > were all emt stabilized before transport. In other
> > words, every child moved by a non-emt died. Not one
> > died that had the proper treatment died.
>
> Interesting story. A train obliterates a school bus
> and you blame all of the deaths onto the non-emt's?

Yes. Every single damn one.

> How long did it take for the EMT's to get there?

About 8 minutes. Just stopping bleeding would have been sufficient.

It's been a long time, about 25 years or so, and I sold my timber
holdings in
Oregon and moved on many years ago. I looked up the article for you.
Three
died, all moved by non-emt's. The emt's managed to stop the rest of
the rescue
fantasy folks and there were many injured, but all lived that had emt
help,
none that didn't.

Train-School Bus Collision: Lafayette, Oregon
Time and Date: 8:10 a.m., Sept. 8, 1976
Weather conditions: Clear.
Event: School bus driver, having failed to see approaching train,
pulled
slowly onto the tracks in time to be hit by the on-coming train.
Injuries: Three school bus passengers die, 16 students and driver
injured.
Accident report: McMinnville School District #40 files

Description of collisions: The accident occurred on the second day of
school
in the city of Lafayette, Oregon. The bus had stopped at the grade
crossing
and was hit in the right front as it pulled out in the path of the
approaching
Southern Pacific train. As a result of the collision, three children
(ages 8,
8, & 16) were killed and approximately 38 children were injured in
various
degrees.
The driver of the bus, Rudolph Baker, age 54, had been employed by the
McMinnville School District #40 for approximately three years and had
attended
all training sessions. He was cleared of any criminal negligence by
the the
District Attorney's Office. It is believed the driver was blinded by
the
unusually bright sunshine on that day. He would have looked directly
into the
sun in checking the tracks to his right.
Not long after the accident, crossing gates were installed.
These are the only fatalities to children inside a school bus in
Oregon.

My comment: since I drove that bus I can tell you that at the crossing
point
the tracks ran east/west, and the sun, at 7:35am, the late summer sun
would
shine right down those tracks into a drivers eyes. It was usually cool
by
September in those parts, at least in the morning, and the windows of
the bus
would frost up quickly. The protocol was to stop, as school busses are
supposed to and open the door so one could not just see with out the
misted up
windows in the way, but be able to hear as well as the train always
sounded
it's horn before and all the way through that town...it had five
unmarked
crossings as it ran through.

I talked with one of the older children about a year after the
collision. She
remembers the drive NOT stopping, and most certainly not opening the
door.
Though cleared of criminal negligence he was fired, as well he should
have
been. There was NO excuse given the protocols in place that were not
followed.
The only slack I could cut him was the school hear had just started,
It
might have been the first or second day for that matter...September
after
all.....and he simply forgot.

The point here and what you can't find in any stories, though the
local paper
ran one and their morgue might still have old copies, was the idiots
that
figured they knew better than the emt's.

Do remember, there was a nurse present in the school case we are
referrencing.
So there was a qualified person there to assess the condition of the
girl (and
signs of dangerous levels of oxygen deprivation are not all that
difficult to
see and assess) and to make a medically significant call on what to do
next.
O2 will suffice for a time, more than enough for the emt's to get
there
usually.

And as someone pointed out, O2 is rather common in nurses digs at
schools.

> What is the average time for EMT's to arrive on
> accident scenes?

There is no average time. It is much more precisely known by local
emts how
long it takes to get to the local points of common calls, like
schools,
playgrounds, daycare enters. The precise time was likely known to
nurse and
emts and that's why there likely was no panic about getting the girl
help.

You twits make all kinds of bogus assumptions out of this kind of
thinking
common to this ng. Problems that are handled you pretend aren't and a
great
hooraw goes up and then EVERY DAMN THING POSSIBLE IS DONE INCORRECTLY
AND
OTHERS SUFFER FOR IT.

> How many died before the EMT's even arrived?

One, as I recall being told about the train bus wreck, and two in the
ER
because of internal injuries exacerbated by being moved, or so the ER
docs
estimated. Of the rest some were very severly injured yet survived...I
guess
because little rescue annies like you didn't get to them yet or the
emt's
fought them off.

Everybody seems to think their "common sense" takes precident over the
professional training of others. I was like that too....when I was
young and
stupid. How old are you by the way, and don't you think it time you
grew up?

> Sure, I believe that untrained improper first aid can
> make things worse or kill people,

The boyfriend in the media story was a trained EMT? I didn't know
that.

>but your story
> reminds me a bit of your demogoguery in other areas.

Well, read it and weep, asshole. The reason you see ME as a demogogue
is that
you are so stupid you don't know the truth when you see it. You are
full of
self induced stupidity and cherished ignorance.

> > > Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you
> > > to defend.
> >
> > Which bureaucratic ineptitude are you referring to?
> > There was non in that case you are talking about.
> > The girl is alive.
>
> How does that prove there was no bureaucratic ineptitude?

How does that answer my question? If there was YOU are obligated,
since YOU
made the claim, to show it, not start playing Dung games with words
demanding
I defend my position.
>
> > Have any wrecks?
>
> One where damage indicated it was more like fast deer hit me.

Lucky the kids weren't in the taxi. My only experience with driving
taxi was
up and down Kalakaua avenue in Waikiki ferrying movie stars and other
celebraties in the day and evenings, and very expensive and very
attractive
young whores to their meetings in the high end hotels. I made plenty
of money
but the people all bored me, and I sold out and moved on.

Now do you want some article on that part of my life? I'm not sure I
could
prove a thing, though I'll bet you I can come up with a very close
date to
when James Arness got divorced and I ran into him by complete chance
and we
drank an afternoon away together. Don't drink any more, but can't
speak for
him.

> Was a big one moving faster than I was out of a dark lot.
> No passengers.

How I wish there had been non in the wreck you created in the life of
that
mother and child.

> > At the beginning of this post you tried your
> > best to create a question about LaVonne and
> > a perceived by you lack of consistency.
> >
> > You just got through defending "common sense"
> > then claim you tried to do the right thing
> > and got in gigged for it,
>
> Yes, the right thing is generally NOT adhering
> to "the letter of the law".

The perfect example of the criminal mind at work. Reforming a law is
one
thing, claiming the letter of the law needn't be followed is yet
another.

The point, pointy head, is that most laws, you'll note, don't require
a death
penalty if broken. One of the nice things that allows for is that if
one just
HAS to break the law, they'll survive it even if charged and
convicted. I do
so wish there were better laws to protect little girls whose mother's
have
taken in lazy louts that want to give the child cold showers.

> I should point out that somebody ELSE in this thread
> began using the expression "letter of the law" as if
> prickly technicality is the way to go.

Not my problem. I'm not the one that claimed at any point the law
should be
broken, nor did I claim the boy did the wrong thing...only that he is
old
enough to experience the logical consequences of his action. He can
know he
saved his girl friend and took the heat on the law. Makes him a much
bigger
hero.

What you are asking for, but haven't noticed, is there to be a special
law for
kids that don't know each other as well as those two do or did, and
everyone
else.

Care to put one of those kinds of law together for us, "Motion"
writer? Should
be easy. We need the entertainment. We are bored with you.

>
> The story was to illustrate that in the gritty real
> world, "letter of the law" is a pathetic joke, even
> to police officers.

No, not quite so. The letter of the law is always there. Breaking it
doesn't
prove the law was wrong or even needs changing, only that some
circumstances
might require you to take it in the neck for moral reasons. But I
understand
you don't get that point.

> It's the stuff that makes Barney Fife so hilarious.

You certainly are. Though I doubt, despite his artful bumbling, Don
Knotts
wasn't all that stupid in real life, and Barney was a fictional
character. If
you were a bit funnier you could pass for the Fife character...but
your
bumbings seem to turn out so right for you...hmmmm.....

>
> > yet you want others to do the right thing
> > and get away with it.
>
> Put that way, I can't disagree.

What that opens up is that those doing them for the wrong reasons need
only be
a bit artful in their creation of an excuse and they walk
free....kindah like
you.

> > ..hmmm...interesting isn't it?
>
> Yes, fascinating.

I know. I could watch you by the hour.

>
> > > Which was right?
> > > Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented?
> >
> > Well, so far you've just presented yet
> > another bungled attempt to get
> > people to forget what you are.
>
> WHAT I am?

No, no. It's supposed to be "What am I?"

And if you can't figure that out...oh well.

> Objectifying me?

Not nearly as much as you did the little girl. I haven't applied a
single
punishment to you, other than point out what you are. No cold shower,
no
stripping naked <ugh>, no pushing your head under the shower to "help"
you get
the shampoo out.

And no writing of "Motions" that couldn't have worked any better than
if you'd
punched the judge in the face.

> Dehumanizing tactic? Hmm..

One of the things noticed by myself, and others, is that you speak
about the
little girl and her loss hardly at all. In fact I can't one time. Help
me out
here. You must have had a conscience day once at least. It's all about
you,
now isn't it?

> Is your goal to be remembered, Kane?

No. I don't need accolades. I'm quite happy with my knowing what I
work so
hard for. And it's not to take little girls away from their mothers so
I can
sit on my fat ass eating her food, taking up her space, and her
mother's love
and attention.

> Does that explain all of your scatological references?

Couldn't say. If it works for you....r r r r

Kane

Greg Hanson

October 18th 03, 05:42 PM

> > Does that explain all of your scatological references?

Just think, folks, this guy claims to be a higher up in
supervision of Child Protective Services.

Your tax dollars at work!

And you can guess from his rhetoric what a fine, just,
even-handed FAIR job Child Protection does.

Hey Kane, have you ever met "Curio" ? Napolis?

bobb

October 22nd 03, 03:04 AM

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, and one more thing which hasn't been pointed out yet. Inhalers require
> mouth contact, which means that by using another child's inhaler, the
child
> is possibly being exposed to various infectious diseases. While in this
case
> the two children had almost certainly had mouth-to-mouth contact, this is
> another reason to restrict use of an inhaler to the person for which it
was
> intended. I can't imagine passing an inhaler around is sanitary.
>
> Bottom line-if your child needs medication, MAKE SURE they have the
> medication. Period.

I repeat one more time.. what about shared soft drink bottles and cans, and
kissing. I can hardly imagine sharing an inhaler is less than sanitary.

Somehow selective memory kicks in when one is trying to have things their
way.. and not another.

Try delibration... consider the best and worse case... before jumping to
conclusions as our legislators do all too frequently.. unless they are
blinded by the color green or an imaginary vote .. then all bets are off.

bobb

>
>

Polychrome

February 20th 05, 01:50 AM

I would just like to say, as a chronic athsmatic, that the fact that this is even up for debate scares the hell out of me, as well as disgusts me. Being an athsmatic is like being a diabetic. You learn all the meds and tools simply from necessity. Without learning them, you die, and I'm pretty sure the person with the athsma attack would not have accepted an inhaler that was not a rescue inhaler.

Lets start with the basics, shall we? All athsmatics are given albuterol (or similar) as a rescue inhaler. There's seemingly millions of brands, but it's all the same. If you're allergic to it? You're allergic to all of it and it's unlikely you'd accept any sort of rescue-inhaler if offered, even in an emergency. Why? Because you know what it'll do to you.

Yes, there are other kinds of inhalers. But these are not rescue inhalers and are rarely carried on your person. They hold capsules full of powder, and you take them after you brush your teeth before going to bed. It's VERY hard to not know the difference if you are athsmatic.

All this being said, if I were dying for lack of albuterol, and the person next to me had some right in their hand, and was denying it to me even though I was collapsed on the floor and it was the last thing that could save my life, I think I'd be pretty angry. And it sure doesn't help that my athsma is stress related either. I've had to use a friend's or co-worker's at times. Once I had to ask a complete stranger. It's very rare, but usually, athsmatics are understanding about it. After all, they know what it's like to have your own lungs attack your body.

I'm not saying that the girl should not have remembered her inhaler. Frankly, I rarely forget my own (to paranoid to forget it), and when I do, I drink so much caffeine to prevent an attack that I'm shaking like mad. But understandably, they're small, they sometimes fall out of your purse, or get lost in a blanket or under a pillow, and you end up forgetting them simply because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time.