Tupac vs. the board of education

Okay, not Tupac, but a tattoo of Tupac.

And, yeah, not the board of education, but the school's principal.

Still.

http://www.sohh.com/articles/article.php/10986

--
Curt

On Feb 27, 8:39 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, not Tupac, but a tattoo of Tupac.
>
> And, yeah, not the board of education, but the school's principal.
>
> Still.
>
> http://www.sohh.com/articles/article.php/10986
>
> --
> Curt

So you're saying a tattoo is suing a school principal?

K.

On Feb 27, 8:39 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, not Tupac, but a tattoo of Tupac.
>
> And, yeah, not the board of education, but the school's principal.
>
> Still.
>
> http://www.sohh.com/articles/article.php/10986
>
> --
> Curt

I found another article with a bit more information than what the
_Daily Hip Hop News_ provided:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/AAMB0/aamsz=7...3681a7694.html

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2425o3

...."Neither she nor Zavier "had any idea" tattoos were banned by the
school. Exceptions are made only for cultural, religious or health
reasons. Zavier, who was expelled for gross misconduct, has never been
in trouble before and says the school's reaction is "over the top".

His mother will complain to the Education Ministry this week on the
grounds the decision is discriminatory and breaches her son's human
rights." ...

I agree that the school's decision to expell the boy is over the top;
afterall, the boy said he would wear long sleeves to cover the
tattoo. Considering the fact that Catholic schools are integrated in
New Zealand (meaning public funds for teacher salaries and education
materials) then the boy just might have a case regardless of the
school's no tattoo policy.

L.

On Feb 28, 7:30 am, "Lori" <LoriDontDoT...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Considering the fact that Catholic schools are integrated in
> New Zealand (meaning public funds for teacher salaries and education
> materials) then the boy just might have a case regardless of the
> school's no tattoo policy.

So we're saying if public funds are involved, standards can be
lowered?


Kavin

On Feb 28, 7:53 am, "KavinTay...@gmail.com" <KavinTay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 28, 7:30 am, "Lori" <LoriDontDoT...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Considering the fact that Catholic schools are integrated in
> > New Zealand (meaning public funds for teacher salaries and education
> > materials) then the boy just might have a case regardless of the
> > school's no tattoo policy.
>
> So we're saying if public funds are involved, standards can be
> lowered?
>
> Kavin

No. *I* am saying if public funds are involved then perhaps a
discrimination case may be appropriate. If the school is completely
private then perhaps not. Whether one considers a no tattoo policy as
a higher or lower standard is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, but
while we're at it, is it safe to assume that you think a no tattoo
policy is a higher standard?

On Feb 28, 8:38 am, "Lori" <LoriDontDoT...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 7:53 am, "KavinTay...@gmail.com" <KavinTay...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 7:30 am, "Lori" <LoriDontDoT...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Considering the fact that Catholic schools are integrated in
> > > New Zealand (meaning public funds for teacher salaries and education
> > > materials) then the boy just might have a case regardless of the
> > > school's no tattoo policy.
>
> > So we're saying if public funds are involved, standards can be
> > lowered?
>
> > Kavin
>
> No. *I* am saying if public funds are involved then perhaps a
> discrimination case may be appropriate.

True discrimination does not depend on public/private funding. Even
here in the mean old United States you cannot exclude a student from
your school because of race, color, creed, la, la, la. You can still
sue.


> If the school is completely
> private then perhaps not.

> Whether one considers a no tattoo policy as
> a higher or lower standard is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned,

But that is exactly what you are doing. If the school received no
public funds, it sounds as if they are allowed to have the standard.
Public funds, no.

> while we're at it, is it safe to assume that you think a no tattoo
> policy is a higher standard?

No, what I think is when you enroll in a school, belong to a group,
sign up for a class, and you know their are rules, read the goddam
rules. And there are always rules. The mom is a social worker. I'm
sure her workplace has rules.

Do I think the school has stepped in it? Big time. But they have to
do what they have to do.

Maybe some unfortunate quotes, from both sides.

The higher standard is when you stick to the rules.

Kavin

On Feb 28, 9:51 am, "KavinTay...@gmail.com" <KavinTay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:38 am, "Lori" <LoriDontDoT...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > Considering the fact that Catholic schools are integrated in
> > > > New Zealand (meaning public funds for teacher salaries and education
> > > > materials) then the boy just might have a case regardless of the
> > > > school's no tattoo policy.
>
> > > So we're saying if public funds are involved, standards can be
> > > lowered?
>
> > No. *I* am saying if public funds are involved then perhaps a
> > discrimination case may be appropriate.
>
> True discrimination does not depend on public/private funding. Even
> here in the mean old United States you cannot exclude a student from
> your school because of race, color, creed, la, la, la. You can still
> sue.
>
> > If the school is completely
> > private then perhaps not.
> > Whether one considers a no tattoo policy as
> > a higher or lower standard is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned,
>
> But that is exactly what you are doing. If the school received no
> public funds, it sounds as if they are allowed to have the standard.
> Public funds, no.

What do you mean by "true" discrimination, that which is already on
the law books? AFAIK, in the U.S. although private schools have laws
to adhere to they don't have the same laws as public schools do. A
private school has more leeway to reject a student than a public
school does. So yes, there are different standards; however, I made
no implication as to whether I thought one higher or lower than the
other, that was your mistaken assumption and perhaps a fruedian slip
also. ;)

I don't know which side of the line (private or public) that the
Catholic schools in New Zealand are on legally considering they are a
mix of public funding and private property. I'll be interested to see
if a discrimination suit is pursued and how the case plays out.

> > while we're at it, is it safe to assume that you think a no tattoo
> > policy is a higher standard?
>
> No, what I think is when you enroll in a school, belong to a group,
> sign up for a class, and you know their are rules, read the goddam
> rules. And there are always rules. The mom is a social worker. I'm
> sure her workplace has rules.

I would agree with you if the Catholic school is strictly private but
if the Catholic school in New Zealand is legally on the side of a
public institution and the laws are similar as in the States then they
may have a problem regarding their rules -- see above.

> Do I think the school has stepped in it? Big time. But they have to
> do what they have to do.
>
> Maybe some unfortunate quotes, from both sides.
>
> The higher standard is when you stick to the rules.

Even if those rules are unjust? I have a feeling Martin Luther King
and Rosa Parks would have disagreed with you.

L. - the insufferable shoelace

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:
>
> > Okay, not Tupac, but a tattoo of Tupac.
>
> > And, yeah, not the board of education,
> > but the school's principal.
>
> > Still.
>
> > http://www.sohh.com/articles/article.php/10986

[...]

> So you're saying a tattoo is suing a
> school principal?
>
> K.

Thanks for giving my post a bump, Kavvy. Much obliged.

Genius.

And, in case you forgot, versus has meaning beyond simple litigation.
Duuuuuh. ;o)

--
Curt

Lori wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:
>
> > Okay, not Tupac, but a tattoo of Tupac.
>
> > And, yeah, not the board of education,
> > but the school's principal.
>
> > Still.
>
> > http://www.sohh.com/articles/article.php/10986
[...]

> I found another article with a bit more
> information than what the _Daily Hip Hop
> News_ provided:
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/AAMB0/aamsz=7...3681a7694.html

>
> or
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2425o3
>
> ..."Neither she nor Zavier "had any idea" tattoos
> were banned by the school. Exceptions are made
> only for cultural, religious or health reasons. Zavier,
> who was expelled for gross misconduct, has never
> been in trouble before and says the school's
> reaction is "over the top".
>
> His mother will complain to the Education Ministry
> this week on the grounds the decision is
> discriminatory and breaches her son's human
> rights." ...
>
> I agree that the school's decision to expell the
> boy is over the top; afterall, the boy said he
> would wear long sleeves to cover the tattoo.

Indeed. I liked also someone's comment in the reader feedback section,
that if it'd been an Elvis tattoo, things might've been dealt with
differently.

> Considering the fact that Catholic schools
> are integrated in New Zealand (meaning
> public funds for teacher salaries and education
> materials) then the boy just might have a case
> regardless of the school's no tattoo policy.

I'd be interested to see what their education ministry has to say.

> L.

What's even more ridiculous than the school's complaint is their
request for the student, "to stay at home until the tattoo was
removed," like THAT's going to happen.

Tupac may be considered inappropriate by the school principal, but
others consider him a poet, an actor, and a young man who positively
influenced many lives.

--
Curt

On Feb 28, 5:37 pm, "Lori" <LoriDontDoT...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:51 am, "KavinTay...@gmail.com" <KavinTay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
cunt> What do you mean by "true" discrimination, that which is already
on
cunt> the law books? AFAIK, in the U.S. although private schools have
laws
cunt> to adhere to they don't have the same laws as public schools
do.

Uh, no, they are the same laws.

cunt>A
cunt> private school has more leeway to reject a student than a public
cunt> school does.

Oh, you mean like maybe the student will get a tattoo when the school
says "No, you can't." Or maybe if the school is Hebrew and you won't
wear a keepah when you are supposed to?


>So yes, there are different standards;

No, you don't know the standards. Your argument is already tainted.


>however, I made
> no implication as to whether I thought one higher or lower than the
> other, that was your mistaken assumption and perhaps a freudian slip
> also. ;)

No, you just did. And there was nothing Freudian in anything I
posted. You are a fucking bitch troll cunt from hell. You look for
"discrimination" in everything you've posted. Doctor's offices, and
now schools.
>

> I don't know which side of the line (private or public) that the
> Catholic schools in New Zealand are on legally considering they are a
> mix of public funding and private property.

But you will make assumptions based on what?

> I'll be interested to see
> if a discrimination suit is pursued and how the case plays out.

Yeah, because the principal says you knew the rules, and you broke
them? How big is your ass. Why do I think you are a 300 pound piece
of shit that thinks the world has to say "Oh we feel sorry for you
because you can't pass anything without taking a bite out of it."


>
> > > while we're at it, is it safe to assume that you think a no tattoo
> > > policy is a higher standard?
>
> > No, what I think is when you enroll in a school, belong to a group,
> > sign up for a class, and you know their are rules, read the goddam
> > rules. And there are always rules. The mom is a social worker. I'm
> > sure her workplace has rules.
>
cunt> I would agree with you if the Catholic school is strictly
private but
cunt> if the Catholic school in New Zealand is legally on the side of
a
cunt> public institution and the laws are similar as in the States
then they
cunt> may have a problem regarding their rules -- see above.

No, see reality
>
kt> > Do I think the school has stepped in it? Big time. But they
have to
kt> > do what they have to do.

>
>kt > The higher standard is when you stick to the rules.
>
> Even if those rules are unjust?
How is "no tattoos" unjust?


cunt>I have a feeling Martin Luther King
cunt> and Rosa Parks would have disagreed with you.

Yeah, because it was "I have a dream that any idiot child can have a
tattoo of a gang member tattooed on his arm and not get kicked out of
a private, and I said private, school."


Kavin

On Feb 28, 10:21 pm, "KavinTay...@gmail.com" <KavinTay...@gmail.com>,
hereby cunt #1, wrote:

> cunt> What do you mean by "true" discrimination, that which is already
> on
> cunt> the law books? AFAIK, in the U.S. although private schools have
> laws
> cunt> to adhere to they don't have the same laws as public schools
> do.

cunt #1> Uh, no, they are the same laws.

Uh, no they are not. A few examples:

1. Private schools do not have to allow attendance regardless of
creed, public schools do.
2. Private schools do not have to follow many of the state and/or
federal hiring practices, public schools do.
3. Private schools do not have to accommodate special education for
special needs children, public schools do.
4. Private schools can charge tuition, public schools cannot.

> cunt>A
> cunt> private school has more leeway to reject a student than a public
> cunt> school does.

cunt #1> Oh, you mean like maybe the student will get a tattoo when
the school
> says "No, you can't." Or maybe if the school is Hebrew and you won't
> wear a keepah when you are supposed to?

Yes.

> >So yes, there are different standards;

cunt #1> No, you don't know the standards. Your argument is already
tainted.

No it's not. See above.

> >however, I made
> > no implication as to whether I thought one higher or lower than the
> > other, that was your mistaken assumption and perhaps a freudian slip
> > also. ;)

cunt #1> No, you just did.

No I did not. Again, nothing to imply whether one standard is higher
or lower than the other.

cunt #1> And there was nothing Freudian in anything I
> posted.

Heh, if you say so.

cunt #1> You are a fucking bitch troll cunt from hell. You look for
> "discrimination" in everything you've posted. Doctor's offices, and
> now schools.

Not in everything I've posted but I call this one how I see it.

> > I don't know which side of the line (private or public) that the
> > Catholic schools in New Zealand are on legally considering they are a
> > mix of public funding and private property.

cunt #1> But you will make assumptions based on what?

No assumptions were made.

> > I'll be interested to see
> > if a discrimination suit is pursued and how the case plays out.

cunt #1> Yeah, because the principal says you knew the rules, and you
broke
> them? How big is your ass. Why do I think you are a 300 pound piece
> of shit that thinks the world has to say "Oh we feel sorry for you
> because you can't pass anything without taking a bite out of it."

That would be a question for you to answer, but if I were to take a
guess I'd say it's because you can't stand the thought of someone
being your intellectual superior AND better looking than you.

> > > > while we're at it, is it safe to assume that you think a no tattoo
> > > > policy is a higher standard?

cunt #1> > > No, what I think is when you enroll in a school, belong
to a group,
> > > sign up for a class, and you know their are rules, read the goddam
> > > rules. And there are always rules. The mom is a social worker. I'm
> > > sure her workplace has rules.

> cunt> I would agree with you if the Catholic school is strictly
> private but
> cunt> if the Catholic school in New Zealand is legally on the side of
> a
> cunt> public institution and the laws are similar as in the States
> then they
> cunt> may have a problem regarding their rules -- see above.

cunt #1> No, see reality

Again, see above.

cunt #1> > > Do I think the school has stepped in it? Big time. But
they
> have to
> > > do what they have to do.

cunt #1> > > The higher standard is when you stick to the rules.

> > Even if those rules are unjust?

cunt #1> How is "no tattoos" unjust?

It's discrimination and discrimination is unjust. Now, you can argue
that it's not discrimination but I'd venture to say that more than a
few Georgians in years past thought segregation was not discrimination
either. Discrimination statutes don't get on the law books without a
legal fight.

> cunt>I have a feeling Martin Luther King
> cunt> and Rosa Parks would have disagreed with you.

cunt #1> Yeah, because it was "I have a dream that any idiot child can
have a
> tattoo of a gang member tattooed on his arm and not get kicked out of
> a private, and I said private, school."

It remains to be seen whether the Catholic school in New Zealand is
under the realm of public or private.

Since anyone with half a brain can see I've made my point clearly, and
to avoid boring minutiae and further childish ad hominem attacks, I'll
let you have the last word.

L. - the insufferable shoelace

On Mar 1, 11:44 am, "Lori" <LoriDontDoT...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>, but if I were to take a
> guess I'd say it's because you can't stand the thought of someone
> being your intellectual superior AND better looking than you.

You are deluded on both, dear. But I'm sure once you get your meds
leveled, you'll see clearly.


> Since anyone with half a brain can see I've made my point clearly,

Yes, discriminating Christian Doctors and discriminating Catholic
Schools.

Just remember: It's not because you are a tattooed asshole. It's
because you are an asshole.


Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> "Lori" wrote:

re Kavin

> > <snip> if I were to take a guess I'd say it's
> > because you can't stand the thought of
> > someone being your intellectual superior
> > AND better looking than you.
>
> You are deluded on both, dear.

How'd you come to that determination, Kavvy? I mean, you're stating
that you are both intellectually superior and better looking than
Lori? Have you seen her transcripts or, perhaps, her IQ test results,
ASVAB report, something else?

Have a picture of her? The intellect can be measured on different
levels, right? Have you heard of EQ?
<http://www.answers.com/topic/eq-intelligence-regarding-the-emotions>
It seems, imo, that you're no match for her from that perspective,
given your propensity to name call.

And re beauty, well, that's all opinion even if you have seen a
picture of her.

She smacks you with the stupid-ugly stick and you return in kind: "I
know you are, but what am I?" Interesting.

> But I'm sure once you get your meds
> leveled, you'll see clearly.

And your follow-up is to comment on possible medication levels she may
be prescribed. Was that meant as an insult? Or an example of a
concerned health professional encouraging someone to properly monitor
their prescriptions?

> > Since anyone with half a brain can see I've
> > made my point clearly,

[...]

> Just remember: It's not because you
> are a tattooed asshole. It's because
> you are an asshole.

Trading insults. Which just proves you can't fight hate with hate.

Awww, Kavin, gimme a hug!

> Kavin

--
Curt

Lori wrote:
> "KavinTay...@gmail.com" <KavinTay...@gmail.com>,
> hereby cunt #1, wrote:
> > cunt> What do you <snip>
>
> cunt #1> Uh, no, they are the same laws.

Lori, I'm guessing that Kavin thought he was responding to my post and
not yours. He's typo prone and, yes, more than likely, meant to type
cuRt and not cuNt.

> Uh, no they are not. A few examples:
>
> 1. Private schools do not have to allow
> attendance regardless of creed, public
> schools do.
> 2. Private schools do not have to follow
> many of the state and/or federal hiring
> practices, public schools do.
> 3. Private schools do not have to
> accommodate special education for
> special needs children, public schools do.
> 4. Private schools can charge tuition,
> public schools cannot.

And you're certainly not trying to use facts as the basis of your
discussion with Kavin, are you? He doesn't recognize facts, ime.

Hth.

--
Curt

On Mar 1, 9:28 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kavin Taylor wrote:
>
On Mar 1, 9:28 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>


And just how close to cunt are you?


Oh wait, as close as you were yesterday.


Or tomorrow.


By the way, your little comment to the sweet student in your class,
you know the one, the one about the color of their skin? I've asked
a
few teachers I know -- you are so lucky you have a job.


Kavin