Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

Whoops on my part. Change "anyone" to "anyone speaking or performing in some way that is not an audience member". That was your position.Although to be honest Principals and teachers also tell students visting places as audience members that they are "reps" and should behave properly. Not sure how many times we were told that. Songs count as speeches, right? But yes sometimes there were short ones regarding certain issues, including acceptance speeches.Can't believe you're throwing stones. Orwell High couldn't have been too exciting, everyone being handpicked and allowed only to speak what a school system endorses. Man we were pretty wild... even the geeks like me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The grey uniforms were always kind of dull, but I did have a good time during each day's Three Minute Hate. Macintosh joke: you should have seen our track and field team, though! First place in the hammer throw.

As an admin I'm sure you are aware that there is a rule here about simply repeating your original assertion, if it has been challenged. Both schraf and I have questioned this.The founding fathers specifically wrote against your stated position. One of these "writings" is the Constitution. It was also backed up by a treaty signed shortly after our nation's inception.A gov't CAN be neutral if it does not attempt to enforce a religion or favor a religion through its regulations and activities. I'm not sure how hard this is to understand, and if you are simply continuing to stir the pot I'm her to tell you you can stop stirring now!As far as expression goes, I do agree that in order to be neutral it does not have to demand absolute zero personal communication of religious nature. It does have a duty not to ornament its grounds and employees with religious iconography, or let them deliver speeches which promote a specific religion or in some way criticize nontheists. It is also important to prevent the appearance of proselytization in gov't areas. By which I can assume you have not read any of the philosophers that our founding fathers read, nor the philosophizing they had done themselves on this subject.Our gov't is a democratic-republic, which means that it is filled with reps of many separate belief systems. Looking at any of our branches of Gov't (save the Executive) one can quickly see there is NOT an agreement on an overarching belief system for gov't.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

message #231 awaits your response, Phat.

Unfortunately we had something similar to the Three Minute Hate, called the Gym Class Locker Room... and I did not have a good time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heyyy, keep your pants on, remember? Just to let you know, there is a point where my keeping my pants on becomes a revelation that yours have been off for some time... Though perhaps you like it that way?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I replied in that thread like a week ago.It was a very short reply.I'm all for delayed gratification, but I was begining to wonder...

No you didn't.You hit a reply button and then repeated a question that was wholly irrelevant to the discussion (it is simply being used to elicit an emotional response), and as it stands I did try to answer to the best of my ability. Your question as posed was oversimplified and so had to be broken into its most important elements.You also ignored the points I had been discussing and the entire post I gave to you with background info, including citations.It would be the equivalent of having a discussion with buz on abortion, and having him ignore your detailed argument and info (including cites) to repeatedly ask:"So you are for a woman having promiscuous sex without protection and then murdering her child by slicing and burning it to death".I won't ask you to reply any more. I was just hoping I would get an actual response which involved looking at the information I gave you on the subject. I guess I got my answer.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-01-2005 02:18 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There's a more detiled reply, but I still don't think you answered my question.

of a student being told what to do with his speech and then going ahead and defying them anyway. This time it was because they didn't like his humour. They withheld his diploma after the speech and now he's suing. Here's the article on the speech.According to both sides they have legal decisions to support their case but I guess we'll find out in the end. One thing to note is that NOWHERE is it suggested that the kid became an agent of the school system. He remained a student, who was giving his own opinions.Interestingly enough I found the story at Michael Moore's website suggesting that Moore agrees with the kid. That oughta be an eyeopener for Rrhain.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't understand why you think I wouldn't support a plucky individualist defying a school's order not to say something that needed to be said. I'm all for breaking the rules. But in order for that to be meaningful you have to have the rules to break, right?On the other hand, the stuff he said was kind of stupid. He called his classmates idiots. I don't see that the import of his speech outwieghs the school's right to run their own ceremony the way they see fit. What about this speech causes you to disagree?

The point being that such rules are generally arbitrary and based on taste of the arrangers rather than actual issues of the student being an agent of the school.The student disagreed with the rules and believes he doesn't have to follow them. I don't think "importance" has anything to do with it. The administrators had a right to suggest he change it, but he was within his rights to change it back. Pulling his diploma... especially if the crowd did not react badly... is just pettiness. Quite childish in fact.As I said earlier I am not trying to defend anything a student has to say in specific. But its their moment in the sun so let them sink or swim. This guy's thing wasn't all too witty but it was probably better than any song.More important is to note that it reinforces the idea that schools have different levels of control and that not everyone is agreed yet, certainly the issue isn't settled, on what kind of control officials enjoy in those settings.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Their ceremony, their speakers by appointment, their rules. If you appointed a friend to speak at your wedding, and he told you that he was going to tell an unflattering story about your wife-to-be and to hell with what you or anybody else thinks, might you have a right to complain? To tell him "nix the story about the time we pulled her drunk out of a ditch with some guy's boxers on her head, or don't speak at all"?Or does his right to "express himself" trump your right to dictate the taste of the ceremony you bought, paid for, arranged, and are starring in? In what way? He was speaking at the pleasure of the administration. I think that's certainly the case. But the fact that the administration is putting on the event, to my mind, gives them the privlege to dictate terms in regards to what is said on the podium. If the students want to hold their own graduation on their own time and money, then anyone they choose to speak has the right to speak absent school interference.

1) Your wedding is YOUR night, the students' graduation is THEIR night. Big difference.2) The question of whether administrators in charge of arrangements have the ability to nix things for any reasons IF THEY CHOOSE, has already been answered by the fact that I agree the principal could not have been held responsible for what he did.3) You keep repeating that they APPOINT. Well that is not true and I have already shown this. Sometimes I do I guess, and in other cases they allow. Big difference. I find this ironic, given that you believe an employers investment in everything he has made as a business can be trumped by an employee wanting to "express" himself.That is more important than a social function which is by its nature for the students. By definition a public school function IS being put on by the student's own time and money. It sure as hell isn't the administrator's time and money. They arrange an event desired by the community for their children, not the other way around.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, let me see. It's at the school; the school paid for it and scheduled it; the school determines the order of speakers and who is allowed to be presented their graduation.And you're saying that it belongs to the students? Nonsense. So what the hell are we talking about? In most cases they appoint; in some few cases they allow another body to appoint. I don't see a meaningful difference. No, an employee who wants to eat, and who has a condition or quality that is non-voluntary and cannot be changed.Try to keep my arguments straight. They're not ironic, they're not inconsistent. I don't know about your town but my school was paid for by property taxes and municipal liquor store revenue, not by tuition of any kind. So I don't see in what sense any of it was my money. Huh?