Comments on: Responsibility http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/ Reform Education because Education Matters. Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:37:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: carl http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-210 carl Mon, 30 May 2005 00:38:55 +0000 /?p=101#comment-210 Since you started this thread with a definition, and it has finally moved to the real issue of intent, i thought this might be helpful when offering the evidence...particularly #2 1.) Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention. 2.) Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action. 3.) Meaning; purport. Since you started this thread with a definition, and it has finally moved to the real issue of intent, i thought this might be helpful when offering the evidence…particularly #2

1.) Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2.) Law. The state of one’s mind at the time one carries out an action.
3.) Meaning; purport.

]]> By: carl http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-209 carl Mon, 30 May 2005 00:32:06 +0000 /?p=101#comment-209 "his intent was the continued practice over time of allowing these flyers to contain information relating to increasing the districts fund via the taxpayer using taxpayer money." and the evidence of this INTENT is where? “his intent was the continued practice over time of allowing these flyers to contain information relating to increasing the districts fund via the taxpayer using taxpayer money.”

and the evidence of this INTENT is where?

]]> By: Lennie http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Lennie Sun, 29 May 2005 23:40:20 +0000 /?p=101#comment-208 Again, his intent was the continued practice over time of allowing these flyers to contain information relating to increasing the districts fund via the taxpayer using taxpayer money. What I think about how wise or not wise is not my concern. That is the concern of the accuser. Dr. Anderson having only six weeks left is irrelevant at this point as well. The case was started in March. It is over except for the finding of the commission. There isn't anything continuing at this point. There is nothing to support or not support in this matter. Again, his intent was the continued practice over time of allowing these flyers to contain information relating to increasing the districts fund via the taxpayer using taxpayer money.

What I think about how wise or not wise is not my concern. That is the concern of the accuser. Dr. Anderson having only six weeks left is irrelevant at this point as well. The case was started in March. It is over except for the finding of the commission. There isn’t anything continuing at this point. There is nothing to support or not support in this matter.

]]> By: carl http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-207 carl Sun, 29 May 2005 22:06:23 +0000 /?p=101#comment-207 the super is responsible; just as a parent is responsible for the actions of their child. but where is the supers intent? do you think it is a wise action to pursue the super when he’s gone in 6 weeks anyway? you seem to defend his accuser and idolize the accuser’s attorney. the super is responsible; just as a parent is responsible for the actions of their child. but where is the supers intent?

do you think it is a wise action to pursue the super when he’s gone in 6 weeks anyway? you seem to defend his accuser and idolize the accuser’s attorney.

]]> By: Lennie http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-206 Lennie Sun, 29 May 2005 21:56:54 +0000 /?p=101#comment-206 This article was about getting out the facts of the case from the meeting. Yes, I added my commentary as I do when I post. Very simply and straight forward. This article was about getting out the facts of the case from the meeting. Yes, I added my commentary as I do when I post. Very simply and straight forward.

]]> By: carl http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-205 carl Sun, 29 May 2005 20:28:04 +0000 /?p=101#comment-205 the super is responsible; just as a parent is responsible for the actions of their child. but where is the supers intent? do you think it is a wise action to pursue the super when he's gone in 6 weeks anyway? you seem to defend his accuser and idolize the accuser's attorney. the super is responsible; just as a parent is responsible for the actions of their child. but where is the supers intent?

do you think it is a wise action to pursue the super when he’s gone in 6 weeks anyway? you seem to defend his accuser and idolize the accuser’s attorney.

]]> By: Lennie http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-204 Lennie Sun, 29 May 2005 19:00:31 +0000 /?p=101#comment-204 The super is responsible because it is his job. I don't believe the motives were for an "I told you so", but that is for you to discuss with the person bringing the charges and not me. I believe it is wrong to use taxpayer money to try and get more taxpayer money. The super is responsible because it is his job.

I don’t believe the motives were for an “I told you so”, but that is for you to discuss with the person bringing the charges and not me.

I believe it is wrong to use taxpayer money to try and get more taxpayer money.

]]> By: carl http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-203 carl Sun, 29 May 2005 17:43:15 +0000 /?p=101#comment-203 the super wasn't responsible for the action...the people who printed and distributed the flyers were. as super, he is responsible for their actions, however, it was their (the people who printed and distributed) INTENT that is an ethics violation; not the supers. your analogy is flawed, as is your premise. additionally, you have stated time and time again that "i told you so's" were a waste of energy, and i agree. what purpose is there in pursuing this action against ANDERSON if it isn't an "i told you so", and do you support it? the super wasn’t responsible for the action…the people who printed and distributed the flyers were. as super, he is responsible for their actions, however, it was their (the people who printed and distributed) INTENT that is an ethics violation; not the supers. your analogy is flawed, as is your premise.

additionally, you have stated time and time again that “i told you so’s” were a waste of energy, and i agree. what purpose is there in pursuing this action against ANDERSON if it isn’t an “i told you so”, and do you support it?

]]> By: Lennie http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-202 Lennie Sun, 29 May 2005 14:33:17 +0000 /?p=101#comment-202 The point was, the kids is reponsible for his actions. Since he is responsibile for these actions and continues to do them it shows his intent was willful. The point was, the kids is reponsible for his actions. Since he is responsibile for these actions and continues to do them it shows his intent was willful.

]]> By: carl http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-201 carl Sat, 28 May 2005 02:44:16 +0000 /?p=101#comment-201 don't see responsibility anywhere in the ethic code, nor did the states atty... as for the analogy, just because you say who's who, doesn't make it follow...you'll have to explain it better...doesn't compute don’t see responsibility anywhere in the ethic code, nor did the states atty…
as for the analogy, just because you say who’s who, doesn’t make it follow…you’ll have to explain it better…doesn’t compute

]]> By: Lennie http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-200 Lennie Sat, 28 May 2005 02:37:31 +0000 /?p=101#comment-200 The commision is the parent and Dr. Anderson is the child. Does that explain it better? Yes, the issue is intent of wrong doing and the respsonsiblity of performing an action that is against policy. The commision is the parent and Dr. Anderson is the child. Does that explain it better?

Yes, the issue is intent of wrong doing and the respsonsiblity of performing an action that is against policy.

]]> By: carl http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-199 carl Sat, 28 May 2005 02:28:53 +0000 /?p=101#comment-199 thats not how it reads relative to your facts...anyway, your premis is still wrong; the issue is intent, not responsibility thats not how it reads relative to your facts…anyway, your premis is still wrong; the issue is intent, not responsibility

]]> By: Lennie http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Lennie Sat, 28 May 2005 01:01:18 +0000 /?p=101#comment-197 Sorry Carl, but Anderson is the kid in the analogy. Sorry Carl, but Anderson is the kid in the analogy.

]]> By: carl http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-193 carl Fri, 27 May 2005 12:24:36 +0000 /?p=101#comment-193 problem with your analogy is, anderson would be the parent...those distributing the flyers would be the kids... the problem with your premis is that the issue is intent...not responsibility. we are responsible for the actions of our children, however, should they misbehave, it may not necessarily be our intent. problem with your analogy is, anderson would be the parent…those distributing the flyers would be the kids…
the problem with your premis is that the issue is intent…not responsibility.
we are responsible for the actions of our children, however, should they misbehave, it may not necessarily be our intent.

]]> By: Stop The Blackmail » Ehtics Ruling 18 Days Past Deadline http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-291 Stop The Blackmail » Ehtics Ruling 18 Days Past Deadline Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=101#comment-291 [...] ic about Dr. Anderson’s alleged ethics violations. Read more about the last meeting <a href="http://stopblackmail.com/index.php?p=101" target="_blank">here</a>. This decision was supposed to be handed down in 10 business days from that last m [...] [...] ic about Dr. Anderson’s alleged ethics violations. Read more about the last meeting here. This decision was supposed to be handed down in 10 business days from that last m [...]

]]> By: Stop The Blackmail » Ethics Charges Decided http://educationmatters.us/2005/05/26/responsibility/comment-page-1/#comment-321 Stop The Blackmail » Ethics Charges Decided Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=101#comment-321 [...] brought against Dr. Anderson have been decided. Read my original post about this hearing <a href="http://stopblackmail.com/index.php?p=101" target="_blank">here</a>. The Ethics Commission ruled that there was not enough evidence to substantiate th [...] [...] brought against Dr. Anderson have been decided. Read my original post about this hearing here. The Ethics Commission ruled that there was not enough evidence to substantiate th [...]

]]>