Home of the Muppet Imperial Moderator Corps

Good grief

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/school_shooting

Now admittedly, this is a tragedy, but:

"...Weise was a loner, who often wore black..."

How in the hell is this relevant? Why not:

"...Weise had a penis, and possibly also two feet, though this is unconfirmed..."

Give me a freaking break. Non-comformists are EVIL!!!
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Incidentally, I have to wonder how many would have died if, as soon as he pulled a gun, the crowd had rushed him.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 22nd, 2005
That would involve each of them willing to be shot first that isn't generally going to happen. One might say that an army of unarmed civilians could take their country over, no doubt they could but each would have to be willing to suffer certain death.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 22nd, 2005
Bullying in schools is the common theme, of course that must be just a coincidence...
Permalink Actively Disengaged 
March 22nd, 2005
As society gets more and more desensitized to violence (hell, it's ENTERTAINMENT!), bullying gets more and more violent.

Couple that with the moral ambiguity of the current day and age, and retribution for incessant violence becomes more and more likely.

The way I was brutalized (yes, brutalized) all through Junior High and High School, it's a fucking MIRACLE that I didn't bring my dad's double-barrel twelve gauge to school with me one day. What stopped me? My parents spent time with me as a kid and instilled their morals instead of just dropping me off at daycare and bringing me to Jazzercise.

Still, the bullying issue needs addressing. Many places ARE addressing it, and going completely overboard with it, which will breed the same sort of problems, just with a very different cause.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
"One might say that an army of unarmed civilians could take their country over, no doubt they could but each would have to be willing to suffer certain death."

You would equally have to be willing to suffer certain death if you were armed yourself. You'd have a slightly smaller statistical chance to get shot, but you wouldn't be any less dead.
Permalink Flasher T 
March 22nd, 2005
Muppet, what evidence do you have that bullying is either more prevalent or more brutal lately? The idea that the popular culture is causing society to become more violent and deviant is at least 100 years old and has always been used by the prigs on the right as an excuse for censorship (we must protect the kids!!!).

The fact is that violent crime is way donw in general over the past decade or so despite the violence in pop culture. I would be willing to accept that Bullying is worse now than when I was a kid or even 80 years ago but some stats would be helpful.
Permalink Name withheld out of cowardice 
March 22nd, 2005
Name -

My proof is that people are getting shot when they go to school. How much more proof do you need?

Just to clarify, I think that the whole "moral ambiguity" thing and the whole "absentee parenting" thing are much bigger issues than the whole "violence in the media" thing.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
I'm guessing you don't have much training in science and statistics. I don't mean that as a personal attack. It's just that so many of your posts treat anecdotal evidence as if it were broadly applicable statistics. Have you done any research into school violence and shootings in the past? How do you know kids weren't shot at school in the past? In the 1970s there was that incident that the song (what was it? "I don't like mondays"?) was based upon. Perhaps there are earlier events.
Permalink Name withheld out of cowardice 
March 22nd, 2005
Sure, name, there have been prior incidents. It's funny how you had to go back THIRTY YEARS to find one to mention. I think it's a fair bet that there are more incidents now than there used to be.

I'm going to guess, Name, that you were never one of the kids who was persecuted all through school simply so that the "in" crowd had someone who was "out" to validate their existance. The kind of crap that goes on gets worse and worse as the years pass.

Have you ever been BRANDED in metal shop by some of your classmates heating nails in the heat-treat furnace? No? Try it sometime.

Threatened with fists? How about knives? How about CUT with knives?

Spit on EVERY SINGLE DAY?

Had your bike dismantled while still locked to the rack because you had the AUDACITY to ride it to school? How about just having the brakes detached so that you wouldn't even notice any vandalism until you needed to stop for traffic? That's a REALLY FUN ONE, Name.

I've talked to generations of people, and these sorts of things just didn't go on in school when my dad was there, or my grandparents, or any of their friends or relatives whom I've talked to. Sometimes anecdotal evidence gives you a pretty good cross section of reality, Name.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
muppet - you sure had it worse that I did. Friends of mine and I got picked on, but nothing on that magnitude.

My revenge was pretending to forget it and lying to kids when "helping" them on homework, etc. When they got it wrong, I just shrugged my shoulders and said, "Guess I did it wrong. Sorry." They quickly learned to leave me alone.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
I'm sorry to hear you had it so rough. No I was never bullied to such an extent. I have never heard anyone else tell such anecdotes and I know a fair number of people. Maybe the people you know from older generations just didn't happen to have the experience. How do you know that your experience wasn't a statistical outlier that seems common to you because it was so personal?
Permalink name withheld out of cowardice 
March 22nd, 2005
Name -

people with common experiences tend to end up in the same places, especially online. I know I wasn't a statistical anomaly because I've heard from plenty of people who had it the same way as (or even worse than) me. It also seems to be a constant that the further you go back (ie, the older the people are who you ask), the less brutal the bullying. In my dad's day you might have gotten a punch in the eye, or tripped in the hall, but you didn't get branded with hot iron or threatened with weapons. Today, you've got kids bringing guns to school and sending each other death threats. Today you've got 14 year old kids joining street gangs (sure, this happened in the past, but in the past street gangs fought with fists and maybe a switchblade if they were really serious).

This is a thing that is resistant to formal statistics. Kids who had (or have) it like I did tend not to tell anyone. For one thing, going to the "authorities" was generally useless as you'd get advice like "if you just ignore them, they'll stop. This is just what kids do. Etc" and then you got beat twice as bad for trying to narc.

I suspect that the kids who bring in guns and shoot the whole place up had similiar experiences to mine, but were raised differently (maybe by daycare instead of by their parents?)
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html

muppet slammed with data again. This is fun!
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
Can we get data going back to before I was a kid? I'd like to see how things have changed since then.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
Uh, hello, ronk?

Firstly, we're not only talking about shooting, we're talking about brutality and bullying that often goes unreported.

Secondly, that chart starts in NINETEEN NINETY-TWO. That means that your "downswing" is a RECENT phenomena. And even then only in reported extreme violence.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
From newspaper reports and some documentaries I have seen, you are correct about the keds who shoot up schools. They tend to be the victims of bullying who just couldn't take it anymore.

You may be correct that bullying is getting worse. You may be correct that parenting is getting worse. Then again, maybe not.
Permalink Name withheld out of cowardice 
March 22nd, 2005
Muppet is hard too fool. Even when confronted with hard data for the last 13 years, its not enough for muppet, he smells a rat.

I have a feeling I could be here all day with supporting evidence, but it just won't convince muppet. He can't be dissuaded from his extrapolating a few data points into a national trend, he's far too smart for that.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/crime03/2.asp?nav=1

More hard data muppet. But don't let it fool you. And what ever you do, don't click the "figure 2.1" link, it's all a big cover up.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
Hey, ronk!

I'm still waiting for longer term data. Got any?
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
> I'm still waiting for longer term data. Got any?

Go back a few decades in England and it was normal (and sanctioned by the teachers) for the senior boys to beat other boys (with canes etc.); and to oppress them in other ways (e.g. "go and heat up my toilet seat for me, fag!").
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 22nd, 2005
No offense Aaron, but you can use google too.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
Yes but he's not the one trying to argue against common sense with statistics (which as we all know are infallible).
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Hilarious. Now your best argument is that statistics aren't infallible? Wow, way to rebut! You've convinced me, I'm going to side with muppet.

And what exactly is your point about the longer trends? I didn't see anything about schools that comes before 92, so what? Does that somehow add legitimacy to your arguments? If the data went back further, what could it possibly show that would make the current THIRTEEN year trend of declining school violence any less true? (and I might add that this was during your time in school, I'm guessing you graduated in 97)

Here's a thought, maybe you had a really tough time in school, much tougher than most. You weren't the first kid to get picked on relentlessly, and you won't be last. And that has no bearing on large scale trends.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
The point, ronk, is that the sort of barbarism I was subjected to IS a large scale trend. The trouble is, everyone who goes through it thinks it's normal, since they have no context in which to judge it. When you're a school age kid, school IS the universe. You don't know that most other people aren't beaten senseless every day, at least you don't know that right away.

Then you start to think that it's normal for one or two kids to be the whipping poles for the school. EVERY school has one.

The fact is, nobody says anything. Out of fear, or shame, or even for lack of realization that they SHOULD say anything. This kind of thing doesn't make it into statistics.

By your arguments, you idiot, the fact that more schools aren't being shot up is concrete proof that kids aren't being brutalized every day by their peers (probably the sort of kids YOU would raise).
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
"The point, ronk, is that the sort of barbarism I was subjected to IS a large scale trend."

Just asserting that there is a large scale trend doesn't make it true. Please show me some hard data. Otherwise, admit that you are extrapolating your own experiences onto everyone else.

"By your arguments, you idiot, the fact that more schools aren't being shot up is concrete proof that kids aren't being brutalized every day by their peers (probably the sort of kids YOU would raise)."

A straw man and ad-hominem attack. You seem to be getting emotional, perhaps the cognitive dissonance is coming into view?
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
You can spout logical fallacies all you like, ronk, but that doesn't mean they apply to my argument. How about this, we'll go the direct route.

Do you believe that a downward trend in reported violent crime in schools is necessarily indicative of a downward trend in bullying?

Statistics don't dictate reality unless you're Big Brother.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Finally an explanation. As a young man Muppet was beaten senseless! The sense hasn't yet returned.
Permalink name withheld out of cowardice 
March 22nd, 2005
>>> Yes but he's not the one trying to argue against common sense with statistics (which as we all know are infallible).

Whereas your common sense _is_ infallible. Or is the anecdotal evidence that's infallible...
Permalink Ward 
March 22nd, 2005
Ward -

None of it is infallible. My point was that people like to point to colorful charts and graphs as if they have proof of God's existance hidden within them.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Actually, I think I was the one asking for longer term statistics. As far as graduating in '97, you're 10 years off if you're talking about me and highschool.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
"My proof is that people are getting shot when they go to school. How much more proof do you need?"

"Couple that with the moral ambiguity of the current day and age, and retribution for incessant violence becomes more and more likely."

I gave you statistics for deaths, violence, extreme violence and thefts. Now you say thats its bullying that is the problem, and the statistics don't measure that. Funny how the thing your are talking about keeps getter narrower and narrower and harder to quantify as I present more data.

"Do you believe that a downward trend in reported violent crime in schools is necessarily indicative of a downward trend in bullying?"

Do I believe it? Yes, the data definitely supports it. If you can show me real data that contradicts it, or show me why the data presented isn't inaccurate, or is measuring the wrong things, then I'll change my mind. But hey, you've had your experiences and you talked to a bunch of old people about how it was way back when, I guess that's all the proof we should need.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
Personally, I think 13 years isn't a long enough sample to indicate long term trends or even cycles.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
+++I gave you statistics for deaths, violence, extreme violence and thefts. Now you say thats its bullying that is the problem, and the statistics don't measure that. Funny how the thing your are talking about keeps getter narrower and narrower and harder to quantify as I present more data.

This thread has been about bullying pretty much from the onset, ronk. If you missed the bus then that's hardly my fault.

+++"Do you believe that a downward trend in reported violent crime in schools is necessarily indicative of a downward trend in bullying?"

+++Do I believe it? Yes, the data definitely supports it. If you can show me real data that contradicts it, or show me why the data presented isn't inaccurate, or is measuring the wrong things, then I'll change my mind. But hey, you've had your experiences and you talked to a bunch of old people about how it was way back when, I guess that's all the proof we should need.

The data supports your supposition that BULLYING has been reduced because GUN VIOLENCE has been reduced? Pray explain that logical leap you've just taken without the rest of us.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Aaron, I was talking to muppet about the graduation year.

13 years is too short a time? Why?
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
Because it's less than one generation.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
Sorry. Clicked ok too soon.

Less than one generation means you don't see any parent/child effects. You may well see a generation of killers, then a downward trend, then it goes back up again as the killers' children "mature", then back down, and so on.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
Muppet, where were your parents when you were getting the snot beat out of you? Or your teachers?
Permalink ? 
March 22nd, 2005
Well, no-name, they were busy saying things like "If you just ignore them, they'll get bored and go away." and "At some point you've got to learn to deal with your own problems, we can't always bail you out." and "You must be doing something to antagonize them, kids don't just beat kids up for no reason."
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
"The data supports your supposition that BULLYING has been reduced because GUN VIOLENCE has been reduced?"

Nice try again with the straw man, but I guess you took my advice above to heart and you DIDN'T look at the last link I posted. So I'll give you an excerpt.

"The victimization rate for students ages 12–18 generally declined for thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes at school and away from school between 1992 and 2001"

Nothing about gun violence there. Your arguments are becoming increasingly perplexing.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
>I've talked to generations of people, and these sorts of things just didn't go on in school when my dad was there, or my grandparents, or any of their friends or relatives whom I've talked to.

Bull. It happened to ME in the early 1970s in New Jersey. We had just moved from overseas and I had: 1) no clue *how* to fight; and 2) no clue *why* to fight. I had spent everything from 1st grade to 6th grade in England and Iran. In both of those countries, everyday schoolyard violence was unacceptable, and didn't happen anywhere near the frequency and violence that it happens in the USA.

There is a reason that I think Paul Graham's essay on nerds to be critically important.
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
If you weren't near the bottom of the popularity contest, you have no clue what life is/was like down there.

The violence in schools in the US are training grounds for the violence in American society. I am more surprised that their isn't a McVeigh in every generation rather than when it does happen. I am more surprised that every school doesn't have a bloodbath every other year. You have no clue just *how* different US schools are from the schools in other countries.
Permalink Peter 
March 22nd, 2005
Good points, Peter.

""The victimization rate for students ages 12–18 generally declined for thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes at school and away from school between 1992 and 2001""

OK, so again ronk, statistically, reported crime dropped over less than half a generation, which is useless data anyway. And still, "bullying" is not generally taken seriously as a "theft", "violent crime", or "serious violent crime", and so often goes unreported. Your statistics are still basically meaningless.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
in the context of this argument, regarding bullying.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
"they were busy saying things like "If you just ignore them, they'll get bored and go away." and "At some point you've got to learn to deal with your own problems, we can't always bail you out." and "You must be doing something to antagonize them, kids don't just beat kids up for no reason."


Hmmm, not very supportive.
Permalink ! 
March 22nd, 2005
In their defense, they had no idea the extent of what was going on. They thought I was crying wolf over regular "boys will be boys" kind of stuff. I myself, lacking context to believe otherwise, eventually thought the same and just shut up about it.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Yup, you've certainly rebutted all my facts. You discredited my data with a single foreigner (he know all about schools in the US, and hell, even in countries he's never been too), you've proved that the data showing a clear downward trend is useless because it only been measured for 13 years ( because once those kids parents get into school, the trends will completely change or something). And you did it without presenting a single verifiable fact or data point.

Bravo muppet, I guess I had no idea of the logic and reason facilities you possess, a total rout!
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
I'm not using anything Peter said to rebut you, ronk. I'm simply saying that statistics don't give the whole picture. This is a fact of which you are aware and are deliberately avoiding for the sake of trolling. I'm sorry, but not everything is in the numbers. We live in empirical world, but we are not omniscient.

The fact that I can't point to a study that says "yes, 25% of school kids suffer silently just like muppet did" doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
No one is arguing that kids aren't bullied. They are, sometimes to a horrifying degree. I'm arguing about a nationawide trend where more and more kids are victimized in this fashion. The hard data indicates an opposite trend.

It would be just as ridiculous as me saying everything is fine in the schools because I rarely got picked on, I never got beaten up. In my circle of friends, they all say the same thing, no serious problems when they were in school. Hell I talked to my dad and he said he got beat up a lot, I guess bullying is much better nowadays.

BTW, for the record, I was picked on, I was beaten, I was unliked. I also was a smug, disagreeable person who often escalated confrontations. What's my point? Nothing really, just I can't say my experiences were common or uncommon. It's just what happened to me and as such has very little to do with broad trends. Those things are better studied by collecting real data from large samples.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
The fact that there is no statistics on bullying is a terrible sign that bullying isn't taken seriously.

How about this -- since abortion becomes legal, there is less children growing up in evironment that is not healthy. As a result, violence against students went down.

Too bad the media is getting more violent.

Actually I think getting babies to good day-care centers are better than having irresponsible parents and grand-parants taking care of them.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 22nd, 2005
"I'm arguing about a nationawide trend where more and more kids are victimized in this fashion. The hard data indicates an opposite trend."

You keep repeating this same fallacy over and over hoping it will become true but it won't. The data does not indicate a downward trend in bullying. It inidicates a downward trend (over a very short period) in reported violent crime in schools, which is an entirely seperate phenomenon from bullying.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Then please define "bullying". Because in your own descriptions of being bullied you sure focus on receiving a lot of violence. The stats I presented measure violence and theft.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
The stats you mentioned measure REPORTED violence and theft.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Got it. It can't be measured yet it pervasive.

Are you also hot on the trail of the satanic ritualistic slayings? Because that happens all the time but the offical "statistics" always cover it up. Just because there is no baby bodies doesn't mean they weren't killed. Damn those statistics, always hiding what we KNOW to be true. Damn them.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
I think muppet has gone Republican...
Permalink hoser 
March 22nd, 2005
I didn't say it can't be measured, I said it goes unreported, and so statistics on it are incomplete at best. I certainly didn't run around calling the police/press every time I got pushed down a flight of stairs.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Dead babies are a bit easier to track than what happens to Johnny on the way home from school if Johnny's not talkin'
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Dead babies? They eat em, didn't you know?

You should get into an argument with a satanic slayings believer. You might be surprised how much their ridiculous arguments and tactics start to sound like your own.

I'm all argued out today. It was fun muppet.
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
Sure ronk. Good job repeating the same flawed argument again and again.
Permalink muppet 
March 22nd, 2005
Muppet,

You were the original one who said that school shootings were proof of bullying. When ronk provides evidence showing that school shootings have gone down you attack his evidence.

Interesting how your own personal anecdotes can trump anyone else's facts. You have done nothing but repeat your own flawed argument and presented no additional information.
Permalink NathanJ 
March 22nd, 2005
Funny how ronk! had nothing to say about why 13 years is not long enough.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
Good grief I am defending Muppet.

"Bullying is one form of violence that seems to have increased in recent years, although it is not clear if the increase reflects more incidents of bullying at school or perhaps greater awareness of bullying as a problem."

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 22nd, 2005
And more.

"The percentage of students who reported that they had been bullied at school increased from 5 percent in 1999 to 8 percent in 2001"

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/crime03/6.asp?nav=1

Muppet maybe a jerk, but he could be right sometimes.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 22nd, 2005
Aaron, it's because I don't understand your argument. Why do you think you need a full one generation of data before there can be any trends identified? (How long is that btw? 20 years? 30 years?). I'll agree with you that its helpful to see longer term trends in school violence, but we don't have those data (that I know of). But I think 13 years of data is a pretty good way to judge the effects of recents policies and events.

But if the school violence statistics mirror the overall violence statistics (and the mostly did during the 90s), then they probably rose fairly continuously from the 60s peaked around '91. But what does that show about bullying trends today, in 2005?
Permalink ronk! 
March 22nd, 2005
Science requires data. For predictions to be possible, there must be enough data to observe trends. In order to manipulate events successfully, one must extract the rules that govern them. Generational trends are part of this picture. If we can predict when and where unpleasant events are likely to occur, we can take more effective prevention.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
Actually, I think that even just one generation of data is insufficient. As much data as possible should be collected, from as far back as possible to date.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
Aaron, old fogies have been whining about "the declining standard of today's youth" since Plato. It is caused by selective amnesia.

Since you, yourself, change over time, you don't remember what you were really like as a child, and therefore you think that you were then, just like you are today. When in fact, your moral/ethical standard shifts over your lifetime. Whether you want it to or not, whether you notice it or not, it changes. Just like the wrinkles and belly sag as you get older, so do your morals/ethics change.

The number of people who have experienced life at the bottom of the popularity stack is far more than 1 or 2. Every other person who I've talked with about life down there describes it pretty much like Paul Graham does, but not nearly as clear he does.

Pretending that "only a few people" end up at the bottom of the popularity tree continues to perpetrate the problem.

Relevant quote from PG.
"It's important to realize that, no, the adults don't know what the kids are doing to one another. They know, in the abstract, that kids are monstrously cruel to one another, just as we know in the abstract that people get tortured in poorer countries. But, like us, they don't like to dwell on this depressing fact, and they don't see evidence of specific abuses unless they go looking for it."

"Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it."

"In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric."

http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Permalink Peter 
March 22nd, 2005
Yes, I'm aware that people have talked about declining morality for a long time. I don't really think that humanity changes much over time.

I also know I've changed. There are also many ways that I know that I haven't. I vividly remember being infuriated at how adults wouldn't listen to me just because I was a child. It didn't matter that I was right - I was ignored. I swore to myself that I would never forget that, and that when I was an adult I would treat children with respect, and I do. I had teachers demand respect and try to gain it through fear, I start by giving people a modicum of respect simply for being people, and from there they have to earn it, and demanding it makes you lose it. I remembered my experience as a kid, and I give kids respect, and frequently they see that and return it. I also remember realizing very early that kids should be protected.

Of course, I'm not really sure how I've changed, but there are memories vivid enough that I am aware of several ways I haven't.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 22nd, 2005
It's ironic that there is actual statistical data that supports muppets position, yet he can't use it to help his argument as he already decided the violence data is useless because it's only 13 years long.
Permalink ronk! 
March 23rd, 2005
Nope, that was Aaron's comment. I said the data is useless because it doesn't represent the reality that most school violence goes unreported.
Permalink muppet 
March 23rd, 2005
Part of the school's purpose is to socialise the little savages. Sometimes it doesn't stick.
Permalink trollop 
March 23rd, 2005
muppet, if you're convinced that bullying is growing trend, then please provide some verifiable evidence. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
Ronk

Are we fucking done yet? Seriously? Do you want to keep making the same fucking circular argument for 3 days? 4? A week?

Shut the fuck up already. It's been done. I've already responded, numerous times, numerous ways, regarding the lack of statistics. Your waving of statistics like a little flag doesn't prove you right and it doesn't prove me wrong.

Enough.
Permalink muppet 
March 24th, 2005
Yes! You said it, your not right! [dances]
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
>Yes! You said it, your not right!
you're = you are.
your = belonging to you.
Permalink Peter 
March 24th, 2005
I shud rite that doun.
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics