More than just a LITTLE hysteria (BAN THE PEANUTS!)
elizabeth
One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
Dozens of parents at PTA meeting question lunch searches, nurse
C.W. Nevius, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, September 9, 2003
An East Bay elementary school's ban on peanut butter sandwiches and
other nut products in its kindergarten classes has some parents
questioning whether school district administrators overreacted to
concerns for one allergic child.
At the center of the storm is a 5-year-old boy enrolled at Valle Verde
Elementary School in Walnut Creek. He suffers from "peanut and tree
nut" allergies that his mother says are life-threatening.
As a result, school officials have taken extraordinary steps in Pod C,
a group of kindergarten classrooms at Valle Verde that share a common
central area.
The parents of other kindergarten students were informed of the
situation in a letter from school officials, who decreed that "all
kindergarten students will begin the day by washing hands with soap
and water . . . supervised by classroom staff."
Then they learned that a licensed vocational nurse has been hired to
monitor the student. On the first day of school, parents said, their
kids' backpacks and lunch boxes were searched for peanut butter
sandwiches and such.
District spokeswoman Sue Berg acknowledged that "the principal said
the first day they did have to confiscate or set aside" some food.
That was enough to get the petitions out and by Monday night's PTA
meeting more than 70 people had signed their names to a demand that
school officials explain what steps have been taken and why they were
necessary.
The PTA session, which drew between 150 and 200 people and was the
largest turnout PTA President Kim Moore had ever seen, produced few
answers from school officials who declined to discuss specifics.
Many of those attending questioned why the boy couldn't be schooled at
home if his condition is so severe.
"My son is allergic to dust mites," said one woman. "Can we get rid of
dust mites on campus?"
The allergic boy's mother, Leora Cope, didn't speak at the meeting and
later flatly rejected suggestions from others in the audience that the
school was overreacting to her son's condition.
"My child's allergies are life-threatening," she said. "If he contacts
peanut oil, it could threaten his life. This is a lot different than
dust mites."
She said with the measures taken by the school, her son faces no
threat. "This is nothing new. This is a situation of parents who are
not informed."
For years, schools across the nation have struggled with how to
balance the needs of severely allergic child -- like the one in Walnut
Creek -- with the desires of children who love peanut butter and jelly
sandwiches. But the question remains: How far should schools, airlines
and other institutions go to accommodate people with severe allergies?
Moore, the PTA president, said she initially questioned the steps
taken by the Valle Verde officials, but after researching allergies on
the Internet came to agree with their position.
"Allergies vary on a spectrum," she said. "Here we have a child who
reacts very violently to the touch of even peanut oil. What we are
talking about is life or death."
Although the allergic reaction to peanuts is not rare, and the
5-year-old is not the first student with it to attend the school,
experts say the severity of the reaction can vary.
Walnut Creek allergist and immunologist Dr. Nancy Mozelsio earlier in
the day told The Chronicle that it is not unusual for schools to
create a "nut- free zone" for allergic students. Children are asked
not to bring nut products to class, and even items like coconut
sunblock are checked.
"That works quite well," says Mozelsio. "I would say that in most
cases having the child in a nut-free zone, being careful not to share
food, and not eating anything not packed by mom or dad should be
fine."
It's possible that this 5-year-old's reactions might be so severe as
to be a threat, but that would be very unusual, Mozelsio said.
"I would say having someone (a nurse) go around with that person and
searching lunch boxes is a bit excessive, in my opinion," she said.
"There have been a couple of cases written up of reactions from people
who experienced a reaction just touching or breathing peanut dust. But
I think there's a little hysteria involved. That's not typical of what
we see."
Alicia McCormack, chair of the school safety committee and first vice
president of the Valle Verde PTA, worries that the salary for the
nurse is the reason that the school, financially strapped like most in
the state, has lost an instructional assistant.
"We made a real effort not to let the budget cuts affect our school,"
McCormack said. "But all I know is we are down one IA and up a nurse."
Valle Verde Principal Carolyn Kreuscher said hiring the nurse would
not siphon funds away from other school programs.
Some parents say that rather than impose restrictions and search
lunches, the matter could have been handled with less draconian
measures.
"Look," says Kathryn Stewart, a clinical psychologist who works with
special education high school students, "my son (now 15) is allergic
to peanuts and an alumni of Valle Verde. This kind of nonsense makes
me crazy.
"By kindergarten, and certainly by first grade, my son was able to
say, 'What is in that?' " she said. "Searching a lunch box is insane.
This goes to personal responsibility not changing the rest of the
world to fit you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peanut allergy
About 7 million people in the United States have allergies to specific
foods like peanuts. This population includes 3 million teenagers and
children, according to the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network.
Reactions to foods account for nearly 200 deaths and 30,000 emergency
room visits each year. These reactions are known as anaphylaxis.
What is anaphylaxis?
Anaphylaxis is a sudden, severe, potentially fatal, systemic allergic
reaction that can involve areas of the body including as the skin,
respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract and cardiovascular system.
Symptoms occur within minutes to two hours after contact, but may
occur as long as four hours later. Anaphylactic reactions can be mild
to life-threatening.
What causes the allergic reaction?
Common causes of anaphylaxis include food, insect stings, medication
and latex.
Peanuts, tree nuts (such as walnuts or cashews), shellfish, fish, milk
and eggs are foods that commonly cause anaphylactic reactions. Only a
trace amount of a problem food can cause a reaction in some
individuals.
What are the symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction?
An anaphylactic reaction may begin with a tingling sensation, itching
or metallic taste in the mouth. Other symptoms can include hives, a
sensation of warmth, asthma symptoms, swelling of the mouth and throat
area, difficulty breathing, vomiting, diarrhea, cramping, a drop in
blood pressure and loss of consciousness. These symptoms may begin in
as little as five to 15 minutes or up to two hours after exposure to
the allergen, but life-threatening reactions may progress over hours.
What medication is used to treat an anaphylactic reaction?
Epinephrine is the drug of choice for treating an anaphylactic
reaction. It works to reverse the symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction
and helps prevent its progression. Individuals who have been
prescribed epinephrine must carry it with them at all times.
Source: Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network; American Academy of
Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
E-mail C.W. Nevius at cwne...@sfchronicle.com.
Morwen
(in message <d704555b.03090...@posting.google.com>):
> "Look," says Kathryn Stewart, a clinical psychologist who works with
> special education high school students, "my son (now 15) is allergic
> to peanuts and an alumni of Valle Verde. This kind of nonsense makes
> me crazy.
>
> "By kindergarten, and certainly by first grade, my son was able to
> say, 'What is in that?' " she said. "Searching a lunch box is insane.
> This goes to personal responsibility not changing the rest of the
> world to fit you."
The voice of sanity, and she actually used the words "personal
responsibility." Will wonders never cease?
Morwen
Marten Kemp
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.DTL
> One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
>
> "Look," says Kathryn Stewart, a clinical psychologist who works with
> special education high school students, "my son (now 15) is allergic
> to peanuts and an alumni of Valle Verde. This kind of nonsense makes
> me crazy.
>
> "By kindergarten, and certainly by first grade, my son was able to
> say, 'What is in that?' " she said. "Searching a lunch box is insane.
> This goes to personal responsibility not changing the rest of the
> world to fit you."
"Personal responsibility?" Certainly not in this age of
protecting everyone against everything.
{{snip}}
> What medication is used to treat an anaphylactic reaction?
>
> Epinephrine is the drug of choice for treating an anaphylactic
> reaction. It works to reverse the symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction
> and helps prevent its progression. Individuals who have been
> prescribed epinephrine must carry it with them at all times.
Not in skools, with the 'zero tolerance' anti-druggies around.
Gah. "The amount of intelligence in the world is constant,
and the population is increasing."
-- Marten Kemp
Beth Cole
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.DTL
> One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
> Dozens of parents at PTA meeting question lunch searches, nurse
I have to admit, I have a lot of sympathy for the kid. He is the center
of a controversy he surely didn't ask for, all because the genetic
lottery punched his ticket.
I am very nearly that allergic to black beans & soybeans. A single
black bean means that my lips & cheecks get puffy and I have slight
difficulties breathing for about twelve hours after eating. A veggie
burger from soy protein produces similar results. If I ate the black
beans that seem to have replaced the red beans (which I CAN eat) in 99%
of the restaurants in the US, I'd constantly be in the emergency room,
in anaphylactic shock.
I'm not QUITE that allergic to peanuts. If I haven't had tofu in hot &
sour soup (which I can eat a little bit of), I can eat a peanut butter &
jelly sandwich. If I have had tofu, though, I have to wait at least 24
hours before I eat anything made from soy protein or peanuts.
At 5, I was that allergic to peanuts, and even more allergic to soy.
At 5, a kid is in no position to understand how to use an Epi-Pen (they
won't give one to me now, because in theory, my most severe allergens
are avoidable). However, it meant that my parents had to explain to the
school cafeteria that I had to have Real Meat Hamburgers, instead of the
hamburger-and-soy patties they had always used, and that green beans and
peas had to have a substitute I could (in my case, spinach, which I did,
and still, adore).
I think the school nurse and the lunchbox searches are probably over the
top. However, I don't blame the family for asking that peanuts and
peanut products be kept completely out of the school. They, and the
school, are in a horrible position. Their first responsibility has to
be to protect their own child's health.
Beth
--
"Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold." -- Edmund Spenser
our home page: http://www.IsleOfSky.net
snuggles
"elizabeth" <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d704555b.03090...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.DTL
> One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
If going to school could kill him, I think the boy should be homeschooled,
at least until he's a bit older.
I'll explain the reasoning for my opinion, but with a warning: I'm going to
admit a very mean set of thoughts concerning this topic.
Something about people with allergies (and asthma) just *irk* me. When I
hear those words, I picture this ultra-whiny sickly kid complaining that he
can't do anything because of his allergies or asthma. My meaner half
figures that if a peanut is gonna kill you, you really shouldn't be alive
(hey, I like evolution). If I were in elementary school, and I had a
classmate I didn't like, and I knew that even the slighest bit of peanut
dust would have a huge effect, and everyday I had to go through some silly
routine because of them, I don't think I could resist the temptation! Me and
my friends would've plotted a way of getting a tiny amount of peanut into
their food or drink The idea still humors me - "Behold, the Peanut of
Death!!". It's just too easy.
My nicer half realizes that it could have been me with a peanut allergy, or
someone that I cared about, and that killing someone by evil usage of
peanuts is, well, evil. But my point is that it's possible he isn't safe
at school from cruel pranks, at least not until the students are at an age
where they will fully know and understand the consequences of their actions.
Veronique
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.DTL
> One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
> Dozens of parents at PTA meeting question lunch searches, nurse
>
> C.W. Nevius, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, September 9, 2003
[...]
> Many of those attending questioned why the boy couldn't be schooled at
> home if his condition is so severe.
[...]
> The allergic boy's mother, Leora Cope, didn't speak at the meeting and
> later flatly rejected suggestions from others in the audience that the
> school was overreacting to her son's condition.
>
> "My child's allergies are life-threatening," she said. "If he contacts
> peanut oil, it could threaten his life. This is a lot different than
> dust mites."
[...]
>
> For years, schools across the nation have struggled with how to
> balance the needs of severely allergic child -- like the one in Walnut
> Creek -- with the desires of children who love peanut butter and jelly
> sandwiches. But the question remains: How far should schools, airlines
> and other institutions go to accommodate people with severe allergies?
[...]
>
> Walnut Creek allergist and immunologist Dr. Nancy Mozelsio earlier in
> the day told The Chronicle that it is not unusual for schools to
> create a "nut- free zone" for allergic students. Children are asked
> not to bring nut products to class, and even items like coconut
> sunblock are checked.
Seems to me that the "nut-free" zone is the obvious answer; the only
puzzle is why the boy and his mother were allowed to enter it.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Beaker
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.DTL
>
>An East Bay elementary school's ban on peanut butter sandwiches and
>other nut products in its kindergarten classes has some parents
>questioning whether school district administrators overreacted to
>concerns for one allergic child.
I once knew a peanut-allergic person who would get physically sick
if she so much as smelled peanuts, and when you're that allergic you
can smell any really tiny amount of it. However, something like this
is really that person's own problem, and doesn't justify inconveniencing
everyone else. If a "no nuts" policy stated in the classroom and posted
on the door is not enough, then the kid probably shouldn't be in school.
Otherwise the kid can choose to go to accept the risk and go to school,
and if the kid dies, the kid dies. That's the price of living in the
real world, kids.
>"My child's allergies are life-threatening," she said. "If he contacts
>peanut oil, it could threaten his life. This is a lot different than
>dust mites."
>She said with the measures taken by the school, her son faces no
>threat. "This is nothing new. This is a situation of parents who are
>not informed."
I smell entitlement!
bkr
Patrick M Geahan
> I think the school nurse and the lunchbox searches are probably over the
> top. However, I don't blame the family for asking that peanuts and
> peanut products be kept completely out of the school. They, and the
> school, are in a horrible position. Their first responsibility has to
> be to protect their own child's health.
Which they can do through education and awareness, not through banning of
products.
If I want to eat a peanut-butter sandwich, that's my business. Don't eat
it if you won't or can't, but that's no reason to ban the *other* kids.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
Quote of the Week: "I probably won't start on the idea, and if I do it
will wind up being an unfinished project on my personal website featuring
pictures of my cat." rh2600 on /.
Scorpio Chick
Oh, for dOG's sake...WTF is with these people???? I have a very good
friend who is similarly allergic to nuts. Our school didn't ban peanut
butter, search our lunches, cut into OUR educational funding to hire a
nursemaid for her or basically act like we were little criminals bent
on murder by peanut.
The teachers and nurse were all informed of what to do if my friend
had a reaction, the students all knew not to give/come near her with
PB, and to wash our hands if we were touching hers after eating it.
She carried an epi-pen, and the teachers and the staff all were
instructed in how to use it. Plus all the kids were told what would
happen during a reaction, how it would look, and to run and get a
teacher *instantly*. The one time she did have a reaction, the kid
with her got the teacher, the epi-pen was used, and she was fine.
Yeah, she could have died, but it could just as easily have happened
off school grounds (she put her hand on a piece of playground
equipment with PB residue on it).
What's going to happen to this kid in a similar situation when nursie
isn't there? Does his moo demand that all his friends be sterilized
before they play with him? And does she wipe down anything in public
that he touches? And I have to ask...what about students whose parents
use peanut butter for economic reasons? It's a cheap, fairly healthy
(well, the non-sugar laden kinds, anyway) protein, and much more
affordable than cheese or meat for families on a budget or vegetarian
families. Are they supposed to go hungry because this kid's parents
aren't willing to pay to keep him safe, or homeschool him, all b/c of
L'il Peanut's right to go to public school? Not to mention the kids
who are losing educational assistance due to the funding diverted for
the nurse. Why isn't the kid's moo paying for the nurse's services?
Breeder entitlement just blows my mind.
- ScorpioChick
CatWoman
> products.
>
> If I want to eat a peanut-butter sandwich, that's my business. Don't eat
> it if you won't or can't, but that's no reason to ban the *other* kids.
Err, well - sort of. As someone who does react to peanuts,
including nausea from smelling them, separating the allergic
child from the others would be the thing I'd choose.
Remember Swan's oft-repeated explanation of what is happening
when you smell something (usually explained when describing
what happens when a diaper is changed in a confined area), it
is because particulate matter is in the air. For someone who
is seriously allergic - that small amount can set off a reaction.
dg
--
Send real mail to diana at wet ware dot com - remove obvious spaces..
Ezzy
My older sister was discovered to have deadly allergies at a very
young age.
Pet fur, of any kind would make her sick for days. Nuts of all kinds
could send her into anaphalactic shock. (sp?)
My mother sat us all down at one time or other and explained that
Cathy was deathly allergic to these things and we had to watch out for
her. She also had to take care of herself and be wary of cookies at
parties and such.
She went through 6 years of elementary school, 6 years of high school
and eventually 6 years of university and not once did anyone suggest
we stop the world for her so she could be 100% protected from the evil
of nuts or animal fur.
A child with a peanut allergy should definately have classmates that
are aware of this fact; should have strategies for dealing with
exposure, and preventing exposure, should have teachers and staff that
are aware of the problem etc. But they shouldn't cause an entire
school to change it's behavior and function to accomodate them.
How ridiculous is this shit going to get?
Ezzy
Terry Austin
news:d704555b.03090...@posting.google.com:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.
> DTL One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
> Dozens of parents at PTA meeting question lunch searches, nurse
I know a guy who is allergic to peanuts. I've seen him break out in hives
from the smell of peanut butter.
Assuming the kid is in that extreme a category, searching lunch boxes the
first few days of school isn't all that unreasonable. Demanding the kid be
schooled at home is just about the same as demanding that any kid different
from one's own should be locked in a box: stupid. A single mistake could be
fatal, if the kid is that allergic.
Not that this will stop most parents.
> Walnut Creek allergist and immunologist Dr. Nancy Mozelsio earlier in
> the day told The Chronicle that it is not unusual for schools to
> create a "nut- free zone" for allergic students. Children are asked
> not to bring nut products to class, and even items like coconut
> sunblock are checked.
>
> "That works quite well," says Mozelsio. "I would say that in most
> cases having the child in a nut-free zone, being careful not to share
> food, and not eating anything not packed by mom or dad should be
> fine."
>
> It's possible that this 5-year-old's reactions might be so severe as
> to be a threat, but that would be very unusual, Mozelsio said.
Unless Dr. Mozelsio has examined the child in question, she should be
prosectued for attempted murder. Regardless of how allergic the kid
actually is.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion
Terry Austin
tau...@hyperbooks.com
Terry Austin
news:ido131-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org:
> Beth Cole <eac...@amber.emporia.edu> wrote:
>
>> I think the school nurse and the lunchbox searches are probably over
>> the top. However, I don't blame the family for asking that peanuts
>> and peanut products be kept completely out of the school. They, and
>> the school, are in a horrible position. Their first responsibility
>> has to be to protect their own child's health.
>
> Which they can do through education and awareness, not through banning
> of products.
>
> If I want to eat a peanut-butter sandwich, that's my business. Don't
> eat it if you won't or can't, but that's no reason to ban the *other*
> kids.
>
The article wasn't exactly clear on what is banned where. It sounded like
they banned peanuts in the classroom - the lone classroom - that the kid is
in. Perhaps they are simply providing a place for the other kids to keep
their lunch until lunchroom, and giving the allergic kid a separate place
to eat. That would be reasonable.
But the article wasn't clear.
Terry Austin
news:MVn7b.903$8o3...@news2.central.cox.net:
>
> "elizabeth" <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d704555b.03090...@posting.google.com...
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933
>> .DTL One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
>
> If going to school could kill him, I think the boy should be
> homeschooled, at least until he's a bit older.
Then he'll grow up to be very, very miserable, having not been properly
socialized early enough.
>
> I'll explain the reasoning for my opinion, but with a warning: I'm
> going to admit a very mean set of thoughts concerning this topic.
>
> Something about people with allergies (and asthma) just *irk* me.
> When I
> hear those words, I picture this ultra-whiny sickly kid complaining
> that he can't do anything because of his allergies or asthma.
That says far more about you than it does about people with allergies.
I've _seen_ someone break out in hives at the _smell_ of peanut butter.
Sometimes, rarely, I'll grant you, but sometimes, they are not being
unreasonable.
>My
> meaner half figures that if a peanut is gonna kill you, you really
> shouldn't be alive (hey, I like evolution).
That's because you're a dead end. Go play in traffic.
And, BTW, that's from someone who hates every child on the planet,
personally and individually.
I'd rather share the same air with the worst children around than with a
worthless piece of shit like you.
snuggles
"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F1A44BAE9F7ta...@216.168.3.50...
> socialized early enough.
misery.
> > I'll explain the reasoning for my opinion, but with a warning: I'm
> > going to admit a very mean set of thoughts concerning this topic.
> >
> > Something about people with allergies (and asthma) just *irk* me.
> > When I
> > hear those words, I picture this ultra-whiny sickly kid complaining
> > that he can't do anything because of his allergies or asthma.
>
> That says far more about you than it does about people with allergies.
Yes, it does. That was the point, it was *my* thoughts on the subject. There
are others like me out there.
> I've _seen_ someone break out in hives at the _smell_ of peanut butter.
>
> Sometimes, rarely, I'll grant you, but sometimes, they are not being
> unreasonable.
I realize they are not being 'unreasonable', it is a medical condition.
> >My
> > meaner half figures that if a peanut is gonna kill you, you really
> > shouldn't be alive (hey, I like evolution).
>
> That's because you're a dead end. Go play in traffic.
No, it's more likely because it's human nature to dislike other 'weaker'
people.
> And, BTW, that's from someone who hates every child on the planet,
> personally and individually.
Then that says alot about your own personality, and you have no reason to
hypoctrically critisize me. You hate someone solely because of their age,
regardless of their personality or intelligence.
> I'd rather share the same air with the worst children around than with a
> worthless piece of shit like you.
You're entitled to your own opinion. but explain this: How, exactly, am I
automatically a worse person than you? Keeping in mind your above statement
about hating every child on the planet personally and individually? And
extra points if you can do it without insults and profanity, but rather
using rationality and logic.
Lee Ann
wrote:
>And I have to ask...what about students whose parents
>use peanut butter for economic reasons? It's a cheap, fairly healthy
>(well, the non-sugar laden kinds, anyway) protein, and much more
>affordable than cheese or meat for families on a budget or vegetarian
>families. Are they supposed to go hungry because this kid's parents
>aren't willing to pay to keep him safe, or homeschool him, all b/c of
>L'il Peanut's right to go to public school? Not to mention the kids
>who are losing educational assistance due to the funding diverted for
>the nurse. Why isn't the kid's moo paying for the nurse's services?
>
>Breeder entitlement just blows my mind.
Hear, hear. When I was a kid, not only would I (and my brother, for
that matter) not eat anything for lunch but PB&J, my parents couldn't
afford to send anything else to school with us. If Lil' Peanut
can't handle the fact that someone else across the room is eating/has
eaten peanuts, they shouldn't be in school. Period. What are they
going to do when they're out in the workworld, and someone brings PB&J
for lunch?
Lee Ann
No kids 4 you
He would be protected against any offending allergens coming in contact with
his alabaster skin and he'd have his own private air. Of course there is
always a 'plastic bubble'.
Caelan
> One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
> Dozens of parents at PTA meeting question lunch searches, nurse
(snip)
I have an anaphylactic reaction to soy products which nearly killed me
when I was 2 weeks old. So I don't eat soy. Sure, I have to read
contents on the packages and pass up suspect foods at banquets and so
on, but it's MY problem and *I* deal with it. Having a food nazi
(publically funded) searching lunches is ridiculous. If it's that big
a problem, the kid should be home schooled.
Caelan.
Kersplat
news:bjkv66$jqr3i$1...@ID-86208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> elizabeth wrote:
> >
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.DTL
> > One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
> > Dozens of parents at PTA meeting question lunch searches, nurse
>
> I have to admit, I have a lot of sympathy for the kid. He is the center
> of a controversy he surely didn't ask for, all because the genetic
> lottery punched his ticket.
> I'm not QUITE that allergic to peanuts. If I haven't had tofu in hot &
> sour soup (which I can eat a little bit of), I can eat a peanut butter &
> jelly sandwich. If I have had tofu, though, I have to wait at least 24
> hours before I eat anything made from soy protein or peanuts.
> I think the school nurse and the lunchbox searches are probably over the
> top. However, I don't blame the family for asking that peanuts and
> peanut products be kept completely out of the school. They, and the
> school, are in a horrible position. Their first responsibility has to
> be to protect their own child's health.
>
> Beth
*Raises hand*
I was (and still am) a very allergic person. I have allergies, asthma *and*
eczema, all now seen to be different manifestations of the same problem. On
the last allergy test I had, I tested allergic to *everything* (except
sycamore trees). Ok, so almost everything. But it was a test for over 200
allergens. I've learned over the years what I can eat, and when. Dark green
veggies are a problem - which sucks because I love them. Broccoi, Brussel
Sprouts, Romaine (and other nifty) lettuce. I've learned I can eat them
maybe once a week. And then only a little of it. And then I will pay for it.
I learned young to ask "what is that made out of", "do you have pets?",
"Please, no dark green vegetables - do you have zucchini or squash?" It was
*my* responsibility to make sure I didn't eat something I shouldn't have,
pick up or pet any animals, wander into grassy fields, go into dusty or
moldy basements, or use any lotion without reading the ingredients first. It
should be his parent's respnsibility to teach him not to eat anything except
what they send to school with him, and to ask if there are nuts in anything
someone wants to share.
I feel for the kid too. He has to now ask, for the rest of his life, if
there are nuts in whatevr he eats. It really gets old after a while.
However, I don't see why the school should change everything for one child.
To misquote Tuvok, the good of the one does not outweigh the good of the
many.
--Splat
Silar31
wrote:
>I have an anaphylactic reaction to soy products which nearly killed me
>when I was 2 weeks old. So I don't eat soy. Sure, I have to read
>contents on the packages and pass up suspect foods at banquets and so
>on, but it's MY problem and *I* deal with it. Having a food nazi
>(publically funded) searching lunches is ridiculous. If it's that big
>a problem, the kid should be home schooled.
I'm allergic to every kind of nut *except* peanuts and almonds, and
also all peppers from bell to Scotch Bonnet, and I agree with this
psot.
Jennifer
silar31 -- http://www.stranger-things.com
to contact me please ping me on the newsgroup. E-mail replies hit the bit bucket!
CF+++ TK++ TPI++++ A++++VF++++
"The best gift I can possibly give the next and succeeding generations on this
stinking mudball is the absence of my genes in it. Its a gift I give with the
utmost pride, and one I'd give a million times over had I the ability to do so" - Eric C., alt.support.childfree
Terry Austin
news:3yu7b.1544$8o3...@news2.central.cox.net:
>
> "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93F1A44BAE9F7ta...@216.168.3.50...
>> "snuggles" <notMyA...@netscape.net> wrote in
>> news:MVn7b.903$8o3...@news2.central.cox.net:
>>
> > Then he'll grow up to be very, very miserable, having not been
> > properly
>> socialized early enough.
> People who are homeschooled for a few years will not be doomed to a
> life of misery.
"A few years"? You think the allergy will go away in "a few years"?
>
>> > I'll explain the reasoning for my opinion, but with a warning: I'm
>> > going to admit a very mean set of thoughts concerning this topic.
>> >
>> > Something about people with allergies (and asthma) just *irk* me.
>> > When I
>> > hear those words, I picture this ultra-whiny sickly kid complaining
>> > that he can't do anything because of his allergies or asthma.
>>
>> That says far more about you than it does about people with
>> allergies.
>
> Yes, it does. That was the point, it was *my* thoughts on the subject.
> There are others like me out there.
Yes. And if anybody should be shut out of normal society, it is people like
you, not people with peanut allergies.
>
>> I've _seen_ someone break out in hives at the _smell_ of peanut
>> butter.
>>
>> Sometimes, rarely, I'll grant you, but sometimes, they are not being
>> unreasonable.
> I realize they are not being 'unreasonable', it is a medical
> condition.
Yep.
>
>> >My
>> > meaner half figures that if a peanut is gonna kill you, you really
>> > shouldn't be alive (hey, I like evolution).
>>
>> That's because you're a dead end. Go play in traffic.
> No, it's more likely because it's human nature to dislike other
> 'weaker' people.
Except that people who think that way *are* "weaker" people.
>
>> And, BTW, that's from someone who hates every child on the planet,
>> personally and individually.
> Then that says alot about your own personality, and you have no reason
> to hypoctrically critisize me. You hate someone solely because of
> their age, regardless of their personality or intelligence.
I'm not advocating locking children in boxes and feedin them through slots,
much as I might like to.
>
>> I'd rather share the same air with the worst children around than
>> with a worthless piece of shit like you.
> You're entitled to your own opinion. but explain this: How, exactly,
> am I automatically a worse person than you?
Because my opinion matters, and yours doesn't.
>Keeping in mind your above
> statement about hating every child on the planet personally and
> individually? And extra points if you can do it without insults and
> profanity, but rather using rationality and logic.
>
You're not worth the effort, son.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor!
Terry Austin
news:20030909214548...@mb-m13.aol.com:
Why not outfit you with a 40,000 volt circuit to your groin, with the
switch in no-nuts' hand? That way, if he has a convlusion, he won't feel
lonely.
It's your civic duty.
Terry Austin
news:7679d2771e52d265...@news.teranews.com:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 23:03:50 -0000, Terry Austin
> <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>Unless Dr. Mozelsio has examined the child in question, she should be
>>prosectued for attempted murder. Regardless of how allergic the kid
>>actually is.
>
> Speaking of more than just a LITTLE hysteria...
>
> Uh, no. Giving an opinion is not the same as attempting murder.
>
Giving a _professional_ opinion, in one's field of expertise, under
circumstances where it might convince someone to do something potentially
fatal to someone else, is not an opinion.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor!
snuggles
news:Xns93F1EE77...@130.133.1.4...
> Well, lots of things out there can kill you if you don't take active
> measures to avoid them, from peanuts to sperm.
Yes, very true. Especially sperm nowadays with the AIDs epidemic.
>Does your meaner half
> also figure that if childbirth is going to kill you, you really shouldn't
> be alive (hey, I like defending myself against natural selection :) )?
That's a good comparison. Dying in childbirth seems to be a major problem
with humans in particular, if I remember correctly a Scientific American
article mentioned human baby's skull sizes in comparison with other animals
as a main factor . Actually I think having one person assist you in
childbirth is a natural societal behavior, but if it takes a team of doctors
and nurses to keep someone alive due to childbirth, then I view it as a
one-time thing: "You better not ever do this again, or next time you're on
your own". I have sympathy for a woman if it just ends up being alot harder
than she expected and she loses alot of blood or needs an emergency
C-section. But if it's the second pregnancy and the first pregnancy nearly
killed her, then I don't have any sympathy. So, difficult childbirths are
'one-time emergencies', like car accidents. They don't really affect anyone
but the woman and the baby.
I view constant life-threatening ailments such as organ problems or serious
nut allergies differently, because they are 'lifetime emergencies'. People
who are unable to exist without regular medical intervention and those who
are a nut-trace away from sure death will need to rely *regularly* on the
kindness and resources of society to keep them alive.
Some important criteria I think about concerning health conditions are 1) Is
this a serious problem that you will deal with for the rest of your life?
2) Does this problem require taking organs or funds from other people to
save your life? 3) Does this problem affect other people's daily lives
(non-loved ones) in any slight way?
A problem pregnancy doesn't fit these criteria, but a fatal nut allergy fits
#1 and #3. #3 bothers me because I do resent it when society has to pay for
or be restricted by the needs of chronically defective people, even if it's
just schoolkids restricted from a PB&J sandwich or an allergic airline
passenger insisting Continental Airlines stop serving those peanuts. I
always brought a PB&J sandwich to school so maybe I'm biased :-)
> Or from brats thoughtlessly throwing food, for that matter. Which is why
> you don't see adult cafeterias like the one at my job banning peanuts.
>
> I don't see why they have to pay to screen everyone's lunches, though.
> Why doesn't the school just
> - state that peanuts are off-limits
> - not serve peanuts itself (since school lunches are free for kids in
> poverty, can't use the "parenting is sooo expensive!!!" excuse this time)
> - set a punishment for any brat who does trigger an allergic reaction
> ?
> Or better yet, how about simply letting the kid eat in another room
> besides the cafeteria and banning food in classrooms? None of my
> elementary school teachers let us eat in class, after all.
That seems to be the best solution. The mother only has to say "Please, I
would very much appreciate it if you would allow my son to eat in an empty
classroom during lunch and help make sure he doesn't come into contact with
nuts."
Patrick M Geahan
>>
> The article wasn't exactly clear on what is banned where. It sounded like
> they banned peanuts in the classroom - the lone classroom - that the kid is
> in. Perhaps they are simply providing a place for the other kids to keep
> their lunch until lunchroom, and giving the allergic kid a separate place
> to eat. That would be reasonable.
I would agree that that would be a fairly reasonable solution. I did get
a sense from the article, however, that the peanut products were banned,
period - there was a snippet from the principal that the food was
'confiscated', which leads me to believe it was gone entirely.
snuggles
> I view it more as "they better not ever force you to do this again."
In my examples I was assuming that these were 'average' women who wanted the
pregnancies and were not forced into them, and that they just ended up
unlucky and suffering complications.
> Going by criteria #2 below, they'd also really affect anyone else who
> depends on the same clinic's funding for health care (more spent on
> childbirth, less to spend on other stuff).
Hmm...I don't know alot about how clinics are funded, but again assuming
these are 'average' women (not in poverty), wouldn't the money for their
care would be coming from their own bank accounts or their own insurance? If
I went to the emergency room, I'd have to pay.
> #3 is a pretty lame criteria. I mean, it covers everything from "giving
> my kid something other than PB&J and teaching him to not eat like a pig
> is so inconvenient!!!!" to "putting on a condom and asking my wife for
> permission before sex is against my culture!!!!" to "not putting tons of
> crap in the local air and water make running my power plant more
> expensive!!!!" After all, in each case a non-loved-one has her or his
> life affected in a slight way.
I'm not sure I understand, you lost me at the condom part, sorry :-( I'll
try to clarify on my part. By 'health conditions' I meant an actual
disorder or disease or whatever you wanna call it. I didn't mean 'health
conditions' as conditions pertaining to the general person's state of
healthiness such as STD control or pollution. It could be phrased as
"Because I have <Insert Name Of Disease/Disorder/Allergy/Etc.> then
<Person#1 and Person#2 and Person#3> cannot <Do Activity>" and similar
restrictions or hindrances. Just any old scenario where someone's disorder
will affect what another person can and can't do. Like those yellow "Deaf
Child at Play" signs and such that you see here and there, implying you
should slow down immediately. One example of how politically correctness
could go too far is in a scenario where: "Because I am <Blind> child at
play, then <Drivers> will now be mandated to <Decrease Speed Limit On Road
Near House>". An allergy related example would be someone who has a
sensitivity to perfumes or chemical smells saying "I am <Allergic> so
<Workers At Newvision Inc.> cannot <Wear Scented *Anything* To Work> because
it violates my right to comfort equal opportunity in the workplace."
Actually I just read something in the New York Times magazine not long ago
about a woman with severe chemical sensitivity, the address is
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/magazine/07WTWT.html if you're
registered.
> OTOH, problem pregnancies are also a lifetime issue because *avoiding*
> them is something you have to deal with for much of your whole life.
> That's my main problem with the "if you need to go against nature to
> thrive then you don't deserve to thrive" argument.
I can see your reasoning, it is something that has to be dealt with, but not
a serious problem. Assuming a woman lives in a developed country, she should
have no problem getting on the pill and using condoms and spermicide -- so I
wouldn't consider it a big deal. To me this isn't like dealing with
chemotherapy, having dialysis, being unable to breathe properly, etc., bad
medical problems that won't be going away and aren't curable. Now for women
in third world countries with little to no access to birth control and
little freedom, that's a whole different message thread worth of discussion.
Here's something I think about: If we humans were in the stone age where
bad vision couldn't be fixed, I personally would be unable to fend for
myself. If I had to be entirely dependent on another person, I wouldn't be
surprised if they just decided to leave me for grizzly bear food rather than
caring for me for the rest of my life. I wouldn't hold it against them.
Sure, I'd be sad, I'd know I couldn't make it and death awaited, but I'd
also know it was not their responsibility to care for me and I would not
expect it of them. I suppose in return, I get miffed when other people
expect me to care about them and their disorders by default, especially when
it's recurrent, a hopeless case, or just irritating to deal with.
BTW thanks for actually responding intelligently without resorting to
personal insults, everyone feels differently about topics like these and I
do welcome constructive debate :-)
Veronique
> Some important criteria I think about concerning health conditions are 1) Is
> this a serious problem that you will deal with for the rest of your life?
> 2) Does this problem require taking organs or funds from other people to
> save your life? 3) Does this problem affect other people's daily lives
> (non-loved ones) in any slight way?
>
> A problem pregnancy doesn't fit these criteria, but a fatal nut allergy fits
> #1 and #3. #3 bothers me because I do resent it when society has to pay for
> or be restricted by the needs of chronically defective people, even if it's
> just schoolkids restricted from a PB&J sandwich or an allergic airline
> passenger insisting Continental Airlines stop serving those peanuts. I
> always brought a PB&J sandwich to school so maybe I'm biased :-)
In fact, the fatal nut allergy in question also fits criteria #2, in
that the position for an instructional aide for the whole school was
cut and a nurse for the FNA kid surfaced in its place.
I guess I see public schools as increasingly burdened beyond educating
students. Those are MY tax dollars taken away from education and given
to a single child for non-educational purposes.
I also remember kids with nut (or seafood) allergies when I was a
sprog. And again, in my experience, the child in question asked about
the contents of unknown foods. Given that well over half the kids in
elementary school ate peanut butter for lunch, the impact of a nut ban
would have been overwhelming. Peanut butter is also a cheap source of
protein-- again, asking other parents to tailor their children's
lunches has a financial impact (perhaps negligible, perhaps not) on
everyone else.
Statistical Outlier
[snip]
> A child with a peanut allergy should definately have classmates that
> are aware of this fact; should have strategies for dealing with
> exposure, and preventing exposure, should have teachers and staff that
> are aware of the problem etc. But they shouldn't cause an entire
> school to change it's behavior and function to accomodate them.
> How ridiculous is this shit going to get?
When I was in fourth grade, a new student transferred in. She (and her
older brother--some breeders never learn) had a rare genetic condition
that made her skin red and flaky, plus she was bald. Of course we got
a lecture about how we needed to be nice, but the teacher spent even
more time harping on her peanut allergy. She said "If Becky eats a
nut, she could die." And you know what? Even though the school
cafeteria served those horrid rice krispie/peanut butter/unknown other
ingredients "desserts" almost every day, nothing happened to Becky.
She knew to stay away from them, and we knew not to give her peanut
products. She also turned out to be a total brat who got away with
murder, but that's another rant for another time.
S.O.
Terry Austin
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>>
>> The article wasn't exactly clear on what is banned where. It sounded
>> like they banned peanuts in the classroom - the lone classroom - that
>> the kid is in. Perhaps they are simply providing a place for the
>> other kids to keep their lunch until lunchroom, and giving the
>> allergic kid a separate place to eat. That would be reasonable.
>
> I would agree that that would be a fairly reasonable solution. I did
> get a sense from the article, however, that the peanut products were
> banned, period - there was a snippet from the principal that the food
> was 'confiscated', which leads me to believe it was gone entirely.
>
No. What it said was "confiscate or set aside." There is no indication that
they refused to let those children have lunch, which *is* what you're
talking about, and *would* have resulted in a very ugly lawsuit, I'm sure.
There simply enough much in the article about what is actually being done
at the school. It's about the controversy, not its cause.
Which makes me suspicious.
BookWyrm
...
>My nicer half realizes that it could have been me with a peanut allergy, or
>someone that I cared about, and that killing someone by evil usage of
>peanuts is, well, evil. But my point is that it's possible he isn't safe
>at school from cruel pranks, at least not until the students are at an age
>where they will fully know and understand the consequences of their actions.
>
It's not just possible. It's very very likely under the right circumstances, if
not now, then later like in middle school when kyds start to get *really* mean.
snuggles
> And when I brought up the pregnancy example in the first place, I cited
> an article about Afghanistan.
Ah, it's a good thing you pointed that out, I completely missed the link
there at the bottom of your post.
> And the condom part was simply another example fitting the formula:
>
> <Insert Name Of Disease/Disorder/Allergy/Etc.> being "can't stay healthy
> or perhaps even stay alive if giving birth"
> <Person#1 and Person#2 and Person#3> being her husband and father and
> father-in-law
> <Do Activity> being "hassle her, in a culturally authentic and
> traditionally cherished manner, into producing more heirs"
But the person she chooses to have sex with is a 'loved one' (Criteria 3
was: Does this problem affect other people's daily lives
(non-loved ones) in any slight way?). Her husband can leave her if he
doesn't like dealing with her condition and using birth control, he does
have a choice. He is *expected* to care, but he does not *have* to. However,
ordinary citizens such as the schoolkids in the original story do not have a
choice, and they are not the allergic boy's 'loved ones', so they should not
be expected to care.
> Another example OTOH which actually did happen at my high school was
> "Because I have <weaker-than-average lungs and throat>, then <my
> classmates> should not <fill the girls' bathroom with cigarette smoke>".
>
> The rule against smoking in school was actually established before this
> very asthmatic girl and I reached high school, before one day in 9th
> grade when she had to go to the hospital after going to the bathroom
> because it was so bad in there. Afterwards, we did all get reminded not
> to smoke, though. I suppose the smokers could have argued that keeping
> her weaker-than-average pulmonary system going wasn't worth
> inconveniencing them in even the slightest manner. :/
I'd be on the side of the smokers here and I don't even smoke. If I'd have
been there I probably would've been overheard remarking "Hmph, 'weaker than
average' lungs and throat? And she has to be rushed to the *hospital* from a
little bit of *cigarette smoke*?? Faker." Maybe I'm just biased from living
with heavy smokers most of my life.
> Although I would hold it against them if they were the ones who came up
> with the idea of impregnating your myopic momma and producing myopic
> little you in the first place.
Yup, I agree. Actually my parental units have perfect vision, but I ended up
blind as a bat without my contacts!
> I mean, I've even seen "why can't we go back to the good old days before
> all this big bad technology like eyeglasses and printing presses and
> aqueducts and the internet distanced us from Mother Nature's mother
> love!!!!" rants online (the ranters had no clue about the Khmer Rouge,
> BTW).
Hehe I'm not one of the unabomber-types who thinks technology is evil, I
think its great. I'm fond of biotechnology and genetic engineering
especially, it's what I hope to do someday for a living.
snuggles
> Just curious, have you tried those new dot-matrix-type colored contacts?
> I haven't (can't get the lenses in and stick to glasses), but I was
> wondering if they tint your vision at first before you adjust.
No, I haven't tried those before. 1 of the main contact lens makers has a
type of lenses out that you can wear continuously for an entire month
though, I want to try those and they might help you too because if you can
get them in your eye just once then you won't have to put them in again for
another 30 days.
> Um, you do realize that the whole point of a lot of biotech is helping
> people with weaker-than-average body parts and defending us from natural
> selection, right?
Yes, alot of it is. I think someday we'll be able to actually replace
malfunctioning parts and genetic engineering will fix problems at their
source (the DNA) rather than masking the problem with drugs. Maybe not soon,
but eventually.
stePH
>
[snippage]
> > Another example OTOH which actually did happen at my high school was
> > "Because I have <weaker-than-average lungs and throat>, then <my
> > classmates> should not <fill the girls' bathroom with cigarette smoke>".
> >
> > The rule against smoking in school was actually established before this
> > very asthmatic girl and I reached high school, before one day in 9th
> > grade when she had to go to the hospital after going to the bathroom
> > because it was so bad in there. Afterwards, we did all get reminded not
> > to smoke, though. I suppose the smokers could have argued that keeping
> > her weaker-than-average pulmonary system going wasn't worth
> > inconveniencing them in even the slightest manner. :/
>
> I'd be on the side of the smokers here and I don't even smoke.
I used to smoke; don't anymore -- but in this example, A PRE-EXISTING
RULE is being violated. The smokers have no cause to bitch about being
"inconvenienced," because they're not supposed to be smoking in school
at all, asthmatic girl or no asthmatic girl.
stePH
--
NP: Ozric Tentacles, AFTERSWISH - "Og-Ha-Be"
elizabeth
> "Omixochitl" <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93F238A3...@130.133.1.4...
> > I view it more as "they better not ever force you to do this again."
>
> In my examples I was assuming that these were 'average' women who wanted the
> pregnancies and were not forced into them, and that they just ended up
> unlucky and suffering complications.
Um, dearie, pregnancy is always harmful to women. Always. And the
leading causes of death in childbirth are hemorrhage and embolism,
neither of which can be predicted or prevented. I take it you are a
newbie trolltard, and haven't bothered doing much lurking? We've
covered this topic quite a lot. Not that it's very relevant to the
topic.
> > Going by criteria #2 below, they'd also really affect anyone else who
> > depends on the same clinic's funding for health care (more spent on
> > childbirth, less to spend on other stuff).
>
> Hmm...I don't know alot about how clinics are funded,
Hmmm, I guess you really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? FYI,
childbirth is always covered and in fact the Bushwacker said that all
FETUSES get care, so in fact, YOUR TAX MONEY is paying for welfare
rats and litters of illegals (who are now CITIZENS and as CHILDREN
will get FREE CARE, that YOU pay for)
> but again assuming
> these are 'average' women (not in poverty), wouldn't the money for their
> care would be coming from their own bank accounts or their own insurance? If
> I went to the emergency room, I'd have to pay.
Wrong again. Childbirth is always covered, and YOU pay more for YOUR
insurance. Additionally, breeders sue if anything is wrong with the
cuntnugget, and juries invariably give out huge awards for defectives,
even if the doctor had nothing to do with the problem the cuntnugget
was born with. What is your excuse, did the doctor pinch too hard
with the forceps?
snip\
> I can see your reasoning, it is something that has to be dealt with, but not
> a serious problem. Assuming a woman lives in a developed country, she should
> have no problem getting on the pill and using condoms and spermicide -- so I
> wouldn't consider it a big deal.
Shove it up your ass until you taste it, asshole. Many women in
America don't have access to contraception, condoms don't work well
and many men REFUSE TO USE THEM, and many women CAN'T USE THE MOST
EFFECTIVE METHODS. And there is a failure rate to all methods.
I say mandatory vasectomies for all men, since it's been demonstrated
that only responsible men will get them, and that is why it's the most
effective, cheapest, and safest method, and also USED THE LEAST.
Now go back under your bridge.
No kids 4 you
(When tards type.)
>Why not outfit you with a 40,000 volt circuit to your groin, with the
>switch in no-nuts' hand? That way, if he has a convlusion, he won't feel
>lonely.
>
>It's your civic duty.
>
TAustin hunny, I didn't want to involve your mother OR her hobbies.
Linda Causey
Answer this question for me: Was it necessary to insult the person you
disagreed with? Once the insults are edited out your points are perfectly
reasonable.
You did not answer Noelle's question. Are you capable of disagreeing with
someone without using personal insults?
Inquiring minds want to know.
You do provide a nice window for those of us who are fascinated by abnormal
psychology. It is a nice show.
I'll save you the trouble:
<Lizzie response>
You are a cunt! You hate women because you chose to have a relationship with
a man! You stupid cunt don't you know that all men are evil! They are all
bent on raping you, beating you and looking at you funny in public! Hey
cunt, don't you know when you allow a man to look at you, you cause the
downfall of all of womanhood! When you speak to a male, you are destroying
everything!! Can't have a union with scabs like you, who actually believe
that all humans, male or female, are capable of acts of evil and that we
should investigate the roots! Only men are evil! Males are the root of evil!
Go to hell and die, you cunt!
</Lizzie response>
--
Linda Causey
A Perfect World: making the world a better place one cartoon at a time
http://www.aperfectworld.org
"elizabeth" <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d704555b.03091...@posting.google.com...
Terry Austin
I know you are, but what am I?
--
Larry Flynt for Governor
snuggles
news:<UWD7b.8514$8o3....@news2.central.cox.net>...
> > "Omixochitl" <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93F238A3...@130.133.1.4...
the
> > pregnancies and were not forced into them, and that they just ended up
> > unlucky and suffering complications.
>
> Um, dearie, pregnancy is always harmful to women. Always. And the
> leading causes of death in childbirth are hemorrhage and embolism,
> neither of which can be predicted or prevented. I take it you are a
> newbie trolltard, and haven't bothered doing much lurking? We've
> covered this topic quite a lot. Not that it's very relevant to the
> topic.
I never said pregnancy was not *harmful*, but obviously not every pregnant
woman is destined to be on the verge of death from childbirth complications.
And how exactly am I trolling? I was answering a valid question concerning
my opinions on the topic made by another poster. Oh wait, I remember, it's
because I wrote a rational *disagreeing* response to your post about "What
Does Charleton Heston Think Of This?".
> > Hmm...I don't know alot about how clinics are funded,
>
> Hmmm, I guess you really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? FYI,
> childbirth is always covered and in fact the Bushwacker said that all
> FETUSES get care, so in fact, YOUR TAX MONEY is paying for welfare
> rats and litters of illegals (who are now CITIZENS and as CHILDREN
> will get FREE CARE, that YOU pay for)
And I support *limits* on welfare and tax money going towards certain types
of health care, but I would gladly support cheap access to birth control.
What exactly is your point anyway? So childbirth can fall into the #2
criteria in *some* cases. I named a few criteria that I consider about when
I make a decision on how much outside assistance a person should receive in
various cases of medical disorders and how much trouble other people should
go to to save a person's life (keep in mind this is just my opinion on the
matter). And also I use that criteria to determine for *myself* in the
future, if anything bad should happen to me, would I want to continue
living.
> Wrong again. Childbirth is always covered, and YOU pay more for YOUR
> insurance. Additionally, breeders sue if anything is wrong with the
> cuntnugget, and juries invariably give out huge awards for defectives,
> even if the doctor had nothing to do with the problem the cuntnugget
> was born with. What is your excuse, did the doctor pinch too hard
> with the forceps?
Well now I haven't heard of a doctor being sued and actually losing in court
for a defect in a baby that the doctor himself did not cause. What case and
what huge reward where the doctor did nothing wrong?
> Shove it up your ass until you taste it, asshole. Many women in
> America don't have access to contraception, condoms don't work well
> and many men REFUSE TO USE THEM, and many women CAN'T USE THE MOST
> EFFECTIVE METHODS. And there is a failure rate to all methods.
Well if your a woman and your boyfriend refuses to use condoms, *don't have
sex with him*. It isn't like they have NO choice in the matter. And condoms
are fairly effective so saying they "don't work well" is a matter of opinion
with a failure rate of 3% when used correctly . You can pick up condoms and
spermicide at the local grocery store, and plenty of clinics give out free
supplies. Now, if you are in absolute poverty and cannot afford condoms &
spermicide, and living in America, then maybe it's time to consider getting
a job or dealing with abstinence until you can move on up in the world,
because sex is the least of your problems.
> I say mandatory vasectomies for all men, since it's been demonstrated
> that only responsible men will get them, and that is why it's the most
> effective, cheapest, and safest method, and also USED THE LEAST.
>
>
> Now go back under your bridge.
Why mandatory vasectomies for all men but not sterlization for all women?
Sorry, but in this world another person's private areas and what they do
with them are out of your control. I think maybe you need a new hobby, this
usenet thing seems to really upset you.
snuggles
"stePH" <acet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:59e1106e.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > The rule against smoking in school was actually established before
this
> > > very asthmatic girl and I reached high school, before one day in 9th
> > > grade when she had to go to the hospital after going to the bathroom
> > > because it was so bad in there. Afterwards, we did all get reminded
not
> > > to smoke, though. I suppose the smokers could have argued that
keeping
> > > her weaker-than-average pulmonary system going wasn't worth
> > > inconveniencing them in even the slightest manner. :/
> >
> > I'd be on the side of the smokers here and I don't even smoke.
>
> I used to smoke; don't anymore -- but in this example, A PRE-EXISTING
> RULE is being violated. The smokers have no cause to bitch about being
> "inconvenienced," because they're not supposed to be smoking in school
> at all, asthmatic girl or no asthmatic girl.
>
> stePH
You're certainly right, I just meant I'd be {wrongly} irritated anyway,
despite the no-smoking under 18 rule and the no-smoking in school rule.
Mainly because it sounded to me like this rule wasn't really enforced until
that one girl had a problem with it, and that the majority of the other
girls {and probably many teachers} didn't mind the smoking or actively
enforce the rule. Kind of like "Damn, we got away with it just fine until
*she* came along" even if I shouldn't be getting away with it in the first
place.
snuggles
> Actually, it was enforced - and it wasn't until a couple of years later
> than they enforced it even more and had teachers sitting outside the few
> unlocked bathrooms checking people in and out.
Thanks for clearing that up, I assumed wrong.
> We did mind all the crap those creeps put in the air in the bathrooms.
> It just wasn't as much of a health issue for most of us.
In that case then by all means, majority rules. To steer this somewhat back
on topic, then if most students are being inconvenienced by a few students
(the smokers) then the smokers just need to 'deal with it' {although
obviously they won't *like* it, and if I were a smoker I wouldn't like it
either, but I'd have to either abide by the rules or get punished}, the same
way if most students (peanut eaters) are being inconvenienced by 1 person,
that 1 person needs to 'deal with it'. For smoking in particular I'm happy
with designated areas for each in public places and don't mind which one I'm
in.
> And I'm sure a lot of breeders feel the same way about CFers when we
> speak up about their behavior ("Damn, we got away with changing diapers
> in public and letting our kids pee in pools and so on until *they* came
> along").
Maybe, I don't know though -- seems to me most people (parents or not) would
frown upon not changing diapers in the bathroom and having people (of any
age) pee in the pool. I've never even seen someone change a diaper (in real
life) in anything but a bathroom, so maybe I'm just not seeing it but it
happens? Of course if they're in their own home or car, they have the right
to change the diaper wherever they want.
snuggles
> OK then. Earlier you were arguing about people not having to
inconvenience
> themselves for strangers' well-being, and didn't say anything about
whether
> the strangers in question were a majority or not.
I should have been clearer then, that's really one of my main points.
> Shouldn't most of the students have to learn table manners as well?
>
> Or would that be too much of an inconvenience?
>
> Or is learning to not smear your lunch on the table OK if it merely looks
> polite but too much of a politically correct inconvenience if it actually
> helps keep someone out of the hospital as well?
Would it be too much of an inconvenience to ask the nut allergic person to
eat somewhere other than the main cafeteria? Table manners are like
littering -- don't leave your mess in other people's way. If I smeared
something sticky on the table, then I should clean it up rather than
inconveniencing another person by getting them sticky or wasting their time
with cleaning. My mess, my problem, I'll deal with it. If I accidentally got
something on the table and left without cleaning it up, whoever had to pick
up after me would be rightfully irked. That's why there are fines for
littering and such. Actually I'd love to see fines for dirtying up public
restrooms too, but that's another topic. Now if I were the only person who
cared about littering, and nobody else minded or cleaned, I'd just deal with
it.
I believe that what a person puts into their body is their own business, so
I do not think that everyone surrounding a nut-allergic person should
refrain from ingesting peanuts, it *isn't* their problem. Yes, if the
nut-allergic person touched a peanut-residued table, they could die. If I
were that nut-allergic person, I'd just stay outta the cafeteria rather than
asking everyone else to alter their diet. Once the boy in the article gets
older, well nobody is going to alter their diet just to suit him and his
special needs, he has to learn to cope with it.
> Of course there's also minimum standards of hygiene and cleanliness to
> consider. That bathroom air was just as filthy and unhealthy whether a
lot
> of light smokers or a few heavy smokers fouled it. The number of smokers
> was no excuse even if they were a majority of the students.
I would disagree here -- who exactly determines minimum standards of hygiene
and cleanliness? The people do, and the majority wins in situations like
these, so if the majority smoked, then they should win.
> Well, you got areas where it's not common or accepted, and areas where
it's
> common or at least commonly accepted (for example, only one kid pees in
the
> pool but most of the people there say "he's just a baby, shame on you for
> complaining!!!"), and people who say "it's just plain rude," and people
who
> say "I grew up with pee in the pool, stop being so politically correct."
True. Another case of 'let the cultural norm emerge on its own', with the
majority ruling per custom and area.
stePH
> Lizzie:
>
> Answer this question for me: Was it necessary to insult the person you
> disagreed with? Once the insults are edited out your points are perfectly
> reasonable.
>
> You did not answer Noelle's question. Are you capable of disagreeing with
> someone without using personal insults?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> You do provide a nice window for those of us who are fascinated by abnormal
> psychology. It is a nice show.
>
> I'll save you the trouble:
> <Lizzie response>
> You are a cunt! You hate women because you chose to have a relationship with
> a man! You stupid cunt don't you know that all men are evil! They are all
> bent on raping you, beating you and looking at you funny in public! Hey
> cunt, don't you know when you allow a man to look at you, you cause the
> downfall of all of womanhood! When you speak to a male, you are destroying
> everything!! Can't have a union with scabs like you, who actually believe
> that all humans, male or female, are capable of acts of evil and that we
> should investigate the roots! Only men are evil! Males are the root of evil!
> Go to hell and die, you cunt!
> </Lizzie response>
>
Damn, that was good! TOO good, actually ... okay, admit it, Linda --
elizabeth is just a sockpuppet you invented, right? Right?
stePH
--
NP: Porcupine Tree, LIGHTBULB SUN - "How Is Your Life Today?"
elizabeth
> Linda Causey wrote:
snip
> > You do provide a nice window for those of us who are fascinated by abnormal
> > psychology. It is a nice show.
Yup, and I love how you do the Fundamental Attribution Error.
Way to blow up a straw man, Cuntilicious!
snip
> Damn, that was good! TOO good, actually ... okay, admit it, Linda --
> elizabeth is just a sockpuppet you invented, right? Right?
No, but YOU could be, Miss Fundamental Attribution Error! (Miss FAE,
Take a Bow! There she is, Miss Projection . .. Miss Leading, Miss
Informed, take your pick. At any rate, if'n I piss that old slag that
much, sure makes me feel like I'm doing some good for the world.
You may now return to your LunchTable, dearie.
Rabbit
> The above exchange has made me realize a way in which peanut allergy and
> kids who shit in their swim diapers or in the pool could be made to work
> for us.
>
> Kid eats peanuts. Kid has a raging case of the shits while in the pool.
> Enough peanut waste is discharged so that another li'l swimmer, who
happens
> to be allergic to peanuts, has a severe allergic reaction. Presto! No more
> sprog allowed in the pool who cannot control their bowels.
>
> In the immortal words of Judy Tenuta, "It could happen!"
>
> MFS
Hell, we don't even have to stop there. I've read that airlines got rid of
peanuts because there are people so allergic that having the scent in the
air will cause a reaction.
So -- because recycled peanuts on a diaper could conceivably do the same
thing, we need to ban diaper changes ANYWHERE in public.
Rabbit
snuggles
> >> Shouldn't most of the students have to learn table manners as well?
> >>
> >> Or would that be too much of an inconvenience?
> >>
> >> Or is learning to not smear your lunch on the table OK if it merely
> >> looks polite but too much of a politically correct inconvenience if
> >> it actually helps keep someone out of the hospital as well?
> >
> > Would it be too much of an inconvenience to ask the nut allergic
> > person to eat somewhere other than the main cafeteria? Table manners
>
Sure, students should show table manners, if every person cleans up his/her
mess when they're finished eating then it benefits everyone.
> If the other kids had good table manners then the nut allergic kid
> wouldn't need to stay out of the cafeteria in the first place. Asking
> the kid to stay outside the cafeteria makes sense, *and* it's admitting
> that the other kids' parents have failed to teach them table manners.
Not necessarily, it's just admitting that 5 year olds are prone to mistakes
and less-than-perfect social skills. An accident can happen even with the
best-behaved and most well-mannered 5 year old. Even I occasionally end up
with food in places it shouldn't be, and the same is true for any large
dining area, it would be very difficult to keep an elementary school
cafeteria spotless from all traces of food. This is why he should be kept
out of the cafeteria.
> I'm reminded a bit of these posts:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20010605230104.29628.00000812%40ng-
> mo1.aol.com
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020311015241.12024.00000527%40mb-
> fz.aol.com
> If the pool water's not safe for elderly people, then asking them to swim
> somewhere else makes sense, *and* it's admitting that other people have
> failed to keep contaminants out of the pool water. Or is keeping diapers
> out of a swimming pool OK only if nobody frailer than us wants to swim
> too?
If I were an objective observer in this feud, this is what I would do:
1) State Problem: Is this water contaminated to the point of health
endangerment?
2) Get an expert microbiologist to test the water after a typical 'moms and
babies' session.
3) Compare results with the standards already used to test the safety of
water. {Beaches are tested for their presence of fecal bacteria. If the
count is too high, the beach is closed and warnings are sent out. If it is
within the 'safe' range, everything is fine. The same goes for water parks
and at least some public pools. So, water safety tests and standards already
exist, it just isn't talked about much.} The chlorine effect should be
considered when determining safety of course.
4) If the water does not meet the already-existing public water safety
requirements, shut down the pool until it is cleaned and do another test --
if it is clean, open it back up with restrictions against diapers (this
should be ANY diapers, babies or elderly!). If the water meets current
standards then the elderly will just have to tolerate it because the expert
opinion is that it is safe.
> Refrain from ingesting peanuts? Of course not. Keep their peanuts to
> themselves? Of course. This isn't about what they put into their body
> at all, it's about what sticky little brats leave all over the place for
> other people to inhale.
I suspect that even if the students were monitored while eating and
determined to be cleanly and well-mannered that the mother would not be
perfectly ok with letting her son eat in the cafeteria with the other kids.
She seems to want an entirely nut-free zone, which would cause
inconveniences for a large number of families, and these inconveniences
could range from tiny to substantial (such as a non-wealthy vegan family who
relies heavily on nuts for protein, or even the soy bars and soy cereals
that are manufactured in nut-containing factories).
> >> Well, you got areas where it's not common or accepted, and areas
> >> where it's common or at least commonly accepted (for example, only one
> >> kid pees in the pool but most of the people there say "he's just a
> >> baby, shame on you for complaining!!!"), and people who say "it's just
> >> plain rude," and people who say "I grew up with pee in the pool, stop
> >> being so politically correct."
> >
> > True. Another case of 'let the cultural norm emerge on its own', with
> > the majority ruling per custom and area.
>
> So we shouldn't speak up about breeder filth in public places where
> breeders of the filthy variety and their sympathizers outnumber us?
You have every right to make your opinion known, but those who disagree with
you would have the same right. Whether it's pool politics, abortion, or
school uniforms, people have the right to make their opinions known. But
there are limits to how much action a person can take -- thousands of
pro-lifers can protest and support laws and government officials who are on
their side, yet they cannot block the doors of abortion clinics -- but the
only reason pro-choicers have their right is because they took it to court
and won by a majority vote. The law and government take care of conflicts
pretty well.
Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior
> elizabeth wrote:
> >
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.DTL
> > One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
> {{snip}}
> >
> > "Look," says Kathryn Stewart, a clinical psychologist who works with
> > special education high school students, "my son (now 15) is allergic
> > to peanuts and an alumni of Valle Verde. This kind of nonsense makes
> > me crazy.
> >
> > "By kindergarten, and certainly by first grade, my son was able to
> > say, 'What is in that?' " she said. "Searching a lunch box is insane.
> > This goes to personal responsibility not changing the rest of the
> > world to fit you."
>
> "Personal responsibility?" Certainly not in this age of
> protecting everyone against everything.
>
> {{snip}}
> > What medication is used to treat an anaphylactic reaction?
> >
> > Epinephrine is the drug of choice for treating an anaphylactic
> > reaction. It works to reverse the symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction
> > and helps prevent its progression. Individuals who have been
> > prescribed epinephrine must carry it with them at all times.
>
> Not in skools, with the 'zero tolerance' anti-druggies around.
And yet schools still allow caffeinated beverages to be sold and
consumed on campus. If schools were serious about "zero tolerance" for
drugs, then they would apply that to any food or drink containing
caffeine. That right there is proof enough that the so-called "war on
drugs" is a failure.
> Gah. "The amount of intelligence in the world is dropping,
> and the population is increasing."
>
> -- Marten Kemp
Slightly fixed your tagline to make it more true.
Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
> >>
> > The article wasn't exactly clear on what is banned where. It sounded like
> > they banned peanuts in the classroom - the lone classroom - that the kid is
> > in. Perhaps they are simply providing a place for the other kids to keep
> > their lunch until lunchroom, and giving the allergic kid a separate place
> > to eat. That would be reasonable.
>
> I would agree that that would be a fairly reasonable solution. I did get
> a sense from the article, however, that the peanut products were banned,
> period - there was a snippet from the principal that the food was
> 'confiscated', which leads me to believe it was gone entirely.
If I had kids and a princpial tried to take away my kids' peanut
butter sandwiches, I'd give him a sandwich alright...a knuckle
sandwich.
Seriously, what all these food nazis need is a good old-fashioned
ass-kicking.
Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior
> On 9 Sep 2003 14:47:50 -0700, scorp...@hotmail.com (Scorpio Chick)
> wrote:
> >And I have to ask...what about students whose parents
> >use peanut butter for economic reasons? It's a cheap, fairly healthy
> >(well, the non-sugar laden kinds, anyway) protein, and much more
> >affordable than cheese or meat for families on a budget or vegetarian
> >families. Are they supposed to go hungry because this kid's parents
> >aren't willing to pay to keep him safe, or homeschool him, all b/c of
> >L'il Peanut's right to go to public school? Not to mention the kids
> >who are losing educational assistance due to the funding diverted for
> >the nurse. Why isn't the kid's moo paying for the nurse's services?
> >
> >Breeder entitlement just blows my mind.
>
> Hear, hear. When I was a kid, not only would I (and my brother, for
> that matter) not eat anything for lunch but PB&J, my parents couldn't
> afford to send anything else to school with us. If Lil' Peanut
> can't handle the fact that someone else across the room is eating/has
> eaten peanuts, they shouldn't be in school. Period. What are they
> going to do when they're out in the workworld, and someone brings PB&J
> for lunch?
Then they'll probably call OSHA and petition them to force all
employers to ban all peanut products from the workplace, and force
employers to fire employees who consume peanut products either on
company property or on lunch (including lunch off company property).
The food nazis at CSPI would LOVE to see that happen.
Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior
> efra...@hotmail.com (elizabeth) wrote in
> news:d704555b.03090...@posting.google.com:
>
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN79933.
> > DTL One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
> > Dozens of parents at PTA meeting question lunch searches, nurse
>
> I know a guy who is allergic to peanuts. I've seen him break out in hives
> from the smell of peanut butter.
>
> Assuming the kid is in that extreme a category, searching lunch boxes the
> first few days of school isn't all that unreasonable.
But punishing the other kids for his allergies is stupid. Schools do
NOT have the right to dictate what foods your children can eat (well,
at least until they find a court that says that schools can ban
certain foods because they're considered unhealthy by the food
police). A parent should have the right to pack any food or drink
(with the obvious exception of alcoholic beverages) in their child's
lunchbox. If I had kids and I packed a PB&B sandwich in their
lunchbox, only for the sandwich to be confiscated by the principal,
that principal would not only receive a knuckle sandwich, but I would
make sure they would lose their job and NEVER be able to get any
teaching or principal position.
> Demanding the kid be schooled at home is just about the same as demanding > that any kid different from one's own should be locked in a box: stupid.
I agree. That statement about homeschooling is tantamount to
segregation.
A > single mistake could be
> fatal, if the kid is that allergic.
>
> Not that this will stop most parents.
I have a feeling that a lawsuit will be filed over this peanut ban. If
a ban on peanut products is found to be legally okay by a court, that
could lead to a slippery slope where schools can ban red meat (with
the reasoning being "red meat is unhealthy"), junk food (same
reasoning), caffeinated beverages (if schools were truly serious about
"zero tolerance" for drugs on campus, they would apply it to
caffeinated beverages and any caffeine-containing food), salt, and so
on, with these categories of foods added to schools' zero tolerance
policies.
Joann Evans
> The parents of other kindergarten students were informed of the
> situation in a letter from school officials, who decreed that "all
> kindergarten students will begin the day by washing hands with soap
> and water . . . supervised by classroom staff."
>
> Then they learned that a licensed vocational nurse has been hired to
> monitor the student. On the first day of school, parents said, their
> kids' backpacks and lunch boxes were searched for peanut butter
> sandwiches and such.
[snip]
> "My child's allergies are life-threatening," she said. "If he contacts
> peanut oil, it could threaten his life. This is a lot different than
> dust mites."
[snip]
> "Allergies vary on a spectrum," she said. "Here we have a child who
> reacts very violently to the touch of even peanut oil. What we are
> talking about is life or death."
So what happens after graduation? He needs to learn to be very good
at looking out for himself. The entire planet can't be made peanut-free.
I can see demanding this kind of treatment at a job...
> "That works quite well," says Mozelsio. "I would say that in most
> cases having the child in a nut-free zone, being careful not to share
> food, and not eating anything not packed by mom or dad should be
> fine."
Wow. Sanity. Refreshing.
> "Look," says Kathryn Stewart, a clinical psychologist who works with
> special education high school students, "my son (now 15) is allergic
> to peanuts and an alumni of Valle Verde. This kind of nonsense makes
> me crazy.
And a sane moo. Even more astounding.
> "By kindergarten, and certainly by first grade, my son was able to
> say, 'What is in that?' " she said. "Searching a lunch box is insane.
> This goes to personal responsibility not changing the rest of the
> world to fit you."
That sums it up well enough for me.....
Joann Evans
Smith Johnson...Junior" wrote:
> > Gah. "The amount of intelligence in the world is dropping,
> > and the population is increasing."
> >
> > -- Marten Kemp
>
> Slightly fixed your tagline to make it more true.
Well, as originally phrased, it tells us the *average* intelligence
is dropping. Thinner slices of the same pie....
Terry Austin
Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior) wrote in
news:75ffe67b.03091...@posting.google.com:
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93F1A369F95A7ta...@216.168.3.50>...
>> efra...@hotmail.com (elizabeth) wrote in
>> news:d704555b.03090...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/09/MN799
>> > 33. DTL One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban
>> > Dozens of parents at PTA meeting question lunch searches, nurse
>>
>> I know a guy who is allergic to peanuts. I've seen him break out in
>> hives from the smell of peanut butter.
>>
>> Assuming the kid is in that extreme a category, searching lunch boxes
>> the first few days of school isn't all that unreasonable.
>
> But punishing the other kids for his allergies is stupid.
It's not punishment. It's teaching them about the real world. This is
something that retards like you think schools should do more of. It's
teaching them some consideration for other people. This is something that
retards like you think schools should do more of. When they try, retards
like you bitch and moan.
Obviously, you need to have a large spike driven through your head at very
high speed until you are no longer retarded.
>Schools do
> NOT have the right to dictate what foods your children can eat (well,
> at least until they find a court that says that schools can ban
> certain foods because they're considered unhealthy by the food
> police). A parent should have the right to pack any food or drink
> (with the obvious exception of alcoholic beverages) in their child's
> lunchbox. If I had kids and I packed a PB&B sandwich in their
> lunchbox, only for the sandwich to be confiscated by the principal,
> that principal would not only receive a knuckle sandwich, but I would
> make sure they would lose their job and NEVER be able to get any
> teaching or principal position.
No, you wouldn't. Schoold boards do not take advice from retards. Now go
jerk off about it. Again.
> I have a feeling that a lawsuit will be filed over this peanut ban. If
> a ban on peanut products is found to be legally okay by a court, that
> could lead to a slippery slope where schools can ban red meat (with
> the reasoning being "red meat is unhealthy"), junk food (same
> reasoning), caffeinated beverages (if schools were truly serious about
> "zero tolerance" for drugs on campus, they would apply it to
> caffeinated beverages and any caffeine-containing food), salt, and so
> on, with these categories of foods added to schools' zero tolerance
> policies.
>
I think that schools should ban retards - that's you - from being alive.
That's what I think.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor!
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion
Terry Austin
tau...@hyperbooks.com
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Noelle
news:6f5a0d9cfd7570b7...@news.1usenet.com...
> > Refrain from ingesting peanuts? Of course not. Keep their peanuts to
> > themselves? Of course. This isn't about what they put into their
> > place for other people to inhale.
> >
> >>> where it's common or at least commonly accepted (for example, only
> >>> one kid pees in the pool but most of the people there say "he's just
> >>> a baby, shame on you for complaining!!!"), and people who say "it's
> >>> just plain rude," and people who say "I grew up with pee in the
> >>> pool, stop being so politically correct."
>
> kids who shit in their swim diapers or in the pool could be made to work
> for us.
>
> Kid eats peanuts. Kid has a raging case of the shits while in the pool.
> Enough peanut waste is discharged so that another li'l swimmer, who
happens
> to be allergic to peanuts, has a severe allergic reaction. Presto! No more
> sprog allowed in the pool who cannot control their bowels.
>
> In the immortal words of Judy Tenuta, "It could happen!"
Shawn and I went to a chain restaurant called the Texas Roadhouse the other
night. As we entered, we saw big yellow diamond-shaped signs that warned of
peanuts and peanut dust in the area. One of the restaurant's gimmicks is
that they bring little galvanized buckets of peanuts out to the table. The
peanuts are in the shell, and an empty bucket is provided for the shells
when you're done munching. Curious: the busboys just take these buckets and
dump them on the floor, why not just let diners throw the shells on the
floor instead of going through the pretense of the bucket? But I digress.
I remarked to Shawn that this would not be a place to bring peanut-allergic
kids, but from what I'm reading these days about the frequency of this
allergy, and judging by the number of family groups I saw dining there, I
smell disaster in the wait.
--
There in the midst of it so alive and alone, words support like bone
--Peter Gabriel
Stephen J. Rush
wrote:
>Shawn and I went to a chain restaurant called the Texas Roadhouse the other
>night. As we entered, we saw big yellow diamond-shaped signs that warned of
>peanuts and peanut dust in the area. One of the restaurant's gimmicks is
>that they bring little galvanized buckets of peanuts out to the table. The
>peanuts are in the shell, and an empty bucket is provided for the shells
>when you're done munching. Curious: the busboys just take these buckets and
>dump them on the floor, why not just let diners throw the shells on the
>floor instead of going through the pretense of the bucket? But I digress.
>
>I remarked to Shawn that this would not be a place to bring peanut-allergic
>kids, but from what I'm reading these days about the frequency of this
>allergy, and judging by the number of family groups I saw dining there, I
>smell disaster in the wait.
The peanut shells on the floor are part of the decor. The empty
bucket is there because some people can't adapt to that.
BookWyrm
>> and many men REFUSE TO USE THEM, and many women CAN'T USE THE MOST
>> EFFECTIVE METHODS. And there is a failure rate to all methods.
>Well if your a woman and your boyfriend refuses to use condoms, *don't have
>sex with him*. It isn't like they have NO choice in the matter.
Ever heard of rape? It happens. Even when people are theoretically dating.
Abuse happens. Psychological abuse happens. A person can be abused so much that
she is unable to say no.
--
The *only* way to compensate for the environmental impact of having a
child is to go out and kill one before you get pregnant. -Darth Ammer, ascf
Linda Causey
Now I have to get a towel.
--
Linda Causey
A Perfect World: making the world a better place one cartoon at a time
http://www.aperfectworld.org
"elizabeth" <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d704555b.03091...@posting.google.com...
Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior
> It's not punishment. It's teaching them about the real world. This is
> something that retards like you think schools should do more of. It's
> teaching them some consideration for other people. This is something that
> retards like you think schools should do more of. When they try, retards
> like you bitch and moan.
>
> Obviously, you need to have a large spike driven through your head at very
> high speed until you are no longer retarded.
It is punishment, and you're the retard here...more like a dirty
liberal retard.
> >Schools do
> > NOT have the right to dictate what foods your children can eat (well,
> > at least until they find a court that says that schools can ban
> > certain foods because they're considered unhealthy by the food
> > police). A parent should have the right to pack any food or drink
> > (with the obvious exception of alcoholic beverages) in their child's
> > lunchbox. If I had kids and I packed a PB&B sandwich in their
> > lunchbox, only for the sandwich to be confiscated by the principal,
> > that principal would not only receive a knuckle sandwich, but I would
> > make sure they would lose their job and NEVER be able to get any
> > teaching or principal position.
>
> No, you wouldn't. Schoold boards do not take advice from retards. Now go
> jerk off about it. Again.
Once again, you prove again that you are the retard here. What the
schools are trying to do is something called "social engineering".
Unfortunately, your lack of mental prowess prevents you from
understanding what "social engineering" is. I would ask you to read
the book "1984" so you would know what direction the government is
heading towards with these stupid decisions by dirty dumbass liberals,
but your lack of mental prowess would prevent you from understanding
one single word in that book.
If you want "social engineering", then get the fuck out of the country
and move to one of those socialist EU countries. When I become
president, I will turn this country into a conservative socialist
government and persecute 'tards like you. If you think Big Brother is
something, just wait until Big Darrell makes you his bitch.
> > I have a feeling that a lawsuit will be filed over this peanut ban. If
> > a ban on peanut products is found to be legally okay by a court, that
> > could lead to a slippery slope where schools can ban red meat (with
> > the reasoning being "red meat is unhealthy"), junk food (same
> > reasoning), caffeinated beverages (if schools were truly serious about
> > "zero tolerance" for drugs on campus, they would apply it to
> > caffeinated beverages and any caffeine-containing food), salt, and so
> > on, with these categories of foods added to schools' zero tolerance
> > policies.
> >
> I think that schools should ban retards - that's you - from being alive.
> That's what I think.
Now you're advocating genocide...more proof that YOU are the retard. I
think YOU need to FOAD, you dirty snake-in-the-grass liberal.
Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior
> Larry Flynt for Governor!
> Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion
No wonder you're such a 'tard.
Terry Austin
Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior) wrote in
news:75ffe67b.03091...@posting.google.com:
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93F5E74448A1ta...@216.168.3.50>...
>> It's not punishment. It's teaching them about the real world. This is
>> something that retards like you think schools should do more of. It's
>> teaching them some consideration for other people. This is something
>> that retards like you think schools should do more of. When they try,
>> retards like you bitch and moan.
>>
>> Obviously, you need to have a large spike driven through your head at
>> very high speed until you are no longer retarded.
>
> It is punishment,
Says you. Normal people feel differently.
> and you're the retard here...more like a dirty
> liberal retard.
Ah, so anyone who disagrees with your retardedness must be a librul, eh?
That would mean you're perver, er, conservative, as well as a retard.
>
>> >Schools do
>> > NOT have the right to dictate what foods your children can eat
>> > (well, at least until they find a court that says that schools can
>> > ban certain foods because they're considered unhealthy by the food
>> > police). A parent should have the right to pack any food or drink
>> > (with the obvious exception of alcoholic beverages) in their
>> > child's lunchbox. If I had kids and I packed a PB&B sandwich in
>> > their lunchbox, only for the sandwich to be confiscated by the
>> > principal, that principal would not only receive a knuckle
>> > sandwich, but I would make sure they would lose their job and NEVER
>> > be able to get any teaching or principal position.
>>
>> No, you wouldn't. Schoold boards do not take advice from retards. Now
>> go jerk off about it. Again.
>
> Once again, you prove again that you are the retard here.
QED. 'Tard.
>What the
> schools are trying to do is something called "social engineering".
Very true. But they don't take advice on _that_ from retards, either.
> Unfortunately, your lack of mental prowess prevents you from
> understanding what "social engineering" is. I would ask you to read
> the book "1984" so you would know what direction the government is
> heading towards with these stupid decisions by dirty dumbass liberals,
> but your lack of mental prowess would prevent you from understanding
> one single word in that book.
Yep. It's all a librul conspiracy to oppress retards. That's you.
>
> If you want "social engineering", then get the fuck out of the country
> and move to one of those socialist EU countries.
Typical conservative/pervert/retard response. Make me. Pussy.
> When I become
> president,
The rest of the country will kill you.
>I will turn this country into a conservative socialist
> government and persecute 'tards like you. If you think Big Brother is
> something, just wait until Big Darrell makes you his bitch.
I'm holding my breath. No, really, I'm just trembling in terror.
Retard.
>
>> > I have a feeling that a lawsuit will be filed over this peanut ban.
>> > If a ban on peanut products is found to be legally okay by a court,
>> > that could lead to a slippery slope where schools can ban red meat
>> > (with the reasoning being "red meat is unhealthy"), junk food (same
>> > reasoning), caffeinated beverages (if schools were truly serious
>> > about "zero tolerance" for drugs on campus, they would apply it to
>> > caffeinated beverages and any caffeine-containing food), salt, and
>> > so on, with these categories of foods added to schools' zero
>> > tolerance policies.
>> >
>> I think that schools should ban retards - that's you - from being
>> alive. That's what I think.
>
> Now you're advocating genocide...
Only if you consider being retarded a race, culure or political party. Only
a retard would think that.
>more proof that YOU are the retard. I
> think YOU need to FOAD, you dirty snake-in-the-grass liberal.
>
You still here? Go play in traffic. Retard.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Terry Austin
Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior) wrote in
news:75ffe67b.03091...@posting.google.com:
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
Only a 'tard, or a Republican, which is the same thing, would think it
makes a difference who wins.
You think it makes a difference, 'tard-boy?
--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion
Terry Austin
tau...@hyperbooks.com
Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior
> You still here? Go play in traffic. Retard.
Dipshit.
Terry Austin
Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith Johnson...Junior) wrote in
I know you are, but what am I?
--