|
Chris
|
It sounds as if you live a very exciting and purpose filled life.
With maybe just a touch of bitterness.
|
|
Lazy Editors
|
Once again the Courant editors/reporter do a lazy job of collecting all the facts before reporting. Not the first time, won't be the last. They can't even see the irony of critizing the teacher for seeking 15 minutes of fame and then extending her time in the spotlight by writing a useless editorial on a story that did not merrti coverage in the first place. Not surprising, however, as this editorial staff who has delusions of moral purity can never resist the temptation of reporting on any story they run across that has any sexually based content.
|
|
Are you kidding
|
Lazy Editors wrote: Once again the Courant editors/reporter do a lazy job of collecting all the facts before reporting. Not the first time, won't be the last. They can't even see the irony of critizing the teacher for seeking 15 minutes of fame and then extending her time in the spotlight by writing a useless editorial on a story that did not merrti coverage in the first place. Not surprising, however, as this editorial staff who has delusions of moral purity can never resist the temptation of reporting on any story they run across that has any sexually based content. How are they lazy? The woman lied. She took a sick day and was not sick. She is a public servant. She deserves to lose her job. Actually, the Courant underplayed it. You are obviously the ugly husband, and a mope. And by the way, she is NOT hot.
|
|
john from Chicago
|
I think this is nonsense that she had to resign. Many companies offer sick days or personal days which may be used as the employee determines and to assume that she 'short-changed' the school and students seems unsupported.
Besides, if she won a 'hottest wife' contest, she should have certain privileges afforded to her.
|
|
Lazy Editors
|
Judged:
1
Are you kidding wrote: <quoted text>
How are they lazy?
The woman lied. She took a sick day and was not sick. She is a public servant.
She deserves to lose her job.
Actually, the Courant underplayed it.
You are obviously the ugly husband, and a mope.
And by the way, she is NOT hot. Like the Courant, you had little fact to base your conclusion on. I'm not an ugly husband, nor could I be as I'm a female. I guess you're also too lazy to gather all facts before jumping to conclusions...
|
|
Are you kidding
|
Lazy Editors wrote: <quoted text>
Like the Courant, you had little fact to base your conclusion on. I'm not an ugly husband, nor could I be as I'm a female. I guess you're also too lazy to gather all facts before jumping to conclusions... How would I gather facts from an anonymous forum? What facts were missing? Speak up or shut up.
|
|
Irony Man
|
Blah-blah-blah. 99 out of every 100 employees have used sick time when they weren't sick. I'm sure she'll be gainfully employed again soon.
|
|
WTF
|
Are you kidding wrote: <quoted text>
How are they lazy?
The woman lied. She took a sick day and was not sick. She is a public servant.
She deserves to lose her job.
Actually, the Courant underplayed it.
You are obviously the ugly husband, and a mope.
And by the way, she is NOT hot. She "deserves" to lose her job? Your entire post is nothing but self-righteous slop. A reprimand and or suspension for a day without pay would have sufficed. You're just a miserable, hypocritical prick.
|
|
|
|
Lazy Editors
|
Judged:
1
Are you kidding wrote: <quoted text>
How would I gather facts from an anonymous forum?
What facts were missing?
Speak up or shut up. You've proven my point moron. Without any facts to back it up you concluded "You are obviously the ugly husband, and a mope." You are correct in stating that you did not have all the facts, but that did not stop you from making an incorrect conclusion/statement, much like the Courant has done on numerous occasions. Using your methods of collecting facts and reaching conclusions it's obvious that you are a festering wound on the back end of a farm animal that watches way to much Jerry Springer. You also fail to commprehend the more significant points of my earlier post, the fact that 1)the Courant chides her for seeking 15 minutes of fame while at the same time granting it to her (and extending it!) and 2)had the story not had some sexual tidbits, the Courant would not have published (a topic they all too often seem fit to print ratherthan more important stories).
|
|
Are you kidding
|
WTF wrote: <quoted text>
She "deserves" to lose her job? Your entire post is nothing but self-righteous slop. A reprimand and or suspension for a day without pay would have sufficed. You're just a miserable, hypocritical prick. Gee. It takes one to know one, doesn't it pant load? Now go jack yourself off you butt ugly mope.
|
|
Illogical Editors
|
Judged:
1
Are you kidding wrote: <quoted text>
Gee. It takes one to know one, doesn't it pant load?
Now go jack yourself off you butt ugly mope. Is that what you do while watching Springer?
|
|
WTF
|
Are you kidding wrote: <quoted text>
Gee. It takes one to know one, doesn't it pant load?
Now go jack yourself off you butt ugly mope. I expected nothing less from a miserable prick. I rest my case.
|
|
Are you kidding
|
WTF wrote: <quoted text>
I expected nothing less from a miserable prick. I rest my case. Wow. You are seriously mentally ill. Take you pills laddy. In fact, why don't you take a handfull and do us all a favor you pant load.
|
|
mary
|
Jim Johnson wrote: This is obviously written by someone who has never listened to the Stern show 1 day in his or her life.
I don't agree with Ms. Jarry taking a sick day to do this, but to blame Howard Stern or take a shot at his show for this is obsurd.
10 million people listen to Howard's show day in an day out and everyone pays $12 a month for it now, I don't think his career is based on "Flash and Cash" to quote the article.
I'm sick of reading these type of editorials from people who have never listened to more than a clip of Howard's show on TV and base their opinions solely on that or what others have said.
The same people who complain about Howard are the ones cheating on their wives, committing crimes or listen to Pat Robertson (who bashes everyone eho doesn't send him money).
I think we all need to grow up in this society. And as a side note: I always find it amazing that Baby Boomers who did whatever they wanted, protested, complained, whined and cried to get whatever they wanted, complain when people of a new generation do what they want. What a bunch of HYPOCRITES!! Why would someone who bashes Howard the Pig be more likely to cheat on their wives or commit crimes? What kind of logic are you using in that comment? IMO, Howard lovers are more apt to be cheating on their wives, if anyone is. I suppose you're also defending what he and his staff did to Dolly Parton? Howard is just one disgusting pig, and no one could ever convince me otherwise. I've seen his show in the days when it was free on television, and I'm not proud to admit it. He's all about women's body parts and vile, disgusting comments. I can't stand him. He doesn't care who's reputation he hurts.
|
|
Jedediah
|
I "politely" and hopefully not against this forum's rules policy against inappropriate posts say that the writer of the article about Ms. Jarry is a prudish bore. She called out sick. Who cares. Her kids were fine, she didn't impair their ability to learn, she CALLED OUT SICK. It's not the end of the world and the reaction to it is just another case of our culture's,(American culture,) fear of anything even remotely connected to sex. There's no one reading this who didn't come from someone having sex with someone else, and most readers probably have had sex fairly recently. Why is such a natural act demonized?
|
|
Greg Boyington
|
Jedediah wrote: I "politely" and hopefully not against this forum's rules policy against inappropriate posts say that the writer of the article about Ms. Jarry is a prudish bore. She called out sick. Who cares. Her kids were fine, she didn't impair their ability to learn, she CALLED OUT SICK. It's not the end of the world and the reaction to it is just another case of our culture's,(American culture,) fear of anything even remotely connected to sex. There's no one reading this who didn't come from someone having sex with someone else, and most readers probably have had sex fairly recently. Why is such a natural act demonized? If you make your living feeding at the public teet, especially as a school teacher, you should be held to a higher standard of conduct. She clearly was not able to live up to that standard. She called in sick when she was not sick, which required the taxpayers to pay for a substitute teacher. That was a lie at best, fraud at worst. Her conduct, if it becomes know to the children in the school (and it will become known) is an unnecessary distraction. The woman showed extremely poor judgement. We can and should demand better of those to whom we entrust our children. It ain't about sex.
|
|
Teacher
|
How many of us would live up to that standard. I have made mistakes before I became a teacher, when I was a teacher, and I am sure after I retire. Let's be compassionate here. We show compassion for politicians who make mistakes. We show compassion for drug abusers. This lady is being used as a scapegoat.
Let's teach our children how NOT to overreact. But to be accountable for your behavior. make the punishment fit the crime.
It'll be very sad if she is not reinstated!
VERY sad.
|
|
Careful reader
|
Teacher wrote: How many of us would live up to that standard. I have made mistakes before I became a teacher, when I was a teacher, and I am sure after I retire. Let's be compassionate here. We show compassion for politicians who make mistakes. We show compassion for drug abusers. This lady is being used as a scapegoat.
Let's teach our children how NOT to overreact. But to be accountable for your behavior. make the punishment fit the crime.
It'll be very sad if she is not reinstated!
VERY sad. Seems to me she was held to account.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
