Re: Addendum: More on your unfair underestimation of Scott -- Boston Public Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:28:21 05/18/02 Sat
Author: Wakener
Subject: Re: Addendum: More on your unfair underestimation of Scott
In reply to: Hobsonphile 's message, "Addendum: More on your unfair underestimation of Scott" on 09:16:50 05/10/02 Fri

>Also, if Scott is really just a craven follower of the
>rule book, and not a man animated by deeper beliefs,
>how do you explain his willingness last week to
>stretch the rules for Ronnie's student?

First of all--I never called him "craven." And I never said he didn't have deeper beliefs. In your haste to defend him, you are making up arguments to knock down which are not mine. And then leaving mine standing. He didn't stretch the rules for Ronnie's student. Mercy is a function of justice, and when the rule book allowed him to choose between multiple just punishments, he ended up choosing one that was merciful to the girl who had done no wrong. The boy still got a week's detention, and he still had to clean up the prom setting, he was just allowed to go to the prom. As opposed to no detention, clean up the place, and not going to the prom.

How do
>explain his unwillingness to take advantage of the
>situation when Harvey asked him point-blank if he
>should quit?

That question was within the context of school business, not personal business. School-sponsored spine applies.

How do you explain him turning around
>and sincerely defending Harry's knocking a student
>unconscious (though initially he was incensed)?

The rule book and the law were on his side in this case of self-defense. School-sponsored spine applies.

How
>do you explain him changing his mind on "It's Our Town
>Too?" How do you explain his quiet and respectful
>rebuttal of Marilyn's concerns about the date auction?

These were issues of law and policy. How he may have felt about it personally was not at issue.

> Or, to go way, way back, how do you explain the fact
>that he was the first one after Marla to stand in
>Steven's defense in front of the school board, despite
>the fact that their values are different and they
>often disagree?

The question was not whether Steven had erred, but whether he had erred sufficiently to justify his removal from the school. Scott could easily come to the conclusion that *by the book,* Steven's actions did not warrant this.

People who are driven by internal
>values are more able to stretch the boundaries- and
>while Scott can sometimes be overly rigid, enough
>evidence exists to show that he is absolutely capable
>of this stretching.

Are you saying that people *NOT* driven by internal values (and I gather from the context that you mean positive ones) are *less* able to stretch the boundaries??? What do you think criminality is, if not stretching the boundaries all out of proportion?
>
>When he told Lauren that he considered discipline
>itself as a greater good, he MEANT IT. He also MEANS
>IT when he expresses concerns about excessive leniency
>or lack of academic rigor. He doesn't express these
>ideas because he is clinging to some sort of external
>source of self-esteem- he expresses these ideas
>because he SINCERELY BELIEVES THEM.

Maybe so. But the fact that these issues are in the same book from which Scott draws his spine doesn't really prove anything about how he interacts with others on a personal, non-school-related level. And...I never said self-esteem. I said *spine.*

By the way...when Marla was laying down the case against Danny last week...I thought Scott was gonna have a big "O" right there in the Principal's office. GREAT expression on his face. Good job by Heald.
>
>The truly weak men, sir, are the ones who have no
>moral center at all- the ones who feel no obligation
>to any belief or person. The weak men are the
>deadbeat dads, the chronically unemployed, the
>recidivists, etc.
>
Oh...those are the Horse Thieves. They're several steps below weak men. When I take over the world nyah ha ha, I'm going to have them all shot.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Addendum: More on your unfair underestimation of Scott -- Hobsonphile, 02:46:05 05/19/02 Sun