Puritanism strikes again

**Goofball** · 05-17-2007, 23:17

Priceless. This woman was denied her teaching certificate because she appeared in a photograph taken at a costume party of her drinking out of a plastic cup and wearing a pirate hat. The part that offended her university? The photo caption read "Drunken Pirate."

What a crock...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...72pirate1.html

**Xiahou** · 05-17-2007, 23:23

Originally Posted by Goofball

Priceless. This woman was denied her teaching certificate because she appeared in a photograph taken at a costume party of her drinking out of a plastic cup and wearing a pirate hat. The part that offended her university? The photo caption read "Drunken Pirate."

What a crock...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...72pirate1.html

Let's all jump to conclusions based only on the plaintiff's side of the story!

**Watchman** · 05-17-2007, 23:30

*bites the figurative tongue to avoid making snarky personal remarks*
Ow.

**Goofball** · 05-18-2007, 00:36

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Let's all jump to conclusions based only on the plaintiff's side of the story!

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were new here.

You see, here in the Backroom, people often post articles about current, and sometimes even controversial happenings. Often, those articles will be the first bit of reporting that they have seen about a particular issue, and yes, those articles may or may not address all sides of that particular issue.

At that point, what will usually happen is others who disagree with the original poster's premise will state their position and why they disagree with that premise. Sometimes, they even back it up with an article of their own that supports their dissenting position.

But if your position is that people should not post opinions in the backroom without having ironclad, court-worthy data to support their opinions, then I humbly submit that you are in the wrong forum.

**Blodrast** · 05-18-2007, 02:30

If that's indeed all there is to the story, then it really, really boggles the mind...
Are these people for real ?!

"It could offend her students if they accessed her MySpace page" ?!!!
There's so many things utterly absurd about all this that I really, really don't think it's worth my time putting them all down, 'cause I'm sure all of you with a smidget of common sense can think of them in a second. Unfreakingbelievable.

I was planning to become a prof, but I'll prolly reconsider, 'cause I think someone may have seen somewhere a pic of me picking my nose, or scratching the bottom of my underpants, or kissing some girl (my wife) - but without having the marriage certificate in that picture - and, damn, could that ever offend my students if they dug that up from the internets... I mean, what kind of prof would I be ?!

This is probably so messed up that it deserves a place in the "News of the Weird" thread...

**ShadeHonestus** · 05-18-2007, 04:00

Odd, at most universities if she had a video on myspace showing her as a puritan preaching the gospel she'd have her teaching certificate refused and if not her religious reeducation as indoctrination into the teacher's union will solve the problem.

**Xiahou** · 05-18-2007, 06:49

Originally Posted by Goofball

But if your position is that people should not post opinions in the backroom without having ironclad, court-worthy data to support their opinions, then I humbly submit that you are in the wrong forum.

You posted what amounted to little more than a press release from the plaintiff's attorney. There wasn't even the faintest mention of the school's position or their side of the story. The link was completely and totally biased.

If, based on that, you're concluding it's "a total crock" and "Puritanism strikes again", you're jumping to conclusions- I don't care where you are. For my part, I'd need to at least hear the other side before I go flying off the handle

At least you're humble.

**Goofball** · 05-18-2007, 17:29

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You posted what amounted to little more than a press release from the plaintiff's attorney. There wasn't even the faintest mention of the school's position or their side of the story. The link was completely and totally biased.

If, based on that, you're concluding it's "a total crock" and "Puritanism strikes again", you're jumping to conclusions- I don't care where you are. For my part, I'd need to at least hear the other side before I go flying off the handle

At least you're humble.

Wow, a conclusion jumped to based on a biased article in the Backroom.

Shock! Horror!

I note that you didn't scold one of our conservative posters for posting a biased article and then concluding based on that article that the torture at Gitmo was limited to forcing inmates to use unscented anti-perspirant.

Sounds to me like your interest in hearing "the other side" is inversely proportional to your agreement with the "first side."

At any rate, the story as presented sounds quite plausable based on similar events that have been reported of late, and so far the university has not stated anything that contradicts the woman's claim. Until they do, I will form my opinions based on the info available.

If you find something that disputes her claim, please by all means provide a link.

**HoreTore** · 05-18-2007, 17:40

Why don't teachers deserve privacy? What they do in their spare time is their own business. When you go to work, you do what your company wants you to. When you go home, you LEAVE WORK BEHIND, and do WHATEVER you want to do. Your boss does not have any business with that until you take it to your workplace. Being a teacher shouldn't be any different than other jobs.

I don't care if my teacher has been lying naked in a ditch with a bottle in his bum, a guy with an S/M costume next to him and a hooker taking pictures.