Descent BB

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > School Board Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:56 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

By now most of you have seen the school board shooting incident. If not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQjQOlJvMzE

Now I have a couple questions for you all. First one is one that may take Roids black mind arts to answer and that is what is the psychology of the moment. It is interesting to watch the dynamics between the shooter and the people at the meeting. Note their actions. A certain calm seems to be part of the school board members as though reasonable discourse will save the day. Is this the minds way of handling the stress of the moment?

Also you will note a Hollywood myth negated. How was it disproved in this vid?

Also the question is begged, if all the board members were known to be packing heat, would the shooter have shown up with gun in hand?

Lastly, what averted a massacre here?
Grendel
Ninja Admin




PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:10 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Woodchip wrote:
Lastly, what averted a massacre here?

Guy must have been drunk -- he didn't land a single hit. Or he didn't care because he was trying to suicide.

Who wrote that ? G. wrote:
My take is that the guy had no intention of hitting anyone with any bullets. He may have showed up there with those intentions, but I sensed that he had lost the balls to carry out the deed.

_________________
Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people. -- Thor Heyerdahl
Durch einen Stich bereits geschafft, erschlafft und ohne Saft und Kraft! -- Donald, examining a Deflator Dextrospirillus
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:57 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

yah if he knew everyone would be armed he'd probably bring an AT4 or something. that's what I would do.

If anything, this video proves to me that gun control should be even stricter. Why would someone as mentally unstable as this be allowed to carry a gun? You know what I mean? Kudos to how the board handled it, that was fantastic but yikes.
Ferno
BDSM Fanatic




PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:00 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Zuruck wrote:
If anything, this video proves to me that gun control should be even stricter. Why would someone as mentally unstable as this be allowed to carry a gun? You know what I mean? Kudos to how the board handled it, that was fantastic but yikes.


yup, make it even harder for people to defend themselves.

real smart.
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:48 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Or not let mentally unstable people own guns? That would seem to be the more logical approach, but when have you ever let logic dictate your decisions Ferno?

*on a side note: I'm sure it's completely impossible to know if people are going to flip the switch one day and go balls crazy. It's just fun watching a Canadian act like he knows American policy better than everyone else.
Ferno
BDSM Fanatic




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:03 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

zuruck: to put it simply, gun control has been a huge failure. those who needed firearms did not have them when they were needed.

I just watched the video and I'm not sure if this guy was mentally unstable at all. he seemed pretty lucid and coherent during the entire ordeal and it seemed to be more of a power trip than a mental breakdown. Now if the board members had firearms, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have even got a single shot off.

"It's just fun watching a Canadian act like he knows American policy better than everyone else"

hey, I know this. it's the "he doesn't know anything because he's not one of us" game. awesome! Can I play, too? Just out of curiosity, how much do you know of the country that I reside in?

Also, what I'd like to know from you is how you think stricter gun control would have prevented him from stealing a gun from someone and perpetrating this.
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:56 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Zuruck wrote:
Or not let mentally unstable people own guns? That would seem to be the more logical approach, but when have you ever let logic dictate your decisions Ferno?



Zuruck this could be one of your dopier comments. How would you know someone may become mentally unstable? Got a good test?
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:18 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

What Ferno says is true. When a individual knows he is going up against unarmed individuals, he knows the cards are in his favor and that he controls the situation. The way the gunman walks around you can sense he knows he has the power over the school board and he is exerting it to the max. If he had known that the school board members were armed, perhaps he would of went to the meeting unarmed and tried to present his case in a more sane manner.

As to a myth being busted, in movies when a guy is shot, it is depicted as though he was hit with a sledge hammer and gets knocked down or goes flying. Towards the end, just after he fires off the first round you see him flinch. That flinch is the only immediate effect of a school guard shooting the gunman 3 times in the gunman's back (not sure of caliber of guards firearm). No flying forward as a result of the bullets hitting, and in fact the gunman starts firing more rounds toward the school board members. Then he falls to the ground. What this vid doesn't show is the next few seconds where even on the ground the gunman turns and fires multiple rounds back towards the school guard before ultimately committing suicide. Lesson here? Don't think you're going to one shot someone, instead, keep shooting until the guy goes down. Even then back away and find cover.
Krom
DBB Admin




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:40 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Carrying around a handgun that could one shot drop someone would be pretty uncomfortable and entirely not worth the astronomical odds against ever actually needing it.

_________________
(19:11) [D3k]Gooberman: pffft, I didnt get owned baal, you just got 60 lucky fusion shots
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:39 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Woodchip, you obviously did not read the first sentence of my post. Read the second one, pay attention to the part where I specifically say that it's impossible to know that someone is going to lose it one day and go balls crazy. As for the lesson, I already knew that. Go watch Bud Dwyer's suicide video and you see the same thing.

Ferno, I am not arguing for greater gun control. A reasonable person knows what a futile effort is and gun control is one of those efforts. We could all go in circles about this videotape because we all have different beliefs in preventative measures.

I'd love a Desert Eagle. Is it legal to carry a pistol with that high of a caliber?
Ferno
BDSM Fanatic




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:07 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Zuruck wrote:
If anything, this video proves to me that gun control should be even stricter.


Quote:
I am not arguing for greater gun control.


really? seems like you are.
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:17 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Nope. What the video advocates does not mean it is what I believe. The man in the video snapped and he is taking out his frustration in the worst way possible. An idea, albeit impossible, would be to keep guns out of the hands of people like this. But I know that's impossible, there are fights worth fighting and this isn't one of them.

B- knows that I have always been on here ranting and raving about guns, but things change. It's not that my beliefs have changed; I simply know that the Supreme Court decided that citizens can have their guns. Because I am a person of reason, I am able to go along with that. Like I said before, this country is not just for me but for everyone (except for you Ferno). I may not like something, but someone else may love it and I am able to reconcile with that. That is the problem with society today; no one is willing to concede anything because they think it's all for themselves.

edit: I'm curious Ferno, when you watch that video, the theme that you pick up is that everyone should have been armed and that would have resolved the situation?
B-
Cocked & Locked




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:42 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Who are you and what have you done with Zuruck?

_________________
i found peace mother fucker-Jbomb
..its fucking retarded to be a bigot. so chew on that....faggots.- jbomb
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:53 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
Don't think you're going to one shot someone, instead, keep shooting until the guy goes down


Guarantee you the security guard was carrying a 9mm. Had it been a .45, one shot would have done the job. 9mm's suck. They make small holes and punch straight through. I've heard of people being shot 6-7 times with a 9mm and living. A .45 on the other hand, will leave a huge exit wound and more than likely just the impact itself will put him on his ass.
B-
Cocked & Locked




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:57 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
Guarantee you the security guard was carrying a 9mm. Had it been a .45, one shot would have done the job. 9mm's suck. They make small holes and punch straight through. I've heard of people being shot 6-7 times with a 9mm and living. A .45 on the other hand, will leave a huge exit wound and more than likely just the impact itself will put him on his ass.


I love your enthusiasm for the .45. It's by far my favorite and my choice of carry caliber. However, none of what you said was accurate. Smile

_________________
i found peace mother fucker-Jbomb
..its fucking retarded to be a bigot. so chew on that....faggots.- jbomb
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:45 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Not correct about the 9mm or the .45?

Edit: Heh, you ever heard of anybody surviving 6-7 shots of .45: Razz
Ferno
BDSM Fanatic




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:49 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Zuruck wrote:
edit: I'm curious Ferno, when you watch that video, the theme that you pick up is that everyone should have been armed and that would have resolved the situation?


not resolved; prevented.
Grendel
Ninja Admin




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:13 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
Guarantee you the security guard was carrying a 9mm. Had it been a .45, one shot would have done the job. 9mm's suck. They make small holes and punch straight through. I've heard of people being shot 6-7 times with a 9mm and living. A .45 on the other hand, will leave a huge exit wound and more than likely just the impact itself will put him on his ass.

Heh. Just wrong ammo -- try Winchester Silvertip or Cor-Bon JHP.

Quote:
As early as 1986, in the NRA's book Handloading stated that "the modern science of wound ballistics has established beyond reasonable doubt that the 9mm cartridge is highly effective."

_________________
Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people. -- Thor Heyerdahl
Durch einen Stich bereits geschafft, erschlafft und ohne Saft und Kraft! -- Donald, examining a Deflator Dextrospirillus
B-
Cocked & Locked




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:31 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
Not correct about the 9mm or the .45?


Well, both actually, but in different ways. No handgun, or practical rifle round using its kinetic energy alone will drop an assailant. It's a very common misconception that a .45, .357, 44 magnum, shotgun, et al, has knock down power. Knock down power is a myth. It's also widely believed that a 9mm will simply poke holes and create a small primary and secondary wound channel and that used to be reasonably true. With today's ammunition, penetration and expansion are so well controlled that primary wound channels are almost identical and secondary wound channels differ only by the expansion size of the projectile..penetration is almost identical in ballistics gel. The other issue is that with terminal ballistics there is no consistency when studying the affects on the human body. Ballistics gel is our best source of data and even then it's only useful to some degree because almost every strike is remarkably different from the last. The human body is not consistent.

Quote:
Edit: Heh, you ever heard of anybody surviving 6-7 shots of .45: Razz


Hehe.. I've seen 11 shots with a .45 and the guy survived. I've seen 1 shot with a .22 and the guy dropped like someone flipped his switch.. I've seen everything in between.

I tell you this because if you ever have to defend yourself with a firearm I don't want you to be surprised and freeze if the assailant continues an attack after he's been shot. People tend to lock-up when their expectations of instant incapacitation isn't met...The odds of stopping an assailant quickly with a handgun is very, very slim.

Sorry to hijack your thread.

_________________
i found peace mother fucker-Jbomb
..its fucking retarded to be a bigot. so chew on that....faggots.- jbomb
B-
Cocked & Locked




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:35 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message


_________________
i found peace mother fucker-Jbomb
..its fucking retarded to be a bigot. so chew on that....faggots.- jbomb
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:54 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Yeah your right I guess. I'm no expert. My opinion on the 9mil was actually formed many years ago when i read an article in a gun magazine and there were lot of real first hand complaints. To tell the truth I only keep a MarkIII close, but I practice 3 round bursts with it Smile. Other 2 are a 590 A1 and a Marlin mod39 that's a friggin blast to shoot. My favorite by far. I'm hoping to replace the MarkIII with a sp101 soon enough . Then I need a good rifle right? Smile. Still, if I was in the same predicament as the security guard, I'd feel more comfortable with the .45. Lol
B-
Cocked & Locked




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:35 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I own a 1923 Model 39 that belonged to my grandpappy(39A came around mid-30's) and it is a fun little rifle to shoot. My father shot it as a kid and broke a spring in the late 50's/early 60's. He improvised by creating a spring from a woman's bobby-pin and the stupid thing is still in there and it works perfectly! heh!
The MarkIII and 590 are excellent firearms as well and you can't go wrong with an SP101- You can take a GP100/SP101 and build a house with them.. when you're finished you'll be able to shoot it down. They're built like tanks.

_________________
i found peace mother fucker-Jbomb
..its fucking retarded to be a bigot. so chew on that....faggots.- jbomb
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:50 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Yeah I actually have the 39D shorter version. Its alot of fun shooting at shotgun shells with it Smile I keep my eyes out for the 39A but without the rebounding hammer. The 590 A1 zeros slugs at 100 yards so I was real happy choosing it besides it's obvious advantages. What I like about the sp101 is the ability to fire .38 and .357, plus just for the reason I have to lug this thing around anyway, the revolver makes the most sense to me. Probably never need it, but you can expect it to perform exactly as designed if you do.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:28 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Zuruck wrote:
I'd love a Desert Eagle. Is it legal to carry a pistol with that high of a caliber?


That really depends on where you live, Z. For example, a D.E. might be somewhat awkward in States that require a concealed carry, such as FL. Especially given that arrest is almost certain if someone detects the weapon and decides to call the cops. On the other hand, if you lived in Vermont, you could probably walk down the street twirling it on your finger.

Neo you need a Mateba Model 6. Smile

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Woodchip
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:00 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Zuruck wrote:
Woodchip, you obviously did not read the first sentence of my post. Read the second one, pay attention to the part where I specifically say that it's impossible to know that someone is going to lose it one day and go balls crazy. As for the lesson, I already knew that. Go watch Bud Dwyer's suicide video and you see the same thing.


I stand corrected

Zuruck wrote:
I'd love a Desert Eagle. Is it legal to carry a pistol with that high of a caliber?


As long as you can properly carry it concealed.
Neo
[deleted]




PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:29 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

In the 1920's the "school board" was the paddle used to spank unruly whippersnapper kids Razz

Bunyip wrote:
Neo you need a Mateba Model 6. Smile


Looks like you were talking to Zuruck...

I see you got Neo on the brain. Wink
MD-2389
Insane!




PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:25 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Zuruck wrote:
yah if he knew everyone would be armed he'd probably bring an AT4 or something. that's what I would do.

If anything, this video proves to me that gun control should be even stricter. Why would someone as mentally unstable as this be allowed to carry a gun?


How exactly would you test for mental stability? Have you met anyone that is, for instance, bi-polar? I don't mean this "my sugar is out of whack moody" crap, but genuine medically controlled bi-polar. How exactly is the guy behind the counter going to tell that Joe the Plumber isn't bi-polar? How about PTSD, or any number of mental disorders that aren't outwardly obvious?

Watching the video, IMO (and I don't claim to be an expert here) the guy seemed to be on more of a power trip than anything else. The fact that he missed at that close of a range tells me three things: Either he was off his meds (assuming that he has a mental dis-order requiring medication), he had been drinking not long before barging in, or he missed on purpose and was hoping for a "suicide by cop". Hell, for all we know, it could've been a mixture of them all. He did seem obsessed with the firing of his wife, so that could qualify for the first two at least. (repeatedly asking why she was fired)

Unless you can come up with a way for a gun shop owner to test the mental stability of a buyer, I don't really see how gun control would have prevented this. The only method they have, is a background check. Even then, that's not always a reliable method. (Seriously, how cheap is it to change your name these days?)

Quote:
You know what I mean? Kudos to how the board handled it, that was fantastic but yikes.


That's one thing the both of us can agree on. They did their best to try and keep the guy calm, and tried to talk him down. (Although in hindsight, the guy did screw up, by repeatedly saying that he didn't know who she was, when he signed the form.)
Neo
[deleted]




PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 12:10 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
...bring an AT4 or something.


Hey, leave my fianceé out of this. ^_~
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:05 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Neo wrote:
Looks like you were talking to Zuruck...

I see you got Neo on the brain. Wink


No, I wasn't talking to Zuruck. I just saw that gun and thought it would be the perfect piece for you to display on /k/ ... If you actually owned it, that is.

Smile

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:43 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Jesus MD, this is two topics in a row that you're late to the party and completely clueless. Read the posts big guy, we've already established that a test for mental stability is impossible. Ease up off the dope man
Neo
[deleted]




PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:28 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bunyip wrote:
Neo wrote:
Looks like you were talking to Zuruck...

I see you got Neo on the brain. Wink


No, I wasn't talking to Zuruck. I just saw that gun and thought it would be the perfect piece for you to display on /k/ ... If you actually owned it, that is.

Smile


Whatever that means. 9_6

I still like my AT4. =P I'm in luv with her and I'm going to marry her. ^_~
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:29 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Can I see a picture? Smile

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Neo
[deleted]




PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:30 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Sure, why not? ^_~

I might take her to school with me so she can meet some of my teachers. ^_~
MD-2389
Insane!




PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:34 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Neo wrote:
Bunyip wrote:
Neo wrote:
Looks like you were talking to Zuruck...

I see you got Neo on the brain. Wink


No, I wasn't talking to Zuruck. I just saw that gun and thought it would be the perfect piece for you to display on /k/ ... If you actually owned it, that is.

Smile


Whatever that means. 9_6

I still like my AT4. =P I'm in luv with her and I'm going to marry her. ^_~


And call her George? Wink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlVqfC8-UI
MD-2389
Insane!




PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:01 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

To get this back on a more serious note: Something related to a previous comment in this thread.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/29/132407384/whats-a-mental-disorder-even-experts-cant-agree

Quote:
December 29, 2010

The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or DSM, updated roughly every 15 years, has detailed descriptions of all the mental disorders officially recognized by psychiatry. It's used by psychiatrists, insurance companies, drug researchers, the courts and even schools.

The definitions for some mental disorders may change in the new edition of the DSM.

But it's not without controversy: The proposed changes suggested this year have sparked a kind of civil war within psychiatry.

In a small condo on the beach in San Diego lives Allen Frances, who blames himself for what he calls the "Epidemic of Asperger's." Frances edited the last edition of the DSM, and he's also the new DSM's most prominent critic.

Frances is the one who put the word Asperger's in the DSM in the first place, thereby making it an official mental disorder.

In the editions before Frances was editor, there was an entry for autism, but it was defined by severe symptoms. Frances says doctors felt the diagnosis for autism didn't cover a more mild disorder they were actually encountering.

"Pediatricians and child psychiatrists would see kids who could talk but who had social discomfort — severe social discomfort — and awkwardness and a very restricted and impairing level of interests and activities, and they wanted a diagnosis for this," Frances says.

A study was done to figure out how common Asperger's was, and the results were clear: It was vanishingly rare. Then Frances put it in the DSM, and the number of kids diagnosed with the disorder exploded. Frances remembers sitting in his condo reading articles about this new epidemic of Asperger's that was sweeping the nation.

"At that point I did an 'oops,' " he says. "This is a complete misunderstanding. It was distressing. Quite distressing."

Surprising Incentives

It's not that Frances doesn't think that Asperger's exists and is a real problem for some people; he does. But he also believes the diagnosis is now radically overused in a way that he and his colleagues never intended. And why, in his view, did Asperger's explode? Primarily, Frances says, because schools created a strange unintentional incentive.

"In order to get specialized services, often one-to-one education, a child must have a diagnosis of Asperger's or some other autistic disorder," he says.

"And so kids who previously might have been considered on the boundary, eccentric, socially shy, but bright and doing well in school would mainstream [into] regular classes," Frances says. "Now if they get the diagnosis of Asperger's disorder, [they] get into a special program where they may get $50,000 a year worth of educational services."

Disturbing Consequences

Frances worried this might cause a misallocation of school resources. And Frances points to another change he made — which, for him, has had even more disturbing consequences. Essentially, Frances and his colleagues made it much easier to get a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. And he says that created this incredible opportunity for drug companies.

"Drug companies got indications for treating bipolar disorder," Frances says. "Not just with mood stabilizers, but also with the newer antipsychotic drugs. And they began very intensive ubiquitous advertising campaigns. So the rates of bipolar disorder doubled. And lots of people got way too much antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medicines. And these aren't safe drugs."

And for Frances, the lesson of these experiences is clear. Once you put a new diagnosis in the DSM, there is no controlling what will happen to it. So there's only one thing to do:

"Anticipate the worst. If something can be misused, it will be misused," Frances says. "If diagnosis can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, that will happen. So you need to be very, very cautious in making changes that may open the door for a flood of fad diagnoses."

As far as Frances is concerned, the new DSM is proposing too many diagnoses that are written in too broad a way, meaning that ultimately a huge number of new people will be categorized as mentally ill.

Good May Outweigh Bad

William Carpenter, one of the people behind the new DSM, disagrees. Carpenter works with the sickest of the sick at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. And from where he sits, this issue of overdiagnosis is a minor affair.

All around the waiting room of his office, people suffering from psychotic disorders sit in thick clothing, eyes wide, staring silently. These are the people Carpenter sees day after day — people whose problems have been misidentified and mistreated for years. That's why one of the changes Carpenter has proposed for the new DSM is a diagnosis he thinks will help identify people with psychosis when they are in the very earliest stages of their disease, long before they ever get to his waiting room.

"If it identifies a lot of people who otherwise would not be identified, then I would think that would be a positive good," Carpenter says.

Carpenter believes that putting this new diagnosis in the new DSM will prompt research, which ultimately could produce effective treatments.

"So there's a potential very positive benefit," he says. "It's possible that it can make a remarkable difference in the long-term trajectory of their life."

The final draft of the DSM-5 won't be published until 2013. In the meantime, people like Allen Frances will agitate for the number of diagnoses and their scope to be reduced. And the small group of people in charge will face the difficult question of what to put in — and what to leave out.
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Jump to:  
   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > School Board

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Image hosting by postimage.org Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group