If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
| Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine
LaVonne wrote
If there is a school nurse or person designated to administer medications, that is the individual who keeps the medication. If there is no person designated But there was. to administer medications or if the medication is considered a rescue medication, (which can hold true for asthma inhalers), the teacher keeps it in a locked container or desk, or on her person when the child is very young or when the children and teacher are away from the classroom. Are you contradicting yourself? Your quote (top) used a conditional IF. Then further down you seem to refute your own logical IF by allowing for rescue medication in a lock box. How does your logic let you have it both ways? IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way? For some reason, Greg continues to make the same mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well. And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that. All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness and inability to think and reason regarding medical care. Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"? Defend it to the hilt. Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you to defend. It was stupid and that's why the criminal charges were DROPPED. About 8 years ago I drove taxicab. People brough in babies with no child seats, and NEVER buckled up. I worried about the regulations, knowing that the fines and record marks could be quite a problem. But even though they should, police don't enforce those regulations perhaps viewing it as like on a city bus where such things are not required. The letter of the law says one thing, enforcement says another thing, common sense does not always apply. A woman with twin infants and no child seats kept getting me dispatched. I expressed concern. I told her that next time she will need child seats. Then I got sent to pick her up again. A small riot almost ensued, I was cussed out by her and the cab company put me on a forced time out for the rest of the day. One persons attempt to do the right thing is viewed as the wrong thing by others. Which was right? Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented? |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
| Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
| Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine
LaVonne wrote
If there is a school nurse or person designated to administer medications, that is the individual who keeps the medication. If there is no person designated snip Greg wrote But there was. Kane wrote it has zero to do with anything that the school had a nurse in that particular incident. How could somebody's expression "If there is a school nurse" have nothing to do with whether or not there is a school nurse? Kane wrote How is it a contradiction to point out both possibilities? When a person says IF x THEN y, but assumes the resultant condition y EITHER way, that's Pretzel logic. Kane wrote Shows how much you know about school. Schools don't have school nurses any more Greegor, The ordinary elementary we worked with here had a nurse. (Generalizations are easy to refute) But more importantly, the school IN THE INHALER STORY definately had a nurse. Did you lose track of that? unless they are some huge magnet school. Nope. None involved. School districts have nurses, or schools have part time nurses if they are small isolated schools. Nope. Full time. School districts haven't had the money for years to have full time nurses, or other services personnel. They cover districts. Nope. Not in my limited experience, which is all it takes to puncture your generalization. But there WAS a nurse in the case in question, and so by LaVonne's own logic, THAT person is in charge of locking up the inhaler, not the teacher with some inhaler in a drawer. And believe it or not even if they had ONE "rescue" medication means administer it right [e.d.]NOW you little [e.d.]head. You don't really think they are supposed to wait for the nurse if it's a rescue situation, do you? Thank you, Kane. You just argued MY stated point. LaVonne and some others are trying to justify the bureaucratic delays that leave the girl in the story choking on her way to the school nurse. The bureaucrats seem to have little care for urgency. They care more about "the letter of the law" and proper bureaucratic chain of command than urgency. In a conflict between instant emergency care and officialdom, they side with delay and officialdom. How does your logic let you have it both ways? IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way? How many pulls on your hookah does it take before your logic deteriorts completely? I don't smoke anything, and don't own any sort of water pipe, Turkish or otherwise. Lavonne wrote For some reason, Greg continues to make the same mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well. Greg wrote And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that. Kane wrote Yes, quite. I noticed that too. The things you see often aren't there. Maybe you should TRY a Hookah, it might help you. I noticed that you will do just about anything, even appear the village idiot, Remember, it takes a village idiot to raise a child. to divert others, and I think even yourself, from the truth More like your OBSESSION than the truth. of what you have done to that little girl and her mother. But we aren't going to forget. You know, Kane, even if the twisted assertions you and Dan have pushed for so long were true, the DHS fabrication of a ""Sexual Abuse History"" by caseworkers is a problem so severe that I would say that anybody who is in favor of Child Protection such as yourself would see such CPS corruption as WORSE than even the child abuse you imagine. To fictionalize and fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History"" and then when it's disproved, REFUSE to correct such a known falsehood, is a pretty severe violation. If CPS has to resort to perjury and frame ups to get child abusers, then they are culpable. To blame me for their falsehoods about me is nonsense. In fact, the attitudes you and Dan display your cynical paranoid fertive imaginations about evil are partly indirect reflections of the big lie. Your concept of the truth is very similar to this lie. Fertive imagination presuming evil deeds that were not. Hell, how can we? You are still here. Of course. Who is this "we" you are talking about? All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness and inability to think and reason regarding medical care. Yah know if you had anything to lose dummy I'd invite you to run up to the next person you see down on the street and start doing some rescue meds adminstration. Given them some asprin too while you are at it. In fact had there been no inhalator maybe asprin might have helped..right? If I HAD a hookah, I'd give it to you at this point. Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"? Well considering the issues of infectious diseases, The boy and girl were a COUPLE, Kane. Did you ever even read the story? using a health appliance that administers who know what because no one but the kids would know what's in it Both mothers, the nurse and the teacher would have all KNOWN that the two inhalers were identical medication and dosage. All of your "who knows what" was in fact known. and not even then if some other kids played around with it, I'd say it's YOU that's obviously a Zombie. Just in time to look for THE GREAT PUMPKIN, right Kane? Tell you what. Next time you have a stuffy nose walk down the street and ask someone for the use of the nasal sprayer. I am my own variety of lunatic, I don't need to be you. Defend it to the hilt. Absolutely. Most laws pertaining to health issues are extremely well thought out and often introduced from medical associations to stop fools like you from being little rescue Annie's that kill people. Why do you mock Rescue Annie? The rescue dummy saved more lives than you can dream of. She was called Resusci-Annie when I practiced the kiss of life. The emt's that got there were practically having fist fights to stop them. The ER docs estmated that half the injured children died because of rescue trauma inflicted by little [e.d] like you. The other half were all emt stabilized before transport. In other words, every child moved by a non-emt died. Not one died that had the proper treatment died. Interesting story. A train obliterates a school bus and you blame all of the deaths onto the non-emt's? How long did it take for the EMT's to get there? What is the average time for EMT's to arrive on accident scenes? How many died before the EMT's even arrived? Sure, I believe that untrained improper first aid can make things worse or kill people, but your story reminds me a bit of your demogoguery in other areas. Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you to defend. Which bureaucratic ineptitude are you referring to? There was non in that case you are talking about. The girl is alive. How does that prove there was no bureaucratic ineptitude? Have any wrecks? One where damage indicated it was more like fast deer hit me. Was a big one moving faster than I was out of a dark lot. No passengers. At the beginning of this post you tried your best to create a question about LaVonne and a perceived by you lack of consistency. You just got through defending "common sense" then claim you tried to do the right thing and got in gigged for it, Yes, the right thing is generally NOT adhering to "the letter of the law". I should point out that somebody ELSE in this thread began using the expression "letter of the law" as if prickly technicality is the way to go. The story was to illustrate that in the gritty real world, "letter of the law" is a pathetic joke, even to police officers. It's the stuff that makes Barney Fife so hilarious. yet you want others to do the right thing and get away with it. Put that way, I can't disagree. ..hmmm...interesting isn't it? Yes, fascinating. Which was right? Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented? Well, so far you've just presented yet another bungled attempt to get people to forget what you are. WHAT I am? Objectifying me? Dehumanizing tactic? Hmm.. Is your goal to be remembered, Kane? Does that explain all of your scatological references? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
| Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine
Does that explain all of your scatological references?
Just think, folks, this guy claims to be a higher up in supervision of Child Protective Services. Your tax dollars at work! And you can guess from his rhetoric what a fine, just, even-handed FAIR job Child Protection does. Hey Kane, have you ever met "Curio" ? Napolis? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
| Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine
"Donna Metler" wrote in message ... Oh, and one more thing which hasn't been pointed out yet. Inhalers require mouth contact, which means that by using another child's inhaler, the child is possibly being exposed to various infectious diseases. While in this case the two children had almost certainly had mouth-to-mouth contact, this is another reason to restrict use of an inhaler to the person for which it was intended. I can't imagine passing an inhaler around is sanitary. Bottom line-if your child needs medication, MAKE SURE they have the medication. Period. I repeat one more time.. what about shared soft drink bottles and cans, and kissing. I can hardly imagine sharing an inhaler is less than sanitary. Somehow selective memory kicks in when one is trying to have things their way.. and not another. Try delibration... consider the best and worse case... before jumping to conclusions as our legislators do all too frequently.. unless they are blinded by the color green or an imaginary vote .. then all bets are off. bobb |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|