I wouldn't get too philosophical about his comments.
He probably just used this terminology because currently there are no students and hardly any staff around the school. I've been there the last few days. Typically, this is the time of year when there is "down time", and there are mainly paperwork and maintenance needs to be addressed. If he's been "let go", seems reasonable he wouldn't be too worried about planning for personnel / student needs for next year there, don't you think?
Watchmen -- ummmm, I'm pretty sure Foodchain is typing with tongue firmly planted in his fingers (hmmm, that didn't sound quite right...anyway)
This is a partial repost from other thread...sorry, but want it said here, since it somewhat applies to a comment above...
At the high school, I had the privilege of teaching theatre classes, directing a couple theatre productions, and working to improve the accountability of people who used the SSHS theatre so that it is maintained as a higher quality performing arts space in town (it used to be pretty loosey goosey when it came to people and groups using and abusing it). I'm sure I've probably rankled a few people along the way, though that was never my intention. I wanted to strive for excellence, and I believed that's what Mike wanted also.
I would have liked Mike to have had a better idea of what the performing arts could do for students, but what I appreciated about him was that he trusted me, and I felt great support from that. His door was always open, and he truly listened whenever I had something to tell him or had an important (or not so important) question. He seemed to understand the reality of "politics", but he also seemed to put the students' needs above the pettier aspects of that.
Something about the way this was all handled doesn't really pass the "smell" test, since it was objectively pointed out that he improved in four out of five areas, and he got pretty darn good feedback from the staff, overall. And, if true, this is the first negative evaluation he received in 20 years of education work. I've been a supervisor, and I would much rather have a person who is willing to change working for me than to go out looking for an unknown entity. Unless the person has done something terribly wrong or immoral, why not try and work with him? The truth may yet come out once this is all over.
I certainly wish Mike well. I know the feeling of being unjustly judged because of people's "impressions" or personal biases, rather than on empirical evidence. I also personally know (who were even mentioned in a comment above) a couple people who had run-ins with him, and who yet think he has not been treated fairly here.
He allowed creativity to flourish in my area of extertise, and I thank him. I'm only hoping that whoever they get to replace him will be at least as committed to excellence in the performing arts, even in the face of unreasonable pressure from others (notice the word "unreasonable"). I also hope they find someone as funny, humble, reasonable, big-picture thinking, forward-looking, student-loving, staff-encouraging, and imperfect as he was.
I, too, would like to see objectivity in the reasons for Mike's "ousting" (an unnecessarily insensitive word for the Pilot to use), but I have lived long enough and seen too often decisions made by those in power, based purely on just getting what they want because they want it.
At the high school, I had the privilege of teaching theatre classes, directing a couple theatre productions, and working to improve the accountability of people who used the SSHS theatre so that it is maintained as a higher quality performing arts space in town (it used to be pretty loosey goosey when it came to people and groups using and abusing it). I'm sure I've probably rankled a few people along the way, though that was never my intention. I wanted to strive for excellence, and I believed that's what Mike wanted also.
I would have liked Mike to have had a better idea of what the performing arts could do for students, but what I appreciated about him was that he trusted me, and I felt great support from that. His door was always open, and he truly listened whenever I had something to tell him or had an important (or not so) important question. He seemed to understand the reality of "politics", but he also seemed to put the students' needs above the pettier aspects of that.
Something about the way this was all handled doesn't really pass the "smell" test, since it was objectively pointed out that he improved in four out of five areas, and he got great feedback from the staff. And, if true, this is the first negative evaluation he received in 20 years of education work. I've been a supervisor, and I would much rather have a person who is willing to change working for me than to go out looking for an unknown entity. The truth may yet come out once this is all over.
I certainly wish Mike well. I know personally a couple people who had run-ins with him, but he allowed creativity to flourish in my area of extertise, and I thank him. I'm only hoping that whoever they get to replace him will be as committed to excellence in the performing arts, even in the face of unreasonable pressure from others (notice the word "unreasonable"). I also hope they find someone as funny, humble, reasonable, big-picture thinking, forward-looking, student-loving, staff-encouraging, and imperfect as he was.
Whoa there yourself, "condoguy" (I ain't your dang horse)! Please watch the condescension.
Last time I checked, "thinking" people generally are civil in their discourse, because they think things through before opening their mouths or typing on their keyboards. "Thinking" people don't attack others personally for their thoughts. They may disagree with those ideas and state why, but no need for putdowns. That's why the policies are here on this forum, no?
There was absolutely nothing I said that was "slanderous" about sbvor (please check the definition of the word). I certainly do welcome his thoughts and opinions, as I do anyone who is civil. If you read what I actually said, it's not the content of what he says so much as how he expresses it.
So, that IS my contribution, dude. Wanting a world where folks can listen to each other in a "thoughtful" way, and maybe learn something.
Hey, is anyone at all watching from the SP&T? Or, does removal only happen when Rob Douglas is on the scene? When sbvor tried his bullying ways on Rob's article, he was shut up quickly. I'm just kinda wondering if any of the following count as "ad hominem" attacks? And, if so, why hasn't this person been banned?
I sure would like to come on here every now and then and discuss ideas with an open mind, but it's really impossible when we have to slog through all sbvor's comments and attacks. For the love of Buddha...!
"your idiotic Wikipedia obsession" "are you just another Troll?" "You're a typical Dim!" "Jihad (Appropriate Moniker)" "which I KNOW, Troll that you are" "Anyone who is fool enough to think my views and my terminology are shared only by me must be a Dim."
My friend, all you need do to answer your 8:10pm questions is review Bob's comments regarding you in the posts above. Seems a bit disingenuous to refer to your "1,905" comments (I'm assuming you're referring to those only under "sbvor"), when you actually had two other screen names that were "banned" by this very same SP&T (according to Bob)? Why were you banned those times? Was it simply for a "certain subject", too?
Please, just re-read Bob's comments above. Your answers lie there.
sbvor, I have no problem with honest questions. It's sarcasm and inuendo in civil discourse that I have problems with. Please feel free to link to all my previous posts. If you find much of a trace of sarcasm, I'd be surprised (but, hey, I'm human). Now, let's review sbvor's postings and just compare, shall we? I think it's been established that sbvor is basically on his last finger when it comes to being banned. Must be a pretty good reason for that. Hmmmmm...
As to answering your question, my answer has NOTHING to do with putting this man's sermon in some kind of context. It doesn't matter WHERE I got that video. I was responding to the initial poster, which is what I thought we're supposed to do in here.
Jazzslave, Please, stop the condescending attitude. Expressing your "loathing" for those other people is NOT the same as judging me on this forum ("tremendously fragile sort", "run away sobbing yet"). I am recommending that your last post be removed as well. Rob Douglas was able to get comments removed for inappropriate remarks towards him - I only hope the Pilot gives all of us this same respect.
I have no probem with "competing opinions and differing viewpoints", it's attempts at bullying (from anonymous sources) that I disagree with. Ignoring an anonymous poster is hardly "running away". It merely shows I have little respect for people who hide behind a screen name.
I put my name on my posts, because I have nothing to hide. And, no...I could care less who you really are. It's called "integrity". I think a person would need to have a pretty "thick skin" to put their name here, don't you? I OWN my opinions and thoughts on here.
Funny how the people on here who are so quick to resort to name calling and character-attacking are the first ones to scream, "Why do you need to know who I am?" So, please spare us.
I would appreciate it if you would stop connecting my ideas with other viewpoints I do NOT agree with. That is offensive and is only done to "needle" others, and I'm recommending that your last post be deleted.
It is CERTAINLY not a way to carry on civil debate by flinging inuendos, and by not keeping your sarcasm and false associations out of your posts, you violate the terms of this forum.
"that's right, boys & girls: JazzSlave waded into the feces so you don't have to." Sounds pretty much like trying to discourage us (I never said "prevent") from watching it. There's no need whatsoever to tell us we don't need to watch the video. We can make up our own minds, thanks.
I haven't made up my mind yet what I think about the Wright sermon, so that's why no comment. But, I think it's vitally important to get contexts out there for discussion. OK, perhaps I should have said "thoughtful" instead of "honest" discussions. Is that better for you? If you actually read my comments, I stated that I put the link there for folks to see the context of the sermon. Nothing more. You actually help demonstrate the need for more reasoned and thoughtful discussion. Thanks, bud!
Funny, Jazzslave. I never said if I was on any "side" in this debate. I just think we're way too used to sound bites from our media (on any side of the political spectrum) and not as used to careful and deliberate thought. I always think people should be heard in the context in which they speak. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not sure why you have such a desire to want to keep us from making up our own minds about this issue, but how about we let people observe on their own and come to their own conclusions?
Future uncertain
ID,
I wouldn't get too philosophical about his comments.
He probably just used this terminology because currently there are no students and hardly any staff around the school. I've been there the last few days. Typically, this is the time of year when there is "down time", and there are mainly paperwork and maintenance needs to be addressed. If he's been "let go", seems reasonable he wouldn't be too worried about planning for personnel / student needs for next year there, don't you think?
June 12, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Future uncertain
Watchmen -- ummmm, I'm pretty sure Foodchain is typing with tongue firmly planted in his fingers (hmmm, that didn't sound quite right...anyway)
This is a partial repost from other thread...sorry, but want it said here, since it somewhat applies to a comment above...
At the high school, I had the privilege of teaching theatre classes, directing a couple theatre productions, and working to improve the accountability of people who used the SSHS theatre so that it is maintained as a higher quality performing arts space in town (it used to be pretty loosey goosey when it came to people and groups using and abusing it). I'm sure I've probably rankled a few people along the way, though that was never my intention. I wanted to strive for excellence, and I believed that's what Mike wanted also.
I would have liked Mike to have had a better idea of what the performing arts could do for students, but what I appreciated about him was that he trusted me, and I felt great support from that. His door was always open, and he truly listened whenever I had something to tell him or had an important (or not so important) question. He seemed to understand the reality of "politics", but he also seemed to put the students' needs above the pettier aspects of that.
Something about the way this was all handled doesn't really pass the "smell" test, since it was objectively pointed out that he improved in four out of five areas, and he got pretty darn good feedback from the staff, overall. And, if true, this is the first negative evaluation he received in 20 years of education work. I've been a supervisor, and I would much rather have a person who is willing to change working for me than to go out looking for an unknown entity. Unless the person has done something terribly wrong or immoral, why not try and work with him? The truth may yet come out once this is all over.
I certainly wish Mike well. I know the feeling of being unjustly judged because of people's "impressions" or personal biases, rather than on empirical evidence. I also personally know (who were even mentioned in a comment above) a couple people who had run-ins with him, and who yet think he has not been treated fairly here.
He allowed creativity to flourish in my area of extertise, and I thank him. I'm only hoping that whoever they get to replace him will be at least as committed to excellence in the performing arts, even in the face of unreasonable pressure from others (notice the word "unreasonable"). I also hope they find someone as funny, humble, reasonable, big-picture thinking, forward-looking, student-loving, staff-encouraging, and imperfect as he was.
Michael Brumbaugh
June 11, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Knezevich ousted
I, too, would like to see objectivity in the reasons for Mike's "ousting" (an unnecessarily insensitive word for the Pilot to use), but I have lived long enough and seen too often decisions made by those in power, based purely on just getting what they want because they want it.
At the high school, I had the privilege of teaching theatre classes, directing a couple theatre productions, and working to improve the accountability of people who used the SSHS theatre so that it is maintained as a higher quality performing arts space in town (it used to be pretty loosey goosey when it came to people and groups using and abusing it). I'm sure I've probably rankled a few people along the way, though that was never my intention. I wanted to strive for excellence, and I believed that's what Mike wanted also.
I would have liked Mike to have had a better idea of what the performing arts could do for students, but what I appreciated about him was that he trusted me, and I felt great support from that. His door was always open, and he truly listened whenever I had something to tell him or had an important (or not so) important question. He seemed to understand the reality of "politics", but he also seemed to put the students' needs above the pettier aspects of that.
Something about the way this was all handled doesn't really pass the "smell" test, since it was objectively pointed out that he improved in four out of five areas, and he got great feedback from the staff. And, if true, this is the first negative evaluation he received in 20 years of education work. I've been a supervisor, and I would much rather have a person who is willing to change working for me than to go out looking for an unknown entity. The truth may yet come out once this is all over.
I certainly wish Mike well. I know personally a couple people who had run-ins with him, but he allowed creativity to flourish in my area of extertise, and I thank him. I'm only hoping that whoever they get to replace him will be as committed to excellence in the performing arts, even in the face of unreasonable pressure from others (notice the word "unreasonable"). I also hope they find someone as funny, humble, reasonable, big-picture thinking, forward-looking, student-loving, staff-encouraging, and imperfect as he was.
Michael Brumbaugh
June 11, 2008 at 12:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Project aims to verify carbon offsets
Whoa there yourself, "condoguy" (I ain't your dang horse)! Please watch the condescension.
Last time I checked, "thinking" people generally are civil in their discourse, because they think things through before opening their mouths or typing on their keyboards. "Thinking" people don't attack others personally for their thoughts. They may disagree with those ideas and state why, but no need for putdowns. That's why the policies are here on this forum, no?
There was absolutely nothing I said that was "slanderous" about sbvor (please check the definition of the word). I certainly do welcome his thoughts and opinions, as I do anyone who is civil. If you read what I actually said, it's not the content of what he says so much as how he expresses it.
So, that IS my contribution, dude. Wanting a world where folks can listen to each other in a "thoughtful" way, and maybe learn something.
April 17, 2008 at 12:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Project aims to verify carbon offsets
Hey, is anyone at all watching from the SP&T? Or, does removal only happen when Rob Douglas is on the scene? When sbvor tried his bullying ways on Rob's article, he was shut up quickly. I'm just kinda wondering if any of the following count as "ad hominem" attacks? And, if so, why hasn't this person been banned?
I sure would like to come on here every now and then and discuss ideas with an open mind, but it's really impossible when we have to slog through all sbvor's comments and attacks. For the love of Buddha...!
"your idiotic Wikipedia obsession"
"are you just another Troll?"
"You're a typical Dim!"
"Jihad (Appropriate Moniker)"
"which I KNOW, Troll that you are"
"Anyone who is fool enough to think my views and my terminology are shared only by me must be a Dim."
April 15, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: The sins of the Father
sbvor,
My friend, all you need do to answer your 8:10pm questions is review Bob's comments regarding you in the posts above. Seems a bit disingenuous to refer to your "1,905" comments (I'm assuming you're referring to those only under "sbvor"), when you actually had two other screen names that were "banned" by this very same SP&T (according to Bob)? Why were you banned those times? Was it simply for a "certain subject", too?
Please, just re-read Bob's comments above. Your answers lie there.
March 28, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: The sins of the Father
sbvor,
I have no problem with honest questions. It's sarcasm and inuendo in civil discourse that I have problems with. Please feel free to link to all my previous posts. If you find much of a trace of sarcasm, I'd be surprised (but, hey, I'm human). Now, let's review sbvor's postings and just compare, shall we? I think it's been established that sbvor is basically on his last finger when it comes to being banned. Must be a pretty good reason for that. Hmmmmm...
As to answering your question, my answer has NOTHING to do with putting this man's sermon in some kind of context. It doesn't matter WHERE I got that video. I was responding to the initial poster, which is what I thought we're supposed to do in here.
Jazzslave,
Please, stop the condescending attitude. Expressing your "loathing" for those other people is NOT the same as judging me on this forum ("tremendously fragile sort", "run away sobbing yet"). I am recommending that your last post be removed as well. Rob Douglas was able to get comments removed for inappropriate remarks towards him - I only hope the Pilot gives all of us this same respect.
I have no probem with "competing opinions and differing viewpoints", it's attempts at bullying (from anonymous sources) that I disagree with. Ignoring an anonymous poster is hardly "running away". It merely shows I have little respect for people who hide behind a screen name.
I put my name on my posts, because I have nothing to hide. And, no...I could care less who you really are. It's called "integrity". I think a person would need to have a pretty "thick skin" to put their name here, don't you? I OWN my opinions and thoughts on here.
Funny how the people on here who are so quick to resort to name calling and character-attacking are the first ones to scream, "Why do you need to know who I am?" So, please spare us.
Thanks,
Mike Brumbaugh
March 28, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: The sins of the Father
sbvor,
I would appreciate it if you would stop connecting my ideas with other viewpoints I do NOT agree with. That is offensive and is only done to "needle" others, and I'm recommending that your last post be deleted.
It is CERTAINLY not a way to carry on civil debate by flinging inuendos, and by not keeping your sarcasm and false associations out of your posts, you violate the terms of this forum.
March 28, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: The sins of the Father
Jazz slave,
"that's right, boys & girls: JazzSlave waded into the feces so you don't have to." Sounds pretty much like trying to discourage us (I never said "prevent") from watching it. There's no need whatsoever to tell us we don't need to watch the video. We can make up our own minds, thanks.
I haven't made up my mind yet what I think about the Wright sermon, so that's why no comment. But, I think it's vitally important to get contexts out there for discussion. OK, perhaps I should have said "thoughtful" instead of "honest" discussions. Is that better for you? If you actually read my comments, I stated that I put the link there for folks to see the context of the sermon. Nothing more. You actually help demonstrate the need for more reasoned and thoughtful discussion. Thanks, bud!
March 28, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: The sins of the Father
Funny, Jazzslave. I never said if I was on any "side" in this debate. I just think we're way too used to sound bites from our media (on any side of the political spectrum) and not as used to careful and deliberate thought. I always think people should be heard in the context in which they speak. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not sure why you have such a desire to want to keep us from making up our own minds about this issue, but how about we let people observe on their own and come to their own conclusions?
March 26, 2008 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )