
đ
You know exactly whatâs going on since you started the hate. I had no idea this was the angle; just randomly fishing to see what hooks. But you hate the taste of your own medicine. |
If the Sidwell applicants successfully bash Sidwell to scare away competition, won't that also decimate the reputation of the school, which is what the applicant is paying for? |
Yes, a million times, yes. This is non a genuine thread. If you simply google it you will get exhaustive school and student reports |
It is weird that these smart successful selfish bigoted hateful people send their children to a school that teaches peace, integrity, service, equality, stewardship and community, and worse of all: 45 minutes of quiet contemplation! -- giving up on their cherished values and traditions of the opposite. |
The 21st century has an innocent questions about how you scald people who âgive up their values and family traditionsâ to go SFS. WTF are you talking about; you Middle Ages middle aged nutcase? |
As we say in my church (the church of my own choosing), Amen! |
â¤ď¸ |
They are not successful but that never stops them. Itâs an annual Barbarians at the Gates stand off |
What is this??? |
Now itâs vulnerable? But when Quakers are a minority, and itâs remarkable people should attend a meeting for 30 mins a week given they are a minority it sort of telegraphs the belief that when you are a majority you have the duty to impose your own views? Itâs very confusing |
I donât know. What values and family traditions one is allegedly giving up by going to SFS? Bigotry? Unequal treatment of women? Unscientific teachings? |
What is your gripe exactly, SFS bashers? Really? |
The values donât seem to stick. Have you been to athletic games vs. Sidwell. The kids can be mean and petty to the other team |
Sidwell uses the tenents of Quakerism as guiding principles in the same way BVR has âLife Rules,â Maret has their handful of overarching principles - individualism/joy/etc, GDS has âsocial justice.â But it is not a religious school per se. |
Yes. No they are not. Cite |