Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

Do you not know what an analogy is? The comparison is murder is to manslaughter as Callie’s actions are to FCPS’s actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

You don't know how analogies work, do you?

Here is a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

Do you not know what an analogy is? The comparison is murder is to manslaughter as Callie’s actions are to FCPS’s actions.

+1
Do they still have that section on the SAT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

You don't know how analogies work, do you?

Here is a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

The fact that you cited Wikipedia for this instead of a credible source speaks volumes about you, Callie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

You don't know how analogies work, do you?

Here is a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Yes I know how analogies work. I didn’t go to fcps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

Do you not know what an analogy is? The comparison is murder is to manslaughter as Callie’s actions are to FCPS’s actions.

I know what an analogy is. I also know what a terrible analogy is. This is the latter. If you don’t know better, you must be an fcps grad, or worse, and fcps school board member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

Do you not know what an analogy is? The comparison is murder is to manslaughter as Callie’s actions are to FCPS’s actions.

I didn’t say it wasn’t an analogy. I said it was a terrible analogy. Context clues are taught in elementary school, at least in districts that care about protecting students privacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

Do you not know what an analogy is? The comparison is murder is to manslaughter as Callie’s actions are to FCPS’s actions.

I didn’t say it wasn’t an analogy. I said it was a terrible analogy. Context clues are taught in elementary school, at least in districts that care about protecting students privacy.

That’s not what you said “No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?” You didn’t say it was a terrible analogy, you said that pp was comparing Callie’s actions to murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is on this thread trying to justify what she did based on the actions of FCPS. Apples and oranges my dear. What FCPS did is akin to manslaughter. What you did is akin to murder. I MIGHT be able to forgive manslaughter. Murder? Never.

You win the Internet for the stupidest analogy ever. Congrats!!!!

NP, the analogy isn't perfect but it isn't -that- bad either. Basically manslaughter is killing with some degree of negligence but not intent, murder is killing with intent. Replace "killing" with "disclosing sensitive data" and the analogy regarding intent basically holds, the only difference being Callie redacted some of the PII in her disclosure (as I understand it). That's an important distinction if the redaction was done properly and thoroughly and why the analogy isn't perfect, but the intentional vs. non-intentional distinction the PP was focusing their analogy on is also really important.

No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?

Do you not know what an analogy is? The comparison is murder is to manslaughter as Callie’s actions are to FCPS’s actions.

I didn’t say it wasn’t an analogy. I said it was a terrible analogy. Context clues are taught in elementary school, at least in districts that care about protecting students privacy.

That’s not what you said “No. It’s terrible. Comparing what she did to murder?” You didn’t say it was a terrible analogy, you said that pp was comparing Callie’s actions to murder.

I’ll type slowly for you. It (the analogy) is terrible. Comparing what she did to murder is terrible.

Obviously, I’m wasting my time explaining this to you. You see fcps’s negligence as just an incidental accident. Common sense is not so common these days. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Yep, Mrs. Oettinger has angered some momma and poppa bears. Looks like she got her porridge just right, she thinks. I wonder how this will turn out for you in the courts Mrs. Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep, Mrs. Oettinger has angered some momma and poppa bears. Looks like she got her porridge just right, she thinks. I wonder how this will turn out for you in the courts Mrs. Oettinger?

lol. Her organization is a 501 c3. You can’t sue her for work she did under that. Hahahahhahahahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, Mrs. Oettinger has angered some momma and poppa bears. Looks like she got her porridge just right, she thinks. I wonder how this will turn out for you in the courts Mrs. Oettinger?

lol. Her organization is a 501 c3. You can’t sue her for work she did under that. Hahahahhahahahaha!

Which was ALL of IT!!!! Game. Set. Match. Callie wins again!!!! Callie 2, FCPS 0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, Mrs. Oettinger has angered some momma and poppa bears. Looks like she got her porridge just right, she thinks. I wonder how this will turn out for you in the courts Mrs. Oettinger?

lol. Her organization is a 501 c3. You can’t sue her for work she did under that. Hahahahhahahahaha!

Which was ALL of IT!!!! Game. Set. Match. Callie wins again!!!! Callie 2, FCPS 0.

Let me Google that for you: https://getdispute.com/guide/how-to-sue-a-nonprofit-without-a-lawyer#:~:text=Like%20many%20other%20entities%2C%20non,can%20sue%20them%20for%20damages.

Having a non-profit does not mean you can't cause or be sued for damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, Mrs. Oettinger has angered some momma and poppa bears. Looks like she got her porridge just right, she thinks. I wonder how this will turn out for you in the courts Mrs. Oettinger?

lol. Her organization is a 501 c3. You can’t sue her for work she did under that. Hahahahhahahahaha!

But she FOIA’d the records as a parent—not under her awful “advocacy” organization. I’d think she is still fair game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue any and everyone. But also lobby for a state law that prevents publishing private medical information that was mistakenly provided.

We are where we are because a judge ruled Callie and that other woman can legally publish private medical records. There is no benefit to the public by making these private medical records public.

Callie is a horrible person for doing this and it’s insane we need to legislate common sense. But here we are.

Not true. What she did was criminal.

Nope. That is not what the court ruling said.

Cite the ruling, otherwise you’re lying.

https://wset.com/virginia-judge-ruling-favors-fairfax-county-moms-fcps-school-board-spending-debra-tisler-callie-oettinger-goldwater-institute

Now you cite the judge’s ruling that this woman is a criminal.

DP: Doesn't have an iota to do with how she will do in a civil class action suit though. I don't even think it will be that hard. Parents against her about what she did after she got the data.

You have no legal grounds for a civil suit.