APS - School Shifts in the Fall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting to see the Smart Restart people completely losing their minds today.

I’m not a Smart Restart person but I’m tired of this nonsense.

You don’t know who is SR and who isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. I don't have to put in more work, because that Twitter account did it for me. Not a smart look to come back to harass more APE members.

Look at the followers list. Most, if not all SR members. 'Nuff said.

I can't find it

Agree, I'm not on twitter, so I can't see who follows and who the account is following. It's obviously an account made by BE, however, and I find it hysterical he turned it back on and is pretending it's not him because someone screen-shoted it.

This makes no sense. He was obviously fine sharing it under his own name on AEM so why would he put it under an anon account?
Whoever the twitter person is wants to be anonymous.

+1

Surreee. I’m sure he wasn’t thinking oh I can make it look like it’s someone else! And then FOIA cubed happen and we all know there was only one FOIA of the FOIA (still confused why the original one was a big deal but okay). So then today he thought I’ll make it seem like it’s someone at APS... heheh evil laugh oh crap that didn’t work either back to protected. Was enlighten to see the only people who liked this trolls tweet’s. You don’t just stumble upon someone’s feed on Twitter - that’s not how it works.

No. We don’t know that at all.

You are mental.

Per APS, there was only one FOIA request. The apeshit Twitter account doesn’t even claim otherwise, they’re claiming they got the screen shot from a non-FOIA source within APS.

Per APS? Where is THAT screenshot? We only heard that from a THIRDhand source.

If you doubt the source, it would be very easy for you to prove them wrong by submitting an identical FOIA request and then posting the results. Unless and until you do, I will believe the person who did submit a request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recall SB lady is posting on AEM today. Very ballsy!

You seem very invested in trying to derail this discussion.

I'm all-in on the discussion. I do think though it's funny that no one has ever commented on the actual screenshots - the SB recall.

What is Turner's position on the SB recall? Let me guess - you'll skip right over that one again.

It's called deflection. And APE is very good at it.

Why are you attacking APE? Did you read The above? They stated that MT already spelled out her position on the SB recall buried in a AEM thread. If you want to read it, it is there. Scroll up. But I'm sure it's easier for you to attack APE.

She did not. Or if she did she deleted it.

I went back and read through every single post on that dumb thread.

No it was explained in the thread here. Sorry I wasn't clear. I just went into AEM and did a quick search for her name, his name & recall and found it. Cutting and pasting here for you.

BE: thanks for your questions. APE has on several occasions noted that there is no "APE lawsuit," and I've posted in this forum about it as well. As a candidate for School Board, I support measures which would return APS to in-person instruction for more days this school year, for those families and children who need/want it. I don't support measures that don't advance that cause, and you may count in that category the lawsuit and the recall. Finally, as several have already noted, neither the lawsuit or the recall are backed by APE (nor the Republican party to my knowledge, though I'm a Democrat).

Yes Miranda said she doesn't support the recall. But she is on the Steering Committee of APE and EHN's post said APE is considering a recall of Board members. It didn't say "I" or even "we." It said APE.

Of course they all want to run from it now that they got exposed and it looks bad....

and really what chance did they have to recall anyways?

+1. APE sure didn't like that being out there did they?

All i will say about SR and APE is that one group has people infiltrating the other to take screen shots to try to “out” them in some way, while the other does not. That tells me a lot about who has integrity and who doesn’t.

GMAFB. APE members were attempting to doxx teachers. Tell us more about that integrity.

Not to mention slimy Republicans who sue APS.

Shut it, Sally. No one is impressed by you.

Ok, teacher hater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting to see the Smart Restart people completely losing their minds today.

I’m not a Smart Restart person but I’m tired of this nonsense.

You don’t know who is SR and who isn’t.

No one is forcing you to read it. That’s your own choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. I don't have to put in more work, because that Twitter account did it for me. Not a smart look to come back to harass more APE members.

Look at the followers list. Most, if not all SR members. 'Nuff said.

I can't find it

Agree, I'm not on twitter, so I can't see who follows and who the account is following. It's obviously an account made by BE, however, and I find it hysterical he turned it back on and is pretending it's not him because someone screen-shoted it.

This makes no sense. He was obviously fine sharing it under his own name on AEM so why would he put it under an anon account?
Whoever the twitter person is wants to be anonymous.

+1

Surreee. I’m sure he wasn’t thinking oh I can make it look like it’s someone else! And then FOIA cubed happen and we all know there was only one FOIA of the FOIA (still confused why the original one was a big deal but okay). So then today he thought I’ll make it seem like it’s someone at APS... heheh evil laugh oh crap that didn’t work either back to protected. Was enlighten to see the only people who liked this trolls tweet’s. You don’t just stumble upon someone’s feed on Twitter - that’s not how it works.

No. We don’t know that at all.

You are mental.

Per APS, there was only one FOIA request. The apeshit Twitter account doesn’t even claim otherwise, they’re claiming they got the screen shot from a non-FOIA source within APS.

Per APS? Where is THAT screenshot? We only heard that from a THIRDhand source.

If you doubt the source, it would be very easy for you to prove them wrong by submitting an identical FOIA request and then posting the results. Unless and until you do, I will believe the person who did submit a request.

And who exactly was that? Did that person ever post? Share a screenshot or email text? No. Some other random person shared some recap. Could be total BS.

The SR FOIA guy shared the email text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting to see the Smart Restart people completely losing their minds today.

I’m not a Smart Restart person but I’m tired of this nonsense.

You don’t know who is SR and who isn’t.

No one is forcing you to read it. That’s your own choice.

Yes, I will continue to call out all of the BS and a-holes. Enjoy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. I don't have to put in more work, because that Twitter account did it for me. Not a smart look to come back to harass more APE members.

Look at the followers list. Most, if not all SR members. 'Nuff said.

I can't find it

Agree, I'm not on twitter, so I can't see who follows and who the account is following. It's obviously an account made by BE, however, and I find it hysterical he turned it back on and is pretending it's not him because someone screen-shoted it.

This makes no sense. He was obviously fine sharing it under his own name on AEM so why would he put it under an anon account?

Whoever the twitter person is wants to be anonymous.

+1

I'm pretty sure the style of posting will be narrowed down pretty quickly from AEM / SR folks. She/he should be ashamed.. maybe their kids can give them some schooling on morals.

I'm curious too but not enough to put any energy into it. When you start talking about analyzing style of writing, you sound unhinged. (maybe you are?)

Oh, it’s obviously BE. Who else but a law firm partner would refer to a junior associate’s abilities as a put down? I’m sure someone at the firm saw it and told him to shut it down.

I saw that, too, but thought that was intended to be a dig at Miranda herself who is a lawyer too. Maybe I misunderstood though.

[Anonymous]

So to recap, someone foia'ed MK's emails sent to APS. BE got wind of this and FOIA'ed THAT FOIA. Then someone screenshot the APS email of the original FOIA and posted it. Then the FOIA OF THE FOIA happened, which is how we found out it was BE. So there were three FOIAS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to recap, someone foia'ed MK's emails sent to APS. BE got wind of this and FOIA'ed THAT FOIA. Then someone screenshot the APS email of the original FOIA and posted it. Then the FOIA OF THE FOIA happened, which is how we found out it was BE. So there were three FOIAS.

Foia'ing the emails of a candidate for public office seems fair to me. The rest of that shit is just crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to the moderator, no they will not be quiet.. we've been quiet wayyy too long.. Too bad if you don't like the clapping and support!!!

"Quiet?" ROFL! All they've done is whine endlessly, b*tch incessantly, scream and stomp their feet all year long.

I hope if they refuse to abide by the rules of decorum, they kick them out on their ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. I don't have to put in more work, because that Twitter account did it for me. Not a smart look to come back to harass more APE members.

Look at the followers list. Most, if not all SR members. 'Nuff said.

I can't find it

Agree, I'm not on twitter, so I can't see who follows and who the account is following. It's obviously an account made by BE, however, and I find it hysterical he turned it back on and is pretending it's not him because someone screen-shoted it.

This makes no sense. He was obviously fine sharing it under his own name on AEM so why would he put it under an anon account?
Whoever the twitter person is wants to be anonymous.

+1

Surreee. I’m sure he wasn’t thinking oh I can make it look like it’s someone else! And then FOIA cubed happen and we all know there was only one FOIA of the FOIA (still confused why the original one was a big deal but okay). So then today he thought I’ll make it seem like it’s someone at APS... heheh evil laugh oh crap that didn’t work either back to protected. Was enlighten to see the only people who liked this trolls tweet’s. You don’t just stumble upon someone’s feed on Twitter - that’s not how it works.

No. We don’t know that at all.

You are mental.

Per APS, there was only one FOIA request. The apeshit Twitter account doesn’t even claim otherwise, they’re claiming they got the screen shot from a non-FOIA source within APS.

Per APS? Where is THAT screenshot? We only heard that from a THIRDhand source.

If you doubt the source, it would be very easy for you to prove them wrong by submitting an identical FOIA request and then posting the results. Unless and until you do, I will believe the person who did submit a request.

And who exactly was that? Did that person ever post? Share a screenshot or email text? No. Some other random person shared some recap. Could be total BS.

The SR FOIA guy shared the email text.

The person who made the original FOIA request is not on AEM, and asked a friend to post a response he wrote himself. Again, if you doubt his statement, you can easily disprove it with minimal effort. But I doubt you’ll do that, because you know it will confirm what the statement said about there only being one FOIA request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting to see the Smart Restart people completely losing their minds today.

I’m not a Smart Restart person but I’m tired of this nonsense.

You don’t know who is SR and who isn’t.

No one is forcing you to read it. That’s your own choice.

Yes, I will continue to call out all of the BS and a-holes. Enjoy!

Suit yourself, but no one believes you’re “tired” of it. You love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to recap, someone foia'ed MK's emails sent to APS. BE got wind of this and FOIA'ed THAT FOIA. Then someone screenshot the APS email of the original FOIA and posted it. Then the FOIA OF THE FOIA happened, which is how we found out it was BE. So there were three FOIAS.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to recap, someone foia'ed MK's emails sent to APS. BE got wind of this and FOIA'ed THAT FOIA. Then someone screenshot the APS email of the original FOIA and posted it. Then the FOIA OF THE FOIA happened, which is how we found out it was BE. So there were three FOIAS.

FOIAs:
- APE guy
- unknown
- SR guy (got the copy already created for unknown)
- APE guy asked APS who requested FOIA (may not have been official FOIA)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting to see the Smart Restart people completely losing their minds today.

I’m not a Smart Restart person but I’m tired of this nonsense.

You don’t know who is SR and who isn’t.

No one is forcing you to read it. That’s your own choice.

Yes, I will continue to call out all of the BS and a-holes. Enjoy!

Suit yourself, but no one believes you’re “tired” of it. You love it.

It’s bittersweet - it’s refreshing to tell people that they are FOS but also annoying that they exist.