My gut feeling on 3/26 BOE vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Interesting point. This actually isn’t just a boundary study. In fact, the boundary study is the only way MCPS can get away with closing Wootton. Without moving the Wootton boundary to encompass Crown, this would be an absolute school closure and MCPS couldn’t send Wootton’s kids to Crown.

I wonder what would happen if it comes out that this entire move Wootton to Crown idea was cooked up before the State of Maryland cut a $100M check to build Crown (so MCPS wouldn’t lose the land).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Interesting point. This actually isn’t just a boundary study. In fact, the boundary study is the only way MCPS can get away with closing Wootton. Without moving the Wootton boundary to encompass Crown, this would be an absolute school closure and MCPS couldn’t send Wootton’s kids to Crown.

I wonder what would happen if it comes out that this entire move Wootton to Crown idea was cooked up before the State of Maryland cut a $100M check to build Crown (so MCPS wouldn’t lose the land).

Actually don’t think it would change the eventual outcome very much.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without question, it will all pass and all the BOE members will vote for it.

It will pass, but you might get a few BOE members who are nominated to perform and cast a no vote to make the public believe their petitions and protests made a difference.

If they cast unanimous votes it’ll validate the rubber stamping criticism they insist is not reality.

You seem to think there is a wide-ranging conspiracy that involves the superintendent and the entire BOE to do...what exactly? What is their motivation to conspire together and make this choice if it is not the one they think is best for the whole county?

It’s not a conspiracy theory if it turns out to be true. Then again, MCPS will say “oh well, too late now.”

The chronology of events and other evidence appear to show that the decision was made before community engagement.

You are convinced they’re right, so you have a clear bias. I guess the ends justify the means in your mind - laws and regulations don’t matter, and apparently the views of those most affected don’t either.

Sounds rather authoritarian.

None of this tracks, or answers the question.

Why would all of these people collude to do something “wrong.” What is the motivation?

MCPS had a $300M+ parcel with a 20-year deadline and no comparable land available—but not the data to justify a new high school. Now, instead of rethinking that decision, they’re proposing to close a 55-year-old school to make Crown work. That’s not planning—that’s backfilling a decision that was already made.

PP here. So they are trying to make the best decision today, given poor decisions in the past?

I'm OK with that. That is not a conspiracy or wrongdoing.

I'm not making the argument that H is the objectively best option (though I do think it likely is). I'm trying to get at the view that there is conspiracy/collusion, rather than a difference of opinion...

So you’re okay with what MCPS did in the past, and you’re okay with all of MCPS’ failures in pushing Option H.

I guess you’re okay with what the guy in the White House is doing - he thinks it’s the right thing to do as well.

Fortunately, courts don’t look at things that way.

You aren't making sense.

I don't need to be OK with past decisions to be OK with current decisions that are influenced by prior decisions.

And since you want to make this somehow about the White House- when the Biden administration took actions that were needed to clean up from the prior administration's actions, does that mean Biden was "OK with" those actions?

But you are okay with those past decisions, otherwise you would be calling for many MCPS people to be fired for mismanagement, and not allowing them to make any more decisions. Instead you are supporting the new decisions made by the same people who made those poor decisions.

As for current decisions, you’re okay with those too, even if MCPS has to allegedly break the law to push them through.

Finally, as for the guy in the White House, you missed the point. If the guy in charge thinks it’s the right decision, your position is that he is automatically 100% correct and must not be questioned (or sued).

Talk about living 1984 - “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

OK, so this is the definition of moving the goal posts.

1. You agree that people can and do often have to make current day decisions that are influenced by prior bad decisions, right? OK.

2. I don't have to call for people to be fired to think a bad decision was made. Bad decisions get made all the time. Have you publicly called for firing of people every time you disagree with a decision in your professional and personal life? I doubt it.

3. I never said anything at all like what you are saying about the WH. I never said people should not be questions. There is a difference between agreeing with somebody and saying that nobody should ever question them. You know this.

4. And I can be against baseless lawsuits in general. That has nothing to do with claiming anybody is immune from lawsuit. In fact, I oppose many lawsuits filed by the guy in the WH himself on the grounds that they are baseless.

You have no logic here. You are just attacking people who disagree with you.

My logic is sound. Let the courts sort this out.

And for the record, I have fired people for making bad decisions based on flawed data or a failure to get accurate data. I most certainly do not give them another chance to screw up.

I'll take this as a concession since you don't dispute anything I wrote.

Not that you are conceding Option H is the best choice, but conceding that reasonable minds may differ without those on the other side being either apologists for prior decisions or authoritarian-sympathizing peons.

Take things however you want. My logic is sound and I do dispute what you wrote. Under your view, everything MCPS does must be assumed correct- even though they created the very mess they’re allegedly trying to solve (by making it worse, but covering their tails).

Quite literally, I never said anything even remotely like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Agree to disagree. I guess it’s up to a judge to decide.

Sure-we could get a judge to decide but has anyone considered checking in with the State to determine whether they consider this an issue for them? I understand they said they don't get involved in boundary decisions and I understand that to us, this feels much more than that. I am simply wondering if they feel the same way or whether we just think they should feel that way? Is it that they have already told us they don't care how the building is used and so now we want a judge to tell them they are wrong and should care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Agree to disagree. I guess it’s up to a judge to decide.

Sure-we could get a judge to decide but has anyone considered checking in with the State to determine whether they consider this an issue for them? I understand they said they don't get involved in boundary decisions and I understand that to us, this feels much more than that. I am simply wondering if they feel the same way or whether we just think they should feel that way? Is it that they have already told us they don't care how the building is used and so now we want a judge to tell them they are wrong and should care?

Saw something in the Whatsapp chats this week about this. Someone validated with the State of MD IAC that they have no role in approving a boundary decision. A screenshot of the communication was shared…

[Anonymous]

Doubtful that there will be a final decision on 3/26.
And regional programs are still a logistical mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Agree to disagree. I guess it’s up to a judge to decide.

Sure-we could get a judge to decide but has anyone considered checking in with the State to determine whether they consider this an issue for them? I understand they said they don't get involved in boundary decisions and I understand that to us, this feels much more than that. I am simply wondering if they feel the same way or whether we just think they should feel that way? Is it that they have already told us they don't care how the building is used and so now we want a judge to tell them they are wrong and should care?

Saw something in the Whatsapp chats this week about this. Someone validated with the State of MD IAC that they have no role in approving a boundary decision. A screenshot of the communication was shared…

This is not a regular boundary decision. But again, we don’t need to debate this. Let a judge decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doubtful that there will be a final decision on 3/26.
And regional programs are still a logistical mess.

Are you kidding? If this wasn't going to sail through on the 26th, we would have seen alternatives getting raised, passed, and put out for public comment at the work sessions. Instead they all sounded on board with everything, for the most part. Do you really think they're going to pull out a surprise no vote on decision day with no warning and no backup plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Agree to disagree. I guess it’s up to a judge to decide.

Sure-we could get a judge to decide but has anyone considered checking in with the State to determine whether they consider this an issue for them? I understand they said they don't get involved in boundary decisions and I understand that to us, this feels much more than that. I am simply wondering if they feel the same way or whether we just think they should feel that way? Is it that they have already told us they don't care how the building is used and so now we want a judge to tell them they are wrong and should care?

Saw something in the Whatsapp chats this week about this. Someone validated with the State of MD IAC that they have no role in approving a boundary decision. A screenshot of the communication was shared…

This is not a regular boundary decision. But again, we don’t need to debate this. Let a judge decide.

Not sure if you saw the question I asked earlier but have we asked the state directly if they also consider this more than a boundary issue since they gave money for the building? If yes, it seems like a pretty easy things and something that we don't even need a judge for, no? Or, does the state actually already have all this info and has already indicated that they in fact do see it as a boundary study issue and/or don't really care what we do with the building? If the latter, are we just hoping a judge will then tell the state they are wrong about what their job is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Agree to disagree. I guess it’s up to a judge to decide.

Sure-we could get a judge to decide but has anyone considered checking in with the State to determine whether they consider this an issue for them? I understand they said they don't get involved in boundary decisions and I understand that to us, this feels much more than that. I am simply wondering if they feel the same way or whether we just think they should feel that way? Is it that they have already told us they don't care how the building is used and so now we want a judge to tell them they are wrong and should care?

Saw something in the Whatsapp chats this week about this. Someone validated with the State of MD IAC that they have no role in approving a boundary decision. A screenshot of the communication was shared…

This is not a regular boundary decision. But again, we don’t need to debate this. Let a judge decide.

In every other situation in your life in which a lawsuit might possibly be filed, do you also conclude that there is no value in talking about it and that “we should let the judge decide”?

I genuinely do not get this take at all.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without question, it will all pass and all the BOE members will vote for it.

It will pass, but you might get a few BOE members who are nominated to perform and cast a no vote to make the public believe their petitions and protests made a difference.

If they cast unanimous votes it’ll validate the rubber stamping criticism they insist is not reality.

You seem to think there is a wide-ranging conspiracy that involves the superintendent and the entire BOE to do...what exactly? What is their motivation to conspire together and make this choice if it is not the one they think is best for the whole county?

It’s not a conspiracy theory if it turns out to be true. Then again, MCPS will say “oh well, too late now.”

The chronology of events and other evidence appear to show that the decision was made before community engagement.

You are convinced they’re right, so you have a clear bias. I guess the ends justify the means in your mind - laws and regulations don’t matter, and apparently the views of those most affected don’t either.

Sounds rather authoritarian.

None of this tracks, or answers the question.

Why would all of these people collude to do something “wrong.” What is the motivation?

MCPS had a $300M+ parcel with a 20-year deadline and no comparable land available—but not the data to justify a new high school. Now, instead of rethinking that decision, they’re proposing to close a 55-year-old school to make Crown work. That’s not planning—that’s backfilling a decision that was already made.

PP here. So they are trying to make the best decision today, given poor decisions in the past?

I'm OK with that. That is not a conspiracy or wrongdoing.

I'm not making the argument that H is the objectively best option (though I do think it likely is). I'm trying to get at the view that there is conspiracy/collusion, rather than a difference of opinion...

So you’re okay with what MCPS did in the past, and you’re okay with all of MCPS’ failures in pushing Option H.

I guess you’re okay with what the guy in the White House is doing - he thinks it’s the right thing to do as well.

Fortunately, courts don’t look at things that way.

You aren't making sense.

I don't need to be OK with past decisions to be OK with current decisions that are influenced by prior decisions.

And since you want to make this somehow about the White House- when the Biden administration took actions that were needed to clean up from the prior administration's actions, does that mean Biden was "OK with" those actions?

But you are okay with those past decisions, otherwise you would be calling for many MCPS people to be fired for mismanagement, and not allowing them to make any more decisions. Instead you are supporting the new decisions made by the same people who made those poor decisions.

As for current decisions, you’re okay with those too, even if MCPS has to allegedly break the law to push them through.

Finally, as for the guy in the White House, you missed the point. If the guy in charge thinks it’s the right decision, your position is that he is automatically 100% correct and must not be questioned (or sued).

Talk about living 1984 - “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

OK, so this is the definition of moving the goal posts.

1. You agree that people can and do often have to make current day decisions that are influenced by prior bad decisions, right? OK.

2. I don't have to call for people to be fired to think a bad decision was made. Bad decisions get made all the time. Have you publicly called for firing of people every time you disagree with a decision in your professional and personal life? I doubt it.

3. I never said anything at all like what you are saying about the WH. I never said people should not be questions. There is a difference between agreeing with somebody and saying that nobody should ever question them. You know this.

4. And I can be against baseless lawsuits in general. That has nothing to do with claiming anybody is immune from lawsuit. In fact, I oppose many lawsuits filed by the guy in the WH himself on the grounds that they are baseless.

You have no logic here. You are just attacking people who disagree with you.

My logic is sound. Let the courts sort this out.

And for the record, I have fired people for making bad decisions based on flawed data or a failure to get accurate data. I most certainly do not give them another chance to screw up.

I'll take this as a concession since you don't dispute anything I wrote.

Not that you are conceding Option H is the best choice, but conceding that reasonable minds may differ without those on the other side being either apologists for prior decisions or authoritarian-sympathizing peons.

Take things however you want. My logic is sound and I do dispute what you wrote. Under your view, everything MCPS does must be assumed correct- even though they created the very mess they’re allegedly trying to solve (by making it worse, but covering their tails).

Quite literally, I never said anything even remotely like this.

You literally did. You claimed they are trying to make the “best decision”, so it’s clear that you agree with them and everything they’re doing. You also asked why they would conspire to do something “wrong”, so again you agree with what they’re doing.

Methinks you don’t know what “quite literally” and “remotely” mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Agree to disagree. I guess it’s up to a judge to decide.

Sure-we could get a judge to decide but has anyone considered checking in with the State to determine whether they consider this an issue for them? I understand they said they don't get involved in boundary decisions and I understand that to us, this feels much more than that. I am simply wondering if they feel the same way or whether we just think they should feel that way? Is it that they have already told us they don't care how the building is used and so now we want a judge to tell them they are wrong and should care?

Saw something in the Whatsapp chats this week about this. Someone validated with the State of MD IAC that they have no role in approving a boundary decision. A screenshot of the communication was shared…

This is not a regular boundary decision. But again, we don’t need to debate this. Let a judge decide.

Let the lawsuits commence!! Ahhhh, what I love about America. Let’s sue the sh!t out of each other!!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without question, it will all pass and all the BOE members will vote for it.

It will pass, but you might get a few BOE members who are nominated to perform and cast a no vote to make the public believe their petitions and protests made a difference.

If they cast unanimous votes it’ll validate the rubber stamping criticism they insist is not reality.

You seem to think there is a wide-ranging conspiracy that involves the superintendent and the entire BOE to do...what exactly? What is their motivation to conspire together and make this choice if it is not the one they think is best for the whole county?

It’s not a conspiracy theory if it turns out to be true. Then again, MCPS will say “oh well, too late now.”

The chronology of events and other evidence appear to show that the decision was made before community engagement.

You are convinced they’re right, so you have a clear bias. I guess the ends justify the means in your mind - laws and regulations don’t matter, and apparently the views of those most affected don’t either.

Sounds rather authoritarian.

None of this tracks, or answers the question.

Why would all of these people collude to do something “wrong.” What is the motivation?

MCPS had a $300M+ parcel with a 20-year deadline and no comparable land available—but not the data to justify a new high school. Now, instead of rethinking that decision, they’re proposing to close a 55-year-old school to make Crown work. That’s not planning—that’s backfilling a decision that was already made.

PP here. So they are trying to make the best decision today, given poor decisions in the past?

I'm OK with that. That is not a conspiracy or wrongdoing.

I'm not making the argument that H is the objectively best option (though I do think it likely is). I'm trying to get at the view that there is conspiracy/collusion, rather than a difference of opinion...

So you’re okay with what MCPS did in the past, and you’re okay with all of MCPS’ failures in pushing Option H.

I guess you’re okay with what the guy in the White House is doing - he thinks it’s the right thing to do as well.

Fortunately, courts don’t look at things that way.

You aren't making sense.

I don't need to be OK with past decisions to be OK with current decisions that are influenced by prior decisions.

And since you want to make this somehow about the White House- when the Biden administration took actions that were needed to clean up from the prior administration's actions, does that mean Biden was "OK with" those actions?

But you are okay with those past decisions, otherwise you would be calling for many MCPS people to be fired for mismanagement, and not allowing them to make any more decisions. Instead you are supporting the new decisions made by the same people who made those poor decisions.

As for current decisions, you’re okay with those too, even if MCPS has to allegedly break the law to push them through.

Finally, as for the guy in the White House, you missed the point. If the guy in charge thinks it’s the right decision, your position is that he is automatically 100% correct and must not be questioned (or sued).

Talk about living 1984 - “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

OK, so this is the definition of moving the goal posts.

1. You agree that people can and do often have to make current day decisions that are influenced by prior bad decisions, right? OK.

2. I don't have to call for people to be fired to think a bad decision was made. Bad decisions get made all the time. Have you publicly called for firing of people every time you disagree with a decision in your professional and personal life? I doubt it.

3. I never said anything at all like what you are saying about the WH. I never said people should not be questions. There is a difference between agreeing with somebody and saying that nobody should ever question them. You know this.

4. And I can be against baseless lawsuits in general. That has nothing to do with claiming anybody is immune from lawsuit. In fact, I oppose many lawsuits filed by the guy in the WH himself on the grounds that they are baseless.

You have no logic here. You are just attacking people who disagree with you.

My logic is sound. Let the courts sort this out.

And for the record, I have fired people for making bad decisions based on flawed data or a failure to get accurate data. I most certainly do not give them another chance to screw up.

I'll take this as a concession since you don't dispute anything I wrote.

Not that you are conceding Option H is the best choice, but conceding that reasonable minds may differ without those on the other side being either apologists for prior decisions or authoritarian-sympathizing peons.

Take things however you want. My logic is sound and I do dispute what you wrote. Under your view, everything MCPS does must be assumed correct- even though they created the very mess they’re allegedly trying to solve (by making it worse, but covering their tails).

Quite literally, I never said anything even remotely like this.

You literally did. You claimed they are trying to make the “best decision”, so it’s clear that you agree with them and everything they’re doing. You also asked why they would conspire to do something “wrong”, so again you agree with what they’re doing.

Methinks you don’t know what “quite literally” and “remotely” mean.

I definitely am curious why you think they might conspire to do something wrong? What do you think is in it for them?

[Anonymous]

Why keep discussing and threatening a lawsuit? What happened to all the money collected for an attorney? It's a done deal.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without question, it will all pass and all the BOE members will vote for it.

It will pass, but you might get a few BOE members who are nominated to perform and cast a no vote to make the public believe their petitions and protests made a difference.

If they cast unanimous votes it’ll validate the rubber stamping criticism they insist is not reality.

You seem to think there is a wide-ranging conspiracy that involves the superintendent and the entire BOE to do...what exactly? What is their motivation to conspire together and make this choice if it is not the one they think is best for the whole county?

It’s not a conspiracy theory if it turns out to be true. Then again, MCPS will say “oh well, too late now.”

The chronology of events and other evidence appear to show that the decision was made before community engagement.

You are convinced they’re right, so you have a clear bias. I guess the ends justify the means in your mind - laws and regulations don’t matter, and apparently the views of those most affected don’t either.

Sounds rather authoritarian.

None of this tracks, or answers the question.

Why would all of these people collude to do something “wrong.” What is the motivation?

MCPS had a $300M+ parcel with a 20-year deadline and no comparable land available—but not the data to justify a new high school. Now, instead of rethinking that decision, they’re proposing to close a 55-year-old school to make Crown work. That’s not planning—that’s backfilling a decision that was already made.

PP here. So they are trying to make the best decision today, given poor decisions in the past?

I'm OK with that. That is not a conspiracy or wrongdoing.

I'm not making the argument that H is the objectively best option (though I do think it likely is). I'm trying to get at the view that there is conspiracy/collusion, rather than a difference of opinion...

So you’re okay with what MCPS did in the past, and you’re okay with all of MCPS’ failures in pushing Option H.

I guess you’re okay with what the guy in the White House is doing - he thinks it’s the right thing to do as well.

Fortunately, courts don’t look at things that way.

You aren't making sense.

I don't need to be OK with past decisions to be OK with current decisions that are influenced by prior decisions.

And since you want to make this somehow about the White House- when the Biden administration took actions that were needed to clean up from the prior administration's actions, does that mean Biden was "OK with" those actions?

But you are okay with those past decisions, otherwise you would be calling for many MCPS people to be fired for mismanagement, and not allowing them to make any more decisions. Instead you are supporting the new decisions made by the same people who made those poor decisions.

As for current decisions, you’re okay with those too, even if MCPS has to allegedly break the law to push them through.

Finally, as for the guy in the White House, you missed the point. If the guy in charge thinks it’s the right decision, your position is that he is automatically 100% correct and must not be questioned (or sued).

Talk about living 1984 - “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

OK, so this is the definition of moving the goal posts.

1. You agree that people can and do often have to make current day decisions that are influenced by prior bad decisions, right? OK.

2. I don't have to call for people to be fired to think a bad decision was made. Bad decisions get made all the time. Have you publicly called for firing of people every time you disagree with a decision in your professional and personal life? I doubt it.

3. I never said anything at all like what you are saying about the WH. I never said people should not be questions. There is a difference between agreeing with somebody and saying that nobody should ever question them. You know this.

4. And I can be against baseless lawsuits in general. That has nothing to do with claiming anybody is immune from lawsuit. In fact, I oppose many lawsuits filed by the guy in the WH himself on the grounds that they are baseless.

You have no logic here. You are just attacking people who disagree with you.

My logic is sound. Let the courts sort this out.

And for the record, I have fired people for making bad decisions based on flawed data or a failure to get accurate data. I most certainly do not give them another chance to screw up.

I'll take this as a concession since you don't dispute anything I wrote.

Not that you are conceding Option H is the best choice, but conceding that reasonable minds may differ without those on the other side being either apologists for prior decisions or authoritarian-sympathizing peons.

Take things however you want. My logic is sound and I do dispute what you wrote. Under your view, everything MCPS does must be assumed correct- even though they created the very mess they’re allegedly trying to solve (by making it worse, but covering their tails).

Quite literally, I never said anything even remotely like this.

You literally did. You claimed they are trying to make the “best decision”, so it’s clear that you agree with them and everything they’re doing. You also asked why they would conspire to do something “wrong”, so again you agree with what they’re doing.

Methinks you don’t know what “quite literally” and “remotely” mean.

Asking why someone might conspire to do something intentionally wrong is not the same as believing that everything they do is right.

Believing that people are trying to make the best decision they can is not the same as blindly concluding that the decision they make is in fact objectively the best.

This is getting exhausting.

Let’s try this: is it at all possible in your view that somebody could in good faith and with good intentions conclude that Option H is a good idea, even if they are wrong in that belief?