Washington-Loving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I asked my son who goes to W-L about the name and he said all the kids think it's awful and if they name his school that he's transferring to Wakefield.

Well, that's one way to balance the FARMS rates at Wakefield...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

NP. It’s not unreasonable to ask why APS would consider renaming a school after a couple with no ties to Arlington or NoVa. Do you always call people who aren’t as “progressive” as you are “idiots”? That doesn’t sound very “loving” at all.

The kids and most in the community would despise that name.

The other options on the committee list:
Washington-Lincoln: president, but wasn't from VA/Arlington
Tubman: no direct relation to VA/Arlington
Liberty: "value" that has no direct connection to VA/Arlington

The Lovings were from Virginia, and the SCOTUS case is titled Loving v. Virginia. I think it's kind of fitting to have a school named after them in the commonwealth of Virginia after they successfully beat the state's racist policies of the 1960s.

Lincoln reviewed the Union troops in Arlington - look up the Grand Review.

Washington-Loving is such a stupid name.

Harriet Tubman worked together with the abolitionist John Brown in then state of Virginia. She was a more honorable figure than Washington or Lee in my opinion. The school should be named after her before any of the others on the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

NP. It’s not unreasonable to ask why APS would consider renaming a school after a couple with no ties to Arlington or NoVa. Do you always call people who aren’t as “progressive” as you are “idiots”? That doesn’t sound very “loving” at all.

The kids and most in the community would despise that name.

The other options on the committee list:
Washington-Lincoln: president, but wasn't from VA/Arlington
Tubman: no direct relation to VA/Arlington
Liberty: "value" that has no direct connection to VA/Arlington

The Lovings were from Virginia, and the SCOTUS case is titled Loving v. Virginia. I think it's kind of fitting to have a school named after them in the commonwealth of Virginia after they successfully beat the state's racist policies of the 1960s.

Lincoln reviewed the Union troops in Arlington - look up the Grand Review.

Washington-Loving is such a stupid name.

Harriet Tubman worked together with the abolitionist John Brown in then state of Virginia. She was a more honorable figure than Washington or Lee in my opinion. The school should be named after her before any of the others on the list.

Your opinion.

And John Brown was a murderer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

NP. It’s not unreasonable to ask why APS would consider renaming a school after a couple with no ties to Arlington or NoVa. Do you always call people who aren’t as “progressive” as you are “idiots”? That doesn’t sound very “loving” at all.

The kids and most in the community would despise that name.

The other options on the committee list:
Washington-Lincoln: president, but wasn't from VA/Arlington
Tubman: no direct relation to VA/Arlington
Liberty: "value" that has no direct connection to VA/Arlington

The Lovings were from Virginia, and the SCOTUS case is titled Loving v. Virginia. I think it's kind of fitting to have a school named after them in the commonwealth of Virginia after they successfully beat the state's racist policies of the 1960s.

Lincoln reviewed the Union troops in Arlington - look up the Grand Review.

Washington-Loving is such a stupid name.

Harriet Tubman worked together with the abolitionist John Brown in then state of Virginia. She was a more honorable figure than Washington or Lee in my opinion. The school should be named after her before any of the others on the list.

Agree but as someone mentioned earlier, then you'd get "Wash-Tub". I think that'd be better than McLovin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked my son who goes to W-L about the name and he said all the kids think it's awful and if they name his school that he's transferring to Wakefield.

Well, that's one way to balance the FARMS rates at Wakefield...

Maybe that's the real motive for picking such a dumb name

[Anonymous]

I think we can all agree that if they are going to narrow the possibilities to name with the greatest virtue signaling, it’s not going to have a fantastic mascot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Not everyone's life centers around W-L under any name. I am am (following your "are are" example) stupidly entrenched in elementary school boundary changes, which I naively believe is far more important in reflecting our values and providing education than the name of a high school. But rest assured, I am now "up to spend" (I may be stupid, but I assume you meant "speed") on the basics. However, I'm still ignorantly wondering who came up with the suggestion in the first place - was the committee handed a list to work from or did the committee develop the original list?

The whole process seems ridiculous to me. If "Lee" is the objection, just drop "Lee" and be George Washington HS Generals. I'd prefer Quincy HS. But I'm too ignorant, so I'll assume that's a stupid idea.

The committee came up with the list using vague criteria, and then voted for the one they wanted on the final list and the name to present to the school board. And yes, there were student reps on it. The person presenting the name to the SB is a student rep. They polled the SCA, and the majority approved of Washington-Loving as a name.

And people wanted to keep the W-L acronym. That’s probably why they didn’t make it Quincy or George Washington high school.

I think they need to poll the entire student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Not everyone's life centers around W-L under any name. I am am (following your "are are" example) stupidly entrenched in elementary school boundary changes, which I naively believe is far more important in reflecting our values and providing education than the name of a high school. But rest assured, I am now "up to spend" (I may be stupid, but I assume you meant "speed") on the basics. However, I'm still ignorantly wondering who came up with the suggestion in the first place - was the committee handed a list to work from or did the committee develop the original list?

The whole process seems ridiculous to me. If "Lee" is the objection, just drop "Lee" and be George Washington HS Generals. I'd prefer Quincy HS. But I'm too ignorant, so I'll assume that's a stupid idea.

The committee came up with the list using vague criteria, and then voted for the one they wanted on the final list and the name to present to the school board. And yes, there were student reps on it. The person presenting the name to the SB is a student rep. They polled the SCA, and the majority approved of Washington-Loving as a name.

And people wanted to keep the W-L acronym. That’s probably why they didn’t make it Quincy or George Washington high school.

I think they need to poll the entire student body.

It's a name only a politician, or aspiring one, could like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Not everyone's life centers around W-L under any name. I am am (following your "are are" example) stupidly entrenched in elementary school boundary changes, which I naively believe is far more important in reflecting our values and providing education than the name of a high school. But rest assured, I am now "up to spend" (I may be stupid, but I assume you meant "speed") on the basics. However, I'm still ignorantly wondering who came up with the suggestion in the first place - was the committee handed a list to work from or did the committee develop the original list?

The whole process seems ridiculous to me. If "Lee" is the objection, just drop "Lee" and be George Washington HS Generals. I'd prefer Quincy HS. But I'm too ignorant, so I'll assume that's a stupid idea.

The committee came up with the list using vague criteria, and then voted for the one they wanted on the final list and the name to present to the school board. And yes, there were student reps on it. The person presenting the name to the SB is a student rep. They polled the SCA, and the majority approved of Washington-Loving as a name.

And people wanted to keep the W-L acronym. That’s probably why they didn’t make it Quincy or George Washington high school.

I think they need to poll the entire student body.

It's a name only a politician, or aspiring one, could like.

Especially in Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

I think this is a great example right here of why the school should not be renamed Washington-Loving if this is the kind of reaction we are going to get from people who support the name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate this name. My DC, a W-Ler, hates this name. If they choose it, we will go the Prince route (My DC attends the School Formerly Known as Washington-Lee). Is there no prominent Arlingtonian whose last name starts with L?

Yes, there is. He's even buried in Arlington. His name was Lee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

NP. It’s not unreasonable to ask why APS would consider renaming a school after a couple with no ties to Arlington or NoVa. Do you always call people who aren’t as “progressive” as you are “idiots”? That doesn’t sound very “loving” at all.

The kids and most in the community would despise that name.

The other options on the committee list:
Washington-Lincoln: president, but wasn't from VA/Arlington
Tubman: no direct relation to VA/Arlington
Liberty: "value" that has no direct connection to VA/Arlington

The Lovings were from Virginia, and the SCOTUS case is titled Loving v. Virginia. I think it's kind of fitting to have a school named after them in the commonwealth of Virginia after they successfully beat the state's racist policies of the 1960s.

Lincoln reviewed the Union troops in Arlington - look up the Grand Review.

Washington-Loving is such a stupid name.

Harriet Tubman worked together with the abolitionist John Brown in then state of Virginia. She was a more honorable figure than Washington or Lee in my opinion. The school should be named after her before any of the others on the list.

Your opinion.

And John Brown was a murderer.

Correct. Not only was he a murderer, but he was a rapist as well. Buuuut, he's black so he fits the bill, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked my son who goes to W-L about the name and he said all the kids think it's awful and if they name his school that he's transferring to Wakefield.

Well, that's one way to balance the FARMS rates at Wakefield...

Maybe that's the real motive for picking such a dumb name

SB isn't that smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Not everyone's life centers around W-L under any name. I am am (following your "are are" example) stupidly entrenched in elementary school boundary changes, which I naively believe is far more important in reflecting our values and providing education than the name of a high school. But rest assured, I am now "up to spend" (I may be stupid, but I assume you meant "speed") on the basics. However, I'm still ignorantly wondering who came up with the suggestion in the first place - was the committee handed a list to work from or did the committee develop the original list?

The whole process seems ridiculous to me. If "Lee" is the objection, just drop "Lee" and be George Washington HS Generals. I'd prefer Quincy HS. But I'm too ignorant, so I'll assume that's a stupid idea.

The committee came up with the list using vague criteria, and then voted for the one they wanted on the final list and the name to present to the school board. And yes, there were student reps on it. The person presenting the name to the SB is a student rep. They polled the SCA, and the majority approved of Washington-Loving as a name.

And people wanted to keep the W-L acronym. That’s probably why they didn’t make it Quincy or George Washington high school.

I think they need to poll the entire student body.

and not on the list - an open poll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

NP. It’s not unreasonable to ask why APS would consider renaming a school after a couple with no ties to Arlington or NoVa. Do you always call people who aren’t as “progressive” as you are “idiots”? That doesn’t sound very “loving” at all.

The kids and most in the community would despise that name.

The other options on the committee list:
Washington-Lincoln: president, but wasn't from VA/Arlington
Tubman: no direct relation to VA/Arlington
Liberty: "value" that has no direct connection to VA/Arlington

The Lovings were from Virginia, and the SCOTUS case is titled Loving v. Virginia. I think it's kind of fitting to have a school named after them in the commonwealth of Virginia after they successfully beat the state's racist policies of the 1960s.

Lincoln reviewed the Union troops in Arlington - look up the Grand Review.

Washington-Loving is such a stupid name.

Harriet Tubman worked together with the abolitionist John Brown in then state of Virginia. She was a more honorable figure than Washington or Lee in my opinion. The school should be named after her before any of the others on the list.

Your opinion.

And John Brown was a murderer.

Correct. Not only was he a murderer, but he was a rapist as well. Buuuut, he's black so he fits the bill, right?

John Brown was black? What!? OMG, we need better history text books in VA stat.

And this is probably why we're going to get stuck with Washington-Loving. Idiots on every side.