Those posts are definitely a little "different". But, that said, I don't see the authors as being up to anything particularly problematic as far as DCUM is concerned. So, I don't want to reveal anything more about them than what you already know.

Anonymous wrote:Has he ever been quoted as saying abortion should not be an option when the mother's life is in danger? I thought that's why they ultimately induced labor. She had several other children who needed a mother. Not saying I agree with him, but I don't see an inconsistency here if he recognizes an exception for the life of the mother.

This can probably be argued both ways. The reality of abortion politics means that proponents of both sides of the issues will often support half measures because that is better than nothing. In that vein, Santorum has supported -- and even introduced -- abortion bills that contained a "life of the mother" exceptions. At the same time, he has called health of the mother exceptions "phony." Then, of course, you have to split hairs between "life" and "health" of the mother. Santorum also signed on in support of Personhood USA's "personhood" amendment which would ban all abortions without a life of the mother exception. But, you could argue that he did that in order to win Iowa. You can basically find enough facts to support any argument you want to make about this.

takoma wrote:Does it really matter whether, at a time when the mother and baby were both threatened with death, the Santorums may have made a decision that is not consistent with their beliefs? I think it's parallel to the fact that I do not believe in capital punishment, but would probably want it applied to someone who killed a member of my family.

It is not the fact that he may not always manage to live by his principles that bothers me, it's the fact that he seems to believe that as president he should impose those principles on the rest of us.

I would have no problem with him acting inconsistent with his principles under these circumstances if he had learned from the experience and gained an iota of compassion for others in that position. You may not be familiar with the story of the DCUM poster "Livid", but she is illustrative of the victims of Santorum's thinking. If, following his own experience, Santorum had gained some enlightenment and become willing to make life easier for those like Livid, this would be a non-issue. As it is, he would still prohibit other women from making the same decision he and his wife made.

Anonymous wrote:

Karen took medicine that induced labor.

The article is misleading. Where does it state that the medicine wast specifically take to induce labor. The medicine induced labor but was that the intent? What was the medication?

According to this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/magazine/22SANTORUM.html?pagewanted=all

The drug was Pitocin:

"After resisting at first, she allowed doctors to give her the drug Pitocin to speed the birth."

The Salon article mentioned above focuses on antibiotics. The author doesn't seem to be aware of Pitocin being administered. Hence, the author comes to a conclusion that that probably can't be supported if Pitocin was indeed used.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the title enought, Jeff? i get what the OP is saying, but it is vile nonetheless -- let's at least delete th f'word.

I changed the subject. The thread has 65 messages. I just wanted to know if I was going to have to read all of them in order to find additional vulgarity.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I cannot believe some of the Beauvoir supporters on this site who would defame X on this Board. I am probably one of the X's as I know I have been less supportive of the school and its leadership, but I would also never stoop so low as to blame the victims of the pedophile no matter what (nor have I ever blamed the admin, but I do believe they could/should have done things differently. blame is with Toth himself!).

I have to say that this is pretty rich. I removed at least two of your posts in an attempt to keep this thread focused narrowing on the retirement of the Beauvoir head. For that, I suffered your castigations including obscene insinuations. Like a petulant child, you kept trying until you finally got your way. Now, all of a sudden you don't like the idea that an anonymous poster might defame a named individual (or, in this case, not even named). A few pages back you wrote that I was being "grossly unjust". Grossly unjust! Well, I guess now we have justice. How do you like it?

Anonymous wrote:Dear Jeff,
The time has come to call individuals to account for their irresponsibility. Ms. X is clearly a repeated violator of your restrictions and has been for 4 years, including today despite your warnings. She should be banned from accessing this site to defame individuals by name or title.

There are multiple possible "Ms. X." posters. I don't know which of them you believe to be Ms. X and, since I have no idea who that is, I'm not in a position to guess. But, it is because of the existence of such posters that I established an admittedly double standard for this thread.

I just edited the previous message because it contained initials that may well have belonged to the person being discussed. I want to again warn against anonymous criticism of named individuals. As the previous post shows, this is a double-edged sword.

Posts that do not conform to this restriction will be removed. Repeated violators could find themselves blocked from accessing the site.

I just skimmed over it. Was there vulgarity beyond the subject line?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Jeff will stop deleting my posts. Can't we say anything except regret that she is leaving?! These boards allow racist comments, and nasty comments about many other schools that this is grossly unjust.

You can say anything that you want to say once you have identified yourself in a verifiable manner. I cannot believe that you are repeatedly complaining that I am not allowing you to anonymously say nasty things.

Anonymous wrote:So is this board only for Dc residents, in general i consider Dc the area around the beltway, not just the city

We have users from all over the country, indeed all over the world. However, the focus of the website is DC and the areas close in. DC, Montgomery Country, and PG County are all very liberal. Arlington Country and parts of Fairfax and Alexandria are also liberal. I will concede that white conservative males are not well-representated on DCUM. However, I will also argue that white conservative male voices are not representative of the area and are generally over-represented in our discourse in any case.

All three threads appear to have been started by different individuals for legitimate reasons. However, the same anti-circumcision individual appears to have joined the discussion of all three threads. That's normally the way these threads go.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am going to assert an "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all" rule for this thread. The head of school is easily identifiable. As such, it is unfair for posters to criticize her anonymously. If you would like to establish your identify in a verifiable manner, then you would be welcome to offer any criticism you would like. But, given the history of posts regarding Beauvoir, anonymous posters are going to have to be nice.

Why is it okay for people to express their true opinions about people who are clearly identifiable in other threads? I'm not saying that I think it's okay for people to come on here and bash the head of school at Beauvoir, but people bash others on these threads and those posts aren't removed. It seems like a double-standard. Just sayin'.

Yep, it's a double standard. You win a blender.

I am going to assert an "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all" rule for this thread. The head of school is easily identifiable. As such, it is unfair for posters to criticize her anonymously. If you would like to establish your identify in a verifiable manner, then you would be welcome to offer any criticism you would like. But, given the history of posts regarding Beauvoir, anonymous posters are going to have to be nice.

Now additional units have been called. Apparently, the wind is reigniting materials on the roof.