Seriously, look at who conducted this poll:

"The Synovate eNation Internet poll was conducted December 29-January 2 among a national sample of 1,000 households by global market research firm Synovate"

I took a quick look to find out about the Synovate eNation Internet poll. Notice that it says a "sample of 1,000 households". It doesn't say "random sample". This firm apparently has 1,000 people essentially on retainer and asks them whatever questions they want them to answer. There is no information about the political leanings of the sample or anything to suggest that sample has any legitimacy. I would take this with more than a single grain of salt.

Every message in this thread is from the same poster. Just in case anyone was wondering.

Locking the thread now.

Anonymous wrote:Not true, except if you initially applied from within the school boundaries but have since moved out-of-boundary.
Make sure you consult the DCPS lottery explanation. They have a FAQs section on these kinds of questions: http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Learn+About+Schools/Preschool,+Pre-Kindergarten+and+Out-of-Boundary+Lottery

The OP was asking about a Public Charter School, not a DCPS school. So, boundaries are not an issue.

Anonymous wrote:Question: It appears from their website that you have to do the lottory EVERY YEAR? Even if you get into the school. Can a current parent tell me if that is true?

Not true. Once you are in your are in. You just have to confirm your child's enrollment each year.

Someone tried posting a message that began "You are making my point for me...'. It appears the poster tried posting it twice because I received two copies by email (I subscribed to this thread). However, the messages do not appear here. Similarly, earlier today someone started a new thread regarding an idea for a blog article. That thread does not show up either. I have no clue what is going on. But, if possible, could either poster tell me whether they received an error or had another issue when trying to post? Feel free to re-post your message. I have the complete text if you want me to post it for you. I am not censuring you. I swear.

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering what you would do in the examples provided by a PP. If I"m remembering correctly:

example one:

OP knows of a couple who is trying to adopt a baby. The couple is gay, and OP wants to know if there's any way to intervene and prevent the adoption. Surely others would chime in and say "it's not your place to do that!". We're assuming a real question from a familiar IP address, not a drive-by / trolling. Jeff, if the OP then said "please, they're not answering my question!" would you intervene similarly?

Example two:

OP's daughter is a bit "chunky" at four years old and is considering adderall, hoping the appetite suppressing benefits help with her daughter's weight. OP is not interested in hearing that it's not the appropriate use for that medication, or that she might be damaging her daughter's psyche with the body image obsession she's imposing on the girl, OP only wants to know if people have noticed appetite suppressing effects with adderall, and also a physicial that would be open to prescribing it to a four year old. Jeff, if the OP asked you, would you bar conversation beyond the specific appetite stimulant effects of adderall and a doctor who will prescribe it?

The point many of us are making is that you're starting to walk a fine line here when you decide when you'll intervene and when you will not. You jokingly say that consistency is not something you promise here, but I think it would be really challenging to sit around and determine which answers are germane or not (I mean, do you really want to spend your time that way, anyway?) and if you're using the premise of the argument as the litmus test (maybe the disrupting an adoption is so abhorrent that of COURSE you're not going to prevent people from saying it) but we're really relying on you to be the lone arbiter of what's worthy of full debate and what can only be discussed within very narrow confinces.

What's interesting to me is that you haven't acknowledged once that we might have a point here. Do you really think you are completely right or is there any room for you to just say "maybe I need to reconsider this" or "these are valid issues?" You seem angrier every time you post, which doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. I'm not trying to piss you off, I'm trying to make you think about something a different way.

I was serious above when I said I am not going to provide hard and fast guidelines. I was also serious above when I said that I view moderating this site as an art rather than a science. And, you had better believe I was serious when I said that you should not expect complete consistency from me. Your examples illustrated exactly why I have taken these positions. You are suggesting that the extremes should rule the middle and that rather than basing my decisions regarding moderation on the type of threads we normally see around here, I should come up with rules that take into account extreme scenarios that we may never encounter. Let's say that I agree. Because someone might come here and ask how to build a bomb and some users might want to tell that user not to build a bomb rather than simply providing instructions, I should never intervene in a thread to prevent non-responsive answers. So, let's say I agree and I promise never to intervene in such a manner.

But, then what if there is a thread started by a 15 year old girl who is pregnant as a result of a rape by her father. She wants an abortion, but lives in Virginia where parental notification laws would require permission from that same rapist father. So, she posts asking whether she can obtain an abortion in Maryland or DC. Should I allow anti-abortion folks to call her a baby-killer and engage in the type of antics that we recently saw here in a similar thread? According to those who think I should never get involved in a thread, yes, I should allow those attacks because they might be interesting or might provide a different perspective or might educate someone other than the OP who might be reading the thread. Of course, a girl in this situation would have a lot more problems and need a lot more assistance beyond abortion advice. Some users might want to suggest places the girl could turn for help to escape her abusive father. Some might have personnel stories that they want to recount in order to support her. So, should I remove and/or prohibit baby-killer posts but allow those suggesting how she can get help with her family situation? Frankly, I think I should and probably would. But, what guideline or rule would I be following? Wouldn't I be acting unfairly and inconsistently? Yes, and I wouldn't give a damn.

The bottom line is what is stated in our "Frequently Asked Questions":

Don't all users have a right to free expression and should be able to post anything they like? Isn't it censorship when a Site Administrator interferes with that right?

No and No. We allow great leeway in what users are allowed to say, but Site Administrators reserve the right to delete and/or modify any message at any time for any reason. DCUM is privately owned and operated and, as such, First Amendment rights do not apply (though they are given great reverence).

This is the way things have always been here and its the way they are going to continue.

Anonymous wrote:
I found your abortion quip rather offensive a few weeks back. You're certainly not the first to use the bolded phrase above, but I find it awful every time I see it on DCUM. No sense in hitting the report button to complain to the fox overseeing this henhouse, so I just mention it here.

So, I assume you are advocating censorship? It's going to be hard to satisfy the pro-censorship and anti-censorship crowds at the same time.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the grandpa in the movie Moonstruck-y'know, the one with all the dogs. I'M CONFUSED. What is OK, what is not? What constitutes redress or dismissal based on an OP's request? When is it OK to list a person's full name in a post? I thought never until the Brendan Sheerin thread. When are we supposed to ignore a troll, address a troll or not believe a troll? When is snark OK? (apparently on the Political Forum when it supports the liberal left of which I am a member) but not on GP if offends a well-meaning mommy? Editing and censorship seem to be very closely linked on this site based on no particular predictable formula. Jeff, just give us a model and stick to it,it would end a lot of confusion on here. BTW, do you and Maria ever disagree about what should be deleted and what should stay as is?

I'm sorry that this site is not run to the perfect standard that you desire. I am not going to give you a model. The minute I did that a bunch of you would devote every free minute you had to finding loopholes, inconsistencies, or shortcomings in it. I have better things to do with my life then spend it debating such minutia. As for your claim of "censorship", can you provide an example of a single viewpoint that I have prevented from being expressed on this site. If you cannot provide an example, then I am sorry, but it is way past time to shut the fuck up about censorship. There are places in the world where there is real censorship. DCUM is not one of them.

Anonymous wrote:
I just want to state for the record that nowhere in the guardianship post was this stated. The OP clearly seemed to be acting unilaterally, and that is what drove much of the (since deleted) objection.

Just to clarify something that has now been misstated twice in this thread. I only deleted one post from the thread in question. That post was in response to my post (and my post clearly said that any responses to me should be in Website Feedback). So, if you posted one of the many messages dealing with "whether" the OP should seek custody rather than "how" the OP could do so, your post is still there. Feel free to stop complaining about its imaginary deletion at any time.

Anonymous wrote:You are obtaining your information regarding the HOP candidiates on Meet the Press? Good grief.

I'm not sure what the HOP is, but there was an actual debate -- you know when all the candidates stand up and answer questions and so on -- on Meet the Press. I wasn't referring to reports of the Romney/Gingrich exchange, but the actual exchange that happened to be broadcast on Meet the Press.

Anonymous wrote:
I do use the report button. You seem to be getting really annoyed with me for disagreeing with you. I appreciate that you are taking steps to combat racism. It was just one example of the many ways threads on any anonymous website get out of control. You've made a really visible move in stepping in on threads like this one and the ADHD thread, and I haven't seen the same visibility on other things (such as not just racism, but the thread where people are blaming a mother who lost her child for her child's death on the epi-pen thread). We let that stay, but micromanage threads so that the OP doesn't have to listen to anyone else's view on a hot topic. Okay. Like I said, it is your website. I am a pretty long-time user and I think I nearly always have advice or something positive to say. I go out of my way to help people on this thread. If, sometimes, my desire to help means pointing out another way to look at the problem, I think it is valid. My parents divorce was completely devastating to me. My time with my aunt was horrible. They loved me so much, but I kept feeling like unwanted baggage. It is a proven fact that most children believe they are to blame at least in part for a divorce. So when dad skips off to another country and mom moves to be closer to family but does not take her children, that makes me think of how I felt as a kid. OP could explain the situation but she didn't want to. She just covered up her ears and said "I'm not listening, la la la" and you institutionalized that by meddling on the thread. PLease don't take my comments personally. If you trace my IP address you can see who I am, we've agreed on 99 percent of issues. I like you and like this website. I just think this practice of shutting off alternate POVs is not cool. I guess now I'm just being a pain in the ass about it. You've made your decision and it's not like I can really change your mind by badgering. I'm simply defending my point of view at this point, because your'e making me feel like I'm some kind of bully who shuts down threads with vitriol and mean-spirited replies when I feel I'm one of the posters who goes out of her way to be thoughtful and kind to others on this website most of the time. Like anyone, I definitely have my moments where I get frustrated or angry with another poster, but I'm not derailing threads with vitriol by any means. Oh well. I've said what I need to say now. I'm not going to keep fighting for the last word. Just hope you'll consider what I and others are saying about this with an open mind.

I'm not fighting for the last word and you are welcome to respond. However, since you have taken such a great interest in this issue, there is one other aspect I want to point out. Again, regarding the epipen, the thread does not involve an OP seeking information. It is simply a discussion thread. Hence, it apples and oranges. But, the other aspect to which I am referring deals with the custody thread. You say that the "OP could explain the situation but she didn't want to." This highlights a phenomenon with which I deal frequently. It goes like this:

1) a poster starts a thread about a complex and personnel topic;
2) responders reply based on incorrect assumptions resulting from inadequate detail being provided by the OP;
3) the OP either gets frustrated and says something to the effect of "none of you understand the situation" or provides more details.
4) in the case of the former, responders get upset because the OP is not receptive to them.
5) In the case of the latter, the OP frequently ends up divulging overly personal informational or enough detail to reveal the identities of those involved. In this case, subsequent posters may start bashing the OP for revealing too much detail or warning of potential repercussions for the revelations.
6) Neither of these two common outcomes is helpful to the OP. I assume that you don't care about the first one other than you might be one of the responders upset about the lack of detail. But, in the case of the second, it is not uncommon that I end up deleting the entire thread after being contacted by a very stressed out OP who is worried about the information that was revealed. If you are bothered by my simply moderating a thread, I assume you like it even less when I remove an entire thread.

Preventing this phenomenon is one of my motivations for interjecting myself into threads such as the custody thread. Because the OP clearly did not want to provide more details, that thread was obviously heading down the path to frustration as long as the discussion was regarding the issue of custody rather than the simple provision of the information she was seeking.

I was just watching the Republican presidential candidates debate on Meet the Press. As it is looking very likely that Mitt Romney will win the nomination, I thought I'd take a minute to pontificate about him.

One of the most dramatic moments of this event was a confrontation between Newt Gingrich and Romney regarding anti-Gingrich ads run by a super-PAC that supports Romney. Romney stated clearly that he had not seen the ad, but then went on to describe it almost word for word. It appeared that Romney had told a blatant lie and then sold himself out about it. This highlights Romney's most prominent characteristic: his willingness to say anything, take any position, or do anything to get elected. His legendary flip-flopping, the claim by his campaign official that ads don't have to be truthful because they are "propaganda", and his constant dissembling (even wrongly stating during a debate that his first name is "Mitt" when it's actually "Willard") all strengthen the perception that there is literally nothing about this man that we can believe.

Yet, a significant number of Americans, including many people who claim to be Democrats, are willing to trust this man to be President. One of the most frequent justifications I hear for this support is a belief that Romney, despite everything, is actually a moderate who would be reasonable, even from a liberal standpoint, as President.

As best I can tell, the belief that Romney is a moderate is due to the fact that he presented himself as a moderate during his political career in Massachusetts. It is assumed that this moderate Romney persona is the true one and Romney has moved rightward during his presidential runs due to the political realities of Republican primary campaigns. But, plenty of evidence suggests that Romney assumed his moderate persona simply because that was necessary to be elected in Massachusetts. For instance, when preparing to run for the US Senate against Ted Kennedy, Romney used polling data to determine that he should run as a pro-choice candidate. Romney's position was that he was personally pro-life, but supported Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. He continued his pro-choice position during his successful campaign for governor. But in 2005, exactly when Romney decided to run for president, he announced that he had changed his position and now opposed abortion rights.

So, is Romney an anti-choice politician who took a pro-choice position in order to get elected, or is he a pro-choice candidate who has taken an anti-choice position in order to get elected? I think I could argue this either way equally strongly. Since either argument can be made, I think far too many people are projecting the view they would like Romney to hold onto him. Hence, pro-choice individuals tell themselves that Romney is actually moderate regarding abortion rights and pro-life individuals believe Romney to oppose abortion rights.

In my opinion, the important factor is not Romney's actual belief because he has repeatedly shown that his actual belief is secondary to the position he will take. The primary factor is what will get him elected. So, imagine that Romney were to win the primary and then go on to defeat President Obama in the general election. Would Romney govern in a manner consistent with his personal beliefs, or would he choose policies that would increase has chances for re-election? I think the answer to that is clear. In that case, what would drive Romney? We know that Romney, if he is elected, it will be despite the misgivings of the rightwing of the Republican party. Simply put, the rightwing doesn't trust him. Romney would have to be concerned that a failure to address the rightwing agenda would result in a primary challenge to him -- something that could be devastating to his re-election hopes. So, I think it's reasonable to assume that Romney as president would govern in a manner aimed at appeasing right-wingers. As a result, I think any liberals who believe that Romney would be a moderate president are deluding themselves.

In my opinion, those seeking a moderate republican for whom to vote already have the perfect candidate. His name is Barack Obama. Unlike Romney, he has been consistent in this regard.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, some of this is persuasive, but you think, with everything that gets discussed here and the way it is discussed, that allowing an off-topic thread to stray further off-topic is what's going to get you badmouthed? And that worry that people will badmouth it is what causes you to interfere? Meantime, you've got black women actually saying that the sheer number of racist posts on here make them feel unwelcome. Plus, okay, this guardianship post is quite specific. But the ADHD was more of an open ended question, if I recall correctly. Like, has anyone had luck getting their four year old diagnosed with ADHD (I can't remember exactly). So then the conversation turned to medicating, and the pro-medication stuff stayed and the anti-medication was clipped. It skews the conversation. I guess a spin-off thread is the consolation prize. I think I remember that the ADHD thread in question stopped moving once the debate was quashed, though. And I don't see the temp guardianship moving, either. Maybe both OPs didn't think about the fact that the debate was keeping their post at page one, where more people (eventually someone with straight info) might see it.

Oh well. Your site, not mine. Just sharing my thoughts. Appreciate all you do to keep this going.

Since you have brought the issue of racism up more than once now, I want to address that topic specifically. I have been taking steps to combat racist posts of all types. I view operating this site as more of an art than a science. Hence, I don't have one strategy for every problem. Rather, I address different issues in different manners depending on what I believe will work best. Simply because you are not aware of my actions doesn't mean there are no actions. Racism online is a huge problem everywhere. Check out the comment section of almost any newspaper (except those that closely monitor the comments). DCUM is quite tame in comparison. But, the reality remains that if I don't know about something, I can't do anything about it. So, use the "report" button.

General Parenting is supposed to be for newborns. I assume that is not working out for you, but can you explain why it is not working out?

I've never really paid attention. Maybe I'll start checking it out.