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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the pandemic has brought out the worst in people. I'm not active in either group (APE or SR) but I lurk in both just to see what they are saying. I'm pro return to school but also support things like masks and air filters and opening windows when we can, but I also think staying home forever is damaging our children ...

I don't think it will ever be safe enough for the SR people, and it's clear some of the APE people are ready to throw masks out the window and be done with it forever.

As for the school board race, Miranda has never said she wants to be rid of masks, while Mary has said she can see us doing shift schedules to be safe in the fall, so on that side of the debate, I lean more to where Miranda is. Keep the mitigations in place we can do and open vs. waiting for some mythical safety stuff to take place that will never happen and that we can't afford.

If I was either candidate, I would not want to be judged by the worst members of both groups.

Interestingly, though, all over SR right now is one of leaders actively discussing a desire to screenshot people ...

You misunderstood.

Questions I received about the newsletter content suggest that some readers may have misunderstood one part of my original message. I was not advocating for a two-shift school schedule in August. To be absolutely clear, I do not support a two-shift schedule. My point in raising it in the newsletter was simply to note that if APS is operating under CDC social distancing guidelines in August, classroom space will be at a premium. The narrow range of options that exist include what I originally described as Scenario A and Scenario B. If Scenario A is what we desire (see the "Classroom Capacity" section below) then APS must actively plan for it and include it in the budget that the School Board will approve next month.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would you need anon Twitter accounts if you had access to the powers that be? SR talks a good game in AEM, but in the end, just are sewer rats.

APE is no better. Doxxing and bullying teachers? Gross.

If you want people to believe that you don’t post here, maybe don’t post virtually the same message here and on AEM within minutes of each other.

Nice bracelet, by the way.

I haven't been on AEM all morning. And I never, ever post there (don't want to muddy waters with my business).

Newsflash: there are multiple people who think that people who bully teachers are trash.

Whatever you say, sweetie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handle is @ap_eshit if you want to look it up in blocked status.

The account will never be made public again, but they are certainly still posting. If the person who created it actually recognized their behavior was inappropriate, they would have deleted the account entirely. Instead they only made it private, which means they intend to keep going with encouraging doxxing and harassment, they’re just going to do it more in secret.

How can you tell?

I didn’t mean it in the sense that they necessarily have tweeted again since making it private, only that the plan is to still use it to actively tweet material to followers. There is literally no reason for that account to still exist unless they plan to continue using it. Which is a dicey proposition because Virginia law is fairly accommodating of subpoenas for IP addresses and related data for specific social media accounts if someone who was targeted by the account were to file a lawsuit against the John/Jane Doe owner of it.

I have a Twitter account, but have never posted to it. Not even sure if I can still log in.

The existence of an account doesn't mean anything.

Did you create an alt Twitter account for purposes of harassing people and then lock it down after getting outed? If not, you’re in a different position, so what you do with your Twitter account isn’t relevant.

The point was....the existence of an account doesn't mean anything. Just because they haven't deleted it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean that they are going to use it. So irrational...

PP who made the original comments, the one to which you most immediately responded was not me. The person who owns that account has created potential legal risk for themselves already. They are sufficiently aware of that risk that they have locked down the account so only people they trust can see it. And yet they chose not to delete it, which is what a smart person would do if they planned to never tweet from it again. That wouldn’t completely insulate them from legal risk, but it would make it far less likely that someone targeted by that account in the past would feel the need to take legal action to keep it from happening again. The owner, however, has chosen to keep it active, which only makes sense if they are planning to still use it.

Obviously there is a chance that they are just leaving it dormant but don’t plan to use it. But when someone has already shown their malicious intent, its reasonable to believe them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the pandemic has brought out the worst in people. I'm not active in either group (APE or SR) but I lurk in both just to see what they are saying. I'm pro return to school but also support things like masks and air filters and opening windows when we can, but I also think staying home forever is damaging our children ...

I don't think it will ever be safe enough for the SR people, and it's clear some of the APE people are ready to throw masks out the window and be done with it forever.

As for the school board race, Miranda has never said she wants to be rid of masks, while Mary has said she can see us doing shift schedules to be safe in the fall, so on that side of the debate, I lean more to where Miranda is. Keep the mitigations in place we can do and open vs. waiting for some mythical safety stuff to take place that will never happen and that we can't afford.

If I was either candidate, I would not want to be judged by the worst members of both groups.

Interestingly, though, all over SR right now is one of leaders actively discussing a desire to screenshot people ...

You misunderstood.

Questions I received about the newsletter content suggest that some readers may have misunderstood one part of my original message. I was not advocating for a two-shift school schedule in August. To be absolutely clear, I do not support a two-shift schedule. My point in raising it in the newsletter was simply to note that if APS is operating under CDC social distancing guidelines in August, classroom space will be at a premium. The narrow range of options that exist include what I originally described as Scenario A and Scenario B. If Scenario A is what we desire (see the "Classroom Capacity" section below) then APS must actively plan for it and include it in the budget that the School Board will approve next month.

This would be all well and good, except that Mary's drawings showed 12 students in a 30 x 30 classroom! We've gone over this, but there are so many better ways to do this, and you can get 20 in easily with 6 ft spacing (I tried after seeing her stupid drawing), so again, this clarification doesn't help me.

And +1 on Miranda being active prior to now. She's been a Drew PTA leader. I don't know what that's not given the same credit as being a McKinley PTA leaders. And yes, McKinley did try to throw other schools under the bus in the last round of boundaries.

I will say this though, I will take either Mary or Miranda over Steven Kreiger -- we dodged a bullet there. And both will probably be better than Monique.

Anonymous wrote:

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

You seem very invested in trying to derail this discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handle is @ap_eshit if you want to look it up in blocked status.

The account will never be made public again, but they are certainly still posting. If the person who created it actually recognized their behavior was inappropriate, they would have deleted the account entirely. Instead they only made it private, which means they intend to keep going with encouraging doxxing and harassment, they’re just going to do it more in secret.

How can you tell?

I didn’t mean it in the sense that they necessarily have tweeted again since making it private, only that the plan is to still use it to actively tweet material to followers. There is literally no reason for that account to still exist unless they plan to continue using it. Which is a dicey proposition because Virginia law is fairly accommodating of subpoenas for IP addresses and related data for specific social media accounts if someone who was targeted by the account were to file a lawsuit against the John/Jane Doe owner of it.

I have a Twitter account, but have never posted to it. Not even sure if I can still log in.

The existence of an account doesn't mean anything.

Did you create an alt Twitter account for purposes of harassing people and then lock it down after getting outed? If not, you’re in a different position, so what you do with your Twitter account isn’t relevant.

The point was....the existence of an account doesn't mean anything. Just because they haven't deleted it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean that they are going to use it. So irrational...

PP who made the original comments, the one to which you most immediately responded was not me. The person who owns that account has created potential legal risk for themselves already. They are sufficiently aware of that risk that they have locked down the account so only people they trust can see it. And yet they chose not to delete it, which is what a smart person would do if they planned to never tweet from it again. That wouldn’t completely insulate them from legal risk, but it would make it far less likely that someone targeted by that account in the past would feel the need to take legal action to keep it from happening again. The owner, however, has chosen to keep it active, which only makes sense if they are planning to still use it.

Obviously there is a chance that they are just leaving it dormant but don’t plan to use it. But when someone has already shown their malicious intent, its reasonable to believe them.

Huh? There is nothing legally risky about that account or the tweets that I saw.

Ethically it's shitty AF, but it isn't illegal.

Like I said, the existence of an account doesn't mean anything. Just because they haven't deleted it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean that they are going to use it. So freaking irrational...

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.

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.

Miranda Turner has never supported any kind of recall, which you know because you would have posted the screen shots if she did. This is you trying to invent rumors to smear Ms. Turner as a candidate, which tells me all I need to know about your character and integrity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handle is @ap_eshit if you want to look it up in blocked status.

The account will never be made public again, but they are certainly still posting. If the person who created it actually recognized their behavior was inappropriate, they would have deleted the account entirely. Instead they only made it private, which means they intend to keep going with encouraging doxxing and harassment, they’re just going to do it more in secret.

How can you tell?

I didn’t mean it in the sense that they necessarily have tweeted again since making it private, only that the plan is to still use it to actively tweet material to followers. There is literally no reason for that account to still exist unless they plan to continue using it. Which is a dicey proposition because Virginia law is fairly accommodating of subpoenas for IP addresses and related data for specific social media accounts if someone who was targeted by the account were to file a lawsuit against the John/Jane Doe owner of it.

I have a Twitter account, but have never posted to it. Not even sure if I can still log in.

The existence of an account doesn't mean anything.

Did you create an alt Twitter account for purposes of harassing people and then lock it down after getting outed? If not, you’re in a different position, so what you do with your Twitter account isn’t relevant.

The point was....the existence of an account doesn't mean anything. Just because they haven't deleted it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean that they are going to use it. So irrational...

PP who made the original comments, the one to which you most immediately responded was not me. The person who owns that account has created potential legal risk for themselves already. They are sufficiently aware of that risk that they have locked down the account so only people they trust can see it. And yet they chose not to delete it, which is what a smart person would do if they planned to never tweet from it again. That wouldn’t completely insulate them from legal risk, but it would make it far less likely that someone targeted by that account in the past would feel the need to take legal action to keep it from happening again. The owner, however, has chosen to keep it active, which only makes sense if they are planning to still use it.

Obviously there is a chance that they are just leaving it dormant but don’t plan to use it. But when someone has already shown their malicious intent, its reasonable to believe them.

Huh? There is nothing legally risky about that account or the tweets that I saw.

Ethically it's shitty AF, but it isn't illegal.

Like I said, the existence of an account doesn't mean anything. Just because they haven't deleted it doesn't ABSOLUTELY mean that they are going to use it. So freaking irrational...

DP. The post of the FOIA request could easily be construed as trying to incite doxxing or harassment toward the person who was named, especially given the commentary that went with it. All the person would have to do is survive a demurrer, and then the subpoenas can issue.

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.

Miranda Turner has never supported any kind of recall, which you know because you would have posted the screen shots if she did. This is you trying to invent rumors to smear Ms. Turner as a candidate, which tells me all I need to know about your character and integrity.

It's a question - not "a rumor".

Multiple people in the group she "leads" support the SB recall. She responded to the question about supporting the lawsuit...it's reasonable for her to respond to the question about supporting the recall.

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.