jsteele
Post 06/07/2015 21:13     Subject: Deleted Oyster posts
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To be specific, I was concerned about comments which said there were no red flags with this "charming" criminal, and nothing could have been done differently to provide a safer learning environment for the children.

With that attitude, the predators are sure to continue doing their thing with the kids.

I think now that we've heard from several very experienced professionals who deal with these issues, the tide has turned. It's crystal clear to most of us, that business as usual can not be allowed to continue.


It might be best for everyone if you discontinued your participation in the Oyster thread. You don't seem to have any connection to the school and your Monday morning quarterbacking continually upsets the families who are trying to deal with this situation. Even posters who described themselves as critics of the teacher have said there were no red flags. But you -- with no apparent firsthand knowledge of the situation -- continually try to paint the school community as nothing but a bunch of enablers. Please leave them in peace.

A bunch of enablers? That's quite an accusation. You can either have your head in the sand and be charmed by Mr. Pretty, or you can be vigilant and wonder what certain people might be up to, based on their overall behavior. Even if he had you charmed with your "eye-lashes fluttering" as one parent said, that's not exactly intentional enabling. I do believe we've had some posters say that they were never enamored with the perpetrator.

Btw, I was under the impression they much of DCUM is all about Monday morning quarterbacking. Or are most thread regarding news events only for poster participants who were personally involved? Some clarification would be much appreciated.


Read your post again. You present two possibilities: a) have your head in the sand; or b) be vigilant. What posters have been trying to tell you is that they were vigilant and still were fooled. For some reason, you are not accepting that as a possibility.

Monday morning quarterbacking may well be appropriate -- or at least not inappropriate -- in many DCUM threads. But, the Oyster thread is not one of them. The topic is sensitive and directly involves a number of our posters. Many aspects can't be discussed fully due to the risk of exposing the child and family involved.
Anonymous
Post 06/07/2015 20:59     Subject: Deleted Oyster posts
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To be specific, I was concerned about comments which said there were no red flags with this "charming" criminal, and nothing could have been done differently to provide a safer learning environment for the children.

With that attitude, the predators are sure to continue doing their thing with the kids.

I think now that we've heard from several very experienced professionals who deal with these issues, the tide has turned. It's crystal clear to most of us, that business as usual can not be allowed to continue.


It might be best for everyone if you discontinued your participation in the Oyster thread. You don't seem to have any connection to the school and your Monday morning quarterbacking continually upsets the families who are trying to deal with this situation. Even posters who described themselves as critics of the teacher have said there were no red flags. But you -- with no apparent firsthand knowledge of the situation -- continually try to paint the school community as nothing but a bunch of enablers. Please leave them in peace.

A bunch of enablers? That's quite an accusation. You can either have your head in the sand and be charmed by Mr. Pretty, or you can be vigilant and wonder what certain people might be up to, based on their overall behavior. Even if he had you charmed with your "eye-lashes fluttering" as one parent said, that's not exactly intentional enabling. I do believe we've had some posters say that they were never enamored with the perpetrator.

Btw, I was under the impression they much of DCUM is all about Monday morning quarterbacking. Or are most thread regarding news events only for poster participants who were personally involved? Some clarification would be much appreciated.
jsteele
Post 06/07/2015 20:39     Subject: Deleted Oyster posts
Anonymous wrote:To be specific, I was concerned about comments which said there were no red flags with this "charming" criminal, and nothing could have been done differently to provide a safer learning environment for the children.

With that attitude, the predators are sure to continue doing their thing with the kids.

I think now that we've heard from several very experienced professionals who deal with these issues, the tide has turned. It's crystal clear to most of us, that business as usual can not be allowed to continue.


It might be best for everyone if you discontinued your participation in the Oyster thread. You don't seem to have any connection to the school and your Monday morning quarterbacking continually upsets the families who are trying to deal with this situation. Even posters who described themselves as critics of the teacher have said there were no red flags. But you -- with no apparent firsthand knowledge of the situation -- continually try to paint the school community as nothing but a bunch of enablers. Please leave them in peace.
Anonymous
Post 06/07/2015 20:07     Subject: Deleted Oyster posts
To be specific, I was concerned about comments which said there were no red flags with this "charming" criminal, and nothing could have been done differently to provide a safer learning environment for the children.

With that attitude, the predators are sure to continue doing their thing with the kids.

I think now that we've heard from several very experienced professionals who deal with these issues, the tide has turned. It's crystal clear to most of us, that business as usual can not be allowed to continue.
jsteele
Post 06/07/2015 19:47     Subject: Deleted Oyster posts
Anonymous wrote:I wish I knew exactly what I said in my deleted posts that was a problem.

I now see that the other person questioning WaPo's omission of the police phone number, was also deleted.

Since when does DCUM not allow the questioning of media reporting? This seems to be a very isolated case, for some reason.

If someone posted that phone number on the Oyster thread, would it get deleted? I'm now guessing yes, but why?

Thank you.


If you want to post the number -- something that is completely unnecessary -- go ahead. But, if you insinuate that anyone involved is trying to protect child molesters, then it will be deleted.
Anonymous
Post 06/07/2015 19:39     Subject: Deleted Oyster posts
I wish I knew exactly what I said in my deleted posts that was a problem.

I now see that the other person questioning WaPo's omission of the police phone number, was also deleted.

Since when does DCUM not allow the questioning of media reporting? This seems to be a very isolated case, for some reason.

If someone posted that phone number on the Oyster thread, would it get deleted? I'm now guessing yes, but why?

Thank you.
jsteele
Post 06/07/2015 19:26     Subject: Deleted Oyster posts
Anonymous wrote:Curious exactly what is prompting Admin to delete certain posts of mine. Is my tone offending the perps? I was questioning (as was a previous poster) why WaPo is omitting the police phone number for other victims to report. This is typically reported in such news reports, no?


It is your attitude, which is also displayed in this message, that anyone associated with this website, Oyster, or the Washington Post has any interest in protecting child molesters. That is insulting to all involved and suggests a certain lack of sanity on your part. You can rest assured that anyone involved with the teacher at Oyster is well aware of how to report crimes. They don't need to read the phone number in the Post.
Anonymous
Post 06/07/2015 19:16     Subject: Deleted Oyster posts
Curious exactly what is prompting Admin to delete certain posts of mine. Is my tone offending the perps? I was questioning (as was a previous poster) why WaPo is omitting the police phone number for other victims to report. This is typically reported in such news reports, no?