Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe a local reporter wouldn't know it's called Sidwell Friends School, not academy.

Not to nitpick but the article does say school. The OP used the word academy.

Actually, no; the article used the word "Academy". That was weird. There were also typos in the article. Gosh, I am so shocked from a blog of the caliber of the Washington Times!

Let your life speak, right?

Classy stuff.

Nice family or no, the Newmyers have a long, big history at Sidwell with lots and lots of alums. Basically 3 generations of Newmyers, including the plaintiff Arthur, went to Sidwell.

Read the obit for Robert Newmyer '74 on page 12:

http://www.sidwell.edu/data/files/news/AlumniMagazine/winter_2006.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is too bad - they are a nice family and give a lot to the community (at least the extended fam; don't know these two personally) and have lost at least two well-liked alumni this year.

This is your description of a "nice family?" Oh dear god....

Can you read? PP wasn't referring to the two family members referenced in the article. I assume PP was referring to the Newmyers in general, who are a very well-known and well-respected family both at Sidwell and in Washington, and have been so for generations.

The dad is a ``real jerk-off.'' I guess that's all he's got now.

Anonymous wrote:This is embarrassing. I feel bad for the poor daughter. The father looks like a complete jerk-off. The mother looks like a whore. Where is the school shrink now?

I wonder how many former Sidwell parents he had "fooled around with"

"Embarrassing??" That's hardly the word I'd use. Have you read the whole lawsuit? Did you catch the line about PE teachers hitting on 8th grade girls? The whole school is like something out of Peyton Place....

This is embarrassing. I feel bad for the poor daughter. The father looks like a complete jerk-off. The mother looks like a whore. Where is the school shrink now?

I wonder how many former Sidwell parents he had "fooled around with"

Anonymous wrote:Omg. Nightmare. This is looking like the Duff/Perelman divorce from the late 90's. Scorched earth and nuclear winter all rolled into one. And the divorce hasn't even started. SFS's liability will hinge on whether they had a reason to know that their employee was negligent. Sounds like they did since he (the Dad) told them. Prediction: Sidwell will have to settle quietly. Everyone involved will have been suitably embarrassed. That's probably all he really wants.

Nightmare? The "Duff/Perelman" divorce? You need a life. Aside from those of you who take great pleasure in the drama of some supposed DC high society, nobody really gives a s#@*. Get over yourself.

Anonymous wrote:This is too bad - they are a nice family and give a lot to the community (at least the extended fam; don't know these two personally) and have lost at least two well-liked alumni this year.

This is your description of a "nice family?" Oh dear god....

Back to the issue of "settling quietly." I guess they can always raise the tuition again to pay this one off?

This is too bad - they are a nice family and give a lot to the community (at least the extended fam; don't know these two personally) and have lost at least two well-liked alumni this year.

School shrink discovers great way to seduce mom....``Your daughter is underperforming in school because she is sooooooo talented and smart...She is extra, extra special. I'll talk to the school about this......''

Anonymous wrote: There are no good guys here.

The school fired the defendant, the daughter was and presumably continues to be in therapy and the family apparently has plenty of money. So the purpose of the suit was????

Embarrass the presumably soon-to-be ex-wife? Defendant? School?
Screw the daughter up more?

Agreed, no good guys here, but this seems totally unnecessary.

Originally, the story said academy and was later changed.

Wow, I just read them as well. Several thoughts:
1. the therapy sessions were actually playdates arranged so the couple could get it on. he was never actually the child's therapist.
2. Dad didn't live with the family and refused to pay his daughter's tuition.
3. Dad has no concern for his children's privacy. The shrink should have been fired sooner. There are no good guys here.

I need to take a shower.