Anonymous wrote:Oh no....not magnet mom! Someone called your kid average about 1 year ago and you STILL bring it up every chance you get! Please move passed that horrible incident....really, there is no need to be so wound up about it so long after it happened. You'll get through this....I promise.

OK, this post is clearly from 14:13. Note her use of ellipses here ("....") is identical to how she used them in her 14:13 post. Is she asking for people to be respectful, or isn't she?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because she's Lucy...

You're exactly right. I still can't figure out whether she really truly believes the positions she takes (complete with inconsistent and illogical arguments that she refuses to support), or if she's just playing some deep troll game (in which case the joke's on me).

I'm a third poster who is frustrated by the whole Lucy-Charley Brown thing. I'm the poster with a magnet kid. I've had run-ins with PG boosters (my theory is there are 2 or 3 PG booster-type posters) where someone told me my kid must be average (not that there's anything wrong with that) because I didn't agree with them. I've stayed away from the last few pages of this thread, but I too have told a PG booster, or two, to stop giving parents of gifted kids a bad name for arrogance and sense of entitlement.

FWIW, 13:40 and some of the previous posts (you guys are nuts!) is either a second PG booster with nothing substantive to add, or the first PG booster sockpuppeting herself, or a troll. My money is on #1, but I'm not ruling out troll.

Oh no....not magnet mom! Someone called your kid average about 1 year ago and you STILL bring it up every chance you get! Please move passed that horrible incident....really, there is no need to be so wound up about it so long after it happened. You'll get through this....I promise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But 22:13 and 7:11 are saying that 25:13 and 5:55 are full of it. Just look at these posts from 2 years ago! Notice that 25:11 sounds exactly like 15:28. Can you believe that 6:33 has the nerve to say what she said? She must think she's better than me so I'm going to take her down!!

Really?

Mockery!! Pure mockery!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because she's Lucy...

You're exactly right. I still can't figure out whether she really truly believes the positions she takes (complete with inconsistent and illogical arguments that she refuses to support), or if she's just playing some deep troll game (in which case the joke's on me).

I'm a third poster who is frustrated by the whole Lucy-Charley Brown thing. I'm the poster with a magnet kid. I've had run-ins with PG boosters (my theory is there are 2 or 3 PG booster-type posters) where someone told me my kid must be average (not that there's anything wrong with that) because I didn't agree with them. I've stayed away from the last few pages of this thread, but I too have told a PG booster, or two, to stop giving parents of gifted kids a bad name for arrogance and sense of entitlement.

FWIW, 13:40 and some of the previous posts (you guys are nuts!) is either a second PG booster with nothing substantive to add, or the first PG booster sockpuppeting herself, or a troll. My money is on #1, but I'm not ruling out troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because she's Lucy...

You're exactly right. I still can't figure out whether she really truly believes the positions she takes (complete with inconsistent and illogical arguments that she refuses to support), or if she's just playing some deep troll game (in which case the joke's on me).

You are like a dog on a bone.....let it go!

Why can't you figure out if I believe my positions? That doesn't seem like too difficult of a thing to noodle through, huh? I have summarized my positions not 2 pages ago. You can't get much more clean than that.

Furthermore, I thought you had agreed to give it a rest and now you are calling me inconsistent and illogical? I have always offered to support my positions on issues. If you have a specific question on one of my positions just let me know and I'll give you the information to support my position.

Here is an example of how to interact with other people:

You: I don't really agree with what you just said. Do you have any information to back up your claims.
Me: Sure, here is some information from academic articles that are peer reviewed and published on university websites.
You: Okay, thanks. this information just does not support what my experience is with my own kids. Here is my experience....insert experience here.
Me: Yes, all kids are different and parents know what is best for their own kids. Thanks for your perspective.
New Poster: Thanks guys for your different points of view. It's helpful to hear first hand experience from a parent as well as research based opinions. I may or may not use all or none of this information when looking into schooling for my child.

Anonymous wrote:
But 22:13 and 7:11 are saying that 25:13 and 5:55 are full of it. Just look at these posts from 2 years ago! Notice that 25:11 sounds exactly like 15:28. Can you believe that 6:33 has the nerve to say what she said? She must think she's better than me so I'm going to take her down!!

Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because she's Lucy...

You're exactly right. I still can't figure out whether she really truly believes the positions she takes (complete with inconsistent and illogical arguments that she refuses to support), or if she's just playing some deep troll game (in which case the joke's on me).

You are like a dog on a bone.....let it go!

TEACHER PET PEEVE: DEALING WITH PARENTS LIKE THE ONES WHO HAVE BICKERED OVER THE PAST 11 PAGES. PARENTS WHO, RIGHT OR WRONG, WONT LET STUFF GO!!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 22:09 or 16:53 (the poster 22:09 is quoting). But I think I understand 16:53's frustration, because I'm feeling frustration myself with 22:09's post.

As an example of what NOT to do if we're all going to respect each other's views and play fairly, I offer the following:

22:09 is deliberately misinterpreting 16:53, by claiming 16:53 is threatening to harass her (22:09). That's not what 16:53's post says at all. 16:53 is saying "so you are the same poster" as the various posts she linked to, and she's saying she wishes 22:09 would identify herself in future posts, so she, 16:53 can ignore these posts or skim them or something ("give your posts the proper respect"). That seems pretty clear. No need to cry "harassment."

You people have seriously lost your damn mind.

Two pages later - and this statement is more accurate than ever. Jesus.

But 22:13 and 7:11 are saying that 25:13 and 5:55 are full of it. Just look at these posts from 2 years ago! Notice that 25:11 sounds exactly like 15:28. Can you believe that 6:33 has the nerve to say what she said? She must think she's better than me so I'm going to take her down!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 22:09 or 16:53 (the poster 22:09 is quoting). But I think I understand 16:53's frustration, because I'm feeling frustration myself with 22:09's post.

As an example of what NOT to do if we're all going to respect each other's views and play fairly, I offer the following:

22:09 is deliberately misinterpreting 16:53, by claiming 16:53 is threatening to harass her (22:09). That's not what 16:53's post says at all. 16:53 is saying "so you are the same poster" as the various posts she linked to, and she's saying she wishes 22:09 would identify herself in future posts, so she, 16:53 can ignore these posts or skim them or something ("give your posts the proper respect"). That seems pretty clear. No need to cry "harassment."

You people have seriously lost your damn mind.

Two pages later - and this statement is more accurate than ever. Jesus.

Or both!

In the end, it doesn't matter. Just present a sane alternative to the inconsistent and illogical arguments and trust intelligent readers to recognize the difference. And if they can't, there's not much you can do to help them.

Anonymous wrote:Because she's Lucy...

You're exactly right. I still can't figure out whether she really truly believes the positions she takes (complete with inconsistent and illogical arguments that she refuses to support), or if she's just playing some deep troll game (in which case the joke's on me).

Anonymous wrote:Because she's Lucy...

Because she's Lucy...

Anonymous wrote:Well, if she's Lucy, then you're Charlie Brown. So just stop playing football with her.

That's exactly what I want. But I've had the misfortune of getting stuck in this same sort of exchange with her on several prior threads now. I was hoping we might develop some sort of signal to avoid such squabbles in the future. But she won't agree.