Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. For all those clamoring for the event to be cancelled, I have a couple of questions?
1) Do you think that after 100+ years of going to the Zoo, African-American families will stop coming (how will they even know that it has been cancelled)?
2) Are you proposing that African-American families be forcibly kept out of the zoo? Or, are you suggesting that the Zoo close on Easter Monday?
3) If the zoo does close, wouldn't that be perceived as discriminatory and a way to keep the "black folks" out of pristine, crime-free Woodley Park?
4) Same thing for having tickets - the zoo is free everyday of the year except for African-American family day (note Boo at the Zoo is after the Zoo's normal hours of operation).
5) Lastly, If the zoo closes on Easter Monday and there's still violence due to kids being out of school and on spring break, would would have been the point of cancelling?
I'm just trying to picture how it would look to cancel the day and how you're going to stop African-American families from visiting the Zoo (especially if they go every single year). I should admit that I'm a AA and a native Washingtonian who has been to the Zoo on Easter Monday as a child and now as a mom. I had no idea the day was "advertised" on the web site, I just knew that's what we did on Easter Monday.
For me the real issue is that during Spring Break you have a lot of teens looking for something to get into. Maybe providing mandatory Spring Break enrichment camp for teens who are not in the care of their parents/families would be a better solution than trying to keep out certain people or breaking 100+ year-old traditions.

See...that is point! They do not care what these teens do - as long as it is not in Woodley Park. They do not want a large congregation of AA's in their neighborhood - that's why you had suggestions to move a Zoo function to RFK. It would not reduce the likliehood of an incident - it just would not happen in Woodley Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. For all those clamoring for the event to be cancelled, I have a couple of questions?
1) Do you think that after 100+ years of going to the Zoo, African-American families will stop coming (how will they even know that it has been cancelled)?
2) Are you proposing that African-American families be forcibly kept out of the zoo? Or, are you suggesting that the Zoo close on Easter Monday?
3) If the zoo does close, wouldn't that be perceived as discriminatory and a way to keep the "black folks" out of pristine, crime-free Woodley Park?
4) Same thing for having tickets - the zoo is free everyday of the year except for African-American family day (note Boo at the Zoo is after the Zoo's normal hours of operation).
5) Lastly, If the zoo closes on Easter Monday and there's still violence due to kids being out of school and on spring break, would would have been the point of cancelling?
I'm just trying to picture how it would look to cancel the day and how you're going to stop African-American families from visiting the Zoo (especially if they go every single year). I should admit that I'm a AA and a native Washingtonian who has been to the Zoo on Easter Monday as a child and now as a mom. I had no idea the day was "advertised" on the web site, I just knew that's what we did on Easter Monday.
For me the real issue is that during Spring Break you have a lot of teens looking for something to get into. Maybe providing mandatory Spring Break enrichment camp for teens who are not in the care of their parents/families would be a better solution than trying to keep out certain people or breaking 100+ year-old traditions.

"Discrimination"? Give me a break. Not even Jesse Jackson would take that one. (Of course, he has been awfully silent since his son and daughter in law went to the slammer.)

Let's add diversity to AA family day and affirmatively welcome zoo patrons of all ethnic groups and races. It may be actually be discriminatory to continue an event that is so overtly geared to one racial group.

Anonymous wrote:Heck, what happened to the truth post?

Anonymous wrote:NP. For all those clamoring for the event to be cancelled, I have a couple of questions?
1) Do you think that after 100+ years of going to the Zoo, African-American families will stop coming (how will they even know that it has been cancelled)?
2) Are you proposing that African-American families be forcibly kept out of the zoo? Or, are you suggesting that the Zoo close on Easter Monday?
3) If the zoo does close, wouldn't that be perceived as discriminatory and a way to keep the "black folks" out of pristine, crime-free Woodley Park?
4) Same thing for having tickets - the zoo is free everyday of the year except for African-American family day (note Boo at the Zoo is after the Zoo's normal hours of operation).
5) Lastly, If the zoo closes on Easter Monday and there's still violence due to kids being out of school and on spring break, would would have been the point of cancelling?
I'm just trying to picture how it would look to cancel the day and how you're going to stop African-American families from visiting the Zoo (especially if they go every single year). I should admit that I'm a AA and a native Washingtonian who has been to the Zoo on Easter Monday as a child and now as a mom. I had no idea the day was "advertised" on the web site, I just knew that's what we did on Easter Monday.
For me the real issue is that during Spring Break you have a lot of teens looking for something to get into. Maybe providing mandatory Spring Break enrichment camp for teens who are not in the care of their parents/families would be a better solution than trying to keep out certain people or breaking 100+ year-old traditions.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the Woodley Park people don"t want gang activity in their neighborhood. Why should they?

Can you tell me which neighborhood wants gang activity?

I don't think anybody is suggesting people in Woodley Park should welcome or even accept crime. There is simply disagreement over which steps are appropriate. Ending a tradition that is more than 100 years old because of two gun incidents over 15 years doesn't seem appropriate to many.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the Woodley Park people don"t want gang activity in their neighborhood. Why should they?

Can you tell me which neighborhood wants gang activity?

I don't think anybody is suggesting people in Woodley Park should welcome or even accept crime. There is simply disagreement over which steps are appropriate. Ending a tradition that is more than 100 years old because of two gun incidents over 15 years doesn't seem appropriate to many.

I really disagree with this as a resident of a neighborhood adjacent to Woodley Park whose teen is very likely to be walking on her own past the main Zoo entrance several times a week. All it takes is one violent incident to change any of our lives forever, and a single human life is infinitely more valuable than a tradition. (And I say this as someone in the general cultural heritage preservation business who does a lot for the sake of my own and others' traditions.) If trouble follows this event (and I think it's disingenuous to say that it doesn't-- since it certainly has at least a few times too many), fundamental, proactive changes to the event are needed to deter trouble. It's really not sufficient to have the police merely standing by to respond once trouble begins.

Somehow, I don't see how saying I don't want crime in my neighborhood suggests I (or others) think crime is ok in other neighborhoods. But I do think I have a particular responsibility to speak up when an area in which I permit my child's independent movement has seen a predictable pattern of violence that (I think) responsible decision-makers are obligated to interrupt.

And yes, I'd like to see all the violence stop. But I don't think the Zoo or Woodley Park should be obligated to assume increased risk until youth violence declines elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Totally trashed right now. So please humor me: what did I say about you that was untruthful? Please feel free to use quotes of mine from the message you deleted. Do we need to quote you verbatim from now on and not paraphrase lest we risk deletion?

I already explained it once. I can't quote because your message is deleted. But, you said that I had changed my earlier story. The way that you described my earlier story was not factual. If you correctly state what I have said, there won't be any problem. But, if you are not truthful, I am no longer going to put up with anonymous false allegations. Surely I have said enough for you to have a field day without needing to make things up.

That's adorable. You're like a mini-Putin!

Good one! That's not a bad characterization of Jeff...strong, decisive and driven by a funny sense of self-righteousness.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the Woodley Park people don"t want gang activity in their neighborhood. Why should they?

Can you tell me which neighborhood wants gang activity?

I don't think anybody is suggesting people in Woodley Park should welcome or even accept crime. There is simply disagreement over which steps are appropriate. Ending a tradition that is more than 100 years old because of two gun incidents over 15 years doesn't seem appropriate to many.

I really disagree with this as a resident of a neighborhood adjacent to Woodley Park whose teen is very likely to be walking on her own past the main Zoo entrance several times a week. All it takes is one violent incident to change any of our lives forever, and a single human life is infinitely more valuable than a tradition. (And I say this as someone in the general cultural heritage preservation business who does a lot for the sake of my own and others' traditions.) If trouble follows this event (and I think it's disingenuous to say that it doesn't-- since it certainly has at least a few times too many), fundamental, proactive changes to the event are needed to deter trouble. It's really not sufficient to have the police merely standing by to respond once trouble begins.

Somehow, I don't see how saying I don't want crime in my neighborhood suggests I (or others) think crime is ok in other neighborhoods. But I do think I have a particular responsibility to speak up when an area in which I permit my child's independent movement has seen a predictable pattern of violence that (I think) responsible decision-makers are obligated to interrupt.

And yes, I'd like to see all the violence stop. But I don't think the Zoo or Woodley Park should be obligated to assume increased risk until youth violence declines elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Totally trashed right now. So please humor me: what did I say about you that was untruthful? Please feel free to use quotes of mine from the message you deleted. Do we need to quote you verbatim from now on and not paraphrase lest we risk deletion?

I already explained it once. I can't quote because your message is deleted. But, you said that I had changed my earlier story. The way that you described my earlier story was not factual. If you correctly state what I have said, there won't be any problem. But, if you are not truthful, I am no longer going to put up with anonymous false allegations. Surely I have said enough for you to have a field day without needing to make things up.

That's adorable. You're like a mini-Putin!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Totally trashed right now. So please humor me: what did I say about you that was untruthful? Please feel free to use quotes of mine from the message you deleted. Do we need to quote you verbatim from now on and not paraphrase lest we risk deletion?

I already explained it once. I can't quote because your message is deleted. But, you said that I had changed my earlier story. The way that you described my earlier story was not factual. If you correctly state what I have said, there won't be any problem. But, if you are not truthful, I am no longer going to put up with anonymous false allegations. Surely I have said enough for you to have a field day without needing to make things up.

That's adorable. You're like a mini-Putin!

Well, since you are the one who is drunk, I guess you are like a mini-Yeltsin.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Totally trashed right now. So please humor me: what did I say about you that was untruthful? Please feel free to use quotes of mine from the message you deleted. Do we need to quote you verbatim from now on and not paraphrase lest we risk deletion?

I already explained it once. I can't quote because your message is deleted. But, you said that I had changed my earlier story. The way that you described my earlier story was not factual. If you correctly state what I have said, there won't be any problem. But, if you are not truthful, I am no longer going to put up with anonymous false allegations. Surely I have said enough for you to have a field day without needing to make things up.

That's adorable. You're like a mini-Putin!

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Totally trashed right now. So please humor me: what did I say about you that was untruthful? Please feel free to use quotes of mine from the message you deleted. Do we need to quote you verbatim from now on and not paraphrase lest we risk deletion?

I already explained it once. I can't quote because your message is deleted. But, you said that I had changed my earlier story. The way that you described my earlier story was not factual. If you correctly state what I have said, there won't be any problem. But, if you are not truthful, I am no longer going to put up with anonymous false allegations. Surely I have said enough for you to have a field day without needing to make things up.

That's adorable. You're like a mini-Putin!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Totally trashed right now. So please humor me: what did I say about you that was untruthful? Please feel free to use quotes of mine from the message you deleted. Do we need to quote you verbatim from now on and not paraphrase lest we risk deletion?

I already explained it once. I can't quote because your message is deleted. But, you said that I had changed my earlier story. The way that you described my earlier story was not factual. If you correctly state what I have said, there won't be any problem. But, if you are not truthful, I am no longer going to put up with anonymous false allegations. Surely I have said enough for you to have a field day without needing to make things up.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the Woodley Park people don"t want gang activity in their neighborhood. Why should they?

Can you tell me which neighborhood wants gang activity?

I don't think anybody is suggesting people in Woodley Park should welcome or even accept crime. There is simply disagreement over which steps are appropriate. Ending a tradition that is more than 100 years old because of two gun incidents over 15 years doesn't seem appropriate to many.