Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

NP. It’s not unreasonable to ask why APS would consider renaming a school after a couple with no ties to Arlington or NoVa. Do you always call people who aren’t as “progressive” as you are “idiots”? That doesn’t sound very “loving” at all.

The kids and most in the community would despise that name.

The other options on the committee list:
Washington-Lincoln: president, but wasn't from VA/Arlington
Tubman: no direct relation to VA/Arlington
Liberty: "value" that has no direct connection to VA/Arlington

The Lovings were from Virginia, and the SCOTUS case is titled Loving v. Virginia. I think it's kind of fitting to have a school named after them in the commonwealth of Virginia after they successfully beat the state's racist policies of the 1960s.

Lincoln reviewed the Union troops in Arlington - look up the Grand Review.

Washington-Loving is such a stupid name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

NP. It’s not unreasonable to ask why APS would consider renaming a school after a couple with no ties to Arlington or NoVa. Do you always call people who aren’t as “progressive” as you are “idiots”? That doesn’t sound very “loving” at all.

The kids and most in the community would despise that name.

The other options on the committee list:
Washington-Lincoln: president, but wasn't from VA/Arlington
Tubman: no direct relation to VA/Arlington
Liberty: "value" that has no direct connection to VA/Arlington

The Lovings were from Virginia, and the SCOTUS case is titled Loving v. Virginia. I think it's kind of fitting to have a school named after them in the commonwealth of Virginia after they successfully beat the state's racist policies of the 1960s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

NP. It’s not unreasonable to ask why APS would consider renaming a school after a couple with no ties to Arlington or NoVa. Do you always call people who aren’t as “progressive” as you are “idiots”? That doesn’t sound very “loving” at all.

The kids and most in the community would despise that name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Progressive and open-minded. You are an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked my son who goes to W-L about the name and he said all the kids think it's awful and if they name his school that he's transferring to Wakefield.

What do they like?

I’m guessing Washington and Lee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Good call. Swapping Lovings for Lee means no more GeneralS. Now there is only one General.

I just cannot imagine who would have to be on that committee to to pick Loving. It is beyond stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

It should just be The General.

And he should have a handle bar mustache and give you a quick rate on car insurance.

Anonymous wrote:The mascot is very unlikely to change based on what I’ve heard. Washington will stay part of the name and he was a general.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I’m all for it just to piss of all those crazy old people that keep coming to school board meetings to talk about how under appreciated Lee was.

+ 1

Those people are insufferable. My jaw dropped listening to them ask "what right do you have to treat Lee like this?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Not everyone's life centers around W-L under any name. I am am (following your "are are" example) stupidly entrenched in elementary school boundary changes, which I naively believe is far more important in reflecting our values and providing education than the name of a high school. But rest assured, I am now "up to spend" (I may be stupid, but I assume you meant "speed") on the basics. However, I'm still ignorantly wondering who came up with the suggestion in the first place - was the committee handed a list to work from or did the committee develop the original list?

The whole process seems ridiculous to me. If "Lee" is the objection, just drop "Lee" and be George Washington HS Generals. I'd prefer Quincy HS. But I'm too ignorant, so I'll assume that's a stupid idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Not everyone's life centers around W-L under any name. I am am (following your "are are" example) stupidly entrenched in elementary school boundary changes, which I naively believe is far more important in reflecting our values and providing education than the name of a high school. But rest assured, I am now "up to spend" (I may be stupid, but I assume you meant "speed") on the basics. However, I'm still ignorantly wondering who came up with the suggestion in the first place - was the committee handed a list to work from or did the committee develop the original list?

The whole process seems ridiculous to me. If "Lee" is the objection, just drop "Lee" and be George Washington HS Generals. I'd prefer Quincy HS. But I'm too ignorant, so I'll assume that's a stupid idea.