on the article about Sylvie Sklan's rebuttal to the recent Guardian article. Here's what transpired in the comments... Enjoy!
Update: After I posted this, John posted back on Facebook, challenging me to put up his post. I love challenges:
Care to include that statement on your website too?
And on the subject of your despicable website the publishing of material presuming the guilt of someone who has been accused but not convicted of any offence might in some jurisdictions be considered prejudicial to a fair trial and contempt of court. And publishing the accused's home address and a photograph of their house might be considered incitement to vigilante action.
I think that speaks to your respect for the law.
It's hard to credit accusations against Waldorf people when they come from someone ethically bankrupt.
The Waldorf Review Sure, I'll tack on your comment. No worries. I'll reply to it too. Guilt doesn't require waiting for a conviction. When somebody admits he has done something, but the law hasn't convicted him, it doesn't undo what happened. But hey, good job of standing by and supporting the plight of the pedophiles and child pornographers. As you have admitted, you have no problem turning the other cheek for problematic teachers - even when other parents don't.
I love how John is using the "innocent until proven guilty" defense against pedophiles who have themselves admitted their guilt - and yet suggests I'm the one who is "ethically bankrupt".