https://www.facebook.com/quackometer
on the article about Sylvie Sklan's rebuttal to the recent Guardian article. Here's what transpired in the comments... Enjoy!
John Stumbles Speaking
from almost 2 decades of involvement of 2 kids in a Steiner school the article
seemed generally accurate (modulo some weaselling about vaccinations).
The Quackometer It is only
accurate in the sense that it is consistent with how Steiner Schools wish to
portray themselves to the outside world.
John Stumbles You imply
that the reality is different from this: what is your evidence for that?
The Waldorf Review Hi John...
how about the expert testimony of over 600 expert witnesses who experienced
Waldorf first-hand and discovered the schools portray themselves as something
other than what they are? Is that a good start at least? It's at least 600
times as good as your first-hand knowledge, right? http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/
John Stumbles That site
seems to be a collection of anecdotes about bad things alleged to have happened
at various Steiner/Waldorf schools around the world. Can you point me to the
"expert testimony of over 600 expert witnesses" (presumably teachers
and educational academics?) to which you refer?
Pete Karaiskos (The Waldorf Review)
Plenty of teacher and student reviews listed there... far more qualified than
your opinion. Do you have ANY evidence that Waldorf schools are honest with the
public when they describe themselves? Anything? Lots of people say NO. Why do
you say yes?
John Stumbles Pete, your
question "do [I] have ANY evidence...?" implies that the alleged
conspiracy exists unless proven otherwise. This seems to be the accepted
position on InfoWars, Natural News and whale.to, but as a skeptic I suggest
that it is incumbent upon those alleging conspiracies to produce evidence for
them.
Which I what I was asking Andy for earlier, and
which neither he nor anyone else seems capable of producing.
Pete Karaiskos (The Waldorf Review)
Well, John, firstly, you're not a skeptic, you're a Waldorf cheerleader. I
think we established that on the DC's Improbable Science blog (do you need me
to provide the link?). Secondly, a collection of hundreds of testimonies
constitutes evidence (legal, not scientific). We're not going to scientifically
prove Waldorf schools are dishonest - all we can do is show evidence of them
hiding their underpinnings on their websites and in public statements - of
which there is plenty. Oddly, when parent and student testimonies are
investigated, as happened recently with the Green Meadow case, they turn out to
be true - and the evidence of that investigation points to a systemic problem
with Waldorf credibility and a failure to act on complaints or even knowledge
of criminal activity. That evidence is there for the reading - if you care to
open your eyes... or not.
John Stumbles A
"Waldorf cheerleader"? We don't have cheerleaders in this country but
from what I understand of US culture that would be a person who rallies
unconditional support for a sports team. People can make up their own minds
whether my critical appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of
Steiner-Waldorf education amounts to unconditional support; however I can
understand that with your avowedly black and white view of the subject anything
short of rabid anti-Steiner dogmatism must seem like "cheerleading".
As a skeptic (sic) attempting to weigh up issues
on the basis of objective scientific evidence I have been accused of being a
shill for the nuclear industry, for genetic engineering and Monsanto, and for
vaccines and Big Pharma; and these ad hominems have always been in lieu of
rational arguments. The title of "Waldorf cheerleader" seems to fit
this pattern.
Testimonies, however many hundreds you collect,
do not - as you admit - constitute scientific evidence. As lovers of science
and evidence like to say "the plural of anecdote is not data".
Homeopaths, chiropractors and other quacks can produce enough testimonials to
sink a ship but they no more constitute evidence for the efficacy of their
practices than a bunch of complaints from disaffected former Waldorf parents,
pupils and teachers constitutes a systematic survey of Waldorf education.
I actually think that within Steiner-Waldorf
education teachers vary in their abilities from brilliant to incompetent,
schools vary (and vary over time) from excellent to dysfunctional, and there
are good, bad and indifferent aspects to Waldorf educational practice and
theory. But I know your monochromatic world-view will not admit of such
subtlety.
The Waldorf Review
"Testimonies, however many hundreds you collect, do not - as you admit -
constitute scientific evidence. As lovers of science and evidence like to say
"the plural of anecdote is not data". "
Yeah, "science" is a word you throw
around as if you understand it. After a doctor sees measles a few hundred
times, (s)he can learn to identify measles. Sure, it could be something else -
something very rare that looks exactly like measles... but having seen plenty
of cases of measles, we can assume with confidence the doctor actually knows
what (s)he's looking at. It would be different if the doctor had only seen a
coulple of cases... but having studied hundreds of cases, there will be little
doubt. In science, what is new is tested against what is already known. You can
be skeptical about all knowledge, but that leaves you no place to begin
inquiry. We really can know some things by observing them.
"Homeopaths, chiropractors and other quacks
can produce enough testimonials to sink a ship"... blah blah blah...
What's the incentive on the part of Waldorf
teachers, parent and students to speak out against Waldorf. Unlike homeopaths,
who stand to gain financially, they have nothing to gain by lying about what happened
to them.
"I actually think that within
Steiner-Waldorf education teachers vary in their abilities from brilliant to
incompetent,"
Cool. Where do the incompetent teachers go? Are
they kicked out of the Waldorf system? NO... When they've shown they no longer
belong in a classroom, they go on to TRAIN other Waldorf teachers.
"schools vary (and vary over time) from
excellent to dysfunctional,"
So, the parents kicking out $30,000/year for
their child's education... who happen to be at a school when it's in
"dysfunctional" mode? What happens to their child's education when
the school kicks families out for asking questions. Varying from excellent to
dysfunctional is NOT OK!
"and there are good, bad and indifferent
aspects to Waldorf educational practice and theory."
If there were good aspects to Waldorf, they
wouldn't have to disguise them. No TV, for example, isn't explained as a battle
against Ahriman. Eurythmy isn't explained as the physical embodiment of
Anthroposophy. Even the "good" stuff you claim to see is wrapped in
dishonesty.
The Waldorf Review Like doctors
learn to identify measles, the people at the Te Ra school in NZ learned to
identify racism in the lessons and practices of the Waldorf school. Reading
what others have been through - and what practices Waldorf is hiding is
absolutely essential to understanding Waldorf... cheerleaders' opinions
notwithstanding.
John Stumbles Pete you
still haven't responded to my request to you (under your "Waldorf
Review" alias) to "point me to the "expert testimony of over 600
expert witnesses" (presumably teachers and educational academics?) to
which you refer?". I guess that means you haven't got 600 expert
witnesses, but you just unquestioningly accept any and all allegations against
Steiner-Waldorf schools that suit your Waldorf-hater bias.
I don't object to you being anti-Waldorf, but you
could be honest about it: the title "Waldorf Review" suggest an
impartial, dispassionate evaluation of Waldorf education rather than an
anti-Waldorf agenda. It seems ironic, not so say hypocritical, to then accuse
Waldorf schools of having a covert agenda at odds with their public position!
The Waldorf Review "I
guess that means you haven't got 600 expert witnesses, but you just
unquestioningly accept any and all allegations against Steiner-Waldorf schools
that suit your Waldorf-hater bias." I guess that means you don't consider
people who have experienced Waldorf as expert witnesses. So other than
experiencing Waldorf yourself - how are you qualified to trump the testimonies
of all these other people? At least these people put their names to their
allegations... unlike the "anonymous" cheerleaders who report glowing
reviews of these schools. For all we know, *you* could be providing all the
anonymous reviews for these schools. In your second statement, you're not often
right, but you're wrong again... The Waldorf Review makes no claim to be
unbiased. Here's the first thing you read there: "We're well over half way
to our goal of documenting over 1000 critical Waldorf reviews." Try
another one John, this accusation doesn't stick. Meanwhile, explain why you
think "dysfunctional" schools should exist at taxpayers' expense.
John Stumbles The term
"Expert witness" has a specific meaning:
"A person whose level of specialized
knowledge or skill in a particular field qualifies them to present their
opinion about the facts of a case during legal proceedings."
I don't discount the testimonies of people who
report bad experiences with Waldorf education: will you extend the same courtesy
to those of us who report good experiences?
expert witness: definition of expert witness in
Oxford dictionary (British & World English)
Definition of expert witness in British and World
English in Oxford dictionary. ... See More
Pete Karaiskos (The Waldorf Review) The
definition fits perfectly - I, for example, provided testimony as an expert
witness at a Waldorf trial. Other Waldorf critics can and have provided expert
witness testimony - with no more qualifications than being parents in the
system. "I don't discount the testimonies of people who report bad
experiences with Waldorf education:" You certainly do. You call them
"allegations". "will you extend the same courtesy to those of us
who report good experiences?" NO, and I explained why already. 1) These
anonymous testimonies are placed there by Waldorf representatives (my blog
includes many parents describing exactly this). 2) Many, MANY of the critical
reviews are from people who once praised the school - a HUGE percentage. I,
myself, supported Waldorf once. Positive reviews are nothing more than negative
reviews that haven't hatched yet.
John Stumbles So basically you don't believe
people unless they agree with you?
The Waldorf Review I don't believe people when I
know they're lying... big difference. http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/.../waldorf-fraud-in...
The Waldorf Review: Waldorf FRAUD in Reviews
John Stumbles And you
"know" they're lying because they disagree with your views on Steiner
and Waldorf Education ...?
The Waldorf Review No, I know
they're lying because they've been caught lying far too many times. They employ
people to lie for them. The glowing positive reviews disagree with hundreds of
reports I have collected, not just my personal views. That's exactly why I
collected these reviews. My blog has many independent witnesses accusing
Waldorf representatives (posing as parents) of posting positive reviews,
removing negative reviews, even cutting and pasting positive reviews from other
school pages. Collectively, Waldorf representatives are dishonest about so many
things it's impossible to take the anonymous 5-star reviews seriously. My site
hosts many honestly-written 4-star reviews, BTW. You should actually read the
reviews sometime... it's very compelling evidence.
John Stumbles I'm not
talking about reviews on websites, I'm talking about ordinary parents and
pupils and ex-pupils and what they say. My ex-Steiner school son and his
friends who then spent several years at state schools and then (in all but one
cases) university, speak happily of their time there: are you claiming that
they are lying? I'm generally happy with the education my boys have had: are
you claiming that I am lying?
Pete Karaiskos (The Waldorf Review) I'm
claiming that you, like every glazed-eyed parent in a Waldorf school, are one
incident away from being a critic John. I'm sure your kids were happy at
Waldorf - but if that was your goal, you could have sent them to Disneyland
(for less money). Happiness isn't the goal of education - education is the goal
of education. Lots of parents are happy with their choice to harm their
children. Look at the anti-vax people. When one talks to happy Waldorf parents,
one needs to remember those are the bliss-ninnies who sat quietly while
problems arose at their school (and they did). Parents who discovered the
problems have left the school and aren't always available to be interviewed.
That's why the critical reviews of the parents who took the time to write them
are SO important. The parents who wrote these reviews are no longer around to
discuss Waldorf problems with prospective parents... they're long gone!
John Stumbles I am a
critic, in the sense 1a: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critic
I'm certainly not glazed-eyed: not after almost
20 years, though I know what you mean: I was in the early days and I see others
who are. I've seen bad stuff at our school as well as good and I know some
parents left disaffected (and with good reason). But there have been good, and
some excellent, teachers too, and I think more children have left with good
educations and also good social skills: I don't know to what extent it's
general of S-W schools but in ours the education is not just about the academic
side but about helping the children to develop as social beings with respect
for themselves and each other - and happy (cliched as that may sound).
I do think that prospective parents need to be
disabused of the hippy-dippy paradise view of SWE that's often peddled by its
proponents. I guess your site and others of that ilk do a service by presenting
an equally extreme counter-view, but I don't think either of these
black-and-white views conveys the more complex reality of actual schools and
teachers and their changing strengths and weaknesses.
Critic - Definition and More from the Free
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of critic from the Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary with audio pronunciations, thesaurus, Word of the Day, and
word games.
The Waldorf Review So you think
children can be helped to "develop as social beings" by being around
the most anti-social, dishonest people on the planet... whose teachers are
trained to humiliate them into an education steeped in racism? Obviously, you
haven't thought this completely through John.
John Stumbles The
arrogance with which you assume that you, through your self-confirming
prejudices, know my children's teachers - who you have never met - better than
I - who have known them collectively for a decade and a half - is breathtaking.
Your attitude is like the fundamentalists who
refuse to believe that anyone can simply not believe in god and insist that
atheists are simply angry with god.
Like those religious bigots I think you believe
that those you hate are worse people than you.
I think the reverse is true.
The Waldorf Review Since you
haven't bothered to read or understand Anthroposophy, I dare say I DO know more
about your children's teachers than you do - I know the criteria by which they
have assessed and evaluated your children all these years... and the ridiculous
beliefs that guide them in those assessments. I know those beliefs are grounded
in spiritual racism that extends to physical racism. I know those teachers who
looked at your child's head size, hand dominance and physical characteristics
(for assigning a temperament) didn't ignore the race of your child - or you and
your child's mother. These are FACTS John - it's what they are taught to do in
their training TODAY. This isn't me making this stuff up... I married into an
Anthro family full of Waldorf teachers. I studied Steiner for 18 years. To
suggest this is my "attitude" about Anthroposophy is silly. This
stuff is written in stone - and taught to Waldorf teachers. It isn't arrogant
to point that out. It seems arrogant to you because I have to point it out to
you continually - on multiple blogs - over many years. I'm waiting patiently
for the day you understand what Waldorf is about - and stop promoting something
that is genuinely harmful to children. With so many educational models
available today - why would parents even consider one based on racist ideas
that find their way into teacher training, one run by liars at the highest
level, one that finds karmic excuses for bullying and even molesting children
and (according to recent news stories) even hides those molesters within their
ranks for decades, and one that even you acknowledge has a tendency to drift
into dysfunctional (as if all of the above wasn't dysfunctional enough)? Why
would anyone support Waldorf when so much evidence shows how horrible these
schools are?
John Stumbles I understand
what you're saying Pete and I'm not contradicting your experience of the
Waldorf school and people you've been involved in. But what you're describing
is not one iota akin to what I've experienced of the school and teachers I've
been involved with for almost 2 decades, closely enough that I know many of
them socially: seeing them at the same gigs, our kids hanging out together. I
talk to them and I talk to my kids and their friends and I actively look for
the racist and bullying attitudes which you and your fellow Waldorf-haters warn
of, and I find not a whiff of them. On the other hand I find more egalitarian
and accepting attitudes to gender, sexuality and differing abilities - and less
tendency to bully based on such criteria - than kids in mainstream schools seem
to display.
Fact is Pete, you don't know what all
Steiner/Waldorf schools and teachers everywhere in the world are like. But
you're so convinced by your own motivated reasoning and the reinforcement of
your small circle of fellow Waldorf haters in the echo chambers you seem to
spend most of your life in that you have a huge disincentive to opening your
mind to ideas other than those approved by those you move amongst.
Which is sad.
The Waldorf Review Right, John.
I'm the one with the blinkers on. Meanwhile, you're at the ONE school that's
the exception. I've heard about this legendary school from lots of bliss-ninny
parents. NOT MY school... all the others maybe, but not MINE. My answer is
always the same... If your school is so great... NAME the school... let's make
it the teacher training center for ALL of Waldorf - that is, if this particular
school is so great at delivering the Waldorf promise. Name your school John...
if your experience was so great. Let's see if it's on my list, and if other
parents share your opinion about YOUR SCHOOL or if the far more likely scenario
has transpired... that you're being dishonest or are oblivious about the
problems at your school and here promoting it as if it has no problems (despite
that you acknowledged above that it does). That YOU don't see racism and
bullying (just like Waldorf teachers don't) isn't as big a shocker to readers
here as you might imagine.
The Waldorf Review Here's you,
John, acknowledging there are serious problems at your school: "I've seen
bad stuff at our school as well as good and I know some parents left
disaffected (and with good reason)." And then you say "But what
you're describing is not one iota akin to what I've experienced of the school
and teachers I've been involved with for almost 2 decades" - YOU YOURSELF
describe parents leaving for "good reason". How many iotas is that
worth?
John Stumbles Pete,
There's a joke about a shopkeeper complaining
about the number of customers who ask him for an item he's discontinued:
"How many times do I have to tell these people: there's no demand for
it?!"
You acknowledge that lots of parents have told
you that their schools are not as you claim they must be. A rational person
would question their own belief that led them to make such a generalisation.
But not you: you dismiss the parents' reports by attacking them ad hominem;
always a red flag for a dearth of rational evidence and argument.
So, yes, Pete, you are the one with the blinkers
on.
The Waldorf Review "You
acknowledge that lots of parents have told you that their schools are not as
you claim they must be." Yet, they refuse to name this magical school...
as you yourself appear to be doing. That you completely missed the point is,
again, not a shocker. What do you think I'm going to do... stand outside waving
a sign? Tell me about this school that has no problems... that ranges at times
from excellent to dysfunctional... but has no problems. People should rush to
that school John. Why keep the name a secret?
John Stumbles The point,
Pete, is that according to the testimony of the "lots of" parents who
have told you that their schools are not as you claim, it would seem that there
are many good Steiner-Waldorf schools, not just one "magical" one.
But since your mind is closed to the very concept of good S-W schools there's
no point in discussing them.
The Waldorf Review As usual,
when you say "the point" you're mistaken. Here's what the point is...
Lots of parents, like you have shown us here, are willing to make fantastic
claims about schools that, in reality, aren't very fantastic... and in fact,
they are schools that do exactly what I describe. These parents can't back
their fantastic claims up by naming the school, just like you can't, because
the claims simply aren't true. Your own propensity to claim your school is
fantastic after already having said parents left for good reasons makes me
wonder about your own threshold for honesty. I'm glad you have decided there is
no point in discussing good Steiner Waldorf schools because there really aren't
any. You can certainly discuss the merits of Steiner schools... but not separate
from their inherent problems.
John Stumbles I didn't
claim our school was "fantastic", and I daresay the other parents who
contradicted your assertions about their schools didn't claim that theirs were
"fantastic" either. The only thing that's fantastic is your fantasies
about schools you know sweet f.a. about.
The Waldorf Review No, what you
said was: "I actually think that within Steiner-Waldorf education teachers
vary in their abilities from brilliant to incompetent" - but you don't
acknowledge how this plays out for students who have had the incompetent end of
the spectrum. You went on to say: "schools vary (and vary over time) from
excellent to dysfunctional" but again, don't acknowledge how this plays
out for students who are trapped in the dysfunctional schools or during
dysfunctional periods (I assume this would mean decades for some schools). You
further stated: "and there are good, bad and indifferent aspects to
Waldorf educational practice and theory" - as if such a spectrum of
educational practices is OK in some way. We've seen how "bad"
teachers can be - and how "indifferent" schools can be when children
are bullied, abused, raped and so forth... What's the "good" that
makes up for this? Stone soup? Gardening? Eurythmy? I don't have any fantasies
about Waldorf John... YOU do.
John Stumbles Children have
been bullied, abused and even raped at all sorts of schools. Nothing like that
at ours, fortunately: the dysfunctional end of the spectrum was some
incompetent teachers and personal antagonism between teachers which the school
didn't deal with effectively. That was about 10 years ago.
I don't think bad teachers or dysfunctional
schools are OK, in any sector. But it happens, in all sectors.
The Waldorf Review "I
don't think bad teachers or dysfunctional schools are OK, in any sector. But it
happens, in all sectors." And is excusable in Waldorf... why exactly? You
may find bullying in lots of places, but not with a school-wide REASON for
allowing it. You don't find all sorts of schools hiding known rapists within
their communities for decades. These cases may not be 100% unique to Waldorf,
but they happen with a LOT more frequency in Waldorf environments because
Waldorf is built on a philosophy that allows their representatives to find
excuses for this. How do I know? I've gone to the trouble of collecting the
reviews of parents. That data set is what allows me to make these statements
with confidence. All you have is your opinion that this happens everywhere with
the same frequency - you parrot the official Waldorf line. You are far too
blinded by waving your own pom-poms to see this or the reasons behind it. I
couldn't care less. Certainly others reading this will see past your
cheer-leading.
The Waldorf Review http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/.../why-waldorf...
John Stumbles "they
happen with a LOT more frequency in Waldorf environments"
Evidence (figures of relative frequencies from
reputable sources) or STFU.
The Waldorf Review But John,
Waldorf doesn't report these things - how is anyone supposed to compile
evidence? Sure, we have incidents of kids catching on fire, and being spit on
by teachers, but we both know Waldorf schools hide the worst incidents - and overlook
things like bullying... so how can we know the full extent of the problems? We
have a good indicator at The Waldorf Review - with how frequently parents
complain about these things - and I'm told there are people at work going
through the reviews and compiling the data - so we will have an answer to your
question (as far as known reviews are concerned). But Waldorf chooses its
victims carefully. Sadly, children don't speak up often enough. When a Waldorf
school was forced to open their doors to investigators, after a student became
an adult and spoke up, they found rapists, pedophiles, gropers, and child
pornographers among their top teachers - and other teachers who knew about them
and kept silent while these monsters lived among the community - the worst next
to a day care center. http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/.../green-meadow...
Teachers hide this stuff. This isn't a one-off school... it's a top old,
established Waldorf school in the USA. They train teachers who end up in the
UK... to cover this stuff up too. Dishonesty is what Waldorf is famous for.
John Stumbles So you don't
have figures for the incidence of sexual abuse in Waldorf schools. Do you have
figures for prevalence in state-funded schools? Or other independent schools
(because I'm sure those are really quick to publicise any bad stuff going on)?
No, I thought not. So your claim about "a
LOT more frequency in Waldorf environments" is simply another lie you made
up to support your bigoted anti-Waldorf agenda.
A lie Peter: you claim that Waldorf schools tell
lies, and get very indignant about it, but you tell lies yourself. It's hard to
believe a word you say.
The Waldorf Review LMAO!
Right... it sounds like somebody's projecting - and hoping readers won't
notice. I never lie John. Here's the part you ignored "Waldorf is built on
a philosophy that allows their representatives to find excuses for this."
I hate to draw examples from the Catholic church hiding pedophiles within their
ranks, but this is exactly what Waldorf is doing. A business model would get
rid of bad teachers (they're bad for business) - a religious model hides them -
even promotes them. That's not a lie John, that's a fact. There is the very truthful
reason why there is a lot more frequency of abuse in Waldorf environments... It
is ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. That Waldorf representatives lie is a fact too - they
have done this countless times and been caught at it. Their guru, Steiner, TOLD
THEM TO LIE TO PARENTS. It's documented many times. But no worries... You
obviously don't know Steiner's material, and so you don't understand what you
think you do. When documents say racist things, you insist they are saying the
exact opposite. When teachers do bad things, you say it's part of a wider
spectrum of acceptable (to you) teaching techniques. You don't even know what
you yourself have written from one post to the next. You are simply here to
tell any lie about Waldorf schools you think might stick - hoping you may get
one or two parents who are skimming this material and not following the links.
Again, I don't lie John. I don't need to.
Update: After I posted this, John posted back on Facebook, challenging me to put up his post. I love challenges:
Update: After I posted this, John posted back on Facebook, challenging me to put up his post. I love challenges:
John Stumbles Pete you're weaselling: you make, and then repeat, a statement based not on any factual evidence but solely on your bigoted beliefs, and you present it as fact. That is craven dishonesty.
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".
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".
google 675
ReplyDeletegoogle 676
google 677
google 678
google 679