[visualops]

I'll repeat myself:
If you want to make the argument that a bus driver shouldn't talk to the kids about anything but the weather, then do that, but don't make strawman arguments and misrepresent the facts of the incident.

That comment was directed to whom I was speaking. What part of that don't you get? If you're going to post to me, try and follow the conversation, or we'll all go around in circles.

[general_re]

That comment was directed to whom I was speaking. What part of that don't you get?

Excuse me, but you pinged me on the comment (#463) to which I was responding, therefore you were speaking to me. If you prefer that I not respond to you, probably a good first step would be to not draw me in by posting to me. If you are going to post to me, kindly try to remember it when I respond in turn.

[general_re]

Okay, I backtraced the thread and I think I see where the confusion is arising. I understand that your original comments were directed at someone else. You also said She was NOT teaching, espousing, or otherwise promoting "moral values" or even an opinion. She made a statement of FACT, which is what I was responding to, by itself, without referring to the post you responded to. It seems to me that those statements are quite self-explanatory, and that the context doesn't serve to change their meaning. Therefore, I took those statements at face value, standing on their own, and responded appropriately, or close enough for government work anyway....