Replies

Here are the facts. Do you deny any of these?

1.) A little boy was beaten up at school by several other children.

I deny that, given the story by the school backed up by the playground aids that it was a simple fight between two boys who are actually friends. But perhaps you or Parker (who also posts here) can name a few of these "bullies" and their families who promoted this attack?

3.) The little boy in question is the son of a man who is being attacked by the school district and local homo-promo groups for resisting the "gay" agenda.

He is the son of Parker. Not sure what attack by the school district you are referring to. Parker is the one who initiated the lawsuit.

We are left to infer whether these things are in any way related. The homo-promo group has gone to great lengths to make it appear the fight was unrelated to their conflicts with the boy's parents. I'm not so sure.

We don't need to infer anything before looking at all of the reports. Which homo-promo group has had anything to say that was not already stated by the police chief and the school and district administration?

You, on the other hand, have been 100% sure from the get-go, based completely on the spin offered by the homo community and their supporters. If that's what you call 'research', I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

And your "research" was what? At least a few of us looked at all of the articles and press releases before debunking this original story. You were taken in hook, line, and sinker, but only because that's what you wanted to believe. So much for research, huh?

I deny that, given the story by the school backed up by the playground aids that it was a simple fight between two boys who are actually friends.

Deny it all you wish; however...

But perhaps you or Parker (who also posts here) can name a few of these "bullies" and their families who promoted this attack?

Diversion?

As much as you would like to imply Mr. Parker's son was not led to a secluded area by others -it happened. As much as you would like to imply the beating did not happen -it did. Even if refering to what I consider to be the biased investigative report from the School administration puiblished by the Superintendent one can see it did in fact happen:

PRESS RELEASE: June 16, 2006
On May 17, several first graders were involved in a disagreement over who would sit where in the cafeteria. As a result, upon going outside one child took another by the hand and brought him to a third student in an area of the playground that is somewhat difficult for the adults to see. (The student who was hit said that he went willingly.) All children who saw agreed that the third student then hit the student who had been brought to him two to four times in the chest/abdomen (children’s accounts vary) and he fell to his knees. The student who was hit says he was hit when down; the other children say he wasn’t. One child reports that one student held the arm of the student who was hit; however, the child who was hit and the other children did not report this. The children involved named five children who were nearby watching but not directly involved. Several other students were close enough to see a cluster of students but not close enough to see what was happening. The student who did the hitting suggested that others also hit, but none of them did so.

The rest of your posting contained nothing relevant -as such nothing to refute or debunk from a conservative perspective...