Not at all.
"GLSEN has no control over what kids tell their parents."
GLSEN influences what kids say and think more than you realize - through GSA's, workshops such as those in their 'Teach Out' conferences, and throught their recommended reading lists.
" The parents could have attended if they wished."
Unless parents had reason for concern, why would they attend? Most parents, believeing this was a "safe-schools" conference for middle and high school aged children, gave permission for their children to attend the conference in general. You've already confirmed that no registration or parental permission was required for individual workshops, so it's very unlikely parents knew that this sexually explicit workshop would be included at a "safe schools" conference.
"Driscoll had nothing to do with conference and SHOULD have had nothing to do with the contrived controversy... Driscoll’s was dragged into this via deception..."
From State condemns 'gay' sex discussion:
"While I had a letter in the conference brochure, it offered general support of programs that promote safe schools; it was not a letter of specific support for this conference. I had no knowledge of what the conference workshops would entail," he said.
If Driscoll didn't intend for his letter to be "of specific support for this conference" why did GLSEN put it in their 'Teach Out' conference brochure? We know why - to convince parents that the conference was supported by the state. GLSEN was trying to pull one over on everyone. The letter had to be printed up before the conference, so someone at GLSEN carefully planned this. When parents hear that the conference is about "safe schools" and then see a "letter of support" from the commisioner of Education in a GLSEN conference brochure, why would they have reason for concern? If Driscoll had absolutely nothing to do with the conference, why did GLSEN solicit a letter from the highest ranking education official in the state?
Yeah, Driscoll’s was dragged into this via deception - it was GLSEN doing the dragging.
"And I have no idea how or if they checked ages. Seeing as how there are no charges or harm to minors, I don't see how it makes a difference."
There's a lot of truth in that little "satire" you posted in reply 210:
DA: So, Mr. Whiteman, you think that children were harmed at this presentation?...
WHITEMAN: I don’t know their names and I don’t know their ages… but some of them looked kind of young…
DA: I see… hmmm… I’ll ask the conference organizer. Ummm… GLSEN, what are the names and ages of the kids in that workshop?
GLSEN: We don’t know.
DA: What?
GLSEN: We don’t know. Folks register for the conference, not for individual workshops. If you want to attend a specific workshop, just walk into the room at the appropriate time… (assuming that there’s room available)… we don’t take names.
DA: I see. Well, Mr. Whiteman, before we even get to the evidence… we have to have at least one victim…
DA: ... But I’m sorry… without an identifiable victim, I can’t possibly prove that they were in any way “harmed.”
Parents were never required to sign permission slips for specific workshops and GLSEN didn't keep track of the ages of the kids going to sexually explicit workshops. Ah, the method in GLSEN's madness.
" Seeing as how there are no charges..."
In reply 104, you wrote:
"We KNOW that no charges have been filed against GLSEN, therefore the complaint was without merit."
Actually madg, there have been no charges filed yet. The fact is, the Attorney General has not rendered any opinion on the complaint filed by Scott Whiteman. Until such time that the complaint is officially dismissed, the workshop presenters could still be charged. Quite frankly, if I were the attorney for Camenker and Whiteman, I'd demand that the AG stop sitting on his hands and make a ruling.
And, as I pointed out in reply 136, Camenker and Whiteman have NEVER been charged of any crime in a criminal court. The homsexual activist group (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) who brought the civil suit used a little-known wiretapping law originally written for organized crime and twisted its meaning to accuse Camenker and Whiteman of committing crimes.
As quoted in State condemns 'gay' sex discussion:
"Faced with the irrefutable evidence of his employees' actions, David Driscoll, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education, admitted Tuesday: "The participation of our staff in conversations with students about explicit issues of sexuality outside the realm of AIDS/HIV prevention was wrong. The workshops were of prurient nature, and not educational, and what we heard suggests that the discussion contributed absolutely nothing to the students' understanding of how to avoid AIDS and HIV." "
It's 1984 in Massachusetts – And Big Brother Is Gay:
"Clossey called her mayor. He never called back. Calling school officials, she says she encountered "arrogant disrespect for parents." So she filed a criminal complaint against the teacher for corrupting a minor. Even Boston's hard-line pro-homosexuality newspapers and TV stations couldn't sit on this. But the complaint went nowhere. It emerged that Kozuch was not acting alone. The book was on a reading list given to every student. Urged by other furious parents, Clossey went to the local prosecutor. But the receptionist had been warned to expect her, according to Clossey. She waited and waited, but was not allowed to speak to her district attorney."