maureen rupe: GO AWAY, GNAT!
Note: This is a response to ick-eee-mails from maureen rupe [sic]. I do not cap her name because I do not respect maureen rupe. When/if she earns my respect I'll again cap her name, until then, nada unless in a quote. This shall be a very long page. Check out my pages on her 2008 BOCC D1 candidacy here and my anti-incorporation pages here to find the pages to which rupe and I refer. Imagine after reading rupe's ick-eee-mails to me on this page if rupe had won.
May 10, 2010 I got another rude surprise today when I returned from my dental appointment via another ick-eee-mail from the rupester. She is throwing another hissy fit and acting as though I answer to her! Well, lah-ti-froggy-dah. I do not answer to the rupester -- nor do you -- nor do I have to kowtow to her and kiss her shiney behiney. I am not her servant, follower, worshiper, nor grunt. I have taken steps to prevent any further ick-eee-mails in that I have blocked her. However, it does cut down on the comedy portion of any e-mail check at my house. It always gives us a good laugh to receive something -- even threats -- from rupester. She's hysterically pathetic and it's always a good giggle.
Now to the ick-eee-mail that I received from her today. She supposedly sent me more (included in the ick-eee-mail below), but I received nothing from her on April 12th, or 16th. I received an e-mail from her on April 8, 2010 with the subject line "Comment" and one dated April 11th with the subject line, "More Lies". That one had no text in the e-mail, just a Word document attached. I shall publish them in the order in which they were received. Enjoy the hillarity.
Remember, all ick-eee-mails are posted exactly as I received them from the rupester, except for the [sic] where rupe has grammar, punctuation or spelling errors. I added the [sic] to show the mistakes were as received, not mine. Remember to keep an eye on the dates because they arrived in this order, although those dated April 12th and 16th only came in -- on and with -- the May 10th ick-eee-mail.
From: Maureen Rupe
Next e-mail to arrive:
From: Maureen Rupe
Next e-mail to arrive:
From: Maureen Rupe
That's what she's saying. Knickers in a twist?
Shall I go word by word and destroy these idiocies? After all, she sent them to me knowing full well that I am apt to do so. I have done so to every ick-eee-mail she has sent me so she knew what she was getting into. She must want the attention. She must have understood the repercussions. She must like this word by word breakdown of her failings, or why would she write? Is it something to do with rupe enjoying embarrassment? Heaven only knows. But I shall not disappoint. Not when she demands of me answers to her holiness, rupester the first and foremost. How could I dare disappoint?
Okay. Start at the top and work our way down, shall we? The first e-mail about atheists is first to fall. I have already tackled it a little April 10, 2010, and it is now old enough to be moved to "Page Deux", so I'll just copy it here and show you what I said:
"This after I linked to the story on Hot Air about trading Bibles and Korans (Qurans) for porn.Why atheism being criticized brings rupe to keeping an ongoing ick-eee-mail communication with me to the point of threatening me again, I can only guess. Things seem to snowball for rupe and she can't seem to stop. She tries to get my attention so hard that she ick-eee-mails April 8th, 11th, 12th, 16th and May 10th. My new pen pal must have my attention. I am starting to feel very loved. Sigh. It's a wonderful thing when someone loves you so much. Don't you think? (Yes. That's sarcasm.)
I also find it very interesting to see that rupe says,
"when they stand at last before God and Eternity" [sic].So is she admitting that there is a God and an "Eternity" [sic] to which she herself is subject? Rather strange for someone to defend atheists and in the same paragraph say, "when they stand at last before God and Eternity" [sic]. Don't you agree? Split personality?
Another question, if I may. Why is it that whenever progressives/liberals have a problem with someone who is a Christian, it is not the facts put forth by the Christian the progressives attack first, it is the person's Christianity? She goes after my Christianity as if it's going to make me kowtow and apologize because I'm a Christian and I shouldn't be acting like I believe in anything. I should be super sweet, compliant and shamelessly kissing everyone's backside to get their approval. Excuse me? I'm not a namby-pamby, candy-coated, "Can't we all just get along?" person. That's not who God made me. I follow Christ's example as in when He overturned the money changers' tables and threw the money changers out of the temple. Also note Matthew 23 when Christ called the Pharisees, etc., vipers, snakes, blind, hypocrites, etc. Some would say he was "name calling". I say he was telling the truth since He's incapable of telling a lie. Christ didn't allow lies to stand and He didn't allow liars to control others through the demons' lies. He cast out demons (liars if ever there were any) instead of allowing them to stay in residence. He stood and didn't apologize and say, "Can't we all just get along?" when he was accused. Christ didn't die on the cross so we could all get along. He died on the cross for our sins and for the victory of Christianity over satan and his minions. I do not kowtow to his minions, to atheists, those who support atheists, or to anyone else because they point an accusatory finger at my Christianity and say "nanny-nanny-booboo" and expect me to crumble. I stand because victory is already mine. maureen rupe trying to make me shut up by attacking my Christianity just makes me stronger. I will not give in to maureen rupe nor any of her ilk. I will stand and I will speak!
Now to the next ick-eee-mail. The Microsoft Word document that started with my name misspelled as "Mckinney" (cap that "K") and has nothing else as part of the greeting. Rude, to be certain, but that's expected and she doesn't disappoint. Although, to tell you the truth, I did stick my tongue out at her during a PSJ4T meeting once and rupe said, "How rude! How infantile!" I laughed and laughed. It was too fun. Infantile it was. But I enjoy infantile sometimes. It helps ease the stress. Rude she deserved, so I didn't have a problem with that.
The second e-mail I received (document attachment, but no text in the actual ick-eee-mail) I have covered already (including the fact that it was a Titan 34D, not a 34B as rupe "corrects"). This is the "correction" e-mail that states that Florida Toady [sic] got the dates wrong and that she actually saw the rocket explode in April 1986. Check my blurb dated April 11, 2010. So part of this ick-eee-mail is covered, but not all of it.
What's the part that isn't covered?
First, Isn't it always someone else's fault with rupe? In this particular instance, it's Florida Toady's [sic] fault. They got the date way wrong; as I said in my homepage posting: it was that or rupe misspoke. She never had anything to do with it. She wasn't there. It was a misquote, it was a slip of the tongue. Read her campaign website? (Yeah. Still up. Breaking the law.) You know what I'm talking about.
Second, rupe's ick-eee-mail states,
"At least the article didn't mislead the public like your many, many misstatements or misunderstanding [sic]."Oh? Here's the article. See where it states,
"Maureen Rupe watched a rocket carrying a nuclear generator explode over California in 1968."?Don't you, rupe, find that at least a tad misleading? (Yes, I know you are reading this, throwing another hissy fit, and printing every word out for future reference and supposed litigation.) There were no nuclear generators on that rocket, nor on the satellite it was carrying. In fact, not even Greenpeace reports it as a nuclear incident. So much for "the article didn't mislead the public" (besides getting the date wrong). Wish I'd had bet on that one.
Third, I want to know where rupe gets off demanding answers from me. If I'm not breaking the law (and disagreeing with rupe is not yet illegal) I don't answer to anyone except God and my husband (in that order). I want to know what makes her think that I have to give her any information whatsoever? Where does rupe get off thinking for one nanosecond that she can demand that I must answer her questions?
Yet this is the attitude we see all the time from rupe. Even as a candidate, rupe refused to answer our questions, she obfuscated, or she repainted the picture. I sent D1 candidates (everyone I could find an e-mail address for and received only two responses: Al Yorston and J. Roger Shealy) a candidate questionnaire and she refused to respond. Okay, I understand that she didn't trust me. But even her fellow Democratic candidate, Al Yorston said about my treatment of him and his response in an e-mail dated June 19, 2008 at 11:51 a.m.:
"Aside from having your support and endorsement, I couldn't have asked for you to be kinder or nicer to me. While it is obvious we have divergent philosophical beliefs I hope you know that as Commissioner it will be my responsibility to serve all the residents of Brevard County and I would be honored to represent you and all the people of District 1. Thanks again for the opportunity to get my message out to voters. Al"If she had responded to the questionnaire, maureen rupe would have received the same treatment. I sent rupe the following e-mail on May 15, 2008 asking her what her qualifications were for being a County Commissioner and the only response I received was, "Thank you for your email. I'll be addressing your issues on my website. Maureen Rupe"
"Maureen Rupe,Later, rupe posted this as her qualifications and her resume of volunteer activities. Other things she obfuscated on:
"The county funded the feasibility study because 74% of our voters wanted to move forward toward civic independence."Uh. No. Seventy-four percent of the residents of PSJ voted to see if it was "feasible" (thus the title). Feasible meaning "capable of being done". They did not vote to "move forward toward civic independence." That "move forward toward civic independence" is rupe speak for becoming an incorporated city (and forcing Hardeeville, Delespine, Frontenac and Williams Point to incorporate along with PSJ even though the Four Communities had no say in being included in the community overlay rupe's groups, PSJ4T and/or the PSJHOA while rupe was president, put on those communities without their knowledge). I spoke to several people who voted to fund the study because they thought that the study would prove it was not feasible. There were some who said they didn't know what the study would find, but voted for it to see what the results would be. That does not mean that the people who said those two things -- and there were many of them -- were voting to "move forward toward civic independence"; i.e. become an incorporated city. It means that they were trusting that the study would be an honest appraisal of the facts, figures, possibilities and constraints of what a future PSJ "The City" would look like. Read rupe's PSJ Incorporation page. See any mention whatsoever of rupe's personal, in-depth involvement in the push for incorporation during the six years prior to the vote? Even see the words "I", or "Me" on that page? No? Repainting. Big time.
Fourth, I don't appreciate her condescension, "Ask your husband to explain the difference". Puhlease! I don't need any explanations. I have known the difference between a rocket and a satellite since I was a child. I wonder if rupe can say the same. I was going on what the FL Toady [sic] article said: the one that "didn't mislead the public". They didn't have their facts straight. I had to go on what either rupester spoke, or they misquoted. It was the two of them who screwed up, not I.
Fifth, when I am wrong, I point out the fact that I got it wrong and make a correction. Even when rupester contacts me with corrections, I post them after checking out her assertions (I dare not call them "facts"). For instance, the Amendment 4 correction rupe helped me with. On the rare occasion when needed, I do post them. Threats and irritations have now rendered that avenue useless to the rupester. I do not wish to be pen pals with rupester. I do not wish to have her try to force me to kowtow to her. I do not wish to have anything to do with rupester except defeating her in any public office bid she makes and commenting and disagreeing when I find something in her writings and on the public record that I disagree with. If I had to give blood to keep her alive, I would do so (assuming blood compatibility) just to keep her alive so that I could keep defeating her. When you have a favorite toy, you don't want to lose it.
And, rupe, a little hint here. The word "commonsense" [sic] is two words: common sense. Of course, you wouldn't be familiar with that.
As to how many, many rockets I have seen explode: I don't answer to rupester. Period.
Now that little bit about the "please provide proof that I have threatened to sue you 5 times" and "Produce the proof, not hearsay, proof." I think rupester may not understand a legal definition. According to the Law.com Dictionary hearsay is,
"n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her."When one person threatens to sue another person -- eyeball to eyeball or e-mail to e-mail -- it is not hearsay. When the person being threatened is speaking about it, it is eyewitness testimony. Those I tell about it are the second-hand people: them telling someone else (a third person) would be second-hand evidence. I, on the other hand, had the "pleasure" of being eyeball-to-eyeball with rupester as she threatened me, or of seeing the e-mail come up on my computer and reading it straight from her. That's not second hand. I think rupester forgets a lot of things (memory chip needs replacing), but specifically, that I keep extensive records, as does she, and that I recorded (plainly and in sight) meetings and our encounters and I still have those tapes. I think that's sufficient evidence.
But to satisfy the curiosity of the others reading this: rupester threatened to sue me twice during the incorporation battle, then she came (with a stack of papers that were no doubt my website pages printed out) to one of the last PSJHOA Board of Directors meetings at the PSJ Community Center and asked the PSJHOA Board to join rupester in suing me (I have it on tape and there are multiple witnesses including Randy Rodriguez, Helen Dezendorf, DJ Olson, Pete Costello and his son, Tim, and others). Then she came to the PSJHOA General Membership meeting and asked the membership to vote to join her in suing me (again on tape and with many more witnesses, including, some if not all, of those listed in the Board mention). The second to the last time when she sent me the ick-eee-mail August 8, 2008 at 8:35 p.m., during her last campaign complaining that I made her granddaughter cry (but rupe waited a week to contact me regarding her granddaughter's feelings):
"Linda McKinney,Then the October 2008 Happenings. Now this. So that's now six times --- HOLD THE PRESSES! THAT'S SEVEN TIMES rupester has threatened me. Doesn't she feel better now? As I said, her memory chip needs replacing.
rupe [sic] says, "and that I slander you in the Happenings all the time". Slander? She has done so a few times. Remember her parting shot in the October 2008 Happenings? You know the one that prompted me to write my "Maureen Rupe is No Nazi, No Matter What She Says!"? According to an attorney who wrote to me regarding rupester's article:
"First, the whole commentary was full of lies. By publication, she has communicated that lie to another."This attorney's comments were in direct response to rupester's comments in that Oct. 2008 Happenings article. This attorney also kept an eye on my website and never contacted me to make a correction to safeguard me from legal action. Not once did this attorney tell me that I needed to make a change, "Just to be safe." He told me I "may have a cause of action" against rupe. I chose not to sue, although I had the option according to an attorney and I probably should have. I didn't even demand an apology be printed in Happenings, although the attorney suggested it. Of course, my response was to remind the public of her comments and to put my response online. My response was to stand up for rupester and to make sure that no one took her for a Nazi. I don't like her, that's for certain. I disagree with her, that's an understatement. I think she's wrong on everything except breathing, that's a given. But to call rupester a Nazi? Nah. She's no Nazi even though I used mostly her own words and even if her response to her own words is that her words are
"like a Nazi or Skinhead hate site, unbelievably malicious and vindictive".I think we can see here who is fair and who is not.
Notice that rupester's April 11th statement that, "I have been harassed through the Internet by you since at least 2002" is immediately contradicted by her statement the following day, April 12th that, "I have been stalked by you for 15 or more yrs." Then there's the Oct. 2008 statement "has harassed me for 14 years and I have kept the proof." (Can she make up her mind, please?) All of those statements are lies. Disagreement and publication of that disagreement is not harassment. Remember, rupe is the one who has e-mailed me five times since April 8, 2010. Five times -- that I know about -- she has contacted me to rant, threaten and demand something from me. Five times in thirty-three days rupe has contacted me (even though I received two of those contacts in the same e-mail as the May 10th ick-eee-mail, she tried). Five times she has been demanding of me, ridiculing me, threatening me, trying to demean me. (BooHooHoo!) Five times and I'm the one harassing and stalking her? Now she has threatened to sue me SEVEN times since 2002. That's not harassment and stalking? Hollywood starlets have restraining orders based on less! I responded once. I sent her the article about the rocket explosion and I put with it this comment (remember, my response was based on the FL Toady [sic] article with the wrong date [according to rupe]):
Back in late 2001, early 2002, I learned HTML programming and put a website together, "ConservativePSJ.us", that refuted the assertions of those in support of incorporating PSJ (links to those pages here) and I not only disagreed with rupester, but I also disagreed with -- and put the truth to -- almost everyone who published in favor of PSJ incorporation and all the lies they told. Read the pages. I continued publishing my disagreements with rupe on my website after the incorporation issue was defeated. I called that portion of my site "TP Swipes" and I focused on the "Good Day" article written by rupe, but wrote about a few other things I disagreed with. Where I disagreed with her, I said so. Where I found out she didn't tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", I made sure to correct her. As I am doing now. She hated that then, and still does.
The thing that rupe has a problem with is the fact that I investigate her statements and I publish the information I have found. I publish so that there will be other information out there besides what rupester publishes in Happenings and elsewhere. People have to have another source of information besides Happenings or FL Toady [sic]. Otherwise, all they'll get is the progressive side. I make it easy for people to find non-progressive information and I am allowed to do so. I am also allowed to comment on any comments of rupester and I'm allowed to comment on the information I find that is not progressive. It's called "Free Speech" and it's First Amendment protected.Remember rupester's Sept. 2006 Happenings article in which she slammed a good man, Bill Powell, and then said,
"These are my personal thoughts. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but if I couldn't say what I thought, I couldn't live."?Remember that? And she thinks that it's unfair and illegal for me to exercise my free speech rights? To quote rupester's Oct. 2008 rant:
"Whoever you are, take time to read the U.S. Constitution. I am an American. You will never take away my rights because I will never hand them over."So rupester wants me to shut up, fold my hands in my lap and never write, speak, think anything else against what she believes in, stands for, speaks or writes about, campaigns on -- all that progressive stuff she believes in and wants for America: not past, not present, not future. But rupe thinks it's okay for rupe to slander me: an attorney's opinion, not just mine. That's what rupe stands for and believes.
Do you agree with everything she believes, thinks, wants, stands for, supports, speaks in favor of? If not -- and if rupe gets her way -- you, too, will be silenced. Unless you're like me and not easily scared.
In the latest e-mail to arrive (arrival date May 10, 2010), rupe says,
"you [sic] claim I have a track record of lying, you better be able to prove it."I think that all of the things I have said to date have been proof. Read the pages I put together to combat rupe's 2008 D1 campaign. They're available here. I have put links to my sources, I have shown where she contradicts herself (as in the number of years I have been "stalking" or "harassing" her), where rupe's facts are not facts, where rupe repaints the picture (PSJ incorporation, etc.). I have proven it time after time after time after time after time.
Not to be redundant, but as I have to repeatedly point out to rupester, disagreeing with someone is not harassment, not stalking, not slander. Disagreeing with someone and publishing that disagreement via the internet is not against the law. If that be the case, how many editors will we have to put in jail, how many bloggers, how many pundits or "talking heads" will we have to lock up? Ann Coulter, the people who post at Free Republic, the people who disagree with obamination on the most progressive websites (Huffington Post and more) because he's not progressive enough, or because he's not going fast enough toward Marxism; all will have to be locked up. Randy Rodriguez will have to be locked up and all who write for him if ever he has published a letter disagreeing with someone/something anyone else has ever said. That includes the rupester herself if she has ever published anything disagreeing with anything that anyone (Trudi Infantini?) has ever said or done, because that is the standard rupe is setting. If I disagree with rupester in any way, shape, or form, and publish that disagreement, I am open to being sued. Well, rupester is open to the same standard.
I invite anyone who has ever disagreed with the rupester about anything and written a letter to the editor or commented on any article, or blogged about it online, or any other kind of disagreeing with the rupester, to contact me and tell me about your disagreement. Don't forget: rupe set the standard. If you disagree with her, you are open to the threat of a lawsuit against you. As she is open to the same thing. So, also, if rupe has disagreed with you and she has commented on your writing, your actions, your words, your whatever, contact me and let me know. Who knows? Maybe I should invite you to join me in suing her!
Let's not mince words here. I am responding to rupe because it is fun. She's like a toy. I enjoy one of my favorite pasttimes: shining the light of truth on progressive's lies. I do it all the time on my website. I don't do it to just rupe on my website. I shine the light of truth on obamination, pelosipig, reid, Tidd and FL Toady [sic], among others. But rupe feels singled out because she was part of the PSJ incorporation push and I had to confront so many lies during that battle that it wasn't even funny any more, then her articles in Happenings weren't always truthful (partial truths sometimes, but not usually whole truths), and her campaign. If someone is going to be that public with their writing, they should tell the truth. If not, someone is going to comment on it. That Fishkind Study rupe twisted the facts on, for instance. A great example of how rupester put herself out there and opened herself up to criticism. Criticism is not slander, although rupe apparently thinks otherwise. My criticism is provably the truth. Truth is truth. It is neither kind nor cruel. It is neither hot nor cold. It is the truth. Truth has no pain for me but for those who do not practice it, there must be a terrible amount of pain associated with the truth considering how much they squeal whenever the truth touches them.
If rupester has a problem with me disagreeing with her and with publishing that disagreement, that's her problem. For her to try to silence me because I have disagreed with her for eight years is ridiculous. If she has been emotionally hurt by what I have said, rupe should grow up. "Sticks and stones" and all of that. If she wished to, she could create a website and call it "The I Hate Linda McKinney" site and publish things disagreeing with me. Not a problem. She has the opportunity to do so and I'm the one suggesting it. Besides, I am sure she has heard things said, or seen things written about me -- or said or written them herself -- that should hurt my feelings. I don't care. It is part of speaking my mind. I know others will disagree with me and there have been those who have written their nasty little notes to me (including and besides rupe). So what? Others have threatened to sue me (Carmine Ferraro and Amy Tidd: both of PSJ4T and both progressives). So what? Threatening doesn't bother me. But to actually sue me and to try to shut me up because someone is pathetic enough to think that disagreement is slander? To try to stifle the opposition because it hurts someone's feelings and makes them cry until their mascara runs? Hope deep pockets run in the family.
The rupester's mindset is what bothers me. For her to think that just because I disagree with her I have to be silenced by whatever means possible -- lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, intimidation, etc. -- is communist at best; Marxist indeed. That bothers me. I don't like having communists/Marxists as neighbors. I don't like the possibility of them being elected to public office in any capacity in our Republic (scroll down). I don't like the change they want to bring to our nation, to our state, to our community. I want America to stay America. I do not want America to be Marxist America. I don't want to learn to spell it "Amerika". I refuse. And, thus, I refuse to sit down and shut up. I will not be silent when any mealy mouthed idiot communist/Marxist threatens me: not rupester, not Ferraro, not Tidd, nor any others. I will speak because, to use rupe's own words, "I am an American." and if I have anything at all to say about it, America will stay America not become the communist/Marxist mecca rupe apparently wishes it to be.
As long as we are speaking about the rupe's statements, let's get back to that little issue of rupe's education. One would think that such a scholar who studied at an "innovative technical school" that routinely taught Latin and French (although she never stated whether she took French and/or Latin) would have a better grasp of proper grammar usage. On her page rupe asserts, "All students were required to pass a rigorous scholarship test to be allowed to attend this school." Just out of curiosity, in what kind of education did her technical school specialize? What subject was rupe's main area of study while in that "innovative technical school": science, health, math, engineering, physics, cosmetology, janitorial services? What did rupe study at Kettering Central Technical School before she refused to go on to college at seventeen? What kind of things did it teach besides Latin and French? What kind of score did rupe make on that "rigorous scholarship test" rupe had to take before being "allowed to attend this school"?
I have rupe's words to go on, but there are other sources out there that would beg to differ. For instance, there have been many government studies on schools in Great Britain. Papers were written based upon those studies and I shall start there. Setting the stage and the background information of the British educational system, I start with the 1938 Spens Report. According to Gillard D (2007) Education in England: a brief history, Chapter 3 "1900-1944 The state system takes shape", in the 1938 Spens Report:
"[A]rguments were still put forward in support of a divided and elitist system. The only difference was that, whereas in the late 19th century such divisions were openly based on class, now they were based on notions of intelligence and aptitude. Thus the 1938 Spens Report Secondary Education with Special Reference to Grammar Schools and Technical High Schools (Spens 1938) recommended that there should be three types of secondary school: grammar schools for the academically able, technical schools for those with a practical bent, and new 'modern' secondary schools for the rest. (Spens also recommended that the school leaving age should be raised to 16. Incredibly, it would be 1973 before this was finally implemented)."Chapter 4 1945-1978 Rise and fall of a public service
"The system was therefore actually a bipartite one, with grammar schools taking, on average, the 'top' twenty per cent of children and secondary modern schools taking most of the rest. Selection for grammar schools was made largely on the basis of the 'eleven plus' examination, consisting of tests of intelligence and tests of attainment in English and arithmetic. In the eyes of the public, children either 'passed' it and went to the grammar school or 'failed' it and went to the local secondary modern. The system thus managed to damage the esteem of most children and most schools."Remember, according to the Brevard County Clerk of Courts page, rupe was born August 2, 1944. That makes her sixteen (when children in England left school) in 1960. In 1963 The Newsom Report (1963) Half Our Future was released. It is being used here as a commentary on the conditions of the schools in England, not as a reflection on rupe's educational background. This is only fair because the Newsom Report excluded the technical schools' children from its report and the report's information gathering was done after rupe left school. However, I think it fair to comment upon the condition of the schools around the time rupe was in school to give some idea as to what it would have been like. In the Newsom Report, on page 12 it states,
"40. Probably the development which has caught most public attention is the growth of a variety of courses mainly, but not necessarily, leading to some external examination, for the older and abler pupils. These have undoubtedly been effective in inducing large numbers of boys and girls to stay longer at school, and in convincing their parents that to do so was worth while. Rather more than one pupil in six was staying beyond the minimum leaving age in modern and all-age schools in 1962 over the country as a whole. In some individual schools and areas, the proportion was very much higher."Yet, we see on rupe's page, "When I was 17 and stubbornly refused to go to college...". rupe [sic] was in school during the time this report specifically covered: 1944 to 1963 so this is the most relevant report of the school system in England at the time rupe was in school. Those comments include the following:
"'Some are secondary schools only in name or are accommodated in buildings long since out of date which it would not be sensible to improve where they stand ... Others, though satisfactory for smaller numbers, are overcrowded ... Others, again, though adequate in some ways, lack some of the facilities needed for proper secondary education, above all in scientific and technical subjects.' Of the schools in our own sample, only a quarter in 1961 had an adequate library room which they were able to keep for its proper use, and more than another quarter had no library room at all. A third of the schools had no proper science laboratories. Half had no special room for teaching music, and these included many schools in which the single hall had to serve for assembly, gymnasium and dining. [their elipses]"That's a lousy school to go to that doesn't even have a library. I always loved my library time. Books and I have had a love affair since I was five and could read on my own. I have books in almost every room in the house, even the utility room. We see in Chapter 6 (41-51) The School Day, Homework, Extra-Curricular Activities this paragraph,
"129. We share with many teachers a strong belief that 'extra-curricular' activities are not merely extras, in the sense of being pleasant but marginal to the main business of learning, although in terms of healthy pleasure and fun alone they would be important. Perhaps in the general sphere of social education, nothing could be more valuable to boys and girls growing up, [page 44] than to learn how really to listen to each other, to argue robustly but with reason and good humour, and to tolerate differences of outlook without personal ill-feeling. [my bolding] Opportunities for experiences of this sort occur particularly easily through informal discussion in school clubs and societies. Some activities can provide direct extensions and illumination of what goes on in the classroom; and for our pupils, particularly, by generating a new impulse to learning, they may actually result in an improvement in basic attainments. The pupils who plan and write their own script, and shoot, process and edit their own film in a school club, are bringing into play applied skills in English and science and mathematics, as well as exercising their perceptions and judgement. Just as the pupils who go for the first time to a theatre or to a museum or into the countryside, in the company of someone who can help them to formulate their impressions, may become more articulate, as well as more knowledgeable."I admit to being a little taken aback at the paragraph above. If rupe was taught that, I don't think that one took.
Even in a Wikipedia entry we see an explanation as to what was wrong with technical schools. Also considering that Gillard D (2007) Education in England: a brief history found:
"It was becoming clear that England's class-divided secondary schools were failing the nation's children. Twice as many students were going on to higher education in Germany, more than twice as many in France, over three times as many in Switzerland, and almost ten times as many in the US. Scotland's education system, 'based on a widespread respect for learning and a more traditionally egalitarian social outlook' (Benn and Chitty 1996:4), was also doing much better than England's."You can read all of the reports on the British educational system at Derek Gillard's The History of Education in England: Documents. rupe's [sic] claim of "required to pass a rigorous scholarship test to be allowed to attend this school." is something that I am starting to have serious doubts about considering the government reports. Even the 1938 Spens report reported in the section, "The development of Trade Schools and Junior Technical Schools" (pages 82-86) that,
[page 84] "Akin to the schools of type (ii) are the Junior Technical Schools designed to prepare girls for home management, which give general preparation for home management rather than in any particular section or aspect of it. There are also a number of Junior Technical Schools akin in aim to type (ii) known as Junior Commercial Schools, which prepare boys and girls for entry to commercial life."(Note: Later "Junior" was removed from the title when it was referring to schools for students over age thirteen.)
"Commercial life"? What is that?
[page 85] "Junior Technical Schools which prepare boys for the engineering and building industries, Junior Technical Schools which prepare girls for home management".Further into that paragraph on page eighty-five we find this (and does the first sentence remind you of rupe's statement about "Latin and French"?):
[page 85] "Some schools include in their curriculum a modern language. In Junior Technical Schools it is possible to integrate the several subjects of the curriculum so that each makes a definite contribution towards the fulfilment of the primary aim of these schools, which is to train youths and girls for entering industrial and commercial occupations. The freedom of these schools from the requirements of external examinations facilitates this treatment of the curriculum and renders it possible for each school to frame its course in the light of local requirements. In consequence, though the names of the subjects in the curricula are the same as those in other types of school, the content and the treatment may be very different. In general the instruction is less academic, since it is possible to relate it to the known aims and future circumstances of the pupils."Then (this paragraph starts on page 273):
"At the present time and under the existing administration, the Technical Schools do not admit pupils before the age of 13+. The Grammar Schools have hitherto secured the majority of the more gifted pupils from primary schools by means of the selective examination at the age of 11+. Secondary schools of other types, more especially selective [page 274] Modern Schools, have secured those candidates on the examination list who were just not able to gain admission to Grammar Schools. Thus up to the present the Technical Schools have been at a great disadvantage in respect of the quality of the pupils who were admitted to them at the age of 13+. It may also be said at once that the number of pupils transferred from Grammar Schools to Junior Technical Schools and vice versa at the age of 13+ has hitherto been negligible.Don't take my word for it. Read the reports. This is not my work; it is the British government's own studies (you did see a few changes in spellings there, didn't you?). I have given you the links. I have given you the proof. You decide: do I lie?
The 1943 Norwood Report states under the heading, "The secondary technical school" on page 20:
"For other pupils who may develop an aptitude for particular branches of mathematics, science or other subjects for which provision is not made in the local technical college the required opportunity would be given by transference to the sixth forms of grammar schools where suitable instruction is available; and the opportunity should also be open for those who qualify by means of part-time education and evening studies."
The fact is, folks, I do not have to answer to rupe. I do not have to kowtow to her. I do not have to make sure she even understands what I am saying. That's not my job. It is my job to tell the truth, to get the truth to as many people as possible and to make sure that I am not silenced by threats and intimidation. I will not be silenced and I will not whimper into the corner and hide when someone says,
"You have not produced the proof, neither [sic: should be "nor"] have you removed your lies from your website.I think this page is answer enough. As far as I'm concerned, I don't wish ill upon rupe. I don't want her scleroderma to give her pain. I don't want her dog to get run over, or anything like that. But I do want her to stop thinking she is immune from criticism, from disagreement and from verbal retaliation when she prints something in Happenings -- a public paper that at least a few read -- and I want rupe to realize that it is fair and right and just that she have opposition in anything she says, does, or wants when it regards my neighborhood, my un-incorporated area of Brevard County. It is my right to say something in disagreement and to post the proof of what I say. If rupe has a problem with that, then it's her problem and she really shouldn't waste her money on trying to prove that she is an ill-educated brute and bully who uses obamination-like Chicago thug techniques to try to silence her opposition!
If rupe does decide to sue, she can take this site, print it out (every page that mentions her name), and put it where the sun don't shine and put a copy up her attorney's, too!
Remember: Anyone who does not give you a wake-up call when they see you being stupid, self-destructive, or both, just plain doesn't care about you. It's those of us who do wake you up who care.
This website created by, maintained by and copyright 2008 by Linda McKinney; because Freedom isn't Free,
but speech supposedly is!
Do NOT copy without prior written permission from the author.