The TG204 yahoo group

[wvhsparent]

NotConvinced

I agree with most of what you say, however if you have a child at private school, any opinon one would have regarding the public schools is probably lessened. Sure their view is just as valid as anyone's but IMHO has less weight to me than someone that actually go there.

As far as personal info. If it was published in a paper or other venue....and the info is PUBLICLY AVAILABE then IMHO it is fair game.

However in the interest of keeping the peace all of the mods are committed to keeping personal info off this board, from this point forward.

[notconvinced]

I see where you may have less of a stake if you do not have children actually benefiting because they are going to public school. Stilll, there are many voters in the district who for many reasons do not have children benefiting. It's one thing I guess to be a NO voter and another to be actively working to kill the referendum like CFO. You are more likely to be suspicious of that person if they are a private school supporter.
In this day and age so much info is public on the internet. I think about times my kids name may have been in the paper for some goofy thing or another to do with school or sports. I'm glad though that we will try to keep stuff anonymous. At least until Tuesday is behind us!

[notconvinced]

I meant to say 'children not actually benefiting because they are going to PRIVATE school'.

[Avenging Eagle]

notconvinced said:

I agree that the actions of TG204 and others regarding this board and Topher in particular were way out of line. There is no defense of those actions.

However, I do hope that we are going to continue to avoid posting any personal information on this board. I have been very uncomfortable with the few instances when personal information was being discussed. It is enough to say 'This person supports private school'. Honestly, I don't even think it's relevant whether someone has a student at private school. They are still taxpayers and citizens of the district and could have sent their kids to that school for many reasons. To assume that someone chose a school like Benet and then could have no interest in supporting public educaction is not a valid assumption IMHO. I'm sure there are people with kids at private school who also want to see a great public school district.

But that one incident was not the only example of personal information being discussed here. We can get our viewpoints out without using that. I'm glad we're getting down to the wire here. Things are getting out of control.

I agree with wvhsparent about the personal info.

However, if an individual actively tries to defeat our referendum in the press, we can post links to the article and discuss the issue.

The aforementioned Dan Denys was quoted in the Tribune yesterday in an article about lack of trust of school boards and how to defeat referendums.
ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=news&thread=1142706000&page=1

Also, if the CFO proponents were saying that they had no idea who Dan Denys was, then how come they posted this article on the front page of the CFO site now?

www.voteno204.org

Its obvious that this board struck a nerve with the CFO people and they are lashing out.

[fence]

notconvinced said:

I see where you may have less of a stake if you do not have children actually benefiting because they are going to public school. Stilll, there are many voters in the district who for many reasons do not have children benefiting. It's one thing I guess to be a NO voter and another to be actively working to kill the referendum like CFO. You are more likely to be suspicious of that person if they are a private school supporter.
In this day and age so much info is public on the internet. I think about times my kids name may have been in the paper for some goofy thing or another to do with school or sports. I'm glad though that we will try to keep stuff anonymous. At least until Tuesday is behind us!

Notconvinced I totally agree that there is a big difference in being a NO voter because you personally don't accept or agree with the referendum vs. being a political group with a viewpoint that supports NO referendum under any circumstances due to a support of opening up the public school system to free enterprise.

If a group has a political agenda, what's the problem in simply stating it up front? Instead they use tactics that get people in this district working against one another, cast doubt on information and leadership and simply mislead people to disguise their end game. Which is irresponsible and dangerous.

The private school issue is not a big deal for the personal NO voter, but it is a big deal when it seems to be an underlying trend in the "taxpayer alliances" working to defeat the referendum, because this is their platform and people need to know that.

Do all no voters want to dessimate the 204 public school system? Absolutely not. They are just voting with their own opinions. But these groups essentially do want to defeat every referendum without a solution, because they don't want there to be a public solution, they want a private solution, and it is something that people should know.

[momthreekids]

OK, I am trying to defend both Topher and TG. TG has been a big part of the discussion on this board, IFRP or IFRF for TG, Fry question to Bradshaw, TG yahoo site, Scullen ect. That boundary meeting and that board are a select few in this neighborhood!!! I am trying to point out that their are a lot of yes signs in the neighborhood and that many here have gotten over the boundary meetings, but a lot in the community for some reason does not want to forget how the media portrayed us and why we acted like we did.

I like this board since a lot of great facts came up, but lately this board came down hard on the no voters. Several posts have been put up with please don't attack since this question is on the no side and then the poster still got attacked. Happened with DW and cantre. I know this is all getting very heated, but we are all part of the same community and all this name calling is going to hurt this great community we live in. I feel both boards need to stop attacking each other and get back to what this is really about. Do we need a 3rd high school and start acting like adults again.

[Arch]

At the root of the organization:

Pro 3rd HS in 2001, ANTI- Freshman Campus (The Referendum)

This time, Flip-Flop 180 degrees

ANTI-3rd HS (The Referendum)

[forthekids]

momthreekids said:

OK, I am trying to defend both Topher and TG. TG has been a big part of the discussion on this board, IFRP or IFRF for TG, Fry question to Bradshaw, TG yahoo site, Scullen ect. That boundary meeting and that board are a select few in this neighborhood!!! I am trying to point out that their are a lot of yes signs in the neighborhood and that many here have gotten over the boundary meetings, but a lot in the community for some reason does not want to forget how the media portrayed us and why we acted like we did.

I like this board since a lot of great facts came up, but lately this board came down hard on the no voters. Several posts have been put up with please don't attack since this question is on the no side and then the poster still got attacked. Happened with DW and cantre. I know this is all getting very heated, but we are all part of the same community and all this name calling is going to hurt this great community we live in. I feel both boards need to stop attacking each other and get back to what this is really about. Do we need a 3rd high school and start acting like adults again.

Your statement "we are all part of the same community" is, IMO the most important thing you have said. When all is said and done, we all have to get over whatever disappointments we have regarding boundaries, lack of trust in the SB, etc. and think as one community.