Court victory for teacher silenced for transgender-book criticism

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Show me where it says 'speak once'. 

Robert's Rules of Order.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

They do.  That does not mean they get to talk whenever they feel like but it does mean that in every discussion along with everyone else they get to have their input. 

Not about an issue that's been tabled.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Kid...

 

You've never actually been to a structured debate forum have you?  It's not unlike sitting in a circle in Kindergarten where you take turns when the teacher asks you to tell a story.   Of course if you spent more time in the corner for interrupting you probably didn't learn the finer points

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Robert's Rules of Order.

The committees are not governed by roberts rules actually. They use a very loose version but roberts rules don't apply. Show me in their constitution or rules where it says that they shall use robert's rules of order. 

Second - it doesn't say you can only speak once in robert's rules of order at all. Not even a little bit. 

But - that's beside the point.  I asked you to show where -I- said it.  You claimed i was the one who said it was once - so where did i say that?

Or were you just lying again. Yawn.

Quote

Not about an issue that's been tabled.

Wrong again sparky.    You're such a child.

 

Quote

You've never actually been to a structured debate forum have you?  It's not unlike sitting in a circle in Kindergarten where you take turns when the teacher asks you to tell a story.   Of course if you spent more time in the corner for interrupting you probably didn't learn the finer points

I guess that's your way of admitting you were wrong without saying it.  As a matter of fact btw i do it for a living and very profitably as well.  Swing and a miss.    Man - you just never get tired of being wrong do you

 

So - to recap.

You realize you completely lost this (yet another one) and in your usual childish manner you're trying to change the subject and argue something you think you can win instead of what was being discussed.

And - as usual - YOU EVEN FAILED AT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!   You changed the subject to a fake one of your own choosing and STILL managed to screw it up

Hehehe - well i have to say bud, it's always a pleasure coming here and seeing you've replied -  i know before i even click that i'm going to get a chuckle

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The committees are not governed by roberts rules actually. They use a very loose version but roberts rules don't apply. Show me in their constitution or rules where it says that they shall use robert's rules of order. 

24. Rules of Order The rules and regulations contained within these bylaws and procedures shall be the rules and regulations for the order and dispatch of business of the Waterloo Region District School Board. In all cases not provided for by these rules, the rules and practice of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern as applicable.

https://www.wrdsb.ca/wp-content/uploads/Bylaws-WRDSB-September-2020.pdf

[eyeball]

From the OP 

In a statement, Burjoski said was relieved by the ruling (sic).

“It is a significant victory and vindication, not just for me, but for everyone who dares to voice their valid concerns publicly,” she said. ”I hope this decision sends a strong message to school boards that the weaponization of human rights codes against concerned citizens is an undemocratic abuse of the code.”

Just as importantly or more so it also sends a message that daring to raise your voice is best accomplished in a valid manner in a valid process. Her opportunity to be heard still stands but it remains to be seen if there will be further opportunities.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

24. Rules of Order The rules and regulations contained within these bylaws and procedures shall be the rules and regulations for the order and dispatch of business of the Waterloo Region District School Board. In all cases not provided for by these rules, the rules and practice of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern as applicable.

https://www.wrdsb.ca/wp-content/uploads/Bylaws-WRDSB-September-2020.pdf

So - ONLY where not governed by their rules.  So if they have rules for something - no roberts rules And they do have lots pf  their own rules

Based loosely on - but not actually roberts rules.    

Thanks for posting that i was right and you were wrong. Again.

ALmost nobody actually uses pure robert's rules.  It's very rare. They become so complexly interpreted that you'd need a lawyer or a parliamentarian at every meeting.   They will have their own rules for governing meetings, and if something isn't covered by their rules THEN they use roberts.

LOL - you just never tire of looking stupid do you

You know what - lets read it again together -  is it roberts rules that takes precedent? Noooooo - it's "he rules and regulations contained within these bylaws and procedures shall be the rules and regulations for the order and dispatch of business '   Not roberts   

 

God i just can't get enough of your replies sometimes. They make me feel like i'm so smart   But in reality i'm only smarter than you

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Just as importantly or more so it also sends a message that daring to raise your voice is best accomplished in a valid manner in a valid process.

It was a valid manner and a valid process.  What they did is illegal. She absolutely followed all the rules, was invited to speak, and as she spoke they said they didn't like what she was saying and that it was a human rights violation.

What she said was "I have serious concerns about grade 1 students being exposed to the sexual and adult issues expressed in these books especially the way they're portrayed".  That's it.

The judge has ruled that they were wrong - and you are wrong - and that she had every right to speak and she has every right to continue with a defamation suit.

Edited December 4, 2023 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

?

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It was a valid manner and a valid process.  What they did is illegal.

According to the rules you mean? And what rules would those be? I mean, if you're as smart as you say you are should know.

?

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

?

According to the rules you mean? And what rules would those be? I mean, if you're as smart as you say you are should know.

?

I do know what rules. Its the rules and regulations contained within the bylaws and procedures which were the rules and regulations for the order and dispatch of business.

We literally went over this like one reply ago. YOU posted it initially. How is it you get dumber as the night progresses?  Are you solar powered or something?!!?  I just don't get it.

 

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I do know what rules. Its the rules and regulations contained within the bylaws and procedures which were the rules and regulations for the order and dispatch of business.

? You haven't got the 1st freakin' clue! LMAO! 

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

? You haven't got the 1st freakin' clue! LMAO! 

its.... literally...  quoted.... from... what..... you..... posted....they're  rules are.

Sigh.    Well - in fairness we're at the end of the day, you lasted longer than you usually do before having the complete melt down so, well done for making it that far.  Get some sleep.  Hope you don't have nightmares about school trustees throwing rulebooks at you

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

its.... literally...  quoted.... from... what..... you..... posted....they're  rules are.

Yes that's right Robert's Rules. You must have just forgotten what they were called.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes that's right Robert's Rules. You must have just forgotten what they were called.

Ummm, no.   Your quote literally says it's not roberts rules.  It's THEIR rules.  And if something comes up where they don't have a rule - then roberts can be used

 Again - The rules and regulations contained within these bylaws and procedures shall be the rules and regulations for the order and dispatch of business

The rules contained within.

Why are you tripling down on your stupid? It's morning - you should be sane for at least another few hours.  Didn't you get any sleep? Did looking like an 1diot during one of our conversations yet again wind up keeping you up all night?

Sorry punkin -  you were wrong, and thats what we've come to expect.  Why don't you do your research BEFORE you say stupid things?

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your quote literally says it's not roberts rules.  It's THEIR rules.  And if something comes up where they don't have a rule - then roberts can be used

And that's exactly what happened.  The chairman tired of listening to the speaker and decided to shut her down without a rule contained within that allowed him to do so.  That's where Robert's takes over, In all cases not provided for by these rules, the rules and practice of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern as applicable.

Shall be used...not can be used.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

And that's exactly what happened.  The chairman tired of listening to the speaker and decided to shut her down without a rule contained within that allowed him to do so.  That's where Robert's takes over,

No, that's not how it works even a little bit. like  at all. Their rules would govern the order of business as stated, the chair had recognized her and she was allotted time to speak and was within that time. So that's all within their rules.  Strike one.

And there is no provision in roberts rules that says "should the chairman get tired of listening to the speaker they may violate their rights ".  With a rule like that anyone could just forbid anyone at any meeting from talking, which is exactly what we have robert's rules to avoid. Strike two.

Further, the chairman was explicit that he wasn't "tired" of listening to her but rather he felt he had the right to shut her up because of the topic being discussed.  ANd as the judge has said - he was entirely wrong. 

So that's strike three - yer dumb.

The council had followed proceedure and she was allowed to speak and was doing so when they unlawfully accused her of a human rights violation and denied her the right to speak which their rules call for.  They then went on to defame her. And the judge has said that was wrong and the lawsuit may proceed so a judge also thinks you're an 1diot  

You're so far off base here it's not even funny. I usually find your rampant stupidity amusing as hell but this is just getting boring. Go have a cookie and a nap, we'll see if you can make more sense with a little rest and blood sugar.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's not how it works even a little bit. like  at all. Their rules would govern the order of business as stated, the chair had recognized her and she was allotted time to speak and was within that time. So that's all within their rules.  Strike one.

And there is no provision in roberts rules that says "should the chairman get tired of listening to the speaker they may violate their rights ".  With a rule like that anyone could just forbid anyone at any meeting from talking, which is exactly what we have robert's rules to avoid. Strike two.

Of course Robert's Rules doesn't allow for the violation of people's rights or defamation. It does however have a provision for a chairman who's tired of listening to any more discussion. In fact it has two provisions.

You are tired of the current discussion.
Move to limit debate to a set period of time or to a set number of speakers. Requires a 2/3rds vote.

or

You have heard enough discussion.
Move to close the debate. Also referred to as calling the question. This cuts off discussion and
brings the assembly to a vote on the pending question only. Requires a 2/3rds vote.

https://assembly.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/roberts_rules_simplified.pdf

So much for ball 1 and 2.

Quote

Further, the chairman was explicit that he wasn't "tired" of listening to her but rather he felt he had the right to shut her up because of the topic being discussed.  ANd as the judge has said - he was entirely wrong. 

Of course he was wrong to shut her up the way he did because he didn't follow the process that could have guided him on how to shut her down legally. He should have said "I'm tired of this, anyone else feel the same way"?

As for Roberts Rules and for you to say they didn't apply in this case is simply wrong but you clearly never really knew why you were wrong which is why you decided to dismiss them completely. This is simply you being you and I suspect the chairman was as pigheaded and stubborn hence the pickle he landed himself and the board in.  We both agree the judgement was the correct one but you've decided to interpret that as being a nod towards the speakers topic of discussion along with a bunch of other hooey.

Quote

The council had followed proceedure and she was allowed to speak and was doing so when they unlawfully accused her of a human rights violation and denied her the right to speak which their rules call for.  They then went on to defame her. And the judge has said that was wrong and the lawsuit may proceed...

That's right.  It's too bad the judge didn't point out that just about anyone in the room could have prevented this breach of the rules by raising a point of order. This is also allowed by Robert's Rules.

Pitch # three just got hit out of the park.

Quote

You're so far off base here it's not even funny. I usually find your rampant stupidity amusing as hell but this is just getting boring. Go have a cookie and a nap, we'll see if you can make more sense with a little rest and blood sugar.

?

This was a victory for Carolyn Burjoski and proper public process, including Robert's Rules. It was not a victory for the issue of sex-education material or how you feel about the processes and rules that should be used to discuss it.

Quote

....so a judge also thinks you're an 1diot  

Given all your butthurt feelings about defamation that you're sharing with everyone about poor Carolyn Burjoski...and that's good and healthy btw....the judge might think instead what a hypocrite you are for all the defaming you like to engage in around here in the process, so to speak. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course Robert's Rules doesn't allow the violation of people's rights. It does however have a provision for a chairman who's tired of listening to any more discussion. In fact it has two provisions.

You are tired of the current discussion.
Move to limit debate to a set period of time or to a set number of speakers. Requires a 2/3rds vote.
 

Nope. That MUST be done before they start speaking. you can't make a motion like that while someone's already been given the floor.  That limits all speakers and prevents filibuster. I've used that one myself - but you can't just throw it out there while someone's speaking.

Further - their own rules which take precedence seem to have a set time per speaker, which means you couldn't use that anyway.

Quote

 

or

You have heard enough discussion.
Move to close the debate. Also referred to as calling the question. This cuts off discussion and
brings the assembly to a vote on the pending question only. Requires a 2/3rds vote.

 

Nope.  That prevents other people from discussing it further and calls for a vote. But again can't do it during a person's allottted speaking time, it must be done after they're done and before the next person starts.  And obviously it doesn't apply here. So that absolutely is not relevant.

So once again - you're a lying sack of sh*t who just spouts whatever nonsense he feels like without any knowledge or brains.

Oh - and no, nobody could have 'solved it by raising a point of order'.  Had  you watched what happend you'd realize why you're wrong.

So you're not only still out - that's TWO batters down

 

Of course as a left wing authoritarian you approve of shutting people up so you're trying desperately to suggest it was ok.

Roberts rules disagees. Which is fine as they don't use robert's rules.  But the judge disagrees as well.

 

Did you want to try one more time? Or are you done looking like a horrid loser

 

 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Did you want to try one more time?

No. As the saying goes it's impossible to understand this stuff for you.

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

No. As the saying goes it's impossible to understand this stuff for you.

You don't need to understand it for me - you should understand it for yourself.  But it definite seems like it's impossible - this is just over your head.  Lets talk about something more suited to your intellect.  Cyclops -  could he take wolverine or not?