Photos
Blog
NewslettersGO JIM GO....BLOW JIM BLOW
Submitted by CHILIDOG on Sun, 2008-10-12 19:12.
I can not believe the crap that people will say or write about people they do not know. Terry Bennett is a fine principal with morals and values, and to think that any one out there who does not know him has the nerve to write crap and try and smear his name. People get a life. Worry about what is going on in your house before you throw stones.
- CHILIDOG's blog
- Login to post comments
- 998 reads
When and where and how long ago did this supposed "wrestling" take place? If the school district settled a law suit against him why would they move him to a bigger school? I just don't get it.....Come on people if you are going to get on here and bash him at least throw me a bone with a few specifics.
I understand that he admitted wrestling a woman to the ground. The wrestling happened at a Teacher Appreciation Luncheon sponsored by the PTSO on the last day of the 2002-2003 school year. The teacher he wrestled to the ground was the teacher receiving the appreciation award. Now that is Teacher Appreciation. A woman who served on the PTSO as its president and witnessed this incident called the Gazette and spoke with Jeremy Hseih on Friday. Hseih said he would pass this information onto to another reporter. Did Representative Erickson or any other elected official do anything about this situation? This wrestling happened in front of Teachers, Parents and Students (more than 50).
Well, maybe things were different in the 2002-2003 school year. I wonder what the reason for wrestling the woman to the ground was. This whole topic kind of broad-sided me....I always saw Mr Bennett as a kind man. If he did this, was a report made to the sheriffs office? Was he arrested for assault? If he just wrestled a person to the ground, he could have been arrested, right?
"People who had knowledge of the actions of the principal that led to the event you choose to report on weighed in with other facts. Did not quite fit your story line so you took them down. Apparently the same principal has also done all kinds of bizarre things but you will not allow those to be posted and I am certain you will not be reporting on them. "
I understand the AP and the State Department of Education may be investigating this now. As a supportor of Jim Brown, I would say keep the posts coming, you never know who is reading these blogs. He is one of the few who will stand up to those who are protected. BTW, the Gazette's new editor has a family member who is employed by the school district. That should be posted as a disclaimer on all of the stories they put out involving the district.
My wife is a social studies teacher at Beaufort High School. Although neither full disclosure nor professional ethics require the Gazette to note that fact every time we report/write about the district, it will be made evident whenever that relationship is relevant to a story. (Such was typically the case, for example, when the Gazette wrote editorials about CAPA; Jim Cato, our former editorial page editor, is married to the organization's executive director, Susan Cato.)
My wife is a social studies teacher at Beaufort High School. Although neither full disclosure nor professional ethics require the Gazette to note that fact every time we report/write about the district, it will be made evident whenever that relationship is relevant to a story. (Such was typically the case, for example, when the Gazette wrote editorials about CAPA; Jim Cato, our former editorial page editor, is married to the organization's executive director, Susan Cato.)
Really now. This must be the new journalism like the new math my kids talk about.
So when information from several sources was posted here and removed that does not concern you?
You'll make Mr. Blust proud.
So you can slime a good man like Jim Brown and not allow all of the facts surrounding the situation to come out. Obviously the principal has some problems and was involved in a lawsuit with Mrs. Brown. And by the way when did the paper start reporting the names of victims? Obviously all is not fair in war and politics. Can we expect a full story on the principal, the school district covering up yet antother lawsuit, and how much all this cost us the taxpayers.
BTW, your comments don't seem pertinent to my post. I also couldn't help but notice that in addition to stripping the quote from my post of its proper context (a misrepresentation I'm not terribly concerned about since surfers can easily see what I wrote above), you also ignore important context regarding the removed posts, including but not limited to the vulgarity in which they were couched. Crude, unsubstantiated and potentially libelous language has never been allowed to remain here when detected by our editors or when brought to their attention, nor will it be in the future.
That said, I believe you raise fair questions about the situation with Bennett. We already have started our attempts to answer them, but I will not give you a timetable for a story or even promise there will be one. (We track down many leads; not all of them yield stories.) At the risk of offending some of you, tips are always appreciated, but we need more than the word of an anonymous blogger before we rush something into print.
You also raised a fair-enough question regarding publication of the names of crime victims (or alleged crime victims, as is often the case.) Actually, we are more likely than not to publish those names, but we do make a few exceptions, such as in the case of a sexual assault (which was not at issue in this particular story.)
I quoted what your wrote verbatim. There was nothing in that statement about vulgarity, which does bring up a great point.
The title of this blog is obviously a crude reference to a sexual act. How did that escape your attention.
I pointed out that through selective editing, you imparted a meaning that did not exist in the original quote, which, by the way, is equally egregious. Of course, you know full well the effect of your editing.
For the record, Steve continues to be the arbiter of decorum on this site and will be for at least the next few weeks. If you find the title of this blog thread offensive, I'll forward it to him for his consideration. Thanks for helping keep the site clean.
I pointed out that through selective editing, you imparted a meaning that did not exist in the original quote, which, by the way, is equally egregious. Of course, you know full well the effect of your editing.
For the record, Steve continues to be the arbiter of decorum on this site and will be for at least the next few weeks. If you find the title of this blog thread offensive, I'll forward it to him for his consideration. Thanks for helping keep the site clean.
There was no editing, but quoting what you had written.
I digress. And the moving shiny object has sufficiently distracted us from the topic at hand.
Selective reporting and censorship.
So after running a story that besmirches a good and decent man of this community, Jim Brown, involving a principal at a school you now decide to look into the principal’s actions. What you did mention in the story was that the principal was a party to a lawsuit regarding his inappropriate conduct. His inappropriate conduct as it related to Mr. Brown’s wife. Seems like that would be a reason that the principal would have a grudge against Jim Brown. But of course you get the tortfeasor to comment on his own saintliness. Amazing. So the victim becomes the bad guy.
Was there some rush to judgment to get the story into print? Mr. Blust’s feeble attempt to justify the reporting here was well Mr. Brown called the press conference. Since when did any paper report every press conference that every candidate for office ever held. But eh if it makes someone look bad lets go with it.
Was not this story also written by the same reporter that could not get his facts straight about a supposedly pregnant woman bearing quintuplets?
Anyone doing fact checking over there?
And none of this answers the larger questions about the censorship of this forum by the editorial staff of this paper. Because information did not comport with the story line you were selling it was censored and removed from the internet. Yet, the story about Mr. Brown, complete with half truths or omissions, remains on your site.
And your response that you may get around or may not get around to looking into the principal just goes to the point that you don’t care to get the facts - but have an agenda. What that is I’m not sure. But that much is certain - there is an agenda that is being pushed.
For again you have entirely misrepresented my statements. (Nowhere did I say or even suggest we "might not get around to looking into the principal.")
I'm also starting to take offense. I've been polite and forthright to this point, but you seem intent on putting words in my mouth and my mood is growing ill. Frankly, I've little time to play with conspiracy theorists who don't even know what their conspiracy theory is.
This line was in no way meant to illude to a sexual theme. Only a retard such as you would think so. Blow, meant a blow hard. Tell stuff to excite readers while trying to smear the reputation of someone, is exactly what this man intended and make himself look good (the poor victim). He can't handle the fact that in his background something ugly will come up and then he has to answer for it. Therefore, he will then try and gloss over everything that happened to make himself look good. If he were arrested at a school, then good on them. It is called harrassment and disturbing schools. Had he called me an ugly name in front of office staff and whoever else was standing there I might have given him a fist sandwich, in my state of mind these days. I am tired of taking the bull from bullies. Until YOU have walked a few miles in anothers shoes, then stay out of what YOU don't know, what YOU did not see, you are going on what someone else told you.
If any one was offended by the subject line, I apologize.
This line was in no way meant to illude to a sexual theme. Only a retard such as you would think so. Blow, meant a blow hard. Tell stuff to excite readers while trying to smear the reputation of someone, is exactly what this man intended and make himself look good (the poor victim). He can't handle the fact that in his background something ugly will come up and then he has to answer for it. Therefore, he will then try and gloss over everything that happened to make himself look good. If he were arrested at a school, then good on them. It is called harrassment and disturbing schools. Had he called me an ugly name in front of office staff and whoever else was standing there I might have given him a fist sandwich, in my state of mind these days. I am tired of taking the bull from bullies. Until YOU have walked a few miles in anothers shoes, then stay out of what YOU don't know, what YOU did not see, you are going on what someone else told you.
If any one was offended by the subject line, I apologize.
Unless you are a child on the playground, name calling doesn't work so well (your reference to the term retard, which by the way is a highly offensive term and probably should have you banned from this site).
From there you progress, or is that regress, to settling disagreements with threats of physical violence. Now that is the kind of mature thinking we need around school kids. So the only way to solve a problem is liberal doses of fist sandwiches?
And since you seem to know so much about what happened that day why don't you enlighten all of us.
Here is what I do know. Jim Brown is a fine and decent man. He has spent his life working for the common man and often against great odds. It appears his wife was sexually harassed by a principal and is named in a lawsuit. That same principal, big surprise, retaliates by calling the police on Mr. Brown. The so-called police complaint is never acted on but gathers dust in some filing cabinet. Why? Because as they say, "it aint worth the paper it is written on." Now Mr. Brown is running against a politician and a Republican party that wallows in mud and will sling it far and wide. And big surprise the local paper covers it all as front page news.
What would be more interesting to know is why is this principal still on the taxpayers dime and how many other lawsuits are there against the school district that the paper never reports on. Now that would be worth front page ink.
Lest we get distracted from the gist of this thread, I will answer your statement.
You say again that "Nowhere did I say or even suggest we might not get around to looking into the principal." Above that you said "We already have started our attempts to answer them, but I will not give you a timetable for a story or even promise there will be one."
Well maybe you will maybe you wont. And even if you do there is no gurantee that it will ever see the pages of the paper.
My point is, and was, you printed a story about a fine man in our community, Jim Brown. You only had part of the facts and do not appear to be interested in gathering the remaining pieces of the puzzle. When asked about it you and other members of the editorial staff seem to get rather defensive and respond by deleting and censoring posts on this site. That much we do know.
quit twisting earnest responses to your posts and ceased ascribing motive to people and processes you know nothing about.
And let's get one thing absolutely straight — you and everyone else here participate on these blogs at our discretion. Period. We are inclined to grant wide berth, both in terms of subject matter and the opinions they evoke. That wide berth is amply demonstrated by the fact you don't have to look long or hard to find posts that take us sharply to task, including your own prattling about censorship and hidden agendas.
But there are limits to the lack of decorum and limits to the groundless accusations (posted by those granted anonymity, no less) that we will allow. If you don't like our rules or if you can't understand why they exist, go elsewhere.
I'll grant you the final word.
WOW! Midol line forms to the left... Valium on the right.
Now THAT's funny! Guess it takes a woman to end it!
This blogging is a great way to speak your mind and share your thoughts on issues that affect everyone. I don't see where Midol or Valium is needed, just having a little fun between bloggers. NBD