Hello CedaredgeNative:
I can’t say whether or not you really are from Cedaredge, but if so, I can understand why you would want to stand up for your community. But in doing so, you have over-reacted and made false conclusions about what I wrote. I never said that there was a KKK group in town. I said there was one idiot who stood in front of me and chanted the name. You acknowledge that there was a degree of “small town narrowness”- that’s a politically correct way of saying racism/bigotry/prejudice. You are trying to minimize how they were. You say you have read my posts- re-read post #4, paragraph 1. You will see that I said I was amazed at how easily certain words came out of their mouths. I’m sure that if you were to ask any of the people back then if they were racist, they would probably say no. At least they didn’t think they were, but what they said cannot be denied. And to speak that way, and not truly understand what they were saying, is what was disturbing. It demonstrated an unconscious mentality. I guess you didn’t do well in either of my sociology or psychology classes.
The “rockwallers” were congregated next to my house. Wouldn’t you want to see who they were in the event something happened to your house? I didn’t treat them like pariahs. Maybe they appreciated that. And the use of the term “Hash Pash”. That’s something adolescents like doing- making fun of a person’s name. I won’t even go into other phrases I’ve heard. But you missed an important fact. After my 2nd year there, the new high school was opened, and the “rockwallers” ceased to be. It wasn’t cool anymore to go to the parking lot of a middle school to hang out.
Here’s another mistake- there was no garage when I lived in that house. So no tying up, no tank of lye. A person from that time period would have known that. Hell, anybody who bothered to read through the posts would have seen that it’s been verified that no garage existed at the time.
As for my “debates”- you need to give it some context. When you say I opposed pro-life statements, that’s not entirely true. If a person said that no abortions should be permitted under any circumstance, of course I will challenge that. What about the health of the mother, if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest? The majority of Americans support abortions in those instances- so which of us is out of the mainstream? I’m not pro-American? Are you kidding me? Again, context is needed. I think you are confusing being pro-American with a lack of desire to understand the full scope of American history- it’s achievements and its failures (see post #4, paragraph 2). You didn’t want a teacher, you wanted a propagandist. Now I’m not sure if I should be offended by being considered anti-Establishment. Seeing how we just elected the most anti-Establishment candidate as our new president, maybe I should consider that a label of honor. Once more, context is needed- what does antiEstablishment even mean. But you want to prove that you were a student of mine? There was something I always did before engaging any students in any type of debate. Just explain what it was. If you took that many classes from me, you should be very aware of it. And what counterculture did I encourage? Did I teach in a tie dyed t-shirt, wearing sandals and a necklace of love beads? Maybe I taught wearing old army fatigues with a bandana and spouted marxist slogans while passing out chapters from the anarchist cookbook? I know why you think that about me- because I wore a black suit and white shirt, well using a horse and buggy to get back and forth from school, and had that beard every other year.
You claim having been my student. This is so easy to prove that you probably weren’t- at least not to the extent that you say you were. Where do I start?
1st- thank you for pointing out the copious amount of notes I wrote on the board. Questions have been asked what I was doing before first period started, and I have stated that I was preparing for class- writing my notes on the board. Remember, this was before computers and projecting the notes onto a white board. This was old school technology- i.e. blackboard and chalk. However, I never collected notebooks every week to grade them. That would have been too time-consuming. I put the notes on the board, you chose to copy them or not. I would be able to tell by your test scores if you were taking notes or not, and if you bothered studying or not. Plus you complain that it was like a college course. Do you know why? All of my classes were classified as college prep courses. Do you even understand what that means? They were designed to prepare students for success in college. So thank you, it was supposed to be like a quasi college course- see post #4, paragraph 2.
2nd- I taught 6 classes. My classes were some of the largest academic classes on campus. Whereas school policy limited the number of students in a class, I told the administration to disregard that policy for me. If a student wanted to be in my class- bring in more desks. Yes, my classes were that popular. Plus, of the 6 classes I taught, only 2 were required for graduation- world history (2 classes- I was the only teacher) and us history (1 class- plus another teacher taught a class). A student would have to take me for world history, but not for anything else. The rest of my classes were electives- not required for graduation, your choice and decision. So why would you sign up for so many of my classes?
3rd- The class schedule was for an 8-period day. Teachers taught 6 classes, had 1 prep period, and 1 lunch period. The classes were about 45 minutes each- here’s your problem. You say that sometimes you sat for 4 hours in my classroom. If you took 4 classes on one year, that would only be 3 hours. But World History was for 10th graders, and US History was for 11th graders. The Sociology and Psychology classes were for 11th-12th graders. So, did you fail both World and US and had to make them up your senior year? That’s the only way you would take 4 classes on one year. But it doesn’t explain your 9th grade year. What class did you take then that I taught. Also, drug education was not a separate class. It was the 4th quarter of psychology. It was the decision of the school district. The unfortunate reality about it- they wouldn’t pay for a textbook. I was given some pamphlets from the DEA and that was all. But it does explain why I was always in a rush to get through the psychology book by the end of the 3rd quarter- hence always moving on and not staying on any one topic for longer than a day, or two at most. Now let’s dismiss the fabricated story of studying serial killers for a whole quarter. Here’s your problems with that story-
a) the textbook was printed in 1977. That was the year of Son of Sam and the Hillside Strangler. The concept of a serial killer was just beginning to become a public awareness, but a psychological profile of serial killers wouldn’t be finalized until 1990. So the textbook wouldn’t have any discussion of those types of people, there really wasn’t any understanding of them. Nor would you be able to find any real information any where else. Remember, this was before the internet.
b) Charles Manson and his group were mass murderers. They wanted the bodies to be found, so why would they want to coverup the murders? Which then begs to ask why even consider that topic? Anybody who read Helter Skelter would have realized that. But it couldn’t have been required reading. In order for a book to be required reading it has to meet 3 conditions- 1st- it has to be on the school district’s list of approved reading; 2nd- it has to have the principal’s approval that it meets the guidelines of the course; and 3rd- it must be provided by the school district for every student. Do you really think that a school district that will mandate a drug education class be taught, but won’t pay for a textbook, is really going to spend money on Helter Skelter for every student in the class?
4th- Oh no,….I didn’t make the holocaust look nicer? Or the impact that war as less devastating? Where did those pictures come from? Maybe a book from the school library? I know I never owned such a book.
Anyways, what all this tells me is that you weren’t an academic scholar.
Now for the wrestling team. I can tell right away that you weren’t an athlete either. Virtually every wrestler was a 3-sport letterman. That means they also played sports during the fall (football) and spring- track, baseball, or maybe tennis. That would mean that if you were an athlete, some of them would have been on your team. You would have had first-hand knowledge of them using cocaine. The thing about competitive athletes, once they find a way that gives them an advantage, they try it all the time, in all their sports. A fellow teammate would not make such wild accusations without cause or proof- like you said- you can’t confirm any of that. But I will acknowledge that there was a concern among coaches that certain drugs were making their way into high school sports. It was already prevalent in the pros, had been taken up by college athletes, and might become used by high schoolers. The time was the late 70s, early 80s. Those drugs were steroids. And we never went from last to winning state in one year. We never won state- the best we did was place tenth once. We did win the league championships twice, and the district tournament once. There were a couple of wrestlers who placed 3rd or 5th at the state tournament, but that was it. So why did they do so well? Very simple- they were dedicated, diligent, persistent, and most importantly, talented. What they lacked was a sense of team-ship. Ultimately wrestling is an individual sport. The rest of the team can lose, but you can succeed as an individual. That was their mentality when I got there. But I taught them to be concerned about each other- that they were stronger together than separate. And that helped spur on wrestlers who might otherwise give up on the mat, and to show them support from the bench. No, you wouldn’t understand, you were never an athlete.
So, we’ve established that you were neither a scholar, nor an athlete. Did you do anything in high school? Maybe play in the band? Oh, and what does mental conditioning mean? That I learned how to think logically, and frame it in a thoughtful way so when I spoke I didn’t sound like an idiot who does more rambling and makes stupid accusations than being articulate and factually correct?
But let’s say for argument sake that you were a student at the high school who graduated in 1984. Yes, I was there when you graduated. I didn’t move until the end of June, beginning of July 1984. So that would mean you are in your early 50s. Oh my God, you’re an adult. So why not act like a grownup and state your name, instead of hiding behind your moniker? I already know why- anonymity is the shield of the irresponsible. You are a coward.
JPash
