Research Discussion: Burn This Book

Burn This Book
Posts: 32

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

HVAC
2010-01-27 06:51:35 EST
A California school district has added a new book to the
controversial list of literature that is considered unfit for young
eyes.

It's the dictionary.

The Golden State's Menifee Union School District has yanked all copies
of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from its shelves and is
investigating the classic American text for containing "age-
inappropriate" words.

The trouble started when an inquisitive student got lost somewhere
between "oralism" and "orang" and found a rather recent entry to the
lexicon: "oral sex," a phrase that has been in common parlance since
1973 but still makes many parents fairly hot under the collar.

Menifee administrators chose to leave their lexicons languishing after
a parent at Oak Meadows Elementary School complained about a child
finding the definition, which reads, rather clinically: "oral
stimulation of the genitals."

Now, more than 200 years after Noah Webster slashed the Us from
British colours and honours in his very first American dictionary,
this Riverside County school district 60 miles southeast of Los
Angeles is looking to slash a little more.

Menifee, which is composed of 9,000 students between kindergarten and
8th grade, is forming a committee of principals, teachers and parents
to pore over the book and determine whether it's fit for young eyes.
It could take a while: the unabridged edition available online
contains over 470,000 entries.

As they do their work, free speech advocates are getting worked up
over what they call needless and harmful censorship.

"If a public school were to remove every book because it contains one
word deemed objectionable to some parent, then there would be no books
at all in our public libraries," said Peter Scheer, executive director
of the California First Amendment Coalition, in an interview with the
California Press-Enterprise.

"I think common sense seems to be lacking in this school."

What's more, the removal might deny bored children the centuries-old
pastime of leafing through those tissue-thin pages for a brief glimpse
of some otherwise unprintable slurs, the forbidden fruit of the
reference section.

As anyone who went through sixth grade and spent a few minutes
giggling in front of a dictionary probably knows, a------ is in there,
and so is b----, and c---, and even d---. Merriam-Webster takes a
breather at the letter e but picks up steam again with f--- and never
looks back.

But some families are supporting the schools and say it's up to the
district to do everything it can to shield children from explicit
language.

Barbara Lassiter, whose 10-year-old granddaughter is a student at Oak
Meadows, doesn't think officials need to read every entry in the book,
but should field all complaints from parents and consider whether the
dictionary is indeed appropriate.

"They're doing exactly the right thing," she told the Press-
Enterprise.

The school might manage to trade its collegiate editions for a set
targeted for younger audiences. Merriam-Webster also publishes a
children's dictionary, which could help settle some nerves on both
sides of the fight in Menifee.

In the meantime, the school district still has copies of dictionaries
that aren't considered offensive, but remains in a bind over what to
do with their Merriam-Websters, which are currently collecting dust —
more than usual — out of reach of prying fingers.

Hagar
2010-01-27 09:27:53 EST

"HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a7dd9a5-e036-44dd-adde-2f1fee8ac1a7@k5g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
A California school district has added a new book to the
controversial list of literature that is considered unfit for young
eyes.

It's the dictionary.

The Golden State's Menifee Union School District has yanked all copies
of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from its shelves and is
investigating the classic American text for containing "age-
inappropriate" words.

The trouble started when an inquisitive student got lost somewhere
between "oralism" and "orang" and found a rather recent entry to the
lexicon: "oral sex," a phrase that has been in common parlance since
1973 but still makes many parents fairly hot under the collar.

*************************************
But hasn't that pillar of public morality, Mr. Bill "Bubba" Clinton
repeatedly iterated that the above referenced practice has NO
sexual connotations ??



BradGuth
2010-01-27 10:04:28 EST
On Jan 27, 3:51 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  A California school district has added a new book to the
> controversial list of literature that is considered unfit for young
> eyes.
>
> It's the dictionary.
>
> The Golden State's Menifee Union School District has yanked all copies
> of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from its shelves and is
> investigating the classic American text for containing "age-
> inappropriate" words.
>
> The trouble started when an inquisitive student got lost somewhere
> between "oralism" and "orang" and found a rather recent entry to the
> lexicon: "oral sex," a phrase that has been in common parlance since
> 1973 but still makes many parents fairly hot under the collar.
>
> Menifee administrators chose to leave their lexicons languishing after
> a parent at Oak Meadows Elementary School complained about a child
> finding the definition, which reads, rather clinically: "oral
> stimulation of the genitals."
>
> Now, more than 200 years after Noah Webster slashed the Us from
> British colours and honours in his very first American dictionary,
> this Riverside County school district 60 miles southeast of Los
> Angeles is looking to slash a little more.
>
> Menifee, which is composed of 9,000 students between kindergarten and
> 8th grade, is forming a committee of principals, teachers and parents
> to pore over the book and determine whether it's fit for young eyes.
> It could take a while: the unabridged edition available online
> contains over 470,000 entries.
>
> As they do their work, free speech advocates are getting worked up
> over what they call needless and harmful censorship.
>
> "If a public school were to remove every book because it contains one
> word deemed objectionable to some parent, then there would be no books
> at all in our public libraries," said Peter Scheer, executive director
> of the California First Amendment Coalition, in an interview with the
> California Press-Enterprise.
>
> "I think common sense seems to be lacking in this school."
>
> What's more, the removal might deny bored children the centuries-old
> pastime of leafing through those tissue-thin pages for a brief glimpse
> of some otherwise unprintable slurs, the forbidden fruit of the
> reference section.
>
> As anyone who went through sixth grade and spent a few minutes
> giggling in front of a dictionary probably knows, a------ is in there,
> and so is b----, and c---, and even d---. Merriam-Webster takes a
> breather at the letter e but picks up steam again with f--- and never
> looks back.
>
> But some families are supporting the schools and say it's up to the
> district to do everything it can to shield children from explicit
> language.
>
> Barbara Lassiter, whose 10-year-old granddaughter is a student at Oak
> Meadows, doesn't think officials need to read every entry in the book,
> but should field all complaints from parents and consider whether the
> dictionary is indeed appropriate.
>
> "They're doing exactly the right thing," she told the Press-
> Enterprise.
>
> The school might manage to trade its collegiate editions for a set
> targeted for younger audiences. Merriam-Webster also publishes a
> children's dictionary, which could help settle some nerves on both
> sides of the fight in Menifee.
>
> In the meantime, the school district still has copies of dictionaries
> that aren't considered offensive, but remains in a bind over what to
> do with their Merriam-Websters, which are currently collecting dust —
> more than usual — out of reach of prying fingers.

It's just like Hilter and his Zionist Nazi Third Reich army of puppet-
masters are in charge.

Perhaps only LeapFrog versions of whatever "age appropriate"
dictionary should be published for each grade level of K12 through
whatever masters degree. In fact, there are adults (many of them
Republicans) that shouldn't have access to common knowledge as is,
because they just can't seem to handle the truth no matters what.

~ BG

BradGuth
2010-01-27 10:12:14 EST
On Jan 27, 6:27 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7a7dd9a5-e036-44dd-adde-2f1fee8ac1a7@k5g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> A California school district has added a new book to the
> controversial list of literature that is considered unfit for young
> eyes.
>
> It's the dictionary.
>
> The Golden State's Menifee Union School District has yanked all copies
> of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from its shelves and is
> investigating the classic American text for containing "age-
> inappropriate" words.
>
> The trouble started when an inquisitive student got lost somewhere
> between "oralism" and "orang" and found a rather recent entry to the
> lexicon: "oral sex," a phrase that has been in common parlance since
> 1973 but still makes many parents fairly hot under the collar.
>
>         *************************************
> But hasn't that pillar of public morality, Mr. Bill "Bubba" Clinton
> repeatedly iterated that the above referenced practice has NO
> sexual connotations ??

Americans are so used to being lied to by our supposed peers, so
what's the difference?

Our faith-based and political(public office) protectors are
continually involved with cloak and dagger matters of extreme
debauchery that's far worse than any sexual perversions, so why isn't
all of that clearly defined within our K12 certified dictionary?

~ BG

BradGuth
2010-01-27 10:48:51 EST
On Jan 27, 3:51 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  A California school district has added a new book to the
> controversial list of literature that is considered unfit for young
> eyes.
>
> It's the dictionary.
>
> The Golden State's Menifee Union School District has yanked all copies
> of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from its shelves and is
> investigating the classic American text for containing "age-
> inappropriate" words.
>
> The trouble started when an inquisitive student got lost somewhere
> between "oralism" and "orang" and found a rather recent entry to the
> lexicon: "oral sex," a phrase that has been in common parlance since
> 1973 but still makes many parents fairly hot under the collar.
>
> Menifee administrators chose to leave their lexicons languishing after
> a parent at Oak Meadows Elementary School complained about a child
> finding the definition, which reads, rather clinically: "oral
> stimulation of the genitals."
>
> Now, more than 200 years after Noah Webster slashed the Us from
> British colours and honours in his very first American dictionary,
> this Riverside County school district 60 miles southeast of Los
> Angeles is looking to slash a little more.
>
> Menifee, which is composed of 9,000 students between kindergarten and
> 8th grade, is forming a committee of principals, teachers and parents
> to pore over the book and determine whether it's fit for young eyes.
> It could take a while: the unabridged edition available online
> contains over 470,000 entries.
>
> As they do their work, free speech advocates are getting worked up
> over what they call needless and harmful censorship.
>
> "If a public school were to remove every book because it contains one
> word deemed objectionable to some parent, then there would be no books
> at all in our public libraries," said Peter Scheer, executive director
> of the California First Amendment Coalition, in an interview with the
> California Press-Enterprise.
>
> "I think common sense seems to be lacking in this school."
>
> What's more, the removal might deny bored children the centuries-old
> pastime of leafing through those tissue-thin pages for a brief glimpse
> of some otherwise unprintable slurs, the forbidden fruit of the
> reference section.
>
> As anyone who went through sixth grade and spent a few minutes
> giggling in front of a dictionary probably knows, a------ is in there,
> and so is b----, and c---, and even d---. Merriam-Webster takes a
> breather at the letter e but picks up steam again with f--- and never
> looks back.
>
> But some families are supporting the schools and say it's up to the
> district to do everything it can to shield children from explicit
> language.
>
> Barbara Lassiter, whose 10-year-old granddaughter is a student at Oak
> Meadows, doesn't think officials need to read every entry in the book,
> but should field all complaints from parents and consider whether the
> dictionary is indeed appropriate.
>
> "They're doing exactly the right thing," she told the Press-
> Enterprise.
>
> The school might manage to trade its collegiate editions for a set
> targeted for younger audiences. Merriam-Webster also publishes a
> children's dictionary, which could help settle some nerves on both
> sides of the fight in Menifee.
>
> In the meantime, the school district still has copies of dictionaries
> that aren't considered offensive, but remains in a bind over what to
> do with their Merriam-Websters, which are currently collecting dust —
> more than usual — out of reach of prying fingers.

It's just like Hitler and his Zionist Nazi Third Reich army of puppet-
masters and bible thumpers are in charge, keeping as much need-to-know
as possible.

Perhaps only LeapFrog and their eyecandy saturated versions of
whatever "age appropriate" dictionary should be published for each
grade level of K12 through whatever masters degree. In fact, there
are adults (many of them Republicans) that shouldn't have access to
common knowledge as is, because they just can't seem to handle the
truth no matters what.

Some of the worse examples of sexual perversions are faith-based,
especially by those mainstream religious cabals that still favor
satanic rituals, as well as having no policy of policing their own
kind.

btw; I still use a dictionary that was published as recently as 1938,
The Winston Simplified Dictionary, which seems perfectly age
appropriate as is.

~ BG

Hagar
2010-01-27 11:57:43 EST

"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20b14720-96bc-4b8e-b877-d8ebd079469a@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 6:27 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7a7dd9a5-e036-44dd-adde-2f1fee8ac1a7@k5g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> A California school district has added a new book to the
> controversial list of literature that is considered unfit for young
> eyes.
>
> It's the dictionary.
>
> The Golden State's Menifee Union School District has yanked all copies
> of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from its shelves and is
> investigating the classic American text for containing "age-
> inappropriate" words.
>
> The trouble started when an inquisitive student got lost somewhere
> between "oralism" and "orang" and found a rather recent entry to the
> lexicon: "oral sex," a phrase that has been in common parlance since
> 1973 but still makes many parents fairly hot under the collar.
>
> *************************************
> But hasn't that pillar of public morality, Mr. Bill "Bubba" Clinton
> repeatedly iterated that the above referenced practice has NO
> sexual connotations ??

Americans are so used to being lied to by our supposed peers, so
what's the difference?

Our faith-based and political(public office) protectors are
continually involved with cloak and dagger matters of extreme
debauchery that's far worse than any sexual perversions, so why isn't
all of that clearly defined within our K12 certified dictionary?

~ BG
**************************************
GuthBall, you still trying to blow yourself ?? Getting that dog as a
monkey-see-monkey-do trainer didn't work out for you, then ???



BradGuth
2010-01-27 12:20:58 EST
On Jan 27, 8:57 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20b14720-96bc-4b8e-b877-d8ebd079469a@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 6:27 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7a7dd9a5-e036-44dd-adde-2f1fee8ac1a7@k5g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> > A California school district has added a new book to the
> > controversial list of literature that is considered unfit for young
> > eyes.
>
> > It's the dictionary.
>
> > The Golden State's Menifee Union School District has yanked all copies
> > of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from its shelves and is
> > investigating the classic American text for containing "age-
> > inappropriate" words.
>
> > The trouble started when an inquisitive student got lost somewhere
> > between "oralism" and "orang" and found a rather recent entry to the
> > lexicon: "oral sex," a phrase that has been in common parlance since
> > 1973 but still makes many parents fairly hot under the collar.
>
> > *************************************
> > But hasn't that pillar of public morality, Mr. Bill "Bubba" Clinton
> > repeatedly iterated that the above referenced practice has NO
> > sexual connotations ??
>
> Americans are so used to being lied to by our supposed peers, so
> what's the difference?
>
> Our faith-based and political(public office) protectors are
> continually involved with cloak and dagger matters of extreme
> debauchery that's far worse than any sexual perversions, so why isn't
> all of that clearly defined within our K12 certified dictionary?
>
>  ~ BG
>         **************************************
> GuthBall, you still trying to blow yourself ?? Getting that dog as a
> monkey-see-monkey-do trainer didn't work out for you, then ???

Obviously you still can't deal with the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.

Perhaps only LeapFrog and their eyecandy saturated versions of
whatever "age appropriate" dictionary should be published for each
grade level of K12 through whatever masters degree. In fact, there
are adults (many of them Republicans) that shouldn't have access to
common knowledge as is, because they just can't seem to handle the
truth no matters what.

Some of the worse examples of sexual perversions are faith-based,
especially by those mainstream religious cabals that still favor
satanic rituals, as well as having no policy of policing their own
kind.

btw; I still use a dictionary that was published as recently as 1938,
The Winston Simplified Dictionary, which seems perfectly age
appropriate as is.

~ BG

Uncle Vic
2010-01-27 13:15:45 EST
One fine day in alt.atheism, BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Americans are so used to being lied to by our supposed peers, so
> what's the difference?

When I was a kid there were no bicycle helmets. No kid-proof locks on
cabinets or medicine bottles. Toy guns shot plastic bullets, and trains
made "smoke". My friends and I looked up "dirty" words in the dictionary
for laughs. I turned out just fine. What are these idiot parents trying
to do these days, dismiss themselves from parental responsibilities?

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.

HVAC
2010-01-27 13:27:14 EST

"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D0D68D97C8E0vicman@216.196.97.131...
>
> When I was a kid there were no bicycle helmets. No kid-proof locks on
> cabinets or medicine bottles. Toy guns shot plastic bullets, and trains
> made "smoke". My friends and I looked up "dirty" words in the dictionary
> for laughs. I turned out just fine. What are these idiot parents trying
> to do these days, dismiss themselves from parental responsibilities?


It's further proof that all who believe in
god should be executed..... I'm just saying.



BradGuth
2010-01-27 13:45:45 EST
On Jan 27, 10:15 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> One fine day in alt.atheism, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Americans are so used to being lied to by our supposed peers, so
> > what's the difference?
>
> When I was a kid there were no bicycle helmets.  No kid-proof locks on
> cabinets or medicine bottles.  Toy guns shot plastic bullets, and trains
> made "smoke".  My friends and I looked up "dirty" words in the dictionary
> for laughs.  I turned out just fine.  What are these idiot parents trying
> to do these days, dismiss themselves from parental responsibilities?
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa Atheist #2011
> Christians are like Slinkys.  They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
> your face when you push them down the stairs.

At least burning them public funded books is worth a few BTUs, and
nowadays with our federal and various state governments out of fiscal
and moral control, you can't hardly afford to ignore such matters of
recycled energy.

btw; the bible (aka Book of Sins) has more than its fair share of
nasty words and phrases of rage, revenge and sexual torment that
aren't suited for most adults to use. So, why not burn all of them?

We could also put those K12s and older kids in protective bubble-
suits, along with those age-appropriate earplugs and blinders so that
they never interact with the real world until it's too late, thereby
avoiding all parental responsibilities.

~ BG
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron