re: TX School District Faces Federal Dep. of Education Investigation for Throwing Gay Porn Out

quote:

---

quote:

---

It involves the precise use of the English language.

---

Like making statements that say; “if the books had been pornographic, they would have stayed banned”?

Those are your precise words that you now refuse to own up to.

---

Good Lord, do you need a diagram?

I said that if the 116 films which were returned to the shelves had contained pornography, they would not have been returned to the shelves.

I said absolutely nothing about why the THREE books that wete affirmatively banned from the shelves. There are DOZENS of reasons that the remaining 15 books might NOT be returned to the shelves. As listed above, some were duplicates, some could not be found to examine, etcetera. And three were deemed “inapprpropriate” for some undefined reason, which you have doubtless inferred to be “pornography.”

You drew an incorrect inference that all 16 (or three) were “porn.” Mistakes happen. Own it.

You are probably an excellent welder or sous chef, but the subtle use of the English language is clearly not your strong suit.

quote:

---

members will be selected by GISD administration

---

That’s not exactly “community involvement”.

Again, your EXACT words were “if the books had been pornographic, they would have stayed banned”.

quote:

---

your EXACT words were “if the books had been pornographic, they would have stayed banned”.

---

YES!

If the 116/131 books that WERE RETURNED to the shelves have been pornographic, THOSE 116 books would have “stayed banned.”

That statement says NOTHING about why the remaining 15 books were NOT returned to the shelves. “Pornography” is only ONE possible explanation, as demonstrated by the REPORT from the damned COMMITTEE. 3/15 (a mere 20%) were deemed “inappropriate” for some undefined reason. The remaining 80% were not returned to the shelves for OTHER reasons, most unrelated to their content.

FFS, do you SPEAK English?

Again, I wasn’t responding to the report. I was responding to what you posted. You didn’t say “if the books had contained pornography or other things they would have stayed banned”, you only listed pornography as the reason for the books to stay banned.

It really is like trying to discuss calculus with a fish

At least the fish doesn’t say stupid things. He just floats there with a dumb look on his face

I did not say ANYTHING about the books that remained off the shelves. NOTHING. You drew an unwarranted inference.

You’re so emotional about this issue, that you are completely unable to think logically. (I am willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that you are actually capable of logical thought in other contexts.)

Gay or straight there shouldn't be porn school library's.

quote:

---

Gay or straight there shouldn't be porn (in) school (libraries).

---

Agreed. My first words posted ITT:

quote:

---

Pornography (regardless of sexual orientation) has no place in school libraries.

---

quote:

---

You keep adding things you claim you said in your post that you didn’t say.

---

NO, I do not.

I said NOTHING about the remaining 15 books. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. NULL SET. SILENCE. I have not claimed otherwise.

That is the damned POINT.

From that silence, you drew an incorrect inference.

quote:

---

So hand picked.

---

Same as it is here. Regardless of what the community wants, the same ole SJW retreads get all the appointments.