[VOICE]

May 25, 2010 15:08

[what's that coming over the hill]

[is it a disgruntled feminist network admin]

[oh]

[it is.]

I'm too sick to deal with this.

Anonymous posts on the school network are disabled until I have the energy to work out an alternative solution or explain why objectification is degrading and inappropriate without breaking anyone's arm in the process ( Read more... )

karen starr, !!xavier institute

Leave a comment

Comments 28

redcrystalflies May 25 2010, 18:51:28 UTC
Now, I'm not trying to argue here, ma'am, but why is it that a little gossip is apparently enough to get anonymous posts banned, but there's no mention of the troll who posted those disgusting pictures after them? Isn't that a more heinous offense?

[She's either very brave or very, very stupid. Your call.]

Reply

boobwindow May 25 2010, 19:01:19 UTC
[muttered] Oh for --

[SIGH] Yes. It is a more heinous offense. I thought that went without saying.

Reply

redcrystalflies May 25 2010, 22:53:31 UTC
I just wanted to make sure the little creep wasn't getting off scot-free, that's all.

Reply


sucking up? Nevar! hawkeye_ii May 25 2010, 21:17:48 UTC
Thank you, Ms Starr.

Reply


toxicrevenger May 25 2010, 21:56:52 UTC
Maybe you could set up posts so that students can post anonymously to one another, but where staff would still have a means of checking who it was?

Reply

bootjets May 25 2010, 22:53:48 UTC
That means would be me, Ms. Isley.

Reply

toxicrevenger May 25 2010, 23:11:37 UTC
Makes sense. You designed this network, right?

Reply

bootjets May 26 2010, 00:34:11 UTC
Yes. Redesigned, actually.

Reply


notmufasa May 26 2010, 04:40:52 UTC
[Ignoring the anon stuff, so not his department. Even if Cid made him learn how to use computers]

If you want, my friend Aerith makes some good herbal teas. I can ask her to brew some for you. After I confiscate the salt.

Reply

boobwindow May 28 2010, 18:49:55 UTC
Actually, that sounds pretty good right about now. Thanks, Leon.

Reply


eyes_are_uphere May 28 2010, 17:35:56 UTC
So, you're basically getting up-in-arms about a simple post of teenagers saying who's hot for the genders? But you don't mention anything about the rather gross and inappropriate post above those that is, essentially, porn?

My, aren't we going after the wrong culprits here? Honestly, they're teenagers, they're going to talk about it.

Reply

boobwindow May 28 2010, 18:45:04 UTC
I'll be honest, Tsunade, if it wasn't for the shock post I would have probably just rolled my eyes at the whole thing. [this is a lie. :')] Trust me, I'd much rather have these kids seeing those stupid who's-hot posts than that stuff, but whoever did it obviously knew they were doing something that wasn't allowed. I didn't think I needed to tell anyone it was a bad post, especially not after I'd deleted it. Give me a break.

Reply

eyes_are_uphere May 28 2010, 18:48:21 UTC
[Oh, oh she knows better than to believe most of anything anyone says. Just out of general knowledge.]

Well. Doesn't Mr. Stark, even when the posts are anonymous, have a way to figure out who posted it? Wouldn't it make the whole banning of anonymous posts in general a moot point?

Reply

boobwindow May 28 2010, 18:55:06 UTC
What? Any time the kids have been allowed to reply to each other anonymously, they've only used it for stupid crap that we don't want to have to deal with, like this. This is the second time we've had to turn it off - Sheppard only turned it on by mistake.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up