Dad blasts school for 'dress code shaming' his 5-year-old daughter over this dress

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is that the parent hasn't complained to the school, he's written a blog about it without even checking what actually happened.

So your beef is he writes a blog which many people do to moan about a school policy

Big deal, he has every right to do so and I back him in his views here because the school is being way over the top

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


So your beef is he writes a blog which many people do to moan about a school policy

Big deal, he has every right to do so and I back him in his views here because the school is being way over the top

Yes. He has every right to do so, and I have every right to say that he's an idiot for doing that. He sounds like a right plonker.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. He has every right to do so, and I have every right to say that he's an idiot for doing that. He sounds like a right plonker.

Well your views are subjective and just as you have every right to your view I have every right to say your views are daft.

So there we are full circle on this then

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Well your views are subjective and just as you have every right to your view I have every right to say your views are daft.

So there we are full circle on this then

Well I have every right to say that your views are daft, and I think they are - in most threads.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I have every right to say that your views are daft, and I think they are - in most threads.

And yet you are unable to counter them, which would mean your position to state something you cannot prove means fro the start your position is daft and antsy.
So if you think they are, then you need to prove they are as hearsay counts for jack shit

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


And yet you are unable to counter them, which would mean your position to state something you cannot prove means fro the start your position is daft and antsy.
So if you think they are, then you need to prove they are as hearsay counts for jack shit

I have countered them, you just don't seem to understand anything - you just barge your way through most threads telling anyone who disagrees with you that they're "childish".

Nemesis wrote:Okay go onto every thread I am debating on this morning and disprove me, so you can claim to prove your point


Good luck

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Okay go onto every thread I am debating on this morning and disprove me, so you can claim to prove your point


Good luck

I'll go into threads which interest me, so don't tell me what to do. I have given my opinion in this thread, and if you don't like it, that's tough.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'll go into threads which interest me, so don't tell me what to do. I have given my opinion in this thread, and if you don't like it, that's tough.

PMSL again what a copout.
You just made a claim on many threads now make an excuse not to.
Stop wasting my time you irritating child

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


PMSL again what a copout.
You just made a claim on many threads now make an excuse not to.
Stop wasting my time you irritating child

Fuck off, you blubbering moron. Next time you flounce, why don't you just stay away?

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuck off, you blubbering moron. Next time you flounce, why don't you just stay away?

Such charming words from a lady I must say.
Hilarious

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Such charming words from a lady I must say.
Hilarious

At least I haven't called two people here paedos - unlike you.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

At least I haven't called two people here paedos - unlike you.

I only called one which I had the decency to apologise, something which you have not the decency to do.

So funny when you get your knickers in a twist and to be honest you are an ignorant fuckwit at the best of times. Wanting me to stay away shows you hate me making you look a complete arse in debates

   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


I only called one which I had the decency to apologise, something which you have not the decency to do.

So funny when you get your knickers in a twist and to be honest you are an ignorant fuckwit at the best of times. Wanting me to stay away shows you hate me making you look a complete arse in debates

   

You said it about two people.

Are you still denying that you're Didge?

You're the ignorant one. You can't debate, you tell lies, and you're generally a bit of an arse.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You said it about two people.

Are you still denying that you're Didge?

You're the ignorant one. You can't debate, you tell lies, and you're generally a bit of an arse.

Wrong I only said it to one person on here, so lies does not become you

Anyway it gets boring trying to reason with a spoilt little brat

So I shall leave you seething as it is always fun to wind the fuck out of you as you are too easy to do so


Happy days

eddie wrote:Quill I think you're an intelligent guy but you do slag off Britain and think you're rather superior by the things you state. Some might say you're anti-British.
Now Im sure you don't want that label seeing as how "fair" you claim to be?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Quill I think you're an intelligent guy but you do slag off Britain and think you're rather superior by the things you state. Some might say you're anti-British.
Now Im sure you don't want that label seeing as how "fair" you claim to be?

Eds, I don’t give a fook what you think.  You misunderstand my participation in this website.  I am not here to make your life better.  I express myself in the best way under the circumstances, and I am often direct and blunt…but get my point across.  The real question is: Why are you talking about me?  Who the fook cares about me?  This is about a father and daughter in Texas.

Nothing I say is anti-British.  I love the British.  When I am critical, it is because the Internet allows what has never been permitted before…to compare cultural personalities.  I am saddened that some in Britain have lost the personal power to be direct and get things done.

Americans are blunt, direct, and they get the job done.  They are also the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, so there must be something to that.  Anyway, I'm not complaining.

What I have been saying is that the point Raggs makes bespeaks the contemporary British cultural personality: recessive, obsequious, and unctuous.  Every time I go to the UK lately, I encounter these attitudes.  The excuse I get is often the one you give: you are superior, brash, and too demanding.  (Fuck…that’s the way to get things done!)  But the most curious thing I hear is, I admire you for standing your ground...Brits no longer do that!

These are the same arguments Raggs puts forth.  She wants this Texas father to be recessive, obsequious and unctuous.  It’s not anti-British to point out that Americans do not behave that way…and apparently Americans are pretty successful in their ways.

The father in this story is making demands about something he dislikes in the way his daughter is being treated.  Good on him.  All I hear from Raggs is: Oh pip-pip, that’s so improper and superior and brash and tally-ho and be nice and queue-up in an orderly fashion.   Fook…you wanna get something done, grab a hammer and get to work!

Raggamuffin wrote:Stop talking shit. Your use of "tally-ho" suggests that I'm in favour of hunting with dogs for a start - which I'm not.

Of course one should queue up in an orderly fashion - do you go into shops and stride up the counter demanding to be served in front of everyone else?

The father in this story sounds like an attention-seeking arse to me. Instead of politely asking the school why the dress was inappropriate, he decided to show off all over the internet for his own purposes, which are probably nothing to do with the dress the girl was wearing.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Stop talking shit. Your use of "tally-ho" suggests that I'm in favour of hunting with dogs for a start - which I'm not.

Of course one should queue up in an orderly fashion - do you go into shops and stride up the counter demanding to be served in front of everyone else?

The father in this story sounds like an attention-seeking arse to me. Instead of politely asking the school why the dress was inappropriate, he decided to show off all over the internet for his own purposes, which are probably nothing to do with the dress the girl was wearing.

Who’s talking shit?  Hunting with dogs?  

The father?  He grabbed a hammer and is getting the job done.  Notice he’s not asking for your approval.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why do people read rules, sign them to say they accept them, and then complain about them later?

Raffamuffin wrote:It's interesting that you think standing your ground is a good thing - I thought you hated the stand your ground laws. Cool

Original Quill wrote:

Raffamuffin wrote:It's interesting that you think standing your ground is a good thing - I thought you hated the stand your ground laws. Cool

Oh, now you are into mixing metaphors?

I know the fox-huntiing reference...but why do you have to go there?  Stick to the point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Oh, now you are into mixing metaphors?

I know the fox-huntiing reference...but why do you have to go there?  Stick to the point.

You used a fox hunting reference when posting about me, which I find offensive. If you don't want me to comment on that, don't use that reference. You bang on about "personal power", so use your own personal power to control your own posts and stop blaming me for what you posted.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You used a fox hunting reference when posting about me, which I find offensive. If you don't want me to comment on that, don't use that reference. You bang on about "personal power", so use your own personal power to control your own posts and stop blaming me for what you posted.

Eh...blow it out your ass!  How's that for personal power?  

When I say 'why do you have to go there(?)' I am pointing out that that you are arguing with an expression, and creeping away from the point.  The real point about 'tally-ho' is that you are resorting to mindless British character, with your rules and queues.

This Texas father is just trying to protect and teach his daughter in the good old American way.  As I said, Good on 'em!

Raggamuffin wrote:Why do people read rules, sign them to say they accept them, and then complain about them later?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Quill I think you're an intelligent guy but you do slag off Britain and think you're rather superior by the things you state. Some might say you're anti-British.
Now Im sure you don't want that label seeing as how "fair" you claim to be?

Eds, I don’t give a fook what you think.  You misunderstand my participation in this website.  I am not here to make your life better.  I express myself in the best way under the circumstances, and I am often direct and blunt…but get my point across.  The real question is: Why are you talking about me?  Who the fook cares about me?  This is about a father and daughter in Texas.

Nothing I say is anti-British.  I love the British.  When I am critical, it is because the Internet allows what has never been permitted before…to compare cultural personalities.  I am saddened that some in Britain have lost the personal power to be direct and get things done.

Americans are blunt, direct, and they get the job done.  They are also the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, so there must be something to that.  Anyway, I'm not complaining.

What I have been saying is that the point Raggs makes bespeaks the contemporary British cultural personality: recessive, obsequious, and unctuous.  Every time I go to the UK lately, I encounter these attitudes.  The excuse I get is often the one you give: you are superior, brash, and too demanding.  (Fuck…that’s the way to get things done!)  But the most curious thing I hear is, I admire you for standing your ground...Brits no longer do that!

pffft...i spend plenty of time on here standing my ground...then you dont like it and retreat into your lefty slurs....you do make I larf

These are the same arguments Raggs puts forth.  She wants this Texas father to be recessive, obsequious and unctuous.  It’s not anti-British to point out that Americans do not behave that way…and apparently Americans are pretty successful in their ways.

The father in this story is making demands about something he dislikes in the way his daughter is being treated.  Good on him.  All I hear from Raggs is: Oh pip-pip, that’s so improper and superior and brash and tally-ho and be nice and queue-up in an orderly fashion.   Fook…you wanna get something done, grab a hammer and get to work!

veya_victaous wrote:

I Didn't know tally-ho was a fox hunting reference i thought it was just a rich Englishman saying

Wiki wrote:The phrase tally-ho is a largely British phrase, which originated from the activity of foxhunting, and other forms of hunting with hounds, shouted when a rider or follower sees the fox (or other quarry). Today the term has evolved to have other meanings, most of which relate to 'pointing out' or 'spotting' a 'target'.

Raggamuffin wrote:I will "go there" if you use an expression about me which I find offensive. The expression has nothing to do with mindless character, British or not - it's used when people go after a defenceless creature which cannot defend itself.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

I Didn't know tally-ho was a fox hunting reference i thought it was just a rich Englishman saying

Wiki wrote:The phrase tally-ho is a largely British phrase, which originated from the activity of foxhunting, and other forms of hunting with hounds, shouted when a rider or follower sees the fox (or other quarry). Today the term has evolved to have other meanings, most of which relate to 'pointing out' or 'spotting' a 'target'.

Raggamuffin wrote:I will "go there" if you use an expression about me which I find offensive. The expression has nothing to do with mindless character, British or not - it's used when people go after a defenceless creature which cannot defend itself.

If you want to be a ditz and appear ignorant go ahead.  I'm just trying to keep you (and the thread) on course.  You stray off and argue with expressions, metaphors and examples...and you effectively give up the point and I win.

I was giving you a string of parallelism in order to give you a sense of the silly British slogans that the worst of Brits come out with.  The very point is that your argument carries you into the kind of rote officiousness that sounds like that.  Rules, queues and proper British spelling.  Anything else?

You say the father should have taken issue with the rules when he signed up his daughter.  Of course, you are anticipating that father is an attorney, aren't you?  Otherwise, that is just another feckless, ex post facto argument that will inevitably lose in a court of law.  If three-quarters of the enrolling students questioned the rules on day one, the school would close.  A much better alternative would have been to ask the parents in advance to sit down a modernize all of the rules, bringing them into the 21st-century.

That is about all you give us...but for your salacious devotion to rules, you have no rational argument against the silly prohibition that prevents a darling little girl from wearing a darling little dress.  Maybe you should sit next to her in class so you can learn how to be cute, while you are introduced to the idea of questioning mindless authority.

Nems wrote:If Dad had a problem with the school he should have taken it up with the school.
I don't understand this attention seeking need some people have to live their lives on social media.
It always strikes me as the ultimate act of a narcissist.
Agree with Rags man is an arse

eddie wrote:

Nems wrote:If Dad had a problem with the school he should have taken it up with the school.
I don't understand this attention seeking need some people have to live their lives on social media.
It always strikes me as the ultimate act of a narcissist.
Agree with Rags man is an arse

You get these sort of people everywhere: they don't take responsibly for their own actions (signing an agreement then going against it) and then moan all over the Internet to get a bit of fame.
He only had to contact the scool authorities and/or governing body; what's he teaching his child? Let's flout the rules darling even though we agreed to them?
Horrible man.

I mean these are the sort of people that sue McDonald's because it "made them fat"

eddie wrote:I'm afraid in this topic, we will have to agree to disagree.
If you sign an agreement then you are consenting to follow the rules.

And as for posting for advice about a friend....this is a tiny forum, no one was named, hardly the same thing.

Oh and you often tell posters to "follow the rules" on here

Nems wrote:If Dad had a problem with the school he should have taken it up with the school.
I don't understand this attention seeking need some people have to live their lives on social media.
It always strikes me as the ultimate act of a narcissist.
Agree with Rags man is an arse

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you have any idea how pathetic you sound? Saying that that stupid man should go to court over a dress? I think a court would tell him to read the rules next time, and to just buy the kid a t-shirt and keep the "darling little dress" for other places.

You should really stop blowing your own trumpet and making out that you're representative of Americans - you're giving them a bad name.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you have any idea how pathetic you sound? Saying that that stupid man should go to court over a dress? I think a court would tell him to read the rules next time, and to just buy the kid a t-shirt and keep the "darling little dress" for other places.

You should really stop blowing your own trumpet and making out that you're representative of Americans - you're giving them a bad name.

You are talking about me and not addressing the subject.  So, you don't disagree with me?  You could be more graceful, but at least you are forthright, if begrudging, in your loss.

I wish all fathers would take up the cause and be involved in their daughter's lives like this.  With such support and security she is going to go far.

eddie wrote:

Nems wrote:If Dad had a problem with the school he should have taken it up with the school.
I don't understand this attention seeking need some people have to live their lives on social media.
It always strikes me as the ultimate act of a narcissist.
Agree with Rags man is an arse

You get these sort of people everywhere: they don't take responsibly for their own actions (signing an agreement then going against it) and then moan all over the Internet to get a bit of fame.
He only had to contact the scool authorities and/or governing body; what's he teaching his child? Let's flout the rules darling even though we agreed to them?
Horrible man.

I mean these are the sort of people that sue McDonald's because it "made them fat"

Cornell Univ. Law School wrote:Definition. [A contract of adhesion is] a astandard form contract drafted by one party (usually a business with stronger bargaining power) and signed by the weaker party (usually a consumer in need of goods or services), who must adhere to the contract and therefore does not have the power to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract.

Original Quill wrote:

Nems wrote:If Dad had a problem with the school he should have taken it up with the school.
I don't understand this attention seeking need some people have to live their lives on social media.
It always strikes me as the ultimate act of a narcissist.
Agree with Rags man is an arse

Well, perhaps he did.  I think he did what he had to in order to get his point across.  Who's afraid of a little 'light of day'?

Those who would hide, that's who.  It s strange that the school has no rebuttal.

The man's a hero, and a rare father.

Nems wrote:The man is a big girls blouse.

Raggamuffin wrote:What's with the "of which" all the time?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What's with the "of which" all the time?

  Simple rule of grammar: Don't end your sentences in a preposition.  How far did you get in school, anyway?

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, perhaps he did.  I think he did what he had to in order to get his point across.  Who's afraid of a little 'light of day'?

Those who would hide, that's who.  It s strange that the school has no rebuttal.

The man's a hero, and a rare father.

The man is a big girls blouse.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

  Simple rule of grammar: Don't end your sentences in a preposition.  How far did you get in school, anyway?

Further than you probably.

Why are you making this all about me again?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Further than you probably.

Why are you making this all about me again?

Because you are very weird.  It's unusual that one doesn't know 4th-grade grammar.