|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 2, 2017 9:35:02 GMT -6
There is my little toy poodle chirping at my feet. So cool! I promise I won't be chomping at your feet when I finally get to meet you.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 2, 2017 9:42:39 GMT -6
I promise I won't be chomping at your feet when I finally get to meet you. Lol, chirp, chirp
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 2, 2017 9:46:43 GMT -6
I'll make sure to keep chirping for you. I'm gonna chirp until you quit with those cheap shots I promise you.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 2, 2017 9:56:50 GMT -6
I'll make sure to keep chirping for you. I'm gonna chirp until you quit with those cheap shots I promise you. So only "pat on the back" comments are allowed for Kinderr? We are only allowed to take shots at private schools? Evangel, JC, Riverside, Calvary, and ND are approved targets? Geez you are a hypocrite and have total . 1stdown took a shot at Tyler, and Barbe. I simply commented with a true statement, yet you feel the need to chirp in.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 2, 2017 10:13:18 GMT -6
So only "pat on the back" comments are allowed for Kinderr? We are only allowed to take shots at private schools? Evangel, JC, Riverside, Calvary, and ND are approved targets? Geez you are a hypocrite and have total . 1stdown took a shot at Tyler, and Barbe. I simply commented with a true statement, yet you feel the need to chirp in. But what was the point of your statement about Kinder? I work in Lafayette quite a bit and it is not at all suprising to meet someone who doesn't know where Kinder is. Why would a seventeen year old child not knowing where Kinder is be relevant? You were just taking a cheap shot there. It's your constant need to make petulant, childish remarks like that makes you so irritating. As I told you on the board and through private message, I will continue to call out and challenge you childish comments until you quit.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 2, 2017 10:29:03 GMT -6
But what was the point of your statement about Kinder? I work in Lafayette quite a bit and it is not at all suprising to meet someone who doesn't know where Kinder is. Why would a seventeen year old child not knowing where Kinder is be relevant? You were just taking a cheap shot there. It's your constant need to make petulant, childish remarks like that makes you so irritating. As I told you on the board and through private message, I will continue to call out and challenge you childish comments until you quit. First off my comment was to 1stdown. Not you. Everything I said was true. 1st down probably would have jabbed back and we both would laughed and remained civil and friends.we don't all have to agree on everything about Kinder or any other school. Yet you jump in as some police. If the kid never hearing of Kinder bothers you then you have a serious problem.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 2, 2017 10:34:35 GMT -6
First off my comment was to 1stdown. Not you. Everything I said was true. 1st down probably would have jabbed back and we both would laughed and remained civil and friends.we don't all have to agree on everything about Kinder or any other school. Yet you jump in as some police. If the kid never hearing of Kinder bothers you then you have a serious problem. It doesn't bother me that he never heard of Kinder, it bothers me that you, a grown man, uses it as a cheap shot. I am not first down. I do not respect you and you are not my friend. I am not the police, but I will continue to call out and question your childish posts until you quit.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 2, 2017 10:38:38 GMT -6
It doesn't bother me that he never heard of Kinder, it bothers me that you, a grown man, uses it as a cheap shot. I am not first down. I do not respect you and you are not my friend. I am not the police, but I will continue to call out and question your childish posts until you quit. Not sure it is an oxymoron to wish a miserable person a happy 4th of July weekend but I wish you one anyway.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 2, 2017 10:39:33 GMT -6
Not sure it is an oxymoron to wish a miserable person a happy 4th of July weekend but I wish you one anyway. Thanks! And learn what an oxymoron actual is.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 2, 2017 11:32:15 GMT -6
Thanks! And learn what an oxymoron actual is. Mea Culpa! I was debating on irony or oxymoron, somehow oxymoron seemed more fitting for the situation. I'm not sure what the oxy part means.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Jul 5, 2017 14:58:59 GMT -6
And I asked Tyler why he chose ND and not Kinder where they had way more success lately. He looked confused and said "I never heard of Kinder, where is that?" you hit on the reason schools compete to get athletes to go to them... The sports pages and websites are great PR, especially when you've been winning
|
|
|
Post by jonevils on Jul 8, 2017 17:37:00 GMT -6
I think the Private schools have a leg to stand on here now I'm no lawyer here but if they play it like this it will probably end the split. Some public schools are select so as said before they can't use the argument of discrimination. However, if those school fall in that 25% rule then they play in non select but all Christian affiliated schools must play in select and the 25% rule does not pertain to them
|
|
|
Post by brprepfan on Jul 8, 2017 22:13:00 GMT -6
Private schools have no leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Jul 9, 2017 1:22:45 GMT -6
Private schools have no leg to stand on. have to remember LHSAA is a private organization...
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 13, 2017 16:12:06 GMT -6
Private schools have no leg to stand on. have to remember LHSAA is a private organization... Private organization do not have the right of discrimination. They cannot deny services to members of the organization in good standing. Private schools pay the same fees as publics, have the same rules and regulations, yet are denied participation in their classified championship.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 13, 2017 16:58:20 GMT -6
have to remember LHSAA is a private organization... Private organization do not have the right of discrimination. They cannot deny services to members of the organization in good standing. Private schools pay the same fees as publics, have the same rules and regulations, yet are denied participation in their classified championship. Do yo feel that this is an unlawful discrimination case? If so, would you elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 13, 2017 17:52:02 GMT -6
Private organization do not have the right of discrimination. They cannot deny services to members of the organization in good standing. Private schools pay the same fees as publics, have the same rules and regulations, yet are denied participation in their classified championship. Do yo feel that this is an unlawful discrimination case? If so, would you elaborate. It's all good. The Rotery club in town meets every Wednesday at noon. But they voted that the Catholics meet separately. Catholics meet only theee days a month, on Monday morning. And still pay the same dues. But the Catholics that don't go to church anymore can go on Wednesday.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 13, 2017 18:24:36 GMT -6
Do yo feel that this is an unlawful discrimination case? If so, would you elaborate. It's all good. The Rotery club in town meets every Wednesday at noon. But they voted that the Catholics meet separately. Catholics meet only theee days a month, on Monday morning. And still pay the same dues. But the Catholics that don't go to church anymore can go on Wednesday. Huh What?
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 25, 2017 11:26:45 GMT -6
Private organization do not have the right of discrimination. They cannot deny services to members of the organization in good standing. Private schools pay the same fees as publics, have the same rules and regulations, yet are denied participation in their classified championship. Do yo feel that this is an unlawful discrimination case? If so, would you elaborate. Yes, and I have posted at nausea about the discrimination. You take any membership, Not just Rotarian Catholics, and put segregate them then you have discriminated. As I have said before, Every SELECT school in the state is in good standing with the organization. The By-laws call for the LHSAA to "Classify" the schools by enrollment for competitive reasons. Rules existed to add a multiplier (doubling enrollment) for all single gender schools. By segregating out the "select" schools you have discriminated (and violated) the Classification rules on competition. Now, I know there are "Divisions" for other sports, but before this split the Divisions were to make certain sports viable and did not discriminate. For Example: Girls Soccer and Volleyball, STM played in D2 while Teurlings played in D3, yet both were Class 4A. This is not a discrimination. The discrimination comes when you ISOLATE, one group for the benefit of the other. By the very definition of Discrimination: Websters the act of making or perceiving a difference. Legal: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex: This is not all encompassing only to race, age or sex. It has been legally extended to religious belief. By segregating private schools, add lab, magnet schools, the LHSAA has on a prima facie point discriminated against members of the organization. This is not the same as the NCAA have different division, any member school is free to apply and move up or down from one division to the other. The LHSAA 1. forces schools into classifications by size. 2. Then segregates specific identifiable members into a a "Non Classification" for competitive reasons. Select schools are no longer eligible for their Classified Championship, but have been forced into an unjust "second class" trophy. They play all season long in the same districts as the Public schools, but are not allowed the same opportunity. Think of it this way, you purchase a LG 72 inch Flatscreen TV. But when you open the box, you are given a Vizio 72 inch Flatscreen. Both are TV's but both are not equal, even though you paid for the LG.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 25, 2017 11:44:12 GMT -6
What about private schools, charter schools or any non select school denying enrollment for a child because of test scores, behavior issues, special needs or any other factor? Whats the difference? I think this has always been a hangup with public schools and how non-select schools have an advantage over public's because they can control their enrollment. The difference is that the schools deny enrollment based upon a code of conduct. Public schools do the same thing, even worse. Example Public schools force inner city students to attend failed institutions. What good does it do a student who is unable to successfully compete in a school academically to be required to go to that school when an option exist for them at a less demanding school. Denial due to test scores or ability to learn is not against the rules of the LHSAA. NON of those are or have ever been a consideration for membership into the LHSAA. If you perceive or that the LHSAA perceives, a school unjustly denies enrollment then they should be completely removed from the LHSAA and not be allowed to remain as members. As such, every private school and organization such as the LHSAA, has the right of free association and thus within the confines of the by-laws may exclude an individual or groups of individuals from membership. To a point, this also exist in public schools which setup up alternate schools for disciplinary reasons and require troubled youth to specific classes and programs.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 25, 2017 11:51:11 GMT -6
Do yo feel that this is an unlawful discrimination case? If so, would you elaborate. Yes, and I have posted at nausea about the discrimination. You take any membership, Not just Rotarian Catholics, and put segregate them then you have discriminated. As I have said before, Every SELECT school in the state is in good standing with the organization. The By-laws call for the LHSAA to "Classify" the schools by enrollment for competitive reasons. Rules existed to add a multiplier (doubling enrollment) for all single gender schools. By segregating out the "select" schools you have discriminated (and violated) the Classification rules on competition. Now, I know there are "Divisions" for other sports, but before this split the Divisions were to make certain sports viable and did not discriminate. For Example: Girls Soccer and Volleyball, STM played in D2 while Teurlings played in D3, yet both were Class 4A. This is not a discrimination. The discrimination comes when you ISOLATE, one group for the benefit of the other. By the very definition of Discrimination: Websters the act of making or perceiving a difference. Legal: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex: This is not all encompassing only to race, age or sex. It has been legally extended to religious belief. By segregating private schools, add lab, magnet schools, the LHSAA has on a prima facie point discriminated against members of the organization. This is not the same as the NCAA have different division, any member school is free to apply and move up or down from one division to the other. The LHSAA 1. forces schools into classifications by size. 2. Then segregates specific identifiable members into a a "Non Classification" for competitive reasons. Select schools are no longer eligible for their Classified Championship, but have been forced into an unjust "second class" trophy. They play all season long in the same districts as the Public schools, but are not allowed the same opportunity. Think of it this way, you purchase a LG 72 inch Flatscreen TV. But when you open the box, you are given a Vizio 72 inch Flatscreen. Both are TV's but both are not equal, even though you paid for the LG. I am not debating the fact that this is a clear case of discrimination, but the case for unlawful discrimination is a hard one to make given the circumstances. Look at your definition "unjust or prejudicial treatment based on age, race, or sex". The definition itself does not apply here based on one glaring reason: there is an age limit in high school football. Under this definition, a 22 year old senior could sue for age discrimination. If the LHSAA said all Catholic or Baptist or Buddhist schools had to compete in their own division, then yes, it would be unlawful. If private schools had agreed to attendance zones, this would likely be an unlawful discrimination case, but since the two divisions play under different rules, which can a clear competitive advantage, having the spilt declared unlawfully discriminatory by a judge is wishful thinking.
If the split is going to be overturned, it will have to be done so democratically, by a vote. The legal route is almost certainly a losing one. Even a private organization can not make laws that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or age, but it can make rules on things such as competitive advantages based on different sets of rules.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 25, 2017 14:47:32 GMT -6
Yes, and I have posted at nausea about the discrimination. You take any membership, Not just Rotarian Catholics, and put segregate them then you have discriminated. As I have said before, Every SELECT school in the state is in good standing with the organization. The By-laws call for the LHSAA to "Classify" the schools by enrollment for competitive reasons. Rules existed to add a multiplier (doubling enrollment) for all single gender schools. By segregating out the "select" schools you have discriminated (and violated) the Classification rules on competition. Now, I know there are "Divisions" for other sports, but before this split the Divisions were to make certain sports viable and did not discriminate. For Example: Girls Soccer and Volleyball, STM played in D2 while Teurlings played in D3, yet both were Class 4A. This is not a discrimination. The discrimination comes when you ISOLATE, one group for the benefit of the other. By the very definition of Discrimination: Websters the act of making or perceiving a difference. Legal: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex: This is not all encompassing only to race, age or sex. It has been legally extended to religious belief. By segregating private schools, add lab, magnet schools, the LHSAA has on a prima facie point discriminated against members of the organization. This is not the same as the NCAA have different division, any member school is free to apply and move up or down from one division to the other. The LHSAA 1. forces schools into classifications by size. 2. Then segregates specific identifiable members into a a "Non Classification" for competitive reasons. Select schools are no longer eligible for their Classified Championship, but have been forced into an unjust "second class" trophy. They play all season long in the same districts as the Public schools, but are not allowed the same opportunity. Think of it this way, you purchase a LG 72 inch Flatscreen TV. But when you open the box, you are given a Vizio 72 inch Flatscreen. Both are TV's but both are not equal, even though you paid for the LG. I am not debating the fact that this is a clear case of discrimination, but the case for unlawful discrimination is a hard one to make given the circumstances. Look at your definition "unjust or prejudicial treatment based on age, race, or sex". The definition itself does not apply here based on one glaring reason: there is an age limit in high school football. Under this definition, a 22 year old senior could sue for age discrimination. If the LHSAA said all Catholic or Baptist or Buddhist schools had to compete in their own division, then yes, it would be unlawful. If private schools had agreed to attendance zones, this would likely be an unlawful discrimination case, but since the two divisions play under different rules, which can a clear competitive advantage, having the spilt declared unlawfully discriminatory by a judge is wishful thinking.
If the split is going to be overturned, it will have to be done so democratically, by a vote. The legal route is almost certainly a losing one. Even a private organization can not make laws that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or age, but it can make rules on things such as competitive advantages based on different sets of rules.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all the schools both private and public have the same set of rules?
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 25, 2017 14:51:03 GMT -6
I am not debating the fact that this is a clear case of discrimination, but the case for unlawful discrimination is a hard one to make given the circumstances. Look at your definition "unjust or prejudicial treatment based on age, race, or sex". The definition itself does not apply here based on one glaring reason: there is an age limit in high school football. Under this definition, a 22 year old senior could sue for age discrimination. If the LHSAA said all Catholic or Baptist or Buddhist schools had to compete in their own division, then yes, it would be unlawful. If private schools had agreed to attendance zones, this would likely be an unlawful discrimination case, but since the two divisions play under different rules, which can a clear competitive advantage, having the spilt declared unlawfully discriminatory by a judge is wishful thinking.
If the split is going to be overturned, it will have to be done so democratically, by a vote. The legal route is almost certainly a losing one. Even a private organization can not make laws that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or age, but it can make rules on things such as competitive advantages based on different sets of rules.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all the schools both private and public have the same set of rules? Not when it comes to attendance zones.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 25, 2017 14:56:48 GMT -6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all the schools both private and public have the same set of rules? Not when it comes to attendance zones. Notre Dame for most of the years had Crowley High's zone. All private schools were assigned the closest public school attendance zone. Every rule that had to do with transfer or crossing zones were the same for public and private. You get confused sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 25, 2017 15:03:16 GMT -6
Not when it comes to attendance zones. Notre Dame for most of the years had Crowley High's zone. All private schools were assigned the closest public school attendance zone. Every rule that had to do with transfer or crossing zones were the same for public and private. You get confused sometimes. So the players that I know who lived in Welsh and Elton that played at ND over the years were eligible to play at Crowley high too? Come on?
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 25, 2017 15:07:35 GMT -6
Notre Dame for most of the years had Crowley High's zone. All private schools were assigned the closest public school attendance zone. Every rule that had to do with transfer or crossing zones were the same for public and private. You get confused sometimes. So the players that I know who lived in Welsh and Elton that played at ND over the years were eligible to play at Crowley high too? Come on? That's the rule. Wether they played at ND or Crowley they had to sit out a year, make a legal move, or enroll at a feeder school in the 7th grade.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 25, 2017 15:09:22 GMT -6
So the players that I know who lived in Welsh and Elton that played at ND over the years were eligible to play at Crowley high too? Come on? That's the rule. Wether they played at ND or Crowley they had to sit out a year, make a legal move, or enroll at a feeder school in the 7th grade. But they couldn't attend Crowley high because they lived in Jeff Davis Parish. You can't deny the difference.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 25, 2017 15:18:34 GMT -6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all the schools both private and public have the same set of rules? Not when it comes to attendance zones. Are attendance zones LHSAA rules or individual School Board rules?
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 25, 2017 15:21:32 GMT -6
Not when it comes to attendance zones. Are attendance zones LHSAA rules or individual School Board rules? I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe attendence zones are a state issue.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 25, 2017 15:21:52 GMT -6
That's the rule. Wether they played at ND or Crowley they had to sit out a year, make a legal move, or enroll at a feeder school in the 7th grade. But they couldn't attend Crowley high because they lived in Jeff Davis Parish. You can't deny the difference. The question was do public and private schools have the same rules, and they do. Period. Many people from Elton went to Kinder, according to the rules that shouldn't happen either.
|
|