# Who'da Thunk it?



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Just a poor innocent boy and his clock:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ks-of-suspensions-and-clashed-with-authority/



> Before Clock Incident Made Him a Celebrity, Ahmed Mohamed âRacked Up Weeks of Suspensionsâ and Clashed With Authority
> Sep. 29, 2015 10:42am Jason Howerton
> 
> Before he was put in handcuffs for bringing a âhomemadeâ clock to school and became an overnight celebrity, Ahmed Mohamed âracked up weeks of suspensionsâ and clashed with authority while in middle school, the Dallas Morning News reported.
> ...





> Speaking on the phone shortly after the arrest that turned him into a celebrity, Mohamed reportedly told his former teacher,
> 
> *âI told you one day Iâm going to be â and you told me yourself â Iâm going to be really big on the Internet one day.â *
> 
> Mohamedâs parents have since hired two high-profile attorneys to pursue their âseverely traumatizedâ sonâs âlegal rightsâ in the aftermath of the clock incident.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I wanna know if the WH canceled his visit after they stopped jumping to conclusions, and found out what really happened?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Oh.. your link doesn't work.. .

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ks-of-suspensions-and-clashed-with-authority/


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Another radical Muslim in training. From what I've read his whole family is radical. They came here but don't like our country. Despite what the left says, there are many more here just like them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

poppy said:


> Another radical Muslim in training. From what I've read his whole family is radical. They came here but don't like our country. Despite what the left says, there are many more here just like them.



Oh they like our country just fine !
They just ain't to excited about our laws.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

dang it man. I may have to rethink my prejudice toward radical muslims.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It seems that if his goal was to get attention he succeeded. The difference between this incident and the others he was supposedly involved in wasn't his actions. It was the actions of the school administration and police that led to his arrest that brought him to national attention and apparently keeps you fascinated. I'm sure he'd thank all of you if he could.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> It seems that if his goal was to get attention he succeeded. The difference between this incident and the others he was supposedly involved in wasn't his actions. It was the actions of the school administration and police that led to his arrest that brought him to national attention and apparently keeps you fascinated. I'm sure he'd thank all of you if he could.


In this day and age, a kid brings something in with a timer, wires and an attitude, the school and cops acted appropriately.
They didn't beat him, shoot him with rubber bullets, strip search him, or pepper spray him.
They did what needed to be done, and played right into the hands of Daddy and Uncle Barry.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing I posted mentioned religion.
> It's about an individual and his actions.


No it's not and you know it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> They did what needed to be done, and played right into the hands of Daddy and Uncle Barry.



Now that's what the argument was about. They took the bait and made the dad's point.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I thought we cleared up the use of labels and snippy comments to insult other members yesterday.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> No it's not and you know it.


I know the word "Muslim" didn't appear until someone else posted it :shrug:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know the word "Muslim" didn't appear until you posted it :shrug:


Kind of ironic that the article you posted doesn't paint Ahmed Mohamed in a very pleasant light. Granted, he's a teenager, but the whole point of the article seems to be to justify the school's concern. I was going to ask if he actually read it, but I decided to just let it slide.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know the word "Muslim" didn't appear until someone else posted it :shrug:


Ok let's play a game called connect the dots. Even literalist can play. 

I would bet money, even give favorable odds, that the entire episode would have gone unnoticed by the press and every other party following their publication if the kid was Italian, Irish or even Canadian.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I thought we cleared up the use of labels and snippy comments to insult other members yesterday.


You must be new here :cowboy:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Ok let's play a game called connect the dots. Even literalist can play.
> 
> I would bet money, even give favorable odds, that the entire episode would have gone unnoticed by the press and every other party following their publication if the kid was Italian, Irish or even Canadian.


I agree
If he were anything but muslim, we would have never heard about it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Delete


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Well, maybe we would have anyway if his parents were seeking attention from the courts of public opinion for any reason. How easily manipulated the activists of PC-ity are.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Ok let's play a game called connect the dots. Even literalist can play.
> 
> I would bet money, even give favorable odds, that the entire episode would have gone unnoticed by the press and every other party following their publication if the kid was Italian, Irish or even Canadian.


It's a pointless game since it can't be proven, and it's really just a diversion from the fact that what I posted wasn't about his religion, but rather his past actions.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a pointless game since it can't be proven, and it's really just a diversion from the fact that what I posted wasn't about his religion, but rather his past actions.


It was about his ability to manipulate the media and the political correct because of his religion. It would not have gone the way he wanted in the press, or on this forum even, had he been complaining of Christianophobia. In fact, the assumptions would have certainly gone in favor of the school as protectors of chikdren against the politically incorrect.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> It was about his ability to manipulate the media and the political correct because of his religion. It would not have gone the way he wanted in the press, or on this forum even, had he been complaining of Christianophobia. In fact, the assumptions would have certainly gone in favor of the school as protectors of chikdren against the politically incorrect.


Maybe it has less to do with faith than marketing. There's a lot of young men working for various software companies because they pulled off a great hack and I know of a few folks who have turned a life of B & E into the home security companies. 

Somehow the Kardashians have managed to parlay generous backsides into big business


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

where I want to said:


> It was about his ability to manipulate the media and the political correct because of his religion. It would not have gone the way he wanted in the press, or on this forum even, had he been complaining of Christianophobia. In fact, the assumptions would have certainly gone in favor of the school as protectors of chikdren against the politically incorrect.


A 14 year old kid manipulating the media? The article in the OP was about how his behavior may have warranted the teachers' reactions. Everything else is opinion or assumption at this point.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> I thought we cleared up the use of labels and snippy comments to insult other members yesterday.


Thought the it was to grasp a Facebook issue you found


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> Maybe it has less to do with faith than marketing. There's a lot of young men working for various software companies because they pulled off a great hack and I know of a few folks who have turned a life of B & E into the home security companies.
> 
> Somehow the Kardashians have managed to parlay generous backsides into big business


To be fair, those are some big backsides


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just a poor innocent boy and his clock:
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ks-of-suspensions-and-clashed-with-authority/



The Blaze? Seriously? Is there any proof of any of those accusations? 

Okay I went and read the Dallas Morning News that Glenn Beck and Company cribbed their attack piece from. Please everyone read this article and not the one BFF posted: 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/comm...tic-inventions-and-a-fight-with-authority.ece

Wow I don't think I have ever seen a positive article so twisted and mangled into it's complete opposite so thoroughly before. I am just disappointed. I would expect this from some here but not the OP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> The Blaze? Seriously? Is there any proof of any of those accusations?
> 
> Okay I went and read the Dallas Morning News that Glenn Beck and Company cribbed their attack piece from. Please everyone read this article and not the one BFF posted:
> 
> ...


They are basically the same articles.
I'm not sure what you think was "twisted and mangled"
They even linked to the Dallas report in the first sentence.



> Before he was put in handcuffs for bringing a &#8220;homemade&#8221; clock to school and became an overnight celebrity, Ahmed Mohamed &#8220;racked up weeks of suspensions&#8221; and clashed with authority while in middle school, the Dallas Morning News reported.


And again at the end:


> Read the full report from The Dallas Morning News here.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> The Blaze? Seriously? Is there any proof of any of those accusations?
> 
> Okay I went and read the Dallas Morning News that Glenn Beck and Company cribbed their attack piece from. Please everyone read this article and not the one BFF posted:
> 
> ...


Why are you so adamant about portraying this little con man as a genius and victim?
The school and the cops acted properly, and all the hate you throw out there won't change that.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> Maybe it has less to do with faith than marketing. There's a lot of young men working for various software companies because they pulled off a great hack and I know of a few folks who have turned a life of B & E into the home security companies.
> 
> Somehow the Kardashians have managed to parlay generous backsides into big business


If he had done something clever or unique or even original, that might have been true. But what he did was create a mess for the school, manipulate the public, assign the problem to bigotry and then sue. That does not sound like a desirable employee for even the most liberal, cutting edge start up. It sounds like trouble.
Hopefully he will have the wherewithal to start his own business. Then he can work for someone really impressed with him.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Why are you so adamant about portraying this little con man as a genius and victim?
> The school and the cops acted properly, and all the hate you throw out there won't change that.


Would now be a good time to mention my daughter bought her first tractor with the proceeds from high school poker tournaments?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are basically the same articles.
> I'm not sure what you think was "twisted and mangled"
> They even linked to the Dallas report in the first sentence.
> 
> ...


They are not at all the same articles. The spin on the Dallas one is genius quirky kid and his history at his old school. No judgment made, strictly the facts. If anything it skews positive. 

The Blaze cherry picked items out of the article and twisted them into outrage inducing attacks on his character. The newspaper hooked the kid up with his old teacher and their conversation was funny not evidence of some sinister plot. That teacher Mr. Kubiak was 100% positive about Ahmed. They said he had been bullied over his religion and mistreated by the administration. The teacher basically backed up what he claimed and said he had been all but forced into retirement for bucking the trend. He was the one who taught Ahmed to stand up for his rights. 

Not to mention the school was well aware from his records that the kid routinely brought electronic creations into school. Which shot their whole panic and arrest of the kid to shreds.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Why are you so adamant about portraying this little con man as a genius and victim?
> The school and the cops acted properly, and all the hate you throw out there won't change that.



If this was a white all American Christian kid who had pulled a couple of brilliant pranks, been bullied and attacked for his Christian religion and stood up for his first Amendment rights you guys would be slavering all over him. He would be trotted out as a martyr and a saint. Admit it you would. 

So maybe the question you need to ask yourself is why are you attacking him? Is it because he is brown and a Muslim?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> If this was a white all American Christian kid who had pulled a couple of brilliant pranks, been bullied and attacked for his Christian religion and stood up for his first Amendment rights you guys would be slavering all over him. He would be trotted out as a martyr and a saint. Admit it you would.
> 
> So maybe the question you need to ask yourself is why are you attacking him? Is it because he is brown and a Muslim?


It is possible for a white Christian boy to allege that and you would support him? Especially with no proof, only his allegation. Maybe that is the question you should ask first.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> It is possible for a white Christian boy to allege that and you would support him? Especially with no proof, only his allegation. Maybe that is the question you should ask first.


I absolutely would yes. Any child who is bullied for their faith absolutely should stand up for their first amendment rights. You obviously haven't caught on to what is truly important to me. Our rights as citizens is at the very top of my list.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> The Blaze? Seriously? Is there any proof of any of those accusations?
> 
> Okay I went and read the Dallas Morning News that Glenn Beck and Company cribbed their attack piece from. Please everyone read this article and not the one BFF posted:
> 
> ...


That Dallas Morning News article was not simply the facts. The reporter based all the article on the rememerances of a former teacher who described his relationship with the boy as-

."To say he taught Ahmed Texas history in seventh grade would be to miss the point of what he calls his âministry for 12 years at Sam Houston: to make sure these children knew the truth about their rights.â

And the report described him as-
With a thick beard sprouting from a button-down shirt, Kubiak was the teacher who played Steppenwolf songs in class and segued from the textbooks into his personal memories of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War.

I can well see where this teacher, rhapsodizing about himself and seeing himself in this kid, lead to what happened.

It is apparent that this kid could have defused the situation but, as he has many times before, was inclined demonstrate his mental superiority to those he considered as having abused him. He accuses everyone of being biased against him. And if that is not a red flag for raising questions, that 'everyone' is against you, there is nothing that is.

Since he sees himself as both superior and abused, his only explanation for it is because of race and religious prejudice. As do many of the supporters who have not bothered to pause at the possibility that his "thick school file" might have another explanation to offer.

Frankly, he seems a smarmy, self righteous, manipulative brat. His intelligence is not the issue. His behavior is. 

This article is as fact based as the Star Spangled Banner is a military action report.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> That Dallas Morning News article was not simply the facts. The reporter based all the article on the rememerances of a former teacher who described his relationship with the boy as-
> 
> ."To say he taught Ahmed Texas history in seventh grade would be to miss the point of what he calls his âministry for 12 years at Sam Houston: to make sure these children knew the truth about their rights.â
> 
> ...


Well since The Blaze is biased in the exact opposite direction I suppose we can assume the facts are somewhere in the middle?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> Well since The Blaze is biased in the exact opposite direction I suppose we can assume the facts are somewhere in the middle?


The best guess at the truth is that neither have the truth rather than one is right and the other wrong. Just because they are opposite doesn't mean either one or any line in between have reality.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> That Dallas Morning News article was not simply the facts. The reporter based all the article on the rememerances of a former teacher who described his relationship with the boy as-
> 
> ."To say he taught Ahmed Texas history in seventh grade would be to miss the point of what he calls his âministry for 12 years at Sam Houston: to make sure these children knew the truth about their rights.â
> 
> ...


Exactly how could the kid have "defused" the situation? The situation was escalated when the school brought in the police. The school could have handled it internally, as they had in the past, and given him in dchool punishment or suspension. From what I've read he answered the cop's questions. All five cops and answered consistently. He didn't handcuff himself and arrest himself. He probably is all the bad things you say, self centered, smarmy - a real pain I the tuchus for authorities. I went to school with a lot of them. I may have been one one them. Today some of them are rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, business owners, authors and experts in various fields. They were some of the best and the brightest and all spent time frustrating and challenging teachers and sitting in the dean's office. None were arrested.

I know, times are different. But people aren't. Some people challenge, some people overreact to being challenged. If this had been the quirky white kid who was getting recruitment letters from MIT as a freshman ( I sat next to him) I doubt he would have been treated the same, but if he had my support would be with him. There is no way to take his religion out of this situation and definitively say how authorities would have acted but, barring some actual threat or school wide disruption, arresting a student for violating a school rule hardly seems appropriate, justified or measured.

Kids can be attention seeking little jerks. Giving them extra attention for their jerkiness seldom solves the problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The Blaze cherry *picked items out of the article* and twisted them into outrage inducing attacks on his character.


Again, they paraphrased the Dallas article, while *linking to it twice*.
Your "outrage" is the only outrage I'm seeing.

If they really only wanted to "twist" they wouldn't have provided links to the original article.

Everything in both is factual



> Which shot their whole* panic *and arrest of the kid to shreds.


No one "panicked"

Now you are "twisting"

It was investigated as a possible bomb *hoax.*


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Did the kid's device have a digital countdown? I read in a couple places it did...how is this like a clock (the pics look NOTHING like a clock, BTW) which has a digital 'face' that goes up instead of counting down...like a bomb.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> Would now be a good time to mention my daughter bought her first tractor with the proceeds from high school poker tournaments?


Lotsa kids would have wasted that money, good for her


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> If this was a white all American Christian kid who had pulled a couple of brilliant pranks, been bullied and attacked for his Christian religion and stood up for his first Amendment rights you guys would be slavering all over him. He would be trotted out as a martyr and a saint. Admit it you would.
> 
> So maybe the question you need to ask yourself is why are you attacking him? Is it because he is brown and a Muslim?


That's ridiculous.
If a white, Christian kid had brought a fake bomb to school, he'd been arrested and charged.
He would not have been invited to the White House by the bigot in chief, and you would never have heard of him.
I'm not sure why you can't seem to defend your preferred people without attacking someone else.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And if this kid had brought a fake bomb to school or made any threats he should have been arrested. He didn't and he shouldn't have been.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> And if this kid had brought a fake bomb to school or made any threats he should have been arrested. He didn't and he shouldn't have been.


He didn't bring a fake bomb to school?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> He didn't bring a fake bomb to school?


Nope. By definition a bomb must contain some explosive material. Therefore a fake bomb must contain something that approximates explosive material. None of the purported pictures of the device show any such material thus it couldn't have been mistaken for bomb, fake or otherwise.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Nope. By definition a bomb must contain some explosive material. Therefore a fake bomb must contain something that approximates explosive material. None of the purported pictures of the device show any such material thus it couldn't have been mistaken for bomb, fake or otherwise.


That's quite a stretch.
He brought something to school that was meant to look like a bomb
It had a timer and scary looking wires.
It was not a clock, didn't look like a clock, didn't function like a clock, was never meant to be a clock.
It was meant to look like a bomb


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Nope. By definition a bomb must contain some explosive material. Therefore a fake bomb must contain something that approximates explosive material. None of the purported pictures of the device show any such material thus it couldn't have been mistaken for bomb, fake or otherwise.


How about the boy who was suspended for making a pop tart in the shape of a gun ?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I absolutely would yes. Any child who is bullied for their faith absolutely should stand up for their first amendment rights. You obviously haven't caught on to what is truly important to me. Our rights as citizens is at the very top of my list.


But I never see any post to that effect. As far as I can remember every post commenting on a person standing for their religious values who was not a minority gets a resounding chorus of "whiny bigot."


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> That's quite a stretch.
> He brought something to school that was meant to look like a bomb
> It had a timer and scary looking wires.
> It was not a clock, didn't look like a clock, didn't function like a clock, was never meant to be a clock.
> It was meant to look like a bomb


Once again. A bomb must have explosive materials. This device had none nor any approximation of any. To continue to refer to it as a fake bomb is misleading, at best. 

Many things contain wires. Some might be scary looking to those who don't know what they're looking at. Adults are supposed to be able to discern such things. Cops are supposed to be capable of using that common sense so many seem to prize. It seems to me they failed in this case.

Cell phones are commonly used as remote detonators. Is every kid carrying a cell phone in school a potential terrorist? Or just ones of a certain religious bent?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> So maybe the question you need to ask yourself is why are you attacking him? Is it because he is brown and a Muslim?


I guess Obama's phrase "See something - Say something" doesn't apply if you're brown or Muslim.

The kid brought something that to a layman looks like a controller for a bomb - he deserves punishment, not rewards.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

TripleD said:


> How about the boy who was suspended for making a pop tart in the shape of a gun ?


What about it. It's been brought up repeatedly and my answer has always been the same. It was a ridiculous thing to do and zero tolerance policies like the one that led to it are stupid things. Can I make it clearer? Administrators who rely on zero tolerance policies aren't doing a good job or doing right by those they oversee. It's a lazy and ineffective way to run any organization.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> I guess Obama's phrase "See something - Say something" doesn't apply if you're brown or Muslim.
> 
> The kid brought something that to a layman looks like a controller for a bomb - he deserves punishment, not rewards.


Laymen obviously have no clue as to what a real bomb looks like.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> That's quite a stretch.
> He brought something to school that was meant to look like a bomb
> It had a timer and scary looking wires.
> It was not a clock, didn't look like a clock, didn't function like a clock, was never meant to be a clock.
> It was meant to look like a bomb


A timer by definition is a clock, scary looking wires? What do safe looking wires look like?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> But I never see any post to that effect. As far as I can remember every post commenting on a person standing for their religious values who was not a minority gets a resounding chorus of "whiny bigot."


Maybe you should spend some time rereading older posts. I, for one, have repeatedly expressed admiration for those of faith who have stood up for their beliefs even when I've disagreed with their stance.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But I never see any post to that effect. As far as I can remember every post commenting on a person standing for their religious values who was not a minority gets a resounding chorus of "whiny bigot."


You have people on blocked so are you actually reading all posts?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> I guess Obama's phrase "See something - Say something" doesn't apply if you're brown or Muslim.
> 
> The kid brought something that to a layman looks like a controller for a bomb - he deserves punishment, not rewards.


I don't remember "automatically arrest someone" as part of that statement.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Exactly how could the kid have "defused" the situation? The situation was escalated when the school brought in the police. The school could have handled it internally, as they had in the past, and given him in dchool punishment or suspension. From what I've read he answered the cop's questions. All five cops and answered consistently. He didn't handcuff himself and arrest himself. He probably is all the bad things you say, self centered, smarmy - a real pain I the tuchus for authorities. I went to school with a lot of them. I may have been one one them. Today some of them are rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, business owners, authors and experts in various fields. They were some of the best and the brightest and all spent time frustrating and challenging teachers and sitting in the dean's office. None were arrested.
> 
> I know, times are different. But people aren't. Some people challenge, some people overreact to being challenged. If this had been the quirky white kid who was getting recruitment letters from MIT as a freshman ( I sat next to him) I doubt he would have been treated the same, but if he had my support would be with him. There is no way to take his religion out of this situation and definitively say how authorities would have acted but, barring some actual threat or school wide disruption, arresting a student for violating a school rule hardly seems appropriate, justified or measured.
> 
> Kids can be attention seeking little jerks. Giving them extra attention for their jerkiness seldom solves the problem.



I imagine, that in the one and a half hour discussion he had with the police, he could have said that he was sorry to have caused such anxiety in people and that he recognized he could have handled it better. He could have said a number of things that expressed his intention was not to cause disruption. And asked that magic question as to what he should have done differently to have his teacher look at his project and still not worried everyone.

I imagine that he was loaded for bear and then met the actual bears. 

If you rush into assuming that he was singled out solely because of his religion and dismiss any possiblility that his history and behavior, even in the interview, was more the cause of his being hauled of, that is also giving him more attention for bad behavior than he deserves.

I personally only got into serious trouble with a teacher once and stood my ground. But the whole time I was saying "no", I was also apologizing for doing so. Out of respect for the teacher if not for what they were doing. 

It is possible that his religion, especially since he had repeatedly make large issues of it previously, might have played a part. Teachers are only human and sometimes don't behave well. But since other Muslim kids have not beem hauled off constantly in hand cuffs (or I think this would have made the news), I find no facts that support indicting the school for racism in the internet court of guilty til proven innocent and that it most likely utter exasperation with his behavior, both prior and during the interviews, that was the primary issue. If all the authorities where racist, they certainly did not need to take an hour and a half to haul him off.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe you should spend some time rereading older posts. I, for one, have repeatedly expressed admiration for those of faith who have stood up for their beliefs even when I've disagreed with their stance.


Please give me a link or indication of this because I would like not to think people are bigots. And I do spend lots of time reading people's comments already.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A timer by definition is a clock, scary looking wires? What do safe looking wires look like?


You know what I meant.
It was built to cause a reaction


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Please give me a link or indication of this because I would like not to think people are bigots. And I do spend lots of time reading people's comments already.


I'm not going to take the time to search all my old posts to provide you such evidence. You can take me at my word or not. You can call me out in the future if I refer to any of those people as whiny bigots. I'm adult enough to admit when I err. You're free to think of people as bigots or not. My experience is that most, including me, are bigoted in some way or other. It's how one chooses to act on or voice that bigotry that really matters to me.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Laymen obviously have no clue as to what a real bomb looks like.


No they don't which is why it is understandable that it would be impossible for them to be sure it wasn't.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> You know what I meant.
> It was built to cause a reaction


And it continues to get one. He keeps winning.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And it continues to get one. He keeps winning.


"Winning" really doesn't change the fact this was never some "innocent science project". It's just a continuation of a pattern


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not going to take the time to search all my old posts to provide you such evidence. You can take me at my word or not. You can call me out in the future if I refer to any of those people as whiny bigots. I'm adult enough to admit when I err. You're free to think of people as bigots or not. My experience is that most, including me, are bigoted in some way or other. It's how one chooses to act on or voice that bigotry that really matters to me.


How very disrespectful if true. How very understandable if not. 

The problem is in that bigotry is in full cry too when accusations fly with the speed of light when there is nothing that establishes that. If you really care about bigotry, that very thing would temper the speed of accusations. If bigotry is not assumed in every case where it is only one of many possibilities, then it would taken more seriously if it was established. 

To say "I wonder if" should not be the same as "certainly is." I think way too many people are fond of the easy accusation because it simplifies thinking. But if people are so alike as you say when accusing others of bigotry, then that means they are also alike when accusing others of bigotry.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> How very disrespectful if true. How very understandable if not.
> 
> The problem is in that bigotry is in full cry too when accusations fly with the speed of light when there is nothing that establishes that. If you really care about bigotry, that very thing would temper the speed of accusations. If bigotry is not assumed in every case where it is only one of many possibilities, then it would taken more seriously if it was established.
> 
> To say "I wonder if" should not be the same as "certainly is." I think way too many people are fond of the easy accusation because it simplifies thinking. But if people are so alike as you say when accusing others of bigotry, then that means they are also alike when accusing others of bigotry.


I'd say not taking me at my word shows a lack of respect. I've never doubted the word of any poster here. I have pointed out where their words have contradicted each other. I've never doubted the validity of anyone's beliefs. I have expressed my disagreement with those beliefs. 

Bigotry is a fact of life. There is no paradox in being bigoted against bigots. If you can show me the person who doesn't contain bigotry against someone, something or some belief I'll maybe have to start believing in unicorns also. How that bigotry manifests itself does concern me. When it is used as justification to deny rights to others I'll protest. What bigots do in their privates lives is up to them. What they are allowed to do in the public realm is up to all of us.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Winning" really doesn't change the fact this was never some "innocent science project". It's just a continuation of a pattern


And none of that changes the fact that arresting him was an overreaction and feeding his appetite for attention won't lessen that appetite.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> And none of that changes the fact that arresting him was an overreaction and feeding his appetite for attention won't lessen that appetite.


And you can see no possibility that his behavior created the impossibility of doing otherwise? That it is possible that there are circumstances where a person says "go ahead and try it" only to be surprised when it actually happens? 

I don't know it wasn't an over reaction but I also don't know it was the only place he left them to go.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> And you can see no possibility that his behavior created the impossibility of doing otherwise? That it is possible that there are circumstances where a person says "go ahead and try it" only to be surprised when it actually happens?
> 
> I don't know it wasn't an over reaction but I also don't know it was the only place he left them to go.


If you can explain to me the urgency to arrest him at that point in time I'll discuss it. They had the object in question in their possession. They seemed, based on the fact they didn't evacuate the school or expand their investigation to his home, to not think there was a real credible threat of a bomb . What did they have to gain from handcuffing and arresting him? They gained much bad publicity. They had other places to go. They almost always do.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> And it continues to get one. He keeps winning.


Winning because the bigot in chief got involved.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> And none of that changes the fact that arresting him was an overreaction and feeding his appetite for attention won't lessen that appetite.


I don't believe it was an overreaction.
Now if they had beat him with a rubber hose, that may have been an overreaction.
Public safety takes precedence over some "weird kid's" feelings or his father's greed and activism.
They count on the PC crowd to defend their dipstickery.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And none of that changes the fact that *arresting him was an overreaction* and feeding his appetite for attention won't lessen that appetite.


His behavior caused that reaction, and he manipulated the situation to get the desired results.

It's not like they mistreated some poor little boy

Without knowing exactly what he said or did, there's no reason to disbelieve the police when they said they thought they had cause to arrest him, even if the decision was reversed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> If you can explain to me the urgency to arrest him at that point in time I'll discuss it. They had the object in question in their possession. They seemed, based on the fact they didn't evacuate the school or expand their investigation to his home, to not think there was a real credible threat of a bomb . What did they have to gain from handcuffing and arresting him? They gained much bad publicity. They had other places to go. They almost always do.


I read in our paper-DMN-that he was uncooperative w/police. Gave vague answers & was not direct. Whatever all that means. Didn't have a transcript of the questioning. So it could be another case of lying brutal cops.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'd say not taking me at my word shows a lack of resp. I've never doubted the word of any poster here. I have pointed out where their words have contradicted each other. I've never doubted the validity of anyone's beliefs. I have expressed my disagreement with those beliefs.
> 
> Bigotry is a fact of life. There is no paradox in being bigoted against bigots. If you can show me the person who doesn't contain bigotry against someone, something or some belief I'll maybe have to start believing in unicorns also. How that bigotry manifests itself does concern me. When it is used as justification to deny rights to others I'll protest. What bigots do in their privates lives is up to them. What they are allowed to do in the public realm is up to all of us.


I had to erase several snarky versions of "that's obvious". No one has objections to other people's 'rights' until what they perceive as their own bump into them. 

You do nothing but refuse to tolerate, much less consider carefully, anything I say. Or at least you don't bother to post except to contradict my statements. Or at least belittle them. Even doing so for what you have incorrectly read into my words. Even your unicorn remark is directed at that.

The point I was trying to make is not "bigotry against bigots" but that being way over ready to accuse someone , based only on the possibility, of bigotry make the accuser a bigot themselves. Because they meet the exact definition of bigot- to judge unfairly based on differences with the person being judged.


BTW so I do not have to post a second time, I did not ask for all threads showing your objections to bigotry where the recipient is not Muslim but just one.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> If you can explain to me the urgency to arrest him at that point in time I'll discuss it. They had the object in question in their possession. They seemed, based on the fact they didn't evacuate the school or expand their investigation to his home, to not think there was a real credible threat of a bomb . What did they have to gain from handcuffing and arresting him? They gained much bad publicity. They had other places to go. They almost always do.


That is a valid question. I suppose they arrested him for perpetuating what they thought was a crime, bringing a banned item into school, much as if they would have acted if a kid pulled a fire alarm as a prank then stood by the alarm daring the police to arrest him. Where as, if he had said he would not repeat the action, they wouldn't have arrested him but leave it to the school to resolve. Somehow I can see this kid 'standing by (his) rights' and telling the police he certainly would do it again if he wanted.
But again, I don't know. So I can't say they didn't overreact. I can say that you don't know they did either. At worst it remains a questionable action.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

For some people it's all about "facts" until the facts don't back them up and then they go posting sources about "rumors" like the OP did.



> Despite *rumors* about the 14-year-oldâs past disciplinary problems, Mohamedâs status as a minor has prevented the Irving Independent School District from speaking out on the matter.


I'm pretty well convinced the kid and/or his father more likely than not orchestrated this circus for the attention and payoff, but that doesn't change my educated opinion that his arrest was improper.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I believe the kid, just like I believe these guys -


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> For some people it's all about "facts" until the facts don't back them up and then they go posting sources about *"rumors"* like the OP did.
> 
> I'm pretty well convinced the kid and/or his father more likely than not orchestrated this circus for the attention and payoff, but that doesn't change my* educated* opinion that his arrest was improper.


Those "rumors" about the suspensions evidently turned out to be true, just like the "rumors" about Clinton and Lewinsky.

You overlooked the first sentence that said he "racked up weeks of suspensions" and homed in on one word in the third sentence.



> Before he was put in handcuffs for bringing a &#8220;homemade&#8221; clock to school and became an overnight celebrity, *Ahmed Mohamed &#8220;racked up weeks of suspensions&#8221;* and clashed with authority while in middle school, the Dallas Morning News reported.


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/comm...tic-inventions-and-a-fight-with-authority.ece

You can't really have an "*educated *opinion" on this particular case without having been privy to *all* the information, so you're still just speculating like everyone else

It seems Mohamed doesn't want anyone to hear *all *the story:



> Critics have argued that his past behavior may have influenced how school officials responded to the clock that officials thought could have been a &#8220;hoax bomb.&#8221;
> 
> Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne recently told TheBlaze that the Mohamed family has ignored requests by the school district to allow officials to speak out about the case.
> 
> *The context, she said, would help explain why the situation progressed as it did*.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> That's quite a stretch.
> He brought something to school that was meant to look like a bomb
> It had a timer and scary looking wires.
> It was not a clock, didn't look like a clock, didn't function like a clock, was never meant to be a clock.
> It was meant to look like a bomb


Once again reality is your friend darling. It was a clock. It only looked like a bomb to people whose only knowledge of what a bomb looks like comes from TV and movies.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> Once again reality is your friend darling. It was a clock. It only looked like a bomb to people whose only knowledge of what a bomb looks like comes from TV and movies.


Like 99% of the human population?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Like 99% of the human population?


I guess I am a 1 percenter then because it looked like a kid made a clock to me.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those "rumors" about the suspensions evidently turned out to be true, just like the "rumors" about Clinton and Lewinsky.
> 
> You overlooked the first sentence that said he "racked up weeks of suspensions" and homed in on one word in the third sentence.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I read that before I posted. It's still rumors. They have a bunch of people saying things they heard about second or third hand.

And to say someone needs to know every bit of information to have an educated opinion is the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Nobody in the world ever has all the information about any subject. We form educated opinions all the time based on what we do have.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Yeah, I read that before I posted.* It's still rumors*. They have a bunch of people saying things they heard about second or third hand.
> 
> And to say someone needs to know every bit of information to have an educated opinion is the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Nobody in the world ever has all the information about any subject. We form educated opinions all the time based on what we do have.


It was reported as fact.
If you think it's incorrect contact the newspaper 



> You can't really have an "educated opinion" *on this particular case* without having been privy to all the information, so you're still just speculating like everyone else


Read what I really said, because it's still true 
Whether you think it's "stupid" or not makes no difference


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

kuriakos said:


> Yeah, I read that before I posted. It's still rumors. They have a bunch of people saying things they heard about second or third hand.
> 
> And to say someone needs to know every bit of information to have an educated opinion is the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Nobody in the world ever has all the information about any subject. We form educated opinions all the time based on what we do have.


Well, educated in that way means based on information or experience. So which and what is it?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Well, educated in that way means based on information or experience. So which and what is it?


Both, if I understand the question, which I may not. It's all been rehashed to death and ignored by the ignorant, so I won't repeat it again. Bearfoot gets upset when people repeat themselves. Only he's allowed to do that constantly.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

> It was reported as fact.


Reported as fact doesn't mean darn thing. We all know newspapers always get all their facts right. It's still rumors.



> Read what I really said, because it's still true


I read what you said and it's still stupid. I don't need to know every single bit of information on this particular case to form an educated opinion. Plenty of information has been reported on the case to form that opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I read what you said and it's still stupid. I don't need to know every single bit of information on this particular case to form an educated opinion. Plenty of information has been reported on the case to form that opinion.


And we all know reporters always get their facts right, huh?

(Sound familiar?)

If your reports are good enough, so are mine.
If mine are "rumors", so are yours.
It can't be both
(Although I seldom see you post any sources)


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And we all know reporters always get their facts right, huh?
> 
> (Sound familiar?)
> 
> ...


Nope, because I got my facts from videos of the police stating them and written statements on police department letterhead. It's possible that's all been faked by actors pretending to be the police and forged documents, but that's pretty out there. You got your "facts" from rumors that may or may not be true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Nope, because I got my facts from videos of the police stating them and written statements on police department letterhead. It's possible that's all been faked by actors pretending to be the police and forged documents, but that's pretty out there. You got your "facts" from *rumors that may or may not be true*.


So you can't show any source for your facts?


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

BFF, why do your quoted portions not say who he poster was?
It's hard to follow what member you are responding to with the partials and no names.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you can't show any source for your facts?


Sure, but we've already been through that and I know how much you hate repetition. If you're really interested, it's not hard to find the official words right out of the mouths of the police. Many were posted in that other thread, but you chose to disregard them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

partndn said:


> BFF, why do your quoted portions not say who he poster was?
> It's hard to follow what member you are responding to with the partials and no names.


If you follow the conversation it's not hard at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Sure, but *we've already been through that* and I know how much you hate repetition. If you're really interested, it's not hard to find the official words right out of the mouths of the police. Many were posted in that other thread, but you chose to disregard them.


So you saw media reports like everyone else, just as I thought.

I read the Police Chief's report that said the arrest was justified, but now you will say you know more than him, so that report doesn't matter

We've played this silly game before, and I told you then you weren't convincing.
That hasn't changed


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yeah, we've played it, but I wouldn't call it a game. Games are usually fun.

Bottom line is: you accept the police chief's opinion but not his facts. I accept his facts but I think his opinion is wrong. I'd bet I have more legal education and experience than the police chief.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Yeah, we've played it, but I wouldn't call it a game. Games are usually fun.
> 
> Bottom line is: you accept the police chief's opinion but not his facts. I accept his facts but I think his opinion is wrong. I'd bet I have more legal education and experience than the police chief.


I knew it would come back to "I know more".
Again, you're still not convincing


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just sticking to the facts, unlike the emotional rumor-mongers. Funny thing is I believe the rumors are probably true. But they're still rumors.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you follow the conversation it's not hard at all


No it isn't. I don't sit here all day reading posts. It's a lot easier if you just use the quote function and I can see the poster and follow the link back to see it in context.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

partndn said:


> BFF, why do your quoted portions not say who he poster was?
> It's hard to follow what member you are responding to with the partials and no names.


Several members started doing it when the system was glitchy and was quoting the wrong poster or he could be like me and old habits are hard to shake.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> No it isn't. I don't sit here all day reading posts. It's a lot easier if you just use the quote function and I can see the poster and follow the link back to see it in context.


There are only 2 of us in the conversation
Most of those quotes are still on the same page. often from the previous post.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I discussed the veil issue in a previous post. It has nothing to do with this issue.
> 
> I specifically addressed the headlined article and you rather than addressing those words chose to tell me I needed to reread the article because you wanted to prove some other point. Nice olive branch. I did reread the article. The birth certificate dispute is now equally invalid. The law that allowed the state to turn away the teen was based on the state's now overturned constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Since the amendment doesn't stand no law based on it can. That is the problem with most of the article. All the laws and cases cited have been superceded by the Supreme Court decision.
> 
> ...





where I want to said:


> But I never see any post to that effect. As far as I can remember every post commenting on a person standing for their religious values who was not a minority gets a resounding chorus of "whiny bigot."


Here you go. Not one mention of her being a "whiny bigot." I'll take you at your word that you missed this post, and the others in that thread by other members, that expressed the sentiment that the clerk is entitled to whatever beliefs she wishes. Or maybe you just forgot about them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just sticking to the facts, unlike the emotional rumor-mongers. Funny thing is I believe the rumors are probably true. But *they're still rumors*.


So you say, without showing anything other than "I know more than them", as before. 

Same old song and dance.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I had to erase several snarky versions of "that's obvious". No one has objections to other people's 'rights' until what they perceive as their own bump into them.
> 
> You do nothing but refuse to tolerate, much less consider carefully, anything I say. Or at least you don't bother to post except to contradict my statements. Or at least belittle them. Even doing so for what you have incorrectly read into my words. Even your unicorn remark is directed at that.
> 
> ...


I post on many things commenting on other topics and other posters. It's not just you. I've even agreed with and liked some of your posts, even some recent ones. You can doubt that also but I'll just go back and prove it.

You'll note that in my previous post I went back and answered your initial allegation not the question you now claim you wished answered. If you feel put upon it is because I do object to and will call out tactics like this. Quit using them, quit using absolutes, quit making broad based unsubstantiated statements about other groups and I'll quit commenting on such. Continue to do so and I'll point out the fallacies in your statements. Feel free to defend those statements if you can. Despite the objection, based on past experience, that's likely to come that I'm trying to shut you up and cut off discussion, I'm not. I'm perfectly willing to discuss facts, opinions and even answer questions. I won't however, chase after ever changing amorphous queries.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Mmoetc- I'm not clearly seeing the connection but it could be that it's because the quotes are out of their context. It will take some time for me to sort through but I will get back to you on this.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say, without showing anything other than "I know more than them", as before.
> 
> Same old song and dance.


Why would I need to show anything? Your own source said they were rumors. You would jump all over anyone else who posted that as a source.

Same old emotional empty rhetoric.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Mmoetc- I'm not clearly seeing the connection but it could be that it's because the quotes are out of their context. It will take some time for me to sort through but I will get back to you on this.


I'm back. I will agree that "grudging admiration" for sticking by beliefs is not the exact same thing as calling someone a whiny bigot, although it had meant it as addressing the poster, not the subject of the post. Maybe the whiny part is covered by cake eating. But in essence not.
But I see the problem that I had deciphering what your response meant. The original remark was addressed to Patchouli, not you. I should have caught that earlier. Somehow when you responded to that remark. I just assumed I had said it to you. Which should have alerted me that I did not understand what you said, because it was unlikely that I would have addressed such a remark to you personally.
So I do agree that not everyone says such things. But still way more do than don't. And some universally do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Why would I need to show anything? Your own source said they were rumors. You would jump all over anyone else who posted that as a source.
> 
> Same old emotional empty rhetoric.


The original source didn't call them rumors. Take it up with them if you think it's false

You claim your sources are more credible, but you haven't shown any sources. 

You simply say anyone who disagrees is "stupid" and "you know more" than the people who were actually there. It's a pattern you've repeated before.

I don't "care" if you show anything or not, but without a source I have no real reason to think you "know more", regardless of what you seem to think.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

A whole lot of untruths in that, but I'm tired of pointing out your lies and distortions. Carry on, oh wise one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

That's about what I expected


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

There was no bomb hoax. 
In spite of repeated questioning from the cops the kid said clock and kept saying clock. 
I'm convinced what there was was a kid and dad making a device that would show case how they are unfairly treated. 
And it worked.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> But I never see any post to that effect. As far as I can remember every post commenting on a person standing for their religious values who was not a minority gets a resounding chorus of "whiny bigot."


Had to dig a bit but here's an example: this was a thread with Protestants bashing Catholics. I praised the Catholic poster. I guess technically the Protestant was a bigot and the Catholics were the minority but still. 



> Originally Posted by *Karen*  _Since the Catholic faith is based solely on our salvation being of and through Jesus Christ, as well as repentance and being filled with as much Christ as we can possibly hold, then I would think Catholics are on the right track and just as anyone who gets closer and closer to God in their daily walk, whatever doctrinal errors there are will come to light to them.
> 
> Perhaps instead of tearing down each other's beliefs, we should be holding each other up in prayer and encouragement. It's hard enough to take the tearing down of our faith from non-believers, let alone fellow Christians._





Patchouli said:


> I just want to say I admire your Herculean effort here responding to all of those misconceptions with grace and truth.



Your notion that I hate Christians is simply not true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> There was no bomb hoax.
> In spite of repeated questioning from the cops the kid said clock and kept saying clock.
> I'm convinced what there was was a kid and dad making a device that would show case how they are unfairly treated.
> And it worked.


There was nothing "unfair" about how they handled it
He violated school rules

As far as what he said or didn't say, unless you were there, you've only heard one side of the story. The family won't allow the school officials to tell their side

The fact you say they made a device to cause all this proves the police were correct in that he meant to cause a disturbance by having it at school


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I'm back. I will agree that "grudging admiration" for sticking by beliefs is not the exact same thing as calling someone a whiny bigot, although it had meant it as addressing the poster, not the subject of the post. Maybe the whiny part is covered by cake eating. But in essence not.
> But I see the problem that I had deciphering what your response meant. The original remark was addressed to Patchouli, not you. I should have caught that earlier. Somehow when you responded to that remark. I just assumed I had said it to you. Which should have alerted me that I did not understand what you said, because it was unlikely that I would have addressed such a remark to you personally.
> So I do agree that not everyone says such things. But still way more do than don't. And some universally do.


I'll take you at your word that you didn't know who you were talking to but it is a bit interesting you seemed to address your doubts about my veracity directly at me and rather than admitting you were wrong attempted to change the question and question my motives for posting in a subsequent post. These are the type of tactics I most object to.

If you'd like to do some statistical analysis to prove that "way more do" I'll take your statement as more than another unsubstantiated assertion on your part. I'll agree some universally attack others. You seem to seldom see, acknowledge or criticize them if the attacks are directed in the proper direction.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The fact you say they made a device to cause all this proves the police were correct in that he meant to cause a disturbance by having it at school



Lol much as I might wish otherwise what I said was opinion ,MY opinion and not a fact that proves anything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol much as I might wish otherwise what I said was opinion ,MY opinion and not a fact that proves anything.


It's not an "opinion" to say he made the device and brought it to school.
That's factual

It's also a fact he purposely plugged it in, while in class, causing it to make noise and attract attention even after having been told not to let anyone see it

It is "opinion" he "intended" to cause a disturbance of some sort, but the facts of his actions tend to support that conclusion. 

He obviously "intended" to do something he shouldn't when he plugged it in rather than keeping it out of sight


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'll take you at your word that you didn't know who you were talking to but it is a bit interesting you seemed to address your doubts about my veracity directly at me and rather than admitting you were wrong attempted to change the question and question my motives for posting in a subsequent post. These are the type of tactics I most object to.
> 
> If you'd like to do some statistical analysis to prove that "way more do" I'll take your statement as more than another unsubstantiated assertion on your part. I'll agree some universally attack others. You seem to seldom see, acknowledge or criticize them if the attacks are directed in the proper direction.


Often I don't. Because I have a basic idea that challenging a statement based on religious belief is pretty useless. So, if someone says a gay person sins by having sex with another or is going to hell as that is what their religion says, it is not something that is subject to challenge unless I want to engage in theological argument. Which I never want to do. 
But if they say that they will kill gay people for their actions, I would. I also would object to trying to profile any groups as genetically inferior or ineligible for association. I hate tyranny- of the majority or minority.
That is not, however, to say that the abused people are innocent in their behavior either. Life is never as simply as most posting here would have it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> Had to dig a bit but here's an example: this was a thread with Protestants bashing Catholics. I praised the Catholic poster. I guess technically the Protestant was a bigot and the Catholics were the minority but still.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think bashing Christians is done here because they are familiar, safe to hit (hardly a Christian beheading someone for blasphemy in the last 100 years) and it is not in apparent need of being supported by the values of PC-ity. No one is ever a hero, even in their own mind, for riding to the rescue of those who appear to have the upper hand. 
Showing a thread supporting one Christian sect against another is just another riding off on Crusade against those who appear downtrodden. The trouble with this is that the direction of attack doesn't even consider the merits of the conflict.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'll take you at your word that you didn't know who you were talking to but it is a bit interesting you seemed to address your doubts about my veracity directly at me and rather than admitting you were wrong attempted to change the question and question my motives for posting in a subsequent post. These are the type of tactics I most object to.
> 
> If you'd like to do some statistical analysis to prove that "way more do" I'll take your statement as more than another unsubstantiated assertion on your part. I'll agree some universally attack others. You seem to seldom see, acknowledge or criticize them if the attacks are directed in the proper direction.


I do generally question your verasity, although this last is not an example of it.

Whenever the magic word Muslim appears, you rush to defend without pause. I think without reading at times. 
This is a perfect example where I remember your instant counter to people saying the student was building a bomb part was to in essence say that it was because he was subject to racial and religious bigotry based on nothing more than, as you put it, he was brown and Muslim and so assumed that his statements were true.
Actually the accusers had more to go on, even though it was not more correct. They at least had a strange device with wires to worry over.
In the end there are lots of different things that can be going on here. And it will never be sifted out because, whether he meant to goad the school officials into incorrect actions or they were lead there by their own devices, both his supporters and his critics have way too much invested in their own opinions to let it go. Even a court case is unlikely to resolve anything now as court cases, especially settlements, are the result of financial decisions rather than justice.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I think bashing Christians is done here because they are familiar, safe to hit (hardly a Christian beheading someone for blasphemy in the last 100 years) and it is not in apparent need of being supported by the values of PC-ity. No one is ever a hero, even in their own mind, for riding to the rescue of those who appear to have the upper hand.
> Showing a thread supporting one Christian sect against another is just another riding off on Crusade against those who appear downtrodden. The trouble with this is that the direction of attack doesn't even consider the merits of the conflict.


Well I guess further conversation with you is pointless. You couldn't admit you were wrong or let go of your perception of me even with proof. Wish I could say I was surprised.


----------



## Manny (Dec 26, 2003)

I wonder just how different this thread would be if that "clock" had actually went "BOOM" ?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Once again reality is your friend darling. It was a clock. It only looked like a bomb to people whose only knowledge of what a bomb looks like comes from TV and movies.


Did it look like a clock to you? I've never seen a clock that looked like that. No face, no hands, but wires...The paper said it had a "digital count-down screen". That is not in the picture but if it was visible, wow, would really look like a bomb.

They showed that pic to a bunch of college students all of which when asked what it looked like said 'bomb'.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The problem is that most people who are actually making a bomb want them to look like something else. 
So Bombs look like jars of pickles and gifts.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> The problem is that most people who are actually making a bomb want them to look like something else.
> So Bombs look like jars of pickles and gifts.


Or a - what did he put it in?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Did it look like a clock to you? I've never seen a clock that looked like that. No face, no hands, but wires...The paper said it had a "digital count-down screen". That is not in the picture but if it was visible, wow, would really look like a bomb.
> 
> They showed that pic to a bunch of college students all of which when asked what it looked like said 'bomb'.



No face, no hands.... :help:

So what college students are these? And who asked them? Jimmy Kimmel? You do know for every 10 people who answer correctly they only show the ones who give an off the wall response right?

Your average kit to make a digital clock and see how it works: 

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/1...74jf6J8L4s-3_YExzAzDS2_NeobAxjpI2kaAqQM8P8HAQ

Looks a lot like Ahmed's doesn't it?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Do those look like the same thing?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

His is torn apart obviously. His is more complicated and has an alarm on it. Hence more pieces and parts. 

Oh for goodness sakes I found the thing where they asked people what they thought it was and it was college students and it was the same one that fudged a political poll like that a couple of years ago. If Fox news trots it out it must be true though right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> *His is torn apart obviously*. His is more complicated and has an alarm on it. Hence more pieces and parts.
> 
> Oh for goodness sakes I found the thing where they asked people what they thought it was and it was college students and it was the same one that fudged a political poll like that a couple of years ago. If Fox news trots it out it must be true though right?


No, that is how he made it.

It's a transformer, a circuit board, a power cord and a digital display along with a battery back-up connection. 

No one "tore it apart" 

It's not "more pieces and parts" than any other clock or timing device, since he merely took one apart and reassembled it in that metal case.

He even stated it only took about 20 minutes to do.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> His is torn apart obviously. His is more complicated and has an alarm on it. Hence more pieces and parts.
> 
> Oh for goodness sakes I found the thing where they asked people what they thought it was and it was college students and it was the same one that fudged a political poll like that a couple of years ago. If Fox news trots it out it must be true though right?


I'm not saying the kid should have been hauled off in handcuffs but I do feel that the clock was constructed in such a way that it was going to alarm someone. 

My gifted son has made a few projects over the years that may have caused some concern and I felt it was my obligation as his parent, to contact his school, discuss the subjective project and make arrangements to deliver it in such a way that it would not cause the whole school to be turned upside down. 

Is this such an unrealistic approach that other parents couldn't do the same?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> I'm not saying the kid should have been hauled off in handcuffs but I do feel that the clock was constructed in such a way that it was going to alarm someone.
> 
> My gifted son has made a few projects over the years that may have caused some concern and I felt it was my obligation as his parent, to contact his school, discuss the subjective project and make arrangements to deliver it in such a way that it would not cause the whole school to be turned upside down.
> 
> Is this such an unrealistic approach that other parents couldn't do the same?


I believe the school policy that was posted stated prior permission was required to have "electronic devices" on campus.

It seems like common sense to me


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> I'm not saying the kid should have been hauled off in handcuffs but *I do feel that the clock was constructed in such a way that it was going to alarm someone. *
> 
> My gifted son has made a few projects over the years that may have caused some concern and I felt it was my obligation as his parent, to contact his school, discuss the subjective project and make arrangements to deliver it in such a way that it would not cause the whole school to be turned upside down.
> 
> Is this such an unrealistic approach that other parents couldn't do the same?


musta been an alarm clock.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I do generally question your verasity, although this last is not an example of it.
> 
> Whenever the magic word Muslim appears, you rush to defend without pause. I think without reading at times.
> This is a perfect example w
> ...


Let me refresh your memory once again. Here's my initial post in your initial thread on this incident. It was the 81st post in that thread. I posted it after reading the many previous posts which had stated directly that the fact he was Muslim called him out for special treatment and scrutiny. My reaction was far from immediate and more in response to other posters than the police. If so many here are so vehement in their belief that Muslim equals threat is it such a stretch to believe the police considered it also?

You chose to bring this story to our attention. Did the kid's religion play no role in your decision. Are you just waiting to see what religous institution the 4 kids arrested in your state this weekend for threatening to shoot up a school attend before bringing them to our attention. Or are they less threatening if they look more like you?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> No face, no hands.... :help:
> 
> So what college students are these? And who asked them? Jimmy Kimmel? You do know for every 10 people who answer correctly they only show the ones who give an off the wall response right?
> 
> ...


Do clocks in your home look like the pic of Ahmed's? I'd like to see that. Do they count down instead of forward? Like to see that too.

If you'd read/see some real news you'd know the college ?s did not come from Kimmel...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Do clocks in your home look like the pic of Ahmed's? I'd like to see that. Do they count down instead of forward? Like to see that too.
> 
> If you'd read/see some real news you'd know the college ?s did not come from Kimmel...


The clocks on my stove and microwave can be set to count backwards. Should I be worried? Is the hummus in my fridge plotting against me?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The clocks on my stove and microwave can be set to count backwards. Should I be worried? Is the hummus in my fridge plotting against me?


Did your kid bring the clock counting backward w/only wires showing to school? Or are you saying this is commonplace? Seems you're saying we should know that clocks count backwards? If we come to your house we'll see your microwave clock counting down? I have timers that do this. But the ordinary clock doesn't. 

Your hummus prolly is...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Did your kid bring the clock counting backward w/only wires showing to school?
> Your hummus prolly is...


My kid was a little more subtle in tweaking the authorities. She learned well. Of course the authorities were a bit less prone to overreaction. Maybe the first teacher he showed it to should be fired for not recognizing such an obvious threat. Or maybe he should be put in charge.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, that is how he made it.
> 
> It's a transformer, a circuit board, a power cord and a digital display along with a battery back-up connection.
> 
> ...


Exactly ! Now Patchouli if that metal case was a pressure cooker what would one supposed to think ????


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> My kid was a little more subtle in tweaking the authorities. She learned well. Of course the authorities were a bit less prone to overreaction. Maybe the first teacher he showed it to first should be fired for not recognizing such an obvious threat. Or maybe he should be put in charge.


Or maybe it should just be admitted that, despite what many insist on, going in both directions, right and wrong is much more murky than partisans admit.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> musta been an alarm clock.



One was fond of bringing reptiles, one fond of controlled explosions and the gifted one was had no boundaries but he was done with alam clocks in elementary school.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

TripleD said:


> Exactly ! Now Patchouli if that metal case was a pressure cooker what would one supposed to think ????


May I answer? It wasn't. No one should be arrested on what if, only on what is.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> May I answer? It wasn't. No one should be arrested on what if, only on what is.


Play gun or real one. You got to go thru whatever system we have......


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

TripleD said:


> Play gun or real one. You got to go thru whatever system we have......


And I've not said the device shouldn't have been taken and examined and even that discipline wasn't warranted. I do object to handcuffing and arresting a 14 year old when no threat was made, evident or even percieved by the authorities. I'd object just as much if the kid pulled out an orange plastic squirt gun and was treated the same. What if he had bleach in it? Adults shouldn't play what if with the law.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And I've not said the device shouldn't have been taken and examined and even that discipline wasn't warranted. I do object to handcuffing and arresting a 14 year old when no threat was made, evident or even percieved by the authorities. I'd object just as much if the kid pulled out an orange plastic squirt gun and was treated the same. What if he had bleach in it? Adults shouldn't play what if with the law.


What ifs happen all the time . I was put in a patrol car ,handcuffed and truck towed. Get to the police station and blew a .02. It still cost m $200 to get my truck back. That's a adult thing....


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

TripleD said:


> What ifs happen all the time . I was put in a patrol car ,handcuffed and truck towed. Get to the police station and blew a .02. It still cost m $200 to get my truck back. That's a adult thing....


So had been drinking before you got behind the wheel? Around here we've got portable breathalyzers. Would have saved you the trip.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> So had been drinking before you got behind the wheel? Around here we've got portable breathalyzers. Would have saved you the trip.


25 years ago. Learned my lesson early.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> My kid was a little more subtle in tweaking the authorities. She learned well. Of course the authorities were a bit less prone to overreaction. Maybe the first teacher he showed it to should be fired for not recognizing such an obvious threat. Or maybe he should be put in charge.


Or maybe the kid shoulda listened to that teacher & done as he was told, to put it away & NOT bring it out again.


----------

