Reply #93: no more than your putting false words in my mouth, when i've repeatedly stated the opposite,

[Hannah Bell]

including several times in this thread.

and no more than you slander people by repeating this false information:

"now the story apparently is that yeah, they were looking at naked pictures of kids but it was somehow more okay"

totally false, in all respects. there have been no reports of people "looking at naked pictures of kids" & in fact per the latest reports "no salacious or inappropriate" images have as yet been recovered.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100419_Lower_Merion_details_Web_cam_scope.html?posted=y&viewAll=y

of course, that's per the district's attorney.

but y'all have no problem accepting the plantiff's statements as fact, even when their attorney has now been shown to have slandered the IT head as a "possible voyeur" on the basis of an email exchange which, when entered into the court record in its entirety, shows nothing of the sort.

so why do you accept the plantiff's attorney's statements as fact, even when its demonstrated he's not entirely reliable?

the assumption would be that your own biases create that presumption.

yes, i defend low-level local employees who appear to be being railroaded as pedophiles.

particularly in the context of an ongoing anti-public-school movement funded & promoted at the highest levels by individuals who are more involved in the surveillance state than some school IT specialists could even aspire to be.