So, which one of you contacted Dayton's principal?

Which is more likely:

A Principle makes up a rule, doesn't put it in the handbook, but then used it to suspend a kid?

Dayton is a known lying sack of shit and is making all this up as he goes along (notice how until his handbook got posted there was no 'unwritten common sense rule' it was just a 'school rule')?

I know which I'd pick.

Dayton is really a janitor who dreams of being a teacher while he waits for the scrubbing bubbles to work their cleaning magic on the period blood in the girl's bathroom.

Well this thread certainly exploded.

Lanzman has given his opinion which I fully agree with, but this is the way I see it.

The staff here aren't librarians, despite Tamarchives jokes there is no database listing what people have and haven't revealed, so people need to show common sense. With how open Dayton is, it is reasonable someone could think his current school had been revealed.

Then Chad asked for help looking up school rules that were being discussed, posting nothing revealing. If at that point Dayton had said "I'd rather not discuss things getting that close to home" or "I don't want details of my school on here" or anything along those lines then I would have warned or even banned Chad if he posted it anyway.

Instead Dayton told him to post a link. Chad was obviously operating with good intentions, since he actually asked for confirmation. At which point Dayton said he had been planning on reporting him if he did post a link like asked.

Point being that Dayton didn't seem to care if the information was posted, but instead cared more about having an opportunity to use the rules against someone. He called a bluff and lost.

I can't help but notice that Lanzman "gave his opinion" about 2 days after his staff had already decided on a course of action.

So?

Staff is supposed to be able to handle issues...that's the job after all. His verification should be all that's needed unless one of us had an indiscretion with a pooch in his absence.

In the big ol thread about posting personal information a few months back, it seemed to me that the upshot was that if people can use basic Googling to derive information based on what a person himself has revealed, that person has no right to complain about it. The other part of the rule is that management has the discretion to dish out whatever punishment it feels appropriate.

The case you're proposing here is different from Dayton's.

Dayton has posted his actual first and last name.

Dayton has posted his profession as a high school teacher and football coach.

Dayton has posted the city he is from.

Dayton specifically said something that could be read as giving permission to post the personal info.

All the above occurred in the Red Room over the years.

If you wrote, "My name is John Doe. My correctional institution violates the 8th amendment regularly. And if you can find proof of my institution's rules, go ahead and post it, because I'll try to have you warned," I wouldn't have much sympathy for you either.

I don't think people are piling on Dayton because they don't like Dayton. Dayton simply is in a different position than most because over the years he has simply said a lot of things about himself in non-protected spaces to open the door for people to comment on those things.

Eight pages for yet another Dayton hate thread? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

More like a Dayton self-destruct thread, which is not any less sad...

Personally, I think it's hi-larious like sick people.

Well hey, sorry I didn't leap right on that the second it was posted.

Can someone please answer the OP? Who called Dayton's principal?

Could be a parent or a coach from where he lives. He posts on a forum for football where he lives, and he seems to be as big of a joke there as he is on here.

I called him.

All I'll say, is that several were involved in the plot.

Given how unhinged Dayton is, and how he's been threatening revenge, I think people should be careful, even if jesting.

What could he possibly do? Post a link, use the rules to silence those who oppose him?

There is very little Dayton could do to us. He's got to find out who we are for a start. Then he has to find out where we live and work. Then he's got to find some material to try and use against us, even though none of use have plastered ourselves all over the internet or been sacked four million times. Then he's got to somehow prove that the "jest" was, in fact, real, otherwise he gets sued for harassment and defamation.

The gimp wouldn't know where to fucking start.



















Oh, do you mean he could use the WF rules against us? Oh dear, whatever shall we do!

No, I mean the former. It's not inconceivable that he could find personal info on someone and cause problems for them. I don't flaunt my personal info either but I'm sure it's discoverable to someone who tries hard enough to find it.

Please Rick.

In the past, have I ever shown any interest in real life revenge?

Yes, you took revenge against a female child for saying she didn't like you.

You also hit your wife because she said something you didn't like.

You're more capable of revenge than you realise, and going to church every Sunday does not wash that away.

I didn't take revenge against (an 18 year old 'child' for what it is worth) student. I blew it off and did not bother writing it up. I mentioned it in a casual conversation with the principal and others. He decided it was a punishable offense.

What makes you think my wife said something I didn't like?

Why else did you hit her?

Exactly.

Hell Dayton, if she was just sitting there saying absolutely nothing and you landed a punch on here for something complete unrelated to anything she was doing, that makes you even more evil.

To be honest, after more than a decade I cannot remember precisely what was said and wasn't said.

There was an argument going on for the better part of an hour that seemed to involve partially which one of us was going to clean the kitchen and something about the electric grill but it had veered off into all sorts of things involving issues like money, where to go on my day off, and a bunch of other stuff.

And I know none of you will ever believe me, after a couple of days my wife had completely blown it off and I don't think it has come up in our conversation since.

Oh I believe you blew it off after a few days. What you don't seem to grasp is that just because you wife was willing to blow it off it doesn't mean it ceases to be evidence of your capacity for revenge, and your ability to be violent towards women.

A murder can be forgiven by the family of those he murdered once he repents. But he does not cease to be a murderer, does he?

Why wouldn't you see some incidents as outliers?

Murder being an obvious exception but I think there is quite a bit of distance to the worst thing I've ever done and homicide.

Dayton, stop discussing this. For fuck sake. Fuel on the fire.

Seriously, this.

People have left the board in shame over far, far less.

Pity you don't operate this approach to the constructive posts in your diary thread. Only an "attack" is worth responding to, eh?

Besides, pointing out that wife beating is evidence of the capacity for revenge is not an "attack".

Only a person who is completely comfortable with the notion of a man hitting a woman would view it as an "attack". This is why you are considered loathsome.

No man worth their any credibility should EVER attempt to make excuses for or defend such a disgusting act. Any man who accepts the wrong doing should have nothing but total regret and remorse for his actions and be prepared to consider what personality traits gave rise to it.

You say that, but where the wife beating is concerned the cat is out of the bag. It's not going back in - and this is hardly the first time he's made it clear he doesn't see it as much of a big deal.