Topless Weightlifting Pictures Online = Immoral, Ineffective Teacher? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-21-2006, 12:40 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Did she give the photographer a release? If not, any harm she incurs regarding her teaching credentials, she has a claim against the photographer.
Course you know she's not actually going to take any action against the photographer. Not unless she wants to toss the relationship.

After reading this, I'm kinda inclined to side with the teacher. It's unbelievable to me that the teacher who SHOWED these students the pictures hasn't been disciplined in any way. Hoover may not have intended for the students to see the pictures, but Andrews certainly did.

THAT to me is a problem.

It certainly wasn't the wisest decision on the teacher's part, but it sounds like this is an issue largely because of the rival teacher's actions, not Hoovers.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-21-2006, 12:44 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Yes, no one is answering the logical questions:

What would the restrictions be?
Privacy for private activities. Make dirty videos. Pose suggestively. Whatever. Just don't put it out in the public sphere.

Quote:
Who would decide what the restrictions are?
One would think that the parents, teacher, and administrators.

Quote:
How would they be monitored/enforced/punished?
There's only so much you can do. But when it's out there, and the activity deemed inappropriate by those closest to the situation, one would think that whoever has decided the restrictions would be able to enforce them.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 06-21-2006, 12:44 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Course you know she's not actually going to take any action against the photographer. Not unless she wants to toss the relationship.

After reading this, I'm kinda inclined to side with the teacher. It's unbelievable to me that the teacher who SHOWED these students the pictures hasn't been disciplined in any way. Hoover may not have intended for the students to see the pictures, but Andrews certainly did.

THAT to me is a problem.

It certainly wasn't the wisest decision on the teacher's part, but it sounds like this is an issue largely because of the rival teacher's actions, not Hoovers.
I find it interesting that her lead comment in the interview is pointing the finger at the photographer. This just underscores the collective love of looking to blame someone else for poor personal decisions.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-21-2006, 12:49 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Where did she ever say that posing for the photos was a poor personal decision?

In all seriousness, this is a union issue. I highly doubt teachers would approve such language in a contract. It would turn into a witch hunt no doubt.
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 06-21-2006, 01:18 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 10:36 AM
This is how I read it - she agreed to be part of the "art" project, assuming (falsely) that the photographer would have enough sense not to post her nude pictures on the 'net (doesn't sound very classy to me either). The photographer did, oops. She's not blaming the photographer, I think she just brought it up because people are making it sound like she was taking her own photos or having them taken for herself and SHE was putting them on the 'net. She's saying she didn't explicity agree to having photos put on the 'net, but she's not disagreeing either, since it was someone else's project, not hers.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 01:35 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I find it interesting that her lead comment in the interview is pointing the finger at the photographer. This just underscores the collective love of looking to blame someone else for poor personal decisions.
Yeah, I thought that was a little weird as well. But it didn't come across as "blame" because she doesn't seem to think it's bad that the pictures are out there. It struck me as something that her attorney was telling her to say. Like they were just trying to split hairs. Essentially she's saying "I didn't give permission to put the pictures on the net, I don't need to give permission, I can't stop her"--which of course she most certainly could. She would have to provide a release for her images to be legally placed on the net, and if she didn't provide a release she could easily demand the pictures be taken down. And she concludeds by saying "I don't mind that she did."

Bottom line no matter how she tries to dress it up, at the end of the day, she doesn't mind that the pictures are out there and doesn't see anything wrong with it.

I'd like to get a look at those pictures. . Not just to look of course but, because in my opinion what they look like would have a lot of bearing on what sort of action should be taken. Are they serious heavily sexualized pornography or are they the "tasteful" artsy nudes. Are we talking full frontal, or just topless? I do think there is a difference.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 01:38 AM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
This is how I read it - she agreed to be part of the "art" project, assuming (falsely) that the photographer would have enough sense not to post her nude pictures on the 'net (doesn't sound very classy to me either). The photographer did, oops. She's not blaming the photographer, I think she just brought it up because people are making it sound like she was taking her own photos or having them taken for herself and SHE was putting them on the 'net. She's saying she didn't explicity agree to having photos put on the 'net, but she's not disagreeing either, since it was someone else's project, not hers.
This seems to be a reasonable analysis of what she may have been thinking. Maybe she's in a bad relationship and her partner tends to steamroll over her. . .but now I'm really speculating
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 10:17 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


This seems to be a reasonable analysis of what she may have been thinking. Maybe she's in a bad relationship and her partner tends to steamroll over her. . .but now I'm really speculating
What? No, that's not what I was implying at all! See, everyone's trying to make some lame excuse for what happened, but all that happened was she agreed to be in the project, didn't inquire about specifics, and the person doing the project posted it online. Why can we not accept that a fully grown, mature woman would rationally agree to participate without being conned by the photographer or "steamrolled" by a bad relationship? We're making it WAY more complicated than it is.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 10:37 AM   #54
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

And on the issue of the teacher and her dirty photos, I think it would be wise for educators to refrain from such activity. Maybe the system revoking her license after the fact, absent any standing policy addressing it, is extreme, but I certainly think public school boards (and private school administrations) should have the right to prohibit teachers and other education workers from being involved in porn and other smut-related activities.

~U2Alabama
Many people in here seem to be ignoring the fact that this woman is not of the opinion they need to be kept hidden; as well as her belief the photos are art. Disagree or agree on it being art, but dont superimpose your views on hers. She sees no problem with it and it happy with them being around for all and any to see. It is everyone else who wishes them to remain hidden. She's not asking for her privacy to be respected as it appears she doesn't feel it has not been.

All of you opposed to nudity and art also expect David to be covered up with a convenient leaf, I presume, when he tours around the world?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 10:46 AM   #55
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I find it interesting that her lead comment in the interview is pointing the finger at the photographer. This just underscores the collective love of looking to blame someone else for poor personal decisions.
It's funny how we can all read entirely different things in this. I think your observations are rather off base. She isn't blaming anyone. She is not conceding there is any fault, and therefore no one to blame.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 10:47 AM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


Many people in here seem to be ignoring the fact that this woman is not of the opinion they need to be kept hidden; as well as her belief the photos are art. Disagree or agree on it being art, but dont superimpose your views on hers. She sees no problem with it and it happy with them being around for all and any to see. It is everyone else who wishes them to remain hidden. She's not asking for her privacy to be respected as it appears she doesn't feel it has not been.
Exactly. Where are words like "smut", "trash", "porn", and "bad relationship" coming from?
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 03:28 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


What? No, that's not what I was implying at all! See, everyone's trying to make some lame excuse for what happened, but all that happened was she agreed to be in the project, didn't inquire about specifics, and the person doing the project posted it online. Why can we not accept that a fully grown, mature woman would rationally agree to participate without being conned by the photographer or "steamrolled" by a bad relationship? We're making it WAY more complicated than it is.
I know that's not what you were implying. I should have put a new paragraph to indicate I was moving on to a "new thought."

I most certainly do accept that a fully grown, mature woman would rationally rationally agree to participate without being conned or steamrolled. That's what appears to have happened. I was just noting that it was a little odd how in the transcript that Mrs. Springsteen posted she kept saying that she did not give permission for the photos to be online, the photographer just did it and there was nothing she could do about it BUT she's okay with. It just sounded like some technical hairsplitting, because basically she's okay that they're out there. . .whether she was able to or gave permission is beside the point because she's fine with the photos being out there.

The bit about the "bad relationship" was admittedly total and utter speculation, which I admitted at the end of the post.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 03:34 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


It's funny how we can all read entirely different things in this. I think your observations are rather off base. She isn't blaming anyone. She is not conceding there is any fault, and therefore no one to blame.
Angela I think your analysis is exactly right, and at least for now I tend to side with Hoover.

Obviously there is a lot we don't know. To me the only important question is: "Is this really interferring with her work? Are the students that scandalized?" Nobody's really talked about that. We know her superiors are scandalized, but what is it like "on the ground?" In her classroom? My hunch is it may not be as a big a deal as everyone says. And I really find it horrific that the teacher who introduced these pictures in the first place isn't in trouble. It's not like kids are going online everyday and running searches to see if there are naked pictures of the teachers online. I mean, yeah, the internet is a public place but I think there is a good chance the students might never have seen the pictures if this other teacher as part of her vindictive battle hadn't SHOWN them to the students!
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 06:02 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


I know that's not what you were implying. I should have put a new paragraph to indicate I was moving on to a "new thought."

I most certainly do accept that a fully grown, mature woman would rationally rationally agree to participate without being conned or steamrolled. That's what appears to have happened. I was just noting that it was a little odd how in the transcript that Mrs. Springsteen posted she kept saying that she did not give permission for the photos to be online, the photographer just did it and there was nothing she could do about it BUT she's okay with. It just sounded like some technical hairsplitting, because basically she's okay that they're out there. . .whether she was able to or gave permission is beside the point because she's fine with the photos being out there.

The bit about the "bad relationship" was admittedly total and utter speculation, which I admitted at the end of the post.
I guess I took that to mean something like this - often people will e-mail me and say "hey that pic of bla bla bla is really great, can I have the hi-res version?" and then I send it to them. Then a few weeks later, my photo starts showing up on all these other fansites. Now, I never gave EXPLICIT permission for this to happen, but I did casually agree to give person A my photo and never asked about him posting it elsewhere.

So, I feel like what she meant was it went down something like this:

photographer: can I take nude pics of you for a project?

woman: sure why not

photographer: *takes pics* *decides to also put his project on the internet*

So she didn't say or suggest the photos be placed online, she just agreed to "the project". I think she worded it that way because like I said before, people are making it sound like she knew and supported the pics going online. It sounds to me like she really doesn't care. She agreed to participate and if pics online was the result, oh well.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 06:31 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


I guess I took that to mean something like this - often people will e-mail me and say "hey that pic of bla bla bla is really great, can I have the hi-res version?" and then I send it to them. Then a few weeks later, my photo starts showing up on all these other fansites. Now, I never gave EXPLICIT permission for this to happen, but I did casually agree to give person A my photo and never asked about him posting it elsewhere.

So, I feel like what she meant was it went down something like this:

photographer: can I take nude pics of you for a project?

woman: sure why not

photographer: *takes pics* *decides to also put his project on the internet*

So she didn't say or suggest the photos be placed online, she just agreed to "the project". I think she worded it that way because like I said before, people are making it sound like she knew and supported the pics going online. It sounds to me like she really doesn't care. She agreed to participate and if pics online was the result, oh well.
Yeah, I think that's what it was.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com