Comment history

Veteran teacher responds to letter’s criticism

Amen! Ms Edmondson-- Clearly those 35 years of dealing with children has given you the patience to deal with folks like Alceste. Not totally sure what his/her agenda is here, but the fact that he/she keeps ignoring the issues and firing back with such venom leads me to believe that it is definitely something personal against teachers. Enjoy that FAT $15 you earned tonight. After taxes, that might pay for the gas it costs to drive from Lawrence to DeSoto. I'll look for you and the rest of the super-rich teachers at the wedding of William and Kate or some of the other glamorous European spots you teachers hang out in.

April 25, 2011 at 10:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Veteran teacher responds to letter’s criticism

Why is it "amusing" to you? A teacher of 35 years is insulted because her profession is demeaned in a public forum and writes a letter presenting her point of view to respond. I'm not following why that is funny. It is kind of funny however that a person thinks it's funny to respond to an original letter when they themselves are responding to a letter. Some English teachers in Detroit or DeSoto might even call that "irony".

Perhaps you should have these family members of yours that you keep referring to provide some additional details as to why they are able to live the high-life on a teacher's salary. I am pretty tight with a former joco school board member and have never heard of such success. Also, just curious, do you tell these same family members that you respect the school janitor's work as much as you do their profession?

Let me know if you’d like me to add you to the sub list for Johnson County. I think it would be really useful for you to bring the stories of your relatives to some of the schools there so that teachers can see the light. Maybe they would finally stop complaining and get their passports ready for Milan instead.

April 25, 2011 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Veteran teacher responds to letter’s criticism

Like the other few posters who have responded negatively, you are missing the main point of the letter. The letter is in response to another letter which basically called teachers slobs and said they don't deserve respect. It seems to me that Ms Edmondson is trying to inform the original writer as well as folks like yourself why that isn't true. You may not consider the education jobs your family members have to be as difficult as the other professions (I strongly disagree with you), but I'm hopeful that we can at least agree that a majority of teachers deserve our respect...especially those teachers like Ms Edmondson who have devoted 35 years to bettering children's lives.

April 25, 2011 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Veteran teacher responds to letter’s criticism

ding, ding, ding....we have a winner!!!!!!! A very thoughtful, intelligent response from somebody who is actually in the profession that so many claim to be experts on. I have a very simple solution for all those who claim teachers are over-paid, lazy, or responsible for any of the social ills our country currently faces: go spend 1 day as a substitute teacher. I guarantee you will leave that experience with a new-found respect for teachers.

Keep fighting the good fight, Ms Ed!!!!!!!!!!!! (I apologize for some of the sentence fragments)

April 23, 2011 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Juror who committed misconduct in Jaeger trial won't testify in court

There are a lot of big words in there, bad_dog. You must be really, really smart. Unfortunately, you continue to miss the point (probably because you are more worried about trying to impress the ljw online community with your big vocabulary courtesy of

Let me try not to be "obtuse" and make this simple so that you can grasp a "scintilla" of what I'm saying. My point has never been that misconduct did not occur; my issue has been with the conclusions you have drawn without facts. Specifically, you're assertion that "This juror chose to materially deviate from those instructions". My contention would be that somebody cannot choose to deviate from something if there hasn't been a clear explanation of what the standard is. To that point, here are facts for you to consider:

1.) Fact: You have no proof or transcript of the instructions that we given to the jury. You have a reporter's (not a judge's) description and you have an idea of what instructions should have been given.

2.) Fact: You do not know the exact circumstances of the misconduct or the juror himself, so you cannot make a determination about whether the juror "chose" to deviate from the instructions or whether he made a common mistake that many jurors have probably made without consequence.

Comprende, muchacho?

Again, this debate is a victory for me and all who seek online justice against the true internet blowhards (870+ posts for bad_dog).

bad_dog -- Please let me know when you have seen the error of your ways and at that point, I will gladly accept a full and sincere apology from you.

January 30, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Juror who committed misconduct in Jaeger trial won't testify in court

Ohhhhh....another zinger from the bad_dog. If you have seriously argued a case in a court of law, I sincerely hope that you did a better job than you did arguing with me. Do your closing arguments include references to defendants as "stinky-faces"?

We'll chalk this debate up as a win for me and next time I hope you think twice before accusing somebody of materially deviating from anything without facts to support your claim.

Your lesson in rushing to judgment is now over. You're welcome.

January 29, 2010 at 9:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Juror who committed misconduct in Jaeger trial won't testify in court

Hmmm...bad_dog. Interesting user name. Perhaps you are actually Michael Vick. Wait, you flat out call yourself "bad"...I think we all agree that Jaeger is "bad" you must be Matthew Jaeger!!!! Seriously, Glenn Beck, that was pathetic. First you accuse a juror of something you have no proof of and now you accuse me of being linked to a convicted felon because my user name incorporates a very common last name. Do you drink heavily in between your shifts at legal I have some old posts defending Turner Gill, perhaps it's he and I that are in a conspiracy to defend this juror.

This is my point: you have no idea what went on in the jury room so stop insinuating anything. I personally can see why a juror could make a mistake like this and I see zero reason why he or any other juror would intentionally disobey the instructions and then try to use that in the deliberations. If you think about it, if somebody totally understood that reenacting the scenario given by the defense was forbidden then by definition they would also know that they shouldn't share the fact that they reenacted something with other jurors.

Do me a favor and see if you can locate bad_dog v. common sense in your University of Phoenix law book and let me know what you come up with.

January 28, 2010 at 11:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Juror who committed misconduct in Jaeger trial won't testify in court

bad_dog-- since you were on the jury, can you tell us what those specific directions were? We don't want to hear what the instructions should have been or what you saw the judge read to the jury on "My Cousin Vinny", we want word for word what was said to the jury in this case. After you provide us that information, we can decide if the juror made an honest mistake in trying to determine the guilt of the defendant or if he intentionally chose to "materially deviate" from those instructions. As I hypothesized to another all-knowing blog-brat, I am sure that the juror understood the instructions, intentionally disobeyed those instructions, and then decided to brag about it to the rest of the jury so that he could be the breaking story in the ljw and face the scrutiny of the bad_dog. Just need to get your confirmation of that scenario as well as some reassurance from you that jurors never try to: reenact crimes, talk to their spouses about the trial, read newspaper articles about a trial, watch TV news stories about the trial, or let their own biases and opinions form their conclusion instead of the facts presented to them. Those things would all be against those specific directions you mentioned, right?

January 27, 2010 at 10:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Juror who committed misconduct in Jaeger trial won't testify in court

Verity-- assuming you were in the jury room and were present for the "explicit" instructions that were given, so please provide us more details on what was said to the jury in this particular instance. I can't possibly imagine that anything was glossed over in the instructions especially in a tight ship like the Douglas County courthouse. Your account is much more plausible. I'm sure that Edmondson heard and understood the "explicit" instructions, then chose to disregard them, and then chose to tell the other jurors during deliberations because he wanted to annoy you and because he felt his opinion overrides the law. Please confirm this scenario....

Also, I know you're not Ben Matlock or Perry Mason, but since you keep saying Edmondson broke the law, can you explain to the rest of us why he isn’t being prosecuted for a crime? Someone with your legal mind needs to help those of us who can’t comprehend.

January 25, 2010 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Juror who committed misconduct in Jaeger trial won't testify in court

Well said, spacehog. A mistake while trying to fulfill his public "duty" has made Edmondson as much of a villain as the actual criminal to some of these blogging idiots who seem to know little about the legal process. No crime was committed here, just a mistake which was rectified by the Judge. Being on a jury is a thankless job already, I'm sure Edmondson is regretting not trying to get out of jury duty like everyone else does.

January 25, 2010 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )