Site Index - Home Personal: - Bio - Art - Interests - Musings - Links Digital Journal Digital Media: - Photography - Portfolio - Video Professional - Photo Services - Software Community: - COBA - Forums - People - Vienna Teng Site: - Feedback - Guestbook - Site Info - Site Map - Contact Me   Search:
Home / Digital Journal / 2003 / The Blair Hornstine Project

Blair Hornstine Project Comments

Previous Comments

To read comments from previous months, check out the following links.

• June 8 to July 7
• July 11 to July 23
• July 23 to August 18
• August 19 to November 3

It's apparently settled. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6569914.htm

--posted by Wendy @ Tuesday, August 19 2003, 20:38 pm EDT

The fat lady has sung!

More media reports:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/081903_nw_hornstinesuit.html

http://www.wnbc.com/education/2417867/detail.html

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Tuesday, August 19 2003, 20:50 pm EDT

"The school district and its insurance carriers agreed to pay $60,000 to settle the case. Of that, $45,000 will go to Hornstine's lawyers, according to the settlement. " http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/081903_nw_hornstinesuit.html

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Tuesday, August 19 2003, 20:50 pm EDT

does anyone know what the tutiton is for four years at a community college in new jersey? does $15,000 cover it?

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Tuesday, August 19 2003, 21:13 pm EDT

"As part of the agreement, the school district agreed not to appeal the earlier ruling." (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/081903_nw_hornstinesuit.html).

i suspect such an appeal might have revealed ever more questionable behavior by blair. she and her family decided that stirring the pot even further might be detrimental to their (misguided) cause.

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Tuesday, August 19 2003, 21:17 pm EDT

$60,000? That's it? What was the point?

I certainly wouldn't trade my college education, my credibility, and my dignity for a measly $15,000.

My guess is that Blair, Daddy, et al. wanted to get this over with just as much as the school board did.

Good riddance to bad rubbish...

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 0:24 am EDT

The question is why was the case settled for such a low sum of money. The answer was that Blair was given the chance to deliver her valedictory and chose not to do so for security reasons. Nobody told her that she had to decline, she made the decision on her own.

I didn't say this in previous postings, but if she felt so threatened, why didn't she and her lawyers appear before the same federal judge who ordered that it be done and tell her what happened. Perhaps the judge would have ordered US Marshals to be present and a higher security level, including metal detectors, to screen each guest at the gate. If she had so said the word, that would have been done on her behalf.

Blair knew that many of her classmates and their parents would have refused to attend the graduation ceremony, thus forcing the school to schedule two graduation ceremonies, one for Blair (with the US Marshals and police officers present and all the high school teachers who would be forced to attend) and another for the rest of the class. So, she chose not to attend her own graduation and to deliver her valedictory speech.

The risk in proceeding with the lawsuit would be that the school district lawyers would have petioned the judge to dismiss the case because it was moot as Blair did not attend her own graduation and delivered her address when it was granted her in the first place. And that graduation is over, the senior class has scattered all over the country to colleges and life pursuits and that they will not have another graduation for Blair as she is no longer a senior and a member of the school district. The judge would have almost granted the petition and Blair would have ended up with a big fat zero!

Better to take the money on the table than wait for a goose egg. The lawyers want to be paid and thus it was done. That's all folks.

Twenty five years from now, when the class of 2003 meets for their class reunion, members will compare success stories over glasses of brandy when Blair Horstine's name will be mentioned and one of them will quip "Blair, we invited her to come over and deliver her valedictory. Where is she? Did she lose the valedictory address or did the papers turn so yellow that she couldn't read the words?" They will laugh so hard that a couple of fellows will accidentally shatter the brandy goblets by clinking them so hard against each other. One of the well heeled guys will then say "have another brandy on me!" And the party will continue on.

In the final analysis, there were no winners in this case. The moral herein is that the school district is the one that sets the rules students have to follow. THose who choose not to follow the rules or to challenge them are the ones who suffer the consequences.

--posted by James Goodwin @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 1:16 am EDT

from the New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/20/education/20GRAD.html?ex=1062043200&en=ad1769831c78f92d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

"[Ms. Hornstines' lawyer, Edwin L. Jacobs Jr.]....would not comment on what Ms. Hornstine now had planned for her future except to say "Blair's personal life is her own."

--posted by dothecrimedothetime @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 1:40 am EDT

even more detail:

"Under the settlement, Hornstine will be paid by the school board's insurance carriers. Her attorneys will receive $35,000 from the board and $10,000 from the district's insurers."
http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m082003a.htm

"Moorestown school officials were reviewing Hornstine's academic writings as well. The Harvard Crimson reported last month that Hornstine's admission offer from the university had been rescinded because of the plagiarism discovery. Neither Hornstine's lawyers nor university officials would comment, but none denied the report."
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1061357957101440.xml

--posted by stoppingby @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 7:47 am EDT

http://philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/6571603.html
www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-08192003-144539.html

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 7:56 am EDT

CORRECTION:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/6571603.htm
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-08192003-144539.html

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 8:07 am EDT

"This case was never about money." -Edwin Jacobs, Esq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/20/education/20GRAD.html?ex=1062043200&en=ad1769831c78f92d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 8:21 am EDT

Whow, was it worth it Blair for the $15k that you received? The school board must have had a REALLY strong case [if the monetary settlement went to trial] becuase they wound up paying her almost nothing. I bet they found further plagiarism in her school work becuase Judge Hornstine would not ordinarily bow out so easily. Too bad they did not find the plagiarism before the first hearing as she probably would have lost both cases. The only reason the school board probably settled for this tiny amount was because their legal costs would have been more and a countersuit for them to recover legal fees would have meant bad publicity and the opportunity cost of having the community go through this again. I do not care if Mrs. MM says otherwise, Blair lost WAY more than she gained. $15k for her rich family is like 25cents to the average American and certainly does not represent a moral victory. Good job Moorestown school board in being patient as your patience and common sense helped you 'win' this nasty case. I feel sorry for Blair as I am sure she would give up her $15k to go back in time and be a co-valedictorian and be at Harvard.

--posted by Curious @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 8:40 am EDT

Well, Mrs. M.M., the case is over. Now it is time to reveal your identity.

'Nuff said.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 10:00 am EDT

I suspect that the school district will seek to change the way they recognize students for valedictory status ... as well as the way they approach home schooling.

"Today, Kadri said: 'I think it's important for everyone to move on now so I don't think it's appropriate to comment on her personally. I do, however, think it's a good thing for both sides.' Kadri added that day to day, the lawsuit had not been on his radar. Instead, he said, the district has been gearing up for the forthcoming school year. That includes making some changes to home instruction for special-education students. The changes were somewhat influenced by the suit, but Kadri said he would have made them regardless of the outcome. To keep closer tabs on students who do some of their schoolwork at home, the district plans to expand the duties of the director of special education. A new hire was being considered at the board's meeting last night. The director will coordinate services for special education and guidance - two areas that normally handle home-schooled students independent of each other. 'We are working on a system that allows us to monitor the kids every step of the way,' Kadri said. Whether Hornstine needed home education emerged as an issue in the debate about the case..."

(http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6569914.htm)

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 10:12 am EDT

I am inclined to view this more as a victory for the school board than as one for Blair.

Any thoughts?

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 11:54 am EDT

"The balance of $45,000 represents partial payment of her attorneys' fees." Despite headlines and lead paragraphs, this sentence was found in two of the articles cited above (NY Times & courierpostonline). Does this mean that the Hornstine's actually owe MORE than this and will be paying out of pocket?

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 12:30 pm EDT

cretin:

I view it as a moral victory for the school district and a phyrric victory for Blair. She got what she wanted in the end, which was to be named the sole valedictorian of her school, but at what cost? Vilification in the public and press, her admission rescinded from Harvard, and a small net settlement of $15,000? Add it up any way, and that's a raw deal.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 12:35 pm EDT

The Weekly Standard provides more detail:

"According to the settlement papers, Blair Hornstine will receive $60,000--$45,000 of which is earmarked for attorneys' fees. Hornstine's original suit sought $2.7 million in damages and by the end of June insiders were estimating that her lawyers' tab was already near $50,000. The board of education's insurance carrier will pay nearly half of the sum--$25,000." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/960sfcqh.asp

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 12:40 pm EDT

Interesting to note - "The settlement has no confidentiality clauses to it and, perhaps most important, includes no admission of guilt or wrongdoing in the Hornstine affair." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/960sfcqh.asp).

Perhaps we'll learn more in the near future about the actual settlement proceedings, etc.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 12:42 pm EDT

So - $35,000 from the Board and $25,000 from the insurance carrier - with $45,000 going to Blair's attorneys and $15,000 to Blair. With a legal bill of $50,000 as of June ... and the clock ticking through July and early August...I assume that the Hornstines will be paying the remaining balance of the legal fees.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 12:46 pm EDT

Cretin- Must agree w/you. Despite the initial "victory" over valedictorian status due to the judge seeing it as changing the rules in the middle of the game, it seems to have been down hill for Blair ever since. The accolades of being valedictorian weren't to be hers, no happy graduation day, it seems like there is minimal community support, Harvard gone, her reputation is now questionable because of plagiarism and litigation and she may owe more in attorney's fees than she gained in settlement. Somehow I doubt those book and movie offers Mrs. MM mentioned will be pouring in either. Sometimes life's lessons can be hard.

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 12:59 pm EDT

No question, cretin, that the school district comes out on the better side of this. However, the whole thing should never have occured in the first place. As I have said before, I agreed with Judge Wolfson's determination that BH should have been the sole recipient of the award. The school district's own rules provided for the award to the student with the highest GPA, and that was BH.

Having said that, though, I don't agree that the court should have accepted the matter in the first place. BH and Dad appear to have gamed the system in a way that it should not have been used. But, remember that the school district approved BH's IEP and its doctor agreed that BH would be better served at home. The home instructors were district employees.

No one wins here. BH clearly lost more than the school district. Had she not brought the suit, her plagiarism would likely not been discovered, she would have been the co-valedictorian and would now be in Cambridge preparing for the school year at Harvard. The school district winds up paying enough for the cost of a new teacher for the coming year. The taxpayers lose. The money could have been better spent eleswhere.

Finally, the win at all costs attitude of others in this drama does not do much good for the reputation of Moorestown. Why did KM's parents feel compelled to push the superintendent to do what he did? Why were they not content to know that their son was the number two guy and that he was on his way to Harvard, as well? How are they better off as a result of what happened? We learned something about them, too. In my view, they are all losers. In the scheme of things, however, the final result is probably the best that could have been hoped for, from the school district's point of view, as things developed.

Everyone would do well to look at themselves in this drama and, in the quiet of their own thoughts, reflect on the lessons learned. Hopefully, all will benefit is some way. But it was a high price to pay for those lessons.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 13:01 pm EDT

It will be particularly interesting to see Mrs. M. M.'s thoughts. Mrs. M. M.?

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 13:22 pm EDT

"Ignore me, please, if you want...Just put my 'facts' in the back of your mind or write them down, seal them in an envelope and bring them out in a few months or so."
- 8/6

"BLH will get a 6 figure number from the MHS. Some of it may be 'diguised' as legal fees, but she will personally end up with a number in that range."
- 8/5

"I do know about the money...."
- 8/8

"Local RUMOR has it that the settlement will be $500,000."
- 8/8

"If [BH] settles with the MHS Board, that will be charity."
- 7/24

"I...will not run away until the end."
- 7/24

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 14:24 pm EDT

Okay, class. In light of the developments of yesterday’s settlement in the Blair Hornstine Affair, it’s time to review some of the history of Mrs. M.M.’s postings on this blog…

“Dear Adam: It is unfortunate, but I feel as though I am taking over your blog.” (--posted by Mrs.MM (the original) @ Wednesday, June 18 2003, 10:29 am EDT)

- The Understatement of the Year!

“Hope the MHS school board files bankruptcy because of their $2.5 payout plus the $1 million or so in legal fees. Good riddens to that Board. The trash in Moorestown deserves nothing better.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 15 2003, 11:33 am EDT)

- Oh how wrong one can be!

“BLH will get a 6 figure number from the MHS.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 9:40 am EDT)

- Wrong. Low-five figures.

“Yes, I do suppose that you are correct that the Hornstines' do not have political savvy.” (--posted by Mrs. MM @ Tuesday, June 24 2003, 13:28 pm EDT)

- Savvy?

“When it comes to knowing the facts, I am 99%++ correct.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, July 5 2003, 0:58 am EDT)

“I do speak with 99% accuracy.” (--posted by mrs. m.m. @ Tuesday, July 1 2003, 22:40 pm EDT)

“When I am proven 99.9% correct, who will be the first to step up to buy me coffee?” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:34 pm EDT)

– I think her accuracy has been way off!

“My integrity is not at stake.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 4 2003, 10:59 am EDT)

- Some beg to differ!

“Settlement? Both sides are presently working on same. Should be done (if not today) very soon, prior to August 13.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:31 pm EDT)

- Wrong. The settlement was made on August 19…not July 24 or prior to August 13.

“In about 10 years, after Miss H. gets her money from the BOE, her law degree, the book is written, the movie film is shown, please get back to me. Yep, this is all happening. Put this in your tinkler file for year 2013. Let's see who right I am.” (--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Saturday, July 5 2003, 20:19 pm EDT)

“Talk to me before the start of 2004. Remember YOU heard it FIRST from me. What you say? Legal repercussions from the "announcement" by the Crimson, Harvard's legal responsibility and damages. Just don't forget to contact me. You will owe me 2 bucks.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 10:33 am EDT)

“BLH will be negotiating with Harvard University before the end of 2003.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 9:40 am EDT)

“And then there is the invasion of privacy suit against Harvard.....Go Girl!” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 15 2003, 11:33 am EDT)

– Going on Mrs. MM’s poor understanding of this entire affair and her dismal record of predicting the future, I’m not holding my breath. The Hornstines are done with dealing with Harvard.

“As a further thought....I bet in the end she will have the last laugh.... Maybe not Harvard, but book deals, millions from Moorestown, television appearances and how about a monthly column in "Seventeen" Magazine on how to prepare for college?????” (--posted by Mrs. MM @ Wednesday, June 18 2003, 16:09 pm EDT)

- Still not holding my breath!

“ I do live in Moorestown. I do know what is going on.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 4 2003, 10:59 am EDT)

“MARK MY WORDS!!!!!!” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:22 am EDT)

- We have – and they have most often been wrong.

“I will prevail as far as knowing the truth” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 11:47 am EDT)

- Wrong.

“Just put my "facts" in the back of your mind or write them down, seal them in an envelope and bring them out in a few months or so.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 8:56 am EDT)

- Ripping the envelope open now – and, oops … looks like Mrs. M.M. goofed.

“They and other high schools or districts in the area put money in an "area" school fund instead of having insurance through a "regular" insurance company.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:05 pm EDT)

- Wrong. The Moorestown School District is covered by its own insurance firm.

“I do know more of what is going on that you and many others; I do know about the money…” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 8 2003, 11:17 am EDT)

- Seems her purported knowledge was way off base.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 14:42 pm EDT

TM - we're on the same wavelength today!

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 14:44 pm EDT

Fairandbalanced - it was inevitable.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 15:16 pm EDT

Interesting how Mrs MM finally shut up and blew her cover. I believe that she was a close member of the Hostine family and Blair's designated megaphone. News articles have stated there is no comment from the Horstine family and that includes Mrs MM.

About out of pocket costs to be paid by the Horstine family, I believe that the settlement was accepted after the Horstine family lawyers offered a significant discount on their climbing legal bill and will chalk it off to pro bono work plus experience gained from working on a case that involved ADA issues. When you are prosecuting a damages lawsuit with your attorney, you do not always have control of the situation as if you are working under an agreement when the lawyer will take a flat percentage of the damage award, you have to be reasonable and listen to your attorney lest you be hit with fees based on the hour work and that can be potentially more expensive than a percentage of the damage award to pay the legal bill. In the end, the Horstine family knew that Blair had very little leverage from which to stand on and did not have anything of significant value to negotiate a seven figure legal settlement.

Private Lynch will earn more in endorsements, book deals and movie deals than Blair will earn for her exploits in Moorestown. Nobody will want to hear a old warmed up story about a valedictorian who did not get what she was entitled to.

So, it is done and over and now we can focus on our lives and forget all about Blair.

James K. Goodwin

--posted by James Goodwin @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 15:30 pm EDT

Based in part upon the as yet unexplained five-day absence of Mrs. M.M., is it reasonable to infer that the Hornstine family knew and approved of her posts on this thread for more than two months?

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 15:44 pm EDT

TM, hard to say. It would be just as reasonable to infer that Mrs. MM was a troll, perhaps native to the area. She never really seemed to have any new or hard info other than what could be obtained from public records. She blustered against anyone with facts and sources (such as cambridgema) and just didn't answer questions when it suited her. Maybe she is just one of those people who sit in the back of courtrooms all day for something to do or a small town gossip enjoying the spotlight. Or, as suggested awhile back, a teacher who now is busy getting ready for school to start and silently nursing her grudges against the school administration that didn't get theirs after all. But, she did keep things lively so thanks for that.

--posted by Amused @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 16:04 pm EDT

Be sure to check out the thread at MetaFilter: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/27766

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 20:37 pm EDT

Amused, I think you made some cogent observations. Although Mrs. M.M. appears familiar with the town, the tone and substance of her comments over time may not bespeak someone with several post-graduate degrees or particular knowledge regarding the legal process, much less any "inside" information. I do not begrudge Mrs. M.M. her harmless zeal, only some of the personal attacks and her misrepresentations about the community. If she truly is a friend of the Hornstine family, I think most people would appreciate her comments regarding the settlement.

Mrs. M.M. does seem to have a preternatural hatred of Paul Kadri. Kadri is an earnest, principled person with an M.B.A. from Wharton. As a first-year administrator from outside the local area, I think he may have lacked a full appreciation of the persons and issues he was dealing with during the past several months.

I am encouraged by the district's stated intention to review its home instruction policies. Notwithstanding, I have a nagging suspicion that the genesis of this issue was not exisiting policies, but rather the failure to enforce them uniformly. This observation is not based upon any specific information related to this matter, merely my own experience.

This is the first time I have ever followed a blog, thread or whatever, and I found it generally lively and interesting. Adam deserves a lot of credit for creating a forum for discussion. When this is indeed concluded, I would appreciate his observations on a project that must have surely expanded beyondhis initial expectations.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, August 20 2003, 21:33 pm EDT

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/columnists/6579926.htm

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 8:14 am EDT

I have been following this thread since the beginning of June. Fascinating conversational piece, dynamic personalities, and good lessons on family and social issues. As the matter coming to a closure, (I hope this whole thing will just drop out of media soon), I do have a few points to ponder:

1. Mirkin's mom had been named as the main instigator for starting this event. Is it any proof of that?

2. Doesn't Blair's effort to gain the sole Valedictorian because of her achievement reflect what our society's teaching about always fight for what is rightfully ours?

3. Many people blamed Blair on many things: gaming the system, filing the lawsuits, not being truly apologetic about the plagiarism, etc. But I think that a mere teenager just couldn't come up all these schemes by herself. Let's not judge her so harshly as a person.

4. Regarding the settlement, I speculate that someone in the Hornstine's family finally said that enough is enough, the girl's school plan laid in ruin, the family name become the laughing stock thru out the nation, the media circus circling day and night, that kind of damage no money can compensate. Therefore, the family decided for a quick settlement to avoid further exposure.

5. There are people who commit more serious wrongdoings and receive less punishments than Blair. I hope she will come out of this stronger and wiser.

--posted by Ming @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 10:55 am EDT

Regarding posts by TM and Ming - it seems that Mrs. MM stated loudly and often that Mirkin's Mom was the instigator but was she really or was that just to deflect notice from Blair? Maybe the computer whizes among us will look for references. Here is some idle speculation from someone far away as to why Mrs. MM and the Blair camp hate Kadri so: Kadri was new and therefore saw the situation with fresh eyes, noting the inequities and maybe realizing Blair was gaming the system for all it was worth. Maybe it was brought to his attention by someone (parents, students, Mirkin's Mom, who knows). Perhaps being new he felt he should fix it in some way or felt pressured to do so. Perhaps the old administration felt overwhelmed by Judge Hornstine due to previous lawsuits (Adam's SAT) and the various demands already made on Blair's behalf but Kadri decided to take a harder line and the whole thing snowballed. Like I said, this is just speculation but it does seem like the Hornstine's were used to calling the shots around the school with little resistance. Like I said, this is complete speculation but would possible explaine the seeming deep dislike toward Kadri shown by Mrs. MM.

This is the first forum I've ever posted to as well. It has been loads of fun and I've learned some valuable computer skills along the way - mega kudos to Adam for such an interesting site. For what it is worth, I clicked on the ads every time I visited the site (where did they go?) in case it helped in some small way. Mrs. MM probably is a salaried civil servant since she didn't realize that things cost money and free enterprise isn't free - someone pays somewhere.

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 12:06 pm EDT

I speculated that Mrs. M. M. was/is the judge's secretary. I don't think she denied that, but it made sense from her earlier postings about making money from the taxpayers (I didn't go back and look, but that is as I remember)and her supposed inside knowlege of happenings. Of course, another possibility is that Mrs. M. M. is really Mrs. H. In either case, Mrs. M. M. would be totally on BH's side, since that would be the only one she would hear.

Clearly the judge was a prime mover in the campaign to have BH do the things necessary to be the valedictorian. I did a little research and found that he went to an undergrad school that is no longer in existence. He went to law school in Philadelphia, and while a reasonably good school, not in the catagory of a Harvard or Yale. Perhaps he had a need, through his children, to demonstrate (to himself, at least) that he and/or his family were top level academics.

It's too bad. I don't think we will see Mrs. M. M. here again, at least posting with that name.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 14:54 pm EDT

If Mrs. M.M. is Judge Louis F. Hornstine's secretary or assistant - his contact info is listed as:

Judge Hornstine
Superior Court of New Jersey
Camden County Hall of Justice
101 South 5th Street, Suite 260
Camden NJ 08103-4001
856-225-7173

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:G5XZdzUyjWYJ:www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/cservices/njsuperiorcourtjudges.htm+%22Louis+F.+Hornstine%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

What a hoot if she answered the phone!

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 15:50 pm EDT

Hornstine's secretary is listed as: Carolyn Bertino at (856) 225-7173

(http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:qv9g0oU98poJ:www.camdencounty.com/government/2002directory.pdf+%22louis+f.+hornstine%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 15:56 pm EDT

I believe that MM lives in Moorestown. She seems to know enough to be a Moorestown resident.

My bet is that she was very likely one of Blair's taxpayer-funded tutors.

Why? MM has paid it clear that she is paid with taxpayer funds. So she is a government employee of some sort. And while she didn't know any inside information, she was vehemently pro-Blair. Not only did she insult those who disagreed with her, but she spewed misinformation left and right. I don't think a judge's secretary would have been so ignorant about the workings of our legal system.

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 16:30 pm EDT

cretin - you make a good point - mrs mm clearly was confused on the entire legal proceeding - i.e. not understanding what a TRO actually represents, etc. i doubt she is related to judge hornstine - either as a family member or a co-worker. she - like s-d-s may indeed participated on this blog as mere "trolls".

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 16:34 pm EDT

cretin - i'm with you on her possibly being a tutor ... since she did state at one point that she had taught at a local community college... and had made other references to teaching.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 16:41 pm EDT

I don't think that S D-S was a troll. He had his opinions and was very clear in expressing them. Unlike Mrs. MM, he didn't try to hide his identity from us, which is common with trolls.

Regarding Mrs. MM, I'm sure that she's still reading this page and trying to figure out what to write. Give her some time, and I'm sure she'll reappear.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 16:45 pm EDT

as a tutor, mrs m.m. would have had a vested interest. she did state that she sat in the courtroom with or near the hornstine family. she obviously mistook the histironics of the lawyers and the proceedings as a court case establishing "wrongdoing" and "guilt", when it fact it was merely a hearing which ended up granting blair a TRO ... with a ruling or settlement to be decided at a future time. we all know now that no "wrongdoing" or "guilt" was established (i.e. the school district was not found to have discriminated) and both parties decided to settle to avoid further scrutiny and further expense. with the paltry settlement it is likely that the school district had some "goods" on blair ... and/or blair and her family finally came to their senses and decided that "enough was enough" ... and not worth further maligning themselves, etc.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 16:47 pm EDT

adam - yes ... you're right ... i shouldn't have characterized s-d-s as a troll. on occasion, though, he tended to focus the blog on himself, his character, his personl issues.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 16:48 pm EDT

Count me another poster in agreement with Cretin - back in July we thought Mrs. MM might be a teacher/tutor. She mentioned working on graduate courses in math (possibly a lie like most of what she said) which makes sense, seeing her ability with the written word, I would hate to think that she might teach English! This might explain her defense of a favorite student and dislike of an incoming superior (Kadri). Would teachers at MHS teach both in the school and tutor the "disabled" or would that be two different career tracks?

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 17:12 pm EDT

I understand that home instructors are school employess, and not tutors hired by the individual student. Nonetheless, a home instructor, in a one on one environment, would have strong feelings toward the success of her/his student. The integrity of the grading is also brought into issue and, thus, it becomes something of a personal matter for the teacher.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 17:22 pm EDT

Hey, I know of one former public school teacher (Betancourt) who is pro-Blair. She retired a few years ago, but she stills pops up every now and then. She was one of those who argued that Blair didn't know that plagiarism was wrong. And you guessed it, she was an English (and debate) teacher!

MM went so far as to call Mrs. Betancourt a "respected and exceptional teacher." While she was not disliked while I was at MHS, I would NOT call her exceptional.

This is what MM had to say:
"I BELIEVE THAT Mary Bettancourt, the respected and exceptional teacher of 43 or so years, the recently retired 25 year head of English at MHS taught Blair and her Brother. I BELIEVE that Mrs. Bettancourt coached them through Debate and Mock Trial. I BELIEVE that Mrs. Bettancourt only got to know the Hornstine children through school. I KNOW THAT MRS. BETTANCOURT WAS NOT A FAMILY OR PERSONAL FRIEND. I KNOW That Mrs. Bettancourt believes that Blair is a bright student and deserves all the accolades. I KNOW that is why Mrs. Bettancourt has gone to bat for her. I KNOW THAT MANY OTHER ACTIVE TEACHERS WOULD COME OUT PUBLICALLY, BUT BECAUSE THEIR CONTRACTS ARE UP, AND KADRI AND THE BOE ARE THEIR BOSSES, THEY quietly support her in the background."
--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 3 2003, 18:18 pm EDT

Hmmm. Could misspelling Betancourt's name be a way of throwing us off the scent???

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 17:43 pm EDT

Off topic ...but of related interest:

Today, The Herald Sun reports that Mark Edmonson of Greensboro, NC had been accepted by the University of North Carolina. "Edmonson, whose 3.8 grade-point average and 1,600 SAT score earlier this year surely helped him gain entrance to Carolina, went into something of an academic tailspin at the end of his senior year. His final GPA slid to a 3.5 after he failed a class and got Cs and at least one D in others....Seeing this, UNC's admissions staff changed its mind and rescinded its admission offer." In its acceptance letter the University "....warned Edmonson not to slack off at all during his senior year. 'Because we want you to finish strongly and come to Carolina ready to excel, your enrollment will depend upon your successful completion of your current academic year....We expect you to continue to achieve at the same level that enabled us to provide this offer of admission...' ....UNC and the Edmonson family are at odds over the grade decline and the circumstances surrounding it. UNC reviewed the case, called Edmonson in for a July interview, and ultimately rescinded its offer....[the family claims that the admissions office]....didn't give Edmonson an adequate opportunity to explain what happened during his senior year, or to detail health problems the student had related to medicine he was taking for attention-deficit disorder." As a result, the family has filed suit against UNC, contending "...that the university's offer of admission amounted to a binding contract to which both UNC and Edmonson agreed. Further, the lawsuit contends that UNC's decision to rescind its admission offer was not justified and is thus a breach of contract."

http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-383195.html

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 17:55 pm EDT

Fair and balanced?

Mounting a personal attack on someone because you think their gone is fair and balanced? I know trolls, Fair, they have really amazing hair, wild and stringy, three fingers, round little tummies, and three toes on their little plastic feet, and great big marble eyes. Oh wait, you're not referring to those adorable little Hungarian dolls that became such a rage here years ago. You're being insulting and childish... Heaven forbid.

Did it ever occur to you that while you seem to think I was making posts regarding my personal life, I was actually drawing conclusions based on my personal experience. After all, that's how we gain information, through personal experience. I, personally, with one very notable exception, have refrained from characterizing people here, regardless of the fact that for the most part, in my arrogant and holier than thou ways, I find them to be small minded, servile moronic twits.

As for a being a troll, if you mean I'm a cute cuddly, kind of odd looking doll with wild hair and less fingers and toes than you, well thanks for thinking I'm cute.... as for your definition of troll, look in the mirror, and by all means, be careful of that bug eyed look...

I swear, you can't get enough.... really, what does your opinion of me have to do with this blog, the settlement, Blair, plagiarism, or anything else?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 18:19 pm EDT

OMG, heaven forbid, I made a typo... their should they're.... anything else I deny on the basis of not having a place for footnotes, or the ability to reasonably accredit any information....

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 18:20 pm EDT

s-d-s: you will note that i retracted my characterization of you as a troll ... so leave it alone. in my opinion you have often been self-absorbed by posting gratuitous details...such as...

“….I pay my bills, and I play on my toys, and walk the dogs, and so on. The fact that I do it from a 333 acre estate in Colorado, on top of a mountain, with a view of Crested Butte from my enclosed swimming pool/recreation room, under 5,000+ square feet of the most beautiful cabin….” (June 25)

“I have donated over 1,000 computer systems and 7 servers to my school system, including software, networking, and upkeep, can you say that? Can you do that? …. you know nothing about who I am. You've never heard of me because I don't want you to know WHO I am. Yet my computers are rated in the top ten worldwide in terms of speed and performance…. As for my awards, there are more in my closets than on my display racks, and the only awards there are the ones that matter most, and that's the customers that keep coming back year after year for my products and services. It's why a company that began in a bedroom garners service awards from congress, and from the people it services, and from the industry it thrives in, in spite of the fact that over 30% of my competitors have gone out of business in the last twelve months.” (July 20)

“I'm a rich idiot…” (July 20)

“I have money to burn…” (July 22).

'Nuff said. Go ahead...lash out at me...like you have done with cretin in the past.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 19:17 pm EDT

The egotism and conceit that crudely and ruthlessly forms and animates the personae of the principal actors in this matter is a subjectively unsettling example of amoral emotional and intellectual sadomasochism. No one acts upon reasonably achievable objectives, much less good intentions, or responds appropriately to unexpected or even reasonably forseeable changes in circumstance. The legal system is never the proper venue for the human equivalent of a barnyard cockfight.

There is an understandable fascination with the inherent or resulting travails of persons who publically cast themselves as one-dimensional actors on a stage of their own design, separate and apart from the complex, recurring roles most persons play in their daily lives. Nothing suggests the principal actors in this matter either learn from or in fact accurately perceive the angst they so obviously exemplify to others.

It will not be surprising if the persons involved in this regretable affair move on to other, less-publicized battles, whether or not related to this matter, or eventually to other, perhaps more hospitable venues - after the dinner guests depart, champagne often winds up as cold duck in a kitchen glass, and the next morning much of it goes down the drain.

To Wondering-

Home instructors may or may not be employees of the students "home" district. You may note that the names of somes of the instructors who gave certifications in support of BH do not appear on the the MHS faculty list.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 19:32 pm EDT

Why would I lash out at you? Although you have looked up sound bites, and paraphrased them, which, taken out of context can look, appear, or even be, self serving, is neither relevant or even marginally important.

I look at the fact that narrowminded folks like you overlook the same behaviours from somewhat more famous persons, and rip the crap out of a person like Blair, because, as we all know, it's far more destructive to allow Blair into Harvard than it is to actually call a politician, or a civil rights leader to task over their much broader, and ultimately more damaging actions, and I see the rot that some, more eloquent, and certainly original persons proclaim.

I look at the demonization of Blair Hornstine in the same breath as the demonization of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, and I'm appalled. The media created the Lynch fiasco, but you won't see the media back up, and it is my opinion that the media sat on the plagiarism of Blair Hornstine in order to stir the pot after the fact. And you, I, and everybody here, jumped on board.

I look at the time spent with this exhaustive, and ultimately pointless blog, and realize that as a group we've wasted far more time than we've gained in order to be heard, and I see us, all of us, (that includes me), as a whole, as spoiled, and generally judgemental people who feel our opinions have some validity in the overall. But they don't, and we as a group have no more gained from this experience than Blair has.

So, who, I ask you, are the losers?

I say, we are. I say we have given up our right to judge, and forgone our ability to discern because we've lost our objectivity and made it personal. So no, fair, though you have violated Fox new's trademark, I will not lash out at you, because ultimately, you are not likely to walk into one of my stores, or purchase one of my products, or in any way support my business, not only because you don't like me, but because you don't respect the quality over the person.

If you did, what you said, retracted or not, never would have been said, and what you attempted to twist, taken out of context would never have been offered as the only proof of what you feel is my self serving nature.

I would remind you that I have never posted my site url, or address or phone number. Earlier, because Adam's set up did it for me, without me doing it, my url was posted as a link to my name. When I became aware of this, I stopped posting my url, and it has never been posted by me. Other persons have done so, mostly in an effort to discredit me, or imply that I was doing something wrong, but I have never self advertised. I have used personal experience as a method of explaining my position, and if you disagree with that, or find it self serving, that is ultimately, fair, your problem.

So no, I'll not lash out at you, and for the record, cretin threatened my life. Now, that might not be important to you, but it is to me. LIFE, you know, the one thing you only have one of forever. MY LIFE, I took it seriously, even if he didn't mean it that way, and yes, I took measures to protect myself, because unlike you, cretin, or any other poster on this blog, except adam, I am the only one that you have an address for, and a phone number, and such. In other words, if cretin chose to make good on his threat he could, because he knows where I am. So, if lashing out, and taking proactive measures to protect myself after a blatent and vicious and uncalled for threat, and slander from a punk like cretin, is somehow anticlimatic for you, that is also your problem. The fact remains that what he did, none of you have bothered to call him to task over, though frankly, it falls under the terroristic threatening statutes in my state. Simply put, you can pick your battles, but the fact remains, that his threats, nor my reaction is germain to the purpose of this blog, nor is your unfounded, biased, and ultimately personal attack on me, retracted or not.

Truth is truth, either tell all of it, or don't expect to hide behind some of it. Any questions?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 21:37 pm EDT

oh s-d-s spare us ... blah, blah, blah ... yawn.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 21:45 pm EDT

Spare you what fair, the truth...?

It's easier to hide behind the fabrications of your opinions, isn't it fair? Of course, in doing so you not only arent fair, you certainly aren't balanced.

Fox just sued a commentator of his use of fair and balanced in the title of his book. Guess you just can't be fair and balanced without paying the piper can you?

Of course, the very nature of your posts is consistantly biased and unilateral, marking you as not only bigoted and pointless, but ultimately, chidish and immature.

So, call it blah blah blah yawn, it's hard to argue the truth when you haven't learned to tell it, see it, or identify it. One day, you'll grow up, until then, you'll just be a blind, and sadly, opinionated moronic twit with an ax to grind. I think you would have liked it if I ripped you a new asshole, or something, but there is no reason, after all, you're all the asshole you'll ever need, and sometimes, you open it up, and sh*t all over yourself.

Yawn, yourself, and by the way, unbalanced and biased, you spare us, if you don't want a reply, don't put my name in one of your idiotic uninformed, and pointless posts just so you can see your name on an internet blog.

Otherwise, bendover, and I will certainly kick your ass up around your shoulders every time you type... fontically speaking, of course....

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 21:57 pm EDT

"I don't have anything to say that I haven't said about 800 times." - August 13

Do you have any comments that relate to the settlement or the status of Mrs. M.M.?

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 21:57 pm EDT

Since I never got into the settlement debate, TM, to be honest, no, I don't. Either way, they all lose. That's the bottom line.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 21:59 pm EDT

... and there are not many people who would disagree with that point.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:01 pm EDT

lol, here we go again! SDS - I have done nothing that you yourself haven't done, and you know it. And if you were to actually look at the facts, you would see that my threats PALE in comparison to yours! If I am guilty of making terroristic threats (yawn), then so are you. Get over yourself.

To everyone else: SDS tried to get me to beg for mercy, but I did not. I did not get down on my knees and kneel to a terrorist. Our little Jesse-Jackson-in-training has a long way to go before he'll be able to bully me into submission. I apologized ONCE and told him to leave me alone. He refused to accept my apology because it wasn't "sincere" enough, and so far has hasn't been leaving me alone. If he's looking for someone to grovel in front of him, he's barking up the wrong tree...

SDS: when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING! Oh let me guess, you'll tell us that you're leaving, and just when we get our hopes up you'll come back.

So please, stop threatening my LIFE, stop slandering my good name, and STOP writing overly long posts!

Thank you and good night...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:02 pm EDT

About Mrs. MM I'll say this, I do know who she is, and frankly, it's not my place to make that information available to anyone, nor will I, much the way I refused to identify cretin, or his location, though I do indeed know them.

As to her status, I can't say a thing, because I have no clue. I had left this blog behind, dropped in today, and there it is, fair calling me a troll, then retracting it, after the fact. I really think that after a week you people would find better things to attack.

As to this, and Blair, and the money, lack of it, cretin, life, earth, the sun and the moon, I reserve the right to comment at a time and place of my chosing or not at all, or until the cows come home, whichever suits my fancy, floats my boat, and flips my skirts. Either way, you won't like it, and we won't agree. Such is life.

That's why we live it.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:03 pm EDT

i call them as I see them ... you have huffed and puffed way too much. you have presented yourself as self-righteous...you have boasted...and you have casted yourself as a victim on countless occasions. your actions and postings have so often taken a course of self-focus....as you do now. i'm done commenting...and will not continue to indulge you in your efforts to keep the discussion on your issues. goodbye - you are the weakest link.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:04 pm EDT

SDS: YOU are biased, unilateral, bigoted, pointless, childish, immature, idiotic, blind, and moronic. Don't you realize that your "insults" describe YOURSELF perfectly!!

And please stop threatening to kick/rip people's posteriors. Terroristic threats are not nice...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:04 pm EDT

Cretin, I have never threatened your life, I have theatened your freedom with legal action. And if you wish, I have two years with which to take that action, so you keep it up.

As for you as a person, that you are an idiot is something you proclaim loudly. That you are beyond pointless is obvious in that you chose to attack me long before I ever responded to you, as anyone who has read this entire blog knows. As for your consistant and blatant baiting of me, simply put, go fuck yourself, cretin, because the only thing you are good for is as a patch on the used rubber you constanly suck the fumes out of.

I hope you liked the insult, and by the way, don't ever think to threaten me again. I will take the legal action previously discussed, and then, in the final denoument, we shall indeed see what the truth is. Oh, and stay off of my website, and out of my e-mail you idiot, I don't have time for your halfhearted apologies.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:08 pm EDT

s-d-d ... keep going ... dig yourself deeper ... "moronic twit" ..."you're all the asshole you'll ever need" ... "bendover, and I will certainly kick your ass up"

"Name calling generally indicates an inability to deal with the subject matter in a mature, adult fashion." (posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, July 3 2003, 20:41 pm EDT)

"Name calling is what 4 year olds do." (posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, July 4 2003, 2:32 am EDT)

"Name calling and vulgarity display an obviously discordant grasp of "life" ethics, and an even greater disdain for those who disagree with you." (--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, July 6 2003, 1:22 am EDT)

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:12 pm EDT

Yanno, Fair, you were done, you said it yourself. That you have the time to go back and look all this up is sad, truly sad. Don't you have better things to do?

I mean really.

Cretin has a special place in my heart.

And you forgot, fontically speaking in your paraphrase of my quote.

Truth, tell it all, or be prepared to suck hind tit when the shit hits the fan.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:14 pm EDT

i take it back ... s-d-s you are a "troll" - and that is not a derogatory term, but a descriptive term ... one who goes online and posts so as to derail informed discussion ... often time stirring up things, so as to focus attention on oneself. you are a "troll"

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:15 pm EDT

SDS, you have threatened my life. You want me to beg for you not to kill me, but I won't. Just go ahead and try, and you'll end up with a face full of lead.

And don't worry about my apologies - you won't be getting any from me. Perhaps if you asked really nicely, I would accept one from you. Or perhaps not.

SDS, each additional message you post here makes it more evident that YOU are an idiot. People who have read this blog will know the real story. How you are a bully and a sociopath. How you are ALWAYS the victim (yeah right). How you threaten those who disagree with you.

I won't fuck myself, SDS. I have better things to do than to take up YOUR favorite hobby...

Finally, please stop threatening me with "legal action" (Indian style, right?). You know you don't have a leg to stand on. You'd do best to not draw any more attention to yourself. Getting the authorities involved would only serve to get yourself jailed... I have nothing to worry about.

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:15 pm EDT

By the way, Fair, you inappropriately attributed something that cretin said to me... you should get your quotes straight.

As for you, well, hell, fair, you don't have to like my opinion, but much like yours, that I have to deal with them, is justification for you to have to deal with mine.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:16 pm EDT

"Yanno, Fair, you were done, you said it yourself. That you have the time to go back and look all this up is sad, truly sad. Don't you have better things to do? "

Ya know, SDS, YOU have repeatedly said that YOU were leaving. And then you came back. Furthermore, YOU have reposted pages and pages of old posts, taking up valuable bandwidth. Don't YOU have better things to do???

Get over yourself. This blog is NOT about you. You keep on trying to make it about SDS, but it will never be about SDS. Until there is an SDS project, you will continue to be a failure.

And please stop with the profanity. It is quite immature. And moronic.

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:19 pm EDT

S-D-S ... the three quotes above are from your postings ... they are directed at cretin by you ... check them again.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:20 pm EDT

What was the quote that fairandbalanced inappropriately attributed to me?

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:20 pm EDT

BTW - looking it up is so very easy ... and requires one to just do a search on the page using the phrase: "name calling" ... see how many times s-d-s disparages such a practise, yet indulges in such himself.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:21 pm EDT

Cretin, if you really think you're in the clear, then I have a news flash for you. I hate your guts, I think you're dangerous, and I can prove that you have attempted to do certain things, and have said things that would indicate a desire on your behalf to cause me bodily harm. Now you can bluster all you want here, but I sincerely doubt that should you be charged with a criminal offence, that you'll be so blustery in a court of law.

I have never threatened your life. You have attempted to attack my website. You have sent over 100 emails to various email address of mine, and I can PROVE all of that. Your latest comment that I would wind up with a face full of lead is more of the same. Do you honestly think I would waste the time to deal with you?
The authorities have the final say, and what they do, they will do in their own good time. Until then, I think that you would be well served to keep your fingers off the keyboard when it comes to me. If, however, you want to play your little game, that's fine, because as far as I'm concerned, Cretin, every time you type you put yourself further and further behind any legal action that can be taken against you for your actions both on this blog, and on my site, and against me personally with your email assaults. So have at it, but in the mean time, just remember this, in my state it is legal to defend one's self, and I will.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:23 pm EDT

Thanks, fairandbalanced! We keep on posting at the same time...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:24 pm EDT

Golly fair, did I hit a nerve?

You must really think I care what you think. I made a comment, about one you made, and you know what, I stand by it.

As for me being a troll, I guess defending myself against attacks from idiots is something I shouldn't indulge in.

Well, hell, I guess I just have time on my hands.

Either way... be sure to practice your bug eyed look.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:25 pm EDT

I swear, you can't get enough.... really, what does your opinion of me have to do with this blog, the settlement, Blair, plagiarism, or anything else?

The last line of my original post that you all feel started this onslaught...

You could have left it at that, you chose not to, and I didn't draw first blood.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:31 pm EDT

Haha, you're really barking up the wrong tree, SDS! I have NEVER emailed you. I have NEVER contacted you outside of this blog.

In my state, it is also legal to defend one's self! And I WILL defend myself by any means necessary. If you attempt to cause me bodily harm, I WILL put you out of commission.

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:31 pm EDT

pray tell ... how have you been attacked by me ... oh righteous one? you're self indulgence is obvious ... your flaunting your wealth, etc. is pointless on this blog. my personal opinion is that you are a fraud ... and one holed up in his ohio den, posting on various sites ... this one ... the columbine anniversary site...seti...etc... and often taken others to task.

as posted before ... s-d-s is:

Steve Douglas Smith (aka Steffe'n Douglas-Smith - as per the reference in the website at: http://www.designwolf.com) is in Beavercreek, Ohio...Designwolf Computer Systems, Stephen Smith, 3782 Skyline Drive, Beavercreek, OH 45432, US...and self described as: "Old geezer in Ohio seeking extra terrestrial encounter with other than little green men." http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=view_feedback&id=21157 (be sure to check out the photo posted there).

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:34 pm EDT

You know what, Cretin? Liars can say whatever they want, and you lie so well. I don't care what you say in regards to your repeated emails to me. I can prove it, and you know it, so if you want to deny your actions, instead of being a man, and owning up to them, that's okay, after all, I don't have a badge, I don't carry a gun, and I don't have a warrant with your name on it. If one does, you'll know soon enough, and you can tell your lies to a judge. You know, things like, well someone else must have used my computer to send those, or I lent my computer to an idiot and he did that, or whatever else your little mind can come up with.

You have indeed e-mailed me, and you have indeed attempted to contact me outside this blog, and you have indeed made the very attacks I have claimed. That you are too cowardly to admit it is simply further proof of your complete lack of integrity. Then again, I guess I understand, you wouldn't want to admit to all your fans that you are exactly the unbalanced, and possibly homicidial maniac that I believe you to be.

As for me showing up in your state, that'll only happen when and if there is a trial, and I assure you of this, I am no threat to you in that environment. You are your own worst enemy, and you have created the scenario that may possibly put you in prison. Live with it.

As for me, I will stay here, and so long as you remain there, then I guess we have nothing to fear, do we?

You can blow smoke all you want, Cretin, but you and I both know the truth, and regardless of what lies you post here, the truth will indeed, win out.

And that is all I have to say to you.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:38 pm EDT

Fair,

I find this interesting. I did not make the post you just put up, and yet you are trying to attribute it to me.

As for posting my website url, I never have. You should include the information of the poster with the post you quote, after all, you can't change the truth with half facts.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

Oh, and fair, one other thing... that Seti profile is like five years old now... but hey.... whatever floats your boat.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:41 pm EDT

you did indeed post the three references to name calling.

i never said you made the most recent post. i found the details from doing a search on you from previous posts.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:46 pm EDT

SDS, you DO NOT lie well.

It is painfully obvious that I have never emailed you or attempted to contact you. For one brief moment, I actually believed that you knew who I was. But now I know that you are bluffing...

And if I had done any of those things, I would admit it! I would not be ashamed.

Try telling all of your bullshit to a judge before you're hauled off to the looney bin...

AND PLEASE STOP LYING!

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

ah ... "five years old"? according to the log files at SETI .. you first registered there at: "Wed Mar 20 05:04:39 2002"...but, hey...who cares...your post(s) are there for posterity

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:48 pm EDT

SDS, you don't look like an Indian to me! Or did someone else with access to your computer post that picture on that SETI site???

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:50 pm EDT

And finally fair, if you are so fair and balanced, why do you insist on this running commentary, because like I said, you could have left it alone, but no, you had to have you say.

Thus far,aside from the fact that you are driving this to be about me, you've done nothing but continue on a path that is pointless, and has no bearing on this discussion that you claim to value so greatly.

What do they say, prick me, do I not bleed?

I don't care, and I have addressed that in a previous post, what your personal opinion of me is, because as I said, you will never enter one of my stores, unless out of curiosity, you will never buy one of my products, and frankly, if you did, you'd be astonished at how well it performs, but that is besides the point.

When it was made clear long ago that people like you found my life experience posts to be either self serving or even self advertising, I stopped making them, and stuck to the facts, which even Adam has acknowleged. That you are stuck on so many yesterdays is proof that you, not I, are the troll, looking for a way to create discord, and then attacking the very source you initiated.

I have no doubt that you saw my previous post when another poster attacked me, after I had basically stopped posting, except the occasional one liner. I ripped that one down too. That one, however, had the termitity to actually just let it go.

You must have a thin skin, either that or you looked in the mirror and realized that you can't prevent yourself from having that bug eyed look.

Let it end, or don't, either way, you started it, deal with it, and find something better to do.

Or don't. I don't care, after all I have time on my hands.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:51 pm EDT

cretin - i do have to step in here - one doesn't need to "look like" an Indian in order to trace ones roots to Native American heritage. please ... don't follow that route ... it is not necessary - and unseemly. i have great respect for all people ... no matter what creed, color, heritage, religion, sexual orientation, etc. any comments questioning others on such ... or ones with implied disparagement are wrong.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:53 pm EDT

yawn...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:54 pm EDT

Fine, I'll stop with the Indian comments (even if SDS is such an easy target).

I'll be the bigger person.

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:55 pm EDT

okay ... s-d-s ... back to the issue at hand ... let's discuss blair...the issue of valedictorian status...harvard's rescinded their offer...the community reaction to blair...the issue of parental influence on children's pursuits...the use of the legal system to deal with the multi-layered issues...the decision to settle by the school district; by the hornstines...etc.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:57 pm EDT

Damnit, if I were a drinking man, by now I would be laughing so hard my pants would fall down.

Cretin, whatever, like I said, you and I know the truth, you can lie all you want, I don't care, it won't change the reality of your actions. You did, you have, and you can deny it all you want. We know, you and I, what the real truth is, and no matter how you try to paint it, you can't change it.

As for you fair, whatever you say. Really, how does any of that have any bearing on Blair Hornstine?

When you address that, and the why you decided that you'd try me on for size, then, just maybe, you'll have said something worthwhile.

And Cretin, just stop, really, okay, I'm done with you. The proper authorities have all the information they need, and they, not I, will take any action that is to be taken. I have no desire to be anywhere near you, nor will I be without a court order to appear. So, until that happens, if it happens, and then only when it happens, will I ever lay eyes on you.

So, like I said, and as the above is a repeat, I have nothing else to say to you. Why don't you adopt the same posture? It might be the easiest way to avoid all of this nonesense in the future. Of course, you once said you intended to ignore me, and my posts, I guess you just couldn't help yourself, could you?

It's a rhetorical question, cretin, you don't have to answer, because we all know you couldn't.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 22:58 pm EDT

Everyone:

Please stay on topic.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:02 pm EDT

And SDS, I'm not the one who keeps on "threatening" to leave, am I???

Pot. Kettle. Black.

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:03 pm EDT

Any guesses as to where Blair is going to college?

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:04 pm EDT

To Everyone:

You had to know that was coming....

--posted by TM @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:05 pm EDT

s-d-s ... what are your thoughts regarding the settlement? why do you think it came at such a low figure? $45,000 to the attorneys; $15,000 to blair. and a settlement with no confidentiality clause? do you think the school district dug up some evidence of plagiarism in blair's school work? do you think the hornstines realized they were on a futile track? any thought, opinions, reactions?

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:11 pm EDT

Fair,

Plagiarism, though I have been accused of defending it, there are numerous posts which clearly indicate that I do not. Blair got caught, and I have never said she shouldn't have been denied Harvard over it. In fact, as a response to a direct question of that nature, I indicated that if Harvard recinded based on that, it would be within it's rights to do so, and that Blair would have to learn a hard and painful lesson.

As a reposte, I have also indicated that her plagiarism received, and continues to receive far more attention than other cases of plagiarism, namely that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy. The fact is that each of these historical public figures plagiarized much of their public speaches, and Dr. King even plagiarized most of his doctorial thesis. I pointed out the irony of this, that a high school student can be demonized, but folks like Dr. King and Kennedy have been diafied for exactly the same thing on a much broader scale. It goes to the American Mentality, and it, to me, demonstrates our need, (thus my earlier loser comments regarding all of us), to have a whipping boy, or in this case, girl.

The valedictorian issue, was I thing, addressed in the only way possible. The school board did try to change the rules midstream, and now with the settlement, though no admission of guilt is made, the school board has had to pay $60,000.00 to resolve it's errors. Personally, and I have said this, I think it's about $59,999.00 too much. Blair deserved to be Valedictorian, and she deserved to accept her diploma and make her speach, and the community made that impossible. The final value to Blair, about the price of a reasonably priced first car.

Was any of it worth it, I certainly don't think so, nor do I think that she deserved to be vilified as she was. I think her father cast her on a path that ultimately will bring her pain for the rest of her life, and for that he should be ashamed. Blair made her choices, and they weren't all good ones. I think settling this now was her choice, and the amount reflects the fact that she is done with being the public enemy number one she has become.

Ultimately, Blair has paid a far higher price for her actions than most of us do for ours. As an example, you think I'm a fraud, and that's okay, you're allowed to think whatever you want. I won't quibble that. Blair on the other hand, is now know nationally, as "The Girl They Love To Hate", as a plagiarist, and as a spoiled little rich girl who finally got spanked with her own silver spoon. Honestly, it's rather pathetic, because to be sure, there are much worse people out there doing rather horrible things.

Perhaps it's why we love soap operas, or things like that, because we love to see them squirm. I know it often seems like I'm defending Blair, and on the Valedictory I have, but I have never defended plagiarism, nor have I endorsed it. I have pointed out that it was rather convienient that it surfaced just after the TRO hearing, but the local reaction to her suit had begun before that.

As to the future, it remains up to Blair to write it for herself, and I have said that perhaps it would be in her best interest to apologize, honestly, for her actions. Either way, a smart young woman has dug for herself a deep deep ditch that she will carry on her back for the rest of her life, if only because everything she says or more aptly, writes, will be suspect on the surface, and most likely, heavily scrutinized below it.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:15 pm EDT

"Was any of it worth it, I certainly don't think so..." I agree with you. A sad turn of events all of the way around.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:17 pm EDT

"I think her father cast her on a path that ultimately will bring her pain for the rest of her life, and for that he should be ashamed. Blair made her choices, and they weren't all good ones."

i agree with you...but, wonder how much of all of this was Blair's choice. i think her father had undue influence on her...and got the ball rolling on the legal challenge. i wonder how she'll look upon all of this 10 years...20 years from now.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:19 pm EDT

The valedictorian issue, was I thing

NOTE: This should read, I think...

sorry

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:21 pm EDT

this entire affair is a "soap opera" ... it is greek tragedy ... it is shakespearean ... it touches on so much of human nature ... hubris/nemesis ... the individual versus the "group" ... greed versus sharing ...so many vectors; so many issues.

it is a window on humanity. it is a mirror upon ourselves.

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:24 pm EDT

Why did Daddy do it?

--posted by Tug @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:25 pm EDT

Like most young people, I don't think Blair considered the final price of her actions.

She obviously didn't think the plagiarism would surface. She may have thought that by suing to be named sole valedictorian she would ensure her place in her family and school history.

Well, she did, but most likely, for all the wrong reasons. I think once the issue of plagiarism arose there was a quantifiable doubt on the part of most people as to the veracity of her school work. I doubt there is proof of plagiarism there, but the spector of the same would be sufficient in most folks minds to justify a finding of responsiblity by a jury, and therefore a mitigation of any damages she would have won in the penalty phase of a civil trial, assuming, of course, that she had prevailed on the issue of discrimination.

It's not likely that she would have found a sympathetic jury, regardless of how inept the school attorneys were in the TRO hearing.

As for the responsibility, I think if falls pretty squarely on Mr. Hornstine, and I also think it could have all been handled out of court. Did Mr. Kadri lie about Mr. Hornstine, I firmly believe he did, and I also believe that is one of the principle reasons this played out as he did. Mr. Kadri pissed off Mr. Hornstine, so Mr. Hornstine decided to show him who was who, using Blair as a foil, totally unaware of her plagiarism, and completely ignorant of what it might ultimately do to Blair.

At some point, I think Blair will react to it, and to her father, and all love aside, I think that Mr. Hornstine will pay an awful price for pride. Blair already has. The love of ones children is not something easily replaced, or compensated for, and at some point, I think Blair will question hers for Mr. Hornstine. If at that time, he admits his responsibility, then perhaps he can salvage her love, but I believe that on some level, her admiration for him will be forever tarnished.

That in itself, is a hard price to pay.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:31 pm EDT

true ... while blair might not now understand what her father has "put her through" ... at some point in the future...upon reflection her admiration (and, quite possibly her love) for her father may indeed be tarnished. in the end - none of this will have been worth it. for in the end ... what is it that any of us have, but the relationships in our lives - our family, our friends?

--posted by fairandbalanced @ Thursday, August 21 2003, 23:44 pm EDT

Fair, one final note, as you alluded to a date on the Seti profile, I addressed that particular information, long ago:

"The Seti page shows a 2002 date, which is when I believe they transferred an old account to my current account, and moved my profile there. The profile is about 4 years old"

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, July 22 2003, 21:36 pm EDT

It is, indeed, about 4 or 5 years old. As a matter of explination, the SETI software is a very good indicator of system speed, as it uses complex computations to scan for extra terrestrial signals. One neither needs to believe, of subscribe to the possiblity of other life in space to understand how such a process could be useful as a rather unique benchmarking tool for my business. While the profile was indeed tongue in cheek... if you actually read it, you can see that, it was indeed done when I first began processing seti work units.

I have addressed this only in that it was mentioned above, and I have no desire to open or digress in another direction at this time. I think it's time to let it be, because regardless of what you believe or don't believe about me, it's not relevant to this thread, blog, or subject matter.

Thanks.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 1:11 am EDT

If you set up a detailed timeline of material events in this matter - listing the conduct of the principal actors, the Mirkin family, the school board and its administrators, the state education department, the attorneys, the court, and the Courier-Post and Inquirer newspapers - it will become evident that egotism rather than rational self-interest drove this case.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 22 2003, 1:57 am EDT

Was the state education department involved, TM? I didn't see that from any of the stuff posted here.

--posted by Tug @ Friday, August 22 2003, 7:49 am EDT

There are analagous cases in New York state where the department of education determined that local school districts had the authority to retroactively amend their valedictorian plicies, apparently giving short-shrift to alleged disability claims. In this case, asserted a claim with the New Jersey Department of Education and the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law. Rather surprisingly given the track records of delay, the DOE and OAL quickly "punted" the claim. This allowed BH to defeat the "failure to exhaust administrative remedies" defense asserted in the resulting district court action.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 22 2003, 8:01 am EDT

The response of the DOE is discussed at Section III.C. of the district court opinion linked at other areas of this blog.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 22 2003, 8:09 am EDT

Thank you.

--posted by Tug @ Friday, August 22 2003, 8:12 am EDT

Yes, Adam was right. I will reappear. Here I am. I picked the wrong four days to be away and from a computer. So many of you are excited for many reasons that I am here. Let's address a few topics:

I am not Carol or Linda.

I know Kadri is not" an earnest, principled person". He is certainly not principled, as he has a pregnant wife and a "girlfriend." Probably Cretin knows this, also, as does the majority of the residents of Moorestown. Kadri is a good customer of Tiffany's...and he is not buying presents for the wife. The girlfriend shows her gifts to everyone in school and around town. (obviously, I am not spilling any beans) Principled, he is not.He lacks integrity and honesty. A person who works with "kids" should have better morals. As far as his lying about Judge Hornstine that is just part of his lack of honor. (And am I just as non-principled for repeating this? I don't think so, as EVERYONE in town and at MHS know this. The Young lady's Mother "brags" about it)

I am not one of BLH's tutors.

"I believe that MM lives in Moorestown. She seems to know enough to be a Moorestown resident. " per Cretin.
Cretin, my dear. I DO NOT LIVE IN MOORESTOWN.


SCORES: S.D-S 98; trumps Cretin 1

(S.D-S, you just can't deal with reality with those whose inmaturity level has not reached the "real" world. Some of these people are trollettes - meaning not even knowing how to be a complete irritant in order to qualify as a full blown troll.)



Mrs. M. M. 99 correct; 1 large incorrect.

Explanations of sort: I was told by the "horse's mouth" that Miss B. would end up with over $100,000 net. I have no other explanations at the moment. Believe me, I will get some further info. Not only am I disappointed at the small sum she received, I am dismayed at the info I was assured was correct.

S.D-S does know that I have a name. He knows the name, and AT MY REQUEST, will not reveal it. Part of the reason is that I don't want my address and telephone number plastered all over the internet.

Let me see what I can tell you: I do know the Hornstine family as well as anyone; (no excuses for the money info, I was given inaccurate info). I am seen on TV sometimes many times a week. I am cute, but I am not small enough to be a troll. I don't have pink hair. I have "some" legal background. I am probably older than most of you. I do have a life and do not have the time to read over months of comments and recopy them to be brought to current discussions.

I do believe Blair fought for what she believed was right. I think she was right. She stood up for what she believed and suffered the negative consequences. (So did the American Indian and others)She and her family have suffered physicially and emotionally from the entire matter. Despite being correct in her fight, she lost...at least in the public's view, financially (never really was an issue), emotionally, and physically. I don't think Harvard was ever really an issue. I am sure that the rescinding of her admission was somewhat of a blow, but not a major one, as she had mixed emotions from day one about going there.

She will be off to a University shortly. She had privacy at school this summer. I trust that all of you and others will allow her this privacy for the coming year. She will be a success in her future. She will look back at this time somewhere along the line as a pimple in her life.

I will take a few questions..... My name and BLH's schools will not be answered.





Why? MM has paid it clear that she is paid with taxpayer funds. So she is a government employee of some sort. And while she didn't know any inside information, she was vehemently pro-Blair. Not only did she insult those who disagreed with her, but she spewed misinformation left and right. I don't think a judge's secretary would have been so ignorant about the workings of our legal system.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 12:18 pm EDT

Yo Adam: See that you removed the ads. Proud of you.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 12:18 pm EDT

The last paragraph from my first posting before: "Why? and ending with our legal system." came from someone else. I am not sure how I ended up with it on my comments.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 12:30 pm EDT

Well, nice to see that you have stopped by, Mrs. M. M. You had said that you would reveal your identity when this was over. Is it over?

I don't know who Carol or Linda are, so your disclaimer about not being either means little to me. You say: "I am seen on TV sometimes many times a week." Is that Local Origination or access programming? Or do you appear on news programming?

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 12:44 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

Don't be too proud of me when you look at the top of the page. The ads are now listed there :)

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, August 22 2003, 13:09 pm EDT

"I" don't think it's 100% over. Give me a few days since I just returned. My guess, as of TODAY, is that it may take 9-10 more months. Again, my guess a/o today.

Linda is Mrs. Hornstine; Carol is Judge H's secretary.

TV: Usually only local, however, I am have no responsibility for the network feeds.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 13:12 pm EDT

Adam: I just noticed the ads. I don't usually read the top of the page. (Don't move them because I said that). At least at this point I did not see Blair's name. I still feel that you are giving with one hand and taking with the other by promoting Harvard editors writing for you , etc. I still think that you find it okay to advertise something for profit and have a hard time trusting someone who uses said service. I don't care for that double standard.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 13:17 pm EDT

I appreciate the comeback, Mrs. M.M., but what could be left. Seems to me that the pricipal purpose of settlement is closure. Did I miss something?

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 13:21 pm EDT

I don't know if they will have closure until BLH is enscounced in a university or into or a graduate of Law school (or whatever). As "Mrs." H. said to me her daughter will always be listed on google with negativity. That is tough for a loving Mom to take. (let's avoid from others...well, they should not have, etc.)This is what is.

What's going to be done with the $15,000? Is that truly ALL she is/will getting.???? I have nothing to add at this moment except MY thoughts.

Then there could be books, movies, Harvard....who knows.

I just want Blair to have some peace, fun and good health for the foreseeable future. No matter what the posters say, she is a sweet, bright, unassuming young lady who loves her parents and schoolwork.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 13:47 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

Do the Hornstines know that you are posting to this blog? Have you ever spoken to them about it? What are their thoughts?

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, August 22 2003, 13:53 pm EDT

Mrs. MM the Kadri's had their baby 10 days ago. (Check out this weeks NEWSWEEKLY) I am glad Mrs. Kadri will be too busy raising their child to read your accusations posted on this page.

I am a longtime resident of Moorestown, have 3 children in different Moorestown Schools and personally know many teachers, and Para professionals in all of the schools. I have not heard ONE word about any of your accusations that you are so sure the entire town knows of.

Are you posting on this site because you want to support / defend Blair or because you want to ruin Kadri ?

It is appalling that you will stoop to such a low point by accusing Kadri of having an affair. Those comments don't just target Kadri, they target whoever the woman you are accusing and her mother (?!?!) and Kadri's family. It is one thing to have an opinion and defend it, it is quite another to make unsubstantiated flippant accusations followed with "EVERYONE knows it."

If you convince us all that Kadri is a horrible person does that make the outcome of all this any different for Blair ? No.

I hope you are not a teacher for MHS or any Moorestown school. With your venomous streak I think you are a far worse person to be dealing with Children.

--posted by everyone DOESNT know it @ Friday, August 22 2003, 13:58 pm EDT

Adam-

The recent comments by Mrs. M.M. about Paul Kadri are inappropriate for this blog and I ask that you consider deleting them. In response to your question to Mrs. M.M., she previously admitted that certain members of the Hornstine family knew she was posting on this site.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 22 2003, 14:30 pm EDT

Everyone DOESNT know it:

While I can not speak to Mr. Kadri's affair, although there is some rumbling about "skeletons" in his closet in the national press, I can address one aspect of his character. Mr. Kadri lied about Mr. Hornstine in TRO documents filed in support of the school board's position. This is not even in question. One of his own peers, an administrator herself, flat out said Kadri lied about statements he attributed to Mr. Hornstine.

In the very least these accusations are considered to be a factual part of the court record, and do indicate that Mr. Kadri is not above a little shuck and jive to make his case.

His actions, regardless of the outcome, are at the core of this matter. Mr. Kadri fudged the numbers, and until Blair's rather stupid blunders in the local press, her school work was never in question. I want to point out some things:

1.) The case was about numbers based on an established measure of school work accepted by, and provided by the school board. When the numbers showed that Blair would be Valedictorian, Mr. Kadri attempted to change the rules. This is a fact, and it was upheld as fact in the TRO hearing, and is the very basis for the settlement, regardless of the amount. Mr. Kadri attempted to CHEAT BLAIR. This type of behaviour from a school administrator is not only dangerous, it is also a fine example of bias, and ultimately, the inequity that exists in human endeavor, regardless of the domain.

2.) While the plagiarism ultimately became the central issue in the demonization of Blair Hornstine, the fact remains that to this point there is no proof whatsoever that she plagiarized any of her school work. That she did plagiarize some of her "public" writings was used as a hammer to bring into question her credibility in her school work. Since most schools do not keep copies of work graded and returned, it is highly unlikely that any proof of plagiarism, (even if it existed) could be uncovered in her school work. Thus, even though it may have been a factor in the lower settlement amount, the simple truth is that it is not likely that it would have become an issue in a hearing on the discrimination issue.

3.) Blair hurt herself with her seemingly aloof persona, and her refusal to forthrightly deal with the plagiarism in the press. This does not justify the way Blair was demonized in her home town, nor does it justify the reverse actions that were taken against her. The threats, the vandalism and the damages done by disgruntled people to the Hornstines' home should not be allowed to stand, and the people who did these things should be punished. While Blair did indeed plagiarize things, she did not commit a criminal act. She may be liable in a civil action, and if she is, it's not likely that a great deal of money would be gained from an unemployed college student who is legally liable for her actions. In other words, her folks arent going to have to foot the bill because at the time of the denoument, Blair had reached the age of majority, and her parents have no liability in her actions.

None the less, she didn't commit a criminal act. The threats, the damaging, the vandalism are all criminal acts that carry various penalties. The terroistic threatening alone, if prosecuted as a civil rights violation, could carry as many as twenty years in prison. Who is the real culprit then?

Blair made bad choices, and she's most certainly not the popular kid, but she didn't break the law.

Kadri, it has been found, did attempt to discriminate agains Blair because he felt that her home IEP was unfair, and he decided to invalidate the fact that it was indeed fashioned by the school board. He did break the law. Whether he is also an adulterer is not only pointless, it's personal, and doesn't concern us.

Kadri did slander Mr. Hornstine, and he did lie about statements that Mr. Hornstine was said to have made. Kadri did attempt to change the rules, and he did attempt to do so with subterfuge, and malarky.

Ultimately, the people of Moorestown will have to face that reality, and deal with it. Until they do, they will have a school administrator known to have lied about an opponent who was seeking the just rewards for his daughters work. Had Mr. Kadri simply followed the very rules he sought to change, none of this, not one bit of it would have occured.

Finally, then, that is where the responsibility lies, and it would do Moorestown a great deal of good to accept the truth, move forward, and weed out the problem in their own back yard. Apathy to Mr. Kadri's actions will only bring more trouble in the future. That he did lie, and that he did break the law are not in question. Ultimately, both the board and the Hornstines agreed that it was worth $60,000.00, or about one half of Mr. Kadri's annual salary. If the residents of Moorsetown want justice, they should make him pay it.

That's my take on it.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 14:32 pm EDT

TM and all:

I won't remove the comments by Mrs. MM about Mr. Kadri, regardless of whether they are true or not.

I do believe those comments reveal more about the character of the poster than they do of the subject.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, August 22 2003, 14:48 pm EDT

"One of his own peers, an administrator herself, flat out said Kadri lied about statements he attributed to Mr. Hornstine."

Could it be? Is that "Mrs. M.M."?

--posted by WonderingOne of his own peers, an administrator herself, flat out said Kadri lied about statements he attributed to Mr. Hornstine. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 15:13 pm EDT

Whoops! Pasted the quote from S. D-S's post in the name block by mistake. But, I guess you all could figure that out. :)

--posted by Wonering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 15:15 pm EDT

On September 19, 2002, Kadri met with plaintiff's father, Louis Hornstine. Kadri and Mr. Hornstine have very different recollections of this meeting. Compare Kadri Cert. at ¶¶ 10-24 with Louis Hornstine's Certification (“L. Hornstine Cert.”), Plaintiff's Reply at Exhibit H, ¶¶ 12- 24. Kadri portrays Mr. Hornstine as an overzealous parent bent on manipulating the system to ensure that his daughter does not suffer “the same embarrassment” he suffered when he was merely the salutatorian of his graduating class. Kadri Cert. at ¶ 14. Mr. Hornstine disputes most of Kadri's account of the meeting, stating, for example, that he was not salutatorian of his class, since his “class rank was never that high.” L. Hornstine Cert. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff offers the certification of Assistant Superintendent Judithann Keefe, who was also present at the meeting, in support of Mr. Hornstine's account. Certification of Judithann C. Keefe, Ed.D. (“Keefe Cert.”).

Assistant Superintendent Judithann Keefe, Mr. Kadri's associate, and fellow Board Member disptued Mr. Kadri's statement regarding Mr. Hornstine, and in fact supported Mr. Hornstines' version of the conversation, stating, and showing as a matter of RECORD that Mr. Kadri lied about Mr. Hornstine in his certification for the TRO hearing.

Mrs. MM is not Mrs. Keefe, and this information is directly from the TRO Order from Judge Wolfson, availble here: http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/hornstine_wolfson_ruling.html

These ongoing efforts, Wondering, to discredit people while at the same time, ignoring the obvious truth is why I take such exception to things. Mr. Kadri lied, he discriminated against Blair, NONE OF THIS IS IN DISPUTE!

Of course, for you, it's not a big deal because Blair PLAGIARIZED! OMG get out the tar and feathers, cane her ass till she bleeds and then throw her in stocks until she rots away! She didn't break the law, she didn't violate civil rights, she didn't discriminate, she Plagiarized, for God's sake, she needs to be drawn and quartered.

Meanwhile, Kadri lied, slandered and decieved, discriminated and attempted to fudge the numbers to take away from what BLAIR accomplished, inspite of the fact that Kenny Mirkin had a better chance of being the Valedictorian, had a greater opportunity to acheive the success that Mr. Kadri tried to give him by default, and in spite of the fact, (she withdrew, OMG!), that in withdrawing from certain classes due to the inability of the school board to provide her with certain needs, and lab capability, she lowered her GPA. Mirkin simply didn't do as well as she did, and Blair, with a lower opportunity maximized the output, while Mirkin with a greater opportunity, minimized his. He simply didn't do as well as Blair did, and Kadri, and you, and most of the others don't like it.

But the fact remains, Kadri lied. LIED I TELL YOU! HE LIED, HE SLANDERED, HE DISCRIMINATED! AND A COURT FOUND IT TO BE SO! DEAL WITH IT!

And no, MM is not Mrs. Keefe. Think about this, Mrs. Keefe told the truth in order to prevent Mr. Kadri from getting away with his great deception. She put herself at risk for the truth. Mr. Kadri has never had to take responsibility for his LIES... (when Blair failed to properly apologize we crucified her). He has never taken responsibility for the damage he did to not only Blair, but the entire class of 2003 at MHS. He has never accepted that a JUDGE FOUND THAT HE WAS PRACTICING DISCRIMINATION. He is indeed, smaller than even his cheating attempts to minimize Blairs work suggests.

The truth is the truth Wondering, doesn't matter if you don't like it, Mr. Kadri is questionable as a direct result of his own actions, and frankly, if I were Mr. Hornstine, the slander would indeed be redressed in court, and there, Mr. Kadri doesn't stand a chance. As for the overall case, frankly, if you're going to throw stones, the least you could do is first look before you toss. Mr. Kadri is ultimately the catylist for this whole fiasco, and had he simply told the school, the parents and the students, "hey, the rules are the rules" none of this, NOT A BIT OF IT, would have come to the attention of us, the people here who have taken it upon themselves to judge.

I have often said 'let the rain fall equally', and I stand by it. Blair has paid, and continues to pay for her actions, and also for those of others. It's time to put the horse in the corral, and ride it like it's ridden Blair. Mr. Kadri lied, he decieved, he discriminated. Give him what you've given Blair, and make him pay at least as high a price as she has, because in the end, he victimized a child, and all the child did was prove it.

Deal with it.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:02 pm EDT

I should note, that there are well over 100 sentences and several paragraphs in the post that Wondering decided to paraphrase. Each of those sentences shows how Kadri did indeed act against the best interests of both Blair Hornstine, and the entire student body. To pick out a single sentence and then attempt to draw attention away from the body of the entire post is not only to take out of context the purpose of the post, but to intentionally ignore the truth in order not to accept it.

Beyond the obvious, it displays a willingness to let all of the misleading and derogatory information about Blair be used as a bully pulpit for her demonization, while at the same time using it as a fleece to cover up the much more serious, and dispicable actions of Mr. Kadri.

Fleece... think about it. We're allowing ourselves to be fleeced when we ignore it, and with all of the information out there, it still bothers me that Blair Hornstine has become the monkey, while Mr. Kadri parades around in the forest, blissfully unrepentant, and completely irresponsible.

That's not only sad, it's proof that the public doesn't want the truth, rather it wants a whipping boy, or in this case, girl.

Look in the mirror, are you ready to sacrifice integrity for a juicy lie?

I'm not.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:12 pm EDT

Posted above: "Kadri, it has been found, did attempt to discriminate against Blair because he felt that her home IEP was unfair, and he decided to invalidate the fact that it was indeed fashioned by the school board. He did break the law."

Actually the case was settled with no finding of guilt or wrongdoing having been established. The case never went to trial. In the final analysis no law was deemed to have been broken.

"The settlement has no confidentiality clauses to it and, perhaps most important, includes no admission of guilt or wrongdoing in the Hornstine affair."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/960sfcqh.asp

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:22 pm EDT

It is always possible that Kadri was telling the truth about his interaction with Mr. Hornstine and that Judithann Keefe actually lied. It is a "he-sa-d-she-said" situation - with Judge Wolfson's opinion to take Judithann's word. A jury, having had am opportunity to weigh evidence might have come to believe Kadri. We'll never know. The case never went to trial.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:27 pm EDT

Judge Wolfson placed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the School, preventing them from naming co-valedictorians. The claim for discrimination - and for damages - was to be tried later. As we now know, the parties agreed to settle.

The case never progressed to a full trial of the merits. There never were evidentiary hearings, findings of facts, depositions, cross examinations, etc.

Let's remember: “A temporary restraining order is typically issued in circumstances where immediate action is called for. Courts often issue "TRO’s" based on affidavits from a person whose interests are about to be harmed. For example, if people with chainsaws are about to cut down your trees, the court would be in a hurry to act , before giving the other side a chance to reply." (http:www.law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/restraining_order.htm+%22temporary+restraining+order%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

The school board still had an opportunity to reply and present its defense.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:37 pm EDT

SDS - With regard to Kadri, I can tell you I have seen him at most school functions meeting people and very willing to talk to parents. He seems cordial and approachable. He has publicly spoken about the big problem of teen drinking in Moorestown. (which in the past has, in my opinion, been pushed under the rug). He seems to want the best for the school system.

I know when the district was looking for a superintendent they made it clear their were more superintendent positions open then candidates, and their search could take a while.

I also know 2 different people who have dealt with Kadri on separate issues and have described him as attentive, but then dismissive after his decisions had been made. (one person has hired legal council because their issues have not been resolved)

Is Moorestown a more difficult district to rule than others? Could someone else do the job better ? I have heard that Moorestown School Board has more legal cases pending against it then other schools combined. Who is to blame for them ? Kadri ? The Board ? The Parents ?

Certainly this case is not all one persons fault.

I have heard parents of children complain their kids are pushed to far too in Moorestown to obtain academic excellent; suggesting parents hire tutors to help children stay in "above level" work instead of dropping to "on level" work. I have heard educators who work in the Moorestown schools complain some parents refuse to make their children responsible; varying from my kid just can't make it to school on time to I don't care if they are suspended they are still going on the class trip and I'll fly them down myself.

I can't believe we are the only school district to face these problems. We just happen to be in the spotlight now because Blair or her father, had the ways and the means and the desire to take legal action on this matter.

--posted by everyone DOESNT know it @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:38 pm EDT

Cambridge, you and I both know, that should Mr. Hornstine sue Mr. Kadri for his actions, that the findings of Judge Wolfson, in support of the TRO will be considered as findings of fact, regardless of the lack of admission. Twisting the truth does not aleave one of the responsibility of truth.

Legal interpertation of the TRO will be that Kadri did indeed discriminate, lie, and slander Mr. Hornstine, and the fact that the case didn't go to court only serves to illustrate that point.

Had it gone to court, the actions you seek to diminish would have become key points for the liability, and frankly, you yourself have indicated that in your previous posts.

You like to ride both sides of the fence, on one hand noting that the fact that Harvard recinded Blairs' admission was not the result of the plagiarism, and then later on in this thread stating exactly that. Your first comment was a reposte to me to diminish the validity of my point, your second was a way to establish your position, (which mirrored mine) as somehow more relevant.

The final analysis, I believe is a long way off. It is common in settlements for no guilt to be admitted, however it doesn't change the fact that Kadri, nor the school board challenged the findings of FACT in the TRO, which was used as a basis in issuing the TRO. Kadri and the board had as much impetuous as did Blair to see this part of the case to it's end, and much like pleading no contest in court, the lack of a finding of guilt only minimizes the fincancial liability rather than the criminal liability.

For instance, you have a crash, it's clearly your fault, and you are charged with wreckless operation, to which you plead no contest, (which indicates that you do not dispute the facts in the matter, but rather deny liability), your insurance company can not then penalize you without first establishing your liability in a civil action. The criminal, however, is resolved.

This is the same principle. The TRO clearly shows in it's findings of FACT that Kadri lied, slandered and discriminated against Blair, Mr. Hornstine, and ultimately, his actions are the catylist for the entire fiasco. The denial of guilt is merely a way for the board, which must bear the cost of the settlement, to avoid further complications by a personal suit against Mr. Kadri for his actions, and it does not in any way diminish the impact of his actions, or lesson the factual findings against him in order to issue the TRO.

It simply absolves the board or further liability, and at the same time, opens the door for Mr. Hornstine to persue further action against Mr. Kadri for his actions on a personal level.

I'll say this again, "let the rain fall equally." Why is it so hard for you to see the truth, and why is it important for you to twist it so it seems that others have no concept of it? The truth is the truth is the truth, period. Just because a legal interpertation gives some shelter to someone obviously responsible for a certain action does not mean that the findings of fact are any less important relevant or meaningful. To suggest otherwise, Cambridge is not only a disservice to those who might be swayed by your arguments, it is an indication that you don't fully understand the fundamental elements of our legal system.

It is a layer of protection, it is certainly NOT a finding of innocence, and it does not release Kadri from the responsibility for his actions. It simply, and only, redresses the responsibility of the board, and allows for further action against the principles, (Kadri) regarding the insult to the integrity and honor of Mr. Hornstine.

The truth is the truth, twisting it doesn't change it.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:39 pm EDT

Whoa, S. D-S., all I did was wonder. As far as I can tell the judge had competing affidavits. There was no examination, and, more importantly, cross examination of the witnesses.

Even if Kadri's recollection of the conversation with Judge Hornetine is different from Hornstine's, how is that "slander." What Mrs. M. M. wrote, however could well be slander if not true. Go look at the definition of slander.

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:40 pm EDT

"Kadri did indeed discriminate, lie, and slander Mr. Hornstine..." No such finding has been made on such. It never went to trial. If Hornstine felt he was slandered, he should file suit. Let a jury decided.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:41 pm EDT

And even if Kadri's recollection is in error, how is it slander?

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:41 pm EDT

I have always personally believed Harvard rescinded Blair's acceptance as a result of her plagiarism...since she violated the tenets set forth for admitted students.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:43 pm EDT

Show me where Kadri or the school board have been found to have broken the law? The TRO was issued to prevent the school from naming co-valedictorians. There was not a trial or finding of any law having been broken. It's simple and clear. And where is there "twisting" of the truth?

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:47 pm EDT

Reposting from my July 22nd. post:

“Slander and libel are two forms of defamation.”
(http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/defamation_character.htm)

“WHAT IS "SLANDER"?
Slander is a spoken defamation.
(http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/slander.htm)”

“WHAT IS "LIBEL"?
Libel is a written defamation. Generally, radio and television broadcasts that are defamatory are considered to be libel, rather than slander.”
(http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/libel.htm)

“CAN LIBEL SUITS BE BROUGHT BY A PUBLIC FIGURE?
These suits are a bit dicer for the public figure. A public figure may be an elected or appointed (a politician) or someone who has stepped into a public controversy. Public figures have a ‘harder road to toll’ than the average person since they must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. Proving these elements makes the chance of a successful lawsuit slim.”
(http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm)

“WHAT ABOUT INSULTS AND EPITHETS? ARE THEY DEFAMATORY?
Generally, no. Usually they are seen as outbursts of emotion, with no real substance, except to show intense dislike.”
(http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/insults_epithets.htm)

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:49 pm EDT

everyone DOESNT know it:

All of that is well and good, but I wonder, why did you ignore the points I made regarding Mr. Kadri's actions in THIS case?

Regardless of how he has handled anything, the simple fact is that he did not handle this well.

He lied. Period. Sugarcoating it doesn't change it. He lied. Think about that.

He attempted to paint Blair's father as a disgruntled parent because he couldn't disprove her eligability for the valedictory. He lied.

Blair plagiarized.

He lied.

He discriminated.

He tried to prevent the truth from coming out, and in the end the TRO findings of Fact, that justified the issuance of the same, found that he lied, that he discriminated.

The settlement simply ends the legal side for the school board, and it does not mean that other action as a result of his words and deeds can not be taken. He has a personal liability that may be addressed, and at some point, it should be.

The citizens of Moorestown are not better served to have a man willing to lie, or to discriminate to achieve his goals, or the goals of the majority. They are placed in a position of choosing sides, but much the way you did, in doing so, they are forced to ignore the actions of Mr. Kadri in order to support the board as a whole. When they do that, they unwillingly, I think, excuse those actions, and send a message that it is okay to lie, and to discriminate, and to ignore the truth, so long as it's what the public in general wants, but it's not okay to do what almost every student has done at some point or other, and that is borrow or couch words someone else wrote.

Now, before we go balistic and say I'm defending plagiarism, I'm not, but the fact remains, that in the scheme of things, plagiarism is not the most serious breach of public trust that occured in this case, but it is the one that got the headlines, and the attention.

The most serious breach is the lack of fundamental integrity on behalf of Mr. Kadri, and his willingness to understate, overlook, and plain lie about the accomplishments of one student in favor of another. If we continue to ignore that, are we any better than the folks who see a woman being raped and do nothing, or the ones who hear a woman being murdered and close their windows?

That's what's at stake, people, and that's why I refuse to ignore it.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:49 pm EDT

From the Weekly Standard article "A petition supporting Kadri flew around town and collected 862 signatures almost overnight--275 of them from the senior class, nearly every member." Maybe "everyone" in town doesn't see Kadri as a negative figure. Doesn't sound like the actions of a town scandalized by an openly cheating husband. I'm in agreement w/ cambridgema - why is the word of the sec/asst worth any more than Kadri's? Because you happen to agree with what she says? Still think Mrs. MM cares less about Blair than she does about "getting" Kadri.

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:50 pm EDT

Please show me where it has been proven that Kadri lied? How do you know that Mr. Hornstine was not lying? That Mr. Keefe was not lying?

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:52 pm EDT

In our court system ... juries are brought together to weigh evidence ... and to find for one side. They would have weighed the evidence and believed on side over the other. It never happened. No discrimination was established. No law was deemed to have been broken.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:55 pm EDT

[believed one side over the other]

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:55 pm EDT

I personally don't think Kadri was up to anything nefarious. I personally think that Mr. Hornstine was accustomed to "pushing his weight around" (so to speak) in order to get his way. He obviously had a a history of such vis-a-vis his legal action against the College Board on behalf of his son Adam. I personally believe he pushed Kadri around...and was surprised that a new superintendant stood up to him.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 16:59 pm EDT

Cambridge, I'll be posting your flip flop shortly.

As for the proof that Kadri lied. Simple, Kadri has never contested the finding of the TRO. That finding became a finding of fact when the TRO was issued. Though is was not at "trial" oral arguments did indeed dispute Mr. Kadri's assertions, and it was found that he had lied. It was found that he attempted to discriminate against Blair.

Minimizing the impact of the TRO findings isn't going to color the facts it contains, people, you have to do better than that to convince me that one of Mr. Kadri's subordanates would risk her position and tenure simply to support the dark horse. Mrs. Keefe made a statement that put her squarely in the firing line, and unless it's true, why else would she?

And please, don't come off with she was paid, or some other such thing. After all we could all claim Kadri was paid to support co valedictorians.

The TRO would be admissible in court as a factual docuemnt, and as I have been saying Cambridge, I think Mr. Hornstine should indeed go after Mr. Kadri in court. Defamation, because he wrote it in a certification for the TRO, slander because he said it at a meeting. Both apply, and to now Kadri has not challenged it. Go figure.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:00 pm EDT

Was Mrs. Keefe a candidate for Kadri's job when Moorestown was looking for a new superinetendent?

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:05 pm EDT

Even if Kadri lied, how is that a defamation of Judge Hornstine?

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:07 pm EDT

Everyone Doesn't Know: Mr. Kadri's honey is the total opposite of secret about her relationship. Her Mother BRAGS about it. You must be living under a rock if you don't know about the situation. I am not bad mouthing the young lady. She is not a married woman. You should ask all your "acquaintances" in the school. Bet they confirm it. No, it has nothing to do with Blair herself. I just believe the man (Kadri) is a liar and scum. He should not be teaching or directing ANYONE's children.

I did not previously bring it up because I was waiting for the "end" of this case with Kadri's involvement. Also, I was not ever positive that this case would go to trial. If the case DID go to trial, I WONDER if Kadri's reputation could have been further tarnished by accusations and testimony of the dishonor in his life. Could this be another reason that MHS (as I hinted a long time ago) wanted a settlement?????

Adam: Yes, they know. My character? I get nothing out of writing here...except good feelings for myself for supporting Blair and attempting to set the record straight. I get paid nothing. Advertise nothing. (And I could do that) Interesting that you question my character. I wonder if I did not post here and fill in with all the diddies, would this blog have used more than one half a page? I am not on a ego trip or a troll....but as I reread the past two months worth of comments, I am being crucified almost as much as BLH. Many or most of your posters are commenting on my words or asking me questions. Just wondering....


Ma: I know you do not support any of the BLH situation, but thinking that Ms. Keefe actually lied is way beyond any scope.Ms. Keefe was in a lose/lose situation. She has had a rough time in the school since the TRO and her affidavit with her take of the meeting. She has been at MHS for a zillion years or so. She certainly did not want "his" job or put herself in such a tenuous situation by lying. Ms. Keefe is not a personal friend, relative, home tutor or having any sort of tawdry affair with the Hornstines. Please... Just because this was not a jury trial (which if it ever went to trial did not have to have a jury), the Judge, a very competent one, weighed the evidence presented by both sides. Would a jury have made a different decision? Would another Judge made a different decision? We will never know. I do believe that based on the evidence presented that a fair and just decision was made by Judge Wolfson. Don't forget that the testimony Judge Wolfson heard/saw was under oath.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:13 pm EDT

Kadri never had the chance to contest the TRO ... that was why a trial was to be held...to hear his - and the school's - side. it was then to be up to a jury to either find him and the school guilty of discrimination and if so, to determine whether or not such warranted any damages to be awarded to Blair.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:14 pm EDT

Ma, you posted: Actually the case was settled with no finding of guilt or wrongdoing having been established..." I do believe that MOST settlements contain similar language. I know of many civil ones that ended with that sentence. I also know of divorces that included a sentence or so with the same meanings. That is what a settlement is.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:16 pm EDT

All testimony is taken under oath ... and guess what? In a case where two sides are disputing the other ... at least one side is lying!

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:19 pm EDT

S-D-S ... I am honestly curious as to where I flip-flopped. I have always maintained that Blair's acceptance having been rescinded by Harvard was a result of her having plagiarized. Where I have claimed otherwise? And what would my cliam have been?

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:20 pm EDT

[Where have I claimed otherwise?]

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:21 pm EDT

Exactly Mrs M.M. - no guilt or wrongdoing was established ... hence, no laws were deemed to have been broken, no damages were assessed, etc.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:22 pm EDT

Ah, the wonder of it all.

Lawyers tell me that truth is a defense to a slander or libel claim, Mrs. M.M., so I assume you know, of your own knowledge, that what you write about Kadri is true. I am not sure that Kadri is a "public figure" with respect to what you are saying, so that you can say such things with impunity. Certainly, Judge Hornstine would likewise be a public figure.

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:28 pm EDT

Cambridge... I capitulate. I had mistakenly attributed a comment made by Monkey Brains to you. You did not, and as far as I can see, have not wavered in your position regarding the reason Blair was denied access to Harvard. My apologies. When I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:28 pm EDT

for the record, here is the quote I thought was from you...

S D-S: wrote "Blair's plagiarism has cost her admission to Harvard".

Nobody but the Harvard Administration knows why her admission was rescinded and they correctly are not commenting.

Maybe on further examination they thought she would be likely to flunk out. Maybe they thought suits against Harvard would be likely. Maybe they found fraud in her application. Maybe in their last meeting they asked her a question and she responded by bursting into tears and throwing a screaming tantrum, and then accused them of discrimination.


--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, July 21 2003, 16:53 pm EDT


My bad, and again, my apologies

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:30 pm EDT

Apology accepted.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:32 pm EDT

Everyone Doesn't: The school board spent a lot of money in their search for a new super (I have heard it went over budget, can't confirm) that was down the road. The school board is holding a bag with him in it. It has so far cost the MHS school district extra bucks on two occasions because of him. Now you are referring to a possible third. Is there a fourth? Whether you like it or not, me or not, Blair or not, he is a pompous A** who is causing dissention in the school district and money, not benefitting students,being spent because of him. The students in the graduating class signed a petition supporting him and got some parents, etc. to do so because of the BLH situation. I wonderif many would sign a supporting petition today.

Yes, in most school districts with successful parents, the children are tutored, pressured, etc. Unfortunately, this is the world today. Too much competition for too little places.I have said before here that I know of many parents that have their children tutored for the Iowa Standarized tests. G-d Forbid, they turn out average.

Yes, several school districts a year suffer from student/school law suits. Didn't someone here mention one from North Carolina yesterday or today? There were a couple in the mid-west last year. It's the times.



Whoever asked: Ms Keefe did not seek or desire the Superintendent job. I "think" she is pretty close to the retiring age, although I am not positive.

Ma: Kadri had the chance to contest the TRO from the beginning. They could have gone to trial, asked for an appeal, a refersal or gone to trial on the damages. Their attorney was a bumbler, plus MHS didn't have a leg to stand on. It was Kadri against Hornstine. Kadri did not have any supporting evidence. I don't need to go through that again.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:36 pm EDT

Mrs MM, I know nothing about Kadri and any honey. I am checking with contacts but I have no children at the high school yet, so if this is where the honey resides, then that could explain my not knowing what you claim everyone knows.

I will agree with you that it does appear that Kadri could have made better choices as how to handle parents. I am not defending him, but do you think he has done Any good or noteworthy things ? If you are familiar with the town, then surely you must realize how previlant teen drinking is and how many parents don't want to acknowledge it. Isn't the fact that he dares to tell parents about it a good thing ? What about how he has attended most school functions ? That also seems like a good thing ?

--posted by Everyone DOESNT know it @ Friday, August 22 2003, 17:51 pm EDT

Kadri and the school board would have contested the claim of discrimination, etc. in the trial. They would have presented their side, called their witnesses, cross examined the plaintiff and her witnesses, etc. It never got to happen, since the two sides settled. And - lest we forget - the settlement was paltry - $15,000 - with no guilt established and no damages assessed because no law was deemed to have been broken.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:06 pm EDT

I think it is appropriate to repost the comments Jeffrey Toobin (Legal Coorespondant) made on CNN on May 8th.

"...this federal lawsuit, it seems to me, is absolutely ridiculous. Let's talk about some of the reasons why I think this story is ridiculous. First, don't make a federal case out of it. It's what parents teach their kids about all sorts of things. This is simply not a justified use of the federal court's limited time and resources. Second, no damages. What did she suffer here? She's the co- valedictorian. It is simply not something that the legal system should address, much less $2.7 million in punitive damages....And third, lack of gratitude. This school district, the taxpayers of this school district paid to have tutors sent to this girl's home, because she has a disability, which she's entitled to do, but it was a very expensive project for the school district. She shouldn't be suing....She's claiming that she's discriminated against because she's disabled. And I think it trivializes the very valuable Americans With Disabilities Act and that whole principle, because this is not what it's about. It's about keeping people out of jobs, it's about depriving people of money damages. I mean, that's the kind of thing the ADA was passed to correct. This is trivia and nonsense and it should be thrown out....she ought to do her lessons in school, not in court."

(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/08/ltm.10.html)

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:08 pm EDT

I would point out that teenage drinking has been an issue since long before Mr. Katri decided to make it his mantra. In 1984 there was no federal standard that provided for DUI or DWI designations when a death occured as a result of drunken driving. States had various laws, but no clear guideline that put teeth into any of them.

In 1985 after the death of his wife and daughter at the hands of a drunk driver, a citzen was remanded to prison after the offending driver served his 3 day jail sentence and then showed up at the grieving widowers' home 11 days after he buried his family. The driver offered the widower a bottle of wine and a drive in his new car. The widower hit him in the face. He was subsequently charged with aggrevated assault and sentenced to 9 to 27 years in prison, though the "victim" did not sustain life threatening or permenant injuries. He was also unable to sue the driver because of such legal disparities, while the driver successfully sued him for medical bills resulting from being punched out.

The supreme court of his state overturned his conviction, and later he began a drive to implement a national DUI standard. When finally passed in 1987 in Florida, and adopted as a standard by the Federal Government, the crime of Aggrevated Vehicular Homicide while Intoxicated was created. Prior to January 1, 1987, no such law existed. With this standard states were required to pass a variant of the law in order to continue to recieve federal highway dollars, and since the implimintation of the Federal DUI Standard DUI deaths have decreased by 67% annually, while damages that result from drinking and driving have been reduced in (adjusted dollars) from over 5 Billion in 1987 to less than 2 Billion in 2001, the last year for which records are kept. (Source, National Transportation Saftey Burea)

Kadri is only jumping on a bandwagon. The message is valid, but it's not his message. It belongs to the 534,612 people killed by drunk drivers since 1938, the first year they began to keep records. It belongs to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, established in 1985, and to SADD, (Students Against Drunk Driving, established in 1991) Don't give credit where it is not due.

As for attending school functions, whoopie doo, it's his job.

For what it's worth, even great desposts can do wonderful things. Hitler brought Germany out of the depression and humiliation of World War 1, then, of course he started World War II, and deprived the world of it's best and brightest. His great deed, rebuilding Germany, his legacy... it's re-destruction.

And that's the way it is.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:11 pm EDT

Pray tell then - if the two sides had proceeded to trial ... about what would the trial have been?

It was to estalish whether or not Kadri and the School District had (1) discriminated against Blair, and (2) if so, would such discrimination be worthy of damages.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:13 pm EDT

Ah - but Kadri has chosen to make combatting underage drinking a priority. You have to admit that he could easily ignore - or, diminish focus on such a societal issues relevant to the population he serves ...but, he has chosen to be proactive about a problem. I'm all for anyone jumping on such a bandwagon. There doesn't need to be a claim of originality in order to be doing good work.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:18 pm EDT

[such a societal issue]

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:19 pm EDT

Poooooooooooooooooooooooooooost
And that burst of hot air was brought to you by S.D.S.

Mrs MM has written off Kadri completely. I am not so sure I see him as the evil Moorestown villain. I am aware that teenage drinking has been around for awhile, (but loved the history lesson) and Mr Kadri is not the first to bring it to the public attention. He IS however, the first superintendent or school official in Moorestown to deal with it publicly, in a town where people don't always like to deal publicly with distasteful things.

And as far as attending school functions, "whoopie doo, it's his job."
I don't recall seeing the prior superintendent at many events at all.

It's obvious "you" see only one way with regard to Mr. Kadri. I was wondering if Mrs MM who actually claims to know him had a view on those items.

--posted by everyone DOESNT know it @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:26 pm EDT

Why the attempt to demonize Kadri? Particularly when we don't know him? I don't think he was up to anything nefarious. He was dealing with a sticky situation - and was seeking to honor two talented students. Let's remember that the difference between Blair's (4.689) and Kenny's (4.634) GPA's was .055 - and at the time, both of them were heading off to Harvard, along with another classmate.

I personally find Mr. Hornstine's behavior to be questionable. In the end his hard headed pursuit ended up in causing so much damage to so many people. You have to admit that Blair has gone through the ringer ... and all of the downward spiral was instigated by her father. Sad.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:33 pm EDT

Also worth reposting ...

"...there's also a real belief that...Blair and her father did manipulate the system, and were acutely aware of every subtlety in the grading system. For instance, Blair took Latin 1 in middle school, over the course of 7th and 8th grades. Unusually, she then retook Latin 1 as a freshman--and got an A+. During her sophomore year, Blair was enrolled in AP U.S. History and was taking it at the school with a teacher whose policy is to never give A+ marks. But she dropped the course and finished it the following year at home, with a different instructor. She got an A+. Blair was enrolled in gym class in 9th and 10th grades (receiving an A and A+, respectively). Just weeks before the end of her junior year, she received a doctor's note waiving her from gym altogether. Still, an A+ for the class showed up on her transcript. Her father wanted the grade removed, and since she shouldn't have been graded for a waived class, it was. As Kadri explained to the court, an A+ in gym is worth only 4.3, and thus would have lowered her cumulative GPA, which was well above 4.3 by that point. At Moorestown High, the calculations for valedictorian are made at the end of the first semester senior year. Just a few weeks before that semester ended, Blair dropped AP European History--one of the two courses she was taking at the school--citing exhaustion. "The papers are killing her," Judge Hornstine told the child study team while trying to withdraw Blair from the class. At the time, Blair had an A- in the class. It would have been one of the lowest grades of her high school career."

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp

Mr. Hornstine comes across to me as sort of a cross between Rasputin and a svengali.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:48 pm EDT

Whoa, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying don't be overly gushing in pointing out how wonderful he is. On that issue, drinking/driving, ect. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Kadri or anyone else who takes up the mantle of such valid causes.

That doesn't mean I respect him, or his other actions.

It also doesn't yet address his actions in this case, none of which, regardless of what we write are really in question. He did the things he did, let the chips fall where they may. Don't like em, say so, think he's the second coming of Christ, say so, but don't skirt the issue, which, everyone DOESNT know it, you are still doing. Instead of answering the questions I've asked, you point out what you see as positives. Why don't you address the questions?

So, before you decry a factual statement as hot air, maybe you could stop blowing it, and actually address the original questions I brought up after your first "I think Mr. Kadri is a wonderful guy" post.

As for only seeing one way with Mr. Kadri, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't all roses and tea leaves with him. I don't know him, but his actions in this matter seem to me, to be pretty clearly to the detriment of his entire student body.

As for not seeing other supers at school functions, I wonder, is that one of the reasons they are no longer the supers? I mean it like this, it is his job to be the top advocate for the school system, and it is his job to trumpet that to the world. I'm not impressed with his attendance at school functions, it's his job and he should do that. If you find that to be hot air, that's okay, doesn't change the truth in the statement.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:50 pm EDT

Everyone doesn't: The expression "a new broom sweeps clean" may describe Kadri. Hey, he is paid to be at meetings, talk to parents, etc. That is a positive, if he has helped curb teen drinking. I have no info as to the success of his work with this. Ask Cretin about teen drinking and Mr. Kadri. He may have more info than I. Doesn't Moorestown, like most other towns have drug problems with teens too? Wasn't there a death due to drugs/selling/buying, etc there a couple years ago? If Kadri can get any kids off of any wagon, that is great. He still, to me, has a honorability problem.

A superintentent should be out at school functions, b' ball games, meetings, etc. Maybe Kadri is out at night for ulterior motives. Maybe the previous Super preferred staying home with his family....maybe, maybe, maybe

Let's see what happens when the new school board is elected. I wonder how many will campaign to rid MHS of Kadri.

Ma: Reposting Jeff Tobin's article or claiming that due to no trial, we have no issue is spitting in the wind. The petition for the TRO had a judicial opinion rendered. That is as far as the case went. You call it a non-win. I call it a judicial win. The school had 30 days to appeal. IF their legal advisors thought they had a chance, there is no doubt they would have appealed and saved some face and money. Maybe Kadri wouldn't have been able to take the heat. Maybe Dr. Shangold wouldn't have been able to take the heat. Maybe the recently deceased Guidance Counselor who was very involved wouldn't have been able to take the heat.
There is no doubt that BLH could have. She competes often in Mock trials, etc., so she is prepared to stand up before her peers, lawyers, etc. Maybe a jury would have felt sorry for the disabled kid and awarded her lots of money. The school couldn't take that chance.


Well, Mr. Kadri has taken on teen drinking.
whoppie! Hey, I have taken on the good of BLH. Does A=B and B=C mean that Kadri likes BLH? I don't think so. Mr. Kadri, as a new superintendent or mayor or Governor should get out in public with an agenda so he looks good. Governor Davis started out with stars and stripes, too.
Kadri is costing MHS. Kadri will further cost them.
Too bad they haven't gotten him to resign yet.

Kadri is still a bum. Tell him to sue me. I sure can take it. My sympathy to the students and parents of MHS.


Ma: There is no doubt in my mind that you have a deep grudge against BLH. You are always the what if and the constant poster of websites/newspaper articles. (Do you spend your days just looking up these items or cataloging them?) I can't say you are the devil's advocate. You are the first and most determined protector of Harvard. You find "what ifs" when it comes to the legal outcome. You find Judge Hornstine a devil when you know so very little about him. He, in fact, has only been mentioned with regard to his meeting with Kadri during the hearing. How can you berate him and name call when you have so little info about him? So he helped his kids with charity work...So some Mother doesn't like him because he sentenced her child. Have you ever read anything or heard anything terrible about him? Where did you read or who told you he "pushed" his children" Miss Blair is and was interested in the legal system. She has competed in Mock Trial and other legal competitions. She knows more than the average child about the legal system because her Father is a Judge and lawyer. I know more than most about medicine because I was brought up in a medical household. BLH chose to take on the school. BLH can read. BLH knew that she won the top GPA and knew that she deserved to be Valedictorian. BLH knew she studied hard for four years and won what she set out to earn. Did she expect the fallout? I doubt it. Does she really care? I doubt it. Her friends have stuck by her thicker than ever. After her first semester in college, she will be on her way.

Ease up, Ma, she is not going to tarnish Harvard THIS year....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 19:29 pm EDT

It's time to watch the Eagles game....so off I am. How lucky can you get? Fly Eagles Fly...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 19:30 pm EDT

SDS it is not my intention to make Kadri larger than life. My initial reaction of him was positive. If Mrs MM doesn't agree with me on the 2 points I mentioned than I would be interested in hearing her take on why. I am not claiming to be all knowing on anything.

I can not debate you on your points against Kadri. I do not feel comfortable with my knowledge of the case or the law to disagree with you. I will leave that to others. I thought by not disagreeing with your points would indicate I respect them and am not challenging
them.

I continue to be impressed by Kadri's public stance on
teenage drinking, as I said I have not seen anyone in town publicly do this before. The last superintendent retired so maybe he wasn't interested in making every possible public appearance, so when I see Kadri doing I think its a positive move.

--posted by everyone DOESNT know it @ Friday, August 22 2003, 19:33 pm EDT

No matter what the problems with Kadri are or were, if he can prevent one teen from drinking, that will be great. I hope he continues to make himself available after school with no other motives than to educate his students.

I do hope that he changes his life around. He has the tools (education and experience) to run MHS. Maybe, he, too, can look at his new baby, stay out of Tiffany's, look into the mirror and become a hero in Moorestown. It sure would be good for the school, students, teachers and taxpayers. One never knows.

But he better get on the stick and start YESTERDAY.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 22 2003, 19:42 pm EDT

Mrs. M. M., you've really gotten off the track. Shall we talk about the judge's rating among all judges in New Jersey as reported in the New Jersey Law Journal? How about the number and sources of outside income, as reported in publically available financial disclosure forms?

Probably not, but he had as much of a role in this play as Kadri. Even more, since his involvement in getting special services for BH predated Kadri's arrival.

--posted by Wondering @ Friday, August 22 2003, 19:42 pm EDT

There was never any time limit to challenge the TRO. The TRO was granted so as to prevent the scool from naming co-valedictorians. It was granted due to the time constraint and the impending graduation. As a result of the settlement...and the lack of a trial on the merits, there has been no finding of law established, no judgement rendered, no punishment meted out, no damages assessed.

Jeffrey Toobin represents an opinion with which I concur. The Hornstine's distasteful use of the legal system to address what in the end was such a petty thing - the singular designation of Valedictorian.

I hold no grudge against Blair. You will noet my many postings about how I feel sorry for her...about how I believe she is talented. I do have to question, though, her behavior...and find some of it questionable.

I do indeed support Harvard's decision to rescind Blair's acceptance. Her plagiarism was wrong ... and violated the basic tenets upon which all acceptances are contingent.

I have not called Mr. Hornstine any names ... but do consider him a master manipulator - hence the literary reference to Rasputin and svengali. It surely appears to me that he has been way too involved in the minutae of his children's lives ... and my own, personl opinion is that he is the central protagonist in this entire affair. Yes...one could say he "pushed" his children, "pushed" the system, etc.

Good for Blair's interest in the law. Hopefully, she will have learned a lot about the judicial system from her experience.

I find it hard to believe that Blair is not bothered by "the fallout" and doesn't really care. I suspect that she wakes up on occasion, upset,possibly in tears and wishing dearly that she could turn back the clock. I am sure she doesn't relish the role of social pariah. Being "her" these days is likely an uncomfortable proposition. In time, hopefully, she will emerge stronger. But, who knows? As for her family, I am sure that life can't be so easy or pleasant these days.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 19:52 pm EDT

I actually have found this entire affair fascinating. It touches on so many issues. To me it is a morality play. In not knowing the players personally I can only observe their behavior (as reported by others)and come to my own opinions on such. I make no judgements on them as people, but rather on their behaviors.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 19:55 pm EDT

BTW - it is very easy and no effort to locate articles, websites, blogs and references to Blair Hornstine. Merely type in her name at Google (http://www.google.com) and/or Google News (http://news.google.com/) for quick, painless access to information. It is often preferable to back up one's opinions and perspective with information and facts that have been presented by persons who have pertinent information and relevant access to the situation. Investigative reporters, news sources and publicly available documents are more reliable than the misinformation presented by biased sources.

IMHO certain people have little credibility due to previous postings (as summarized above):

“BLH will get a 6 figure number from the MHS.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 9:40 am EDT)

“When it comes to knowing the facts, I am 99%++ correct.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, July 5 2003, 0:58 am EDT)

“I do speak with 99% accuracy.” (--posted by mrs. m.m. @ Tuesday, July 1 2003, 22:40 pm EDT)

“When I am proven 99.9% correct, who will be the first to step up to buy me coffee?” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 20:34 pm EDT)

“Settlement? Both sides are presently working on same. Should be done (if not today) very soon, prior to August 13.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 24 2003, 23:31 pm EDT)

“In about 10 years, after Miss H. gets her money from the BOE, her law degree, the book is written, the movie film is shown, please get back to me. Yep, this is all happening. Put this in your tinkler file for year 2013. Let's see who right I am.” (--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Saturday, July 5 2003, 20:19 pm EDT)

“Talk to me before the start of 2004. Remember YOU heard it FIRST from me. What you say? Legal repercussions from the "announcement" by the Crimson, Harvard's legal responsibility and damages. Just don't forget to contact me. You will owe me 2 bucks.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 4 2003, 10:33 am EDT)

“BLH will be negotiating with Harvard University before the end of 2003.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 9:40 am EDT)

“And then there is the invasion of privacy suit against Harvard.....Go Girl!” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, July 15 2003, 11:33 am EDT)

“As a further thought....I bet in the end she will have the last laugh.... Maybe not Harvard, but book deals, millions from Moorestown, television appearances and how about a monthly column in "Seventeen" Magazine on how to prepare for college?????” (--posted by Mrs. MM @ Wednesday, June 18 2003, 16:09 pm EDT)

“ I do live in Moorestown. I do know what is going on.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, July 4 2003, 10:59 am EDT)

“MARK MY WORDS!!!!!!” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 10:22 am EDT)

“I will prevail as far as knowing the truth” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 5 2003, 11:47 am EDT)

“Just put my "facts" in the back of your mind or write them down, seal them in an envelope and bring them out in a few months or so.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, August 6 2003, 8:56 am EDT)

“They and other high schools or districts in the area put money in an "area" school fund instead of having insurance through a "regular" insurance company.” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 7 2003, 21:05 pm EDT)

“I do know more of what is going on that you and many others; I do know about the money…” (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 8 2003, 11:17 am EDT)

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 20:09 pm EDT

To Those Who Came To The Theatre Late And Don't Have A Program -

After more than two months, Mrs. Moorestown Mom '03 a/k/a Mrs. M.M. tells us today that s/he does not in fact live in Moorestown.

3M says s/he has at least one post-graduate degree.

3M promises to to reveal her/his "true identity" on this blog despite the fact s/he allegedly appears regularly on local television.

3M has already revealed her/his "true identity" to S.D.S., man s/he did not know until two months ago and has never met.

3M is a self-professed friend of the "nerdy" Hornstine family. If this is true, it illustrates the point that all of us have at least one interesting friend.

3M allegely trades on "inside" information, at least some of it obtained from "Judge Lou." Not many attorneys disclose arguably confidential information about an adult daughter's pending lawsuit to third-parties, particularly when it is known that at least some of it will wind up on an internet blog.

3M allegedly attended the May TRO hearing in Camden as a Hornstine family friend. Although 3M "knew" about the consumation of the proposed settlement this week, s/he did not have access to a computer and was unable to comment for more than a week. Poor planning.

3M promises to explain the exponential difference between the $15,000 net to BH and 3M's assurances a week and a half earlier that BH would net at least "six figures." It is probably a good thing no one "bet the house and the car" on the RUMOR of a $500,000 settlement.

3M is always willing to provide interesting background information on Hornstine attorneys, familiars and MHS administrators and teachers. This information has the salutory effect of encouraging other posters to do their own research.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 22 2003, 20:23 pm EDT

On July 4, Mrs. M.M. states, "I do live in Moorestown. I do know what's going on." On August 21, Mrs. M.M. states, "I DO NOT LIVE IN MOORESTOWN." What was the date of the real estate closing?

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 22 2003, 20:45 pm EDT

TM...

Yes...with repeated instances of just wrong information from certain people who post here, many of us have resorted to our own inquiry. Just one of many examples...

"Mr. Kudatzky is a somewhat recent graduate of Harvard Law." (--posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 15:19 pm EDT )

"As listed in the Harvard Alumni Association Directory Mr. Steven K. Kudatsky (who lives in Medford NJ and works in Marlton NJ) received his AB in 1972 from Harvard College. According to Harvard records he did not receive his law degree from HLS." (http://www.haa.harvard.edu/haa/index.html) (--posted by cambridgeMA @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 14:05 pm EDT )

"I never said that Steve graduated from Harvard Law." (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 3 2003, 22:47 pm EDT)

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 20:54 pm EDT

everyone DOESNT know it: Okay, that's fair, I'll respect that.

TM, Cambridge... without pointing any fingers, may I suggest that while we all have our passions, the point of all this naysaying is still pointless. Okay, so Mrs. MM has made some statements that ultimately appear to be off base. So what? Really.

Give her credit for not paraphrasing quotes so that they look far more beligerent than they really are, or so that they imply quite the opposite of what they said. Give her credit for standing her ground, even if you don't agree with her, and give her credit for standing fast on her positions, even if she was wrong, at least she didn't waver.

If nothing else, she addressed issues and was as accurate in many cases as she was inaccurate in others. Give her credit for faith in her convictions.

If nothing else, she has given us food for thought.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 21:18 pm EDT

You decide which is the informed source and which is the uniformed source:

...the school board IS admitting their fault in this case (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, July 28 2003, 18:39 pm EDT )

"In her statement, Wulfsberg said school officials are admitting no wrongdoing in settling the suit. 'Indeed, the board continues to maintain that its actions, and the actions of its administrators, faculty and staff were appropriate and in the best interests of all students, including Ms. Hornstine,' she said. (http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/august/m082003a.htm)

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 21:27 pm EDT

I merely recall/repost others' postings, so as to establish whether or not the facts as presented are credible and worthy of consideration. I have come to realize that I can not put much faith in some people's representation of the facts...and their interpretation of the situation. For one who claims to be 99.99% accurate...the odds seem stacked against her credibility.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 21:31 pm EDT

BTW - I do not "paraphras[e] quotes", but post actual quotes from any and all sources. I provide reference back to where they first appeared - whether from an article, from a legal opinion or from one's posts on this blog.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 21:38 pm EDT

If it requires discrediting someone with their own words, so be it.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 21:40 pm EDT

Getting the discussion back on track - the fact is that the case has now been settled. What do people think about the $60,000 settlement - with just $15,000 going to Blair? Does the paltry amount indicate anything about the relative merits of either side? What was likely at issue in the negotiation? And, why do you think it is that the Hornstines did not seek confidential settlement terms?

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 21:51 pm EDT

...or, why do you think the Hornstines - or, the school board - weren't granted confidential settlement terms?

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 21:54 pm EDT

Cambridge, careful now, I can and have pointed out in a previous post where you did indeed paraphrase a quote to make it appear that I had somehow threatened someone. You omitted the line, ...in other words, you need an attorney.... thereby creating a "quote" that appeared to threaten physical, rather than legal action. Lets not go there, because it is in the record, so to speak.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:35 pm EDT

SDS-

I believe it is fundamentally unfair for any participant on this blog to make an inflamatory, highly personal attack against a non-participant who is not in a position to defend him or herself, especially if the attack does not relate to specific, readily verifiable facts. Unmet, these attacks will beget similar charges against other non-participants. I disagree strongly with Adam on this point, but recognize he is ultimately responsible for what appears and stays on this blog.

I do not begrudge anyone, Mrs. M.M. included, personal opinions, zeal or a certain degree of naiviety. I enjoy varied opinion and discussion, and like most people, do not expect courtroom demeanor or certainty. I have no legal, political or personal interest in the outcome of this matter.

However, I believe that even vigorous public debate should have some civil, if not necessarily legal parameters. I do not believe that an anonymous person who apparently takes inconsistent positions about where she lives may responsibly level a charge of adultery against someone who is not in a position to defend himself. Such a person is not stating an informed personal opinion, but is acting as a conduit for rank gossip.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

S-D-S ... by all means, please point out my paraphrasing of your posts. I summarized some of your posts (word-for-word0 to cretin on July 23 2003, 8:43 am EDT:

"I'm relentless. I don't know mercy, and I don't give quarter. You will lose, and you will wish you'd never reared your idiotic head into this fray. Remember, I don't care, I have money to burn, and it would do me nothing better than to see you go down in flames. Any questions, Cretin, is that clear enough for you, or do you need a guide to figure it out. You have done nothing but be an idiot from day one; on the final day, you will know the difference between reality, and the game you thought you had mastered. (posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, July 22 2003, 15:16 pm EDT)

I wish you would take me up on my offer to fly you out here. There are, after all, lots of steep cliffs you could accidentally fall off of. (posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, July 22 2003, 15:40 pm EDT)

As for your repeated attacks upon my heritage, be advised, I know more about you than you know about me. Don't be surprised to hear from certain of my people who find your kind of racism repugnant…. I know where you live. (posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, July 22 2003, 15:40 pm EDT)

You're worthless, pathetic, and stupid. You represent the worst of society, and frankly, I am tired of responding to you on this forum. You will hear from me, you worthless excuse for a human, but it won't be here from this point forward. I do know who you are, unlike others who think they do, I do know, and you will come to that awareness sooner than you think. So deny it, I don't care. In the end, he who laughs last laughs hardest. I always laugh last. (posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, July 22 2003, 15:48 pm EDT)"

No paraphrasing there.

Please help me out.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:44 pm EDT

Check my references to your posts against your original posts. They are word for word. Nothing missing. Nothing added. Earlier today you claimed that I had flip-flopped. You, then owned up to your mistake and apologized. I accepted your apology. Please do not accuse me of twisting your words. By all means ... please back up your accusation here.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

Regarding the settlement, I think that the basis for the amount is simple, sixty grand, to more or less, go away. While the board maintains it's actions were in the best interests of the students as a whole, that flys in the face of reality, because if that were indeed the case the board wouldn't have settled.

Settling, on the other hand, is in the best interests of the students as a whole, and that may be the basis of their claim. While it is more likely that the board wanted to disentangle itself from the Hornstines in general, it also leaves the door open for Mr. Hornstine to persue certain personal actions that were more or less secondary to the original claims.

It also allows for Blair to disengage from the legal circus and begin her college career without having to travel back to court for hearings, and thereby continue the unfair and unreasonable assaults on her as a person. To be fair and realistic, or fair and balanced if you will, the way Blair has been demonized is far and away in the extreme. The very fact that her actions, even as they pertain to this blog, have garnered far more attention than far worse examples of plagiarism is proof that the truth is not relevant, but that the ability to degrade, humiliate, and embarrass her is.

We don't want the truth, if we did, we wouldn't excuse things like MLK or JFK. We wouldn't ignore the criminal actions of persons who have vandalized the home and property of the Hornstines, and we wouldn't overlook the threats made to her person, and life. We wouldn't give more lipservice to what is ultimately an insignificant offense comparatively to what it appears Mr. Kadri did in lying about Mr. Hornstine, and in fudging the numbers to elevate Mr. Mirkin to a position he DID NOT EARN.

Until we decide that the truth is more important than our fun at the expense of Blair and others, no more truer words can be added than these: "Let he amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus Christ uttered those words two thousand years ago, and they still ring true today. Until we let the rain fall equally, and equally persue crimes and actions with the same vigor with which we have prosecuted Blair personally, then we ultimately are the losers, and Blair wins by default. Our opinions are just that, and they won't change the outcome of life, in the end, all of us, every single one, must face the blackness. None of this matters, except to our egos, and that is why each of us is here, to stroke our egos, and voice our opinions. And yet, none of us have altered the course of time, or life, or affected the outcome of any of these events.

Maybe, just maybe, we need to remember that.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:48 pm EDT

Okay ... I do see where "you need an attorney" appeared on July 22...it does not alter the meaning of your words ... and the reason for my posting it originally. As a matter of fact, it adds to the original threat that you would be taking legal action against cretin. Sorry for the ommission. It bolsters my original point made back then.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:54 pm EDT

Let this be the only proof or discussion Cambridge:

Here is the quote you paraphrased:

"As for your repeated attacks upon my heritage, be advised, I know more about you than you know about me. Don't be surprised to hear from certain of my people who find your kind of racism repugnant…. I know where you live. (posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, July 22 2003, 15:40 pm EDT)"

from your post of: --posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, July 23 2003, 8:43 am EDT

Here is the actual quote, in it's entirety:

"As for your repeated attacks upon my heritage, be advised, I know more about you than you know about me. Don't be surprised to hear from certain of my people who find your kind of racism repugnant, and, in keeping with the best traditions of European legal standards, feel it is a violation of their civil rights. In other words, you need an attorney, and I know where you live."

From my post of: --posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, July 22 2003, 15:40 pm EDT

You intentionally omitted the references to legal action from the post to make it appear that these were physical threats, the simple fact that in both sentences where legal recourse was mentioned you omitted it is proof of that.

There is your proof, let the discussion end.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:57 pm EDT

E.W. Green of the Harvard Crimson and J.V. Last of the Weekly Standard write the most interesting and balanced articles about this matter, although they are understandably not true investigative pieces.

Earlier this week, Last reported that a source had disclosed a potential $60,000 settlement on or about August 8. when contacted for confirmation, defense counsel Comegno termed the report "absurd." http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/960sfcqh.asp.

Assuming Last's reporting is accurate, it might be intersting to speculate upon why the settlement was not finalized for another week and a half.

--posted by TM @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:58 pm EDT

The point being that I expressed directly a LEGAL intent, and not a physical one. Your ommissions completely obscured that. Now, please, let it be, it isn't worth it to continue this.

In this regard, I have proven my point, I should think, and it is obvious that we disagree on the appearance after the fact. I can live with that.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:59 pm EDT

Good points, S-D-S . Our discussion of this affair provides us all with the opportunity to consider so many issues...and hopefully provides for self-reflection. It provides a lesson - and somewhat of a roadmap - for others who might face similar situations. We can't all help but wonder if we had been in Blair's position, what would we have done?

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 22:59 pm EDT

SDS is a liar! He does not know who I am or where I live. Don't believe him for a second.

I'm still waiting for his apology before I persue legal action!

--posted by cretin @ Friday, August 22 2003, 23:06 pm EDT

Does anyone know - since the terms of the settlement are not confidential, are settlement documents filed with the Court - and conceivably available to the press and the public?

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 23:06 pm EDT

BTW - there have been numerous cases in the past few years in Australia, Canada and the U.S relating to libel.

Check out:

"Web Posting Is Like Print in Libel Case" (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078938102%20)

"Stakes higher for Web libel" (http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/qprinter/20030422/ULIBEM)

"Libel and slander on the world wide web" (http://inquirerinside.com/?article=6947)

"Internet Case Digest - Online Defamation" (http://www.perkinscoie.com/casedigest/icd_results.cfm?keyword1=defamation&topic=Defamation)

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 23:25 pm EDT

"give her [Mrs. M.M.] credit for standing fast on her positions, even if she was wrong, at least she didn't waver."

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, August 22 2003, 21:18 pm EDT

Since when does standing fast on wrong positions deserve credit?

Also, only Kadri and Judge Hornstine know for sure what happened in their conversation that day. I don't believe a third person can accurately recount the "truth" - isn't that hearsay and non-admissable in court? Mrs. Keefe did not hear the fateful words, but that's not equivalent to the fateful words not being said.

In particular (and here is my Agatha Christie streak playing in) the fact that Kadrid mentioned Judge Hornstine described himself as salutatorian is telling. I presume it's an easily-checked and easily-refuted fact; someone who's bent on devilish schemes to undermine and discriminate Blair surely would have taken the time to double-check that, or at least not base his lies about the conversation on something as particular as the salutatorian title. Think about it - if you were to "make up" the same conversation while in Kadri's position, would you quote that Judge Hornstine had described himself as having suffered the shame of being salutatorian? What are the chances that you'd be right?!

It makes more sense to me that the information was given or suggested to Kadri. But again, what really happened that day we'll probably never know. I'm just playing detective.

--posted by bystander @ Friday, August 22 2003, 23:28 pm EDT

cambridgema may have left out sections before and after your quotes, S-DS, but he never paraphrased - a far more serious charge. they were always quotes.

--posted by bystander @ Friday, August 22 2003, 23:34 pm EDT

THE EAGLES LOST AND I HAVE RETURNED....

Wondering: Your quote " Shall we talk about the judge's rating among all judges in New Jersey as reported in the New Jersey Law Journal? How about the number and sources of outside income, as reported in publically available financial disclosure forms" OKAY, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY?

MA: "Mr. Hornstine comes across to me as sort of a cross between Rasputin and a svengali.

--posted by cambridgema @ Friday, August 22 2003, 18:48 pm EDT " THAT IS NOT NAME CALLING? OH, IT MUST BE LOVEY DOVEY TALK. AND A MASTER MANIPULATOR OF BLAIR? WHERE DO YOU GET SUCH INFO? FROM ONE OF THE ARTICLES YOU CONSTANTLY SHOW US? WHICH ONE?

BOY, MA: I AM SO GLAD THAT THIS BLOG GIVES YOU SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN SO MUCH TIME TO GO BACK AND CUT AND PASTE ALL MY LINES. DON'T YOU DATE? HAVE A SIGNIFICANT OTHER? WHY DON'T YOU VOLUNTEER YOUR TIME, YOU HAVE SO MUCH? LEARN TO WATCH FOOTBALL, SORRY THE EAGLES LOST. NE BEAT THEM. MAYBE NEXT WEEK WILL BE BETTER ALL AROUND.

TM: I CONFUSE YOU. YOU PARAPHRASED MANY OF MY LINES AND DID SO CHANGING THE MEANING AND YOU CAN'T FIGURE ME OUT: "After more than two months, Mrs. Moorestown Mom '03 a/k/a Mrs. M.M. tells us today that s/he does not in fact live in Moorestown." AH HA

3M says s/he has at least one post-graduate degree. DID I SAY THAT?????

3M promises to to reveal her/his "true identity" on this blog despite the fact s/he allegedly appears regularly on local television. SO, DO YOU WANT TO THROW TOMATOES AT YOUR TV? WHO CARES WHO I AM? YOU MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT.

3M has already revealed her/his "true identity" to S.D.S., man s/he did not know until two months ago and has never met. DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT I 'REVEALED' IT TO SOMEONE WHO IS RESPECTED, WRITES WELL AND UNDERSTANDS TRUTH AND LAW FROM BS AND HYPE?

"3M is a self-professed friend of the "nerdy" Hornstine family. DID I SAY I WAS A SELF-PROFESSED FRIEND OF THE NERDY FAMILY?

"3M allegely trades on "inside" information, at least some of it obtained from "Judge Lou." Not many attorneys disclose arguably confidential information about an adult daughter's pending lawsuit to third-parties, particularly when it is known that at least some of it will wind up on an internet blog." THIS TIME YOU ARE AS FAR FROM WRONG AS THE SKY IS FROM THE OCEAN. YOU ONLY HEARD WHAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HEAR.

"3M allegedly attended the May TRO hearing in Camden as a Hornstine family friend. Although 3M "knew" about the consumation of the proposed settlement this week, s/he did not have access to a computer and was unable to comment for more than a week. Poor planning. " FAMILY FRIEND????? HUM? YES, I WAS AWAY. MY OTHER HOME WAS HIT BY LIGHTENING A WEEK PLUS AGO AND I HAD TO SEE THAT REPAIR WORK WAS COMPLETED. ANYWAY, BLH WAS AWAY UNTIL LAST SATURDAY.


"3M promises to explain the exponential difference between the $15,000 net to BH and 3M's assurances a week and a half earlier that BH would net at least "six figures." It is probably a good thing no one "bet the house and the car" on the RUMOR of a $500,000 settlement" YOU ARE CORRECT ON THAT ACCOUNT. I WAS ABSOLUTELY TOLD BY THE HORSE'S MOUTH THAT BLH WOULD NET A T L E A S T $100,000. GOT ME THERE!


I FIND IT SO INTERESTING THAT BOTH OF YOU HAVE SO MUCH TIME TO RESEARCH THESE THREE PAGES OVER SEVERAL MONTHS AND CUT AND PASTE. IT MUST TAKE A LOT OF TIME.

"In her statement, Wulfsberg said school officials are admitting no wrongdoing in settling the suit" SURE, AND I AM FROM THE IRS AND HEAR TO HELP YOU. BROOKLYN BRIDGE ANYONE? ISN'T THAT A LITTLE FACE SAVING STATEMENT? IF THEY WERE NOT 100% WRONG, THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER, NEVER SETTLED. READ DIVORCE CASES. WHEN THEY FINALLY SETTLE, THE ONE HARMED SPOUSE (LIKE IN CHEATING)ALLOWS THE PUBLIC RECORD TO REFLECT THAT THERE WAS NO WRONGDOING BY THE CHEATING SPOUSE. THAT
IS WHAT A SETTLEMENT IS. NO-FAULT! EVER HEARD THAT EXPRESSION?

" why do you think the Hornstines - or, the school board - weren't granted confidential settlement
terms?" AHAH! THINK ABOUT THAT!!!!! WHAT DOES THAT OPEN DOORS TO?

"...may responsibly level a charge of adultery against someone who is not in a position to defend himself. Such a person is not stating an informed personal opinion, but is acting as a conduit for rank gossip. " ISN'T THAT MOST OF YOU HAVE BEEN DOING TO A YOUNG LADY THAT YOU DON'T KNOW? PASSING JUDGMENT? GOSSIPING? THE ENTIRE TOWN IS GOSSIPING? OH, IT'S THAT OLD ONE SIDED STREET AGAIN. BLH IS A PUBLIC FIGURE, A FIGURE WHO FILED A LAW SUIT, SOMEONE WHO EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT. GIVE ME A BREAK. WHO CASTS THE FIRST STONE?

"Earlier this week, Last reported that a source had disclosed a potential $60,000 settlement on or about August 8. when contacted for confirmation, defense counsel Comegno termed the report "absurd." .

Assuming Last's reporting is accurate, it might be intersting to speculate upon why the settlement was not finalized for another week and a half." "Assuming Last's reporting is accurate..."I AM GLAD YOU USE THE WORD ASSUME. JONATHAN LAST KNOWS NOT MUCH MORE THAN YOU DO ABOUT THIS CASE. AND TO QUOTE COMEGNO THAT THE SETTLEMENT REPORT WAS ABSURD. HE HAS A COLUMN TO FILL. ABSURD? SAYS COMEGNO...TOLD YOU HE WAS A BUFFOON. MISS H. WAS ON 'VACATION' UNTIL THIS PAST WEEKEND. NOTHING COULD BE SIGNED UNTIL SHE RETURNED.

MOST OF YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. THE CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PLAGIARIZING OR HARVARD. THE CASE HAD TO DO WITH THE RULES OF THE SCHOOL AND THE CHANGES KADRI ATTEMPTED TO MAKE TO APPEASE THE MOTHER OF #2. IT IS VERY SIMPLE. MOST OF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL.

BESIDES S-D.S AND EVERYONE DOESN'T KNOW IT, ARE ANY OF YOU OVER 30 YEARS OLD?

--posted by MRS. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 0:00 am EDT

"Also, only Kadri and Judge Hornstine know for sure what happened in their conversation that day. I don't believe a third person can accurately recount the "truth" - isn't that hearsay and non-admissable in court? Mrs. Keefe did not hear the fateful words, but that's not equivalent to the fateful words not being said." THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HEARSAY AND GOSSIP. MS. KEEFE WAS THE THIRD ONE IN THE MEETING. SHE WAS NOT LISTENING FROM A DOORWAY. THE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED AND THE 'T H R E E' MET ALL TOGETHER. JUDGE H. WAS NEVER THE SALUTATORIAN OR VALEDICTORIAN OR HAD A GPA IN HIGH SCHOOL THAT EVER PUT HIM IN THE RUNNING.HE WAS AN AVERAGE STUDENT IN HIGH SCHOOL. HE EARNED HIS GOOD MARKS AFTER HIGH SCHOOL.

--posted by MRS. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 0:07 am EDT

For some reason Mrs. M. M. has continually suggested that Blair Hornstine’s 15 minutes of infamy will give her riches. In the latest, at August 22 2003, 13:47 pm she said “Then there could be books, movies, Harvard....who knows.”

My guess is that her only way to capitalize on her “fame” will be to pose naked in a skin magazine. I doubt Playboy is interested but she may wind up in some lesser magazine. After all, she is and adult now, and she can do what she wants. I am not awaiting this development.

--posted by horny dog @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 0:10 am EDT

Thanks S.D-S for your kind words. It does strike me funny that my not revealing who I am is a source of dismay among the above. However, outside of you, I don't notice anyone else signing their names, addresses and telephone numbers.

You know that you can lead a horse to water. These people don't ever want to look for anything positive or understand the case. The plagiarism, Harvard, Louis, and where she is going to school are more important than the actual case which is what started this blog. I am suprised that someone doesn't suggest that her dogs "did it."

Good night.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 0:12 am EDT

why do you think the Hornstines - or, the school board - weren't granted confidential settlement
terms?"



"For some reason Mrs. M. M. has continually suggested that Blair Hornstine’s 15 minutes of infamy will give her riches. In the latest, at August 22 2003, 13:47 pm she said “Then there could be books, movies, Harvard....who knows.”


COULD A EQUAL B????????????????????????????????????????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 0:15 am EDT

"IF THEY WERE NOT 100% WRONG, THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER, NEVER SETTLED."
--posted by MRS. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 0:00 am EDT

This is absolutely NOT true. Please do your homework.

--posted by cretin @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 0:42 am EDT

Mrs. M.M. - here you go. My phone number, if you care to call long-distance to Australia, I can e-mail you if you deign to contact me. I still have yet to hear you apologise for insulting my grandparents.

--posted by bystander @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 1:20 am EDT

[and I try again]

--posted by bystander @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 1:21 am EDT

The dismay, Mrs. M.M., I guess lies in the fact that you declared that you would reveal your identity when this whole fiasco was over, and now you are reneging on your word.

That Mrs. Keefe was at the meeting still doesn't mean that her word is the truth - it's *still* he-said, she-said, as cambridgema pointed out. I now know that I am probably wrong on the 'hearsay' part of my last post, but I'll have someone with more legal knowledge to correct me. Also, you didn't seem to read my post through, which is fine. As you said yourself, "You know that you can lead a horse to water."

There is plenty of positive in posts that don't agree with you. While some of us may indeed suffer from schadenfreude, more of us just want to discuss the *entire* issue as they unfold, and most of us don't wish ill on Blair. Criticism and Malice are entirely different things.

The lawsuit is interesting in its own right, but we are also interested in the plagiarism and the issue of parents as well as the issue of college, as it reflects on a societal conundrum that faces us today - how we are raising our children and what expectations we have for them. If people feel it is relevant, then why can't we talk about it? It seems far more important than weighing up the merits of a solitary lawsuit. In a sense, yes, "the plagiarism, Harvard, Louis, and where she is going to school are more important than the actual case which is what started this blog"* - there's a wealth of discussion to be had that the actual case itself can't provide.

* posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 0:12 am EDT


While I understand that you think the world of Blair, even the most saintly person finds incompatible people here and there. Even on this tiny blog we've found our pairings and cliques. If you take our discussion as an indication of unfair dislike or grudge or hatred of Blair, then you are being unreasonable and defensive. Just because I dislike her actions does not mean I am wrong - just as you are not wrong to dislike me.

What *would* be wrong, though, would be to make false statements and not admit to them, to make blind hateful insults and not apologise for them, and to declare unjustified judgements and not retract them. You're free to disagree, of course. Just please don't insult me (or my family) again in your response. I have never said anything of the same ilk to you.

--posted by bystander @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 1:49 am EDT

A note about paraphrasing, short sheeting quotes and other twists of language.

If you wish to quote me feel free, but do not take half of my quote and combine it with half of another, or leave out the most important parts, and then call them quotes. That is paraphrasing, to make the bits of the quote fit the bill for what one is trying to portray.

Leaving out information that was part of the original statement not only changes the character of the quote, it also changes dramatically the meaning of it. In any case, by not reporting the full quote, one paraphrases the quote, and twists the meaning, either intentionally or not.

Either way, since the content was altered, and it wasn't what I said, it was paraphrasing. End of discussion.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 4:02 am EDT

A note about principle. Bystander, in your country you do many things that we, in this country might not. One thing that America has prided itself on is it's ability to look at a person who supports what we see as wrong and yet credit that person with integrity for standing on principle and what they believe, even though we may disagree.

Credit is due a person who acts on principle, who believes with their whole heart what they say, and who will address their failings with the same intensity that they embrace their triumphs.

It's about principle, and right or wrong is a matter of interpertation.

Your comment about quotes is also questionable. If I say "You have are possibly the most misguided person I've ever seen" and it is then reduced to "You are the most misguided person ever." You have not quoted me, you have made a completely different statement, and it's neither fair, correct, or principled to credit such a statement to me. I said "You are possibly the most misguided person I've ever seen." Someone else said the other, and I won't stand to be misquoted, paraphrased, or otherwise attributed for words that are not mine. A quote is a repeat, word for word, what has been done here is not a quote. Learn the difference, but don't presume to debate me about the two, I know the difference, and I have pointed it out rather succinctly.

My point, simple, don't jump in a cart without a driver and a map.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 4:11 am EDT

General statement:

You don't have an anchor tied to your ass, and the sun is still gonna set tomorrow. Do your damndest.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 4:13 am EDT

S-DS, paraphrasing involves rewording, and that is a larger liberty than simply taking a quote out of context. Naturally they may both involve altering the essence of meaning from the original intent (then again, they may not) but I do believe that paraphrasing is a more serious charge than quoting out of context, which may leave phrases out front and back, but does NOT reword. Cambridgema's quote of your post had "..." included in it, signifying material that had been omitted in between, and cannot be considered a paraphrase, as he had not reworded your quote. The example you gave was indeed a paraphrase. I *do* know the difference, and of course I will presume to debate you on this point, as I believe I am correct.

I did not realise that the country I've been living in the past 3 years cherishes principles that are wrong. Isn't there a difference between disagreement and flat-out right and wrong? What integrity exists in a person who sticks fast to being wrong? You surely cannot stand by and admire a person who lives by his faith in racial discrimination, lack of respect of human life, or unabashed bigotry, do you? Regardless of country and culture!

You say "[c]redit is due a person who acts on principle, who believes with their whole heart what they say, and who will address their failings with the same intensity that they embrace their triumphs." I agree only if the principle is sound. But what if it were not? What if a person acts on the assumption that all men of a certain colour are less than human? How on earth does that merit credit?

To consider it from another angle - everyone speaks based on principles they assume to be correct - so according to you we all deserve credit?

No, I believe there is absolute right and wrong on some things, at least.

To put it bluntly, I believe Mrs. M.M. was wrong when she insulted my dead grandfather, when she called others hateful names in response to fair challenges, and at the very least, she doesn't deserve the credit you seek for her as she has not "addressed" her many mistakes that have now come to light. She has raised many fine points but she undermines herself with such malicious comments. In reaction, some posters lash back and everyone get angry and hurt. Do you dispute this?

I don't dislike Mrs. M.M. for her views - she's entitled to them, to be sure - but I do dislike the fact that she makes such hateful comments and insults so many of us. I would be so much more inclined to accept and consider her viewpoints if only she went about expressing them in a more courteous and civil manner. You too have said many vicious things to other posters, and they certainly don't contribute to any helpful discussion some of us are trying to have. Why can't we leave spiteful name-calling back somewhere in 8th grade and deal with each other civilly?

--posted by bystander @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 6:58 am EDT

"Assuming Last's reporting is accurate, it might be intersting to speculate upon why the settlement was not finalized for another week and a half."

Blair was away, says 3M, and had to sign the settlement. But the school board also had to have a quorum meeting to approve the settlement. Getting a quorum can be hard to do sometimes. Are the minutes of the quorum meeting made public? Since the case is settled the reason for meeting in closed session no longer exists. Jonathan V. Last, go get 'em!

--posted by Tug @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 8:28 am EDT

Bystander, ever read Faulkner?

Because the very point of the quote in question was altered, and made to appear to be a different statement entirely, it was paraphrased. I took this question to an English lit professor down to the college. According to Professor Tipps not only was the quote altered to the point of creating opposite meeting from the actual quote, by placing the final words in the fashion it was, paraphrasing the entire quote, altered it sufficiently as to make it seem the exact opposite of what it actually was.

Now, we disagree, big deal.

As for the rest of it, I leave you to your one sided argument.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 10:12 am EDT

Well, two things, Mrs. M. M.: 1) the January 18, 1999 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal reports a poll of those appearing before all of the judges in the state regarding their overall competence. Judge Hornstine was ranked 208 of the 348 judges reviewed. 2) The June 6, 2003 edition of the same publication reported that of the 462 judges and justices submitting financial disclosures, Judge Hornstine had more sources of outside income than any other.

That is not to say that Judge Hornstine is not competent, but it does say that he does not rank near the top of his class in the judge business. The fact that he has more sources of outside income (he reported more than 60) than any other judge in the state is not wrong, either. It does indicate that he has focused a lot of attention elsewhere, however. Add to that the fact that he has expended a lot of effort in aiding BH in her (really his?) drive to excel academically, and there might be some explanation for why he falls somewhere below the middle of his class as a judge.

It appears pretty obvious that his own measure of success is the accomplishments of his children (again, not bad by itself) and in ammassing wealth. Is it too much of a stretch to conclude he is seeking to make up for his own mediocre academic career?

--posted by Wondering @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 10:44 am EDT

Bystander: This entire fiasco is not over in my book. Insult your family? If you are referring to a joke about if's, your sense of American(?) or whatever humor is lacking. I have no thoughts on your Grandfather one way or another. Where do you live in Australia? ARe you presently writing from there?

Again, I believe you have two incorrect thoughts or feelings: Many people here DO wish BLH "ill". Some have wished her to go to community college, some have wished her ill health, some have said very negative things about her. Read the petitions or other blogs - some "IDIOTS" ( and I will use that word as strongly as possible) wish her AIDS, death, etc. You? I don't have the time or desire to relive weeks and months of comments and go back and look them up.

Ms. Keefe? Now, that is interesting that some or you question her. As they say, there are three sides to a divorce....possibly there are three sides here, but two of them agree. Ms. Keefe has no reason to back Judge H except for truth. She has no ulterior motives. What does she get out of it? As a matter of fact, because she disagreed with HER BOSS, life at MHS as not been all roses for her. She has taken a lot of heat for her coming to the truthful aid of Judge H. And as for Lou and the Salutorian, I have told you a multiple of times, Lou Hornstine was an average high school student. He was never, never in a position to be considered a Val or Salutorian. It is funny to those who know or knew him then that the statement by Kadri ever entered the "arena." Kadri could have picked a more believable lie.

As I have been called a troll by some who believe it, I believe some here are twits who don't understand or who just want to attempt to irritate me and "dump" on BLH. As far as my dishonoring Kadri, he is an extremely dishonorable person. This type of person has no right to be responsible for the education and care of children. If he is a role model, bless our children.

As I have said, I am not reneging on revealing who I am when the case is over, the case, to me, is not complete. And what does it matter who I am? More respect? Gads No. More believable? You are kidding! My name? My picture? Truthfully, who cares???? I did take the mea culpas for the information that was given to me about the settlement amount.

From bystander:
"...but I do dislike the fact that she makes such hateful comments and insults so many of us. I would be so much more inclined to accept and consider her viewpoints if only she went about expressing them in a more courteous and civil manner. You too have said many vicious things to other posters, and they certainly don't contribute to any helpful discussion some of us are trying to have. Why can't we leave spiteful name-calling back somewhere in 8th grade and deal with each other civilly? "MY WRITING STYLE CERTAINLY IS LACKING. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ANSWER 'PEOPLE' WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON DON'T WANT, WILL NOT ACCEPT THE TRUTH AS IT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. OPINIONS ARE NOT FACT. (INCLUDING MINE) I DON'T MIND BEING CALLED A TROLL, ETC. I KNOW WHO I AM. I KNOW WHAT I AM. I UNDERSTAND THE CASE AND BELIEVE IN THE JUDGEMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT FIGHTING FOR RIGHT AND PRINCIPLES IS WHAT MAKES THIS COUNTRY GREAT. IF OUR FOREFATHERS DID NOT DO THIS HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, WE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY MOST (WITH RESPECT TO AUSTRALIA), AS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

YOUR ACCEPTING AND CONSIDERING MY VIEWPOINTS HAVE NO BEARING ON MY SPELLING, ENGLISH, VOCAB, ETC. YOU EITHER AGREE OR NOT. YOU EITHER ATTEMPT TO SEE MY WAY OF THINKING OR HAVE YOUR MIND MADE UP. I CAN USE 'F' WORDS, 'S' WORDS, AB OR C ONES. MAKES NO MATTER. IT IS THE THOUGHT OR FACT THAT IS IMPORTANT. ....AND AS LILY TOMLIN USED TO SAY...'AND THAT'S THE TRUTH!'


Let's talk for a minute about Jonathan V. Last, a MHS graduate....Does he have any relation to the Mirkin/Shangold family? Did he have any problems with the Hornstine family? How come the incorrect statement from Comegro did not hang him? TO ME, it seems that those who want to crucify BLH pass off his reporting as the BIBLE. His first article was biased and unfair reporting. His second with the quote from Comegro was far off base. And so it goes.....

ONE CAN TWIST, TURN, PARAPHRASE, ETC. MY WORDS. I WILL NEVER BE BROKEN DOWN ON MY THOUGHT THAT BLH HAD THE HIGHEST GPA, EARNED THE VALEDICTORIAN ROLE AS DETERMINED BY THE HANDBOOK THAT ALL STUDENTS FOLLOWED, WAS APPROVED FOR FOUR YEARS INTO IEP COURSES BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS DOCTORS AND HAD THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR THESE RIGHTS WHICH KADRI, ET AL WERE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE AWAY HER. BURN ME AT THE STAKE, IF YOU CHOOSE. I WILL GO DOWN WITH MY HONOR AND THE TRUTH.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 11:14 am EDT

From Wondering: " Is it too much of a stretch to conclude he is seeking to make up for his own mediocre academic career?" NO, IT ISN'T TOO MUCH OF A STRETCH BY FAR. HIS LIFE IS HIS CHILDREN. THERE IS NO DOUBT. HIS ACADEMIC GRADES IMPROVED BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS TO THE A PLUS AREA IN HIS LATER YEARS. I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE WHEN HIS CHILDREN WERE LITTLE, HE COACHED THEIR SPORTS, THEN GOT INVOLVED IN MOOT COURTS, ETC.

Is the Journal you refer to available online? How come there are 348 Judges referred to and then 462? With the ranking you publish and if I get this correct, you say Judge H is listed in the top 60% of rated judges (all superior court?). That means he is in the lower 40%.

As for finances: I know that when he became a judge many years ago, he, as all Judges were (and could still be) had to appear before governmental legislators to check his income. They went over this finances with a fine tooth comb as the legislators and/or staff need to find Judges that won't NEED money for any reason. This supposedly prevents them from taking bribes, etc. Outside of a little real estate and stock, etc. investments, I am not privy to anything else. He earned lots of money as a lawyer and that is why, at a fairly young age (was the youngest judge in NJ for awhile), he was able to earn this appointment, Many Judges in the Superior Court of NJ get these appointments because of familial ties, political favors, etc. He had some political "pull" but not a great deal. Don't forget, he came from the smallest county in NJ and one of only two (at least at that time) that were Republican. He received his appointment, if I remember correctly, from a Republican Governor. Not that the Govenor didn't have a choice but didn't have the list of candidates that a Democratic governor had from 19 other counties.

Immediately prior to his appointment, the FBI (yep, that one) interviewed family and friends, clients, etc. in an effort to make sure there were no ghosts hidden in closets. Was I interviewed? YUP! Am I an etc? Ah ha!

Popular, Lou is not. But again, why does his finances, education, parenthood reflect on BLH choices or her academic standing?

Again, is that Journal available to all? on the net?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 11:37 am EDT

par·a·phrase (n.)

A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning; The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device; a free translation or rendering; A restatement of a text, passage, or work, expressing the meaning of the original in another form, generally for the sake of its clearer and fuller exposition.

No paraphrasing occured - as the quotation was direct and was indicated as such by the use of opening and closing quotation marks. The person quoting felt that the ommitted words (which were properly attributed by use of thre periods ... followed by an actual period to indicate the end of the original author's sentence) were not necessary in order to make his/her point. A review of Strunk's "Elements of Style" and "DIRECT ADDRESS, DIRECT QUOTATION, INDIRECT ADDRESS, INDIRECT DISCOURSE, INDIRECT QUOTATION" might provide understanding to those confused about the issue.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 12:02 pm EDT

Judge Hornstine is ranked in the third lowest quartile ...and is surely ranked way below average. The numbers cited for judges are for two different things - those who were reviewed for competence/performance and those who submitted financial disclosure documents - and for two different years (1999 and 2002). It is conceivable that the number of judges might have increased and/or not all judges were reviewed in the competence/performance poll - since a number of judges may not have presided in that given year; emeritus judges might also not be reviewed in such a poll, but may still be subject to financial disclosure rules.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 12:20 pm EDT

Question: from which (smallest)county did Judge Hornstine come?

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 12:41 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.

"AH HA" is not a town in New Jersey. Do you live in Moorestown or not?

"AP courses were not given when I went to school. I have post-graduate degrees in several subjects." - July 3

You repeatedly said you would publically reveal your identity, an interesting position given that you also say you regularly appear on local television. Not unexpectedly, you have not revealed your identity on this blog, but only to an e-mail confidant of apparently recent acquaintance. This is just another series of inconsistent statements.

You used the word "nerdy" family, not me.

May we infer from your statement that, "...YOU ONLY HEARD WHAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HEAR" that you were intentionally passing on false information?

P.S. -

Regardless of when the parties signed the settlement documents, I don't believe the delay was an inability to get BH's signature or a to assemble a quorum of the school board. Even if BH was out of state, it is acceptable to get a faxed signature so long as it is followed up by an original. Moreover, if BH either was or anticipated being unavailable, why was Mrs. M.M. initially so confident the settlement would be finalized before August 13? It takes about 30 minutes of telephone calls to assemble a school board quorum.

--posted by TM @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 12:56 pm EDT

Never used the word nerdy to refer to family. Somewhat Nerdy or nerdy was a word that I probably used to describe LBH, as I said just about her entire word ran around school, competitions in Mock Trial, Moot Court and her charities -- No proms, boyfriends, no drivers license, etc.

Can't offer any comments on a quorum. Do remember that the school board pres spoke a couple weeks ago about a meeting to discuss the settlement. Someone on here with time and energy will pull it up.

Miss BLH was not available by fax to get the papers signed before last Saturday. Possibly, they were not ironed out with the i's dotted and t's crossed until late last week. In any instance, she was not available until last weekend for her signature.

Did I hear what I was supposed to hear??? Could be! Did the amount of money change? Could be! I have no rhyme or reason why I was given incorrect info. I can only guess.

I did say and that is what I was told in the same conversation, that the money was going to be divided up and some paid directly to the attorneys. I remember conversation here as to the reasons - like attorney fees wouldn't look as bad, tax consequences, etc. Gee, give me a break. I did say that some of it was going directly to the attorney. I am suprised that the Attorney received so much. Many here previously thought that Jacobs was doing pro bono work for the Judge. Guess not. I still don't know why his fee was so great. I would "assume" that Lou did some of the research work. No answers for you.

My 2cents: Is your info from the Internet? Lou H. was a lawyer in Wildwood, Cape May County, New Jersey where he lived as a child, attended high school and later returned to practice law, etc.

Discussion of faxed signatures. Many, many attorneys, car dealers, etc will not accept faxed signatures. They want "hard" copy signatures.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 14:40 pm EDT

By examining the figures provided by Wondering, it is easy to calculate the quartile ranking, average and mean for Judge Hornstine's standing.

Regarding your statements- "Don't forget, he came from the smallest county in NJ" and Cape May County, New Jersey"

Out of New Jersey's 21 counties in terms of square miles - Cape May ranks as #17 (222 sq. miles) with Passaic (192 sq. miles); Essex (127 sq. miles); Union (102 sq. miles) and Hudson (46 sq. miles) - all smaller. - http://www.njac.org/njac%20website/County%20Statistical%20Information.htm

When viewed by population Cape May ranks #20 (with 102,352 people) and Salem being the smallest (with 64,36) - http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/34003.html

Cape May ranks 16th. in population density.

As others have pointed out, making statements that aren't supported by facts provides opportunity to question ones credibility, veracity and accuracy.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 14:53 pm EDT

Wondering: I asked you to steer me to these journals online where you got the following info: ") the January 18, 1999 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal reports a poll of those appearing before all of the judges in the state regarding their overall competence. Judge Hornstine was ranked 208 of the 348 judges reviewed. 2) The June 6, 2003 edition of the same publication reported that of the 462 judges and justices submitting financial disclosures, Judge Hornstine had more sources of outside income than any other. "

I also am curious, since you have access to two of these journals, what did it say about LFH's finances in 1999 and what was his ranking in 2003? Of course, I am curious as to why you did not display these facts when you posted the above.

Although I would like to see these...truly, what difference does it make how much money he has or what his ranking was? About as much difference as Mrs. Hornstine's hair color?

Still I would like the answers to my two posted questions above and the whereabouts on the net of this journal.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 14:58 pm EDT

Believe me, Amused, they are not a bad family. The worst adjective you could use when meeting and working with them is "nerdy." (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 15 2003, 9:58 am EDT)

and while not referring to the entire family ...

She may find many of her own (nerdy) there. (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, July 3 2003, 17:40 pm EDT)

So she was the nerd of MHS. (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 12 2003, 13:24 pm EDT)

Believe me, Amused, they are not a bad family. The worst adjective you could use when meeting and working with them is "nerdy." (--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 15 2003, 9:58 am EDT)

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:00 pm EDT

Well, two cents: Cape May has grown in the last couple years...hang me. Possibly until the last couple years, cape may was the smallest county by population.When LFH became a Judge, I am pretty sure that it was still the smallest...so now it's #2 smallest. I still believe it is the "smallest"
Republican controlled county in NJ. In the last several years, senior citizens have moved in. The graduating classes in the years that LFH was schooled there and practiced law, averaged less than 125 in Wildwood High School. Cape May sometimes had a few more. Wildwood Catholic was "probably" less; Middle Township varied and Ocean City mostly had more. These schools were rated for sports as in the Group 1 ranking for the least amount of students. Schools like Atlantic City and Newark "were" in Group 4 with the largest amount of students. In fact, I know for an absolute fact that one class had only 88 graduates.

Get the noose because Cape May County has grown lately.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:07 pm EDT

It is amazing how much time some of you devote to finding old posts. I need to go swimming now. I do have another life. Thanks for the info.

Now where is the info about the NJ law Journal????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:09 pm EDT

If you really want to get into a "spitting contest"...
in 1980, the population was 82,000+ and it grew 15.6 by 1990 and some more by 2003. You do the math...I am tired. "gone swimming."

USA Counties 1998
Cape May, NJ (34009)
General Profile
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Population - total, 1997............................................. 98,125
Population - total, 1990............................................. 95,089
Population - total, 1980............................................. 82,266
Population - percent change, 1990 to 1997............................ 3.2
Population - percent change, 1980 to 1990............................ 15.6

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:19 pm EDT

Saw a pretty flower on the side of the road today, so I stopped to look at it and take a picture or two. It's a beautiful country we live in.

Pity the people are so blind.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:26 pm EDT

Cape May County population in 2000 – 102,326
Cape My County population in 2001 – 102,352
Cape My County population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 – 7.6%

…that would indicate that the population in Cape May in 1990 was 95,099

Salem County population in 2000 – 64,285
Salem County population in 2001 – 64, 365
Salem County population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 - -1.5%

… that would indicate the population change in Salem County in 1990 was 65,264

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/34009.html

Mrs. MM … get your facts right!

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:40 pm EDT

Mrs MM - it takes no effort to locate your previous posts ... for example, on your browser go to EDIT/FIND(ON PAGE) - or hit CTRL + F - and plug in the word "twit", hit "FIND NEXT" - and viola - less than a few seconds.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:46 pm EDT

voila

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:47 pm EDT

New Jersey Law Review - http://www.njlj.com/ ... easy to find ... first "hit on Google.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:48 pm EDT

"U.S. Judges Remain Active Investors
New Jersey Law Journal
September 30, 2002

Many federal judges reported outside investments in 2001 that dwarfed their salaries.

http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&t=PubArticleNJ&c=PubArticle&cid=1059980468336&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:52 pm EDT

Online access is only available to articles published from 2001 to the present in the New Jersey Law Journal.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:58 pm EDT

One may access content from the New Jersey Law Journal at http://www.law.com/jsp/nj//index.jsp. More extensive content access requires free subscription registration, including an address. I didn't bother to check for online judicial performance rankings or financial disclosure information. Suffice it to say that Wondering correctly cited information from the hard copy editions of the Law Journal.

"[Governmental legislator] went over this (sic) finances with a finetooth comb as the legislators and/or staff need to find Judges that won't NEED money for any reason. This supposedly prevents them from taking bribes, etc." - 3M (8/23)

... elimination of apparently superfluous six-figure salaries, benefits and funded pension plans for more than 450 judges would conservatively save the cash-strapped State of New Jersey more than $65,000,000.00 each year.

"Immediately prior to [LH's] appointment, the FBI (yep, that one) interviewed fmaily and friends, clients, etc. in an effort to make sure that there were no ghosts hidden in closets. Was I interviewed? YUP! Am I an etc? Ah ha!" - 3M (8/23)

... the New Jersey Division of State Police does background investigations for state employees, including employees of the judiciary branch. The DSP undoubtedly appreciates the assistance of the Federal Bueau of Investigation in doing background checks on state judicial nominees.

--posted by TM @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 16:36 pm EDT

CORRECTIONS

[Governmental legislators], not [Governmental legislator]

family, not faimly

http://www.njsp.org/about/sisb.html

--posted by TM @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 17:19 pm EDT

Mrs. MM … get your facts right!


--posted by my2cents @ Saturd


SIR/MADAM; GET YOUR YEARS STRAIGHT. 1980 IS NOT 2001. I WAS SHOWING YOU 'GROWTH' FROM THE YEARS WHEN LFH WAS APPOINTED TO THE BENCH. GLASSES, NEEDED?

2 CENTS: So I am unable to pull up the info you quoted without registering and possibly buying the Journal. You did get your info from a hard copy?

TM: Point, please. Are you confirming what I said or what? Are you saying that they went over his finances with a fine tooth comb because they now want to eliminate salaries? Then I assume you are verifying my comments regarding "investigation."

Again, my thoughts...why is LFH being examined here? Because of his conversation with Kadri? Then we have all rights to examine Kadri's background and habits.LFH did not sue, represent or receive any damages from this suit. So many of you are more interested in him and me than the facts.

--posted by MRS M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 17:43 pm EDT

2: After I re-read my post, I see where you might attempt to challenge me because of non-exact words, specificaly "growth from the years when LFH was appointed to the bench." My point is that in the years directly prior and possibly to the year he was actually sworn in, there was growth in the county. NOW, you show 2001 which is a decade plus of his actual appointment. Cape May County always had the least populated winter/full time residents until the Senior Citizens discovered it. It is still, I am sure the smallest Republican controlled county. Salem, "I THINK," shares legislators with another county. Could be Cape May or Cumberland.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 17:53 pm EDT

S.D-S.: I needed to repeat your comment. Of course, I am not taking credit for it.



"Saw a pretty flower on the side of the road today, so I stopped to look at it and take a picture or two. It's a beautiful country we live in.

Pity the people are so blind.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 15:26 pm EDT "

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 17:56 pm EDT

Larry Summers, in an article in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine section is said to say that the best way to show respect is to argue with your fellow man.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 17:58 pm EDT

"Cape May has grown in the last couple years" (Mrs. MM post)...

Actually there has been minimal growth in Cape ay over the past years. As to the 1980 figures in comparison to 1990 it shows a population growth of a mere 7.6%. Runs counter to your claim.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 18:19 pm EDT

BTW -

The governor appointed LFH to the bench in 1989, thirteen years after he graduated from the night program at Temple University Law School, now the Beasley School of Law.

The subscription to the online edition of the New Jersey Law Journal if FREE. Perhaps the impediment is that you have to provide an address to register.

The background investigation, financial disclosure and legislative inquiry are not intended to identify judges who do not need money so they do not have to accept bribes for the performance of their official duties.

I suspect that some persons are attempting to illustrate that, in addition to uncertainty regarding your educational background and where you live, you appear to have a flexible definition of accuracy and truth which underlies your comments. Even when obvious material falsehoods are exposed, you either ignore them or dismiss them as inconsequential.

--posted by TM @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 18:20 pm EDT

I'm surprised Mrs MM that you even ackowledge Larry Summers - the President of Harvard - since you have disparaged any all from that institution in your previous postings - even making blanket statements that must refelct on Adam and Blair - who at one time was an accepted candidate for matriculation.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 18:21 pm EDT

Let's revisit your August 3rd. characterization of Harvard students/graduates as "B O R I N G, egotistical,pompous and self-serving graduates" - broadly including your beloved Adam - and by extension his father, an adjunct professor at Harvard Law School.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 18:26 pm EDT

When Blair was accepted by Harvard earlier this year, Mrs MM was likely elated; when sher admissions was rescinded Mrs MM quickly turns on the institution for standing firm on its principles.

Mrs MM and Blair's attorney Edwin Jacobs (who told Newsweek in its July 21 issue 'Blair had decided to tender a withdrawal of her application simply because of the rabid, negative publicity on that campus.') would do well to revisit Aesop's fable:

The Fox and the Grapes
One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour." It is easy to despise what you cannot get.

- http://www.dusklight.com/aesop/aesopstory31.html

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 18:32 pm EDT

Jacobs and family spokesman Steven Kudatzky take the cake. I love what Kudatsky told the Harvard Crimson, "I am confident that, at the end of the day, Harvard will see that this is a non-issue, and quite frankly, something that is another example of Blair being singled out and victimized."

-http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp; http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348380

Blair the victim! She never really has taken full responsibility for her plagiarism - that which caused her acceptance to be withdrawn by Harvard.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 18:39 pm EDT

Actually there has been minimal growth in Cape ay over the past years. As to the 1980 figures in comparison to 1990 it shows a population growth of a mere 7.6%. Runs counter to your claim.

--posted by my2cents

USA Counties 1998
Cape May, NJ (34009)
General Profile
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Population - total, 1997............................................. 98,125
Population - total, 1990............................................. 95,089
Population - total, 1980............................................. 82,266
Population - percent change, 1990 to 1997............................ 3.2
Population - percent change, 1980 to 1990............................ 15.6

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 18:43 pm EDT

Thanks TM - "The governor appointed LFH to the bench in 1989".

Mrs MM -

the population in Cape May County in 1989 was 94,830

the population in Warren County in 1989 was 90,713

the population in Salem County in 1989 was 65,284.

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:YRpV9C5uwOgJ:www.wnjpin.state.nj.us/OneStopCareerCenter/LaborMarketInformation/lmi02/comp8090.htm+%22salem+county%22+%2B+population+%2B+1989&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Thus at the time of his appointment he was from the third smallest county...not as you contend.

It's so easy to dispute your facts and basis of any of your position. You are so often just plainly wrong ... and fail to admit that your argument(s) are flawed.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 18:51 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... I fail to find any reference by Larry Summers in the Sunday New York Times magazine indicating that "the best way to show respect is to argue with your fellow man."

I do see his quote - "''The idea that we should be open to all ideas....is very different from the supposition that all ideas are equally valid.'' -
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/magazine/24SUMMERS.html?pagewanted=all&position=


I agree with the premise that all ideas are not equally valid - and find many of yours to be flawed.

--posted by my2cents @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 19:44 pm EDT

Every morning I take 10 minutes to admire a gorgeous tree from my balcony, with fiery red blooms and rainbow lorikeets swarming all over them. How is this at all relevant to our discussion?

I am from Sydney, and I am indeed writing from here, though I don't see how this is relevant, either.

I agree with my2cents, S-DS, so let's just settle on agreeing to disagree; clearly we are in two camps about this.

Mrs. MM - if you don't feel like apologising, that's fine too, I guess. I'm sure you have no thoughts on my grandfather, but the point of your "joke" was to inflict hurt and/or to inflame me. I don't think the tone of your post conveyed any sense of humour at all, and I don't think most posters here would appreciate your sense of "American" humour. Certainly most Americans I know are much more courteous and nowhere as vulgar, especially with people they don't know very well. I'm sure you would not like it if I referred to any of your loved ones' testicles.

Courtesy is useful, you know. It makes your argument more persuasive (because it sounds more factual and rational without name-calling and petty insults) and people are more likely to take you seriously. So Mrs. M.M., you have no one but yourself to blame if people are unwilling to listen to you and accept your views. It takes as much effort to be nice and polite as it does to be rude and vulgar, so it merely reflects on what kind of a person you are by the path you choose. Don't you see? You undermine your own credibility and your own truth by your discourtesy. And if you think that's alright by you, then there's no reason to complain about it.

I see that even S-DS refuses to take either side on this, choosing to dismiss my plea for civility as a "one sided argument".

"Pity the people are so blind", indeed.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 0:17 am EDT

The irony of your comment regarding mine, is indeed missed... how, for instance is the fact that I see paraphrasing, and others don't, when indeed the meaning was certainly altered... relevant to the conversation. How, for instance does it matter, and why, when in the course of these proceedings I asked that the matter be dropped, and you wouldn't?

The purpose of my flower comment, simple, sometimes we see the forest and miss the trees. You are so intent on splitting hairs by definition that you miss the big picture, and the point.

Pity the people are so blind.

Aliteration?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 0:28 am EDT

bystander: sydney is in my mind one of the most beautiful cities in the world. The sparkling white of the buildings, the clean streets, the terraced views and access to beaches (for all). The people are some of the friendliest and most hospitable anywhere. Sydney has the civility of Europe and the athleticism/appreciation for nature of the American West. I have been on three occasions - and look forward to future visits.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 0:30 am EDT

Plagiarism Celebrated:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/956211.asp?vts=082320032115

I have a dream,

I have a dream that dishonesty will not be rewarded
that equal crimes will suffer equal punishment
that being famous will not be justification for ignorance
that a child will not suffer the sins of the father
that being wrong will not be cause for for more wrong
that being right will not be justification for anger
that reality will not be twisted to molify the masses
that integrity will not be sacrificed on the alter of time
I have a dream
I dream that in the World men will come together and stop fighting
I dream that life will be more important that just existing
I dream that all of us will see the light and not confuse it with intelligence
I have a dream
I dream that tomorrow will be the day that we join together
and see all crimes as such, crimes
I dream that when life is over it will not be used as a means to diefy merely a man
I dream that we will all see clearly, the wrongs before us
I have a dream!

I dream that if one is punished the other shall be
I dream that if both are wrong one won't be ignored at the expense of the other
I dream that if plagiarism is wrong, it be seen as such NO MATTER WHO DOES IT!
I have a dream!
I dream that lies are lies, and that we can see the difference
I dream that today the truth will be discovered
I dream that the judgements of society fall equally on those who would ignore the principle of integrity while standing fast on the word
I have a dream

The link above is a perfect example of how society rewards one, and takes from another. Dr. King's speech was plagiarized almost to a word from Archibald Carey's Speech at the Republican National Convention, 1952 and yet we are now celebrating it's 40th anniversery. I'm sure Mr. Cary would be proud. Of course Mr. Cary was a correspondent with Dr. King, and of course King took his words without permission, but because he became a culteral Icon, well I guess that means it's okay.

http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html

My point is simple, and yet it is still missed, let the rain fall equally. Dr. King was a plagiarist. Saying so neither lessens his impact on America, nor does it belittle the man, he was a plagiarist. He was also a civil rights leader and did great things. But he was indeed a plagiarist. Why, then, arent we content to rip him to shreds for it?

Blair Hornstine is a plagiarist, she is not a Culteral Icon, she is not a great anything yet, why then are we so content to destroy her with every chance we get? It is relevent in a country where equal representation under the law is a tennant of the constitution.

Are not his actions more damaging because he used his stolen words to move a nation? Should not he have credited Mr. Cary? Should not his mostly stolen Doctorial Thesis have been thrown out? Should we not use the same vehemonence to shame him that we have used to shame Blair?

Let the rain fall equally... or go look at the flowers and remain blind.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 0:54 am EDT

One thing I want to correct, I said, "it is relevant in a country where equal representation under the law is a tennant of the constitution." I should have said equal protection.

My apologies.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 0:58 am EDT

I did not mean to split hairs - I just hoped to defend a person who did not do what you specifically said he did. That's all. I don't mean to attack anyone at all. I appreciate your point about the big picture but I do believe that accuracy is important. Your advice is good - I will drop the matter.

The whole point of my post was to ask for a bit of civility, a bit of mutual respect. I may not be as old/experienced/intelligent as any of you but that's no reason to treat me as sub-human, surely? The anonymity of posting does not preclude treating each other as you would face-to-face. Things have been sour here for a while because some of us are harsher and less courteous than necessary, and I had just hoped that we could all keep posting with a bit more civility.

my2cents - I'm so glad you enjoyed Sydney. It is truly the best city in the world in my mind and I haven't been anywhere else that touches it. Living in Boston really makes me miss the beaches at home. If you ever visit again let me know and I hope to be able to recommend some good spots.

I'm sorry for the digression. But for a taste of how friendly strangers can be, you all should visit Australia sometime - our politics are all shot to hell but at least we take pride in our mateship. Cheers.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:03 am EDT

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Archibald Carey were very close friends. The issue of plagiarism is strongly disputed by Boston University which containsmany of The Reverend Dr. King's papers. Take a closer look. You reference some very biased, conservative - and somewhat racist - sources.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:19 am EDT

Bystander, while I disagree with you, I do not, at any point see where I have been less than civil with you. If you see such a thing in my disagreement, I would suggest that you are perhaps feeling a bit touchy by how you percieve comments by other posters and have maybe transferred that to me.

By definition, perhaps Cambridge merely altered the passages of my posts, but in doing so he also altered the meaning, which would thus become paraphrasing. Although his intent may have been to summarize, his actions were somewhat more, in that by omitting the very point of the passage, he changed the meaning, even if it was unintentional. In so doing the paraphrasing of my posts implied a meaning that was not correct. This is the basis for my postition. Now, to be fair, I am not an English professor, nor do I profess to be. If my chracterization of how things occured was putatively incorrect, does that lesson the impact of the changes? Of course it does not. Because they were so dramatic, and at opposites, I had a relevant reason to correct them.

Now, Cambridge and I both felt that upon clarification, it was worthwhile to drop the discussion as irrelevant to this blog, and I had hoped we could. Then comes the "hair splitting". I appreciate that you only wanted to further clarify, can you appreciate that in this case I see it as beside the point, and not really germain to the actual reason for the posts? As a matter of clarification, my possibly improper use of the word paraphrase is not as relevant as is the correction of the 'summarization' which altered the meaning of the original posts. By correcting the alteration, be it by fixing the summarization or by aliterating the obvious, the transgression is repaired, correct?

I have no acrimony towards you, and I appreciate that you have stood a position, but can you at least appreciate that I have done the same? While you and I disagree on the minutae, the fact remains that the greater good has been served by correcting the 'intent' with which a post was made. As you may have seen in this thread, when I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong, but if it's a matter of definition, and that definition does not alter the actual meaning of the words, then how does it matter if one thinks one thing, and another doesn't?

In any event, thank you, and lets let stand what is done, and move forward to what is not done.

By the by, having spent a few months in Austrailia, I agree, there are some mighty fine folks there. I like Perth, but then it's a personal thing for me.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:27 am EDT

SDS: I have criticized both Blair and MLK for plagiarism. My rain DOES fall equally.

And now your argument has fallen apart. Aww shucks...

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:29 am EDT

S-DS, I do appreciate your point, and I think other posters have also tried to grapple with the issue earlier on in this blog.

Personally I feel the difference in our treatment of the two plagiarists is based on the passage of time. Dr. King has passed on, we speak no ill of the dead, we celebrate his remarkable achievements. He cannot assume responsibility now even if we were to throw his Ph.D out - he's gone.

Blair is still here with us, she's very much a contemporary figure, and so is easier as a target for criticism. Especially on a blog devoted to her. She's still in a position where her actions directly affect society's construct. I'm sure in several years she'll be forgotten by us zealous posters, and then we can take a step back and see the rain did fall equally, after all. Because in 100 years, when we're all dead and gone, people who remember Blair Hornstine will remember her for the achievements that defined her most as a person, just as we remember Dr. King, and I'm positive that the plagiarism will not be a part of it, just as it rarely is for Dr. King.

Plagiarism is to be condemned, no matter what. What we celebrate is the person, and the dimension of time gives us the illusion of double standards. That's my take, anyway. What do you think?

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:32 am EDT

Clarification" "You reference some very biased, conservative - and somewhat racist - sources." - as per his doctoral thesis, etc.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:34 am EDT

My TwoCents, I can read. Which is why I posted both of the speeches. I don't have to be right wing, or left, or racist to read. Boston University conceeded in 1991 that Dr. King plagiarised at least 45% of the first half of his Doctorial Thesis, and 21% of the last half of his Thesis. These are not right wing politics, they are simply facts.

Dr. King and Mr. Cary, according to Correta Scott King, (Dr. Kings' wife, she might know), were correspondents who did not meet with regularity, and Mr. Cary was deceased prior to the I have a dream speech so it would be difficult if not impossible for him to have given Dr. King permission to use his words. Please, read the two speeches before accusing me of right wing politics, and don't tell me I can't read. I'm not blind, though I may be deaf. Plagiarism is plagiarism, and it's not going to be diddled away by saying it's strongly disputed by some University, which, in making it's concession regarding his plagiarised works, said: "While he did plagiarize many portions of his thesis, it was still an "original" work." Which of course flys in the face of academia everywhere. Plagiarism is the theft of others words. If he plagiarised, then it is NOT an original work. Simple as that.

LET THE RAIN FALL EQUALLY!

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:34 am EDT

If we were celebrating his deeds, then why bring up a speech clearly taken from the words of another. I have always said, and did so above that the actions of Dr. King stand alone and he should be remembered as such, but the story I posted the link to is a reminder of his speach 40 years ago. I HAVE A DREAM is a plagiarised work, period. If we are indeed remembering his actions and not his words, then what the devil is that story doing there?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:39 am EDT

S-D-S:

My mother was Coretta Scott's room mate at Antioch College (Yellow Springs, OH). I am closer to the situation than you might realize.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:39 am EDT

S-DS, I apologise for being picky. I am naturally interested in minutae, because I feel it all adds up. It often does become an annoying habit, and I'm sorry for that.

I suppose I felt affronted when you asked me not to presume to debate the point; here's the quote (and I hope it's acceptable as a quote):

"Learn the difference, but don't presume to debate me about the two, I know the difference, and I have pointed it out rather succinctly."

We've obviously come to the conclusion that it's open to interpretation, so the tone just felt like a slap in the face, and like I said, rudeness like that just makes me what to stand up for myself and further clarify. Now perhaps I am being too girlish and sensitive, but I felt it was patronising and condescending, a feeling made all the more acute by some of the other things you've said to other posters. Civility for all would be lovely!

Perth is nice too - cleaner, but the population is older than Sydney. Being still young at heart, I enjoy the cosmopolitan pulse of things here.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:41 am EDT

Dr. King was assassinated in 1968. Mr. Carey was born in 1908 and died in 1981. Your facts are wrong.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:42 am EDT

Archiblad Carey - born 1908; died 1981 - http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/urb_std_notes_Hirsch.htm

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:43 am EDT

the speech was made famous by Dr. King, and I suppose that's why it's up there. I think it should be only fair and just that Mr. Cary is attributed with its composition, and Dr. King for the delivery, and if I were in charge of the whole story, I would have.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:43 am EDT

please check out "My Life With Martin Luther King" by Coretta Scott King to understand the nature of the friendship of Dr. King and Mr. Carey...and the real story behind the famous "I Have A Dream" speech.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:47 am EDT

Just as Guy and Candy Carawan (other family friends) adapted Charles Tindlay's 1900 gospel song "I'll Overcome Some Day", Dr. King adapted Mr./Dr. Carey's 1956 Republican Convention address - with his blessing.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:59 am EDT

I will definitely do so, my2cents. This is all very intriguing.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:59 am EDT

[Just as Guy and Candy Carawan (other family friends) adapted Charles Tindlay's 1900 gospel song "I'll Overcome Some Day"} ... and authored "We Shall Overcome",

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 1:59 am EDT

"My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr." by Coretta Scott King - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080502445X/qid=1061704201/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/102-0692879-7558530?v=glance&s=books

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:06 am EDT

On Careys death I will conceed, he did indeed die in 81, my bad. As to the plagiarism, there is not one document in the public record that shows Carey gave King permission to do anything, let alone use his speech at the 1952 Republican Convention as the basis for his I HAVE A DREAM SPEECH.

Pehaps you'd like to explain away his Doctorial Thesis as well, My2Cents, or his other publicly noted plagiarisms.

Once again, here we go with Minutae, and ignore the truth.

Dr. King was supposed to be about truth, do you suppose he told the truth when he denied stealing the passages from another students thesis, or when he copied complete paragraphs from published works without so much as acrediting them?

I understand that you feel there is some validity to the I Have A Dream Speech, and if that was the only example of Dr. King's plagiarism, I would say, okay, you have a point. But it isn't, and the simple fact is that Dr. King is a plagiarist. Period. Deal with it, but don't try to cover the trail in bullshit.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:08 am EDT

Side note, isn't it interesting that we are now embattled to justify the plagiarism of Dr. King, but will happily crucify Blair Hornstine for the same thing?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:13 am EDT

One needs only scan the Internet to see many of those who seek to revise history getting confused as to Dr. Carey's speech ... was it the Republican Convention of 1952? Or, was it 1956? Check it out by doing a "Google search". Be sure to substantiate your sources. Are you aware of the validity of any of their claims?

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:21 am EDT

Maybe my2cents, you could explain this:

http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/chronology.html

The point is this, who your mother was has no bearing on what Dr. King DID. I don't care is she roomed with the POPE, it does not justify ignoring his actions.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:24 am EDT

S-DS, I don't think there's been much discussion of Blair's plagiarism lately - we've moved on to things like Judge Hornstine - you were the one who brought up Dr. King and seem intent on crucifying him. I think most of us deplore his plagiarism just as we deplore Blair's.

my2cents perhaps may be "embattled to justify the plagiarism of Dr. King", but he/she seems to be privy to inside information, like Mrs. M.M. is with Blair's situation, so I'm willing to listen. What's more, my2cents has actually been proven right on at least one count, so maybe we'll learn something new that hasn't been brought to the table yet.

Despite all that, none of us so far have had a thumbs-up for plagiarism, no matter whose. my2cents is just offering debate on whether plagiarism happened on a certain occasion, and not endorsing Dr. King's plagiarism where and if it happened.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:26 am EDT

You know, it was bound to happen, someone will come in here, and actually defend plagiarism. The link I previously posted is pretty damning, and if you don't like it, well I'm sure Mr. Boozer didn't like having his work stolen by Dr. King.

All of this is anticlimactic, King was a plagiarist, and the historical record shows this. Boston College admitted it, and then hid from it. Facts are facts, and just like the I Have a Dream speech, simply put, there are no records that indicate Mr. Carey gave Dr. King permission to use any of it, and certainly, on the more relevant issue, Dr. King did not credit any of the original authors for their work. Plagiarism. That's the bottom line. He, on a much broader level, stole complete passages from others, and used them as his own, and in so doing far and away surpassed the realitively miniscule doings of our Ms. Hornstine, yet you would defend him while at the same time crucify her.

LET THE RAIN FALL EQUALLY.

It isn't about race my2cents, given my own racial makeup, I can absolutely tell you it isn't about race. It isn't about sex either, it's about right and wrong. Blair was wrong, King was wrong, same crime, same offence, when is it going to be the same punishment?

LET THE RAIN FALL EQUALLY.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:30 am EDT

You reference Gerard S. Harbison, Professor of Chemistry, University of Nebraska at Lincoln...hardly an authority on Dr. King. I'd rather rely on my two degrees of separation with Mrs. King ... and others ... like the late Judge Leon Higginbotham - a classmate of Mrs. King's and my mother's - who knows/knew the details of Dr. King's life.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:33 am EDT

bystander, being right is one thing, being obstinate is another.

He seeks to justify the broad theft by Dr. King of others words, I seek to see it painted in the same brush stroke.

For the record, I've been pointing out the King plagiarism for months, not just today, and I have no desire to crucify King, I simply want the record to fairly reflect that he was not a saint, nor even an original. He was a plagiarist. It doesn't take from his impact, but just maybe we should consider sharing the credit, after all, it is due.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:34 am EDT

Boston College is a Catholic institution, while Boston University (where Dr. King studied) is separate. Details, details, details.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:34 am EDT

The rain is falling equally. Enough of your straw man argument. You wouldn't want me to sue, would you???

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:35 am EDT

again, where has my2cents defended Dr. King's plagiarism? he's just questioning whether plagiarism happened at all in the case of the I Have a Dream speech, and questioning some sources which accuse Dr. King of plagiarism. that's different from saying that plagiarism is A-OK because it comes from Dr. King.

If Dr. King did commit plagiarism, and I am inclined to believe so, then it should be condemned. If he didn't, and my2cents is questioning that it did, then Dr. King should not be crucified. Plagiarism is wrong, if it happened. Simple dimple.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:35 am EDT

my2cents, give us a break. The facts that Harbison brings forward are public record. I'll rely on those, instead of hand me down tales of a diefied dead man whose family, and race would see him elevated to sainthood on the backs of others.

And I'll rely on Mr. Boozer, and my own eyes. I've read both thesis, and frankly, the figure of plagiarism is more like 62 to 75%.

I have eyes.

I have a brain.

I know how to use them.

Deal with the truth.

As for your two degrees of separation, tell me, my2cents, were you there?

I think not.

I'll take PUBLIC RECORD FOR $1,000.00, Alex.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:37 am EDT

Oh Jesus, split the hairs split the hairs...

ummm, while we're at it, could you provide mitigating PUBLIC RECORDS that show that King DIDN'T plagiarize?

Boston University... OMG, I made a type fast boo boo, and again you lept on it... Yet, so far you've ignored the rest....

Typical

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:41 am EDT

I completely agree with you that credit should be shared where it is due. And I hope it will, once the question of whether Dr. King plagiarised is definitively settled.

I just thought we had settled that we condemn plagiarism no matter who does it way back when you first brought it up, and so for you to bring up the topic again after moving on seemed to question our collective resolution that plagiarism is wrong. Who here has openly supported plagiarism?

Just as you don't seek to crucify King, I don't seek to crucify Blair, and I hope no one here really seeks to either.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:41 am EDT

I am not defending plagiarism. I believe it is wrong ... and was appropriate for consideration by Harvard to rescind Blair's acceptance. Whether or not Dr. King plagiarised is often times "up for debate". If he did plagiarize ... it is wrong. But, as pointed out above, his actions and contributions to the greater good far outweighed any transgression(s). If Blair ends up contributing to the greater good, to the "commonweal" aka the "commonwealth", it will likely dwarf her transgression.

Let us consider the quote from Archie Epps, the former dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard who passed away on Thursday - "The question to be asked now is, what good did I do? Because you either climb the ladder and pull it up after you, so no one else can follow. Or you put it down so others can climb up, too." - http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/08/23/harvards_archie_epps_is_dead_at_66/

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:42 am EDT

General note: You have no anchor tied to your ass, do your damndest.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:44 am EDT

bless Dean Epps, and may his memory live on.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:44 am EDT

S-D-S: I don't "get" your phrase: "You have no anchor tied to your ass, do your damndest." I've never heard it. What do you mean by it?

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:50 am EDT

bystander, if you haven't noticed, we have a plagiarist in our midsts who thinks it's funny to play the game, but doesn't like it when it's dropped on his head.

As for the plagiarism of Dr. King, it is a matter of public record, and that he did it has never been laid upon his feet, nor used to humanize him, since he has been elevated to some higher place in the public sentiment. Far be it from me to say in the same sentence that Dr. King was a great man and a plagiarist, because to do so would be to invite the type of reposte that we see here.

It is not relevant who was who's room mate or classmate or bedmate, the simple truth is just that, the simple truth. That these facts are being debated is proof enough that certain folks don't believe it occured, which is why I take public record over personal rememberances. I don't need to have been the roomate of the cousin of the brother of Bill Clinton to know he was a womanizer. He was, and it's a matter of Public Record, and that is where I'll let this argument die.

It's a matter of Public Record, and the rain as yet, is not falling equally.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:50 am EDT

my2cents,

that comment is not directed at you, and has no bearing on our discourse. The party to whom it is directed knows who they are, and what it means, and it does not bear further comment from you or I.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:51 am EDT

S-D-S - tell me more about "Public Record"(s). Are they filed somewhere sancrosanct? And, pray tell, who is the plagiarist in our midst?

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:52 am EDT

I am truly confused by your reference, bu tam heartended to know that you are not confusing me of being a plagiarist. BTW - I trust my sources of information - my mother, her relationship to many of the players in the civil rights movement - more than I do of those who post - what I consider misinformation and distortion - on the Internet. You are entitled to believe what you wish, but I strongly suggest that you investigate the sources ... and look to primary ones to gain a perspective.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:55 am EDT

but am heartened to know that you are not accusing me of being a plagiarist

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:56 am EDT

my2cents, I would suggest that you read all of this blog, and not just these last few comments, and then you will know who the plagiarist is.

The public records are those kept in Leland Archive at Stanford University, and include many of Dr. King's works.

Further documentation of these are found in Wall Street Jounal, the Sunday Telegraph, and in various works regarding Dr. King both in and out of print.

A complete archival of Dr. King's papers is not possible as so many of them are yet in priavte hands, however, those in the public domain, as those mentioned above, are indeed, public record.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 2:58 am EDT

S-DS, I actually haven't noticed who the plagiarist is...I guess it doesn't really matter who but given that we all know and agree that plagiarism is wrong, it's silly to then plagiarise and earn a reason for people to pick at you.

If we could in any way contribute to the rain falling equally, then tell me how, because I don't like the injustice as much as you don't and if there's anything I should do, I would. I do believe that the rain falls as equally as it does in your mind for all of us, and those who still revere Dr. King do so for his many achievements, and not *because* he plagiarised. And despite it being on public records (I assume you mean newspapers and such?), I don't think it is common knowledge that Dr. King plagiarised - I definitely surprised a couple of friends when I asked them about it.

I can definitely stand here and say, that if it is or has been definitively proven, that Martin Luther King was a great man and a plagiarist. I have no qualms and I don't believe, if it's been proven beyond a doubt, that anyone else would have too.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 3:04 am EDT

S-D-S ... let us agree (respectfully) that we disagree. It is late for me .. time to turn in. Good night. Cheers.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 3:04 am EDT

For the record, my2cents, I have read with my own eyes. I respect that you will rely on personal sources, because you can, but all of us do not have that luxury, and I think you'll agree, that personel reflections can indeed be biased, even if that bias is not intentional.

My bottom line is that I have read the sources directly, I have read Dr. King's thesis, and Dr. Boozers, and frankly, you should too. As unfortunate as it seems, the fact remains. Dr. Boozer became a Professor of Religion at Emory University, and while he has never taken any action against Dr. King, or his legacy, Dr. Boozer did indeed take exception to the use of his work.

Dr. Boozer noted that while Dr. King was "heroic" in his own right as a champion of civil rights; he was also an academic theif whose use of my words helped gain him his title...

Emory University provided that rhetoric. Please feel free to confirm it.

My point, while apart from the debate, is that one has not to look far to have indisputable proof of the actions of Dr. King.

I do not seek to minimize his impact, and never have. I do seek to remind us all that Dr. King was indeed, only human.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 3:05 am EDT

Smallest Republican county in NJ. Underline and capitalize REPUBLICAN.

Summers "paraphrasing" quote in the beginning, possibly first sentence or firsr paragraph of article in today's, Sunday, August 24,, 2003 New York Times Magazine.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 12:14 pm EDT

I ask again, WHY ARE WE 'DISCUSSING' AND 'DISSECTING' LFH. As LFH has support from JK, why aren't we "DISSECTING' AND ' DISCUSSING' and 'RIPPING A NEW ...in Kadri,who received no support on his statements and is a proven liar, cheat and a dishonorable person, all around?????

" Kadri portrays Mr. Hornstine as an overzealous parent bent on manipulating the system to ensure that his daughter does not suffer “the same embarrassment” he suffered when he was merely the salutatorian of his graduating class. Kadri Cert. at ¶ 14. Mr. Hornstine disputes most of Kadri's account of the meeting, stating, for example, that he was not salutatorian of his class, since his “class rank was never that high.” L. Hornstine Cert. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff offers the certification of Assistant Superintendent Judithann Keefe, who was also present at the meeting, in support of Mr. Hornstine's account. Certification of Judithann C. Keefe, Ed.D. (“Keefe Cert.”)."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 12:19 pm EDT

"
The background investigation, financial disclosure and legislative inquiry are not intended to identify judges who do not need money so they do not have to accept bribes for the performance of their official duties" NO, THE FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE DONE ARE TO PROVE THAT THE FUTURE JUDGE HAS HIS OWN MONEY AND NEEDS NO MORE THAN THE (AT THAT TIME) ABOUT $100,000 TO LIVE. IT IS ABSOLUTELY 100% TRUE THAT FUTURE JUDGES NEED TO PROVE THAT WITH THEIR 'INVESTMENTS', OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME ( THAT WOULD NEVER HAVING ANY BEARINGS ON THEIR DECISIONS
), AND THE PITANCE THEY RECEIVE FROM THE STATE,THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE IN THE SAME CUSTOM OF LIVING. Argue, if you want. I have nothing more to say on this subject.

Let's discuss Kadri..............

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 12:29 pm EDT

Bystander: If you don't have a sense of humor, if you don't, if, if and if. American humor? The If "joke" I refer to is a very typical one from my ill bred small circle of the world. GET OVER IT. GiveWAY, Yield, whatever.

I demand, do not look for here, respect or creditability. I just spend some time with my opinions, facts and support. IGNORE ME. If most of you did, there would be not much of a blog.....

Who cares who I am? You want to start bothering me at home, egging my home? Hornstine friends and relatives have been bombarded with cranks. Don't even bother to ask about this. Get off the search engines for the friends and relatives. No one bothers your family and friends. No one but the plaintiff and defendants should see their names in print. And you want to add my "real" name here? You are kidding?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 12:39 pm EDT

Your original statement was: "he came from the smallest county in NJ", followed by repeated attempts to justify that it was correct with other statements, such as "Possibly until the last couple years, cape may was the smallest county by population." Now that you have been provenwrong on the fact you attempt to modify your original contention by appending a modifier ("Smallest Republican county in NJ. Underline and capitalize REPUBLICAN"). It is just what you attempted to do when you claimed that Kudatsky was a "recent graduate of Harvard Law School. It was pointed out by another poster that he was actually and underdraduate of Harvard College in 1972. Hardly recent...and not from the Law School. You actually made an out right statement soon after that you never said Kudatsky was a graduate of Harvard Law. You attempted then to modify - and say all was a typographic error oin your part. Accept that you are often wrong; that you present information as if it is fact ... and it is not.

Regarding the first sentence ... or, the first paragraph of the article about Larry Summers in today's Sunday New York Times ... I reprint it below. Please show me where one can paraphrase any of it to support your statement: "Larry Summers, in an article in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine section is said to say that the best way to show respect is to argue with your fellow man."

"Summers wants Harvard to regard itself as a single sovereign entity rather than as an archipelago of loosely affiliated institutions. He wants to change the undergraduate curriculum so that students focus less on ''ways of knowing'' and more on actual knowledge. He wants to raise quantitative kinds of knowledge to something like parity with traditionally humanistic kinds of knowledge. He wants to make the university more directly engaged with problems in education and public health, and he wants the professions that deal with those problems to achieve the same status as the more lordly ones of law, business and medicine. And he wants to assert certain traditional verities, or rather open an intellectual space in which such verities can at least be posited. 'The idea that we should be open to all ideas,' he said when I saw him in mid-July, 'is very different from the supposition that all ideas are equally valid.'" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/magazine/24SUMMERS.html

You continue to discredit yourself with your own words. I, like many others, put little regard in statements and arguments that are not supported by fact ... and are often attempted to be denied by the person who has so egregiously erred.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 12:51 pm EDT

For all you Harvard grads, students and supporters of the Cambridge school, especially those who will be able to find this info: Why in the last four or so years have there been students who were "asked to leave for a semester or a year" for plagiarizing been re-admitted and allowed to continue with their Harvard schooling? These students PLAGIARIZED ON HARVARD ASSIGNMENTS. Why are they not being raked over the coals? Do you know or are you them????

The ones of you who have all this access to the Crimson gates will be able to confirm this. If you don't want to believe or just want to argue that there are these "people" who returned after a "semester off", don't bother. Ask present students.

And if in the remotest chance you believe, why is BLH being treated so differently?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 12:56 pm EDT

Please support your contention that Harvard students who have plagiarized in recent years have been suspended and then readmitted. The facts, please. Cite specific instances.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 12:58 pm EDT

Search the archives at the Harvard Crimson (http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/); The Gazette (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/index.html) and the Independent (http://www.harvardindependent.com/). Also try the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/). Please come back with solid evidence to support your supposition.

Students who plagiarize - or, engage in other forms of academic dishonesty - are expelled, not suspended.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:02 pm EDT

"he came from the smallest county in NJ and one of only two (at least at that time) that were Republican. He received his appointment, if I remember correctly, from a Republican Governor"....I AM GETTING READY TO BE TIED TO THE CROSS BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY' SMALLEST REPUBLICAN COUNTY IN NJ' AND USED THE CONJUNCTION 'AND' TO BRIDGE THE TWO THOUGHTS. GIMME A BREAK. WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITHOUT CRITICIZING ME.

I am going to my trash to find the article that I read yesterday on Summers.

I do not need to discredit myself. DON'T LISTEN TO ME!
"MY" ego can take it!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:03 pm EDT

Students who, for whatever reason, submit work either not their own or without clear attribution to its sources will be subject to disciplinary action, and ordinarily required to withdraw from the College.” (http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/handbooks/student.2002-2003/chapter2/academic_performance.html#preppaper)

I am not aware of any extraordinary circumstances at Harvard where a recent student was disciplined other than being forced to withdraw.

"According to Director of Undergraduate Admissions Marlyn McGrath Lewis ’70-’73, who declined comment on Hornstine’s case, Harvard admission is contingent on five conditions enumerated for students upon their acceptance—including one which stipulates admission will be revoked 'if you engage in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.' Lewis said plagiarism could qualify as grounds for withdrawing acceptance, and according to another source familiar with Harvard’s admissions process, it would be very unusual for Harvard not to act against an individual whose plagiarism was confirmed." http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article348498.html

"Harvard won’t comment, but accepted students are always told that admission can be revoked for behavior that questions “honesty, maturity or moral character.” Rutgers professor Donald McCabe, an expert on student cheating, says that Harvard did the right thing: 'She violated a standard the university is trying to enforce.' "

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/938181.asp?0bl=-0

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:09 pm EDT

"I do not need to discredit myself."
--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:03 pm EDT


THEN WHY ARE YOU???

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:09 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... BTW ... you don't need tofish the NY Times out of your trash ... you can access it online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/magazine/24SUMMERS.html

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:14 pm EDT

Your statement "he came from the smallest county in NJ and one of only two (at least at that time) that were Republican." claims that (1) he came from the smallest county and that (2) there were only two counties in New Jersey (out of 21) that were Republican. There can not be two smallest Republican counties ... unless they are of equaly size.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:18 pm EDT

First sentence, paragraph two ( said POSSIBLY the first paragaraph, my old memory isn't that good after a night in NYC), page 28 of August 24, 2003, section 6 edition of the New York Times Magazine, HARVARD RADICAL, BY James Traub says:

"Summers, 48, says he has always believed that the best way to show your respect for your fellow man is to argue with him, ....."

BTW, YOU ARE QUOTING FROM PARAGRAPH 3. Get with it. Apology, accepted.

And now, I quote your criticism of me for your incorrect and unjust statement:

"You continue to discredit yourself with your own words. I, like many others, put little regard in statements and arguments that are not supported by fact ... and are often attempted to be denied by the person who has so egregiously erred. "

I follow this with your assumed carved in stone statement to me in your attempt at intimidation:

"Regarding the first sentence ... or, the first paragraph of the article about Larry Summers in today's Sunday New York Times ... I reprint it below. Please show me where one can paraphrase any of it to support your statement: "Larry Summers, in an article in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine section is said to say that the best way to show respect is to argue with your fellow man."



--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August


If you don't have it or can't find it or wish to see it in black and white,(with the big red I on the page) give me a e mail address or a fax # or give it to S.D-S. and I will forward it to you.

Tally ho

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:19 pm EDT

equal size

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:23 pm EDT

The annual "pittance" the State of New Jersey pays a Superior Court judge in the Law Division is more than $141,000.00 with liberal medical, vacation and disability benefits. The judge may receive "tenure" after seven years on the bench which entitles him or her to serve until the mandatory retirement age of seventy years old. Superior Court judges also have a generous pension plan. Many retired Superior Court judges serve on "recall" status.

Financial disclosure is designed to help identify and avoid potential conflicts of interest. Similarly, an individual judge in a particular case may advise respective counsel of a potential conflict that may or may not result in recusal.

The purpose of financial disclosure is not to ensure that potential state court judges can maintain their pre-appointment standard of living. Each county has a long list of applicants for potential judicial office. Judicial salaries are published in a legislative handbook commonly referred to as "the red book," probably available at most New Jersey libraries. Almost every judicial appointee is politically active or connected, either directly or indirectly. Although appointed by the governor, appointees are usually sponsored by a state assemblyman or senator, and all are subject to senate confirmation.

I do not recall any credible published reports about a judicial appointee who was "surprised" by an appointment. Similarly, I do not recall any reports that the legislature ever rejected a potential judicial appointee because it determined he or she could "not continue in the same custom of living" on the prescribed judicial salary.

Judge Hornstine lived and worked in traditionally-Republican Cape May County until his appointment to the bench in 1989. I believe he has always sat in Camden County, a populous governmental subdivision dominated by a powerful Democrat machine. Unlike the vast majority of superior court judges, Judge Hornstine chooses not to live in the county where he sits.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:27 pm EDT

"Please support your contention that Harvard students who have plagiarized in recent years have been suspended and then readmitted. The facts, please. Cite specific instances.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 12:58 pm EDT


THIS IS SOMETHING I CANNOT DO. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY TWO PRESENT HARVARD STUDENTS THAT TWO STUDENTS FROM THEIR HOUSING UNITS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO LEAVE HARVARD FOR PLAGIARIZING. THEY WERE READMITTED AFTER ONE SEMESTER AND ONE YEAR. I KNOW THE STUDENTS WELL WHO TOLD ME THIS. THEY HAVE NO AX TO GRIND. THEY JUST BRUSHED IT OFF AS FACT AND TOLD ME THESE TWO WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES. ONE OF THE PLAGIARIZING STUDENTS WAS A GOOD FRIEND OF ONE OF 'MY SOURCES.'

These two have nothing to gain or lose by lying to me. They are smart and respected young people.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:30 pm EDT

I find no such statement (""Summers, 48, says he has always believed that the best way to show your respect for your fellow man is to argue with him, .....") the online version of James Traub's article on Larry Summers in the Sunday New York Times magazine. Check it out at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/magazine/24SUMMERS.html?pagewanted=2

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:31 pm EDT

Actually - the link to the entire article - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/magazine/24SUMMERS.html?pagewanted=all&position=

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:34 pm EDT

TM: Now it's $140,000. I think LFH started at $100,000 or $106,000, a pittance for lawyers who make a quarter of a million to a half a million a year.

Find me a NJ Superior Court Judge who is not independently wealthy. Outside of Hornstine, Rand and, possibly, Max Baker, I am not sure that any Judges were appointed before Age 50. I could be wrong. I don't know all the judges in all 21 counties.

Judge Hornstine was the youngest member of the bench until Judge Rand was seated.(I can't remember excactly, but I am sure you will find it, but I believe they are close in age) Judge Rand's deceased Father was a high powered Democratic leader in Camden County. The appointment of his son was a "favor" bestowed upon him due to his Father's many years of service. (Better than naming a bus stop for him)

Judge Hornstine sat in Atlantic County on loan for many years. He was considered a Cape May county Judge but never sat there on a regular basis (I assume that maybe he filled in once in a while). He sat in Atlantic County in Mays Landing (there are some judges sitting in Atlantic City, but I am quite sure he never sat there either on a regular basis) until he requested the transfer to Camden County.

Judge Hornstine is not the only Camden County Sitting Judge that lives in Burlington County.

--posted by Mrs. M. M @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:41 pm EDT

Two Cents: I cannot pull up the site you give me as I am not registered. However, I will gladly find a way through a third source, if you prefer to send this article, (which is directly next to me) to you. I will be glad to type (I am a pretty fast typist) the first three paragraphs to you, if it makes you happy.

I am sure that I don't have a "special" copy of this magazine, a one edition one.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:46 pm EDT

Two Cents: First paragraph starts with: "It is no easy or enviable thing to take over an institution that perceives itself as matchless....." And ends with '"We didn't think we were hiring Dag Hammerskjold.'" D. Ronald Daniel, a member of the corporation, conceded."

Then, next paragraph: "Summers, 48 says he has always believed....."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:49 pm EDT

Two Cents: The paragraph you quote is #3 which begins on page 28 with two lines and continues on page 30. Page 29 has a version of the cover picture of Summers on it.

Its' about creditability????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:53 pm EDT

You can register for free at the NYTimes website.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 13:59 pm EDT

Two: I don't need to. I get the paper. It's funny, as I did not have time to finish reading the article yesterday (that part of the Sunday paper comes to me on Saturday), and I have still not finished the article or another story in the mag that I want to read, but I will be more than happy to fax the pages to you, scan them or mail them. (Well, I don't always do well with scanning, but I will try)

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:04 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.

Are you suggesting that Judge Hornstine earned between $250,000.00 and $500,000.00 a year working for a small Wildwood, New Jersey law firm in the mid- to late 1980s?

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:10 pm EDT

TM: YUP!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:11 pm EDT

Two: I am a registered reader of NY Times online, so I did go there. The first two paragraphs of the article in my hand are not there.

So you and I are both correct. I went down the article and compared paragraph to paragraph beginning for about 10 paragraphs. They match. I did not do the entire article.

So as far as I can see, the first two paragraphs of the printed magazine which I hold in my hand are not repeated online. I still will send you the mag. Choose a way.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:13 pm EDT

Strange. Could it be that there are different versions and printings of the magazine ... i.e. a version printed on Saturday; another on Sunday? Are there regional versions of the magazine, as there are of the paper itself? There appears to likely be a disparity. My apologies for our misunderstanding.

--posted by my2cents @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:18 pm EDT

I have some questions.

While I appreciate that there is some transference going on, (putting the blame squarely on Judge Hornstine), what does that ultimately have to do with Blair's GPA, plagiarism, or dismissal from Harvard?

Now, before you go, OMG, Smitty's done lost his mind, let me make a few points for you.

While we were discussing Blair, it was fair to question the veracity of her grades, and those of Mr. Mirkin, who would have been her chief competitor in the Valedictory, and who, in fact, acted in her stead, as Valedictorian, whilst giving a commencement speech as the Salutorian, as the Valedictorian by court order was not in attendance. (No, I am not saying she was ordered not to attend, I am saying she was certainly the Valedictorian by court order, if not in fact.)

It has now become fashionable to attack Mr. Hornstine, his standing his income, and his political aspirations, if any, and even to discuss the political make up of his home county. Since Mr. Hornstines' apparent protagonist in this fiasco would be Mr. Kadri, why then, is it not reasonable to bring into question his actions, particularly when there appears to be at least putative evidence that he did indeed libel Mr. Hornstine. In addition to this, while there is not a judgement against him at this time, a finding of fact as the basis for an opinion against the school board in granting the TRO occured, which on the surface cleary indicates that Mr. Kadri 1.) Attempted to discriminate against Blair by reworking the GPA numbers. 2.) Attempted to prevent Blair from being named the Valedictorian, or co-valedictorian, as evidenced by the boards attorney's inability to quantitatively assure the court that Blair would be at least considered as the co-valedictorian in the Boards preposed honor sharing system. 3.) Lied outright about a conversation that occured, wherein the only other person present, (Mrs. Keefe), clearly indicated that Mr. Kadri had fabricated his allegations about Mr. Hornstines' apparent embarassment about his inability to become the Valedictorian in his own high school class.

Now, when these things are mentioned, we see things like Mrs. Keefe was passing on hearsay, which is wrong. She offered direct testimony as a result of her attendance in the meeting, which is not hearsay, but actual knowledge of the conversation from having been present at the meeting. Because she was there, a preponderance of the available information would indicate that Mr. Kadri lied about the conversation, and in so doing, libeled Mr. Hornstine, and created an environment of hostility that precipitated the lawsuit, since it would appear Mr. Kadri was unwilling to even share the valedictory award with Blair.

However, any mention of this apparent action by Mr. Kadri is met repeatedly with speculation that Mr. Hornstine has somehow manipulated the system. I think that we need to fairly assess what part Mr. Kadri's actions had in precipitating the law suit, as opposed to avoiding it. Mr. Kadri may have invited the law suit, believing that ultimately his version of events would be accepted, and perhaps not believing that Mrs. Keefe would oppose his version of events, as she would directly jeapordize her job should his version be accepted, and had she opposed it.

Sometimes there is that one person that stands in the breach, who will sacrifice personal gain in order to see the truth enforced. Given that Mr. Kadri is such a charismatic person, who has such community support, it is unlikely that Mrs. Keefe, who has no apsirations to the top job at the school board would have willingly jeapordized her position in order to head off any kind of advance or victory by Mr. Kadri. In fact, it is more unlikely as she would have jeapordized not only her position, but her retirement benefits, and her future, if she were fired for cause. I think it is fair to believe, and at least give the benefit of the doubt to Mrs. Keefe, in her recounting of the conversation between Mr. Kadri, and Mr. Hornstine.

If that is the case, then indeed, Mr. Kadri is a liar, and should be called to task over it. The constant attacks upon the character of Mr. Hornstine appear to be unjustified, just as the defense of Mr. Kadri appears to be unjustified. Ignoring the actions of Mr. Kadri set a dangerous precedent that can result in the virtual public crucification of Mr. Hornstine, when if fact, if the court documents are to be believed, it was Mr. Kadri who ultimately forced the legal actions that have occured.

Failing to recognize this, and failing to bring Mr. Kadri to task over his actions basically tells us that it is more relevant to us as a public group, to embrace lies, deceit, and subterfuge than it is to accept the truth, see the wrong, and correct the problem. Blair was wrong to plagiarize, but her actions do not appear to have existed in her schoolwork, though there is now a camp insisting that the settlement is so low because there must be proof of her also plagiarizing her school work. I disagree, I think that it is so low because of the public sentiment, and Blair's desire to move on. I think Blair finally told the combined group, "lets get this over with, because no matter what the truth is, no one is going to believe it."

We've proven that no matter what the Hornstines say or do, we're going to attack them. We've proven that we will overlook simular acts from historical and public figures, but that we are willing to crucify Blair and her family for what are ultimately, academic choices that carry no penalty for occurance, but can be used against her for the rest of her life.

Maybe Blair will become a great person, a historical figure, but until that happens, what is obvious to me is that she will always be judged for her wrongs, instead of being given credit for her rights. She was the Valedictorian, she had the highest GPA, she earned it on a board approved study program. She earned a title she can not enjoy or celebrate because of the vicious, and (unpunished) assault on her character by students, and others within the community.

It has been speculated that she could have had protection and attended her graduation, which would only serve to enforce a student suggested boycott of the graduation. Frankly, Blair made the honorable choice, and did not disrupt the ceremony she wanted so much to be part of. What has she lost because she was right, and what have we gained because we ignored it?

That, ultimately, should be the question we address here.

Don't you think?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:19 pm EDT

TM: Did you digest that?

Now, LFH went out on his own (don't remember the year), started his own office and hired attorneys to work for him. He was probably the best, if not only, divorce and criminal lawyer in the county. He had some big cases. He also worked in a summer resort town that saw druggies, alcoholic problems and accidents increase by big figures in the summer. Wildwood, itself, probably had somewhere around 5-10,000 , possibly less(don't pull up the census, I could be off, but I will make my point)in the winter and in excess of 100,000 on any given summer weekend. Mommies and Daddies whose sonny drank too much, got caught with the weed - buying and/or selling, had some "girl" problems under the boardwalk, were disorderly, had a fender bender while under the influence,etc. needed a attorney. He also represented some "influental" men and woman in some hard fought divorces. Then he represented some big companies (NYSE listed- don't ask me how they got to him. I know that he represented a client against one big NYSE company and the following year or so this company hired him)in civil suits or damage suits. He earned some big bucks for quite a few years.




Again, why must we discuss him? Can we dissect Kadri equally?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:28 pm EDT

S. D-S. Not only because of my feelings for BLH and family, but for equality, I have suggested over and over that we subject Kadri to the same scrutiny that most writers here have subjected the Hornstines.

I do find it "amazing" that even though Kadri wanted to change the rules in mid-stream in selecting a Valedictorian, Cyndi Wulfsberg said something about not changing the way MHS would in the near future select a Valedictorian. Does that vindicate BLH? Certainly doesn't vindicate Kadri for going to bat for another student.

KADRI...KADRI...KADRI...KADRI...KADRI....Let's check his pockets and underarms.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:36 pm EDT

I do not have immediate access to the figures in front of me, but my recollection is that the New Jersey Law Journal recently reported annual per partner profits of approximately $288,000.00 (possibly higher) at Archer & Greiner, the largest South Jersey-based law firm with somewhere around 150 attorneys.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:39 pm EDT

Two cents: I have seen once in a while before that something is left out of an article online. Probably a typo or something. I am sure you or others here are much more familiar with the internet and its workings than I and know how copy actually gets to a website.

I'll send it. Let me know.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:39 pm EDT

Archer and Greiner could be the largest. They changed their name and probably combined a law firm or two in recent years. A & G are located in the Camden County area (I don't now know how many offices they have). I am trying to think of one firm that I know that merged with them, but the name slips by now. Comegro is an attorney with A & G.

Fox, Rothchild, with offices in Lawrenceville,NJ (in South Jersey - don't know where you are from), Philadelphia, NE Pennsylvania area and I think NYC could be considered larger, if you count all the attorneys in all of the offices. I am not sure how these things work, so don't yell, if I am not correct.
There are several other Philadelphia law firms that have offices in South Jersey. So, maybe they could be counted as larger.

I don't think large law firms mean more money per attorney. You can take a man like Lew Katz who grew up in Camden, had a law firm in Cherry Hill and now owns the New Jersey Nets,Kinney Parking (gave it to his son), a bank (think he sold it) among other things. He had a relatively small firm in CH and great political contacts and investments.

I know of another attorney whose name I do not care to mention who was a one man practioner and had the largest divorce practice in NJ and obviously made the salaries for partners at A&G look like petty cash.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 14:55 pm EDT

Such wonderful questions...

Such deafening silence...

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 15:12 pm EDT

Does anyone wonder in a small school district like Moorestown, why two grade school principals "retired" this year even after being asked to stay?????

Does anyone wonder why Dr. Judithann Keefe is called doctor and has a doctorate and Mr. Kadri is either not that educated or chooses not to use the word Dr?

Does anyone wonder why as Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Trenton, N.J didn't get the job in Naples, Florida?

Does anyone wonder why the Moorestown Board of Education interviewed lots of candidates for the job and spent more than originally budgeted in seeking a new Superintendent and hired a man from a nearby area whose experience was from a school at the opposite end of the educational spectrum of students? In other words if Moorestown has one of the best reputations in NJ for producing highly educated students, Trenton is near or at the other end.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 15:26 pm EDT

S. D-S. It's a perfect time to repeat your post of 15:12.

Always nice to hear from you.

--posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 15:28 pm EDT

S. D-S. Notice that after I explained where I got the article on Summers;and Notice after I explained why LFH made so much money and how others made more; and Notice when you requested returning to the lawsuit and Notice how when I asked about Kadri several times and even posted questions........Notice the cramps that seemed to occur in those typing fingers.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 15:39 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.

No one has ever doubted that Judge Hornstine was a successful private practioner in Wildwood, a point reflected by his financial disclosures and "supported" by your comments.

Archer & Greiner is the largest law firm based in South Jersy. It has branch offices in Philadelpia, Princeton and Flemington, the latter acquired several years ago as the result of a merger with a small, local firm. A number of larger, Philadelphia-based law firms have significant South Jersey presences. These include, but are not limited to, Ballard Spahr, Reed Smith, Wolf Block. Saul Ewing and Pepper Hamilton.

Of course, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the size of a firm and the compensation it pays its attorneys. Likewise, a small or even a sole practioner in a shore community can earn substantial money.

I do not wonder why two long-term elementary school principals in the district retired last year. Similarly, I do not wonder why the long-time high school principal retired several years ago, before Kadri was hired, and shortly after the U.S. Department of Education designated MHS as a Blue Ribbon School.

I understand that Kadri has an M.B.A. from Wharton. I don't know whether that qualifies him for an honorific. Having been awarded several post-graduate degrees, do you use an honorific?

I do not have any information or opinion regarding why Kadri is not working in Naples, Florida. Similarly, I do not have any information or opinion why the Moorestown School District hired Kadri over other applicants for the position. Perhaps you have some public information, and not just backyard gossip, regarding these issues.

BTW, do you have any explanation from "the horse's mouth" regarding your inaccurate and misleading publication of "inside" information about the settlement?

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 16:19 pm EDT

Wasn't Tomar, et al the largest practice in NJ a few years ago? What happened to them? I did notice that A& G were the 8th largest in NJ in 2001.

You did seem to doubt at a point that LFH could have earned $250,000 or more.

An MBA, even from Wharton does not qualify a person to use the word Dr. A Dr. is usually reserved for a PH.D or a member of the medical profession. Now I find it strange that a Superintendent of a Blue Ribbon school such as MHS does not have a doctorate. I don't even have info that Kadri went to Penn.

No, I made a call yesterday regarding your question about the settlement money. My "Horse" was away.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 16:26 pm EDT

I do notice that the two Assistant Superintendents of MHS have their biography printed on the School District/Board of Ed. website. Where is Kadri????

Where is Kadri?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 16:32 pm EDT

The Cherry Hill-based Tomar broke up several years ago in the wake of a public scandal. Any of your customary sources can supply the details.

http://www.bonitadailynews.com/02/03/naples/d720544a.htm.

You must also be outraged to know that neither the MHS principal nor the two assistant principals have doctorates. I do not include the former head of guidance for obvious reasons.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 16:47 pm EDT

I knew Tomar wasn't in the building on Brace Road any longer, but obviously I didn't know there was s c a n d e l. I attempted to pull up the sight you listed, but that is Bonita Springs/Naples, Florida There was a young Tomar who got into some trouble there, but nothing could I find on the law firm.

I am not outraged about the principals or the late guidance director. I am just suprised that after all the effort and money the BOE spent to find a new Super, they found one down the road at a much lesser school without a PhD. I knew they settled... but.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 17:03 pm EDT

TM: I notice when I tell you something that you do not know that it is all well and good,maybe somewhat argumentative. However... When I am not familiar with something, don't know something or didn't have the settlement amount correct,or have something negative to say about Kadri, you are nasty and sarcastic. Are you a relative of Kadri's? His secretary? Friend? member of the BOE?I can ask the same questions, too.
You protest toooo much in your protection of him.

And who cares about the Tomar in Bonita Springs?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 17:13 pm EDT

ATTENTION: All well informed and researcher!

What do we know about Kadri besides:

1. He attempted to cheat BLH out of her rightful role

2. He LIED about at least one meeting with LFH.

3. His wife just had a baby.

4. He has a girlfriend and shops at Tiffany's.

5. He was the Asst. Superintentent at an "academically
challenged" (for want aof a better word)school
in Trenton, NJ

6. TM says he has a Masters from the Wharton school.
Does Wharton award Educational degrees??????

7. Does that mean in addition to not having a
doctorate degree, that he doesn't have any post-
grad(or maybe undergraduate) degrees in education?

8. Why was he turned down for the job in Florida?

9. Why was the Moorestown BOE desperate at the last
minute and after spending so much money on a
National Search, hire a person from down the road
with less substantial education that his assistant?

10. The only thing positive I have heard here is that
he wants to curb teen drinking, and he shows up at
school events. (Suprise for an educator at a new
school)

11. He is not a moral or honorable person (see #1-4
above)

Why do you all love him? Relatives? Fear? Is the word "kadri" a "dirty" word?

AS S.D-S SO APTLY PUT IT....THE QUIET IS DEAFENING!!!!!

Ho hum!

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 17:34 pm EDT

Mrs. MM,

You are a hateful, rumour spreading person. I do not live near Moorestown or know Kadri, but you are disgusting for spreading rumours about him having a girlfriend and for making fun of his educational pedigree. Even if it is true (which I very much doubt due to your lack of credibility), this is not a place to talk about relationships/sex. Mrs. MM, PLEASE GET A LIFE!

--posted by Curious @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 18:57 pm EDT

TO MRS. MM (MEAN MOM),

Oh, and in regards to your ignorant post:
"I am just surprised that after all the effort and money the BOE spent to find a new Super, they found one down the road at a much lesser school without a PhD. I knew they settled... but....."

My dad was a well regarded (now retired) Principal and Superintendent in NY. He was selected Principal of the Year for the entire state and did a super job as a Superintendent in a top school district. He had a pedigree undergrad degree and an ivy masters but no
PhD and decided to concentrate on family (after serving in Vietnam). According to you, my Dad would not be good enough to be your Superintendent… Once again, don’t be such a conceited, mean person !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--posted by Curious @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 19:06 pm EDT

Kadri has an MBA from Wharton (Ivy), the # business school in the World next to Kellogg. An MBA from Wharton is probably more difficult to achieve than an PhD or EDD in Education. Sounds like Mrs. MM is misinformed about Wharton and what it takes to gain an MBA from there. Sounds to me like Kadri is EXTREMELY well-qualified from an academic perspective.

--posted by Curious @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 19:10 pm EDT

I meant to say Wharton and Kellogg are the #1 ranked MBA programs in the World as rated my Business Week and the Economist...

--posted by Curious @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 19:11 pm EDT

Gee, this forum gets interesting over the weekends! You just have to wonder why Mrs. MM hates Kadri so much. I've said before that the Blair lawsuit seemed less about Blair's winning than about Kadri's losing for Mrs. MM. Denied satisfaction in that venue, Mrs. MM is reduced to flinging mud on the internet. Could it be that she was passed over for Kadri's position or perhaps her husband was? A job contract not renewed? No raise? Harsh words? Dissed at a board meeting? There is something going on besides truth, justice and the defense of poor Blair. 'Fess up, o bitter one.

--posted by Amused from Afar @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 19:20 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.

I have no legal, political, or personal interest in this matter. I have neither the desire nor the necessity to disclose personal information. I am not an object of juvenile curiosity. My personal opinions and motivations are my own. My public comments stand on their own merits.

Most participants on this blog enjoy informed and vigorous debate on any issue reasonably related to this matter. It is regretable some individuals perceive they are, in a virtual sense, socially and intellectually ostracized. Notwithstanding, most persons prefer to use verifiably accurate information as a means to achieve greater knowledge and understanding. Not surprisingly, rank gossip, intentional and/or negligent misrepresentations of fact, and attacks on individuals not present to defend themselves are distasteful to many persons. Regardless of background, income, or position in the community, most persons are acquainted with this axiom of civilized social interaction.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 19:40 pm EDT

Okay, folks, now you've had your say about Mrs. MM. May I once again ask, why wont we address the very relevant issues I brought up when I posted above?

So far not one of you has touched on any of the questions I asked, and every one of them has it's basis in the judges opinion.

Care to take a shot?

The silence is still deafening.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 20:15 pm EDT

Why does MM hate Kadri so much?

Here's my take on the situation:

We all know that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Is MM a scorned woman? Is MM *KADRI'S* scorned woman? I don't know whether Kadri is as awful as MM claims. But if it IS true, then MM seems like just the woman such a creep would be looking for.

Maybe Kadri has recently broken up with MM? Maybe MM will no longer receive gifts from Tiffany's now. Maybe MM is jealous that she is not the mother of Kadri's newborn child.

MM's hatred for Kadri greatly exceeds our annoyance and disgust with Blair Hornstine.

When MM claims that she is "on vacation," maybe she is really begging Kadri to take her back???

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 20:18 pm EDT

Hey Cretin: I like your scenerio. It is about as good as some of the comments about Blair's health, where she has been seen, etc. I'm a little young for Kadri. I like my boy toys with better morals.



Furthermore: I have just read an article in the New York Times about the BLH situation. It cracks me up. Somewhere along the line this past week, I believe it was even posted here that Cyndy Wulfsberg said there were no plans or they would not chance the way the Valedictorian is selected in the future. Now comes my dishonorable buddy (whom this blog loves to protect) and he says when asked about "whether there should be a valedictorian." And he replies, "It's not on my front burner of issues, but I do think we'll talk about it in the future, absolutely. It's something that a lot of superintendents in the area are looking at. Does the award motivate students, and is it accomplishing something that is valued by the district?" Cyndy vs. Paul.As the article starts out, it refers to BLH as not only the latest Valedictorian but the last. Of course most of you will not see any difference between Cyndy and Paul's comments, But I bet if LFH and PK were the speakers, we would have a different response.

And Ed Jacobs is quoted:" Now there's a federal decision that's going to be relied on all across the country telling schools that they cannot take negative action against disabled students." So, maybe we now have BLAIR's law.


AND TO ALL OUR BELOVED HARVARD POSTERS: Curious doesn't mention Harvard B school...

And to Curious: An MBA from Wharton is a wonderful degree and a great education, but IT DOESN'T INVOLVE EDUCATION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. It is strictly business. The school is a business but most administrators of top notched schools have at least some educational post graduate degrees.

Why is this man the new Rocky? What is it about him that all you people so want to protect? Crucify, as you will, but KADRI IS A CHEATING, LYING BUM.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 20:53 pm EDT

Curious: I am sure your Father is tops. Question: Even though he has no PhD, does he have any post graduate degrees in Education???? 'nuf said.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 20:57 pm EDT

What you folks are doing by refusing to address the reasonably questioned actions of Kadri, without the allegations of an affair, (my post contains nothing that is not first included in the judge's opinion), and yet not one of you has bothered.

If I take my cue from any of you and your previous posts, the reason you've not dealt with it is that you believe I'm correct, and the post stands alone as the only factual and correct statement made to date about Kadri.

Of course your willingness to attack the posters here, but not the principles, or even take them to task says something about each of you.

Is this the legacy you wish to leave?

You can ignore Kadri, and you can certainly slam the Hornstines, but until you equally apply your venom to each party, and address each valid point, you will always lack integrity in your position, and in that, there is true shame.

Leave the legacy if you will, but ultimately, you are putting yourselves in the light as sheeple, rather than people.

The silence yet remains... deafening.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:02 pm EDT

"Crucify, as you will, but KADRI IS A CHEATING, LYING BUM."
--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 20:53 pm EDT


And Blair Hornstine isn't? I have no desire to protect Kadri from anything he deserves. But I definitely wouldn't use YOU of all people as a source of information about any of his potential wrongdoings.

And any law prevents schools from taking "negative action against disabled students" will be struck down by a higher court as unconsitutional. If it is illegal to take negative action against disabled students, it must also be illegal to do the same towards NON-disabled students.

So it looks like "Blair's Law" is more a figment of Jacobs (and your) imagination...

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:04 pm EDT

"The silence yet remains... deafening."

yawn...

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:06 pm EDT

Yes, Cretin, you finally DO get it, but probably not as you would like. Yes, Blair had to be treated fairly and squarely with non-disabled students. Yes, I believe he got it....So we will call it the Cretin/Blair law. Ha

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:09 pm EDT

So no one is going to break this love fest for Paul Kadri....Imagine

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:12 pm EDT

No, you still don't get it... But why am I not surprised?!

The mere fact that Blair was eligible to be valedictorian even though she did not attend classes is discrimination by the school district! Were any kids who went to Moorestown Friends eligible to be valedictorian at Moorestown High???

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:13 pm EDT

SDS -

Please digest your prior relevant post into discrete, intelligible questions and I am sure that many persons will be happy to comment post comments during the next several days.

Mrs. M.M. -

Please post the article you refer to in your most recent post. The most recent artilce I was able to access online is dated August 20.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:14 pm EDT

Now, two cents, do you want this magazine article or not?

TM: I still did not get the proper site on the Tomar, Simonoff, Adourian, O'Brien, Kaplan, Jacoby & Graziano law firm breakup.

I think I will pester some of you until I get the info I REQUEST or ANSWERS of questions I put forth or CLARIFICATION of your mis-deeds.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:16 pm EDT

The article is by Jill P. Capuzzo in the New Jersey section of today's NY TIMES. I must run at the moment. Talk to you soon.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:17 pm EDT

Taken from www.mtps.com/baker/corner.htm
the month of June written by Dr. Bucko
retiring elementary principal

Principal’s Corner

As our Baker School community is well aware, I will be leaving after twenty-four satisfying and thoroughly engaging years. It has been a priviledge to play a part in the education of thousands of Baker Bears. This is simply the time for me to move on to other adventures and leave Baker School in the hands of an energetic and caring principal.

No where does it state, nor has it been rumored that Dr. Bucko left for any reason having to do with Kadri. After 24 years, and a recent personal tragedy, perhaps anyone would feel the need to move on.

And exactly how are you expecting non residents of Moorestown to be able to answer questions that only people directly involved with the school system would know the answers too.

--posted by 1 answer @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:19 pm EDT

CORRECTION

I am sorry for the duplicate use of the word "comment" in my previous post.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:19 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M.

I linked readers to an article in the Naples Post that reported on Kadri's interview for the superintendent's position in the Naples School District. In relevant part, the article references that Kadri has an MBA from Wharton. I do not believe the Wharton web site has publically available biographies of graduates of its master's programs.

The article does not mention the breakup of the Tomar firm several years ago, a subject that has nothing to do with this blog. If you want information on the Tomar breakup, find your own sources.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:28 pm EDT

TM, and others, though the post may be long, the questions are valid and succinct. If you don't think so then either we have an English language deficit, an understanding deficit, or simply an apathy issue.

You have expanded hundreds of lines ignoring the obvious, and are not willing to address the post, instead making a derogatory comment about it. I've re-read that post several times, the questions are ingtelligible, and in fact make complete sense. So my question would be this, are you unable to discuss anything that is not reduced to a soundbite?

I'll not do it, if you can't address the questions that are very clearly asked, then you arent interested in addressing Kadri period. If the post is tedious, perhaps it's the subject matter. Who knows?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:32 pm EDT

...then you may have to wait awhile for complete responses to many of your questions.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:37 pm EDT

1 answer -

The obvious answer to your question that is that some people either don't know or don't care that there is a reasonable explanation for many of the "issues" they raise.

I am struck by the number of times that local residents who either have not posted or do not regularly post on this site feel compelled to address a particular point they feel strongly about. I think it speaks well of the basic intelligence and resiliency of the community.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 21:49 pm EDT

TM: Your post from the Bonita news followed your comment about the Tomar group.

And one of your latest posts said: "If you want information on the Tomar breakup, find your own sources." Well sticks and stones... which you preceded with
"Mrs. M.M. -

Please post the article you refer to in your most recent post"

Therefore, I will just paraphrase the info you requested from me on the Capuzzo article...FIND YOUR OWN SOURCES. As usual, there is no equality here.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:00 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M. -

I think the one thing we can agree upon is that we are two different types of people.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:02 pm EDT

1 answer:
Regular posters here and less than a handful from the Moorestown area find plenty of fault,opinions, websites relating to,he said/she said, information, etc. with BLH and her father (what's he done?), so why can't these same people gather pertinent evidence or basis opinions on Kadri? Because they don't want to. Or is the illusive Kadri also illusive about his extra curricular activities. They have a negative BLH campaign to continue. They suffer from Schadenfreude.

We have certainly discussed LFH education, law practice, finances,personality, legal findings, etc.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:11 pm EDT

MM, don't YOU suffer from schadenfreude, as evidenced by your desire to launch a negative campaign against Kadri? He's not going to take you back. Get over it...

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:13 pm EDT

TM: I don't know what you are, but I know that I believe in the truth and justice of BLH and the findings from the TRO.I believe in equality, whether it's male vs. female, disabled vs abled, finding an article or not. Does that mean you don't believe in truth, equality and justice? You just want to use me as your whipping boy. Well, sir or madam, whip all you want,my back hasn't been scared yet. You will not change my views.And truth be told, you just don't want to believe in those virtues. Such is life. I'll sleep tonight.

--posted by Mrs. M. M> @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:16 pm EDT

Oh, Cretin, hasn't your babysitter arrived yet? Double Yawn

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:17 pm EDT

My only thought on Kadri is - what motive did he have to deliberately deprive Blair Hornstine of the title of valedictorian, a motive so passionate that this obviously intelligent man would be driven to use clumsy lies (making up the fact that Judge Hornstine was Salutatorian) and threaten his very new position? Just as it is S-DS thinks it is improbable that Dr. Keefe lied about the meeting, I think it is improbable that Kadri has such a grudge on Blair.

I agree that the rules of naming valedictorian should not have been changed retroactively. That was wrong and a mistake. However, I'm more inclined to believe that this well-liked figure had the issue of Blair's arrangements called to attention, received some pressure from various parents, and hoped to extend some sort of olive branch by naming co-valedictorians. The way he went about it was wrong, I believe, and Blair indeed should have won her lawsuit, given the circumstances, but I *don't* believe that he lied - I think the truth is more complex than what either side has revealed, because both explanations given so far are kind of far-fetched.

I don't believe for one minute Kadri would have deprived Blair of the title. Anyone with half a brain in his position must know that it's just asking for scrutiny and trouble, and we know that he most definitely is well-educated, in business if not in education.

By the way, I have no problems with Harvard Business School not being number 1. What is this obsession with being the best? Harvard College is second to Princeton for the 2nd year running, and I have no problems with that too - I chose a college that was right for me, not because I could then run around with 2000-2004 statistics that my school was #1 for the time I was there. Please.

So the most pressing issue for me is *why* our society today drives our children so hard to be the best, to stand out, to make a mark. When I have children, I just want them to have a happy, carefree childhood, learn their own lessons through adolescence, and be well-adjusted, understanding adults who, I hope, rarely feel the need to struggle. Titles, honorifics, prizes, scholarships, GPAs, salaries...all well and good, but do they really define a person as a sound figure and a contribution to society?

The lawsuit was clearly in Blair's favour, I don't dispute that. I do lament the fact that it was filed in the first place, and for damages of 2.7 mill that clearly are not "deserved" (what damages does one suffer for not being valedictorian?). Just because it's within your rights does not mean you have to exercise it - there are things larger than laws and statutes; what happened to generosity, flexibility, humility and understanding, on BOTH sides? Has society boiled down to this zero-sum environment?

Ultimately a mess has exploded out of a grabbing, selfish fight over what is essentially NOTHING. An empty title that you'd be embarrassed to mention at your first job interview. So where is the pride in that?

In summary (of my long-winded post), I believe that Kadri was wrong with all the good intentions, that no matter what a trial or a TRO hearing "proves" (in quotation marks because they're not infallible processes...innocent people have been executed on "proven" guilt), that the truth still lies in the past and we'll never appreciate the entirety of it, and that there is something seriously wrong with society if we sit here and applaud a girl who set out to claim her rightful title by the letter of law, blissfully ignorant of the larger, more important aspects of life that she instead should have heeded. And I do mourn the fact that her parents did not show her the way.

S-DS, I hope that fills in some of the silence, anyway. As you said, we should look at the larger picture, no?

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:19 pm EDT

and Mrs. M.M., my only response to your belittling my sense of humour is: would you think that your "joke" was acceptable if it was delivered while we met face-to-face for the first time?

Please admit that it was inappropriate and rude, especially after I protest on the grounds that my grandfather recently passed away. Your continuing refusal to apologise makes you seem a bit heartless to the pain that you've caused me. Whether it was a joke or not, you must recognise now that I didn't appreciate it.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:25 pm EDT

Mrs MM, I am not bashing LH or Blair or anyone. You have stated many negative things about Kadri. I am considering all of your statements. I can find the answers to some of your questions or comments very easily confirmed or denied with a phone call or two. So if it isn't too time consuming for me, I make the call and provide the answer.

John Toppin retired from the William Allen Middle School. He had enough years of service to retire and did. That quote comes from a direct member of his staff last year who attended his retirement dinner.
Kadri, as stated in one of his superintendent letters, did ask him to stay but Mr. Toppin's plans were set. Again there was nothing stated nor any rumors that his leaving had anything to do with Kadri. According to all reports the two were friends.

I know the Assistant Principal at the UES school has nothing but praise for Kadri, and I have been told by a member of WAMS that the staff there supports and respects Kadri.

These are facts from a Moorestown resident's peers and direct contacts with staff members of the district.

I wonder how many degrees of separation exist between us Mrs MM ?

--posted by Another Answer @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:28 pm EDT

Bystander -

I will play the devil's advocate.... What if one were to assume that both Superintendent Kadri and Judge Hornstine are stubborn men, each accustomed to getting his own way, who have not dealt with each other on a regular basis? Might that not not cause one or both of them to make critical errors in judgment that aggravated the situation?

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:28 pm EDT

Bystander: First you say:"that this obviously intelligent man would be driven to use clumsy lies (making up the fact that Judge Hornstine was Salutatorian) and threaten his very new position?"

,Then you say:" but I *don't* believe that he lied - I think the truth is more complex than what either side has revealed, because both explanations given so far are kind of far-fetched. "


Which is it? Did Kadri lie or not?

Yes, I am sure Kadri had a grudge on a Hornstine, but not BLH. I think he used pressure from another parent to attack LFH through BLH.

When you have children, I sure hope you try not to exact any pressure on them, but I bet you will find it difficult to not push them some to be the best they can be and to compete for the best. Besides education, parental "pushing" has made the Williams sisters what they are and Tiger Wood, the golfer he is. There have been probably more failures due to parental pressure than successes, but most parents will give it their all.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:32 pm EDT

I think it's worth printing out Mrs MM accusations and gossip regarding Mr. Kadri and sending a printed copy to him. If it is not true he could easily pursue a case of defamation.

--posted by hmmm @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:33 pm EDT

TM: You do not need to be the DA, I think you possibly hit it on the head. Kadri had some support with a now deceased guidance counsellor (please, I do not disrepect the dead)and a pushy Dr. Shangold. I am sure he wanted to stand up to LFH and other parents who made themselves known in the school, and let the world know who was NOW running the school. Unfortunately, an 18 year old took the brunt and sickened many around her.

--posted by Mrs M.M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:38 pm EDT

TM -

Given their positions, I would certainly agree that they may have been used to getting their own way. I don't know either person, and am far, far away from the entire tragedy itself, so I can't give an accurate assessment on how their personalities played through in whatever meeting they had - by the way, why didn't Blair attend the meeting? Wouldn't it be most germane to herself?

Anyway, I'm sure heated (if controlled) words may have been exchanged, and both came out of it angry at each other for any obstinancy that may have arisen. I'm sad that if this sort of anger was what clouded their better judgement and acted as a catalyst for the lawsuit. Being adults, surely they too much recognise that something like the title of valedictorian was not worth embroiling an 18 year old and a school district in a 2.7 million dollar lawsuit.

All the scenario-playing in my head are based on rational choices (I study a bit of game theory) and with the facts that have been presented, I just don't believe that either side would, on one side, risk hurting his daughter and, on the other side, jeopardise his job and his sense of responsibility to the school district (given his glowing reviews) for something literally as petty as giving a three minute address and an empty title to Blair Hornstine. That's why I believe there's more to this entire thing than meets the eye, and to be sure, both sides are to be admonished for completely ignoring the bigger picture. And rational game theory. :)

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:39 pm EDT

hmmm: Bet you the car and house he won't pursue any case. He would get caught.

Prove me right. Send it to him!
Do you want names, too?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:39 pm EDT

...and Judge Hornstine bears no responsibility for this situation?

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:39 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M., what I wrote was:

"what motive did he have to deliberately deprive Blair Hornstine of the title of valedictorian, a motive so passionate that this obviously intelligent man would be driven to use clumsy lies (making up the fact that Judge Hornstine was Salutatorian) and threaten his very new position?"

As in, I was questioning the existence of a motive, and therefore questioning the possibility of the ensuing actions. I don't believe he lied, because the supposed "lie" is so clumsy that I can't conceive a half-witted schemer using it at all.

That was the point of that paragraph. Please let me know if I have to clarify it further.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:42 pm EDT

that's my point - an 18 year old should NOT have bore the brunt, and shame on both sides (Kadri and Judge Hornstine) who brought it to her head.

Either (in the sense of either/or/both) Judge Hornstine or Blair herself must bear some of the responsibility. Did she agree? Did Judge Hornstine press the issue? Either way one or both of them contributed to half of the lawsuit, and to part of the responsibility of the pain.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:45 pm EDT

No matter what, it was a power play for Kadri to be in control. LFH probably stood up to him. Mirkin's Mother gave him the excuse. Blair wasn't included in the meeting. It was announced to Blair in January(?) in a public forum of senior class meeting that she was not going to be Valedictorian. I don't think that Kadri came right out and said "Blair you are not going to be...I think he announced at that meeting that HE was devising a new way to select the Valedictorian. Everyone turned around and looked at Blair. She stood up and asked him why. He did not answer. Then Kadri wrote a letter to Blair and parents "demanding" an apology from ALL of them for Blair's behavior. I understand that Blair (she is quite soft spoken and not a real brave soul - at least wasn't at that time) was polite and respectful when she addressed him.. Other students will back that up.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

Bystander -

I accept your game theory analysis. However, I would suggest that certain actions by both Superintendent Kadri and Judge Hornstine are irrational and antithetical to their own interests.

Kadri has no authority to change the district's policy regarding valedictorian designation. Accordingly, he has no obvious reason to carry water for the Mirkin family. If the Mirkin family does not like the policy, let them sue.

Hornstine knows Kadri cannot change the district policy by himself. Instead of waiting until the district possibly changed the policy (no earlier than May 12), BH (with the Judge's presumed encouragement) files a highly publicized $2,700,000.00 lawsuit.

One of the many problems with the district court opinion is that it fails to take into account the possibility that the school board would have rejected any attempt to modify the valedictorian policy. What if the court had done nothing and the board rejected the proposed change (or determined it could only be applied prospectively), BH would remain the sole valedictorian and presumably life would go on for all concerned.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:51 pm EDT

and Judge Hornstine bears no responsibility for this situation?

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:

SAYS WHO? HIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS FIGHTING WITH KADRI.HIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS FOR FIGHTING FOR HIS DAUGHTER. HIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS TEACHING HIS DAUGHTER TO FIGHT FOR WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN- TO FIGHT FOR HER RIGHTS.

KADRI'S WAS FOR ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE RULES OR ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE PUSHED BY #2 OR BEING INTIMIDATED BY LFH. KADRI FELT THAT OLD AXIOM THAT RULES ARE MADE TO BE BROKEN. Blair didn't go for that.

It's like the two Fathers that fight at a Little League game. This time an 18 year old suffered the consequences.


I still think Kadri was an A** in attempting this. As an educator, he should be used to dealing with parents.
Yes, LFH as a Judge should be used to mediation, but he knows that when that fails.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:55 pm EDT

Bystander -

I just read your most recent post. I think you are on to something.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:56 pm EDT

The BOE probably would have supported Kadri. As I previously said, they were taking some heat for spending so much money in the search for a Superintendent that was down the road. THE BOE needed to support their new appointee to save face and their re-election.

--posted by Mrs. M. M> @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:57 pm EDT

And the scuttlebutt around town was that the BOE ws going to support Kadri.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 22:59 pm EDT

no, Mrs. M.M., the responsibility of Judge Hornstine, and of any parent, is to look for what's best for one's child(ren).

In this case Judge Hornstine, for some unknown reason, has decided that fighting for his daughter's rights is more important than his daughter's well-being. No, those two are not equivalent, as Blair's present situation clearly reflects. She has reclaimed her rights, but has lost a lot more in the process. A good parent does not sacrifice his daughter's well-being just so she can be called valedictorian!

And if you can refrain from typing in caps all the way through, that would be nice. It makes your posts difficult to read and it's also considered to be shouting, which is somewhat rude.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:09 pm EDT

Some thoughts:

By rejecting Mrs. Keefe's statement, you are indicating that you believe that she lied on behalf of Mr. Hornstine. Given Mrs. Keefe's record of service, I find it highly unlikely that she would jeapordize her position to gain favor with a judge who could in no way advance her position, life or career, and whom she had dealt with from an advisarial position on more than one occasion during the course of both Adam and Blair's education.

I find it more likely that Mr. Kadri did indeed make a statement that was patently false in order to bolster his position, and most likely in a fit of anger. Mr. Kadri has shown himself to have a bit of a temper. He has also shown by his myriad recalculations of the GPAs that he was definately interested in altering the standing of the two students. He finally came upon a mathematical process that allowed him to elevate Mr. Mirkin by five one thousandth of one point. He demonstrated a personal bias towards Blair, that, whether driven by his personal dislike of Mr. Hornstine, or by the greater majority of other parents who felt that Blair's semi home schooling gave her an unfair advantage, was obvious upon it's presentation in court. I don't think any of us disagree with the fact that Kadri did indeed attempt to change the rules.

If Kadri is a stubborn man, and he decided that he could prevent Mr. Hornstine from persuing the debate before graduation, it becomes clear that Mr. Kadri grossly underestimated the situation.

Previous school board meetings show that the Hornstines were indeed willing to share the Valedictory status, but they were not willing to share it with the connotation that one was the "normal" student, and the other was the "disabled" student. Mr. Kadri would not simply name co-valedictorians, he wanted the distinction made, in public, at graduation, that one was a full time student, and one was not. Not only was this not fair, given that Blair studied under a board approved IEP, it was unreasonable to suggest that Blair should be somehow singled out as the "smartest special education student' and not the smartest student. The very connotation is horrific to consider, and difficult to set aside.

So much has been made of her illness, most of it disparaging, and a great deal of it demeaning to the point of calling it a hoax. We must remember that the board has never denied or questioned her diagnosis, and that Blair studied under the supervision of the Board of Education, and not her parents. Speculation of her disease is not only heartless, it shows that at the very core we don't want to believe Blair Hornstine. She has a medical diagnosis, and there is no question about that. Even is you don't personally understand the disease, the fact of the matter is that does not mean it does not exist.

Finally, the facts of this case have been clouded by the plagiarism, and there is no doubt that it occured, but it is not fair to judge the case by the plagiarism, because the case was about changing the rules, and with holding an honor that a student had earned, it wasn't about plagiarism. Harvards actions, based on their admissions policy were correct, and no matter what we finally think of their actions, they were indeed within their rights to recind her admission. However, the school board, and the public do not have the right to then question her school work after the fact, particularly when it was the direct responsibility of her educators to insure that her work for school was indeed top notch. The fact that it has become one more brick to throw proves yet again that we're not interested in the truth, but rather, in how much pain we can inflict upon a child who made bad choices and who was treated unfairly. Would you want your children to be treated the way we have treated Blair if they were to make the same mistake? Exercise the same poor judgement?

If you would, those of you with sons or daughters or brothers or sisters in prison should not be surprised if they are suddenly beaten, or killed while serving their sentence. After all, would it not be justice, our way?

Just some thoughts.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:23 pm EDT

Geez! Go to the shore for a couple of days and the world goes wild.

Mrs. M. M., I see you've gotten information on the New Jersey Law Journal from others. You could always do it the old fashioned way and go to a law library at your local law school. (Rutgers, Camden) Or, perhaps more conveniently, ask "Lou." I must say, that for someone who professes to know about the law, I am surprised that you seemed to be unaware of the New Jersey Law Journal.

One other thing. Do you suppose half the world got up one morning and said: "let's see if we can dump on BH today"? Or, is what BH and Dad did so over the top that the criticism was really deserved? I didn't read the most recent NYT article, but what do you suppose the motivation for it is?

Oh, one more thing. What was posted here that is defamatory toward Judge Hornstine? I didn't find anything.

Nice to be back.

--posted by Wondering @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:23 pm EDT

TM -

(gosh I'm posting a lot today)

I think you're right - there may be something irrational in both of the players here. I'm also hoping there is more to the situation and to the truth than what is presented right now, that may shed some light on these supposed irrationalities. Certainly the situation now just reflects *really* badly on the both of them.

Again, with the rationality thing - why would the BOE change the valedictorian selection process retroactively if it were just plain wrong? Surely doing so would make them lose even more face at the guaranteed protest from the Hornstines, having no leg to stand on, and jeopardise re-election chances? And all this to appease a newly appointed Superintendent? It's not like this was an issue he would resign over if his petition were overturned. It doesn't make sense.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:24 pm EDT

As long as you can give your opinion, I can choose my thoughts and type.

Judge H did the best for both his children. He gave them love, support, education, teachings and was a hands-on parent. He saw that Blair had the best doctors, no matter what where they had to travel. He saw to it that she got the best education she could in the physicial shape she was. He taught her to fight for the underpriviledged, be charitable and be true to yourself. She did all that. Unfortunately, the community and most of you here don't believe in her fight and disagree with Judge Wolfson's findings. You prefer to believe that she was offered the chance to share which I know was not an option, you choose to believe a dishonorable man who lied to the BOE, his teachers and to a court. Chocolate vs. Vanilla

JUDGE HORNSTINE DID "NOT" "NOT" "NOT" SACRIFICE HIS DAUGHTER'S WELL-BEING.If he would have, she probably would not have had regular public schooling. Your comments remind me of a parent teaching a child to drive. The child gets injured in the car because someone hits the child. So, the good parent sacrificed the child's well being by teaching her to drive. Come on...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:29 pm EDT

1. I just couldn't find the Law Journal info on the internet. I just was going to run out and go to the law library and get it...and again about that Brooklyn Bridge.

2. No one said "defaming" Judge Hornstine. I just want to look into the armpits of Kadri also.

3. The BOE HAD to support this Super. They took so much heat from the community because of the time and costs involved in "finding" him.Plus the BOE wants to be re-elected. If the community was backing "no BLH", that is where their votes were. It does make sense.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:36 pm EDT

S-DS, I didn't take Judge Wolfson's opinion literally when she said that naming co-valedictorians would lead to one being labelled as the "non-disabled" one, and the other the "disabled" one. I understood that statement as a deduction that the public would draw and subconsciously remember, as opposed to a literal statement by Kadri that Blair was to be named the "disabled" valedictorian.

If what you say is in fact true, then certainly that is a horrific distinction.

However, it flies in the face of statements made by Mrs. M.M. that Blair was not offered the distinction of valedictorian at all, and Mrs. M.M. was in the courtroom, right? And she claimed that none of the defendents ever supplied the fact that they *did* offer her the title, which led to her conclusion that they were out to deprive her of the title. So which story is the right one?

You write:

"The fact that it [plagiarism] has become one more brick to throw proves yet again that we're not interested in the truth, but rather, in how much pain we can inflict upon a child who made bad choices and who was treated unfairly."

I disagree. Most of us are not trying to inflict pain on Blair. And most of us have clarified the plagiarism issue to pertain to the Harvard rescinding her admission, and merely a side note to the actual lawsuit. Surely you do not suppose that a bunch of detached, disinterested bloggers are trying to burn matches under the poor girl's fingernails? Many of us have expressed sympathy, and sorrow, and have wished her well. Just because we wish to understand the matter better does not mean we harbour ill-will towards Blair. I found your statement to our determination to denounce and pain her to be unfair.

I'm just interested why Kadri would tell such a bad lie. Perhaps you're right, perhaps he has a temper and lost it under fire. But I'm still sceptical that such an intelligent man who, as you and Mrs. M.M. suggest, had such an elaborate GPA-calculating, disabled/non-disabled valedictorian, letter-writing campaign to somehow defraud Blair of her title would commit something so stupid as to lie about exactly what place Judge Hornstine came in his high-school class, and that on top of his disregard for one of his student's well-being just to get at her father, and *plus* having his malice toward either of them blind him to the fact that such willfully discriminatory actions and incorrect handling of the valedictorian selection process would jeopardise his job and regard, well, it'll take a bit more to persuade me that it's a far-fetched scenario.

Isn't it more logical that he merely tried to keep the peace amidst the pressure of other parents by making the mistake of suggesting he'd name co-valedictorians, unaware that Blair would sue?

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:50 pm EDT

From an announcement on Kadri's appointment:

"A Trenton school administrator, with a background in finance, marketing and city management, has been named the new superintendent of the Moorestown school district.

Paul J. Kadri, 36, of Montgomery Township, Somerset County, was unanimously approved by the Moorestown school board Tuesday night. Kadri, who will assume the post July 1, was signed to a three-year contract at a salary of $140, 000 in the first year

Despite the fact that he's never been a schoolteacher or principal, school board President Cyndy Wulfsberg said Kadri was the strongest candidate of six finalists the district interviewed.


Wulfsberg said the board had concerns at first about Kadri' s lack of education experience



``He really did stand out from the group ... He's an exceptional individual with a lot of success in various fields of education and other areas.''

Wulfsberg said the board had concerns at first about Kadri' s lack of education experience

Kadri has spent the past four years in the Trenton public school district as assistant superintendent of equity and accountability. He was responsible for technology, testing, strategic planning and budgeting in the district. Before that, he spent a year as an administrator with the Newark schools. He's also worked as a city operations director in Jersey City, in finance with J.P. Morgan Securities and the CIT Group, and in marketing for IBM"


I too, don't see anyplace where he had experiences with students, and /or parents or supervision. Maybe this will also show why the Board felt some responsibility to support an exceptional person with no educational experience. Wow em, Danno

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:52 pm EDT

[it'll take a bit more to persuade me that it's NOT a far-fetched scenario.]

Mrs. M.M., I'm not restricting your text and type, I'm just offering a suggestion on how you can be more polite and make reading easier for the rest of us. You don't have to accept it.

I'm also not saying that Judge Hornstine did not provide the best for Blair, and tried to insure her well-being throughout the whole of her life. I'm just saying that in this very instance, he overlooked her well-being by encouraging her to fight for her rights instead of taking a step back and perhaps swallowing her pride of not being named.

I'm not saying that it was WRONG of Blair to file a perfectly valid lawsuit. I'm saying that it is lamentable that a parent watched with eyes open his daughter go into the fray, knowing that this lawsuit would bring extreme publicity to his frail child. Who files a 2.7 million lawsuit against a school district for the title of valedictorian and not expect a public stir? It was filed for the reason of publicity, so that this discrimination would be brought to light, and surely Judge Hornstine must have known that extremely negative publicity would ensue. WHY on earth would a parent subject his daughter to that? That's what I meant when he sacrificed her well-being in this instance. And while it's legally Blair's right, I should think there are more important things than the right to earning the title valedictorian.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:59 pm EDT

if Kadri had no experience with parents or students, then it makes even more sense that the BOE would not approve the wrong practice of changing the rules midway. They'd sit him down, and explain to him that where parents and students are concerned, he should act in this and this way. Why does his inexperience in the area make him more persuasive to the BOE?

Actually, if you don't mind, it'd probably be more fruitful to drop this discussion about what the BOE would have done. We don't know because the TRO hearing stopped that process short, and we'll really never definitively know what the outcome would have been had Blair not filed the lawsuit. Speculation would probably just open up another can of worms, given past speculation about Kadri's character and such.

I've posted way too much today, so I'll stop now. I apologise for all the volume I've generated and hope other posters can shed more light on the discussion than I ever will.

--posted by bystander @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:06 am EDT

Bystander:

"I disagree. Most of us are not trying to inflict pain on Blair. And most of us have clarified the plagiarism issue to pertain to the Harvard rescinding her admission, and merely a side note to the actual lawsuit. Surely you do not suppose that a bunch of detached, disinterested bloggers are trying to burn matches under the poor girl's fingernails? Many of us have expressed sympathy, and sorrow, and have wished her well. Just because we wish to understand the matter better does not mean we harbour ill-will towards Blair. I found your statement to our determination to denounce and pain her to be unfair."

Are you reading the same blog I am? So far only you have actually looked at some, though not all of the post wherein I question the silence of the "regular posters" with regard to Mr. Kadri's actions. While I see your point of view as "rose colored" I respect that you wish for all of us, Kadri included, to behave with a sense of decency and fairplay. The real world doesn't have such a thing. Individuals do. The real world follows the apple cart and throws back the apples if they're not ripe enough, or if they don't like the color. Individuals often suffer alone, or exist invisibly in plain sight.

This blog is overwhelmingly anti Blair, and it's posters are content to discuss her complete lack of virtue at every turn but are at the same time willing to completely ignore any mitigating circumstances which might cast a negative light on anyone other than Blair or her father.

My point if valid, if unpopular, and one only has to read the blog to see it. Any time an opposing topic, be it regarding plagiarism, or the circumstances of the meeting, or Mr. Kadri's actions, or those of any other person, regardless of the validity of the post, is met with rancor, ridicule, and outright disbelief that someone would actually post a pro Blair or anti Kadri statement.

Frankly, if Kadri, and thus the board did nothing wrong, then settling the case, regardless of the sum, was the wrong thing to do, not in the greater good, and not in the best interest of the community. I still believe that the mitigation of circumstances that we seek will not occur until we look at least as closely at Kadri, and the other principles in this action, (Mr. Mirkin, and his mother, the other parents), and the process of changing the rules that Mr. Kadri embarked upon in front of the students, in several well recorded board meetings, and finally, at the expense of Blair Hornstine, and ultimately to her detriment.

Until we do this, look as closely at these parties, then we have done a disservice to ourselves, and our opinions are invalidated by our lack of desire to dig as deeply on both sides of the fence.

Are you truly prepared to accept that?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:07 am EDT

Bystander: From Judge Wolfson's findings:

" If the Board were to name another valedictorian along with plaintiff, it would be sending the message loud and clear: “we have two valedictorians this year_a disabled one, and a non-disabled one.” This would diminish the award which plaintiff has worked so hard to attain. Instead of honoring her as the student who earned the highest grades in her class in spite of her disability, the Board would be demeaning her by insinuating that her grades are not as meaningful because she rightfully received accommodations on account of her disability.


They have lost sight of the fact that plaintiff, unlike her peers, suffers from a debilitating medical condition, which has never been disputed by the Board, and that her accommodations were aimed at putting her on a level playing field with her healthy classmates. Defendants should revel in the success of their IDEA program and the academic star it has produced; instead they seek to diminish the honor that she has rightly earned.

I want to make clear that the evidence in this case has shown that Ms. Hornstine earned her distinction as the top student in her class in spite of, not because of, her disability.
Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to an order directing defendants to follow the policy that is in effect: the student with the highest seventh semester weighted grade point average will be named the valedictorian. It is undisputed that plaintiff meets that criterion; thus, she should be the sole valedictorian of the Moorestown High School Class of 2003.

A COUPLE THINGS I CAN WHOLEHEARTEDLY ADD: lOUIE WAS NEVER, NEVER, NEVER EVER CLOSE TO BEING THE SALUTATORIAN OR VALEDICTORIAN OF HIS HIGH SCHOOL CLASS AND BLAIR WAS NEVER, NEVER, NEVER ASKED TO BE A CO-VALEDICTORIAN. I have said it over and over again, that is what the Hornstines' hoped it would be when settled. When Kadri sent the letter to Mirkin informing HIM that HE was being considered as Valedictorian, NO, NONE, NADA other classmate received such letter.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:14 am EDT

Whoops, the sentence in the fourth paragraph of my post should read, "my point is valid", not my point if valid.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:16 am EDT

Sure, Lou didn't ever dream of the publicity or the egging of his home. They felt that they were following the rules of the MHS handbook, and I guess, they weren't going to let a new Superintendent or another Mother with a bigger mouth take away the honor that Blair f or which worked so hard. It is as simple as that. Who expected the publicity jeers, threats and scrutiny that followed?

--posted by Mrs M.M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:18 am EDT

Bystander -

I continue to believe you have made sound arguments.

An examination of the district court opinion suggests the situation may also have been further aggravated by some questionable legal tactics.

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:20 am EDT

Questionable legal tactics? Pray tell..what are they?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:22 am EDT

Again, I notice when I posted the report of Kadri's appointment with comments from the Board President and facts about his background, it just went over everyone's head. If I said Lou got a new car, questions would come fast and furious about make, model, color and price.....musing, along.

--posted by Mrs . M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:27 am EDT

Bystander -

In the coming days and months, reasonable people will begin to evaluate the circumstances that gave rise to the recently concluded litigation. This will be more challenging than piecing together media coverage, especially for individuals who live outside the community. Nevertheless, I believe it will be an interesting and worthwhile endevour. That said, I am confident that lessons have been learned, lessons which will in turn be factored into the mix of general school administration.

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:34 am EDT

oh dear, I'm back.

TM - thanks for the support. Sometimes it feels like no one really reads these things through properly...

Mrs. M.M., I agree with most of your 0.14am post. I've said so many times. Blair should have been named sole valedictorian. Why do you keep beating me over the head with it? I've agreed!

I'm just wondering why S-DS said that Kadri explicity told Blair and Judge Hornstine that she would be named the "disabled" valedictorian, and Kenneth the "non-disabled" one, while you claim (and claim very vehemently again) that Blair was never considered as valedictorian. So which is the true version? Or are both of them false?

So...you sue your school district for 2.7 million because they didn't name you valedictorian. Judge Hornstine is a smart man, as I'm sure you'll agree, and I can't imagine why he'd think it'd go well with Blair's community. Even if he didn't expect the egging, surely he'd expect some derision, some disgust, some outrage, and at the very least, some scrutiny? All directed at Blair! I'm not convinced he was so blissfully unaware of all this. You're degrading his intellect if you do so.

Anyhow, I agree with S-DS that the other principal players should be looked into. I thought I was trying to do that, and TM too. Again, just because we disagree on things like this, doesn't mean that I'm not addressing the issue.

I do disagree with S-DS that most people wish her ill. Cambridgema, Curious, TM, to name a few, have expressed kind thoughts and sympathy. Others, well I don't presume to speak for others, but I believe that if you ask them individually they will not say that they wish Blair ill. We may be frustrated with her, but we're far from wishing her pain and failure. If anyone here does, and I've misrepresented you, please say so and I will apologise. I trust that the absence of any such responses will prove the fact that ugly things were said in a moment of anger and frustration, and not meant intentionally.

As to the posts being anti-Blair and not anti-anyone else...well, it is a blog about Blair, so I guess Blair receives her fair share. It's a general sentiment, but you'll find that it's toned down a lot since the blog started, as new facts are presented by you and Mrs. M.M. I still have to say, though, that courtesy is a more effective approach than trying to ridicule legitimate opposition into submission.

I can offer an alternative explanation to yours about the School Board settling instead of fighting on - they were unwilling to disrupt the start of a new school year, with new students coming in. Certainly it's the explanation they offer, and it's very logical. Another alternative is that they recognised it was wrong of Kadri to ask for rules to be changed midway, and are appeasing the Hornstines with a token offering that would have cost less than the funds needed to conduct an all-out trial to prove the BOE's innocence, despite Kadrid's public, and wrong, petition. Remember that, to settle, Blair must also agree to take the money instead of going to court. I do applaud her for agreeing to end this chapter by settling. It mitigates, somewhat, her demand for 2.7 million in the first place.

--posted by bystander @ Monday, August 25 2003, 0:52 am EDT

when I say "anti-Blair", I simply mean affording her more scrutiny, or posing questions from the perspective of the other side, not as in any destructive sentiment.

TM - once again, I agree. Certainly the media is an unreliable source of information, even facts. Actually, anything produced by humans is unreliable! But I hope that the scrutiny of multiple people well-versed in legality can shed some light on this. Cambridgema? I recall you have an excellent grasp of the law.

{really going to stop now and do some constructive work}

--posted by bystander @ Monday, August 25 2003, 1:01 am EDT

Why all the lying accusations? Maybe there was just misunderstanding.

It is quite possible that LH said to PK something like “I was ashamed that I was not the valedictorian in my class and I will be ashamed if BH is only the salutorian”. From this statement PK might infer that LH was the salutorian of his class. And if they were yelling at each other then the exact words may be hard to remember - all that may be remembered is just the “gist” of the “conversation” and each may have remembered different interpretations.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, August 25 2003, 1:04 am EDT

Bystander -

Many participants on this site recognize that human interaction is a complex and often irrational undertaking. Personal motivations are often difficult to discern, even by the individual actor. Life is simpler but ultimately less rich if we fail to remain open to the reality that there are seldom absolutes in life. Have a good night's rest!

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 1:06 am EDT

MonkeyBrains -

... and is it possible to assume from your observation that it would be difficult to make a credible determination of veracity based upon certifications, as opposed to deposition testimony where the parties can be examined at length and are subject to cross-examination?

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 1:10 am EDT

TM...

What to say what to say...

I understand that you simply do not wish to accept the possibility that Mr. Kadri lied. Certainly no administrator would do that. Kind of like a priest wouldn't molest children. Human beings are fallable, and they fall often. That you are willing to discount that Mrs. Keefe was not just a bystander, that she was there sort of says "well, so what". It shouldn't be so what, and we should look closely at what was said, and what was denied, and what was collaborated by her certification.

I do not think, given that Mrs. Keefe directly said that none of the conversation Mr. Kadri related occured, that she was speculating the nature of angry words. She said it didn't happen, which props up Mr. Hornstines side, and deflates Mr. Kadri's side. Ignoring that with a legal interpertation is at best, conflict avoidance, and at worst, a poor attempt at stripping her of her credibility.

Now, I'm not an attorney, and all this legal wrangling is pointless. It's easy to twist things when there is no final determination, however, Mr. Kadri did not dispute Mrs. Keefe's statement, certification, whatever, nor has he offered an explination of any kind as to why his peer, associate, and 2nd in command would actually call him, more or less, a liar.

All the hair splitting on earth still doesn't answer the core question, and that is why she would do such a thing. Ignoring her words, and giving Mr. Kadri the benefit of the doubt, while denying the supporting evidence that favors Mr. Hornstine does indeed give the appearance of preference, and thus mitigates your supposed fair assesment of the case.

Basically, you're calling a little old lady a liar. While it's happened before, it's not likely. Now, Mr. Kadri has something to lose, and so does Mr. Hornstine, while Mrs. Keefe gains nothing for supporting either of them. It simply does not make human sense, or good sense for her to lie about the conversation, she literally has no reason, whereas both Kadri and Hornstine may.

To me, that lends credibility to her certification, and tarnishes any assumption made otherwise. Of course we all know what happens when we assume, and I'll not let you make an as of me. Simply questioning an opposing position, and ignoring other salient points, while deriding the method of delivery, TM, is simply you not being willing or able to disect the volume of the information.

Give it a try.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, August 25 2003, 3:08 am EDT

that last paragraph should read ...and I'll not let you make an ass of me..." darn sticky s key.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, August 25 2003, 3:11 am EDT

Monkey Brains...

With all due respect, the lying is not so much an accusation in the context of this situation, and I'll tell you why I think this.

Mr. Kadri and Mr. Hornstine are your typical male bull in the china shop combatants, and they may have indeed said a lot of things, however there is Mrs. Keefe who was present at this meeting, and she simply denys that Mr. Hornstine made any such statement. To me it's not a matter of speculative curiosity, because I sincerely doubt that a long serving, highly respected person such as Mrs. Keefe would fabricate her certifications, or that she would lie to protect or damage either of the two protagonists here.

To do so would indicate a conspiracy even at the base level, and would also indicate a specific distrust that all those involved indicate does not exist between the members of the board and Mr. Kadri.

You have to explain why a church going, God Fearing person like Mrs. Keefe would suddenly lie to undermine Mr. Kadri before you can speculate as to the content of the conversation, because until you can do that the preponderance of the evidence favors Mr. Hornstine, and puts the pressure on Mr. Kadri to justify his falsehoods, (provided of course that Mrs. Keefe didn't lie)

I know it's a stretch, but maybe we can actually discuss this, before we condem either one.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, August 25 2003, 3:18 am EDT

Actually, I'd like to read all three certifications. Is there anywhere we could access them without trekking to NJ? I feel that since Judge Wolfson didn't go through them in much detail in her opinion it's kinda hard to understand who said what. And S-DS is right, we should discuss before we condemn, and in order to discuss I'd like to be well-informed first. Did you manage to take a look at the certifications, S-DS?

Just to clarify, because someone might jump on my throat, I still agree that Blair should have been sole valedictorian. I'm just intrigued by the human study here.

--posted by bystander @ Monday, August 25 2003, 5:17 am EDT

SDS -

I accept the possibility that anyone is capable of lying, regardless of who they are or whether they are under oath. It is therefore important to make credibility determinatins based upon as much information as possible.

Kadri is hired July 1. He meets with Hornstine in mid-September. Is this their first meeting? Why is Keefe at the meeting? What is Keefe's previous involvement with BH's IEP?

If the September meeting was a "fulcrum" of sorts, and there were only three persons present, why did Keefe's certification come as such an apparent surprise to defense counsel? Did defense counsel interview Keefe and obtain a certification from her? If not, why not? If they knew or should have known Keefe might materially contradict Kadri, why was Kadri's certification not more "restrained?"

Whose idea was it to "recalculate" GPA for BH and KM? Isn't this individual student vs. individual student premise inconsistent with the basic defense argument that the proposed policy change was generic and not tailored to achieve a particular result?

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 8:35 am EDT

Bystander and Monkeybrains …

Yes, it would be nice if we could get access to the original affidavits/certifications which were submitted by various parties in the consideration of whether or not to issue a Temporary Restraining Order. And, yes … only certifications were considered in a TRO … and cross examination would likely have provided clarity.

Let’s remember that a TRO is granted in a situation where there is a time element involved … and essentially stays any action that might later be deemed to have caused harm to the party seeking the TRO. The parties involved submit written documents presenting their sides. Others who have involvement in the situation may also submit papers. From the judge’s opinion we can establish that Hornstine, Kadri and Keefe submitted affidavits. There may have been others, but I can find no reference to them. Conceivably (for example), there could have been others present at the meeting between Hornstine and Kadri who submitted affidavits/certifications, but we don’t know – as the judge makes no reference to such … and if there were, the judge did not consider them in ruling for a temporary action to stay the school from proceeding to naming co-valedictorians. You will note in the judge’s opinion that although the Hornstines also sought to file suit against Kadri and the School Board, the judge exempted the School Board, since the matter for considering co-valedictorians had not yet been before them at the time the Hornstines sought to intervene by filing for a TRO. If the Board had indeed had a chance to make a decision, it is likely that they might have denied the opportunity for co-valedictorians…making the whole affair moot. If, however, they had decided that co-valedictorians would be named, then it is likely that the judge would have allowed the Board to be considered a party in the TRO … and subsequent trial. Again, though, on all of this we may merely speculate.

It’s important to remember that the restraining order merely allowed the graduation to progress … and that the school was being prohibited from naming co-valedictorians at that time. If, later, after having a trial conducted on the merits, after fact-finding and evidentiary hearings by each side; after depositions … and actual testimony and cross examinations in a court room … and after a judge and/or jury, having weighed the evidence before them, it is conceivable that Kadri could have been found not to have discriminated … and the school would have been able to retroactively name co-valedictorians. Let’s remember that since the parties settled, no one has been deemed to be “guilty”; no law has been established to have been broken (i.e. discrimination), no “punishment” exacted and no damages established.

It’s also important to understand that the Hornstines sought the TRO on a potpourri of claims – “invasion of privacy”, “defamation, breach of contract, [and] violation of…non- disclosure provisions”, etc.(http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/hornstine_wolfson_ruling.html).
The judge threw all of these out. The judge issued the TRO … stating that it would be likely that the Hornstines could pursue their lawsuit based on “discrimination”. “Your discrimination claims pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act . . . appear more appropriate for . . . a civil action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. Adjudication of such claims, and awarding of injunctive relief such as that sought in this matter, are not appropriate for a due process hearing.” (http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20030607_blair/hornstine_wolfson_ruling.html).

So, there was a claim – not a finding - of discrimination … and the merits of such would have been considered in an upcoming trial (i.e. whether or not Kadri had discriminated against Blair). It never progressed to a trial. The school likely decided that going to trial would have been distracting at the very least and costly in the long run … hardly worth eating up time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. In their mind it was not worth the effort to prove themselves “right”. The fact that the settlement terms indicate that the school itself had to shell out only $35,000 leads me to believe that they had a strong position in the negotiation for settlement in what was a case where $2.7 million was their original exposure. The Hornstines likely agreed to settle (and at such a paltry sum), so as not to be subjected to further scrutiny, etc. Perhaps in the negotiations for settlement the school has some compelling information that contributed to weakening the Hornstines case. We will never know. And we can speculate all we want.

In addition to access to the affidavits/certifications that were considered for the granting of the TRO, it would be nice if there are any documents available relative to the settlement. Anyone near the Camden County Court who can request access to the TRO hearing (remember it was a hearing, not a trial) and the final settlement papers?

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 25 2003, 9:14 am EDT

About Mrs. M. M.'s credibilty. She claims to know something about the law. I mean, she is quick to tell all about the import of Judge Wolfson's opinion, but doesn't know that the New Jersey Law Journal is the prime professional journal of the legal profession in New Jersey.

Does the following exchange give you the impression that she knew about the Journal, but simply could not find it on the internet?

Is the Journal you refer to available online?
--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 11:37 am EDT
Wondering: I asked you to steer me to these journals online where you got the following info: ") the January 18, 1999 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal reports a poll of those appearing before all of the judges in the state regarding their overall competence. Judge Hornstine was ranked 208 of the 348 judges reviewed. 2) The June 6, 2003 edition of the same publication reported that of the 462 judges and justices submitting financial disclosures, Judge Hornstine had more sources of outside income than any other. "

I also am curious, since you have access to two of these journals, what did it say about LFH's finances in 1999 and what was his ranking in 2003? Of course, I am curious as to why you did not display these facts when you posted the above.

Although I would like to see these...truly, what difference does it make how much money he has or what his ranking was? About as much difference as Mrs. Hornstine's hair color?

Still I would like the answers to my two posted questions above and the whereabouts on the net of this journal.
--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 23 2003, 14:58 pm EDT
Mrs. M. M., I see you've gotten information on the New Jersey Law Journal from others. You could always do it the old fashioned way and go to a law library at your local law school. (Rutgers, Camden) Or, perhaps more conveniently, ask "Lou." I must say, that for someone who professes to know about the law, I am surprised that you seemed to be unaware of the New Jersey Law Journal.
--posted by Wondering @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:23 pm EDT
1. I just couldn't find the Law Journal info on the internet. I just was going to run out and go to the law library and get it...and again about that Brooklyn Bridge.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, August 24 2003, 23:36 pm EDT

Mrs. M. M., you are simply unbelievable!

Have you heard about Google?

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 9:24 am EDT

Clairification: [And, yes … only certifications were considered in a TRO … and cross examination would likely have provided clarity.] should read ...

And yes - only certifications are considered in a TRO. Cross examinations - which occur in a later trial - would have provided clarity, as well as allowed a jury to weigh the relative believability/credibility of each party.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, August 25 2003, 9:41 am EDT

Bystander: Sorry that you feel that I am beating you over the head. I probably was. I am just so tired of saying the same things to those who won't believe or understand or can't read Wolfson's entire comments. Blair earned her top role no matter what the other circumstancs were. Some heads just won't accept that. My apologies to you. Hurray for getting it!

I think S.D-S (and I don't mean to put words in his mouth) was referring to Wolfson's comments about having two Valedictorians would mean a disabled and a non-disabled one - not a true one.

I am sure that LFH knew there would be some "grief" spewed his way because of the law suit, but I am sure they never in a million years expected the kind of negative publicity, threats, etc. that they received.
There were even two non-supportive letters (I am told but can't match up names and professions) from two Moorestown policemen written to a local paper. They were not the two that sat outside of the Hornstine house to "guard" them, but if two policemen go out of their way to write letters, they must have some support from the rest of the small force. Mrs. H. tells me that the cops insisted on sitting directly in front of their house. They did not hide, as had been requested, so they might be able to catch the painters, eggers, etc. I am sure that no one in the family expected such "damage". If they did, I would have thought they would have hired a Publicist.

People on this blog as well as others have wished her physical harm - death, AIDS, etc. I am sure that they are kids who want to se their name and comments in print. There are others who regularly post here that think she should be MADE to go to a community college as punishment (poor cc students, they must like those comments), repent for years, NEVER go to Harvard (I am pretty sure that she wouldn't go today even if they paved the street in gold for her), etc.It's pretty sad to me that people are laughing at her because she got her "due" and can't go to Harvard (big deal in my book - many, many other fine institutions that don't perceive themselves as "matchless" - from NY Times article yesterday).

As far as the settlement. I, too, think the BOE wanted to take their punishment, pay the price and get on with the teahers' contract and the new school year. They personally needed to save some face as they are elected. BLH needs to bring this part to an end as she will be leaving soon for school. She certainly doesn't want to run home, have her school year interrupted or have more than her studies on her mind next month. It was never a case about money. The only reason that the 2.7 was flashed was to get the BOE's attention, I bet....and they sure did.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 10:15 am EDT

"TM - once again, I agree. Certainly the media is an unreliable source of information," from Bystander.

The reason and the only reason I came home a day early from Florida in May was to attend this hearing to see for myself what was going on. I have seen many times that the media portrays a situation (I have explained it here months ago), and I wasn't sure TRULY WHY this situation got as far as the court. I got to the court early. I heard the noise before and after. I didn't miss a word of the "testimony." I wish the court reporter notes were publically published. I spoke to Kathy Gandolpho (SP?) of WPVI, Edie Huggins of NBC 10 and a couple other print and TV reporters. We discussed the "case" before and during the time when Judge Wolfson left (about 45 minutes or more) to write her "oral" decision. Everyone was in agreement. Then I listened to the TV that night and read the papers. I felt that we were at two different hearings. You have all heard me say this before.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 10:24 am EDT

Monkey brains: Anything is possible in what was said between K and H. However, Dr. Keefe supported LFH. Also, I believe and haven't seen anything anywhere to dispute this: I don't think she was ever being considered to be Salutatorian. So possibly the scenerio that you propose or what Kadri said Lou said truly never was uttered.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 10:34 am EDT

Bystander: I would like to see the transcript of the hearing. I am not purchasing it though.

TM: Your comment: " Keefe's certification come as such an apparent surprise to defense counsel? " I AM NOT SURE WHERE YOU GOT THAT INFO. I NEVER HEARD IT TO BE A SUPRISE. COMMEGRO TRIED AND TRIED TO WIGGLE OUT OF EVERYTHING. HE HAD NO CASE AND THE JUDGE SHUT HIM UP WITH EVERYTHING HE TRIED. AS I HAVE SAID, HE EVEN LISTED CASE SUPPORT, AND THE JUDGE TOLD HIM THAT THAT PARTICULAR CASE FAVORED THE PLAINTIFF.

Then you said:"
Whose idea was it to "recalculate" GPA for BH and KM? Isn't this individual student vs. individual student premise inconsistent with the basic defense argument that the proposed policy change was generic and not tailored to achieve a particular result?

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 8:35 am EDT "

Sure, Kadri said he was "suggesting" a new policy be made in the way the Valedictorian would be selected. Then he goes ahead and makes up new math to get Kenny above Blair. Kadri tried to work it outfor Kenny to be Valedictorian, one way or another. But as the Judge pointed out, Blair had less AP courses than he did, but did better. Funny Math did not work. Maybe Kenny should have gotten extra credit for lunch, as Blair ate at home!!!!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 10:47 am EDT

Wondering: You need a life. I did check out google. I could not find the info from the NJ Law Journal that was displayed by a poster there. I am familiar with the Journal, but heavens to betsy, I only have one law book on my desk up here in my house. I was just going to run over the local law library and find one. Sure! I as just asking politely for someone to point me the way to the online version of this book where they obtained the info on LFH.

One thing, I have said over and over. I am not a computer expert. I have minimal skills compared to the young nowadays with a computer. Give it up. I admit I am a computer DUMMY - and I did qualify DUMMY, so put your other thoughts in a sock.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 11:02 am EDT

Despite the who saids and the certifications, Judge Wolfson "declared" that she wasn't getting into a match between Kadri and Hornstine. And due to case law, Hornstine could not Affect BLH's curriculum...


" On September 19, 2002, Kadri met with plaintiff's father, Louis Hornstine. Kadri and Mr. Hornstine have very different recollections of this meeting. Compare Kadri Cert. at ¶¶ 10-24 with Louis Hornstine's Certification (“L. Hornstine Cert.”), Plaintiff's Reply at Exhibit H, ¶¶ 12- 24. Kadri portrays Mr. Hornstine as an overzealous parent bent on manipulating the system to ensure that his daughter does not suffer “the same embarrassment” he suffered when he was merely the salutatorian of his graduating class. Kadri Cert. at ¶ 14. Mr. Hornstine disputes most of Kadri's account of the meeting, stating, for example, that he was not salutatorian of his class, since his “class rank was never that high.” L. Hornstine Cert. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff offers the certification of Assistant Superintendent Judithann Keefe, who was also present at the meeting, in support of Mr. Hornstine's account. Certification of Judithann C. Keefe, Ed.D. (“Keefe Cert.”).
However, the Court will not involve itself in the apparent quarrel between Mr. Kadri and Mr. Hornstine because it is not relevant to this case. It is undisputed that Mr. Hornstine could not affect his daughter's curriculum in any way without the express authority of the School Board. See Lascari v. Bd. of Ed. of Ramapo Indian Hills High Schl. Dist., 116 N.J. 30, 44 (1989) (stating that the local school district is vested with the responsibility of formulating and implementing special needs students' IEPs); N.J.S.A. 18A:46-5 and -5.1. Thus, whether or not Mr. Hornstine intended to manipulate the system is immaterial: the Board approved every aspect of plaintiff's curriculum through "

So, as I see it, Lou was taken off the hook. And Wolfson's rulings had nothing to do with the he said/he said.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 11:23 am EDT

Everyone:

I have moved comments from July 23 to August 18 (the day before the settlement was announced) to the third comments page.

Good to see lots of insightful comments these days.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Monday, August 25 2003, 11:34 am EDT

This whole thing is pretty much moot now, so it's time to play 20 questions.

Mrs. M.M.: Do you work at the county courthouse?

--posted by surlygrad @ Monday, August 25 2003, 11:47 am EDT

1. In reply to the TRO/support of the motion to dismiss, the defense submitted a certification from Kadri regarding the Septemeber meeting. In preparing the certification, it may be reasonably assumed that counsel determined who was present at the meeting. Insofar as Keefe is a school district employee, it is also reasonable to assume that the counsel had the opportunity to speak with her before it filed Kadri's certification. It appears the relevant Hornstine and Keefe certifications were filed in response to the Kadri certification. Accordingly, I am unclear why the defense was apparently "surprised" by what some have characterised as conflicting recollections of the meeting.

2. From the District Court opinion:

"...Kadri submitted a late supplemetanl certification on May 7, 2003, one day before the TRO hearing. Kadri makes numerous recalculations of plaintiff's weighted G.P.A. to reflect hypothetical curricula for plaintiff had she been a non-disabled student and required to take an in-school curriculum. He even provides a faux transcript for plaintiff...." (citations omitted) Whose idea was it to prepare and submit the belated supplemental certification?

3. In relevant part, an injunction requires a clear showing of immediate irreparable harm or a presently existing actual threat. An injunction may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury.

The District Court relied upon the Third Circuit opinion in Doe v. County of Centre. Unlike the BH matter, the governmental actor in Doe had actually adopted the discriminatory policy, supporting the finding there was a presently existing threat of actual harm. the District Court opinion does not address what may appear to be an important legal distinction, but there may be others in a better position to discuss that aspect of the opinion.

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 11:52 am EDT

I am sorry for the numerous spelling errors in my immediately prior post.

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 11:57 am EDT

It is not your computer skill I question, Mrs. M. M., but your obvious misunderstanding of the nature of the matter before Judge Wolfson, and your overall credibility. Your pronouncements of the law are simply wrong. Your sources have proven to be wrong (or you have misunderstood what they told you). You claim to have informatin from the "horse's mouth." Some horse!

You came from Florida to attend the hearing!?

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 12:54 pm EDT

Surly: NO

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 13:39 pm EDT

TM: Where did the word "suprised" come from? I don't think from me, but after posting here for three months, I am not sure of my name... (that's a joke to those who love to make something out of nothing)

2. Ask Comegro about the supplemental cert with the hypotheticals. I do know that the day before (or so) that Kadri wrote the letter to Mirkin advising him that he was being considered....and at the last minute or so (don't know if it was a day or a couple or exactly when by now), Dr. Shangold/Kenny Mirkin joined the defendants and hired Fran Hartman to represent Kenny.

3. I THINK the plaintiffs felt that if the BOE meeting took place before the hearing that BLH could or would be "harmed" and it was a "threat" to her securing the title.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 13:50 pm EDT

Wondering: Question and doubt whatever you want. I am not your whipping boy. Don't bother me with your personal thoughts. Yes, I really did arrive by car a day earlier than planned to attend the hearing. What was I doing in Florida? Who cares? Visiting with Jeb Bush....the Governor of Florida.....



Only kidding.

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 13:52 pm EDT

But, what is the horse's name?

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 14:00 pm EDT

I just looked up the case again and see Kenny was listed as the INTERVENOR. I thought that was a "funny" but true legal as well as proper by meaning of the word.
In any case, some of the meanings of intervene::

: to enter or appear as an ...extraneous feature or circumstance
: to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification
: to... lie between two things
: to become a third party to a legal proceeding begun by others for the protection of an alleged interest b : to interfere ...or prevent an action

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 14:02 pm EDT

Wondering: You won't understand; it's a family joke but the horse is the son of Seabiscuit.

And you think of all people, it would be YOU that I would tell. Don't think so.

Cretin had a chance, but he backed out of our coffee date. He doesn't get a second chance.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 14:08 pm EDT

Wondering: You just want to play. Let me give you hints: Please you serious posters, IGNORE this. Wondering wants to play, so I will throw him a ball....

I am seen on TV; times/amounts vary
I also have a home in Florida
I have family in Wildwood, NJ
I have children and grandchildren
I love the beach
I have an "H" in my full name.
My favorite colors are red and purple. (That could be important if you watch TV)
Family often involved in medicine and politics.


Don't bother me any more...

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 14:17 pm EDT

Wondering: Truly, who cares who I am? I am sorry that I wasted the space with "our little game." It is so unimportant what my name is. This blog is not about me.

My apologies to the serious ones here. I was momentarily overcome.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 14:19 pm EDT

In Section 4A, the part of the District Court opinion dealing with the TRO, Judge Wolfson states that "[d]efendant's targeted action here is similar to that in Doe v. County of Centre, PA, 242 F.3d 437 (3d Cir. 2001)." However, it does not appear the appeal in Doe involved a review of the preliminary injunction determination, but rather a plenary review of a summary judgment ruling. 242 F.3d at 446, FN5.

The Doe opinion that deals with the preliminary injunction is Doe v. County of Centre, PA, 60 F.Supp. 2d 417 (M.D.Pa. 1999). As noted but not discussed by Judge Wolfson, the government body in Doe had already adopted a new policy regarding foster parent applications, a distinction that continues to strike me as significant in the BH case. Perhaps even more important, the district court in the Doe case DENIED the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court stated that, "[W]e find it noteworthy that the defendants have not yet reached their final decision regarding the plaintiffs' foster care application." 60 F.Supp. 2d at 425.

How does this square with Judge Wolfson's comment that the school board, and not Kadri, had the authority to change the valedictorian policy, and her recognition that the board was not scheduled to meet until May 12 to review the proposed change?

Some participants on this site, Wondering and Cambridgema among others, seem to have legal knowledge and ready access to legal resources. Did Judge Wolfson correctly interpret at least one of the decisions she relied upon in granting temporary restraints? If she did not, does it matter in the context of her reasoning on the issue of temporary restraints, generally? I am not trying to get overly technical, it just struck me as a potentially intersting point....

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 14:33 pm EDT

TM: For whatever it's worth...I remember during the hearing Comegro referred to one case (can't remember when or why) as support for his side. Wolfson cut him off and said that the case supports the Plaintiff (said this before, I know)

Then, I think at another point, although it could have been the same case, that Judge W said to Comegro that she was very familiar with the case, in case he didn't know it. She had been a part of this case...Again, I forget if she had been the Judge or what.

The most interesting thing would be to get the transcript. I found the several hour proceeding, mostly give and take between Wolfson and Comegro to be the backbone of the case. As I had previously said, Judge Wolfson had done her homework before the hearing. She told the two attorneys that she would listen to an small opening argument but preferred to ask questions herself instead of allowing the attorneys to present orally what, I suppose, she had already been given.

We need a fund to get the transcript.

--posted by Mrs . M.M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 14:56 pm EDT

Doe vs. County of Centre, Pa.commentary by Judge Wolfson:

"Defendants' targeted action here is similar to that in Doe v. County of Centre, PA, 242 F.3d 437 (3d Cir. 2001). In Doe, the parents of an HIV-infected child were denied the opportunity to serve in the County of Centre's foster parent program on account of the HIV- infected status of their eleven year-old son, who lived with them. Upon learning of plaintiffs' son's HIV-status, the county's Children and Youth Services employees voiced their concern to the County Board that he might infect any foster children placed in the parents' home. Id. at 443. In direct response to the plaintiffs' situation, the Director of Children and Youth Services developed a policy, which the County Board adopted, providing that when someone living in a potential foster home has a “serious infectious disease,” only children with the same “serious infectious disease” could be considered for placement in that home. Id. At 444. The only means by which foster parent applicants could avoid the implications of this policy was to sign an informed consent form and “voluntarily agree to release information to the parents of the incoming foster child that the foster family has been diagnosed with a specific serious infectious disease.” Id. Because plaintiffs refused to sign the informed consent form and consent to the disclosure of their son's HIV-status, their application was denied. Id. at 445.
The Third Circuit ruled that the Board's application of the infectious disease policy to the plaintiffs in Doe was discriminatory under Section 504. In its view, the fact that the policy was specifically directed at the parents of HIV-positive individuals rendered it discriminatory towards those parents. See id. at 447. Likewise, here, any retroactive application of the valedictorian amendment to plaintiff would constitute prohibited disability-based discrimination because it was specifically designed, and will be implemented, for the purpose of requiring plaintiff, who has been granted certain accommodations on account of her disability, to share the valedictorian award solely because of the accommodations she rightfully received from the Board."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:06 pm EDT

CORRECTION

In the last paragraph of my previous post, I meant to type "incorrectly," not "correctly."

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:10 pm EDT

Well, gee, Mrs. M. M., out of deference to your senior status, I won't ask any more questions of you (not that you are compelled to respond). I will still wonder, however, since there are so many things to wonder about.

To TM, I worked as a paralegal for a while and paid attention to things in the law library. I am hardly an expert. I do get to talk to lawyers frequently. Judge Wolfson't order was not a "final" order in the sense considered for appeal. I don't know if the judge correctly interpreted the cases cited, but it doesn't make much difference.

AS I have said a couple of times, Kadri should not have bowed to the pressure he received to effectively change the rules. (See, Mrs. M. M., I do agree BH should have been the sole valedictorian, but that does not end the discussion.) I also think she went off the deep end in finding erreparable harm necessary for the issuance of the TRO. As to whether the matter should have been in federal court in the first place, I defer to Jeffrey Toobin, who was cited a while back.

And I can't resist another guess. Mrs. M. M. is BH's Grammy!

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:10 pm EDT

Judge Wolfson went off the deep end.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:12 pm EDT

Gosh, I got so hyped with Mrs. M. M.'s response that I used my left middle finger rather than my right. "irreprable harm" is what I mean.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:19 pm EDT

One of the things I wonder about is whether Jonathan Last will get the minutes of the school board meeting at which the settlement was approved. Now that the matter is settled, there should be no reason to hold them confidential, and it would be fun to see who voted which way.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:22 pm EDT

Perhaps it is Auntie?

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:36 pm EDT

Wondering: SH**, I am not THAT old. Age wise, daughter not granddaughter is more like it.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:51 pm EDT

I keep promising not to play with you Wondering, but you leave me no choice.

....Definitely Not Uncley

--posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 15:54 pm EDT

I did notice that the recent BOE meeting had a published adjenda with no specifics mentioned for legal/BLH, etc. I also noted that the Staff Briefing Memo was not available even though it was due to be published online. There were no "special" meetings listed either.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 16:07 pm EDT

Yeah, but I am so cute, you can't resist. :)

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 16:09 pm EDT

The BOE had to approve the settlement. Likely that was in executive session. Hmmmm.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 16:10 pm EDT

Executive Sessions, I think, do not have to be made public. Executive sessions have specific dates scheduled, but obviously, they can add additional ones if needed.


But I am even cutier and definitely sassier even for an Old Lady.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 16:16 pm EDT

The New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act requires that the minutes of executive sessions be made available when the reason for conducting discussion in executive session no longer requires confidentiality. It is possible, I suppose, that the BOE gave its attorney the authority to settle within certain limits, but that would have to have been done by the entire BOE, as well. The only way in which a BOE can act is in a properly noticed meeting at which a quorum is present. I can't imagine they would have done it any other way.

Jonathan Last, here is something for you to follow up.

Maybe you are cuter, but I am still cute, and you can't resist a joust. :)

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 16:25 pm EDT

Wondering,

It appears that Mrs M.M. is getting her information from the wrong end of the horse.

--posted by Tom D @ Monday, August 25 2003, 16:43 pm EDT

The aganda for the meeting of August 19, has an executive session noted. While the agenda does not say what is to be considered in closed session, it undoubtedly was a review of the then proposed settlement. There should have been a motion to go into executive session and the exception to the Open Public Meetings Act under which the closed session was to be conducted.

The motion and vote on the motion should be in the minutes of the meeting.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 17:09 pm EDT

Many boards of educatin post the minutes of their public meetings soon after the meeting. I don't see a place on the Moorestown BOE site for posting of minutes. The staff briefing memo does not constitute the official minutes of BOE meetings.

Wonder why the BOE does not have the minutes posted. Or am I missing them?

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, August 25 2003, 17:13 pm EDT

OK, where is Blair going to college this fall? It will not be a secret soon, so why not let us know now?

--posted by Cheesy @ Monday, August 25 2003, 18:00 pm EDT

Cheesy: Harvard

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 19:06 pm EDT

Cheesy: I wanted to let you stew with that one for a few moments.

Probably, less than two dozen people know that answer at this point, and I certainly will not divulge it. I don't give a Moorestown sh** if you believe me or not. Not a chance I will tell you. Hang me by my fingernails. You think the secret will be out soon. I am not so sure. When you think you know, call me. Do you want to pester her, egg her and e mail taunts to her?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 19:13 pm EDT

"Cheesy: Harvard

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 19:06 pm EDT"

Fat chance! Plus - her attorney Jacobs made it clear that she withdrew her application/acceptance in a "you can't fire me, I quit" tantrum in Newsweek.

--posted by whatthe? @ Monday, August 25 2003, 19:13 pm EDT

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/106163150746930.xml?ocshe

--posted by TM @ Monday, August 25 2003, 19:37 pm EDT

What the won't even let me have fun anymore...What the...Many of you complain that BLH and family took life too seriously. Now I can't even have fun.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, August 25 2003, 20:49 pm EDT

FWIW, I don't think Blair & Co. took life too seriously. I just think they valued the wrong things (e.g. the grade received in a class instead of what was learned).

--posted by cretin @ Monday, August 25 2003, 21:12 pm EDT

"As a new school year begins this week, Blair's summer saga provides powerful warning to grade-grubbing parents and students: It's not only silly to spend so much emotion warring over how another individual rates your work; it could well prove self-destructive....And so, as high school graduates across the country head off to their freshman year of college, eager to meet new roommates and begin the next chapter of their lives, Blair takes official hold of her title. She is the valedictorian of Moorestown High's Class of 2003. I wonder what solace the honor, which seemed so important in the spring but cost so much to win, brings her now that summer draws to a close."
http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/106163150746930.xml?ocshe

BINGO. Well put!

--posted by whatthe? @ Monday, August 25 2003, 21:34 pm EDT

The ancient Greeks had it right in their mythology ... Nemesis often strikes those who exhibit Hubris.

--posted by whatthe? @ Monday, August 25 2003, 21:46 pm EDT

Steps into the cute debate: I'm cuter, and I have big muscles, and oh yeah, I have a car... Shania would be just so proud! :)

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, August 25 2003, 23:57 pm EDT

In the spirit of troublemaking, I propose we start the Blair Hornstine watch. All of us who know people currently in colleges across the country should contact our friends and ask them to keep a lookout.

--posted by surlygrad @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 1:18 am EDT

Well, golly, after that we could have the sighting project, and the encounter project, and the.... well, nah.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 3:18 am EDT

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 7:36 am EDT

http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/faculty.cfm?Position_ID=5

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 7:39 am EDT

http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 7:41 am EDT

http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/masthead.pdf.

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 7:44 am EDT

http://law.shu.edu/faculty/adjunct_faculty/adjunct_faculty_00_01.htm

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 7:46 am EDT

http://www2.law.temple.edu/page.asp?page=facultyprofiles

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 7:48 am EDT

http://www.law.widener.edu/FACULTY/adjunct/bios/de/index.shtml#initial_H

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 7:52 am EDT

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/6617415.htm

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 7:57 am EDT

TM: Is there a point with these law school listings? Have I missed something along the way?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 8:35 am EDT

Surly: Putting out the word...Ah...Don't you think it's time we gave her some privacy. Hasn't her name been spread far and wide by now? Her summer in college seems to have been private. Now why can't we give her some more time? Must she wear a scarlett letter to please you? It's time she goes away with some privacy and dignity. Allow it to happen!

Play this game with me, if you want, but she's had her fifteen minutes. A college freshman has enough to do to get in the swing of things. Please allow her the same rights as other Freshmen during this transformation.


And then food for thought, Surly....suppose she is there under an assumed name?????

--posted by Mrs.,M. M. @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 8:42 am EDT

An Open Letter to Blair:

Now that this unfortunate affair has come to some sort of closing, I can’t help but wonder if you feel that it was all worthwhile? Following on Chris Sheridan’s editorial in this past Sunday’s Plain Dealer - was it all worth it? Was fighting for sole valedictorianship and pursuing such by ways of hardball legal tactics the only avenue you could have sought to seek redress? Could there have been other avenues available where the stakes weren’t so high, the explosure and scrutiny so intense?

I can’t help but wonder what inspires you? Do you harbor a true passion for learning, a thirst for knowledge? Or, are you more motivated by a blind pursuit of grades, honors and awards? There are many who are skilled at memorizing rote facts, figures and formulae. Some are honed and “trained” for test-taking like passionless automatons, seeking only to carve another notch on the imaginary score card they carry around in their head. Trust me – there is more to life and to learning than such.

Disregarding the ideas and the exact words and phrases you lifted from folks like former President Bill Clinton, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and arms control specialist Steve LaMontagne in the six articles you wrote for the Courier Post, what do “you” think is the true meaning of Thanksgiving to most Americans? What are the implications of art censorship on a society that values freedom of speech? What stance do you think the United States should take against the growing threat of nuclear proliferation by the North Koreans?

BTW – I strongly suggest that you take in a compelling movie which was released this summer called “Spellbound”. Directed by Jeff Blitz, the film chronicles eight students – and their parents – in their (is it the kids or the parents – or, both) pursuit of the title of “number one speller” in America. I suspect you might find some familiar themes in the kids’ singular focus on memorizing words and their spellings – and their parents who are ever so close behind, pressuring them to achieve. It is sad that many even sacrifice after-school time and weekends with friends. In some very sad instances, there are no friends around. Soccer balls, skateboards, swimming pools, hiking trips, parties and proms do not figure into these children’s lives.

I hope that as you enter into a new chapter in your life you are able to take stock of the maelstrom through which you have just traveled. I suggest that you seek to find your own path – not one that has been scoped out, or possibly even cleared for you by someone else. While loving parents are surely resources to whom you can turn to for advice, remember that you are now an adult – and are free to make your own choices. Good luck.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 8:56 am EDT

TM - thanks for posting the article "Who needs to be No. 1? " from The Philadelphia Inquirer. A great - and relevant - read! - http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/6617415.htm

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 9:10 am EDT

Ma: If I could guess BLH's feelings, she would do it again. She might have made a change or do, POSSIBLY suing for less (but she was given that 2.7 amount so that the BOE or whoever would take the case seriously and "could be" the way to bring the TRO up fast). But I believe BLH followed the school rules, felt that she wasn't getting her due due to her disability. I would bet that if she had to do it over again, she would. She truly felt that she was being denied this honor because she was disabled. She truly feels that this case was not only filed for her but for any other disabled students who are not getting equal treatment when compared to abled ones.

She is certainly making her own choices for the coming year. I think she has made most of her own decisions for a long time (with some parental guidance, perhaps). She is her own person!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 9:22 am EDT

typo above - "explosure" - I like it. Exposure + explosion = explosure!

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 15:41 pm EDT

Incoming Harvard freshman are due on campus by the evening of Saturday, September 6. The meal plan kicks in that evening. Directions for arranging for placement examinations, signing up for extracurricular activities and and for signing up for courses are given. Room assignments were mailed out approximately three weeks ago; students who have not yet received their room assignmnents are to report to a specific Building at Harvard for instructions. For more information, visit www.harvard.edu and go to Harvard College; home page has section for incoming freshmen.

--posted by dravrah @ Tuesday, August 26 2003, 21:22 pm EDT

A friend of mine has been trying to solve a problem with his child and the BOE & MHS since April. My friend has been specific in his request, provided documentation supporting his issue many times, to many people, has been given the run around, has been lied to, and out of desperation, retained an attorney to help clear up the issue. The attorney told him the school had violated many policies and he could take legal action from many different angles. My friend didn't want to sue just wanted the issue solved. Weeks turned into Months. Letters were sent to the different school officials and unanswered, meetings were held with school board members, Kadri and school officials. Friend Never got the same answer twice. Some officials were in agreement but then someone further up the line disagreed and the process started all over again. More run around. Issue still not solved and school starts in 1 week. (Child will be unable to go to school if issue is not solved)

My point is my friend has been reasonable, realistic, non elitist, and is now at wits end. If Hornstein had to deal with similar bull I am starting to see why maybe, just maybe he felt the need to take legal action and for such a large amount of money.

--posted by Everyone Doesnt know it @ Wednesday, August 27 2003, 12:50 pm EDT

Everyone Doesnt know it:

The record reflects that in September of the last school year, the question was brought up, in the event that Blair's schoolastic record continued. By the advent of the seventh semester. At the end of the seventh semester, the question was addressed in ernest by Mr. Mirkin's mother. These things are part of the school board meetings record.

In January, Mr. Kadri suggested, at a school meeting, in front of all the students, with Blair present, that perhaps the Valedictory award was unfairly applied, and that maybe the school should have co-valedictorians, expressing that Blair hadn't studied under the "same" rules as the rest of the students had.

No manner of negotiations resolved the matter. At the TRO hearing, the attorney's for the board, as a matter of record, would not allow that Blair would even be named 'co-valedictorian' under the board plan. This lack of recognition, and inability to even garantee her a partial share of the award is what resulted in the TRO being granted. The board simply would not allow that Blair had earned at least an equal billing with Mr. Mirkin. That was wrong, and the board did it.

Given that I fully understand why the suit was filed. Given what your friend is going through, I think that we've not heard the last of legalities involving Mr. Kadri, or MHS, or the board. Sounds to me like Mr. Kadri is bent on administering a death blow to the reputation of MHS, and Moorestown.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, August 27 2003, 23:55 pm EDT

Everyone: When you initially wrote several days ago, you somewhat glossed over problemes with Kadri and others but felt that he was on the right road with the school because of his stand on teeenage drinking.

Now I see from your latest post that you have more info on your friend and his/her problem. You easily see how frustrated your friend is when you friend is trying to solve a problem for a child that he/she loves so much. You are right. Sometimes that is all one can do to protect a loved one...especially a child when a governing body (here Kadri and the BOE) won't "pay attention". Frustration caused the law suit to be filed by BLH. Maybe frustration is being caused by Kadri because he not an educator. Maybe he took a job far beyond his capabilities or experiences.

When Kadri can't solve a problem with one child or solve a one on one problem, how does the BOE or the good people of Moorestown expect him to solve problems for a multiple of people like an entire school, teachers' contract, etc. Or is the large problem easier for him to solve because he is a business man not an educational leader? Is it easier to him to pacify a large group with "big ideas" like curbing teenage drinking which drew praise from you and others or solve a single child's direct and serious problem which won't garner him any accolades? . He needs to be able handle individuals. He might put a dent in teenage drinking, but he wont stop it. He needs to be able to SOLVE problems...and probably like the one with your friend is the kind a superintendent should be able to solve.

So Kadri shows his face around town and "takes on" teenage drinking...all the opposite of his predecessor...How did his predecessor handle parent and children problems? Maybe the predecessor spent more time on the phone, with parents/ children, etc., that he didn't have as much time to come to the basketball games, etc. Just wondering...

Anyway, I find it interesting that you are probably the only one or at least one of a very, very few who post here who is a taxpayer/parent in Moorestown. Everyone else here "knows the situation" from newspapers, tv, etc. They don't live with Kadri, MHS or their BOE.

Kadri is way over his head. He is a business man. He has a "charismatic" personality to some. Did he win over the BOE like a Bill Clinton won over some? When it comes to his legacy, will Kadri be remembered with disgust for his morals like Clinton?

My sympathy to your friend. You and your friend (and more will follow) are garnering more understanding in the BLH case. You and your friends, neighbors, etc. need to be more active in your school district. You need to help elect a new BOE who won't be swayed by a "smooth talker" who is more interested in his extra curricular activities than properly educating your children. When Cyndi Wulfsberg said that "he won them over during his interview even though he had no real educational experience, maybe the BOE doesn't know the difference between "a character" and a man who has "character." The man IS a bum. Let him sue me. Bet he won't. He doesn't even have a toe to stand on.! Pity the poor students until they rid themselves of this administrator and the BOE who hired him.

--posted by Mrs , M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 0:16 am EDT

You know, I had problems with the district while I was a student at MHS. This was before Kadri's time. Kadri may very well be a bum. Most people involved in K-12 education are. But let the rain fall equally! Wulfsberg, Mishler, Keefe, Brown, et al. are also bums. We need to overhaul the entire system. Get rid of the illiterates (i.e. Germaine Brown). Getting rid of only Kadri would just give us more of the same...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 10:18 am EDT

I know that Cyndy Wulfsberg has been a member of the BOE since 1990, but how long has she been president? Mrs. M. M., how much imput did she have in the BH matter?

Sometimes, when a BOE member has been around too long, she/he believes she/he actually runs the schools. That should not be the case. The BOE is elected to see that the schools are well run, not to run the schools.

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 10:20 am EDT

Yes. We (residents) vote for the BOE. They are supposed to represent us and our interests. Instead it seems as if they represent the school's interests...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 10:48 am EDT

Here's a news flash from a Moorestown resident who had kids in the public school system from the mid-80's to the late 90's. Cretin is on the mark. The problem is not Kadri. The problem is the general complacency of the good people of Moorestown, most of whom support an inadequate school system: run down physical infrastructure, mediocre overpaid teachers, condescending overpaid administrators, etc.

Why do they put up with it? Because the system has such a good rep. The SAT scores are consistently high, college admission % is always way up, student crime is low, and so everyone thinks their kids are getting a good education. Can anyone say "demographics"?

The problems didn't start with Kadri, and they won't end with him.

By the way, if you want to know why Keefe did not support Kadri's version of the Hornstine-Kadri meeting, don't forget that a prime (in her own mind, at least) candidate for Kadri's job when Vito Germinaro left was none other than Dr. Keefe. It would be reasonable to conclude that there is no love lost between them. Personally, I've been wondering whether Mrs , M.M. is really Dr. Keefe. (Just kidding)

--posted by Old Timer @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 11:48 am EDT

Thank you Old Timer. I agree with you completely. I guess I was confused and baffled as to why Kadri of all people was the target of so much criticism, when he was only ONE OF MANY. I am not sticking up for Kadri. But there are so many other people involved in this. The BOE seems to be getting off scott free, and MM portrays Keefe as a little old lady!?!?!?! What is this world coming to?

And your description of the school system was so accurate...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 12:14 pm EDT

I think this is the third time I've posted this, so apologies if you have seen it before. It is very important to me.
This case drives me nuts for any number of reasons, but the biggest one is this : The media inaccuracies about the nature of Blair Hornstine's disability, which I've seen referred to as an immune deficiency, an autoimmune illness, an immune problem causing fatigue, any number of things. Blair Hornstine has, as court documents state, chronic fatigue syndrome. There is a difference between chronic fatigue syndrome and immune deficiency (Igg def., Iga def. Common Variable immune deficiency) and there is a difference between chronic fatigue syndrome and autoimmune disease (Lupus, Scleroderma, Rheumatoid Arthritis.) Both autoimmune disease and immune deficiency are objectively clinically provable. Chronic fatigue syndrome has no objective diagnostic test. This is why it is argued sometimes to be a variant of psychiatric, not physical, illness. Whatever it is, it has no similarity to the other two types of illnesses, both of which are very serious and very verifiable.
News sources used the three terms interchangeably, and they are very different.
My 15-year-old daughter has a congenital immune deficiency (recessive, carried by my wife and me): selective IgA deficiency. This is easily diagnosed through a blood test and a bone marrow biopsy. Like a lot of IgA deficient people, she also has an autoimmune condition, vasculitis, that is ALSO easily diagnosed via blood test and tissue biopsy. She has been hospitalized over 100 times in her 15 years for pneumonia, sepsis and internal bleeding/inflammation of vascular system, and her lungs have been so damaged by her illness that she has a tracheostomy and uses a ventilator 12 hours a day. Her GI system is a mess, so she is fed via J-tube-- a feeding tube into her abdomen. She'd be delighted to travel out of state, much less to China. Her Make-A-Wish/Give Kids the World trip to Disneyworld six years ago is the only traveling she has done.
She goes to private Catholic school and attends classes with a nurse trained in her care when she is able (we are fortunate enough to have several hours a day of nursing care paid by our insurance; vent-dependent kids need a lot of specialized care). When she is ill or hospitalized, she is tutored evenings and weekends by her in-school teachers, who send her work (identical to that of her classmates) home or to the hospital with her older brother. She has a 3.6 gpa and we are so proud of her. Her classmates appreciate her kindness, intelligence and determination; she never lacks friends or visitors. She is very close with her brother (who is also a fine, decent, smart kid who we are immensely proud of; healthy kids are just as special as sick ones.) She is a valued member of our church.
My daughter deserves to go to a great college and have a great life, but in reality, she will probably not see 25.
THAT is unfair. Valedictorian? That's trivia.
I am most certainly jealous of the Hornstines. They will get to watch their daughter grow up, have kids, start a career, etc. I am jealous of any parent who has never had to sleep next to their child's ICU bed. This may be petty and wrong of me, but I cannot help it.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 12:19 pm EDT

I am not Keefe and don't think Keefe was truly interested in the Super job. She had no grudges against Kadri in September of 02. Now????

Kadri didn't start the entire school problems, but he is perpetuating some and adding many more.

The buck stops with Kadri and Wulfsburg. One thinks she is omnipotent and the other one is trying to be. When you aren't the lead horse, your view doesn't change. Which one is looking at the rear of the other?

Get out the vote!!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 12:26 pm EDT

What about Keefe? Is she without fault???

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 12:28 pm EDT

Dad: My heart goes out to you and others with terminally ill children.

I bet you fight for your children. LFH did the same thing. His daughter while not terminal DOES suffer from an illness that the school doctors, her doctors, etc., accepted from day one. The Hornstines just did not feel it necessary to extensively publicize BLH's problem. Sure, next to your daugter's, it is probably a walk in the park, but rest assured that her illness is real.

I bet that if your daughter with her 3.6 had the highest GPA in her graduating class, you would fight for her to get her due. I would be sure that with her fight, her illness, etc., that you would want her to have honors that she deserved.

I am sure you are jealous. I cannot blame you. Enjoy the good days. Many are jealous of you.

Good luck,. Wishing you all many happy days.

--posted by Mrs . M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 12:35 pm EDT

I don't think Keefe is at fault, but the late great guidance counselor (sorry to disparage the deceased - not my intention) is not.

Sorry that I couldn't put this more delicately.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 12:36 pm EDT

Lynn Matthews? lol

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 12:50 pm EDT

Well...dear old Cretin....what was up with Matthews and Kadri??????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:09 pm EDT

Cretin: I have lots of questions and comments about Dr.Lynn Matthews, but I do not want to be disrespectful. Not one of your favorites, either???

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:11 pm EDT

Hey Cretin: Stay with me....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:32 pm EDT

No, she wasn't one of my favorites...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:35 pm EDT

Now, Cretin: What did Dr. Shangold and Dr. Matthews have in common? Working together for and with gifted children!!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:37 pm EDT

Okay, now...why did Dr. Matthews GIVE to Dr. Shangold the class statistics for the GPA's of the 2003 graduating class before February, 2003? They are private. Why did Dr. Matthews give these records to Kenny to give to his Mother? Why did Kenny open the private package that should not have been released to his Mother through him or directly to his mother? Why did Kenny show others in his class the private records of his, BLair's and others? Ahhhhha....now why did Dr. Shangold now go to Mr. Kadri with help from Dr. Matthews?

Now, YOU know Dr. Matthews....would you put the above past her?

It's all true. Just want to hear your take, as you know at least one of the parties.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:42 pm EDT

Cretin: I am awaiting you to digest the above. IT goes on....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:52 pm EDT

No, I wouldn't put it past Matthews. And no, I don't know either of the parties...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:54 pm EDT

P.S. What's wrong with gifted children??? They are our future, aren't they?

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 13:55 pm EDT

When and how are Kadri and others responsible for leaking student information on other students going to be held accountable?

I assume, Mrs. M. M., you are saying that Shangold had access to the GPA's of other students, and knew their names, or could otherwise identify them. Is that so?

I am also wondering if it would be appropriate to change the name of Moorestown - to guess what?

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 14:00 pm EDT

Cretin: Nothing is wrong with gifted children...Truly they are part of the future. I am just putting the two and two together of Matthews and Shangold.

Next.....Dr. Matthews did not like Judge H. Judge H. did not like Dr. Matthews because of a few incidents with Adam's scholarships and college transcripts.

Do I need to continue?

Wondering: How can you now hold anyone accountable now? Or what difference will it make. Dr. Matthews is deceased. Was this one last stab that she could put in Judge H's back? (please, I am not trying to disrepect the dead)

Shangold had copies of the written records, not just scribbles given to her by Dr. Matthews, deliverd to her by her son after he showed to it around.

Less town? Whorestown? No, it's a nice place to live. It just has some unscrupulous people and some pushy parents with bright children like most other places.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 14:19 pm EDT

I was thinking about "Peyton Place."

--posted by Wondering @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 17:24 pm EDT

Wondering: I didn't think you were old enough to remember Peyton Place.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, August 28 2003, 23:57 pm EDT

Hornstine did right thing


It was not about her need "to be the one and only top dog." It was about the school changing the rules in the middle of the game. The school had a "contract" with the students that said, in effect: Here's how the valedictorian is determined. Then it approved her proposed home-tutoring plan to accommodate her disability - "level the playing field," as they say.

Then it changed the rules. That prompted the lawsuit. If you want to change the rules, you have to wait until the game (i.e., school year) is over.

Yes, it all worked out very badly for her. Yes, the $2.7 million lawsuit was a bit over the top. You wonder if she would do it all over again. Nevertheless, she should be given credit for standing up for the principle. It was the right thing to do.

Russ Waring

Cherry Hill

--posted by From the Philadelphia Inquirer @ Friday, August 29 2003, 10:35 am EDT

"Lawsuit Hell

Blair Hornstine, who sued her school district for $2.7 million for trying to name a co-valedictorian, has settled for $60,000, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer. She'll get $15,000; the rest will go to her lawyers.

Blair Hornstine was reviled for filing a lawsuit to prevent a classmate from sharing valedictorian honors; she felt compelled to skip her graduation ceremonies. Due to the publicity, her plagiarized newspaper articles were revealed; Harvard withdrew its acceptance. Poetic justice can be harsh.

It appears Hornstine will not start college this fall. If she did get in somewhere at the last minute, her family has kept it quiet."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95961,00.html

--posted by FoxNews @ Friday, August 29 2003, 12:13 pm EDT

Hornstine has been in college all summer,had several choices for this fall, and will continue her college education momentarily. Joann Jacobs opinion is as far from the truth as can be.

Proves to me again that the press doesn't always report the truth!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 29 2003, 13:00 pm EDT

I think the above quote from FOX news is clear on the fact that they are uncertain when/if/where Blair is/will be attending. Get over it MM.

--posted by FoxNews @ Friday, August 29 2003, 13:20 pm EDT

With your purported knowledge so often having been proven wrong, Mrs MM, I put very little faith/trust in your having any true first-hand knowledge of what is likely to be the next steps for Blair.

--posted by FoxNews @ Friday, August 29 2003, 13:25 pm EDT

Mrs MM - To repeat your refrain "Mark my words", many have and they've demonstrated that they are often wrong.

--posted by FoxNews @ Friday, August 29 2003, 13:27 pm EDT

Ma: BLH has attended college all summer and is resuming her studies in a well known academic university for the fall semester.

Get over it that she did not fall on her face! You expect her parents to announce it? Sure! BLH wants more threats, egging and threatening e mails.

P.S. You need not have faith or trust in me..I am not a deity. I have faith and trust that BLH will be a residental student at a non-New Jersey university for the coming semester.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, August 29 2003, 13:46 pm EDT

today fark.com links to an article from new zealand -

Waikato student cheats getting googled
29 August 2003
By ANN GRAHAM

Student cheats at Waikato University are being caught out by Google - the world's most popular internet search engine.


Lecturers reported 87 cases of plagiarism at the university last year - up from 26 in 2001.

In most cases the students were cutting and pasting sentences or phrases from the internet. And that was their downfall, said Waikato University pro-vice chancellor David Swain.

"Although plagiarism is high from the internet, it is also easier to detect for staff than the traditional forms from books and journals.

"Quite often a phrase will stand out and the lecturer can `google' search it to find a match," he said.

Plagiarism, the copying of material without correct referencing, is a serious offence and students can be excluded from a university if they are found to have breached discipline regulations.

Auckland University director of student services Wayne Clark said universities were finding more cases of plagiarism because of the use of tracking technologies.

"It's a huge concern for universities and we're acutely aware of the impending threat that it imposes."

Prof Swain said the university kept a clear record of plagiarism cases and students needed to be aware that they were likely to be caught and face stringent consequences.

--posted by farker @ Saturday, August 30 2003, 11:25 am EDT

Just a general reflection of the media in general with regards to accuracy in reporting...

April 1, 2003: Washington Post: Rescued Soldier Fighting to The Death re: Pfc. Jessica Lynch

April 11, 2003: New York Times: Jason Blair lies about visiting the Lynch family home.

April 1 -August 30: Almost every paper published: Regarding Lynch, no one knows the truth. Actually, folks, she does.

Since May, 2003, The Girl They Love To Hate reports on Blair include many inflamatory remarks including deriding her illness, (terminal or not, she's sick). They include improperly attributed quotes, which it seems most of us have been victim too, and contain remarks that intimate that Judge Hornstine is somehow in cahoots with the mob.

1948: Stevenson Wins regarding the presidential election actually won by Harry S. Truman.

These are just a few, lord knows there are thousands of other examples. Relying on the media for information is little better than playing Russian Rulette, at least you survive the confrontation.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, August 30 2003, 11:38 am EDT

regarding jessica lynch - many believe that the pentagon purposefully puffed up and stage managed Lynch's rescue. misinformation can be attributed to the pentagon and military representatives - and not the media.

Private Jessica Lynch became an icon of the war, and the story of her capture by the Iraqis and her rescue by US special forces became one of the great patriotic moments of the conflict. But her story is one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived. || http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm||

regarding jayson blair - he represents a small number of reporters who lie and plagiarize. he got what was his due.

many question blair hornstine's status, having come at the end of her junior year and the start of her senior year. could it be possible that the reason for such a low settlement figure was the school district's insurance company had information that might have exposed her "malady"? kind of like how insurance investigators expose those who claim to be on workman's compensation and are photographed by undercover investigators for cheating the system.

regarding the Truman/Stevenson headline - it's common knowledge that the newspaper that printed the headline went on preliminary information in order to get their paper to press. kind of reminds me of the gore/bush debacle of the recent election.

i have great trust that most of our mainstream (and not fringe) media get it right for the most part. when they get duped by misinformation being fed them, by unethical reporters, etc. they are quick to make amends and identify and investigate any transgressions.

i would rather get my information from the mainstream media than from biased, uncontested sources.

--posted by farker @ Saturday, August 30 2003, 12:56 pm EDT

Ms. H's "status" (I suppose that you mean illness and at home schooling) came in her Freshman year. So much for your info from mainstream or news sources. The school's doctors, administration approved this status many years ago. The settlement amount had nothing to do with exposing her "malady." The settlement had nothing to do with her illness.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 30 2003, 14:11 pm EDT

according to the judge's opinion and various media reports blair was physically active - and not felled by her alleged illness until she sought to drop gym at the end of her junior year. it is also beyond dispute that she was quite active during her first three years of high school so as to qualify for various awards - especially the congressional award gold medal...and other scholarships.

"Blair was enrolled in gym class in 9th and 10th grades (receiving an A and A+, respectively). Just weeks before the end of her junior year, she received a doctor's note waiving her from gym altogether."

"In June 2001, Blair was given the Congressional Award Gold Medal. To qualify for this honor, students must complete and document 400 hours of voluntary public service, 200 hours of personal development, 200 hours of physical fitness, and a 4-day exploration. Kelly Fanning, from the Congressional Awards office, says, "For her physical fitness she did jogging, power-walking, and dance." Moorestown High School students, it should be noted, take roughly 75 hours of Phys. Ed. class per year."

||http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp||

--posted by farker @ Saturday, August 30 2003, 14:56 pm EDT

Farker, interestingly you use the BBC story, now widely debunked even by the BBC as biased reporting, to try to put the distortion of fact on the shoulders of the Army, and not the media.

The Washington Post printed it's story using sources they cited as militarilly accurate, the ARMY, in it's breifing mentioned only that Lynch had been recovered and that units had taken fire both going in and coming out of the hospital. Your reliance on the BBC for information is not only dangerous in the case of Pfc. Lynch, it could be considered relying on a source with documented leftist leanings. The BBC is notorious for it's anti US reporting.

The MEDIA, not the ARMY, distorted the story of Lynch's rescue, and action, and to date, the MEDIA even puts the blame on Lynch's shoulders. Lynch didn't do a thing. She's made a public statement, one, that's it. The only other statement attributed to her is the "I'm an American Soldier, too." statement, and she has also claimed that. She has never publicly discussed her capture, rescue, or the events leading to it, and the Army has yet to release the OFFICIAL report. Thus, and this is simple, the MEDIA is still speculating based on incomplete factual sources, and upon what sells the most papers, amongst other things. Calling the BBC unbiased is like calling Hitler a friend of the Jews.

Common knowlege or not, improper reporting is improper reporting. When Princess Di was killed, the local paper held the presses until a definitive statement was issued. This resulted in late delivery but accurate reporting.

As to Bush/Gore, frankly, I'll say this, as we approach yet more record setting deficites as a result of unbridled spending in the White House, and with a republican controlled house and senate, are you tired of it yet? The New York Times, the Miami Hearld and the Washington Post conducted separate recounts of Florida after the election, and all three of them found that Gore would have won the election had the recounts, done as Bush wanted them to be done, been completed as they should have been. GWB, either by action or fact is the installed, not elected president of the US, and frankly I hope that lasts only until January of 2005, when a new president, elected by the people, is sworn in.

Now, I'll say this, you can throw any bit of media hype you want in the mix, there is a reason they call it hype.

I doubt the insurance company had anything to say about Blair's condition, and if they did, a very strong case could be made for invasion of privacy, as well as the real possibility that criminal actions had to occur in order for the insurance company to gain access to such information. I suspect the reason for the settlement is pretty simple, and that would be that Blair's credibility was seriously damaged by the sudden, (though previously known) exposure as a plagiarist, which interestinly, the media was once again instrumental in hyping. I think also that while the statement was made, in that the board, and Kadri were shown to have been probably discriminating against Blair, the community was so wrapped up in the plagiarism that the point was lost.

This country loves to bash, and in this case, they chose to bash a child who did nothing more or less than some of our most revered leaders and historical figures. I doubt we're going to go dig up JFK or King, or anyone else and cast them aside as not worthy simply because they plagiarized. Blair will always live with that shadow, but to take away from the validity of her suit is to ignore the corruption that runs rampant in most of our government offices.

The school board is no different, it is filled with people who want the best, as well as the prestige that goes with it. That someone might be hurt as a result of their ambition is only collateral damage, and in the long run, not a big price to pay for their own legacys.

People created this situation, and simply put, it's up to people to realize that they have to fix it. And the Media, well, it will propably not get it right, even then.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, August 30 2003, 16:06 pm EDT

For whatever reason BLH did not participate in high school PE, the school went along with it.(possibly her PE classes were given at a time when BLH could not or did not attend school. She went to school in the a.m. for several hours and was brought home around noon) BLH did exercise, walk and lift weights as part of her physician's instructions. Her physicial fitness participation did not take place in a single time frame. How does the government allow wheel chaired individuals to participate in receiving this award? Obviously, you do not need to be an athlete to receive this Medal.

Please show me where the Judge used in her opinion that BLH was " physically active - and not felled by her alleged illness until she sought to drop gym at the end of her junior year." The June 2001 award was presented at the end of her Sophmore year.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, August 30 2003, 19:36 pm EDT

Various Attorneys have indicated that Moorestown is a "ripe" District for lawsuits, in part due to the number of mistakes the Administrators make in any case. Any ideas as to how to track down the lawsuits that have been filed against the District over the past several years?

thanks
Suddenly_Concerned

--posted by Suddenly_Concerned @ Saturday, August 30 2003, 20:02 pm EDT

Ye Gads, S. D-S., you've lost all credibility! The headlines read: "Dewey Beats Truman" Tom Dewey was the man who ran against Harry Truman. http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/dewey.html

Adlai Stevenson ran against Dwight Eisenhower twice, in 1952 and 1956, and lost.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, September 1 2003, 10:43 am EDT

If BH is attending a university (not college) my guess is that it is the University of Southern California. USC has a reputation as providing the best education that money can buy, and this is not meant as a complement. Some people say USC stands for University of Spoiled Children - not owning a BMW can make a student a pariah. While you can get a good education at USC it is not Ivy League even though they charge like it.
http://www.dailytrojan.com/article.do?issue=/V150/N02&id=02-students.02c.html

I have heard many stories about USC being flexible in their admission policy and about people buying their way in. Quick googling did not turn up anything though.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, September 1 2003, 14:21 pm EDT

I can't imagine Blair so far away from home. Since Daddy will be working in Cambridge, I imagine that Blair will go to UMass Boston. No offence to UMass is intended.

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 1 2003, 15:19 pm EDT

Nah, UMass is a state school and I'm sure state schools are very strict about following a written admissions policy (othewise they would under constant pressure from individuals in state govenment to make exceptions for their children). Only a private U would take her so late. USC is the only one I can think of that has a sleazy reputation along these lines. Anybody know of any others?

And there is no reason to rule out CA. After all BH spent part of summer 2002 at Stanford, I think.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Monday, September 1 2003, 15:48 pm EDT

Yegads! Wondering, you are so right! Geebus... and I wasn't the only one that missed it. Oh, well, thanks for the historical re-education Wondering, and even though the name was well, wrong, damnit, the point was valid.

Yesh, I sometimes make humongous booboos, (seen a few of those, too, I mean, well, never you mind about that), but I'm always willing to be corrected.

And don't a one of you get some wild S&M idea about that.

Sheesh.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, September 2 2003, 0:42 am EDT

No Boston; No USC

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 2 2003, 8:46 am EDT

Is she studying at Dickinson in Pennsylvania?

--posted by ? @ Tuesday, September 2 2003, 10:26 am EDT

Thank you for your good wishes, Mrs. MM. And I can certainly do with reminders that God has always brought Lizzie through, while other families have lost their children. My prayers to these families, who are certainly justified in envying me.
I don't think I ought to join the debates on the case itself here. I just wanted to point out those medical inaccuracies on the part of the media that I think were misleading to the public, and got started talking about my kids. I tend to run on and on about Lizzie and Mike! But I am just so proud of them.
My best to all.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Tuesday, September 2 2003, 10:41 am EDT

It was announced this past Friday that Dr. Judith Keefe has resigned.

--posted by And the beat goes on @ Tuesday, September 2 2003, 14:56 pm EDT

The reason the case was settled is that the school district was prepared to ask a Judge to dismiss the case due to the fact that Blair did not attend her own graduation and give her valedictory and this made her case moot.

So, they threw her a little bone and she swallowed it. That is the payment of $45,000 to her attorneys and $15,000 to Blair. A bird in hand is better than a bird in the bush.

Regardless of what you want to say, the fact remains that school districts around the nation play a powerful pivotal role in students and parents lives. Most of the time, we will not have problems with the principal or teachers as they are trained to solve problems at the local level before they escalate into a greater problem requiring the services of an attorney. A principal who cannot solve problems before they are routed to the superintendent becomes a prime candidate for replacement.

I am not going to point fingers at he said or she said, but I will say that the case took on a life of its own once it became a federal case, requiring the attention and direction of a federal jurist. Once that happened, BH became the whipping girl for all those spoiled rich snobbish girls we had to deal with. The Horstine family never dreamed that they would be the subject of so much hate and vilification once they proceeded with the case on the strong belief of righteousness and an eagerness for justice. Instead, it became a case of a spoiled rich girl wanting to become the sole valedictorian of her class, thus creating so much vituperative hatred at BH and also at the role of valedictorians in society.

In the final analysis, both parties should have agreed to have a mediator hear the case and arrive at a negotiated solution to the problem before taking the case at a last resort to the courts. Had that been followed, this whole tasteless debacle would have been confided to Moorestown NJ and not all over the world and on the internet. As a result, BH would have been able to finish her senior year in style and go out in good graces with her friends and classmates. She would have entered Harvard University with the class of 2007. The Blair Horstine Project website would not have been created and be in existence as of today.

Instead common sense went out of the window and the case ended up in court where it became a he said, she said saga. The credibility of various people were questioned and continue to be questioned in this website.

The lesson to be learned is that no one is above all people. We are all created the same and we have the same rights as any other person. We have the right to protect ourselves from something that is not done right to us, but we must use great care and discretion in handling the situation before we create an even greater problem by taking it to the courts. The courts may or may not grant us the injunctive relief that we so desire. Regardless of what happens, we will never be completely satisfied with the outcome.

Compared with what BH supposely suffered from the loss of her sole valedictory, crime victims and people with injuries suffered in auto accidents created by careless or drunk drivers will never be completely satisfied with any amount of damages awarded against the perpetrator. THe courts may order the perpetrator to pay resitution to the crime victim or auto accident victim and they may not do it at all once released from prison. Thus the victims may end up gnashing their teeth for decades because of that.

To BH, I would say to her to grow up and assume responsibility for her life. She may have lost her sole valedictory, but she has a life to live for and should make the best of it. I wish her well in her new endeavors with no hard feelings on my part. I wish many in the website would do so and allow the website to post its last comment and fade into obscurity.

James K. Goodwin

--posted by James Goodwin @ Wednesday, September 3 2003, 12:18 pm EDT

If anyone on this board has any first-hand knowledge of the Hornstine case, from Moorestown, Harvard, or other venues, I'd like to talk with you. You can email me at jlast@weeklystandard.com. All correspondence will be confidential.

--posted by Jonathan V. Last @ Wednesday, September 3 2003, 15:27 pm EDT

Jonathan, go after the minutes of the Moorestown BOE re: the vote and discussion on the settlement. They might prove helpful.

--posted by Wondering @ Wednesday, September 3 2003, 18:51 pm EDT

Jonathan: You have a good case. You couldn't get your first story straight. Now you are advertising for more gossip and innuendoes. You are on a fishing expedition. Maybe you should be a sports writer. You had so many inaccuracies in your first story. Plus, You then spent several paragraphs on Kadri's non-true story before mentioning the Judge's getting support from the Assistant Superintendent in the NINTH paragraph when everyone was tired of reading your dribble. You just want to fill your column with words - accurate or inaccurate. You don't really care. For a "man" who comes from Moorestown, you certainly are an embarrassment to your teachers, family and yourself. Confidential, yet, you say. Ha. Of course anything anyone tells you would have to be in confidence, because you make up the story to suit yourself. You want to quote me: "Kadri is a bum, and a liar." If you guarantee me that I can read your next story before publishing and have the right to change it and get to the truth, I'll give you the quotes you so desperately want. Otherwise... GET A JOB....or at least write for the National Enquirer. That's your speed!
P.S. Last: I do not, DO NOT, D O N O T give you permission to quote or paraphrase any remarks that are attributed to me in this blog.


Mr. Goodwin: You can have your opinion of this case and advice for BLH. However, there are possibly many things you can say about the case or BLH's decision to sue, but one thing that can not be truthfully said is that that this young lady, is not a Spoiled, rich and snobbish girl. .

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 3 2003, 22:42 pm EDT

Last: I also know of several people who wrote to you and your paper with comments on your initial story pointing out your erroneous words and supporting Miss Hornstine. You never published any of them. That goes to further prove that it is your show, no matter what the truth is.

GET OFF OF THIS BLOG. YOU MAKE ME SICK!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 3 2003, 22:49 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

I refer you to my guidelines for posting comments:

http://www.tow.com/info/comments_guidelines.shtml

"Furthermore, by posting on this web site, you give permission for others to cite and paraphrase you. Outside publications should state that the material being cited originated from this web site."

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Wednesday, September 3 2003, 23:02 pm EDT

I actually have found Jonathan Last's two articles on the Blair Hornstine situation to be comprehensive and fair. Mrs. MM., you state to Mr. Last: " You had so many inaccuracies in your first story." By all means, please substantiate your claim(s) for us.

I look forward to learning more about the settlement situation, etc. from Mr. Last - and look forward to his article - and any others which may appear in the future.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 8:59 am EDT

Ma: I have gone over this many times....Here we go again.

NEVER SAID IN COURT; JUST A BS COMMENT TO IN LAST'S STORY:"As one parent put it, "Lou Hornstine was bragging about the fact that he was manipulating the system and that his daughter was going to be valedictorian."
"
"Kadri claimed that Hornstine "told me that he had been salutatorian in school, and that he did not want his children to face 'the same embarrassment.'" Therefore, "he would 'use any advantage of the laws and regulations to give [Blair] the best opportunity to be valedictorian.'" According to Kadri, Judge Hornstine "told me that he was going to manipulate rules designed to protect disabled students" and said, "All I'm interested in is what is best for my daughter". NEVER SAID BY LFH; HE WAS NEVER THE SALUTORIAN OF HIS HIGH SCHOOL CLASS...NEVER EVEN CLOSE TO THAT HONOR. AND LFH IS NOT 'STUPID'. HE WOULD NEVER SAY HE WAS GOING TO "MANIPULATE" RULES....HE IS A LAWYER AND A JUDGE. HE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT THAT COULD COME BACK AND KICK HIM IN THE A**.

JUDGE DISAGREED WITH THE FOLLOWING PLUS SOME WAS NEVER SAID ON THE RECORD: "Eventually, Kadri concluded that Blair had received an unfair advantage over her fellow, full-time students. She "could take as many AP or Honors courses as she wanted to" because her home schooling eliminated scheduling conflicts--and the grades in these courses added extra points to her average. An A+ in an advanced placement course was worth 5.3 points. What's more, she had been medically excused from the gym course other students were required to take. The best a student could do in gym was an A+ worth 4.3 points, which would have dragged down her GPA. Kadri also believed that the home tutors did not grade as rigorously as some of the regular AP teachers. "

"Kadri decided to elevate the number two student to co-valedictorian with Blair" SUPPOSEDLY HE TOLD THE CLASS AND OTHERS THAT THERE WOULD BE FOUR VALEDICTORIANS...NOT TWO. HE ALSO NEVER SAID IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE THAT BLAIR WOULD BE ONE OF THEM.

IN THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) PARAGRAPH, WHEN EVERYONE IS TIRED OF READING AND MOST HAVE SEEN THE NEGATIVE LIGHT AND MADE UP THEIR MINDS THAT THE HORNSTINES DID SOMETHING NOXIOUS, LAST SAYS:"Jacobs produced a certification from Judithann Keefe, Moorestown's assistant superintendent. Keefe sat in on the September 19, 2002, meeting between Superintendent Kadri and Judge Hornstine, and in her May 7 filing she contradicted her boss's account no fewer than eight times: "Louis Hornstine's educational record was never discussed," she said, and he "did not state that 'he would manipulate the system to benefit his daughter.'"

LAST GOT ALL THIS HISTORY INFO INCORRECT - SHE CHANGED FROM AP HISTORY TO HONORS BECAUSE THE WORK WAS TOO HARD. BUT DON'T FORGET THAT KENNY HAD MORE AP COURSES THAN BLAIR..SHE JUST GOT BETTER MARKS. (BUT LAST CHOOSES NOT TO MENTION THAT...At Moorestown High, the calculations for valedictorian are made at the end of the first semester senior year. Just a few weeks before that semester ended, Blair dropped AP European History--one of the two courses she was taking at the school--citing exhaustion. "The papers are killing her," Judge Hornstine told the child study team while trying to withdraw Blair from the class. At the time, Blair had an A- in the class. It would have been one of the lowest grades of her high school career" (SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE LOWEST..NOT THE LOWEST OR A GRADE SHE HAD NEVER GOTTEN BEFORE)

WAY, WAY DOWN IN THE ARTICLE AFTER SPENDING TWO OR MORE PARAGRAPHS DEGRADING THE ATTORNEY, AND WHEN MOST PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER READING THE ARTICLE, LAST THROWS IN THE POSITIVES FROM 'THOSE WHO KNOW' MISS H:
"David Rhody, a Latin teacher who's also a lawyer, remembers Blair as "very bright, very interested, very curious--good student."
"Mary Betancourt, an exceptional teacher with 43 years of service who spent her last 25 years as head of Moorestown High's English department.."

LAST DID GET THIS STRAIGHT...BUT LOOK HOW FAR DOWN IN HIS COLUMN HE WROTE IT - OBVIOUSLY NOT A FAIR COVERING OF THE 'NEWS':""I think you don't have a leg to stand on," she told school board attorney John Comegno. "Whether or not Mr. Hornstine intended to manipulate the system is immaterial," because over the course of four years, "the Board approved every aspect of [Blair's] curriculum."


(I am continuing, but I don't want to lose the above so I will send it now before you get tired of reading)

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 10:47 am EDT

AND THE EXCEPTIONAL (LAST'S WORD) MRS. BETANCOURT SAYS WHEN NO ONE ELSE IS CONTINUING TO READ BUT JUST IN CASE, LAST NOW REFERS TO HER AS 'FAMILY FRIEND' SO AS TO SOMEWHAT DISCREDIT THE 'EXCEPTIONAL':
"And the Hornstines' old family friend Mary Betancourt also swung into action. She wrote Harvard a multi-page letter defending Blair and attacking the Courier-Post, accusing the paper of hypocrisy, mismanagement, and systematic plagiarism, concluding that "If the paper's adult writers cannot give proper citations or attribution, how can they question a student who received no guidance?" She chalked the entire episode up to "an effort to discredit Blair."

"Newspapers do it all the time," she told me. And Betancourt smelled a rat. "I don't think the paper's ethical motives are pure," she said. "Guess who has an aunt who works for the Courier-Post?" she asked. "John Comegno." Comegno, the school board attorney, replies, "I think that statement's unfortunate and it really doesn't justify a response. Following that logic, though, I don't have any relatives at any other papers that I'm aware of, so I would assume that all the other papers are out to get her, too."

A 'NO NAME' QUOTE TO FURTHER HIS CONTEMPT:""I think that the view is there is not a genuine disability," explains a parent from the community."

"The cynics point to her activities. In 2000, Blair ran with the Olympic torch when it came through Philadelphia. The Inquirer reported in May that she works out at a local gym. She went on the senior class trip to Disney World this spring, and in the summers, she does intensive academic work. During previous summers she enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell. Last summer she spent eight weeks at Stanford taking classes in Expository Writing (A-), Psychology (A), and Philosophy of Public Speaking (A).
" SHE DOES WORK OUT WITH WEIGHTS AT A LOCAL GYM, ALL ORDERED BY HER PHYSICIAN (HAS ANYONE READ DOWN THIS FAR?) SHE SUFFERED FOR DAYS AFTER HER SENIOR TRIP TO DISNEY, DIDN'T GO TO ALL THE ACTIVITIES AT DISNEY AND SPENT ALMOST A WEEK IN BED AFTER HER TRIP. IF SHE WAS THERE ON A MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION TRIP FOR ILL KIDS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE SAID A WORD ABOUT HER NOT BEING ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE GROUP OR THE WEEK IN BED AFTER.

AND NOW SHE WENT TO STANFORD LAST SUMMER. ASK THE KIDS SHE WAS THERE WITH...SHE NEVER WENT ON THE WEEKEND JAUNTS TO SAN FRANCISCO, DID MUCH SOCIALIZING, ETC.....PLUS SHE EARNED ALL A'S IN THE COLLEGE COURSES. DADDY WASN'T THERE TO COACH HER; SHE HAD NO PRIVATE TUTORS IN HER ROOM....GEE SHE MUST BE SMART!

" Kelly Fanning, from the Congressional Awards office, says, "For her physical fitness she did jogging, power-walking, and dance." DIDN'T HAVE TO BE DONE IN A WEEK OR MONTH. WHAT DID SHE DO THAT MOST OTHER 18 YEAR OLDS, SICK OR WELL COULD NOT DO OVER A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME?

AGAIN, LAST WRITES AS IF THE JUDGE WAS PAID OFF OR IN BLH'S POCKET... AN UNFAIR AND DISGUSTING ADJECTIVE HE USES TO DISCRIBE JUDGE WOLSON, AS THOUGH SHE DID SOMETHING UNSCRUPULOUS: Observers with varying sympathies think Blair is in a position of strength, with a friendly judge " FRIENDLY HAS LOTS OF MEANINGS, BUT HERE IT IS USED AS A NEGATIVE IN DESCRIBING A NON-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND PLAINTIFF.

|
Ma: Do I need to take apart any other article? I didn't think so.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 11:12 am EDT

In his two articles for the Weekly Standard Mr. Last reports the comments, claims and contentions made by numerous individuals involved - or, who have opinions - about the situation. How is his reporting construed as inaccurate? Furthermore, I give readers more credit that they will pay attention to all aspects of his article...and not be "tired of reading" or "no longer reading". The arrangement of his paragraphs, etc. demonstrates no bias, etc. As you know, many contend various positions of the players in this case. As example, only three people really know what transpired in the meeting between Mr. Kadri and Mr. Hornstine. And one of those individuals - Dr. Keefe- has (according to the posting above) resigned from the assistant superintedant position in Moorestown. I, for one, would find it interesting to learn why she has chosen to resign - particularly after the settlement has been established.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 11:16 am EDT

Sorry MA, but I did need to add another erroneous quote from Last's other column. He claims to have such great info that even the attorney for the board denied to him the settlement when it was actually true.

" settlement has been in the works since the first week of August, when a source approached THE DAILY STANDARD claiming that releases had already been exchanged and that the terms--$15,000 for Hornstine, $45,000 for her attorneys--had already been decided. When contacted and asked for confirmation, the township's lawyer, John Comegno, denied the source's claim and called the numbers "absurd."

ABSURD says the attorney with a name. "source" ? is that like plagiarizing? We do not have to name the "quoter"?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 11:19 am EDT

whoops....I didn't finish but posted anyway.

LAST SHOULD SPEND THE END OF SEPTEMBER AND THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER AT ONE OF THE MANY SYNAGOGUES IN VIRGINIA PRAYING AND APOLOGIZING FOR THE ERRORS OF HIS WAYS. THEN, OF COURSE, WITH SHABBOT, ROSH HASHANAH AND YOM KIPPUR, HE WON'T BE ABLE TO SMOKE THOSE BIG STOGGIES OF HIS. HE NEEDS TO SPEND THE DAYS IN PRAYERS AND REFLECTING ON THE TWISTS HE GAVE THE BLH STORY TO SELL HIS STORY.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 11:30 am EDT

Look Ma: You and I will always have the half full/half empty syndrome about BLH. I accept that. I also believe that you felt that your personal honor was being challenged by her attending Harvard. But I do know that many, many people whose names I could tell you but would be of no significance to you that did not read Jon Last's entire story. Many read the beginning and got "his message" and went on with other readings...like people who just read headlines and beginning paragraphs. I felt he just fell in line and didn't get to the truth till way in the article. Even one or two who post here and read the entire article agree. If his paragraphing and tone of the article were different, his thoughts would be construed differently.

Anyway, when he contacted Comegro, Comegro denied the settlememt. So was he going to base his article on Comegro or the unknown source. In this case the unknown was correct, but had he gone with his article a few days earlier, he would have been incorrect with his info from Comegro.

Also, in paragraph two (?) of his second article, the one relating to the settlement, he states "according to the settlement papers..." Which takes me to the question...has he seen the settlement papers? Shall I doubt it? According to the settlement papers to me mean that he has either seen them or knows first hand from someone who has actually seen them. When you and I talk about the settlement, we usually say that "it was reported" or "scuttlebutt has it"... So when Wondering asks Last to go after the BOE minutes, etc., I would think that Last either has them or doesn't need them because he HAS or has SEEN the settlement papers. I do doubt that he has the settlement papers or has personally seen them. It is more like that from his henchmen in Moorestown, he has info on these papers, but that is not what he actually says.It's the old whispering down the lane theory again....

It has been posted here that Dr. Judithann Keefe has resigned. However, I have not seen it on the MHS online postings or in any of the three local newspapers that might report on such. So, is it true????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 12:16 pm EDT

I do assume that Mr. Last has read the settlement papers, when he states "According to the settlement papers, Blair Hornstine will receive $60,000--$45,000 of which is earmarked for attorneys' fees." He does point out: "The settlement has no confidentiality clauses to it and, perhaps most important, includes no admission of guilt or wrongdoing in the Hornstine affair. ".

Mr. Last makes it clear that a source did provide him with accurate information regarding the terms of settlement a week before it was officially announced. As you can see, his publication chose to wait reporting on it until it could be verified by an actual announcement.

Regarding Dr. Keefe - is it true that she has resigned? I don't know. With your purported "inside status", can please enlighten us? If she has resigned, it is an interesting development in this affair.

BTW - no personal honor has been or is at stake for me regarding Blair not attending Harvard. I do believe - strongly - that the College did the right thing in rescinding her acceptance, since her repeated plagiarism violated a basic tenet set forth and agreed upon by incoming students. Regardless of where she ends up studying - whether it be here or overseas; whether it be as you infer under an assumed name/identity - I wish her well in all of her current and future pursuits.

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 12:54 pm EDT

[can you please enlighten us?]

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 12:58 pm EDT

As suggested on August 22, the source cited in the Weekly Standard and the comment by Mr. Comegno, properly interpreted, may be tantalizing clues to explain the delay in finalizing the settlement, especially in the absence of comments by Mr. Jacobs. By refusing to speculate upon the apparent inconsistency between a presumably verifiable source and the dismissive response of the defendants' attorney, the Weekly Standard report remains restrained, accurate journalism until proven otherwise.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 13:48 pm EDT

No 100% accurate info on Keefe.

I do wonder if Last has/had the settlement papers. I do doubt it, but I am a doubting Thomas when it comes to journalism these days.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 14:00 pm EDT

Posted by Mrs M.M.

".....but one thing that can not be truthfully said is that that this young lady, is not a Spoiled, rich and snobbish girl."

I knew you'd come around.

--posted by Tom D @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 14:12 pm EDT

Pardon my typing and/or English. for once and for all...BLAIR L. HORNSTINE IS NOT A SPOILED, RICH AND SNOBBISH GIRL/YOUNG LADY/WOMAN. SHE IS A BEAUTIFUL, KIND, GENEROUS, BRIGHT, SOFT SPOKEN AND SMART PERSON. get it?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 14:30 pm EDT

Beautiful?
Kind?
Generous?

Alrighty then...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 16:05 pm EDT

Alrighty... Just think Cretin, you are 20; BLH is 18; you both come from Jewish families in Moorestown and, of course, ( ahem) you are handsome, chaaaritable and unselfish.....Alrighty then...

--posted by Mrs. . M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 16:10 pm EDT

Dr. Keefe did resign. No reason to waste words debating it. If one doesn't believe it one could call the administration building and ask for her. The fact that Mrs. MM does not have information to confirm this leads me to believe she is not an employee of the school system and must get her information 2nd hand from someone who is.

--posted by Just the facts @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 16:35 pm EDT

I may be handsome, but I am not charitable and selfless! Don't confuse me with the facts...

It's just kind of funny that you don't want us to judge Blair, but YOU can do exactly that. I suspect that you only want good things to be said about Blair.

And by the way, I've seen the pictures. It would probably be best if we stayed away from discussing her looks...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 18:12 pm EDT

Cretin: Must tell you that the pictures of BLH are terrible. She may not be Miss America, but those pix are about the worst. I won't call the Rabbi yet!

I don't think I am judging BLH. I know her very, very well. I have not formed a baseless opinion but rather I have evaluated her throughout her 18 years from the times we spent together as well as the good she has done for her community and for herself and know her to be the woman that I said she is.

I thought I answered Just the Facts regarding Dr. Keefe. (Guess it didn't print) I didn't know. As Adam probably can attest to, I am not at my usual haunt. I do happen to have a computer available to me this time. I am sorry to hear about Dr. Keefe. I know she was being "tortured" by her boss and the BOE for supporting the truth and not her boss. I know she was close to her planned retirement; to bad it came a little earlier than she probably planned. My sympathies to the school district of Moorestown for losing such a honorable and reputable administrator.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 21:04 pm EDT

What good has Blair done for the community? Be specific...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 21:42 pm EDT

She has provided food for the poor; provided prom gown for the underpriviledged; helped children with cleft palate problems; worked for and with MAGIC of which the M stands for Moorestown; worked with Habitat for Humanity to help build homes. Must I continue? The community does not mean only wealthy Moorestown. The community means the area also. And do you believe, there are girls in Moorestown who can't afford prom gowns? Well, there are.

Please Cretin, let's not get into a spitting contest.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 22:44 pm EDT

OK, then. She's given stuff to the poor. But the community does not mean only poor Moorestown.

Has Blair ever had a job? Has she ever had to follow a boss's orders? You may value "community service." There's nothing wrong with that. But others may have different values. That is why I wanted you to specify what Blair had done for the community. We clearly have different values. Prom dress drives and soup kitchens are of no importance to me.

While you may value Blair's "contributions," I value the guy working at Burger King even more.

P.S. I'm still wondering how such a busy girl couldn't find the time or energy to GO TO SCHOOL. Are you trying to tell me that her "illness" has absolutely NO symptoms?

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, September 4 2003, 23:13 pm EDT

Ah come on Cretin, while charity means nothing to you, it does to some. I "suppose" that to those who are in need, it is important that someone is out there trying to help. You think that she would have been better off working at Burger King. I disagree. We will take your scenerio for a moment. Let's says she does work at Burger King. She takes her money and puts more clothes on HER back, buys more CD's that she doesn't need or hangs out and buys more $4 coffees at Starbucks or whatever. So BK hires this "wonderful girl" and takes away from another "wonderful person" who needs this job to EAT, put a roof over his/her/family head,pay tuition, etc. So, the way I look at it, it's better that the "wonderful girl" spends her non-school time helping gather prom dresses, working in soup kitchens, etc. because she doesn't need any more clothes herself, doesn't want any more CD's and instead of hanging in Starbucks spends her free time helping someone who is less fortunate. She is doing something for her fellow man and the "wonderful person". Maybe she even collects school back packs and pencils and crayons for the "wonderful person's" family because the minimum wage doesn't allow the "wonderful Person" to have those luxuries.

Hey Cretin, I am certainly not looking for any rah rahs from you or anyone here, but every winter, I buy two heavy winter coats (yes, only two..)and donate them to a school where there are children who don't have them. These kids come to school in a sweater with maybe a sweatshirt on top. This coat not only keeps them warm and dry but is probably the ONLY new item they have ever worn or received. Nothing is wrong with second hand, but once in awhile, I bet (and know) that it's a wonderful thing for these children to have something with store tags on them - new. I can afford it. (and if someone asked me for more, I am sure I would buy more. I actually go out and buy the coats, so I know that the kids are getting them) I am not being generous. I just know that there are very young kids who are cold. That is my very, very, small contribution to two children who were born of less fortunate parents. Maybe these children's parents need that job in BK in order to feed them.

You do not need to be financially charitable. I do not know or want to know your financial situation,, but I bet that when you go to school, you are not cold. I bet that when you go to school you have socks on your feet and probably no cardboard in them to cover the holes in the soles. I bet you can afford gloves and a hat. Hot chocolate or hot food is not a luxury to you.



The young lady needs lots more rest than the normal 18 year old. When she doesn't get enough rest, her immune system doesn't work properly and she her skin and other organs break down. (That is a non medical description - I am not trying to be dramatic. I just am trying to describe simply things that happens to her). Cretin, believe me, you wouldn't want to have this.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, September 5 2003, 9:57 am EDT

Mrs. M.M. - Could you tell me which school this is? It's a wonderful gesture you make and I would like to do the same thing, if the need exists.

--posted by Another MM @ Friday, September 5 2003, 11:07 am EDT

Another: I have called several schools in the area each year for the past , maybe 20. The school nurse "usually" knows who needs a coat. I have donated coats to the schools even in Cherry Hill which suprises many as they are in a "better" economic area. There is also a group in Pennsylvania,in the Upper Moreland area (Tenant school district) that collects clothing from manufacturers who didn't sell all their goods as well as school bags, etc. Last year, I gave them the coats. If you are interested in this group, let me know. I will look up the name and address for you. However, you can pick a school or two in your area and contact the school nurse. The nurses "usually" know who come to school with three sweatshirts and cardboard in their shoes, no gloves, etc. If you can work with a school nurse, etc., you can get specifics as far as girls or boys and approximate sizes.

I only buy two coats; one boys and one girls each year, but it gives me a great feeling. I go to a decent children's store, the type that I would buy for my kids. I am not knocking K-mart, etc. For me, it makes me "feel" better that I am giving the same type of garment to a child that I would buy for my family. I don't believe that because a child is "poor" he/she should have a lesser quality. If I bought "cheaper" ones, you might say, I could buy more. No, it isn't that way. I would buy more, if I found more kids or were asked to. Usually, the nurse or organization person is so thrilled with two that I feel as if I donated a kidney or something. If they said they could use half a dozen more, I would be right out there. Cold and hungry children get to me! My kids can have one less "status" outfit and so can I.

If you find a school, etc. that has a child or two or three that need a coat, let me know. Obviously, they need to be in the Philadelphia, - bucks and Montgomery counties - or in the Moorestown - burlington and camden counties - area to make it a little easier for me and to be to deliver them.

Thanks for asking. Let me know if you have a place for "my coats."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, September 5 2003, 12:35 pm EDT

I have found that career volunteers are usually more selfish than those who have jobs. They tend to view those who work with disdain. Since Blair intends on becoming a lawyer, it is hopeful that she won't go down that path.

Anyway, I honestly don't care what anyone does during his free time. If it makes you happy to volunteer - go right ahead. As long as you're staying out of trouble, not breaking any laws, etc... Live and let live!

But don't expect anyone to care about your soup kitchens. Don't expect any compliments. And for goodness sake, PLEASE don't expect others to believe that volunteering is somehow "better" than working. Neither is intrinsically better. It is all a matter of opinion...

--posted by cretin @ Friday, September 5 2003, 16:27 pm EDT

Cretin...you have a lot to learn. I fear that you have a chip on your shoulder...Please don't let it weigh you down.

Most people who give enjoy it far better than receiving. Givers rarely look for accolades.

I ask for nothing and expect less.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, September 5 2003, 18:55 pm EDT

If you think I'll ever learn to agree with you, then you are sorely mistaken! I don't "give." I prefer to trade. I prefer to work, to create, and yes, to be rewarded for my efforts. There is no shame in that, despite what you may say.

--posted by cretin @ Friday, September 5 2003, 19:08 pm EDT

I never said shame.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, September 6 2003, 0:15 am EDT

Once again, I would like to clarify some medical errors.
Chronic fatigue syndrome is not classed as an autoimmune disease or as an immune deficiency. Both those conditions present with extremely specific and easily read blood and bone marrow abnormalities.
CFS has similar symptoms to some of those disorders (fatigue, joint pain, etc.) but not to the medical signs and objective criteria (blood testing, organ damage.) Unfortunately for the sufferers, CFS has not yet had an exact mechanism of action identified. Patients who begin to display signs (objective criteria) for other immune disorders are re-evaluated, as this shows they do not have CFS, but rather an already-identified condition. I think that "skin and organ breakdown" could be clarified better, as objective evidence of both is inconsistent with CFS. A better description might be "symptoms of immune problems and organ dysfunction" which follows CFS's presentation as an immune disorder without identified diagnostic criteria. If you can point to a CT scan showing, say, progressive kidney damage, CFS would cease to be a possible diagnosis, because CFS patients lack objective signs for the diagnosis. The sufferer with kidney damage might then be studied for further evidence of Lupus or Mixed Connective Tissue Disease.
I apologize if this is annoyingly technical. Lizzie's immunologist tried to explain it to me in layman's terms, but he was still over my head.
Thanks for your time. God Bless.

--posted by Dad again @ Saturday, September 6 2003, 7:23 am EDT

Dear Lady Bountiful aka Mrs. MM-What Dicken's novel are you living in? This is 2003 and people just don't put cardboard in their shoes anymore. I frequently go in local housing projects and everyone has athletic shoes, usually much newer than mine. It takes alot for these soles to wear out. Even in my more temperate climate there are coat drives, organized through groups, churches, radio stations, etc. Somehow I doubt total strangers just randomly calling school nurses are encouraged. Besides, the other MM just asked for a name to likewise donate and after having done this for 20 years, you couldn't come up with one? Please.

--posted by Amused B.S. Detector @ Saturday, September 6 2003, 10:45 am EDT

Sarcasim is not amusing. I don't care what you say or think, there are many young children that wear overly used shoes with cardboard in them. Be a smart ass if you choose but don't over or underestimate what monetarily stressed people do to get by. Ignore me, do as you please, continue to frequent your local housing projects. Just don't be so snotty about being a know it all. I never said total strangers are encouraged to randomly call school nurses. I know that I was familiar with schools where the school nurses knew of children that needed coats. I know of Mothers whose children went to school with other children who were underdressed for the weather. Ignore me, be a know-it-all and do your own thing. I will do mine. The other person who wrote in here has the choice to do her own thing also. She just asked me for ideas or places where she could also make a difference. My two coats this year will go to a school in Bristol, Pennsylvania. So, pleeze yourself.

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Saturday, September 6 2003, 13:21 pm EDT

I never said total strangers are encouraged to randomly call school nurses.

"However, you can pick a school or two in your area and contact the school nurse."
--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, September 5 2003, 12:35 pm EDT

Yea, you did.

--posted by B.S. Detector @ Saturday, September 6 2003, 14:07 pm EDT

If you find a school, etc. that has a child or two or three that need a coat, let me know. Let me know if you have a place for "my coats."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, September 5 2003, 12:35 pm EDT

My two coats this year will go to a school in Bristol, Pennsylvania.

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Saturday, September 6 2003, 13:21 pm EDT

Actually, sarcasm is a riot and seems to get things accomplished at superhuman speed.

--posted by B.S. Detector @ Saturday, September 6 2003, 14:12 pm EDT

To Lizzie's Dad-Your medical posts are interesting and informative and of course, sad. Our hearts go out to your daughter and family who are truly struggling with life altering illness in forms most of us can't even imagine. Your posts also bring up some points that have run through this story though, concerning help for disabled students, ramifications of ADA laws and the abuse of the ADA laws by those not truly disabled. That your daughter can deal with all her burdens and still study, much less maintain a 3.6 is amazing. But your statement about her never lacking for friends or visitors is even more uplifting. One wonders if Blair is as rich. Despite the technical nature of your information, please keep posting. It is a good foil to the airily tossed out statements so often seen herein. Good luck!

--posted by B.S. Detector @ Saturday, September 6 2003, 14:47 pm EDT

Now that the student activity is kicking in on the Harvard campus - and the Crimson is off of its summer weekly publishing schedule - the student daily has published its report on the recent Hornstine settlement: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348685

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 8 2003, 8:53 am EDT

http://www.nj.com/news/times/mercer/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1063269315194342.xml

--posted by TM @ Thursday, September 11 2003, 9:23 am EDT

TM - thanks for the link ... oh how familiar ...

" 'I've never seen an op-ed piece or letter to the editor footnoted and as an elected official I'm entitled to some license,' he said."


"... 'in the long run it'll be a blip on the radar screen.' "

http://www.nj.com/news/times/mercer/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1063269315194342.xml

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, September 11 2003, 10:25 am EDT

Much ado about nutin ....

--posted by ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ @ Thursday, September 11 2003, 14:50 pm EDT

Thank you for your kind remarks, B.S.D. If my information posts are helpful, I am glad to write them. And I appreciate the nice compliment for Lizzie.
Lizzie’s friends are indeed her lifeline, and she is blessed with some wonderful friends. They go out of their way to make her feel included and loved even when she is not able to be in school. Study groups are organized around Lizzie’s weekend and evening tutoring so that she can have some “class discussion,” and when she is in school, she is treated as “one of the gang,” accepted and normal. The kids even arranged freshman year for Lizzie’s nurse to receive an award and gift at the end-of-year assembly. Liz was very ill in July with a fungal infection in her bloodstream and recurring septic shock; her buddies from the Church youth group set up a schedule so someone was praying for my girl 24 hours a day during the two weeks she was critical. God bless them all, she is much better. But what a nice bunch of kids.
Now that I have nattered on…
I noticed a few comments in earlier posts stating that CPK can be used as a tool to measure pain/fatigue. This is not accurate. CPK is creatine phosphokinase, an enzyme found only in muscle (smooth, skeletal and cardiac). It is found in the bloodstream if muscle is diseased, as diseased and subsequently damaged muscle leaks CPK. It is a diagnostic tool for muscle diseases like the muscular dystrophies and sometimes for serious heart attacks-- the presence of CPK in the blood points to one of these conditions, as only diseased muscle will release CPK. There are no proven connections between CPK and pain or CPK and fatigue. All it does is point to a muscle damaging disease by its presence and indicate the severity of the disease by how high the CPK levels are. In the case of Chronic fatigue syndrome, CPK is one of the exclusionary diagnostics-- i.e., if a suspected CFS patient has elevated CPK in the laboratory workup, that immediately excludes CFS as a possibility and points to a different diagnosis (CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion; since there are no diagnostic tests for it, the only way to diagnose it is by doing a workup for the diseases with similar reported physical symptoms and then excluding them one by one as test results for them turn up negative.) Only by finding no objective evidence of the diseases that CFS mimics symptoms of can the diagnosis of CFS be made.
So CPK plays no role in CFS and its variants or in the related fatigue and pain. It is only a factor in diseases involving active muscular destruction.
I hope I have explained this clearly. I am glad to explain and clarify any point that is unclear.
God bless.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Thursday, September 11 2003, 19:30 pm EDT

Liz and Michael's Dad -

I appreciate and respect your informative and heartfelt comments.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, September 11 2003, 20:46 pm EDT

What ever happened to: Mrs. M. M.; S. D-S; creting; cambridgeMA;and, all the rest, especially, BLH?

--posted by Wondering @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 11:20 am EDT

Where is Blair attending college this fall?

--posted by Interested @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 12:51 pm EDT

I heard she was attending Dickinson. This may be a rumor and not fact.

--posted by ? @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 14:34 pm EDT

Point of info. The supposed frontrunner for the Democratic candidtate for President of the US, Howard Dean quoted a "thought" in a speech last night that he and his people claimed was his...about Trent Lott/Martin Luther King. James Carville was quoted with the same sentence a night or two before.

Is an oral quote considered plagiarism? Then if BLH can't go to Harvard, what do we think about HD being the Pres?


BLH attended Summer school at Dickinson. She is not attending there for the fall/winter semesters of 2003-2004.

I hope the gossip mill quits as far as where she is matriculating this coming year. Give her a break!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 17:18 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

Well, since you're not telling us what school she's attending, we have to resort to the rumor mill and guessing.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 18:48 pm EDT

So, that is what you will have to do.. But don't you truly think that she is entitled to some privacy as a freshman in college? Isn't freshman year hard enough without everyone looking for her and over her shoulders to see her friends, school work, etc? To me, I believe that most care as a negative, rather then allowing a young lady to continue her life privately. Or is it that some want other problems for other school as negative competition. "Gee, yeah, she is not going to my school" Makes my dipoloma seems unworthy." The young lady is still an eighteen year old and deserves privacy and not you or anyone else looking over her shoulder at this time.


So you will spend the next few months guessing. Many more will guess and sign ? marks, etc. Hopefully, she will not be found as she is settling in, her future is bright, and no one cares what her backround was.

I will be curious though how long it takes this blog to find her.....real long, I suspect. I doubt if there will be a sighting for six months or more, hopefully, a year or two. Hope I am correct!

Good luck Miss Blair. Many, many of us are rooting for you. You deserve all happiness!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 20:58 pm EDT

So Adam, pray tell...why is it so important where Blair is going t school and not important that the possible future president of the United States LIED about initially saying he wrote the line about Trent Lott and Martin Luther King and not Carville?

It is just easier to pick on an innocent young 18 year old????

--posted by Mrs . M. M. @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 21:01 pm EDT

http://www.dickinson.edu/summer/temp/index_main.shtml

--posted by TM @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 21:31 pm EDT

Mrs. MM:

I knew that you were going to raise the privacy card on us...

The people who visit this site are naturally curious as to BLH's whereabouts. The rest of the world could probably care less as to them, BLH is yesterday's news.

As to your other point, this page is about BLH, not Howard Dean.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Saturday, September 13 2003, 21:54 pm EDT

The Pre-College Law Program at Dickinson is taught in part by Judge Guido.
http://www.dickinson.edu/summer/pc_pg_law.shtml

--posted by Monkey Brains @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 0:09 am EDT

The current sublimations of the odd sycophant aside, only four and a half months have passed since the Philadelphia Daily News published a full-page picture of Blair Hornstine accompanying Ed Jacobs to court to file "her" lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in damages. It is not so long ago that some persons allegedly close to the Hornstine family touted imminent book and movie deals for BH and promised legal action against Harvard and others by the end of the year. As a practical mater, however, BH's plagiarism and the de minimus settlement of her lawsuit belied her claims as either a worthy representative of her graduating class or a self-appointed champion of the disabled. It is always unfortunate when a college freshman supresses any of the exuberance characteristic of this milestone in adolescent and intellectual development. However, it is disingenuous to suggest that BH's apparently enforced anonymity -- thinly veiled as a Garbo-esqe plea to be left alone -- has anything to do with readers of this blog or persons in the Moorestown community.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 0:15 am EDT

CORRECTION

"matter" not "mater."

--posted by TM @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 0:20 am EDT

Adam: If plagiarism, was so vehemently discused here with reference to BLH, MLK, RFK, etc., Howard Dean is just a more current reference. It suprises me again, that BLH "copying of others' words" were dug into so deeply but when it came to "more important" people in history or current events", you are blowing me off. Why then can we only dump on BLH and her words but not others who may be running this country in the next few years? Comparison is comparison as well as plagiarism is plagiarism!

TM: I am sure that when Miss H. filed her suit, she did not expect fifteen minutes of fame nor her name forever being able to be "googled." Her fifteen minutes is way past being over. She is not Garbo, Hepburn, etc. For additional privacy, Harvard lawsuits are not being considered at this time....or maybe at all. Some of you enjoyed trampling on her. Now that you have pushed her into the ground to her shoulders, don't you think you have had enough???? I just wonder how many of you could have personally taken this grief.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 7:37 am EDT

Mrs. MM, I cannot believe you are still defending and comparing Blair's plagiarism to the plagiarism of others. Plagiarism is intensely wrong no matter who did it. What does Dean have to do with Blair? Blair copied whole paragraphs word for word. She plagiarized in the most severe sense which is not a mistake like accidentally not attributing certain thoughts. However all plagiarism is wrong regardless of intent/ mistake. I do however beleive that Blair lacks integrity at this point of time. It is hard for a person to regain their honor. You make it worse by trying to defend her actions.

--posted by Curious @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 12:48 pm EDT

Mrs. MM - Please spare us your self-righteous indignation over the so-called gossip mill. Read back over your posts concerning adultery and certain Moorestown players in this matter. Regardless of what you said, it is not common knowledge in Moorestown what the Superintendant does in his personal life. It is clear you dispise Mr. Kadri but you really brought the discussion way down with your gossip. There is a lot more gossip in this tale but many of us have refrained because it is so low. BLH and her parents made themsleves public figures by using the Courts to fight not only this battle which seemed altruistic and important to the rights of the disabled, but also other less important matters, like SAT scores. This is a family that bullied far too many people to get their kids every imagined advantage. They harassed teachers, tutors and administrators. And you wonder why people don't like them or feel sufficient sympathy for this "young lady." Let's hope she will chose a different path from that taken by her father. He may love his children but he taught them how to bully their way to success. What is really sad is that they are smart, and maybe even kind people who didn't need these tactics to succeed.

--posted by ? @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 14:43 pm EDT

So Blair is a "lady" now? MM, please refrain from making personal judgments about Blair, unless you want us to do the same...

BTW, since plagiarism is OK, what about forgery? Fraud? Theft? Is ANYTHING wrong??

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 15:39 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M. isn't defending plagiarism, she is asking why we are so willing to demonize BLH but ignore the same actions of historical figures, political figures, or other persons. It is a fair question. Blair plagiarized, and that's wrong, I think we've established this about 9 billion times on this blog. So, then, fairly, why isn't the fact that Mr. Dean plagiarized, or King, or Kennedy, or Aristotle for all we know, given at least equal scutiny?

BLH has certainly been punished for her actions. Wittness the revocation of her Harvard Admission, and the ongoing demonization of her in the media, and on this blog. Certainly, she is the target of the blog, however, in fairness, when the subject of plagiarizm by any party other than BLH is broached, it seems that such activities by these other persons is either ignored, minimized, or simply "blown off", as Mrs. M.M. put it.

Given our propensity to just destroy BLH, and offer zero compassion, or to 'decelerate' our 'witch hunt', it would seem that this board, and it's core posters are not intested in equality, or tolorance, or integrity, but rather, it is interested in inflicting the maximum shock and damage upon BLH's shoulders. To me, that's pathetic, and it's the primary reason I've been so quiet of late.

You have often seen me say "let the rain fall equally", but as before, when it comes to the plagiarism, and the punishment, Blair is at the bottom of the heap, while other far more prominent parties guilty of far more dramatic instances of the same offence, (plagiarism), are overlooked, under contrite, and rarely, if ever, called to task for their actions.

Let the rain fall equally, or forfeit the right have any standard apply equally to yourself, should you find yourself in a position to have to face your actions negatively. It is not fair to ignore, or even avoid the issue, when we do it only proves that we're not honestly seeking information about Blair, but that rather, we are seeking to destroy, further demonize, and just in general, hurt her.

Does that make you proud, or don't you care?

It's a fair question, I'd like to see it actually answered, unlike other fair questions asked in the past. Give it a try, you might surprise all of us.

You, (in reference to this statement) is a general identification of any or all posters, it is not specific.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 17:23 pm EDT

I look forward to learning more about Dean's plagiarism since Mrs. MM's mention of it is the only thing I have heard about it. If it is true, it bothers me a great deal and will go on the minus side of my evaluation of him. Depending on how serious I find it, I may decide that I could not vote for him because of it, though I have other reservations about him as well.

--posted by ? @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 17:45 pm EDT

I just have a few things to add concerning the posts here.

I am a junior at an academically competitive boarding school. The valedictorian/salutatorian issue seems to be the same here as it is at Moorestown HS: your schedule needs to be full of AP classes in order to even be considered. In order to be valedictorian, you need to be as close to perfect as possible. In a situation where above-average isn’t good enough, and excellence can easily be topped by a incoming sophomore; students here would (metaphorically, of course) kill for the number one spot.

Having said that, I would personally be willing to share the Valedictorian position if enough evidence was put forth showing that it would be honorable to share. We all know the facts in this case I’m not going to recount them all, nor am I going to claim that I am an expert in any of the medical or legal fronts involved here. I’m just offering the view of a student on the outside looking in on this conversation.

Was Blair the rightful valedictorian? Yes.
Was she wrong (and even selfish) for not considering sharing the spot? In my view, yes.
Was Kadri wrong for wanting to change policy in the middle of the year? Yep.
Is plagiarism wrong? Hell yes.

The fact is, there are many things in this case that are blatantly wrong. But views on some of the other subject matter are dependent on a person’s opinion. Everyone is entitled to her or his own unique belief. I have seen two discretions regarding others’ opinions here:
Opinions should never be stated as fact (please just know what you're actually talking about before sharing it as the truth, this would cut back on 50% of the bickering going on around here).
Everyone should be allowed to state their opinion without being afraid for their life.

I’ve noticed that good, solid details are presented here. But unfortunately for you all, a friendly debate has become something more. I have seen several attacks on personal integrity and several verbal “low blows”, as well as threats of physical harm or legal action. Who cares about one’s identity outside of the internet? Does his or her view change?

You all seem to be too busy fighting one another. It’s no longer a good discussion regarding BH and her situation. It’s a constant battle to prove each other wrong. The name calling far overshadows the good points that each of you has made supporting your respective opinion.

I definitely won’t be coming back to this site, as I’m sure I will also be personally attacked from these comments. I’m really sorry that’s the case. It seemed as I began reading this thread that a brilliant debate was occurring. Before I got halfway down the page, I had to stop because I was overcome by the trivialness of it all. Granted I am only a teenager, but even this conversation has gotten too childlike for my taste.

Best wishes to Blair. May her life continue despite what has transpired since her senior year. It really is a shame, considering if all of this hadn’t blown up so royally she would be at Harvard right now.

Carry on.
-Jessica

PS- Just to throw out there how serious plagiarism is in the student community, you can be expelled from my school in an instant if you fail to quote a source on *any* sort of paper. This isn’t meant to pass any judgment on Blair, just to demonstrate the seriousness of it all.

--posted by JuniorStudent @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 18:57 pm EDT

Kids say the darndest things....

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 20:12 pm EDT

I would point out that it appears Biden and not Dean has a plagiarism issue, so if I have erroneously accussed Howard Dean of plagiarism, I apologize, however, serveral links regarding Biden, and why he chose not to run:

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2003-08/08112003biden.asp

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/19948391.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/DEMCVN_2004campaign000813.html

http://www.notgeniuses.com/archives/000345.html

There are hundreds more... google/democratic+race+plagiarism

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 20:31 pm EDT

http://irregulartimes.com/astroturf.html

Of course, there is this, the ongoing Republican scam of Plagiarism in the media via "regular citizens" and a form letter.

Now, none of this is new, or even really damaging. Then again, neither was what BLH did; except to herself.

Once again, why can't we, or won't we, at least hold to the same flame, the feet of others guilty of the same offense?

It's not as if we can't prove it, after all, or is it that we don't want to get involved, unless it's a way to tear somebody down, or just in general prove that not only are we biased, but that in addition to that we're also blind?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 20:41 pm EDT

S-DS: but we all *do* condemn plagiarism. I don't understand why you keep on this point, that the posters here think plagiarism is okay for some and not for Blair and us not letting the rain fall equally.

The grievance that you and Mrs. M.M. seem to have is that every other plagiarist isn't placed under as serious scrutiny as we have Blair. And the simple answer to that is the one Adam gave: this is a blog about Blair. So it's not really fair to ask why Martin Luther King isn't afforded the same scrutiny as Blair because this blog isn't about him - one can bring him up for comparison's sake, certainly, but overall much of the board time is devoted to Blair, for good or for bad.

From reading so far I've gathered that much of the criticism of Blair is not centred on her plagiarism, but on the ongoing debate on the merits of her actions in filing her lawsuit. And all that's a matter of opinion - opinion that may be tainted by the knowledge of her plagiarism, but the plagiarism is secondary to our instinctive reaction to this whole tragedy.

A thought exercise: if Blair never filed the lawsuit but was still caught plagiarising, do you think that the public sentiment would be as hostile toward this graduating senior? Would we ever even hear about her? Or care?

I think the explosion of opinions over this tragedy reflects just how sensitive issues of meritocracy, morality and desert are to us; this is clearly a case where they collide, and being sensitive issues (and so germane to the "American Way") emotions have run very high. In the end it's not about Blair, but about how we think society and community values are constructed and embraced. It'd help this discussion heaps if we can translate this gut reaction to Blair's situation into a more general assessment of what we value as personal achievement and entitlement (along with greater values of generosity, grace and humility), of which Blair becomes simply a vivid, well, thought exercise.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 21:14 pm EDT

This message board is dedicated to discussing Blair Hornstine. That is why HERE we critcize her and not others for plagiarism. I have and still do criticize JFK, MLK, etc. for their actions. But this is not the place to bring it up. It looks like you are just trying to change the subject.

Also, criticizing politicians for plagiarism is like criticizing a thief for stealing. That's what they do. It's almost a waste of time to mention it. It's not that they shouldn't be criticized, but THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT. Got it?

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 21:21 pm EDT

S. Douglas-Smith,
I thought you might find this as amusing and interesting as I did:
I have met a genuine Jewish Cherokee!
A young woman from immunology clinic was reading this blog on my computer and came across some mention of Cherokee and Jewish descent being incompatible, and told me of her own ancestry.
Her mother is the daughter of a full-blood Cherokee mother and a European father and converted to Judaism as an adult. Her father is of German Jewish descent. So she has the required 1/4 Native American ancestry to qualify for census calculation as Cherokee, but is Jewish according to Jewish law and was raised Jewish. Aside from her siblings, she has not met anyone else in a similar situation. She says hello, friend.
The world is an amazing place.
Hope this made your day as it did mine.
God Bless to all.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 23:52 pm EDT

THIS IS PART OF THE COMMENT THAT JOHN DEAN USED IN A SPEECH THAT HAD BEEN STIPPED FROM A JAMES CARVILLE COMMENT TAKEN FROM A TV SHOW. I HAVE NOT THE TIME TO LOOK IT ALL UP BUT I AM SURE THAT MANY OF YOU WILL FIND IT ALL.

"At one point, Dean claimed he was the only candidate to talk about race in front of white audiences as well as black audience as he campaigns. Aides to Edwards, who routinely talks about civil rights in his stump speech, vigorously disputed that claim after the debate.

Earlier in the evening, Dean was asked by one of the panelists if he could relate to black people given the demographics of his state. Less than 1 percent of Vermont's population -- about 3,100 residents -- are black, according to the 2000 Census.

Dean countered that if such measures are relevant, "then Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King." He was referring to the former Senate Majority Leader from Mississippi who stepped down after making comments criticized as racially insensitive."



S. D.S. I don't understand why you GET it and so many others don't. I can only assume that the posters here only want to destroy a young lady than discuss a person who has REAL bearing on their future in this country. Again, stealing words is stealing words. Small potatoes are easy to criticize. Just stand in line. Probably most of these writers never vote or care to.

Thanks goodness Blair is on her way to bigger and better things. I do wonder if she ever ran for public office, would her "plagiarism" surface or would we find another young innocent to demoralize instead?

Blair is off and running....to a wonderful future. Now, poissibly some of you will go in that direction.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 8:59 am EDT

How is this RELEVANT???????? Still trying to change the subject? Yawn...

I'm still waiting for that Blair movie you were so sure would be made. I won't hold my breath, though...

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 15 2003, 9:53 am EDT

"Blair is off and running....to a wonderful future. Now, poissibly some of you will go in that direction."

Blair is running now?!?!?!? Is she a sick little girl or isn't she? I guess her illness only existed in high school?

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 15 2003, 9:58 am EDT

Oh, Cretin...I don't know why you have such jealousy and hate in your voice, but it is not becoming.Go on your way to a bright future, too. BLH with her brains, good health and a little luck will over time lose the negative and go straight up to the positive. I only wish you the same.

As you are back in school, I will give you the honest advice I gave my "own" in college.... Study Hard, Play Hard and Practice Safe Sex.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 10:16 am EDT

Regarding Mr Dean, I am no less likely to vote for him now than I was before this came out. Can you say "McGovern"?

It wasn't plagarism anyway, since the lines were apparently fed to him by Carville and Begala. If we start saying that the only lines politicians are allowed to use are those they think up themselves, then we will start hearing a lot less from them. Hmmm, maybe that's not such a bad idea after all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/13/politics/campaigns/13DEAN.html

--posted by Tom D @ Monday, September 15 2003, 12:13 pm EDT

The way I heard it on CNN the other night was that Mr. Carville used the line on a show, then Dean "borrowed" it without asking and used in his speech. It was then followed by Dean's "people" saying that Dean wrote those words, and they were "original." His "people" later reversed themselves saying that indeed the words were Mr. Carville's and Dean "borrowed" them without asking or referencing Mr. Carville. (but they are good friends....or at least were) Guess there were no editors there, too, to check his words or no place in his speech for footnotes....ho hum.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 14:22 pm EDT

So now I am jealous of Blair??? rotflmao!! Gimme a break! I am currently enrolled in a top university. I have friends. I don't cheat. What exactly does Blair have that one could be jealous of?

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 15 2003, 15:01 pm EDT

To Liz and Michael's Dad, and friend; Ya Etah Wah! I have met serveral practicing Jewish Cherokee, from as far removed from the reservations, to the center of the reservation. In Oklahoma there is a Synogogue on the reservation, it is quite small, for there are few who practice, but none the less, it exists. I would think it an interesting experience, particularly since your friend is 1/4 blooded, to one day travel there, and experience her faith with her own both by bloodline and faith. They do things interestingly, and there is no way to avoid the influence of culture that they share in their faith. My greetings to her, and those she honors with her blood and faith.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:13 pm EDT

The candidate's name is Dr. Howard Dean, rather than John.
I love what he has done with health care in Vermont. I think he has promise as a candidate.
After repeated searches, I am unable to come up with any references, reports, news stories, etc. about Dean that discuss any incident involving plagiarism, Carville, Trent Lott or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Is there a story about it that somebody can point me to? As a potential Dean supporter, I would certainly like to know about any incidents involving Dr. Dean.
Thank you.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:14 pm EDT

Mrs MM - once again you are confused and obfuscate fact ...

James Carville and Howard Dean both appeared on the new HBO series "K Street" which actually mixes a fictional story line with "real world" events (on a short "less-than-one-week" production cycle).

Fictional characters interact with real politicians, etc.

James Carville is portrayed on the first epsiode as one of Howard Dean's advisers, prepping him for a fictional debate in Baltimore.

During the actual taping ... Carville comes up with the witty retort that references MLK ... and suggests that the real Dean use it during his fictional debate (portrayed on K Street). T

Then - during an actual debate between Democratic Presidential candidates in Albuquerque, New Mexico on September 3rd. Dean actually re-used the line that he used in the fictional debate to great laughs. It has been reported that Carville was tickled - that a line he came up with in a fictional setting (and fed to a candidate in a fictional debate) was actually re-used in a real debate.

K Street Synopsis - Episode 1 ... "Synopsis - Tommy Flannegan (John Slattery) accepts a job offer for James Carville to prep Gov. Howard Dean for the September 9 Democratic Presidential Debate in Baltimore, a choice that upsets Mary Matalin and Maggie Morris (Mary McCormack)--they worry that it will cause a rift with some of the firm's other clients. Democratic consultant Paul Begala helps Carville and Flannegan prep the candidate at the St. Regis, while Maggie visits with clients (including Senators Don Nickles and Rick Santorum) and tries to ensure them that Carville is not representing the firm in this case. Flannegan and Carville do some spin doctoring at Morgan State University while Mary and Maggie watch the debate with friends at Mary's house. Gov. Dean's joke about Trent Lott (suggested earlier by Carville) gets a big laugh, much to the displeasure of Matalin. Maggie has a cellphone conversation with her boyfriend--he can't meet up with her that evening. The next day, Mary and James interview job applicant Francisco Dupré (Roger G. Smith), who was seen earlier having his shoes polished, getting a manicure and haircut, choosing ties, and greeting Howard Dean at the debate. Dupré comes recommended by an investor in the firm. (The favor is 'a must-hire, not an "interview our daughter,'" Mary observes.) Suave and somewhat ingratiating, Francisco invites the couple to join him at an upcoming Branford Marsalis concert. James thinks the applicant is 'bizarre' but Mary offers that he may just be 'too good to be true.' " (http://www.hbo.com/kstreet/episode/week_1.html)


"TV Show Brought Debate Plus for Dean
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — Howard Dean got help from an unusual source in preparing for the Democratic debate in Baltimore on Tuesday: two veteran political consultants appearing with him on a television series. One of Dr. Dean's best-received lines was fed to him by James Carville and Paul Begala in the taping of the mock reality show "K Street." His unusual source of help came to light last night at a screening of the new HBO show. 'If a percentage of minorities that's in your state has anything to do with how you connect with African-American voters, then Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King,' he said to laughter and applause at the real debate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/13/politics/campaigns/13DEAN.html

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:21 pm EDT

Bystander;

A great deal of what you said makes sense: "...I think the explosion of opinions over this tragedy reflects just how sensitive issues of meritocracy, morality and desert are to us; this is clearly a case where they collide, and being sensitive issues (and so germane to the "American Way") emotions have run very high. In the end it's not about Blair, but about how we think society and community values are constructed and embraced..." (by you up there)

There has, however, been an extreme side to this board that has very nearly demonized Blair's plagiarizm, and elevated it's standing to that of murder. (This is an example, no one has actually said it was that bad, but the point is valid). It became a rallying point to attack her family, the merit of everything she ever did, and the quality of the overall person, not just the part that plagiarized.

The rain does not fall equally, and it isn't just because this board is about Blair. Other far more prominant examples of this offence have been used to show that we're certainly over reacting to her deeds, and those examples have been generally ignored, or overlooked. While there have been some comments, mostly there have been accusations of trying to change the subject, rather than compare offences.

Blair has paid her price. Isn't it time to let it go?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:24 pm EDT

And before you get further confused, Mrs MM...as reference above ... "Senators Don Nickles" is not really a senator - he just plays one on TV.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:26 pm EDT

[referenced] [Senator Don Nickles]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:26 pm EDT

Ma: Your article is true as far as the originality of the quote. It is just that Dean used the lines as his own and his press people said they were his before it was pointed out to them the following day where the lines came from and who "said/wrote them. Dean and his people immediately took original credit for the lines before the proper credit was given, I think, the next day to Carville. My point....was that Dean "borrowed the words without giving proper credit to the writer", at first suggesting that they were his (Dean's) original words until it was "pointed out to him that they were not Dean's original words or and that he had not asked Carville to borrow them.

Amazing how we can turn things around to what we want when we want to.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:33 pm EDT

correction: "...during the actual debate between Democratic Presidential candidates in Baltimore, Maryland on September 16th."

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:34 pm EDT

"There is one moment when director Steven Soderbergh's experiment in symbiosis seems to pay off. For the show, Mr. Carville's character, aided by Paul Begala, like Mr. Carville a Clinton-aide-turned-consultant, feeds Howard Dean, who appears as himself, a snappy retort during a fictionalized debate rehearsal....In the real-life Democratic debate in Baltimore last Tuesday, Dr. Dean delivered Mr. Carville's punch line when asked about the small number of blacks in his home state, Vermont. (If the ability to attract black voters were linked to their share of the state's population, he said, 'Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King.')".

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/politics/14KSTR.html

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:37 pm EDT

Consultants in real-life - and as portrayed on TV - craft the lines of their candidates ... as well as write their speeches.

Tell me ... why do you think Bush is trying to distance himself from the now (in)famous 16 words in his State of the Union address - "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He and his staff are pointing many fingers at others for allowing the line to creep into what is supposed to be the most solid speech a President can give.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:41 pm EDT

Mrs MM - you really don't get it do you? Did you watch K Street? If not, watch it. In it the Carville character (as played by Carville) suggests that the Dean character (as played by Dean) should consider using the punch line, if asked about racial matters and his qualifications to address them on a national basis: "If the ability to attract black voters were linked to the share of a state's population, Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King.". Then in actual life - in the real debate - Dean takes the advice and delivers the line. There is no confusion of attribution. There is no deishonesty. The fictional advsior/consultant gets to see his advice taken both in fiction (K-Street) and in the real world during last Tuesday's debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:47 pm EDT

[dishonesty]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:48 pm EDT

Let's frame this one more time for you, Mrs MM:

"Democratic cronies Paul Begala and James Carville hopped on the official Howard Dean Web-log yesterday to regale Dean-for-President supporters about the candidate's performance in tonight's debut episode of the HBO series 'K Street.' They wrote: 'While we can't and won't endorse anyone in the primaries, both of us were impressed with Gov. Dean and his campaign.'

They must be impressed with themselves, too. One of the lines Carville fed to Dean on Monday while taping the HBO show -- in which Begala and Carville serve as debate coaches -- was hailed as one of the candidate's best zingers at Tuesday's candidates' debate in Baltimore sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Fox News.

In the TV show, the pair anticipate that Dean, the former governor of Vermont, may face grilling because he hails from an overwhelmingly white state. Carville cooks up this response: 'If the percentage of minorities that's in your state has anything to do with how you connect with African American voters, then Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King.'

Which is exactly what Dean said Tuesday night. The replay also brought lots of laughs from political operatives attending the "K Street" premiere on Friday night.

So are they working for Dean? No, Begala said yesterday. 'I've given advice to all the Democrats. I'm not choosing a favorite; I just want a Democrat to replace Bush in the White House.'

Begala said he worked for free for Dean. Luckily, though, he was paid by HBO to be on the show. 'If people want to see what a real debate prep would be like, that's it. The issue we discussed was up to me, the structure of the session was up to me and the advice was real,' he added.

Maybe they should call it surreality TV."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6946-2003Sep13.html

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:58 pm EDT

TO paraphraze S.D-S. , why is it not fair to allow Blair to go? She has paid her price. She is a young, innocent, non-policital, non killing, non-economic threat young person. She is certainly not running or trying to run a country, large NYSE company, university, etc. She has hurt HERSELF, not you, your kids, family, bank account, employment, future, etc. She has not caused you to go to war, gotten any of your loved ones killed, shipped overseas, lose your job, college loans, etc. I only remotest of possibilities that Blair's situation could have touched you is a possible very slight embarrassment that she may go to a college or university where you might be affiliated. In that case, if you feel that your diploma is tarnished, I bet it's because you have a dark secret in your background.You won't be able to take the heat in your own kitchen. Otherwise, it is of no consequence to you how she spends her life or where she is going to school. Her 15 minutes of tarnished fame are over. With a little good luck and her brains, the next time you will hear from/about her will be something wonderful happening to her....but I bet you naysayers will pull up in even 5 years that she plagiarized the president when she was a Junior in High school.

Now, how many of you will feel sorry for her if she has some great article, research project, etc. to publish as many MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc. students publish that would make the world, medicine, or whatever better, but she can't because some numskull will degrade her with something she did in 2002?

Then, I repeat that old word again: SCHADENFREUDE - Your malicious glee when she suffers misfortune....

You want to continue speaking about Blair L, Hornstine. I think most of you will agree that she is a bright young woman. Let's turn this around to the positive. How about some positive suggestions where her life might take her in spite of not despite of her last few months? Supposed she was your kid? Sister?
Let's see how many of you can follow her more positively. Maybe you will get answers you like and positive comments from your mouths.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:00 pm EDT

I'm disappointed Mrs MM ... you didn't catch it yet - Don Nickles is indeed a senator (from Oklahoma). I thought you would confuse him with Don Rickles.

As was pointed out above - it is Dr. Howard dean and not John Dean. John Dean was someone we all learned was from the Nixon era.

You so often get the facts twisted and you present positions frqught with error.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:04 pm EDT

[Dean] [fraught]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:05 pm EDT

No, Ma, let's frame this one more time for you:

HOWARD DEAN USED WORDING FROM A TV SHOW IN HIS SPEECH, TOOK CREDIT FOR WRITING THOSE WORDS, WAS GIVEN FURTHER CREDIT BY HIS STAFF AS BEING DEAN'S ORIGINAL WORDS BEFORE BEING CORRECTED THE FOLLOWING DAY THAT THEY WERE CARVILLE'S WORDS.

I know Carville laughed. What did you want him to do? Hire Jacobs and sue. Copying is the most sincere form of flattery...i.e. plagiarism.

I was just pointing out that no matter if the words came originally from Carter, Clinton, Carville, Bart Simpson or Ozzy Osbourne, Dean originally claimed the words as HIS..... and THEY WERE NOT! The end. Amen. And the beat goes on.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:08 pm EDT

MrsMM

Please show me where Dr. Dean claimed the zinger about Trent Lott was his original words?

You blow me away by always trying to shuffle and dance around.

Your original position was that Dr. Howard Dean (aka known by only you - as John Dean) plagiarized a statement made by James Carville on another television program and that Dean was now uynder fire for plagiarizing the thoughts/ideas/words of another. You attempted to impugne him. When it has now been shown to you that you have a warped and mixed view of the events that transpired...you attempt to obfuscate again. Your original point...and your retort are baseless. That is why I so often give little or no credence to your statements and claims. You have most of the time been spewing trash.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:15 pm EDT

Mrs MM ...something tells me you mightt not be paying close attention to what's reported on the news (listening with half-attention to the radio or TV)... or that you must filter out what is reported and twist it to fit some strange perspective.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:18 pm EDT

Enough on the Dean/Carville issue. I think we've straightened that out. Time to return to the Blair Hornstine topic.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:20 pm EDT

BTW - Mrss MM ... the reason it is necesaary to constantly correct your misstatements is that words have power and influence. Your erroneous statements have actually sowed confusion for some.

For example -

"I look forward to learning more about Dean's plagiarism since Mrs. MM's mention of it is the only thing I have heard about it. If it is true, it bothers me a great deal and will go on the minus side of my evaluation of him. Depending on how serious I find it, I may decide that I could not vote for him because of it, though I have other reservations about him as well." (posted by ? @ Sunday, September 14 2003, 17:45 pm EDT)

The candidate's name is Dr. Howard Dean, rather than John. I love what he has done with health care in Vermont. I think he has promise as a candidate.
After repeated searches, I am unable to come up with any references, reports, news stories, etc. about Dean that discuss any incident involving plagiarism, Carville, Trent Lott or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Is there a story about it that somebody can point me to? As a potential Dean supporter, I would certainly like to know about any incidents involving Dr. Dean.
Thank you. (posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Monday, September 15 2003, 16:14 pm EDT)

Your blanket statement above : "THIS IS PART OF THE COMMENT THAT JOHN DEAN USED IN A SPEECH THAT HAD BEEN STIPPED FROM A JAMES CARVILLE COMMENT TAKEN FROM A TV SHOW. I HAVE NOT THE TIME TO LOOK IT ALL UP BUT I AM SURE THAT MANY OF YOU WILL FIND IT ALL." - just doesn't cut it. Back up your statements - not with hearsay or conjecture, but with facts.

Be careful. Your errors - and your gossip - are not helpful to forwarding any informed and rational argument. Your inflammatory epithets do little to advance any mature discussion

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:30 pm EDT

[Mrss MM] [necessary]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:31 pm EDT

"I was told by the 'horse's mouth' that Miss B. would end up with over $100,000 net.... Believe me, I will get some further info." -- posted by Mrs. M.M. on August 22. Apparently, it is either a very long walk to the stables or Mrs. M.M. has again proven herself a dubious source of creditable information.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:39 pm EDT

BTW, the correct turn of phrase reads, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," not "Copying is the most sincere form of flattery... i.e. plagiarism." The distinction between "imitation" and "copying" may be important to some, if not to others.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 17:48 pm EDT

further correction: [...during the actual debate between Democratic Presidential candidates in Baltimore, Maryland on September 9th.]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 19:36 pm EDT

I originally heard the story either Saturday or Sunday morning on CNN TV.

--posted by Mrs . M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 20:36 pm EDT

Ma and a few others: It does me well to know that I bother some/most of you. I love your specific corrections and the seriousness of your negativity on my thoughts.

It just proves to me that you need another scapegoat to aide you in your dumping syndrome of Miss BLH. Go for it and thanks for your continued support of "my " knowing how right I am.

Save your denials. I know enough and am justified in my thoughts.

On to your next thoughts....


P. S. Ma: I am not deaf, nor do I fail to understand TV commentary. Do the research yourself, as you once said to me. Find the CNN TV shows yourself. I certainly don't or won't do your dirty work. Avoidance on your part doesn't take away the truth.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 20:46 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... I love "sparring" with you, since you are such an easy target. I would love to face you in a "real world/live" debate.

CNN's transcripts are available online. Just visit their site (http://www.cnn.com/) ... or, type in any keywords that you find relevant at: http://www.google.com or http://news.google.com/ . I have done so for your "charge" against Howard Dean ... and come up with nothing. It is your responsibility to now defend your original (false) statement(s) and claim(s).

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 20:56 pm EDT

BTW - Mrs MM - you don't bother any of us on this blog. I do have to say that you provide entertainment. You are a foil against which one can so easily "fence". Your ignorance, your misinformation allow others to reflect more refined discussion. It would be nice, though, if you were better prepared/informed in your arguments, your positions, your opinions.

I do think, though, that many do find your propensity to resort to insult and personal attacks as unseemingly. Such merely reduces your contribution to furthering this blog.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:01 pm EDT

Not that you need any explanation, TM, but I was recently told a story from "blood" that there is/was more money changing hands/ would be changing, etc. between the Board, et al and Miss H. I don't know if this is true or how it will work.....just some food for your thought. Not claiming it is true. Claiming it was heard from "blood."

Guess you and the bloodhounds have to find the sunshine laws of the Boards, schools, etc. in NJ and see what you find.....

Could it just be a walk in the park? You will find out! I am sure I wasn't lied to, but what does it mean??????? Is money, money? donations, payments, scholarships? Keep your nose to the grindstone.

Don't bother questioning me. Get "substantial" info first.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:02 pm EDT

Ma: I only spar with equitable opponents. Youth and diplomas only make me punch and jab. I can't treat someone with equality who hasn't as much experience or knowledge on certain subjects as I.

My misinformation and ignorance as you call it is that I know a twit from a twit. I don't call that a personal attack. I call it a fact, as I know true from false. Black from white. Eagles lost to the Pats., etc. I do know a twit from a twit. Does that make sense to you. Sure not!

Don't bother sparring with me. My literary skills lack compared to many, but my heart and faith will never falter. You find me humorous. I find you......not.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:08 pm EDT

It is reasonable to assume the the Hornstine family knows about this blog, specifically the postings by 3M.

If the Hornstine family is closely acquainted or friends with 3M, with some influence over the tone and content of her postings, have they asked her to get off this site to protect Blair's privacy or are we to believe the family places a higher value on 3M's First Amendment rights? If the Hornstine family implicitly condones 3M's postings, is it reasonable to impute the tone and content of the postings to them?

If the Hornstine family is closely acquainted or friends with 3M, but without influence over the tone or content of her postings, has 3M betrayed the relationship and can she ever be a reliable source of creditable information?

If the Hornstine family is not closely acquainted or friends with 3M, does this explain the consistent pattern of gossip, inaccurate or unverifiable information, and invective directed against anyone who disagrees with her position, to whatever degree?

Does a family acquaintance or friend (or not) who misrepresents her identity as well as her alleged information provide any "virtual" protection for an alleged naive innocent? Does the veil of secrecy that continues to shroud Blair stimulate speculation rather than putting it to rest?

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:17 pm EDT

Thank you, Cambridgema, for so promptly and clearly explaining the Dean situation. I now understand what happened.
S. Douglas-Smith: would it be possible for my young Cherokee friend to contact you? If so, is the e-mail address on your web site a good route? She is extremely interested in hearing more about the Jewish/Cherokee community. Thank you.
God bless.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:21 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... you stated: "Ma: I only spar with equitable opponents." - it is far from equitable...I assure you. BTW - let us ignore your juvenile reference to "twits". I am awaiting your defence of your statements that charge Dr. Howard Dean with plagiarism. You claim that you have solid sources (i.e. CNN news cast). We are all waiting.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:21 pm EDT

Liz and Michael's Dad - you're welcome.

BTW - thank you for your informed contributions ... I have learned much from your family's personal experience - and now know that it is important to distinguish between various diagnoses relative to CFS, etc

I have been witness to a similar situation first-hand - with a brother-in-law who is now in the throes of M.S. When younger ... and before more precise symptons ... it was somewhat of a puzzle to establish his situation. Doctores were puzzled ... but as his situation progressed, they were able to finally "classify" his ailment(s).

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:26 pm EDT

[Doctors]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:28 pm EDT

Tm: To answer you with which I believe you will take with a grain of salt...you wouldn't WANT to believe me anyway, but here goes the whole, and nothing but the truth to your comments only:

The H's know about my posting on "a blog" possibly this one. I do think that one of them read a comment or two that I wrote.

I have never been asked to write pro or con on Miss H.by any of them. They know my feelings and don't doubt that I would betray them. It has been mentioned to me that they think it is amusing how far I have gone and how long I have gone on with this.

If I wanted to betray her or set myself up as the speaker of the house, I could tell you what courses she took this summer, where she was before school ended, over graduation or where she was last weekend or now. I do not betray her. My only reason to continue here is PROTECT BLAIR AND GET OUT THE TRUTH.

I am this I I close to the Hornstine family. I am very closly acquainted with but do not live with BLH.

Doubt me, stick it. "I know more than you know." I love how you doubt me, but pay attention to what I say even though you want to believe I am a crock.... Yawn!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:33 pm EDT

Ma: Food for thought with relativity to Miss BLH's condition from your quote:

"When younger ... and before more precise symptons ... it was somewhat of a puzzle to establish his situation. Doctores were puzzled ... but as his situation progressed, they were able to finally "classify" his ailment(s).

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:26 pm EDT

"and the monkey wrapped his tail around the flagpole..."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:35 pm EDT

Ma: Only you are waiting. I heard what I know I heard. You can't, with all your Harvard cronies and computer skills find it.,,I will spend my Monday night just looking for it for you. Think not. We are waiting for your skills and all the people in all the halls of HU to help you. Move on.....

Sorry about your brother-in-law, but amusing (for want of a better word) that it took time (years) to come up with a "real word diagnosis" for him. Sound familiar. Not if you don't want it to be. I told you before that Miss H met all the symptoms for a very serious disease "like a MS" (but not), with the exception of one borderline test. So suppose her puzzle was either named for some medical clarity/ school clarity as either Immmune Deficiency or CFS. When her puzzle comes together, hopefully, it will not be as serious as MS. We can only hope and pray, as I am sure you and your family have done. I hope his symptoms and troubles lessen for him and his family.

But as I said to you before, don't make judgements about things you don't know about. Your brother-in-law was not well. You believed it, but you were not sure with what. You wouldn't dare let yourself believe that Miss H. could be in a similar time warp. Was it anyone's business to publically put out there that your bro-in-law "might" have MS? He MAY have felt better not knowing the answer, especially if he were a teen!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:48 pm EDT

My statements regarding my brother-in-law have no bearing on my thoughts/position regarding Blair. I have never doubted her situation. i have always maintained a sympathetic stance towards her. And I have always wished her well. I have pointed out, however, that from what I have read in press reports and on blogs that there are some who question her disability (i.e. those in Moorsetown; the facts regarding her meeting the strenuous requirements necessary for the Congressional honor; for the Olympic torch bearing running, etc.). Since I don't know her first-hand, I can not state whether or not she is indeed "disabled" ... or, was one to take advantage (after her junior year) of a classification that allowed her to be home-schooled...and to "game the system".

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:50 pm EDT

Liz and Michael's Dad --

In my experience, most individuals who have debilitating, "difficult to classify" medical conditions are generous with information about their personal circumstances, believing that information leads to knowledge which in turn promotes greater understanding and acceptance. Your comments underscore the apropriate balance between sharing information and protecting privacy.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:52 pm EDT

[appropriate]

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:54 pm EDT

BTW - Mrs MM ... it is still incumbent on you - and you alone - to back up your charge that Dr. Howard Dean plagiarized. Many on this blog would find your charge - if substantiated - to be material. Two posters "?" and "Liz and Michael's Dad" have stated that they would likely weigh any potential support - or, lack thereof, for Dean on such a charge being proven. It is your responsibility ... not mine... nor anyone else's ... to back-up your charge - you made the charge...you say that CNN reported such. Show us that such is FACT.

I have already demonstrated that you are spouting hot air. Please, please prove me wrong.

Please, please stop your bullshit.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 21:58 pm EDT

Ma.: Blair's only game and advantage taking was to use what she was entitled to as a way of keeping up her studies so that she could go as far academically as her health would allow. She certainly did not make up the illness, suffering or laws.

Light bulbs, anyone?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:00 pm EDT

"I'm a little teapot short and stout, here's my handle and here's my spout...tip me over and pour me out"....in other words, use your get sources and find it yourself. I owe you NOTHING. Read the NY Times, and other places where it probably has been reported...or are you only on the Ben and Jen line? Sorry about the wedding. I wasn't going anyway.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:04 pm EDT

"The cynics point to her activities. In 2000, Blair ran with the Olympic torch when it came through Philadelphia. The Inquirer reported in May that she works out at a local gym. She went on the senior class trip to Disney World this spring, and in the summers, she does intensive academic work. During previous summers she enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell. Last summer she spent eight weeks at Stanford taking classes in Expository Writing (A-), Psychology (A), and Philosophy of Public Speaking (A). Interviewed in July 2002, she told a reporter from the Courier-Post, 'If I didn't lead a busy life, I'd be bored. And I hate being bored.' In June 2001, Blair was given the Congressional Award Gold Medal. To qualify for this honor, students must complete and document 400 hours of voluntary public service, 200 hours of personal development, 200 hours of physical fitness, and a 4-day exploration. Kelly Fanning, from the Congressional Awards office, says, 'For her physical fitness she did jogging, power-walking, and dance.' Moorestown High School students, it should be noted, take roughly 75 hours of Phys. Ed. class per year. - http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:04 pm EDT

Oh my ... Mrs MM ... you provide fonder for comedy now. Back up your claims. Shall we revisit how often your statements of fact have been false?

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:06 pm EDT

Mrs. M.M --

With all due respect, I believe you get little bits of information from the periphery of the Hornstine family, much of which you do not fully understand, which you in turn use in a zealous if repetetive defense of your talismatic "innocent." If the Hornstine family finds your postings to be "amusing," who gave you the quixotic responsibility to "PROTECT BLAIR AND GET OUT THE TRUTH?"

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:10 pm EDT

Look up your research. Stop repeating the same crap from the Weekly Standard. She did do all those things. I am not sure about Penn, though. She had no, no, no social life either in Moorestown and especially not at Stanford. Read what her roomies said about her suffering from the trip to Disney. How come you only want to read the negative? Read how her doctors want her to lift weight at
curve with its planned half hour of training. Read how one of her neighbors complained because she was out walking with her parents in the evening. Give it a break. Was that her power walking? 200 hours of physicial fitness....over WHAT PERIOD OF TIME. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. and please get a new song and find some new articles. Check the ones in the Philadelphia Inquirer where her roommates wrote about her suffering at Disney and after; read the article somewhere from a girl who attended Stanfoard with her who said all she did from morning till night, night after night was study. She never went on weekend jaunts, etc. Find the one from the lady who complained that Blair power walked in the neighborhood.

No, I have read them enough. Want to REALLY see them, I doubt it. If you do, FIND THEM or get those great colleagues at the halls of learning at Harvard to help.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:13 pm EDT

TM: I DID, AS A/AN OF HERS!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:15 pm EDT

[repetitive] [talismanic]

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:15 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... please provide us with support for any and all of your claims.

it is time for me to activate my "bullshit detector" ... to put you on "ignore"...until you can convince me otherwise. G'bye...you are the weakest link!

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:16 pm EDT

Note: Should have been a large space between A/An and of hers. Like I DID, AS A/AN ....................OF HERS!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:17 pm EDT

"A/AN OF HERS"?

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:18 pm EDT

Now that we know you are a/an __________ of Blair, it puts all your previous comments in proper perspective.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:22 pm EDT

I am a link. You, my dear are just weak. Where are all your joyboys from the halls that you so nobably spoke about who helped you get your info. You are weak, weak, weak.

Save me some of my important time. Don't write your BS to me or anything for that matter. Life goes on. You are stuck on the same old track. It isn't moving. School is out for you.
Grow up and move on. Harvard has passed you by. There are new kids on the block. Old ones need to move on, just as if you are moving away from Mommy. Cut those apron strings!!!!!!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:22 pm EDT

the word is "NOBLY" as in "nobably" spoke about. Sorry, Harvard, boy.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:26 pm EDT

TM: As is a friend, a admirer, a teacher, an aunt, an author, a relative, a grandmother, a neighbor, an unlisted sister, a roommate, a blood relative, a non-blood relative, a housekeeper, a cook, an in-law, etc. Just to list a few of the possibilities....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:31 pm EDT

yawwwwwwwwn...

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:33 pm EDT

I will once again comment on the diagnosis of CFS.
There are two categories for the information used to diagnose any disease. One is signs. The other is symptoms.
Symptoms are patient-reported phenomena: fatigue, pain, shortness of breath, etc. They are unprovable by objective testing, and can be described only by the patient.
Signs are objective clinical evidence: blood tests, x-ray results, biopsy info. They are objective markers of illness.
A patient goes to his doctor reporting symptoms. Based on the symptoms, testing is done to look for signs of one condition or other. The symptoms are a guidepost as to where the testing should center on, what conditions should be looked for, etc. When the proper number of signs verify the condition, a diagnosis is made.
CFS has extremely broad symptoms that also correspond to a number of other conditions. When a patient goes to a doctor and complains of these symptoms, what is done first is a complete battery of tests looking for signs of one of these other conditions. If no signs of any other illness known to cause these symptoms are found, only then is CFS considered. The mechanism of action for CFS is not yet known, so there ARE no signs that are correlated with it as yet. It is a diagnosis of EXCLUSION; only by disproving the existence of any other condition that causes symptoms similar to CFS can the diagnosis of CFS be made.
It would not be possible, after testing, to be torn between diagnosis of immune deficiency or diagnosis of CFS because immune deficiency has specific signs. If those were found, CFS would cease to be a possibility. If they were not found, immune deficiency would cease to be a possibility.
What sometimes happens, often with MS, is the presence of symptoms and signs that are not specific enough to make a definitive diagnosis. Blood tests may show elevated Sed rate, which can indicate any number of illnesses. Signs such as slowed EMG can be transient, showing up sometimes, not showing up other times. In cases like that, the doctor must wait until more signs and symptoms show up before they can narrow it down to a specific disease. However, as I said, in CFS, the presence of clinical signs disqualifies it as a diagnosis. If the patient in question had positive test results for one thing or another but no diagnosis can be immediately chosen, he or she would be classed as, say, immune deficiency not otherwise specified, or autoimmune disease not otherwise specified or pustular skin condition, not otherwise specified. CFS would not be a possibility. It would not be stated as a choice between immune deficiency or CFS, because, once again, CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion, with no presently known clinical signs. Certainly, when a disease mechanism is discovered for CFS and there are diagnostic signs to identify it with, sufferers will have an easier time; they are subject to a great deal of skepticism, etc., due to the inexact nature of the diagnosis and the lack of objective "proof" of the disease. I imagine this is very difficult to handle for a person suffering the potentially debilitating symptoms of CFS.
If any part of this is unclear, I am glad to try to explain more cogently.
Thank you. God bless.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:38 pm EDT

Again you miss the point, no one cares who you are so long as you make reasonable points that you can back up with verifiable facts. You don't, and when you get called on it, you resort to childish name-calling.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:39 pm EDT

Liz and Michael's Dad --

My last post was obviously directed to 3M and not to you.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:41 pm EDT

Liz and Michael's Dad, you are a wealth of knowledge on this complicated subject. I would like to thank you for your contributions. I have certainly learned a lot from them. I hope that the rest of us can also learn from what you have to say.

All the best to you and your family,
cretin

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 15 2003, 22:48 pm EDT

"GOOD NIGHT, Mrs. Calabash -- wherever you are!"

.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 15 2003, 23:03 pm EDT

Oh my word...will tragedy never cease in Moorestown. Oh my gosh, have you heard about poor Moorestown, New Jersey? First, BLH and her problems, but now that Miss H has left for college, the township finds itself muddled down in the wrost situation to hit the area since before BLH was born:

There are over 1,000 Canadian geese living in and around Strawbridge Lake in Moorestown each leaving up to one pound of Poopie, yes, one pound per goose per day. Now that's a lot of shit. Thank goodness Blair never had to go through all that.

Oh, life goes on in ole' Moorestown, but now they have something to waddle though. BLH was small potatoes compared to 1000 pounds of pooh a day.

--posted by Mrs M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 23:18 pm EDT

Dad: You are a breath of fresh air in your explanation, because unfortunately, you are right in the heart of things. As always, my best to you and your family.

As it has been explained to me with reference to Blair, she met the criteria for a certain (I prefer to leave it nameless)immune deficiency or autoimmune disease with the exception of one "confirming test" which was borderline. She had been given the test over and over until her parents were tired of the prodding and pricking with no results. The rest of her symptoms and tests pointed out the CFS. The test for the ID could not be completely ruled out because of its higher than usual but not confirming result(?). Therefore, I think one doctor probably referred to her as a CFS patient while another (and she saw plenty) said it was a possible ID or Autoimmune disease. Confusion? I think the entire Hornstine family is/was confused over the diagnosis. I think their doctors finally got together, gave it a name or names to allow her IEP program to begin and just treated Miss H for her symptoms and ill effects. Her skin, tiredness and immune system suffered when her health was not at its peek (to put it mildly). Her exercise program, as well as her rest schedule and meds had to be followed copiously. Whatever the final definitive diagnosis, I hope and pray it is something that will be short lived and go away with time.

I wish you the same, although I know from you, at this time, that this is not possible, but I pray that good things occur and wonders never cease to happen. Be proud, strong and continue that loving.

--posted by Mrs . M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 23:38 pm EDT

And good night TM, whatever you are!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 15 2003, 23:40 pm EDT

Why the desire to keep the "disease" a secret? I would have thought that someone as altruistic as Blair (lol) would want to crusade for a cure. I guess not.

My first thought was pemphigus. You mentioned Blair's skin, after all. But then I realized that couldn't be it. It's a real disease. People die from it.

I'm still wondering why someone who potentially has an autoimmune disorder would go to China. And don't give me that crap about cleft palates.

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 0:13 am EDT

IS BLAIR A LEPER??????????

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 0:14 am EDT

Liz and Michaels Dad;

Sure your friend can contact me. As a matter of separation, I no longer recieve personal email at designwolf@designwolf.com, however, for the purpose of reaching me, your friend may use designwulf@hotmail.com.

It shall be interesting to speak to her.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 4:57 am EDT

S. Douglas-Smith: thanks very much. I will give her your e-mail address. She is a very sweet girl and very enthusiastic about learning more about her heritage. Again, thank you.

Mrs. Moorestown Mom,
I am not sure I fully understand this young woman’s diagnosis, so I will outline the situation as I understand it and please correct me if I am in error.
Blair began having symptoms consistent with a number of disorders, including CFS. Testing for these disorders came back negative (“normal”), with the exception of one “borderline” result. Based on the exclusion of other syndromes, she was diagnosed with CFS. However, because of the “borderline” result, her doctor follows her closely, to make absolutely certain that CFS is the correct diagnosis.
Is this the situation as you know it? Again, please correct any errors. I would like to fully understand the path the illness has taken. I offer you hope, Mrs. Moorestown Mom; a goodly percentage of adolescent CFS patients improve significantly as they enter adulthood. So there is every chance this young woman has a bright and healthy future ahead of her. My family and I will certainly pray for her health, happiness, and success.
Thank you, and God bless.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 9:02 am EDT

That is how I understand it with one slight "variation" (for want of a better word). The "borderline" result was very strong in a negative manner, but not over the hill, so to say....

From your words to G-d's ears about her improvement. I only wish I can offer you the same improvement possibilities.

You know, I wish you and your family well....my best thoughts wishes and prayers.

Thank you for being here for us when your glass is so full.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 9:27 am EDT

Cretin: First you come up with something intelligent but tragic like Pemphigus....then you question her resolve...then you go back to your pathetic pediatric development. You just love to hear yourself talk...and say nothing. Everytime I want to respect you with an intelligent statement out of your super mouth, you bite that bullet and return to your name.

What are you afraid of? being intelligent? not funny? insecure? I suppose your "handle" says it all!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 10:00 am EDT

Back in your cave, Cretin! It's daytime!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 10:01 am EDT

Thanks, Mrs. Moorestown Mom.
And thanks to TM, Cretin, Cambridgema, S. Douglas-Smith and all others who have offered positive comments, prayers and have given Lizzie and our family such wonderful compliments. You have all made me feel very welcome here.

Mrs. Moorestown Mom: for your own understanding of the disease; the testing for autoimmune diseases and the testing for immune deficiencies are often very different, so I imagine it is one of them suspected rather than either or both. If the inconclusive test was for ANA, Sed rate, Anti-cardiolipin antibody, rheumatoid factor, skin biopsy or B-cell ratio, it is likely an autoimmune disease being looked for. If the test was an antibody titer, Prevnar reaction, blood culture/skin culture, ultrasound of the spleen, bone marrow aspiration, B-cell, T-cell, neutrophil or white count, it is likely an immune deficiency being looked for. I understand your decision to keep information about Blair's illness confidential; I thought this info could possibly be of personal use to you in understanding Blair's illness. The immune system is so darn complicated!
I hope this is helpful. If anything is unclear, I am glad to explain or clarify.
God bless.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 10:41 am EDT

Dad: I know what the " suspected" disease is/was. For obvious reasons, I choose not to use specifics here, but your info is helpful as well as comforting. The specific disease that was being looked into so deeply from the beginning is an autoimmune one. I have heard autoimmune and immune deficiency used interchangably often. I take it from your info that they are really not interchangable. However, I have also heard from physicians who are probably not specialists in these types of ailments that they are, for the most part, interchangable words. It is such a small piece of a puzzle. Blair is entitled to some privacy especially when it comes to her health, her looks because of her health and her constant whirl trying to keep up with school and health. I only, as you do, wish her well.

I cannot imagine the physiological trauma she encountered these past few months in addition to the constant forces she consistently fights with her physicial being. I am told she has held up better than the other three living at home. I sure hope that this is true and soon, the past few months are just a "bad day at blackrock."

As always, my best wishes and prayers for your strength and loving family. Thanks for your patience and caring to others.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 11:33 am EDT

may I also add my warmest wishes to Lizzie, Liz and Michael's Dad! I can only imagine her courage and your pride.

cretin, I completely understand where you're coming from, and I hope you don't mind my saying this, but some of your comments simply seek to inflame certain posters here, and while they do expose them as the people they really are, they don't reflect very kindly upon you either. You ask perceptive questions and it's a shame to have them dismissed because of other things you say. On the other hand, the responses you get are often unwarranted and overly hostile (and, I suspect, exactly what you expect). Just my 2 cents, and no offence at all intended.

TM - you make fantastic observations. I always enjoy your and cambridgeMA's posts; I find them informative, well-based and very shrewd and fair.

Mrs. M.M., I do admire your devotion to Blair. I, along with most posters I'm sure, also wish her nothing but the best.

However, you must realise that the burden of proof for your words lies on you, and you alone. If you make an accusation, naturally it is up to you to prove it, not us. Your accusation of Dr. Dean needs to be backed up, otherwise you stand in danger of misinformation or flat out libel.

Here's an example - if I write that Blair was the one to bring the havoc-causing geese to Moorestown, do you think that it's Blair's or yours or anyone's else's responsibility to prove me wrong? Or my responsibility to justify my own words? Any rational human being surely can see who bears the burden of proof here. And likewise should you with regard to your words about Dean. It's all well and good that you "heard" it, but if cambridgema and others have done their utmost looking for your source (the transcript of the CNN show you mentioned, google searches...) and found nothing, they've already done more than their part to find the truth. Perhaps they can't find it because *it doesn't exist*.

Can you prove them wrong? Can you prove yourself right? If you can, then provide the proof. If you cannot, you must retract your words - they are serious, baseless allegations against a potential presidential candidate. We cannot accept such an allegation on your word alone (especially since you have been proven wrong so many times already).

I wish I could register to vote in this country. I, too, am mightily impressed with Howard Dean.

--posted by bystander @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 17:06 pm EDT

I must live in a different world than you and some others. The story of Dean using Carville's "quip" from a TV show and claiming it as his own was heard by me several times over the course of the a.m. on Saturday (?). Ma had part of the story, but couldn't verify my "report" 100%. That is okay. I know what I heard. I need not prove it to you or anyone. I am naot in the "prove it" business. Choose your side, opinion, etc. It just was to prove a point that even NOW a man who is running for President of the United States "slips" occasionally. More obviously, the news reporters after initially reporting it, found a "little plagiarism" much ado about nothing. I just find it amusing.

And I don't care if it's Howard Dean, John Dean, James Dean, Tom Dean, Dean Smith, the Harvard Dean or Jimmy Dean...or even the late Dean Martin. To me the stakes are higher coming from a possible future United States to stand tall and fly right...to set an example, but it's more important to the "little people" that a "little person" be villified for her quoting a past President, etc.

I take offense with you that you cannot accept my baseless allegation or my word. But that too, is your preogative. Thank goodness you can't vote. I don't like Howard Dean!

--posted by Mrs.M. M. @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 21:23 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... so that you can understand the Howard Dean/James Carville situation ... you should tune into HBO to see a repeat of the original "K-Street" broadcast. It reairs tomorrow night.

"In this week's episode, which reairs tomorrow (Wednesday, November 16) night at 8:30, Carville agrees to do (real) debate prep with Dean for last week's (real) debate in Baltimore. We see Dean in the prep session, also attended by (real) political adviser Paul Begala and (fictional) consultant Tommy Flannegan (Slattery). Later, we see Dean use their Trent Lott joke during the actual debate."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2003/09/16/k_street_is_stranger_than_fiction/

You have claimed that Howard Dean plagiarized words in a speech. He did not. He actually used the witty retort that was suggested to him by a "hired" (fictional) political consultant (James Carville - in the real world a political consultant)in a real debate. Never has he or his staff claimed he came up with the humorous zinger. There have been no charges of dishonesty or plagiarism having been made by anyone. He took the consultant's advice - and delivered the most memorable line in the (real) Baltimore debate.

James Carville even went on Howard Dean's official blog to plug the fictional show - http://www.blogforamerica.com/ - and praise Dean's performance on the new mock reality show.

Mrs MM ... I have scoured CNN's transcripts for their shows on Saturday (September 13)- http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2003.09.13.html and Sunday (September 14) - http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2003.09.14.html and can find nothing that substantiates your claim.

Can you prove me wrong? Can you defend your charges? If not - admit you are mistaken and retract your words.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 21:43 pm EDT

As I am awaiting for some printing to be done, I took a stab at finding "an article" about the Dean/Carville/Trent "situation." I came up with the first one. I did not go any further. The rest is on you. It just goes to my point.

Dean made a statement about Lott.
Dean's "people" claimed it as an original Dean quip.
Carville used the line previously - on a tv show and has been credited with it being "his originality."
Therefore, my original point: A possible future President of the United States "lifted" words from a source and originally claimed it as is.....As a matter of fact, were there not two "quips?"

And poor young Blair has been pummeled over quoting Clinton, et al.

As for Dean, He better keep his day job...as a comedian, he failed, as a Presidential candidate, I hope he fails.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 21:46 pm EDT

Please show us where Howard Dean himself - or anyone from his staff has actually made a statement that claims that the witty words were Dean's. Is there any interview with him/them? Are there any press releases? Where has there been reporting of dishonesty, of charges of plagiarism? The only reporting has been the medling of fact and fiction; of life imitating art; of art imitating life. Again, show us the rigorous debate that has transpired in other forums that level charges that Dean has been dishonest here.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 21:50 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... you just don't get it. With your attempt to level unfounded charges against a Presidential candidate I have to question your actual knowledge of the Blair Hornstine affait. I am now convinced that you don't even have a relationship with her - or her family. You have actually made so many false statements, so many out-right lies.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 21:53 pm EDT

Nothing is on me - or anyone else for that matter - to prove that you are right. You must defend yourself. In realizing that you - or anyone for that matter can - you now resort to flailing, to insults, to juvenile tactics. I pity you.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 21:55 pm EDT

[In realizing that you - or anyone - can not prove you right]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 21:55 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... it is no longer worth my time or effort to engage in discussion on this blog with you tonight. I look forward to more informed discussion/debate with others - hopefully on matters of relevance to the Blair Hornstine affair.

Question: I wonder if the Weekly Standard will be publishing a Jonathan Last article on the settlement. It would be interesting to read about what he learns (-ed).

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 21:57 pm EDT

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97397,00.html

I have written the above link now three times. For some reason it doesn't "want" to be allowed to be published with you big boys. Read Paragraph 15.

I don't care if it's a policital satire show or SpongeBobSquarePants, words, etc. are licensed, owned, trademarked, etc. and ETC. Dr. Dean claimed someone else's words as HIS OWN...his original "quips."

And my dear Cambridgema, who died and left you in charge or what I must do and what I must defend, prove , etc. Get a life!

Your attempt to antagonize me so I will reveal my "Deep Throat" will just not work. (Anyway, you would not believe and you would "mess" your undies.")You know how much I care if you believe me or not? Less than a millionth of an iota...or your math genii can come up with even less.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 22:06 pm EDT

Stated above: "the news reporters after initially reporting it, found a "little plagiarism" much ado about nothing. I just find it amusing."

What reporters/journalists reported the charge of plagiarism?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 22:06 pm EDT

Jonathan Last is "last" week's news and so is Miss H.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 22:07 pm EDT

Joe

--posted by Mrs. M. M> @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 22:08 pm EDT

If Blair Hornstine and Jonathan Last are so "last week's news" - then why is anyone on this blog?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 22:10 pm EDT

Amusing for Dean, an adult with a Medical degree...
Plagiarism for Blair, a 17 year old Junior in High School....

Children - wannabe intellects - schadenfreuders - jealous non know-it-alls who probably can't boil water!

We can change the subject here and talk about things you are expert on : hops and grass!

--posted by M.MM @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 22:12 pm EDT

Just me and you, honey. I am stuck at home due to a "facelift." What's your excuse?

I just love "my Blairze" and will keep on truckin until she is back on top once again!

--posted by MMM/ @ Tuesday, September 16 2003, 22:14 pm EDT

cambridgeMA, I'm with you on this one, and thank you for the more detailed analysis of the whole situation.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 17 2003, 10:54 am EDT

Fox News publish impartial reporting on Howard Dean? If you accept that, then at least entertain the notion that Jonathan Last's articles on Blair are similarly accurate.

The latter is so much less far-fetched.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 17 2003, 11:08 am EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/nyregion/12MBRF2.html

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, September 17 2003, 19:31 pm EDT

So...this was LFH's job. De we scrutinize everything? This has nothing to do with Blair, her college, marks, illness, plagiarism. Has n comparison to any thing she has done, etc. I bet Judge H. used the Men's room today.....bring on the rest of clowns!

--posted by MMM @ Wednesday, September 17 2003, 19:47 pm EDT

uhhh, Howard Dean has nothing to do with Blair, either.

Let the rain fall equally! If you can stray "off-topic", so can the rest of us!

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, September 17 2003, 20:10 pm EDT

Jackson has the burden to establish that he can be rehabilitated by the time he reaches majority. However, Jackson is fifteen years old, no one was injured and most of the ammunition found in the possession of the defendants could not be fired. http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/august/m082803d.htm. Assuming for the sake of argument that Jackson is guilty, what evidence leads you to believe he cannot be rehabilitated and should be imprisoned until well into middle age?

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, September 17 2003, 20:13 pm EDT

The link to the NYT article, without any comment, is merely an illustrative counterpoint to the 3M's Howard Dean tangent. Within fifteen minutes, 3M retorts that the link, "has nothing to do with Blair, her college, marks, illness, plagiarism." Well 3M, where is all the information about Blair that you have been promising for the past several months?

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, September 17 2003, 21:19 pm EDT

Ummmmm, about half the comments on this board have little if anything to do with Blair Hornstine, and btw, those of you who like my "catch phrases", practice what I preach that you repeat.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 0:43 am EDT

Blair misappropriated someone else's words and was requested not to show up at Harvard in September '03.

Dr. Dean missappropriated someone else's words...and is running for President of the United States.

Many, many in the country are sending money, support, etc. in his bid and see nothing wrong in his borrowed words.

Many, many on this blog think a 17 year old BLH should be tarred and feathered for her borrowing.


S.D-S. "the rain has fallen" but I don't think it fell equally on both sides of the street.---not even fairly.

--posted by MMM @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 9:19 am EDT

Judge Hornstine is Blair's father. Thus, he is just as relevant to this discussion as anything you have brought up.

And Blair did not "borrow" someone else's words. She STOLE them. You just don't get it. Sometimes I think you'll never get it...

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 11:03 am EDT

Then if she is a thief, so is the possible future President of the US and several prominent other figures.

I do get it. You don't want to!

What the Judge does with other cases is not any more relevant than Adam H getting an A or whatever in law school.

--posted by MMM @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 15:23 pm EDT

You obviously DO NOT get it. You think thievery is just fine. Your morals are clearly nonexistent.

If you can bring up random public figures, we can certainly bring up Blair's own father. Get with the program!

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 16:14 pm EDT

Blair's own Father by choosing to allow a 15 year old boy to be tried as an Adult has nothing to do with thievery...the boy's, Lou's or Blairs....What mixed up place do you go to school. You are mixing your Beer with your Mashed Potatoes.!

My opinions, facts, etc. may have been questioned here, but my moral? I am referring to the comparison of a supposed moral man who is running for the President of the United States and comparing him to a 17 year old high school student.

Cretin: Go back to class!

--posted by Mrs . M>M @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 16:31 pm EDT

You defended plagiarism time and time again. Here's your chance to say that it's wrong, but you're still defending it. If it's OK for Blair, isn't it also OK for Howard Dean? If you're going to criticize Dean (who no one has ever called moral), you should also criticize Blair for her acts of thievery. Let the rain fall equally!!

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 19:25 pm EDT

In his interview with the Toronto Star, James Carville makes it very clear that he suggested that Dean use the line that if population were any guide, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi would be Martin Luther King Jr. There's clearly no misappropriation of words by Dean; no plagiarism, no morality to question. Carville played the role of a political consultant in his new fictional show "K Street" ... and like all political consultants/speech writers was happy to see his client take his advice and use the words with which he prepped him.

"In the premiere episode of K Street, it was Carville, playing a political consultant, prepping presidential candidate Dean for an upcoming debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Many of Dean's supporters are white, and some political experts have questioned whether the former governor of Vermont could attract minority voters. Vermont is nearly 98 per cent white. Carville suggested that Dean use the line that if population were any guide, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi would be Martin Luther King Jr. The candidate did just that in the debate. Asked if the head-spinning marriage of fiction and real life seemed undignified, Carville scoffed at the notion, arguing that Dean's appearance in the HBO season opener reinforced the perception that the front-runner is a hot candidate, and one, who despite his reputation for occasional testiness, can take and deliver a joke." - http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1063882852550&call_pageid=968867495754&col=968705925735

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 19:45 pm EDT

James Carville even went on to Howard Dean's official blog to praise the presidential candidate and his performance on HBO, claiming that his performance there would allow far more people the ability to learn about his real-life candidacy there than from the limited viewership of "talking-head" political programming -

Carville's words on the blog (http://www.blogforamerica.com/):

" 'Millions of people who never watch "Crossfire" or "Meet the Press" will see Gov. Dean on HBO Sunday night....In a world in which too many politicians are seen as phonies, Gov. Dean comes across as the real thing. What you see is what you get.' "

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 21:16 pm EDT

I heard Blair is interning at a hairdresser so that she can get accepted to beauty school next year.

--posted by Ha Ha @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 22:06 pm EDT

rotflmao

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, September 18 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

Every time I see one of my little phrases in use by certain posters here, I cringe. I do it because, like most people who are unable to think originally, it is misused, and the very idea of it's meaning is twisted.

Let the rain fall equally....

If you actually think you could let the rain fall equally, cretin, then in fact, you might have some worthwhile and viable comments. Since you don't know what it means, you're use of it shows only that you do indeed see me as a source of superior intellect, which I will take as a compliment. No clarification required. It also marks another occasion where you have chosen my words to make your point, or deflate your point as the case may be, in either case, my words don't make you look better, cretin, but they do prove the point I've made about you all along.

As to thievery, look in the mirror.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, September 19 2003, 15:31 pm EDT

yawn... Back to your cage before I set the dogs on you!

--posted by cretin @ Friday, September 19 2003, 22:09 pm EDT

I apologize that my sources were wrong. Blair is not interning with a hairdresser. She is working at a car wash. She is great with the rag, but may move up to the cash register soon.

BTW, the Harvard freshman started classes without Blair this past week. But Blair got $15,000 so I guess she is better off.

Sincerely yours,
Ha Ha

--posted by Ha Ha @ Friday, September 19 2003, 23:05 pm EDT

There is probably an increased incidence of plagiarism at many schools. For example, http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/13/3e22cd63c9b33?in_archive=1. However, at least in the near term, BH appears to be a footnote to the serious consequences of plagiarism rather than a champion of the disabled or the innocent victim of a media backlash. http://www.andover.edu/library/AcadInteg/Plagiarism.htm.

--posted by TM @ Friday, September 19 2003, 23:38 pm EDT

From the Andover website: "Plagiarism is stealing."

Do you get it yet, MM??? Plagiarism is not a mistake, or a lapse in judgement. Plagiarism is intentional. And ignorance is no excuse. If you went to the trouble to steal someone else's words, you should be able to take the blame for it. Blair wanted to be SOLE valedictorian. Too bad she wouldn't take SOLE credit for plagiarizing.

--posted by cretin @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 0:22 am EDT

The cover article to this month's Stanford Magazine also touches on the subject of academic cheating:

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2003/sepoct/features/plagiarism.html

--posted by Adam @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 0:54 am EDT

I would appreciate clarification regarding the source and meaning of the oft-used phrase, "Let the rain fall equally."

The only "equal rain" quotation that comes immediately to my mind is Biblical, "... so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Matthew 5:45 (The New American Standard Bible).

St. Augustine of Hippo gave an early and still noteworthy interpretation of this verse:

"Will some one say, Why, then was this divine compassion extended even to the ungodly and ungrateful? Why, but because it was the mercy of Him who daily 'maketh His sun rise and fall on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.' For though some of these men, taking thought of this, repent of their wickedness and reform, some, as the apostle says, 'depising the riches of His goodness and long-suffering after their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.'... But as for the good things in this life, and its ills, God has willed that these should be common to both; that we might not too eagerly covet the things which wicked men are seen equally to enjoy, nor they shrink with an unseemly fear from the ills which even good men often suffer." City of God, Book 1, Chapter 8.

If I read the foregoing correctly, it seems that God's grace "falls equally" independent of man's will, a fact that should be a source of hope and strength rather than anger and frustration.

Have I incorrectly identified the literary source of the "equal rain" argument? If not, have I misinterpreted the source? If not, is the "equal rain" argument nothing more than the failure to recognize that one is standing buck-naked in the shower?

--posted by TM @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 1:24 am EDT

TM, that is excellent Biblical scholarship. I absolutely agree that your chosen quote is a source of hope and love-- God loves all, the just, the unjust, the poor, the rich, the young and old-- rather than a judgement. In an unjust world, where tragedy strikes randomly, we can count on God's love to be steady and absolute. This is my own belief; I certainly do not want to press it upon others, so forgive me if I have gone on too long. Thank you, TM, for posting an uplifting reminder of God's love.
God bless.

--posted by Liz and Michael's Dad @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 11:06 am EDT

Dogs... been looking in the backyard again, haven't you? Sorry cretin, you're not allowed in, I happen to feel that dogs are outside animals. Use a tree to mark your territory.

Doesn't change the facts, and doesn't change the truth, all it does, is once again pit you, a self avowed embicile against me, an obviously superiour intellect. Since this board is about Blair Hornstine and her circumstances, maybe you can find a way to not make this about you, though I doubt it.

As for setting the dogs on me, hey... have at it, I'll look forward to the entertainment portion of the program.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 15:15 pm EDT

Not only is your identification correct in the sense of application, it is also correctly identified in the biblical sense. Given that the reference is to an argument I have repeatedly made, the implication of using my "praseology" is valid.

Considering that the person in question has most likely never opened a Bible, the likelyhood that he would then be familiar with the phrase is also established. Thus, my point remains, if you are to use my phrases, use them in the context with which they were intended, and not as a way to mock, or otherwise incite a situation that is little more than a simmering pot.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 15:19 pm EDT

A foot note to the above: The Cherokee often use a phrase, "though the desert is without water to see, below is as much as any river holds" The general interpertation of this is that water is equally distributed in order to allow life to flourish where there would not otherwise be life.

It's relevance to all of this is simple. Given my own rather boring beliefs, I see this as an example of equality, and that man has no greater or lesser worth than any other. When I invoke 'let the rain fall equally' I am saying give to all the same measure that you give to one. I am not saying just let it pour without need. Ultimately all of us wind up in the same condition, and on that day when each of us in his own time meets his maker, then the rain has finally, and fully fallen equally. Until then, man and his attitudes, of course, change the way things are seen, and what is good for one may not be good for another.

Thus, though we have destroyed BLH over her deeds, we generally do not take the same exception to the same deed wrought of others actions. While the focus here is indeed BLH, it does not preclude reasonable and fairly shared condemnation of the same actions from others, be they historical or public figures. In other words, let the rain, or (pain of deed) fall equally to all who do the same thing.

I trust then, that this is sufficient clarification.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 15:26 pm EDT

"Doesn't change the facts, and doesn't change the truth, all it does, is once again pit you, a self avowed embicile against me, an obviously superiour (sic) intellect."

Obviously superior intellect? Obvious to whom? I believe my intellect is superior to yours, but that isn't saying much. Nice try, though.

And no one has "destroyed" Blair. She has done that to herself. She has gotten precisely what she deserved. If she were to be hit by a car, then I would feel sorry for her. If she were raped, I would be the first to say that she is the victim. But so far, everything that has happened to her has been self-inflicted. I call it as I see it. If that bothers you, tough luck!

"Considering that the person in question has most likely never opened a Bible, the likelyhood that he would then be familiar with the phrase is also established."

On the contrary, I have opened a Bible. But I was quick to put it down and have never opened one since. I also don't practice witchcraft. I am not involved in voodoo. I do not believe in the occult. Quite frankly, it is hilarious that you would try to insult someone for not believing in such things. You say your intellect is "obviously superior" to mine? What dream land are living in?!

For a "Christian," you are quite judgmental. You give your fellow theists a bad name. And you should thank your lucky stars that there is no such thing as hell. For if there were, that is where you would end up!

Back to your cave, SDS. I've had enough of you for one day. I'm off to bigger and better things!

--posted by cretin @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 15:51 pm EDT

ROFLMELAO...

Cave... well okay, if I have to, I can still use the hot tub, though, right?

I haven't tried to insult you for your belief, or lack of belief, I have simply looked at the blatent idiocy of your repeated efforts to get a rise out of me, so let me put it as delicately as possible, I'm in no way attracted to you, okay.

Judgemental, hmmmm, I can see, I can make reasonable conclusions, and validate meritt based on reality not giggle factor, or shock value. If that makes me judgemental, okay, see you in hell.

'Cept for one thing... I was there already, they kicked me back, they were afraid I'd be running the joint by the end of the week.

Enjoy your eternity... but in the meantime, maybe you should just crawl back into your hole...

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Saturday, September 20 2003, 23:36 pm EDT

lol

--posted by cretin @ Sunday, September 21 2003, 0:03 am EDT

gentlemen, it's obvious you dislike each other, but your mutual flaming is distracting the blog from more substantial discussion on the issues that the Blair story raises.

if we don't want it to be a Blair-ragging thing, then let's talk bigger issues.

--posted by bystander @ Sunday, September 21 2003, 1:45 am EDT

It is reasonable to assume that the direct consequences of Blair's plagiarism were limited to rescission of her undergraduate admission to Harvard and disassociation from the Courier-Post. In my opinion, those were reasonable and appropriate consequences given the nature and extent of the plagiarism and the lack of remourse. Recognizing the variety of approaches to this issue, and well as the divergence of opinion on this blog, I would be interested in hearing what readers believe might have been a more appropriate response.

Adam -

I enjoyed the plagiarism article.

SDS -

We don't appear to be on the same page even when we fundamentally agree on something.

3M -

None of the points raised by CambridgeMa's August 22 post have been resolved or even addressed.

BTW, I think contributors to this blog have been remarkably restrained regarding publication of periodic local rumors and gossip about the Hornstine family in general and Blair in particular. This extends to both the substance and the tone of the comments.

--posted by TM @ Sunday, September 21 2003, 9:38 am EDT

Bystander;

I would point out, and even give cretin points for allowing his remarks to maintain the same vein of humor that I used in mine... (insert small, very small round of applause here for cretin: clap) (Sorry Cretin, there's just so much I can do, what with my cave handicap and all.)

We're not flaming, we're actually almost communicating, and in cretin vs S.D-S speak, that's like a valid entry for the Nobel Peace Prize. At least there is humor, where in the past there has not been. Let it be, we seem to have made some progress.

As for bigger issues, welllllllllllll, it is my opinion that on more than once occaision we, or I, have broached such things, only to be told that they are not relevant to the discussion, which is of course, the sexual habits of primates in Africa... oh wait, sorry, wrong thread... Plagiarism, yeah, that, oh wait, it was the suit, no, it was the condition of the father after the war, wait, wasn't it about the color of Mrs. M.M.s hair?

Oh, hell, see, I've lost complete track of what it was. I think we should just say to heck with it and discuss the ummmmmmm, I know! The way a nice dress looks on an alluring young woman... okay, nah... but you know, it just goes to show, that this thread has gotten so far past the point that it's lost in all the anncillary commentary, MINE included.

So, to the point, when a simular action by a public figure has been brought up it has been summarially dismissed as somehow not as relevant to Blair's actions, as though her misdeeds have a greater impact upon the world as a whole than JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr.s or anybody who has been accused or found to have actually plagiarized. We've not let the rain, or even the disqust we've shown at Blair, carry over to the others guilty of this same offense, some whom have gone WAY beyond anything Blair ever did.

If you want to discuss bigger things, okay, lets, like why the heck are we in Iraq, is it because S.H. really was a threat to the U.S. or because dubya was finishing up for his daddy? Either way, lots of our youth have paid the price for that AOL installed president, and don't you think that's a bit much?

But, if as this thread has consistantly done, we don't want to discuss real world events, then at least lets agree that persons guilty of the same things Blair is guilty of should at least share in her scorn, and demonization. Then we could say, fairly, that indeed the rain does fall equally...

Just a thought.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, September 22 2003, 0:14 am EDT

LMAO,

AOL should read AWOL.... geebus.

I in no way meant to imply that AOL, TIME WARNER, or any of it's subsidiarys had anything to do with Bush's elevation to President.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, September 22 2003, 0:17 am EDT

TM;

Well, this could be true, but the bottom line, as I see it is fundamental fairness in our actions; that we should be at least as harsh on others of the same ilk, as we are on Blair, rather than brushing aside the information as though it were a historical footnote.

So, maybe not the same page, but perhaps the same book.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, September 22 2003, 0:18 am EDT

Should rumors regarding where BH is studying be mentioned or does this cause more harm than good for all concerned? Part of me doubts that people on this blog would stalk BH but I bet many are just curious.

--posted by ? @ Monday, September 22 2003, 10:56 am EDT

Where I in a position to advise Blair, and recognizing the unusual circumstances in which she finds herself, I would recommend she authorize a family member to publically identify her undergraduate school, this blog an appropriate place to do so. I believe such an action would be evidence that Blair is beginning to face and resolve her present situation in a mature manner. I do not believe such an action would compromise any reasonable privacy interest.

As a practical matter, the identity of the college that admitted Blair this term will inevitably enter the public domain. It is axiomatic that the best damage control is disclosure under favorable circumstances. Undue secrecy, even characterized as a feigned plea for privacy, is ultimately futile for a person who has voluntarily thrust herself into the public eye.

Confirmation of Blair's "college of choice" elicits little more than passing curiousity from the majority of Moorestown residents. It is hard to believe it would generate much more than a tiny follow-up in the media, if that. In point of fact, what is the most anyone can say about where Blair goes to college -- "it's not Harvard" -- big deal.

However, I am not hopeful in this regard. Blair, most of her family and her advisors painted themselves into a corner by inflating Blair's legal claims, dismissing her obvious trangressions and hiding even the basic details of her allegedly disabling medical condition. From the earliest public stages of this matter, Blair chose to alienate rather than positively mold public opinion. How much credibility does Blair's alleged familiar on this blog have with its readers?

BTW, has anyone found any pre-lawsuit internet references that mention Blair's disability, particularly in the "puff pieces" touting her academic achievements and charitable works? BTW2, did Dickinson this past summer, or her present school now, give the same accomodations to Blair that she received from the Moorestown school district?

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 19:14 pm EDT

Thank goodness no one asked for your advice. ROFLMELAO... It is obvious that you are neither a parent or a public relations person. All you seem to want is add more gossip and question the ability of educators who are overseeing her studying.

Privacy is the best policy and that is how it will probably remain until some big mouth notifies the media, etc., or some other ass comments on her going to hairdressing, plumbing, etc. school (which are noble professions for those who want to tackle that arena). Privacy doesn't allow for any further comments, only questions. That sounds good to me, as you cannot add any more criticism to things you do not know. Her fifteen minutes of fame are over. Get on with YOUR life. Find a new whipping boy!

Sure....releasing Blair's college choice puts her again in the public eye, allows people to make further comments, allows reporters/cameras, etc.


My point is clearly made when you want to discuss what accomodations that Dickinson, etc. made for her. Security was the largest!

She is tucked away in an academic setting where many will not know her and hopefully, it will remain that way until at least the end of her Freshman year.

University administrators find that she is not chosing to alienate herself or mold public opinion...She is there to get an education.

Privacy is the advice school officials, security personnel and physcological consultants regard as the best step for her futhering her life.

TM: Find a new career and topic!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 19:34 pm EDT

3M -

You are very quick to make baseless and vulger assumptions about people you don't know. What makes you think there is no one in town who knows where Blair is going to school this term? Security and mental health professionals? I was thinking more along the lines of getting from her residence to the university buildings.....

--posted by TMFor @ Monday, September 22 2003, 19:43 pm EDT

Mrs MM - you state tonight about Blair - "Her fifteen minutes of fame are over."

But, according to you in so many previous posts, you have maintained that she will maintain a prominent position in the spotlight. We're waiting for the lawsuit against Harvard that you told us she'd be filing. You told us all that she would be featured in books, films and television. How does this square with all of your previous contentions (and ones made by you who claim to be such a close family friend, confidant and advisor)? - such as: "...in the end she will have the last laugh.... Maybe not Harvard, but book deals, millions from Moorestown, television appearances and how about a monthly column in "Seventeen" Magazine on how to prepare for college?????” (posted by Mrs. MM @ Wednesday, June 18 2003, 16:09 pm EDT).

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 19:54 pm EDT

Mrs MM - did Blair attend the pre-college program for high school students at Dickinson this past summer? Or, the Johns Hopkins classes held on campus? Your answer may indicate how how well you understand the circumstances at hand.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 20:01 pm EDT

BTW - I had happended to have lunch last week with a college administrator from Dickinson College (Carlisle, PA)- and inquired whether Blair Hornstine was a student there. He/she said "no" - and highly unlikely that she'd be admitted in the future.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 20:02 pm EDT

clarification: "Or, the Johns Hopkins classes held on the Dickinson College campus this past July and August?

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 20:03 pm EDT

[BTW - I happened to have lunch]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 20:05 pm EDT

3M -

cambridgema's questions illustrate my basic premise that many readers have sufficient knowledge and information to allow them to form objectively reasonable and fair opinions regarding posts on this blog. Will this be yet another missed opportunity to "GET OUT THE TRUTH!"

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 20:15 pm EDT

3M -

Please select the answer that is MOST correct:

A. Blair attended classes in the "Johns Hopkins CTY" program at Dickinson last summer.

B. Blair attended classes in the "pre-college" program at Dickinson last summer.

C. Blair did not attend any classes at Dickinson last summer.

D. I don't know whether Blair attended classes at Dickinson last summer.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 21:43 pm EDT

What do you care? And when is it my life's work to appease you and answer your questions?

And Ma: Your administrating friend at Dickinson lied, lied, lied or is not knowledgeable.. Maybe he/she doesn't want YOU to know....BLH attended school there this summer and lived on campus.If you want to argue this point with me, forget it. I was there and SAW her. Please do not attempt to dispute my statement. There will be no further rebuttals from me about this fact. Ask your friend to speak to Dickinson's president. She was also offered a six year scholarship to the school, three years to complete college and three years for law school. THE END!

"She is tucked away in an academic setting where many will not know her and hopefully, it will remain that way until at least the end of her Freshman year." As far as her future goes, suits, movies, books, etc., let's talk AFTER she finishes her freshman year. Think Blaire Starr.

TM: Let the "rain fall where it may" but I am not giving you fodder for another "missed opportunity" claimed by you. C and D are absolutely, positively, unequivocally, unquestionably NOT true.


The Dickinson classes are over, at least at this time. This subject is now closed!

And boy, do I have a multiple choice about YOU!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:02 pm EDT

TM for states: "You are very quick to make baseless and vulger assumptions about people you don't know. What makes you think there is no one in town who knows where Blair is going to school this term? Security and mental health professionals? I was thinking more along the lines of getting from her residence to the university buildings....."

Obviously, you don't need any info from me. You'll drop me a line or two when you have ALL the answers.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:06 pm EDT

Heard BH is a student at Trinity College, Oxford. If true, this is a very happy outcome for a bright young person.

--posted by ? @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:07 pm EDT

Ma: Select one of the following:

YOUR ADMINISTRATING FRIEND AT DICKINSON COLLEGE DIDN'T TELL YOU THE TRUTH BECAUSE:

A. It's not your business,and you are not important.

B. You have a big mouth

C. He/she is not in the loop.

D. He Allowed you to continue getting all your info from the Ivy Halls of Harvard.

E. Kept his word to privacy.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:14 pm EDT

?: Thank you for: "If true, this is a very happy outcome for a bright young person.

--posted by ? @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:07 pm EDT "

You've gotten it!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:16 pm EDT

Mrs MM - I am not disputing that Blair was on the Dickinson campus this summer. Please ... tell us .. of which program was she a participant? I have a very close connection with many at the College. BTW...I am on very personal terms with Bill Durden, the current President of Dickinson College.

A further point...there is no "degree granting" connection between Dickinson College (an undergraduate institution) and the law school. Dickinson College is a privately endowed institution...while The Dickinson College of Law is part of the public university system of Pennsylvania ... known as PennState's Dickinson College of Law. The two institutions have never collaborated and underwritten a student for both undergraduate and graduate studies ... since there is no affiliation. Trust me, Mrs MM ... you have no idea who I am - or the depth/breadth of my affiliations. Everything you claim in your most previous post is spurious.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:17 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... Could it be possible that my philanthropic foundation has many deep, deep connections with many instituitions of higher learning in this country? And these connections stretch way beyond the borders of Massachussets? Could it be that my sources of information in so many areas are more reliable than any that you pretend to have?

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:23 pm EDT

[Massachusetts]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:25 pm EDT

MM, why are you so bitter? All you do is attack others. May I suggest counseling?

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:37 pm EDT

Ma: Trust me, Ma. You have no idea who I am. You only trump me if you are an Ivy League President.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:37 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... please answer the original question - which program was Blair a participant of this summer on the Dickinson College campus?

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:38 pm EDT

And Mrs MM ... please defend your position of last week that Howard Dean plagiarized words of James Carville.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:39 pm EDT

Nay, Nay

And if you were so philanthropic, your ideals would be a reversal of your printed word.

I don't pretend. Do you know BLH? Have you ever met her or a member of her family?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

Andwhileyou are at it ... how about providing evidence that the Hornstines have filed suit against Harvard for an invasion of privacy situation? And - we'd love to know more about the book and movie deals which will enrich Blair. You have been so confident in your position before. Please illuminate us all.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

3M-

I have no legal, political or personal interest in this matter. I have my own reasons to contribute to this blog and do not claim to "know ALL the answers." However, I am certain you know far less than you claim and understand even less. Moreover, you crudely "spin" what little information you do have in a pathetic attempt to rationalize the actions of certain parties. To the extent your comments may have any value at all, it is to remind readers of the attitude and tone that led to this regretable situation in the first instance.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:43 pm EDT

This is it: On Tuesday, Septeber 16, I forwarded to this blog an site which addressed Dean's advisors taking credit for his remark about Lott. The end.

Philanthropic...You don't give up asking me a question about something I posted a week plus ago. THE END. There is nothing further from me on this subject either.

--posted by 3M @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:43 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... please provide us with an answer from TM's list:

Please select the answer that is MOST correct:

A. Blair attended classes in the "Johns Hopkins CTY" program at Dickinson last summer.

B. Blair attended classes in the "pre-college" program at Dickinson last summer.

C. Blair did not attend any classes at Dickinson last summer.

D. I don't know whether Blair attended classes at Dickinson last summer.

A failure to do so will surely indicate that you truly a "poseur" on this blog.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:44 pm EDT

Evidence? "how about providing evidence ..." I never said anything was filed, completed, etc. I told you that these items are in the works.

How about providing me evidence that you are something more than an irritant?

--posted by 3M @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:45 pm EDT

TM: Don't talk to me; ask me questions; address me. Forget that I exist. Boy, your life here is now dull.

--posted by 3M @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:46 pm EDT

[that you truly are a "poseur" (aka a "Troll") on this blog.]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

Call me what you wish; threaten me? Whatever. I gave you the best answer in the best form. "posuer', you way I am. Can I call you a "P" word, too?

--posted by 3M @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:48 pm EDT

Tell me who you are, you wonderful informed philanthropic person, you. Do you live off a trust fund? You are bored. Always here. I gave you my reason for being available. What's your's? Looking for a place to give away your money? How philanthropic? Does Forbes list you?

I have something personal with Blair getting treated fairly. What's your aim? Money, to make off her?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:52 pm EDT

"posuer," you SAy I am....correction from 22:48 post

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:53 pm EDT

The fact that you frequently resort to random, brazen personal attacks underscores a lack of maturity and intellectual integrity.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:54 pm EDT

TM: I don't talk to you, remember. I am definitely older than you so it doubles that I do NOT lack maturity; and integrity is something which no one who knows me or of me would ever question. Intellectual? Now there I may not win it all!

TM: Go home! Get a boy friend!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:57 pm EDT

Age does not necessarily translate to maturity.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:00 pm EDT

3M alleges that Blair took classes at Dickinson this summer. Cambridgema asks a series of perceptive questions designed to test this allegation, the bases of which are all correct, verifiable facts. 3M replies with a stream of vulger personal insults. This is classic DSM-IV material.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:04 pm EDT

Ma: How about providing me with all the evidence of who you are?????philanathropic organizations? Your integrity is at stake.

I told you ions ago. I have a personal interest here. You just tell me about people's names and halls you can look up on the net.

You are not so squeeky clean!! "A failure to do so will surely indicate that you truly a "poseur" on this blog." "And whileyou are at it ... how about providing evidence ... And - we'd love to know more you and your philanthropy and how it will enrich ... You have been so confident in your position before. Please illuminate us all."Could it be possible that your philanthropic foundation has many deep, deep connections with many instituitions of higher learning in this country? And these connections stretch way beyond the borders of Massachussets?" How about Moorestown, N.J., Wildwood, N.J . Philadelphia, PA. Boca Raton, Fl? Do your wonderful arms reach out and touch me????

--posted by MRs. M. M> @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:11 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... above you claim: "[Blair] was also offered a six year scholarship to the school, three years to complete college and three years for law school." I have called your contention into question ... basically calling such a "lie" (i.e. calling you a bald face lier)... and charging that you don't have any true knowledge (i.e. being a poseur, a "Troll" - in the Internet sense of the word) of her current sitiuation. By all means, prove me wrong!

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:13 pm EDT

You can't read either. Please refer to my posting of 22:02 p.m.

Now I will insult you. YOU CAN"T READ. Or you don't like the correct answers.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:14 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... my integrity is not at stake. If you want to take issue with any of my positions on this blog ... you are welcome to do so. I am confident that the record will show that I have backed up my postions with very strong evidence.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:15 pm EDT

Call your buddy, Bill. Prove me wrong!


Amazing, you ask but never answer questions. I just filled up an entire page with questions, multiple choice answers, etc. You're throwing, not catching and sending back answers.

--posted by Mrs. M. M> @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:15 pm EDT

Where's your evidence? Bill told you that BLH was not at Dickinson and they did not offer her scholarships.
Prove it.

Joe told me that the evidence is true. Who is Joe? He is a psuedo name for someone you know.

Hey, ask Bill, if he met me this summer??????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:17 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... n which program on the Dickinson campus this past summer was Blair a participant. Your post of 22:02 does not provide any indication. You still have yet to answer the question.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:18 pm EDT

[in which program...]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:18 pm EDT

MM, do you have any information about Blair's movie deal? You seemed pretty sure that the Blair Hornstine Project would be making its way to a theatre near me. I've checked, and no such movie is currently playing. Then I checked www.imdb.com. Blair is not involved in any upcoming movies, either. Finally, I checked out www.amazon.com. Yet again, no Blair memorabilia. So what's the deal? Were you lying?

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:19 pm EDT

Mr. Rich Bitch, it's BOLD FACE LIAR. I am not bald, so it must be you that you refer. Since you don't know the correct expression, I doubt that you are anything but a wannabe.

--posted by Mrs, M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:19 pm EDT

Cretin: NO; It even took nine months for you to be produced.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:20 pm EDT

Credibility is always at issue. Readers may reasonably infer a lack of credibility from the consitent failure to answer neutral questions that do not implicate a "self-defined" protected sphere. Readers may also draw conclusions from demeanor and similar "character" evidence.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:23 pm EDT

But www.imdb.com also shows UPCOMING projects. Things that won't come out for another year or two are often shown on that site. Yet the Blair Hornstine Project does not appear there. Furthermore, you claim that Blair's 15 minutes are over. Which is it? Is there a movie, or will she fade back into oblivion?

I'm amazed at how many times you have contradicted yourself here. I know you will attack me after reading this. Whenever you go into attack-mode, it is because you have been backed into a corner. By engaging in ad hominem attacks, you are essentially letting us know that WE are right. Why else would you feel the need to attack instead of debate?

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:24 pm EDT

LOL ... Mrs MM ... BOLD FACE vs. BALD FACE does not obscure the original question. Smoke and mirrors, waving one's hands to distract from the original question does not make it go away ... please, please indulge us with your knowledge (your mature perspective)... prove to us that Dickinson College and the Penn State Dickinson College of Law provide six-year scholarships to students.

Please answer with clarity and certainty in which program on the Dickinson campus this past summer was Blair a participant.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:24 pm EDT

BTW - you've called me a "rich bitch"! Thanks for the compliment.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:26 pm EDT

Please answer with your own clarity. Prove to me that she WASN'T offered same.

Ma: Where are the answers to MY questions? Avoidance? Please answer with clariaty and certainity.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:28 pm EDT

Well, you certainly are not a philanthropist!

--posted by Mrs. M. M> @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:29 pm EDT

http://www.awakenedwoman.com/medussa.htm

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:29 pm EDT

MM, the burden of proof is on YOU.

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:30 pm EDT

"Well, you certainly are not a philanthropist!"

lol. This is coming from someone who boasts about giving coats to poor people! Your self-righteous attitude means that you are NOT a philanthropist, either! You only give to the poor so you can get your tax break...

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:32 pm EDT

Significance, please? Are you Alice? Does that prove that you ate lunch with someone from Dickinson? What did you eat? Nah....they don't serve that there?

You are ridiculous.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:32 pm EDT

Cretin: Go back into that beer drinking cave. You claimed you are away from Moorestown in college. Doubt it. You spend too many fun or study nights writing your dribble.


You are so easy!I can't keep taking advantage of you

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:34 pm EDT

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Nuff said.

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:37 pm EDT

Cretin: You are such a poor soul. I Rolled over laughing last eve when the discussion of (paraphrasing) "rain where it falls, " was up and running. You said that you "opened the bible". Cretin, you claim you are a non-practicing Jewish boy. The phrase and section of the Bible being discussed was Book of Matthew. That IS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. YOU NEVER READ IT.It wasn't part of your Haftorah! True, neither did Blair read it. NEW TESTAMENT is to Christians what the OLD TESTAMENT is to Jewish People.

Now go back to that cave.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:44 pm EDT

Ma: I notice how quiet it got when I pressed YOU for answers. Maybe you can sit up all night and do research and find the correct answers. Burden of proof, burden of proof, where is Cambridgema with his burden of proof?

Nighty night/

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:48 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... I stand by my representation of "bald face liar" versur your attempt to correct me with "bold face liar". Bald indicates one that is truly a "transparent" liar. As in ...

"BALD-FACE/FACED (for this sense: 1940s according to Merriam-Webster, ~1650 according to Random House) as used in ‘bald-faced lie’ means undisguised or ‘barefaced.’ And ‘barefaced’ (late 16th century) means having no covering over one’s face (originally, beardless), undisguised, wearing no mask, unconcealed, open, transparent. And not hiding behind a disguise (e.g. like anonymity or a pseudonym on a website) implies some boldness (however, anonymity on a website more often then not is probably just a matter of pure sloth, or sloth disguised – often a.k.a. personal freedom). Extend boldness a bit and you go from brazen, to impudent, to shameless – all of which ‘bald-faced’ has come to mean.< a plain, bald-faced case of highhanded graft—F.B. Gipson> (sources include Merriam-Webster’s Random House Unabridged Dictionaries and The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)"

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:50 pm EDT

[versus your attempt...]

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:51 pm EDT

... that must be some household.

--posted by TM @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:54 pm EDT

Research, research, research.....so you are far superior to me when it comes to a computer...and I admit that. Merriman Webster quotes Bold faced as "bold in manner or conduct...IMPUDENT". So I stand by my correctness of the expression, but further more........

WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS? BURDEN OF PROOF? I am waiting. Amazing, you can only answer things that you can google. Philanthropic, Huh?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:57 pm EDT

Mrs MM ... no burden of proof here ... I know for a fact that Dickinson College and Penn State's Dickinson College of Law share no affiliation. All they have is the convenience of geography - Carlisle, Pennsylvania. There is no more a connection between the two as there is between either institution and the U.S. Army's War College - also located in Carlisle, PA. Again, I remind you that you represent yourself from a position of ignorance. You have no idea of the position of your adversaries ... and the facts to which they have direct access.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:58 pm EDT

Yes, MM, you're right. Those of Jewish descent are forbidden from owning the new testament. They are also forbidden from exploring other religions.

Your ignorance is hilarious! Keep it coming!

--posted by cretin @ Monday, September 22 2003, 23:59 pm EDT

Also Merriam's Thesaurus lists words for "bold Faced" but NADA, NOTHING, NONE "bald faced".

Ma; So I am waiting......

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:00 am EDT

Forbidden? Cretin....come out of that cave!

--posted by MMM @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:01 am EDT

Waiting for what Mrs MM? I am waiting for your answer? In which program was Blair a participant this past summer on Dickinson's campus in Carlisle, PA? I have given you two choices. Is there possibly a third? Only you - and, others truly "in-the-know" - will know. Take a stance my fair maiden! What is your answer. Prove to us all that you are indeed a friend; a confidante: an advisor to the ever-esteemed, the evr-wronged Hornstine victims!

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:04 am EDT

Ma: Prove me wrong. You have the names, you say...prove to me that BLH wasn't at Dickinson for the summer and that she was not offered a six year program scholarship. I don't care if classes are in Boston, Carlisle or Atlantic City. Prove to me that she wasn't there. Prove to me that she was not offered that program and prove to me that you are anything more than a person who surfs the net night and day.

Tell me the position of my adversaries...and the facts ro which they have direct access. (Didn't know that I had enemies, just people who don't agree with the truth.)

Please don't make me sit up all night.

Hey, I am waiting. I can take it.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:07 am EDT

[the ever-wronged Hornstine victims!]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:07 am EDT

Mrs MM ... I have never suggested that Blair wasn't on the Dickinson campus this past summer. I merely ask you - in which program was she a participant. Your answer will reveal much.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:08 am EDT

I have no idea what program or what courses she studied at Dickinson this summer. I know she was there. I know what she looks like, sounds like so I am 100% positive that that was BLH. I know with whom I there. I know she took courses there as a non-matriculating student. I know she WAS interested in law. I know that she is now THINKING about law. I never gave it a thought as to what she was studying. Never even said a word to her about her courses.

If you are so sure from Bill and the boys that Blair was not at Dickinson this summer, why do you ask me questions.

I am waiting for your answers, oh friend of all in and outside of Mass and philanthropist. Who are you? Let me see how far your knowledge and info travel?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:12 am EDT

I never said that Blair wasn't at Dickinson this summer.

I can assure you and others, though, that she is not at Dickinson College (http://www.dickinson.edu) now .. and will not be there in the future.

As to whether she ever attends the state university program at the Dickinson College of Law (http://www.dsl.psu.edu/) after her four-year undergraduate program - it's up to anyone's guess, isn't it?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:17 am EDT

AREN'T THESE YOUR POSTS?

"

BTW - I had happended to have lunch last week with a college administrator from Dickinson College (Carlisle, PA)- and inquired whether Blair Hornstine was a student there. He/she said "no" - and highly unlikely that she'd be admitted in the future.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 20:02 pm EDT



clarification: "Or, the Johns Hopkins classes held on the Dickinson College campus this past July and August?

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 20:03 pm EDT "



NO MEANS NO! IT'S THE LAW!

--posted by Mrs M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:18 am EDT

Whoa....first you said she wasn't there. and no she wouldn't be admitted in the future.


Now, you are saying she is not there NOW. I know that!

Now you are saying "it's up to anyone's guess..." whether she will be there in the future.

How many outfits do you try on when you get dressed in the a.m.? You can't make up your mind.


NOW>>>>>>> I am waiting for all this wonderful info on you and how far your scope of info takes you.....

YOur avoidance is now Numero UNO here.

--posted by Mr.s . M. >M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:22 am EDT

Also, because Miss H did not show up on the online directory, does that mean she isn't there or chose not to have her name listed....remember the problems Adam had because his name was listed at Harvard.

Are you sure that EVERY student MUST be listed on the online directory?????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:25 am EDT

... Blair isn't listed in the online directory at her school.

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:31 am EDT

Mrs MM ... the question to you is - If Blair Hornstine was at Dickinson College (Carlisle, PA) this summer (2003) in which program was she a participant? The pre-college program for high school students? The Johns Hopkins program held on campus? Or, possible some other program to which I have made reference? Your answer will indicate to me and others your true connection to the entire affair at hand? (i.e. - Could it be that CambridgeMA is closer to the facts than you?).

I am certain that Blair is not a student at Dickinson College this year. I am very confident that she will not be a student there in years to come.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:32 am EDT

[Or, possibly ...]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:32 am EDT

I have never questioned whether or not Blair was on the Dickinson campus this past summer. I merely ask you to clarify for us in which program she was a participant. Is it possible that I have prcise information? Is it such that you profess to know much about Blair and her situation - but, in reality are one who blows smoke?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:36 am EDT

Mrs MM ... I know the facts of Blair's activity (or, lack thereof) on the Dickinson campus this past summer. I look forward to your confirmation - or, denial, of your knowledge of such. I can assure you - and everyone else that she is not a student there this year. I can attest that she will never matriculate there in the future. Prove me wrong, oh enlightened one!

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:41 am EDT

Mrs MM ... you have struck out ... you are a TROLL. Good night.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 0:45 am EDT

MM, could you please elaborate on Blair's book deal??























Oh wait. What that also a lie?

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 1:21 am EDT

I an also assure you that she is not a student there NOW. I can positively say that I cannot guarantee where she will study or what three or four years from now. I have never had to prove you anything, except that you are probably a tee shirt salesmen in the college book stores.

I have never said she was not there this past summer. I have agreed that she is not there now. I do also believe that IF SHE WANTS OR WANTED TO, she could be on a full scholarship there now and continue through law school.


So you know "all" the facts on her activity this past summer at Dickinson....but tell me where she is now? How about the weekend after Labor Day?


NOW, PROVE ME WRONG!

And about that Philanthropist? Free tee shirts.


I do believe that Staples HQ's is in your area? Pens and Pencils to the college bookstores, also?

I am Mrs. Scotch Tape, as someone called me (3M); are you Mr. BIC or just a tee shirt salesmen?

Where is she now??????? Philanthropist??????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 7:56 am EDT

Johns Hopkins CTY or Dickinson pre-college classes?

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 8:18 am EDT

Johns Hopkins CTY or Dickinson pre-college classes? Or, another program held on the Dickinson campus this past summer? Three choices.

Also - in which residence hall did she reside? Adams, Drayer, K-W, The Quad?

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 9:33 am EDT

If you are so close to the Hornstines, you will know which program she attended. The particular residency on campus will also confirm in which program she was a participant. You claim you have "inside information". This simple test will help you to establish your credibility - or, lack thereof.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 9:36 am EDT

Whilst we are waiting for answers from the two factions, I would point out that previously on this blog, I made a point of paraphrasing certain statements I had made, or in the actual, shortening a quote, and combining it with others to imply quite the opposite of what was actually said. Until I posted both the 'altered' content, and the actual quote, it was disputed that such a thing occured. It was even argued that I didn't know what I was talking about, until I showed that I did. Then it was basically blown off, because as we've learned on this board, taking responsibility for ones actions isn't about integrity, it's about falling down and crying for forgiveness until others are satified that we've been sufficiantly humiliated.

While I do not have all the answers, I CAN read, and when I see all this back biting and fighting what I really see is no desire for truth, but rather a desire to ignore. I would like to see answers to all the questions, but I am also aware that some may be less than forthcoming.

There are contradicions on all sides of the argument, and no one currently involved is doing anything to resolve them, nor are they doing anything to lesson the confusion. Instead, they're arguing. Instead of that, why not try resolving the questions as best as you can? Some may not be readilly answerable, because of very real, and very valid privacy issues, but then certain reverse questions put to the protagonists in this battle can be answered, should either choose to reveal personal information.

However, if neither are willing to do so, then the blog should move on, and the protagonists should let rest the questions, since to this point, neither of them have answered any.

In other words, shit, or get off the pot.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 10:10 am EDT

geebus... contradicions is contradictions... but you all knew that, didn't you?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 10:12 am EDT

Who gives a "sh** what program she was in? Obviously, I can ask and find out. More obvious is WHY YOU and TM want to know so badly. Credibility? The course doesn't prove a thing. You find whatever you can on the net. Show me something that is not....And why do I need to prove credibility? You think I am going to tell you some secret....Yeah...about that Brooklyn Bridge.

Did you know that she was under a special guest type of privilege with regards to security, etc? Do you know where she was the weekend after Labor Day? Do you know where she is now? Do you know her nickname? What happened the day she was born? Do you know where she lived prior to Moorestown, N.J. Do you know what musical instrument she used to play?

Philanthropist? Tee shirt salesmen? Tell me, tell me, tell me.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 10:16 am EDT

S-DS - the reference you make to being proven right referred to me and my earlier (unnecessarily picky) wrangling over the term "paraphrasing", and although privately we have resolved this issue, I realise that you're bringing it up again to be publicly absolved. Indeed we're both right - you on the essence of the word, and I on the actual, overly picky definition, and we simply chose to disagree. That's all fine. We didn't choose to ignore you, and please don't imply that I have.

When I said let's talk bigger issues, I did not mean other world events. I meant the issues such as the values of bringing up a child, the pressure parents give them, the tension between merit and desert, the relationship between morality, generosity and legal allowances and other such related issues. To be sure, these are the real big issues involved in this case. Not plagiarism, no. It's not much of an issue because we all know it's wrong!

Let me ask a question to draw us away from this altercation - and this is just my opinion so feel free to respond in any (civilised) way: I feel uneasy about the two scholarships of ca. 10,000 (?) each that Blair has won, seeing as she is from a well-off family. The competition for them was indeed open to all, but having sufficient, is it right/desirable/generous/well-intentioned for Blair, or any other well-to-do student, to compete for limited funds alongside poorer students who really do need the money to further their education?

This is a question that's been with me for a while, and an issue that makes me so glad that Harvard College has only a need-based financial aid program.

Before anyone jumps on my throat: I realise that Blair is well within her rights to apply for the scholarships, and that she did not legally or morally do anything wrong, but all the same, I am uneasy, and I was wondering if anyone can help me explain why. Is it the tension between what you can and should do? Dilemmas on social justice?

--posted by bystander @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 10:46 am EDT

oh, and "bald-faced liar" is indeed an idiom in itself, though I have a gut feeling that it's more commonly an English turn of phrase. I grew up with politicians left and right being called that in Parliament on TV (an entertainment channel in itself).

Nowadays both "bald-faced liar" and "bold-faced liar" are used interchangeably, but I suspect that the former came first before the latter was erroneously introduced (and then accepted), being more arcane in origin. Sort of like the Aluminium-Aluminum phenomenon.

--posted by bystander @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:00 am EDT

Bystander: I know of a few students who could not, even with financial aid, afford to attend Harvard. Need based is not always WHAT is needed.

Scholarships are given out by many for advertising purposes, goodwill, etc. Scholarship sponsors base their programs on various factors: academic, sports, extra-cirrucular activities, top-Spanish student,top math student, etc. Sometimes it's like winning a sporting event...desire to win and nothing more. Did you ever read about the number of scholarships that go unawarded each year because no one applied?

Fairness, you suggest? Why should a child whose parents can afford to send said child to college be given money that a "poorer" (for want of a better word) be given? My answer for whatever it's worth: Since some parents can afford to send their children to a top university, but not an Ivy, it allows that child to go to a tougher school. Some parents, like the Hornstines for instance, have another child in law school which is about $62,000 this year alone. Take that away from the parents' annual salary of about $144,000, and it leaves $82,000. Now remove over $40,000 for Harvard undergraduate this year....it leaves $42,000. That means that almost 70% of the family gross pay prior to Uncle Sam goes to paying for school for two children. Can a child whose parent earns $144,000+/- get legal aid? Don't know.

Sure, in the ultimate world only financially deserving students would earn scholarships. Sure, in the ultimate world Reebock, Addidas, whoever, would pay for the scholarships instead of giving Alan Iverson $50M for endorsements. We don't live in that world. I think that is part of the world that communism and Bin Laden endorse.

Did my math real fast...didn't check it....so....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:08 am EDT

The thesaurus that I use by Merriam Webster only refers to the phrase "bold faced." You can find that thesaurus online with AOL. I am sure that should I do research I "might" find Bald, but for now that is what we Americans use as standard....and it is "bold faced."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:11 am EDT

Bystander: I have also looked up the two phrases in the dictionary. Bald faced is from 1590; Bold faced is from 1591.

Bald faced means having no whiskers or barefaced. Barefaced means open or unconcealed.

Bold faced bold in manner or impudent; impudent means marked by contempt or cockiness; lack of modesty or impudent.



So, I guess whoever called me bald faced was correct: I have no whiskers and am open and unconcealed.

I do not think they are interchangable. Then again, could I be a baldfaced, bold-faced person??????

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:20 am EDT

Mrs. MM, I hate the tone you use with everyone, and I think taht you have an aweful personality. However, I have agreed with ALMOST every factual detail that you have given us about this case. If you would just spend a little less time being a bitch about things and more time backing up what you say, people would agree with more of what you say. Here is the proof people have been asking you for. http://www.dickinson.edu/bulletin/studyus.html
If you just changed your tone, this blog would seem less like a second grade fight.

--posted by matt @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:23 am EDT

Alum i num and al u min i um are two pronunciations of the same word with the same meaning.

--posted by Mrs.M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:23 am EDT

I do however, think that you should maitain your bitchy attitude to the pseudojew who seems to only throw ridiculous comments at you.

--posted by matt @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:26 am EDT

Matt: My personal apologies to you. I find it very frustrating here to know the truth and have personal feelings from some who just like to tweek me. I can take it. I am a big girl. A bitch...okay, I will take that too. Again, my sincere apologies to you....and Thanks for the info. I have stated here over and over that I am really computer illiterate compared to the young (and many my age).

My best .....

Hey, do I ever win a cat fight?????

Thanks again, and sorry.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:27 am EDT

As Matt was so kind to forward the above to me, I took the liberty of taking out a paragraph or two and directly posting it here. Ma: Can you read?

"Joint Baccalaureate and Law Degree Program Students attending Dickinson have the opportunity to earn both a baccalaureate degree and a law degree through a joint Dickinson College/Penn State Dickinson School of Law program. This arrangement, also known as the 3-3 program, allows a student to begin law school during his or her senior year of college. To qualify for this program, Dickinson students need to complete all College degree requirements within three years (save for the final year's electives), attain a 3.5 cumulative grade point average (the top 10-15% of the class), and achieve a score on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) within the top 30% of all national test-takers. After one year of successful study at the Law School, students will earn their baccalaureate degree from the College. After two additional years of study at the Law School, the students will complete the law program and earn their JD degree..."




And furthermore with a little glee, I need to quote Cambridgma from yesterday:

"A further point...there is no "degree granting" connection between Dickinson College (an undergraduate institution) and the law school. Dickinson College is a privately endowed institution...while The Dickinson College of Law is part of the public university system of Pennsylvania ... known as PennState's Dickinson College of Law. The two institutions have never collaborated and underwritten a student for both undergraduate and graduate studies ... since there is no affiliation. Trust me, Mrs MM ... you have no idea who I am - or the depth/breadth of my affiliations. Everything you claim in your most previous post is spurious.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:17 pm EDT



Sorry, Matt, but I needed that!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:35 am EDT

"Bystander: I know of a few students who could not, even with financial aid, afford to attend Harvard. Need based is not always WHAT is needed.

Scholarships are given out by many for advertising purposes, goodwill, etc. Scholarship sponsors base their programs on various factors: academic, sports, extra-cirrucular activities, top-Spanish student,top math student, etc. Sometimes it's like winning a sporting event...desire to win and nothing more. Did you ever read about the number of scholarships that go unawarded each year because no one applied?"

Ivy League universities are prohibited from awarding athletic scholarships. You should know that.

And do you have any information on Blair's book deal?

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:38 am EDT

"I do however, think that you should maitain your bitchy attitude to the pseudojew who seems to only throw ridiculous comments at you. "

Uhoh! Anti-semitism rears its ugly head! I have been criticized for making anti-indigenous statements. Let the rain fall equally!

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:41 am EDT

Matt: I am quick witted, sharp, can type real fast and be a bitch. I can also handle children and those who just want to see their name in print or antagonize. Sometimes I find it "fun" when I can't sleep to "play" with the nursery school.

Thanks again for your help. Since I am always asked the questions and get no answers from others, I do appreciate your navigating the net for me.

Blair is a nice, bright young woman who has been thrust into the spotlight, not by her choice. I only choose to support her and send her my love.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:43 am EDT

Cretin: Do you have any information on your going to college? Do you have any information that you have a brain in your head? Do you have any information that has not been copied from others here? Cretin, do you have any information......?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:45 am EDT

Definition of Cretin, et al:

Date: 1779
1 : one afflicted with cretinism
2 : a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person : CLOD, LOUT

1 a : a lump or mass especially of earth or clay b : SOIL, EARTH
2 : OAF, DOLT
- clod·dish /'klä-dish/ adjective

cre·tin·ism
Pronunciation: -t&n-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1801
: a usually congenital abnormal condition marked by physical stunting and mental retardation and caused by severe hypothyroidism


And I have taken the liberty to add another:

One who calls himself this foolish name because of insecurity
not adequately guarded or sustained : UNSAFE

not firmly fastened or fixed

not highly stable or well-adjusted

deficient in assurance : beset by fear and anxiety



Okay, Cretin: Don't waste your time and take out part of this and throw it back. We know your MO.

'nuf of you....away with you....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:57 am EDT

cretin
please, would be hard for a guy with a jewish girlfriend to be anti-semitic. you took it out of context. i was saying that you are a pseudojew. you are only jewish when it's convenient. mrs. mm mentioned something about the bible and you said something that a jewish person wouldn't say. however, i bet you check the jewish box on the religious section of your applications. don't insult me by taking my words out of context and using your thoughts against me. to put it bluntly.
blow me

--posted by matt @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 13:54 pm EDT

Mrs. MM - There are so many reasons why you are not what you claim to be, this is probably the least of them. Anyone of the age and educational status you claim for yourself would know the term bald-faced liar without having to look it up. It is an old-fashioned term still very much in use but now often changed by younger people to bold-faced. Of course the newer, modern dictionaries try to keep up with spoken language. (Bald was an anglo-saxon word for bold.) I seriously doubt that you are over 30.

--posted by B.S. Detector @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 14:35 pm EDT

matt, I am an atheist and proud of it. I would never say that I believe in the occult, even if it would help me advance in life. But the truth of the matter is, Hitler (and MM and YOU) would all think of me as a Jew. Does that make me Jewish? No. But just as I would not call myself Jewish, I would not deny that my father is. Thus, I am of Jewish descent. This is not a matter of convenience. This is fact.

To put it bluntly, go blow yourself! (After all, that's the only way you're going to get any!)

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 16:11 pm EDT

Does Mrs MM remind anyone else of The Onion's Jackie Harvey ("The Outside Scoop")?

--posted by Wendy @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 16:19 pm EDT

"Cretin: Do you have any information on your going to college? Do you have any information that you have a brain in your head? Do you have any information that has not been copied from others here? Cretin, do you have any information......? "

Hmm, let's see. I am at a better college than you will ever go to. I am smarter than you will ever be. I don't spend my time worshipping someone who doesn't reciprocate. Face it, MM. Blair and family don't give a rat's ass about you. I don't know why you are so obsessed with her. Are you a pedophile? At any rate, rest assured that you will die alone. Back to your cave!

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 16:33 pm EDT

This link may be of general interest to persons who are relatively new to internet exchanges. http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 17:18 pm EDT

Coming back here is like I never left. Mrs. M.M. is a self proclaimed bitch who likes to play with the kids. Others are obliging and respond to her. And on and on it goes. It's about over.

Does anyone who will talk know of BLH's current status?

Does anyone have any thoughts about the high school football team from Long Island and their antics at summer traing in the Poconos? I understand that the Wayne County Prosecutor is growing impatient with the school district and school officials in their lack of cooperation?

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 17:45 pm EDT

Bystander,

For the record, it was not you I was referring to, although you did create a situation which we have indeed resolved. Futher I was not implying that you blew anything off, however, frankly, the point, when finally made, was indeed ignored; not by you, but by the vast majority of those here who found it prudent to attack me based on the misrepresentation of the quotes. That is all past, and I'm neither looking for validation or anything else, I was making a point that simply put, we often overlook the reality in order to slake our thirst for the rediculous... It was and is, in no way a slam on you or anybody else; rather, it is a relation of facts for general comparison to the current back and forth at hand.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 18:55 pm EDT

Wondering =

The school district properly required the county prosecutor to domesticate an out-of-state grand jury subpoena in order to obtain student records, at least some of which are protected by statutory privledge.

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 19:07 pm EDT

CORRECTION -- "privilege"

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 19:28 pm EDT

I'd rather be a cretin than an MM!

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 20:37 pm EDT

Hey Ma....you disappeared. I won't forget you. Answers, please.

Wondering: Thank you. Y es, Blair is presently enrolled and a resident at university.

B.S. Detector: Thank you for the complement. I am twice 30, for your info.

Steffe'n: It is nice to hear from you. Your command of the English language when addressing us is always a pleasure to read.



Oh...Cambridgema....where are you hiding? Around the scope of outside the Mass. area? I am waiting.....

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:15 pm EDT

Interesting, Cretin, your birth Mother is not of the Jewish faith?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:18 pm EDT

To qualify for the joint Dickinson College/Penn State Dickinson School of Law program (3-3 program) a student must first complete their undergraduate degree in 3 years and must meet stringent requirements (attain a 3.5 cumulative grade point average (the top 10-15% of the class), and achieve a score on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) within the top 30% of all national test-takers) before he/she will even be considered for the program. Dickinson College does not offer or assure entering freshman students that they will participate in the joint program.

Both institutions are separate.

Dickinson College (a private college) grants bachelor of arts and bachelor of science degrees - and is not accredited to grant master's degrees. T

he Penn State Dickinson College of Law (a public university) grants separate degrees and is accredited to bestow J.D. degrees. There is no affiliation between the two college's admissions and financial aid departments.

No offer was made to Blair for attending a six year joint program. Blair was not offered admission at Dickinson College.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:18 pm EDT

Oh, ma, you are absolutely so wrong.

Prove to me that she was not offered admission to the program and a six year scholarship. I say she was. Prove to me, almighty one that you know it all.


And again, Mr. KIA, read paragrpah 5 of the attached.

http://www.dickinson.edu/bulletin/studyus.html


ARe you saying that Dickinson and Dickinson law school lied in the above "bulletin?" Don't think so!

So, Again, I wait...tell me about yourself. Answer the quetions I put to you.....Prove that the above bulletin and an offer to BLH are false......CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T, therefore, WON'T WON'T WON'T

Night, cry baby

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:24 pm EDT

A student can't even apply for the joint program until their junior year - "Students interested in this program should consult the College's pre-law adviser and should be prepared to make application to the Law School no later than February 1 of their junior year." http://www.dickinson.edu/bulletin/studyus.html

The college and the law school have never made a commitment to a high school student; have never offered joint admission and scholarship.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:28 pm EDT

I am confident of my sources at the College - and of Blair's situation there.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:30 pm EDT

TM - thank you for your link to the reference on Internet Trolls. I will take the advice posted there. I am afraid that I have been indulging a troll on this blog - and my actions have contributed to taking the conversation off topic. For that I apologize.

Of pertinence: "An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game....Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility....trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash....The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls. By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby." http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:35 pm EDT

Ma: You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. A student can be offered the scholarship and the future admission provided they meet the standards. One of the standards is that they must meet their course requirements by the end of the junior year, apply, take the LSATS and earn an 3.5. If at the end of the Junior year, they meet this criteria, the scholarship continues and the student graduates in six years.....
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

The University of Miami used to (and probably still does) have a similar program with regard to Medical school. I think Penn State has a similar one with Jefferson. However, I am not sure of the scholarship part.

However, It is CERTAIN that BLH was offered this program (obviously having to keep up the requirements) with a FULL Scholarship.

Since you did not know what you were talking about with your recent statements here, which follow, I am sure you do again, NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

""A further point...there is no "degree granting" connection between Dickinson College (an undergraduate institution) and the law school. Dickinson College is a privately endowed institution...while The Dickinson College of Law is part of the public university system of Pennsylvania ... known as PennState's Dickinson College of Law. The two institutions have never collaborated and underwritten a student for both undergraduate and graduate studies ... since there is no affiliation. Trust me, Mrs MM ... you have no idea who I am - or the depth/breadth of my affiliations. Everything you claim in your most previous post is spurious.

--posted by cambridgema @ Monday, September 22 2003, 22:17 pm EDT



Now how about the depth/breadth of your affiliations? and don't forget your Philanthropics....Guess, I won't hold my breath, as you are full of HOT, HOT air.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:37 pm EDT

Ma Troll: A good offense does not present a proper defense for you. ANSWERS, please. You are a blow hearted joke!

And my source trumps all of yours! Can you get paperwork?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

I stand by my statements: "There is no 'degree granting' connection between Dickinson College (an undergraduate institution) and the law school." Dickinson College's charter grants a private liberal arts undergraduate degree - totally separate from the public law school's graduate JD degree.

"The two institutions have never collaborated and underwritten a student for both undergraduate and graduate studies." The two schools DO NOT offer joint financial aid packages and admission to the 3-3 degree to incoming freshman students at Dickinson College. A student must achieve the stated requirements by their junior year before they will be considered participation.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:42 pm EDT

[be considered for participation]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:44 pm EDT

Now you are absolutely doing your part as King Troll.

CAN'T YOU READ WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU..... or do you only read the tee shirts you sell?

Still, in case you don't understand too many words at a time, I will quote from the beginning of the paragraph of the Bulletin I previously referred.

"Joint Baccalaureate and Law Degree Program Students attending Dickinson have the opportunity to earn both a baccalaureate degree and a law degree through a joint Dickinson College/Penn State Dickinson School of Law program. This arrangement, also known as the 3-3 program, ..."

What words do you not understand in reference to "degree granting connection"." I do admit that those two words are not reflected in the above sentences, but the word "joint" refers to the degre granting connection. Got it yet, tee shirt man?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:47 pm EDT

It is a joint program ... just as Dickinson College maintains many joint programs with institutions around the globe. A student must first complete their undergraduate degree in three years from the privately endowed College even before they can be considered for admission to the joint program with the Law School. There is up front offer or commitment that insures a recent high school graduate a place in the program. The student must meet performance criteria before consideration in their junior year.

Enough said. No point in belaboring the point.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:55 pm EDT

[There is no up front offer or commitment that insures a recent high school graduate a place in the program.]

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:55 pm EDT

Good bye Mrs MM. I must stick to my commitment to ignore you. Have a good life. Ciao.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 22:56 pm EDT

Oh, the winds have changed.....There is a point in belaboring this point. You have denied it, said you had proof, you attempted to call my bluff with names, and now you have backed down.

Fine. The point is over. Let's make it very clear, though. Miss BLH was offered a full six year scholarship in the program, obviously being expected (but definitely having to meet) the criteria to get both degrees from Dickinson and Dickinson Law school.

Your apology is accepted.

Now about the Philanthropic and the depth and breadth of your affiliations...when I get up tomorrow, I hope I find it all expressly explained to me.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 23:01 pm EDT

Any info about Blair's book deal? amazon.com still doesn't have it listed...

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 23:19 pm EDT

Joint Baccalaureate and Law Degree Program Students attending Dickinson have the opportunity to earn both a baccalaureate degree and a law degree through a joint Dickinson College/Penn State Dickinson School of Law program. This arrangement, also known as the 3-3 program, allows a student to begin law school during his or her senior year of college. To qualify for this program, Dickinson students need to complete all College degree requirements within three years (save for the final year's electives), attain a 3.5 cumulative grade point average (the top 10-15% of the class), and achieve a score on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) within the top 30% of all national test-takers. After one year of successful study at the Law School, students will earn their baccalaureate degree from the College. After two additional years of study at the Law School, the students will complete the law program and earn their JD degree.

Ummmmmm, call me pig headed, but this does appear to indicate exactly the arrangement that Mrs. MM described. It does not support your contention MA that one is not somehow connected with the other, or that no such program exists. If you do indeed stand by your statements, then, based on the above information, I would have to say that the width/breadth of your affiliations is mighty slim, that you would not know these things. You come off as rather 'superior' on this thread, something I've been accused of more than once, but at least I'm willing to step back and accept my own responsiblities without having them shoved, (fontically) down my throat.

The above information tends to support Mrs. M.M. and leaves you looking ar less informed than you would have us believe.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 0:20 am EDT

duh, silly me....

The above information tends to support Mrs. M.M. and leaves you looking far less informed than you would have us believe.

I can't believe I left out the f.....

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 0:23 am EDT

The president of an undergraduate college may admit an applicant to the college and offer scholarship money and enrollment in a joint degree program. The college president can not admit the applicant to the graduate or professional school of a separate institution, regardless of affiliation. The graduate or professional school has distinct admission and accredidation criteria. Of course, successful completion of the "qualifying program" of an affiliated undergraduate institution carries weight with the relevant graduate or professional school for admisson and aid purposes. By way of illustration, the president of Dickinson can not admit a graduate of Harvard College to the Penn State Dickinson Law School, much less grant a scholarship.

That said, there is no creditable evidence that Blair attended classes at Dickinson this summer, is matriculating at the school or even previously applied for admission. It would be noteworthy if the Dickinson president offered a full scholarship to Blair this summer, after Harvard had rejected her and well beyond the acceptance deadline at his own school.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 7:50 am EDT

ma,
could this situation happen?

blair goes to dickinson for A program this summer. she get wind of this joint program with dickinson/penn state school of law. she makes an inquiry into the specifics. because of her academic credentials, is offered a scholarship to dickinson. she then speaks to someone form dickinson who is very involved with this joint program who connects her with someone in the penn state law school who tells her that if she decides to go pursue that path, she will have a seperate scholarship given to her upon beginning the junior year part of her program.
if blair said to both of the schools that she was interested in this program but was offered a full scholarship somewhere else, wouldn't you think that they would be able to work out some of the financials ahead of time, provided she continued to meet certain criteria?

--posted by matt @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 8:10 am EDT

Harvard's grants range from $500 to over $39,000 this academic year, with the average grant over $23,000. 70% of all students here receive financial aid. Since Harvard is committed to providing the "full need" of all students, considering parental income, assets, number of children in the family, etc., and periodically reviews the financial status of every family, I'm going to make the bold claim that people who do not to go to Harvard because of financial strain *choose* not to outlay the amount that Harvard asks parents to - because if they were truly unable to Harvard is clearly not averse to awarding $39,000 grants - and not because it were impossible to.

"Sure, in the ultimate world only financially deserving students would earn scholarships. Sure, in the ultimate world Reebock, Addidas, whoever, would pay for the scholarships instead of giving Alan Iverson $50M for endorsements. We don't live in that world. I think that is part of the world that communism and Bin Laden endorse."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, September 23 2003, 11:08 am EDT

I don't really grasp the meaning of the last sentence - are you saying the Communists and Bin Laden have a) the same economic viewpoints and b) they are able to construct the "ultimate world" you describe?

I think Harvard is on its way to creating the perfect world you describe - only those with financial need (no such thing as "financially deserving") will receive financial aid to *meet their FULL need*. I do believe that if one earned 144,000 with two children in expensive institutions and asked for it that Harvard would offer aid, but with that sort of income it would probably come in the form of a smaller grant and a low-interest loan where payments don't begin until the students have graduated.

I truly, sincerely believe that Harvard has one of the best financial aid packages out there. It's partly the reason I came here - not because I receive any aid, but because I know that students are here because they meet high standards as opposed to because their parents' pocketbooks are deep enough.

the Aluminium-Aluminum phenomenon was just to explain how the correct "Aluminium" erroneously got the "i" dropped as it came over to America (I am only vaguely clear on the details how) and now Americans accept "Aluminum" as standard. I'm guessing that's how the "bald-faced liar" and "bold-faced liar" dichotomy came to be.

More info on Harvard's Financial Aid program:
http://adm-is.fas.harvard.edu/FAO/fact_sheet.htm

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 10:28 am EDT

oh yeah, reminds me why I brought up the whole Harvard thing in the first place - I'm uneasy about Blair applying for scholarships she doesn't need because I feel it depletes from the pool of resources available to less-well-off students who do need it. My family, and many others here, would do so much easier if we applied for financial aid to defray the $38,000 something dollars tuition costs every year, but my parents are adamant that if we could get by without aid, then it should be left there for someone who needs it more.

So I understand this mentality that "the money's out there, go for it" and the whole "win win win" thing, but that's the question I'm posing - is it something we want to encourage in our children? Does our drive to competition obscure our vision of allowing everyone as fair as a go we can construct at education, not to mention healthcare, nutrition, and shelter?

This whole "win" mentality is behind the valedictory award as well - which is why I'm sad Blair decided to file the lawsuit. She was most definitely in the right, but the title of valedictorian is something so meaningless (and quite useless, really) apart from the "I won" connotation - was it even worth fighting for? Do people really deserve these titles, given that everything they are born with was to none of their credit? I understand she may have overcome her disability to do well, but even that drive, that determination and that intelligence is to none of her credit - that's what I mean when no one really "deserves" anything.

Anyway, I'm venturing into the philosophical because it intrigues me, and the whole dilemma of social justice right now is in the forefront of my mind; the Blair tragedy just highlights so many of these issues. I apologise if it segues from our normal bickering and bantering.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 10:41 am EDT

which, I might add, is both entertaining and frustrating to read. :)

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 10:42 am EDT

I know parents that do not apply for financial aid for their children attending college, either because they do not want to disclose their financial status or because they make the determinatin they can afford to pay the entire school expenses (reserving financial aid monies for more "deserving" students). Conversely, I also know affluent parents who manipulate residency requirements and/or emancipate their children to enable them to qualify for more financial aid.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 11:08 am EDT

So, my dear TM, there are again half full and half empty. What is important to one is not to the other.

Why? Some affluent parents pay 100%, as you said, others do not. Some affluent parents can't live on $300,000 a year; others save 60% of that. Just matters how you live, want to live and what is important.

But many, many, as you also said, don't want snooping into financial affairs.

Me...I paid for the education because I could (although not easy) ONLY because I felt that I brought children into the world, and it was my obligation to educate them through Undergraduate school. I also felt it very important to me that my children not graduate college with DEBT. I am certainly no hero. It is how I felt, right or wrong.

I would have had no problem appplying for financial, if I felt that I needed it, nor would I have been too proud, honest, etc., to stretch the point and emancipate, etc. them.

It is all how we look at things and feel. I was not necessarily right or wrong. The law and schools allowed me MY choice. And I took it.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 11:49 am EDT

sure, I understand all that - now the question is, what do we think about affluent (or able) parents who apply for financial aid, thereby depleting the pool of resources meant for parents who actually need it for their children? Don't you think that it's analogous to what Blair did when applying for those $10,000, $20,000 scholarships?

"I would have had no problem appplying for financial, if I felt that I needed it, nor would I have been too proud, honest, etc., to stretch the point and emancipate, etc. them."

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 11:49 am EDT


Mrs. M.M. - are you actually saying that you have no problems about lying about/exaggerating your financial situation ("stretch the point") or having your children do the same ("emancipate, etc. them.") in order to obtain more financial aid? Surely you don't mean that?

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 12:23 pm EDT

Yes, I do. I don't call it lying. I call it working within the system....the gray area...like paying income taxes. You know that 99.9% of people stretchhhhhh or use the gray area...add a little contribution here, take an "extra" deduction there, etc. Unfortunately, our laws, programs, etc. are set up that way....

Truly, is it any difference than going over the speed limit? ("They" say that the cops won't stop you if you are only going 5 miles over - well the IRS probably has a limit before hauling your A** in). We ALL do what we can get away with. No one wants to pay the government one extra cent that they have to.

I feel the same way about scholarships. Most of them never say that a financial need is required. The givers of those scholarships have choices to make when offering them. They can make any requirements they want. After all, it's "their" money. So, if McDonalds, GM or whoever don't require financial need, and if the scholarship is given for tops in something, then Blair, you, me, etc. are welcomed and encouraged to apply.

I never said I was perfect or the world was. I believe in capitalism. I am not a social worker. I do not want to be a socialist. YUK!

So yes, bystander...I would take advantage of any opportunity I feel "entitled" to by law or the essence of it.

Told you, one thing I am is HONEST, whether you like it or not. Furthermore, I now live in the real world, not the idealistic one.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 12:45 pm EDT

I'm speechless. I suppose this does clarify your positions on this blog.

Your world view jars heavily with the sentiment you expressed with your donation of the coats. How do you reconcile withholding what you legally owe to society, depriving programs such as public education, public health and heck, transportation and defense and environmental protection and whatnot - all that society has done to allow you to earn the very income you do - with the altruism you claim to have for the children who have no winter coat with which to go to school? Can't you see that your actions, along with all the others that think this way, are creating the very circumstances which *cause* children to need coats from charity instead of from their parents?

You most certainly are honest about yourself. And while honesty is an admirable quality, what you are honest about is something I personally find abhorrent.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 13:06 pm EDT

And yes, it is different from going over the speed limit. Those laws are designed to save your life and others. Studies have shown that even 5km/h (3.1 miles/h) can make a difference between life and death; what the police do is one thing - how you choose to threaten your life and others is your OWN decision.

Is humanity that unevolved that we cannot see past our own noses, that because no one will be out there to enforce laws that save lives and empower people that it's then A-OK to go break them? Take responsibility in your own life.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 13:13 pm EDT

Bystander: The education experiences I received when I was a college student did not truly foster individual thinking. There was some, but we were required to focus on core courses like English, Math, language, history, geography, etc.Sure, there were philosopy courses, but were probably not taught in the way they are taught today with encouragement to "think." There were no "think tank" courses or courses that required you to think. It was - we dish it out; you spit it back and get a mark for your memory.

I personally lack reading comprehension, composition and vocabulary skills I don't blame college. This, too, was not stressed. My Math is great. I can still quote Lincoln's Gettysburg address, the times tables,Shakespeare, spell anything.I am a terrific typist, but do misspell because I type so fast. I am smart as a whip. I have a fairly high (not Harvard, I am sure) IQ. My thought process lacks direction, although I get to the correct answers, my way. I should have been a physician, but girls did not do that often in my day. They went to college to earn the MRS. degree.

Life is different now. MP3, computers, space travel, etc. However, one thing remains the same...in order to earn a living, one must live in the real world. In order to feed your family, one lives in the real world with real jobs. The process is just different in "getting there."

I certainly cannot compete in an academic or philosophical atmosphere with you or your 'mates, but I have been there, done that and know truth from fiction.

I required/insisted that my children get an undergraduate degree. I associated it now with getting a high school diploma when I was 17. There was not a chance they could not attend. They could choose the school, but I saw the marks...I paid, they paid. After the BS/BA, they were free to do as they pleased. I loved, cared for , loved some more and educated my children. As I said somewhere pages and pages ago, my mantra to them was "study hard, play hard and practice safe sex." It always embarrassed them until they graduated, but they joke now that it was loving and real. Obviously the sex part was not something that was encouraged or discussed when I was a student.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 13:26 pm EDT

Bystander: I never asked you to like me. I certainly am not living in the idealistic world you want. I am what I am and live where I live. I not only take responsibility for my life, but I do try to "help" others. I said "help", not change.

I do believe the law is the law is the law. If you go over the speed limit, you break the law. If you cheat on your taxes, you break the law...murder, etc.

Obviously, some offenses are not as serious as others. Speed limit vs. rape.

I never said I was perfect or want to be perceived that way. I am not sorry that you disagree with me. Perhaps, you and others will make a better world for my grandchildren. It is my hope, but in the meantime, I do live in the world where morons hijack airplanes and crash them into the World Trade buildings because they don't like the way "we"live.

We can still be friends. Chocolate and vanilla. We can agree to disagree. We can work to better this world, but again, I am still living in the current real world.That is why we Americans live in a free, democratic country.

And I still love Blair and will support her. Just got e from her. She is great!

You never know. Possibly sometime in this world, you and she together will make a difference. Strangers things have happened!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 13:42 pm EDT

Your address to me is interesting, to be sure, but that doesn't answer anything I asked you.

Once again: you give your annual two coats to needy children, yet choose not to pay your full taxes that would have gone to helping those same children get a better education, consequently getting better jobs, better incomes, and good thick coats for their own children. A coat lasts a year if you're lucky with a growing child; an education is for life and extends beyond generations. How do you reconcile your self-described altruism and your evading your due to society?

I do live in the real world. I know charity of your type is only good for temporary comforts, and that real progress lies in social reform. People don't earn enough because they don't have the skills to. You give them what they need now, and they're content to stay where they are. Why wouldn't they? They're getting their coats for free, aren't they? At the same time their children will also be stuck in the same socio-economic class, and their children after them.

You reckon you live in the real world because to you, what matters is you and only you, and perhaps your family and friends. So to you, your income, your job, those are the things that matter, not the plight of the child that you off-handedly throw a coat to, then leave thinking that you've done your annual good deed. And that's one thing. But then don't claim to be something else when you describe your charity as something truly altruistic - you're doing it because it either makes you feel good, or you grasp that it's the "good" thing to do. It's never too late to START thinking about what you're aiming to do - and then try to do it!

I don't think I'll convince you of anything - you'll shrug it off as philosophical and abstract. But may I suggest that you think hard about where your altruism comes from and what you truly believe you owe to society and to humanity. Because I don't think you really know right now.

If you think that you've taught your children to be the best people they can be by your mantra, then I understand why you think the Hornstines were also faultless in how they taught Blair to treat her society and her community. It's wonderful that you love your children, but love alone isn't enough to teach them how to be good people. As I said, I *really* do understand your position now.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 13:49 pm EDT

"Is humanity that unevolved that we cannot see past our own noses, that because no one will be out there to enforce laws that save lives and empower people that it's then A-OK to go break them? ", you say, bystander.

Where does pot, underage drinking, drinking too much, "illegal" drugs etc, play a role?


The grass smoking prohibition, as I see it from you, is comparable to speed limit laws. Health protection?
Do you choose to treat these laws equally?


Note:
I am not asking you here to admit any doing, as one never knows who hears or sees what is said here.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 13:51 pm EDT

Sir: I did not say that I do not pay my entire taxes. What I mean is that my accountant takes full advantage of every opportunity under the law to relieve my burden. (told you, my compositon is not wonderful).

I also NEVER said I was altruistic. I do what I do because I feel in my heart that I am right. Cold hungry children get to me. I cannot feed and clothe the world. I do a minute part.

Again, with Blair. She earned her scholarships by following the true rules of those programs. If they were based on financial ability, she did not apply. Neither you or I can blame society, Blair, Harvard, etc. for the requirements set up by the giver of the scholarship. You wanted her to say...no, I won't apply, let a "financially poor" student apply. In the idea world, that would happen. In the real world, she would have been stepped over by another non-needy bright student.

I am glad you now understand me. You will have to live with me and love me for whom I am ---a wannabe (for someone) MILF.

I do have a sense of humor.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 14:03 pm EDT

guess what, I had strict parents, the legal drinking age back home is 18, and I was a good kid in that sense. You will scoff and disbelieve, and that's fine, but I tell you now that I have never tried any illegal drugs, never tried marijuana, never drank underage, and I've never even tried tobacco in any form. and you know, I come from a country where marijuana is actually decriminalised, so this whole challenge is sort of moot.

that's not to say I never disobeyed my parents - I have a tattoo and snuck out to see my boyfriend plenty times back in the day - but my parents taught me well and were very upfront about what different substances did to your body. So a good education about drugs and tobacco and unsafe sex is really quite sufficient to scare the crap out of me (as well they should), and common sense kicks in. I've been tempted, sure, but all you have to remember is that even one hit is enough to end or ruin your life.

I don't agree with the law (in this case American law) a lot of the time - don't get me wrong. I think there are plenty of bad laws out there. For instance, I think prostitution should be legalised, that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, if not 16, and that sex education be introduced in all schools. I believe in random breath testing, abolishment of capital punishment, outlawing of cigarettes, and mandatory voting. Plenty of things I don't agree with.

So in a roundabout way, I answer your question. Where does pot, illegal drugs, underage drinking play a role in the law? Well, one shouldn't break the law. (what answer were you expecting?) Oh, and I know you're itching to ask, but no, I didn't drink here when I was underage in the U.S. - when it's not a taboo substance it's not really that irresistible.

Speed and taxes are different from drug laws in that what *you* do directly affect the lives of others. If I drive excessively quickly, not only will I potentially kill myself, but any other hapless driver I smash into, and passengers to boot. If I smoke a joint of marijuana, I basically wind up stoned and kinda useless watching bad TV. So in a sense they're not entirely comparable, but still, laws should be followed, in that you join a society with the understanding that the society asks of you this compliance.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 14:21 pm EDT

No, truly, I don't care if you smoke cigarettes, weed or drink. I could care less. It's your temple. Do with it what you wish.

Are we finished? Can we agree that I like chocolate and you probably are vanilla?

I agree about sex ed; do not think drinking age should be lowered; many cannot handle that responsibility at 21; and prostitution....the jury is still out in my mind. I am not against it, but I am not sure I am for it.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 14:30 pm EDT

if cold hungry children get to you, then why do you do all you can to limit (I apologise for the earlier inference) the taxes you give to the government, which goes into providing them a better education that will help them self-propel themselves out of being cold and hungry?

you yourself say that Blair allowing more needy students to have a shot at the scholarship is a scenario that would happen only in an "ideal" world. The only way we can get closer to that ideal is to start with ourselves, and do better than just what is required/expected of us.

I'm not saying Blair illegally or otherwise broke rules when she applied for those scholarships. I'm saying that there are higher things than laws and rules - a generosity of spirit that looks beyond exploiting loopholes and looking to win all the time. And maybe we should seek to nurture this kind of spirit in our children, and take concrete steps toward a more ideal world.

and I'm not a "sir", I'm one of those female Harvard students you like to insult. you know, despite your belief that Harvard women are bad-looking, I bet I can beat you and your children hands down.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 14:32 pm EDT

I suppose we are finished. I am disappointed that a selfishness of spirit is accepted as the norm for you, and if that is chocolate, then I prefer not to be ice-cream at all.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 14:34 pm EDT

Madam: When you referred to boyfriend, I did not take you to be of one sex or the other.

I have already told you that I cannot cure all the ails of the world. My adding additional monies to my taxes do not give me a choice of where the money goes., ie. warm coats, education, salaries, bombs, etc.

And I am not saying that Blair mis-took her scholarship money. The point being is that the giver of the money sets the tone. Bug them for awhile as to their preferences when seeking the winners.

Don't criticize me for not being able to change the world. My generation didn't do a great job of it. It is now your turn. And if you think I am selfish in spirit, you still do not get it. I am still chocolate. Sorry,....yogurt, maybe.

I bet you can beat me and my children hands down....is there something in particular that you are beating us in?

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 14:56 pm EDT

I was referring to your earlier statement that most Harvard women were not attractive. I think you mentioned that Blair was "beautiful" and Harvard women weren't. I had responded to it a while ago but I guess you forgot that I've mentioned I'm female. Hence, in response to that insult I suggested that I am probably better-looking than you and your children, further suggesting that you don't judge people by their physical attractiveness if you don't want people to do the same to you. Anyway, I was also attempting some slight humour but evidently it fell flat.

My point, which you don't seem to get, is that we can't always rely on others to better the world. Your responses are always, "it's now your turn", "99.9% other people do" or "the giver sets the tone". Why can't the taker set the tone? Why can't you do one better? If someone offers you a loophole, why don't you be the bigger person? Why can't all people strive to do more than what is expected? Why can't I try to do better than simply what the law allows for?

That's what I meant by taking responsibility for one's life - if you can do better, then why not do it?

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 15:47 pm EDT

I take responsibility for myself. I take no responsibility for others, including those who set the goals for their scholarship or set the rules for Valedictorian. I do attempt to follow the rules. I also believe that since I am responsible for myself that I have the right to be to "thine ownself be true" and that if I don't fight for what is I believe is right, I am not being true to myself.

I cannot change the world. I know my limitations, but if you think that you, as one Harvard student can change the world....hey go for it. I defer to you.

And I sure hope that when you get out into that working world, you tell your employer not to pay you what other top Harvard grads get, but to put your pay on equal scale with a grad from the local community college. Then I will know that you are truly altruistic, probably the most altruistic one in the world. You go get 'em girl!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 16:03 pm EDT

Speaking of responsibility:

Any thoughts on why Blair failed to take respobsibility for plagiarizing numerous times? She didn't even apologize! How can we explain this?

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 16:29 pm EDT

Cretin: It is stil light out. BAck into your cave.

--posted by 3m @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 16:31 pm EDT

But you have answered my question!

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 17:54 pm EDT

But you HAVEN'T answered my question!

Are you unwilling or unable?

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 17:55 pm EDT

Bystander -

Many persons maintain their idealism and live successfully in the "real world." Character and service are more accurate measures of a person's life than paper credentials or the fact one has not "broken any laws." One can always manipulate the ambiguities and the imperfections in any legal system, it takes courage to do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do, and sometimes it takes more courage to refrain from doing the acts you know you can get away with.

Many persons are inflexible and tend to stridently rationalize their own "values." The vast majority of these persons can not or will not reflect upon their values, and most of them will die happily in their beds, content in the knowledge she will be the first "to take it all beyond the grave." Having some frame of reference, I have not come to any conclusion whether the the minority of those persons who look back upon their lives, some literally on their deathbeds, are better or worse off for the experience.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 18:24 pm EDT

I regret the sloppy tense & grammar in the above post. I do not like to moralize and accordingly did not proof-read.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 18:34 pm EDT

you're fantastic, TM. what you wrote resonated so well with me and I felt you succintly put my 3 pages of rambling into one elegant paragraph. Thank you.

--posted by bystander @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 22:57 pm EDT

Bystander -

I very much enjoyed reading your comments. Shallow, cynical and uninteresting is no way to go through an unexamined life, whether you are twenty or sixty. Education without experience is worthless, experience builds character and character ultimately defines our lives. An individual can, and indeed must struggle to make a postive difference. To fail to struggle is to deny one's fundamental value and dignity as a human being, and ultimately to surrender hope. If you maintain your present outlook, I suspect that you will look back upon a full and rewarding life.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, September 24 2003, 23:55 pm EDT

I must admit that I've been following this board for quite some time. At first, I thought it was a rather entertaining and free-wheeling exchange of opinions, speculation, and discussion. However, in the last few weeks, the discussion has proceeded on a headlong descent into vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and acrimony. If people wouldn't mind, I'd like to try and shift the focus back to Ms. Hornstine for a few moments (after all, this isn't the "cambridgema and Mrs. M. M. Project"!).

I'm sure that the truth in this situation is, like in most cases, somewhere far removed from the two extreme views being painted. Ms. Hornstine might be a wonderful person--I have no first-hand knowledge, having never met her, so I will not attempt to judge her on that. However, I do know that she and her family made a decision that has led to significant repercussions--what could have been a local jurisdictional matter was turned into a national media sensation, and the resulting fallout led to the rescinding of her admission to her first choice school. Was this the correct decision on her part? I doubt I would have gone so far as to file suit over it, but I know I have raised a stink about similar issues in the past.

What I've had trouble reconciling is the notion that she's an honors student, yet while accumulating her stellar academic credentials, she allegedly repeated courses. Now, it's one thing if she didn't do well the first time through, and felt she should get a firmer grasp on the material [But if that were the case, should she really have enrolled in so many honors classes?]. On the other hand, repeating a class (in which one previously excelled) for the sole purpose of guaranteeing a good grade is, to me, abhorrent and a waste of one's time and energy. I'd hope this is just a rumor, but again, I don't have all the facts, so I'm not going to conclude one way or the other.

We can also ask: what happens now? I hope she is a thick-skinned, resilient young woman; if not, she's probably going to have difficulties coping with the challenges she's going to face. Our society does not promote intellectualism--as can be seen from any number of shenanigans in the news on any given day--but even greater scorn is reserved for the "over-achiever." The act of filing a lawsuit did nothing to endear her to the vast majority of people. If she's lucky, most people will forget about it, and she can happily retreat into anonymity within a few years. In the worst-case scenario, she will be forever known as "the girl who filed a lawsuit to become valedictorian." Probably, it'll be somewhere in between.

If I were her, and I wanted to move on with my life, I'd steer clear of movie producers, ghost writers, and anyone else who wanted to "tell the true story." After all, where would be the "big payoff": her lawsuit was settled without an actual verdict; she skipped her graduation; and she did not get to attend her top choice college. Right now, I don't see anything exactly inspirational here--and even if she does try to do something truly important or inspirational in the future, will she be able to gloss over this episode of her life as if it never happened? I doubt it's possible, or even desirable.

So, I guess to an extent I feel that this whole saga turned out to be nothing more than a pyrrhic victory for all involved--not a single individual can claim to have really "won," and there are a number of people who have lost face over this sordid affair, none more so than Ms. Hornstine herself. But was she an active participant, or just someone caught in the crossfire: did Ms. Hornstine actually want this lawsuit, or was it brought at the instigation of her parents? Did she have any idea that being named valedictorian would cost so much? Is she constantly plagued by "what ifs" regarding this whole fight: could she have put a stop to this chain of events before it started by saying "No, mom and dad, I don't want to sue?" Or does she merely think herself the victim of events outside her locus of control?

A lot to think about and not much in the way of concrete opinions or judgments, I suppose, but that's where my brain has wandered in this discussion, rather than debating the likelihood that she's been offered a six-year scholarship instead of a full scholarship with the possibility of renewal for up to six years, or what the population of Cape May county was in 1990. But I'll keep out of the way of the sniping--just figured I'd add in my two cents' worth.

--posted by A Longtime Lurker @ Thursday, September 25 2003, 0:42 am EDT

The father of Cherokee Nation Chief Chad Smith was punished for speaking Cherokee at Sequoyah High School, located at the seat of Cherokee government in Tahlequah.

"If you spoke the language, your mouth was washed out with soap," Smith said. "It was an effort to destroy the language and it was fairly successful."

Clues to who I am, and why it doesn't matter. All these efforts to get people here to 'expose' themselves are irrelevant. My culture and my family are well known in our sphere, but beyond our sphere it does not matter who we are, and here it does not matter.

Consider the what, not the who, and if credibility is truly an issue in the end, then it should be between the parties engaged, not the rest of us.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, September 25 2003, 9:25 am EDT

Incidentally, the link where the remainder of the above quotes can be found.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/24/cherokee.kindergarten.ap/index.html

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, September 25 2003, 9:26 am EDT

A Longtime Lurker --

There are many "inconsistencies" regarding the nature and extent of Blair's medical and/or legal disability, course schedule and activity level. These inconsistencies are interesting given Blair's national and international travels, college-level summer school and "her" charity work. It wouldn't surprise me if the Hornstine family moves away from town, I expect the party line will be that the hostility of their neighbors forced them out, although I haven't seen any evidence to support that conclusion. By way of illustration, it's been months since there was any mention on this site of community hostility towards anyone in the Hornstine family.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, September 25 2003, 22:19 pm EDT

I heard their house is on the market.

MM, can you verify?

--posted by cretin @ Friday, September 26 2003, 2:37 am EDT

Not yet, will be. Was always supposed to be as last child left for college. Home is 6 BR and 7 1/2 baths, if I counted correctly. Maybe now there is additional impetus to sell quicker! Cretin, are you interested?

--posted by 3M @ Friday, September 26 2003, 9:25 am EDT

3M, formerly Mrs. MM, I would have been interested, but there is a deal killer... we all know what that might be...

Even the possibility of an early return by one of it's "sons" would dissuade me from making any such purchase.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, September 26 2003, 12:52 pm EDT

Steffe'n: It is a beautiful home. I am not as quick this a.m. as I "sometimes" am. Early return of one of its' sons? IF you were referring to Adam, I am sure that when he finishes with law school, Moorestown is not a place he will "run to." Two children - Adam and Blair. Please 'cuse my slowness today.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, September 26 2003, 13:09 pm EDT

3M, I was referring to neither of the above. One of the cities' sons.... you do the math.... lol.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, September 26 2003, 14:18 pm EDT

S. Douglas-Smith or whoever you are:

The last couple of posts from you don't appear to be from the real S. Douglas-Smith (IP Address, browser type, and verbiage). Whoever you are, please refrain from impersonation. If this was the real S. D-S, sorry for the mistake.

-adam

--posted by Adam @ Friday, September 26 2003, 14:59 pm EDT

Ah...Adam. That explains why I was not properly answering the Fake S.D-S. The "sons" he referred to were not the type of verbiage he would use. That is what confused me. I did not want to insult anyone or allow nastiness to rear its head. Thanks Adam.

To all my Jewish friends or anyone who can use it: Have a healthy, happy and prosperous New Year!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, September 26 2003, 15:27 pm EDT

No, MM, I'm not interested. I left Moorestown as soon as I graduated. It's not the place for me...

--posted by cretin @ Friday, September 26 2003, 15:38 pm EDT

this is a very long, very extensive narrative of blair's story. tooooooooooooooooo long and extensive, IMO. good luck on your case, if indeed you do have one.

--posted by yvonne @ Friday, September 26 2003, 19:01 pm EDT

I have been sparatically checking in on these posts just to see what is being said by some of you...mostly cretin, Mrs. MM, S. D-S, TM and bystander....but honestly...you all just try to tear each other apart, but deep down you probably run home from work all day, if indeed you have jobs, just to see what who said about who/what...i mean come on, there are better things you could be doing, i even feel a little foolish wasting 2 minutes to type this, but maybe it will put some things in perspective for some of you....its over and done with, move on...blair who?

--posted by cowsmoo @ Friday, September 26 2003, 20:36 pm EDT

Where is Blair attending college this fall?

--posted by I am bored @ Friday, September 26 2003, 23:32 pm EDT

Cowsmoo--

I have never been in a chatroom and this is the first and only blog I ever posted to and one of the few I ever read, in fact, I wasn't even familiar with the term "blog" until several months before the Hornstine story went public. More important, I have not lost either perspective or a moment's sleep over Blair's pre-trials and tribulations.

I have a great family, an interesting profession and a busy personal life that all keep me active in the community. I enjoy the free, if sometimes coarse exchange of ideas on this blog as a harmless diversion from "the better things" I do every day of the week. I generally limit my posted opinions to readily verifiable facts, I do not pass rumor or gossip and I do not tease readers about my identity or the extent of my personal knowledge. I don't have any personal stake in what happens to Blair or on this blog.

Truth be told, the tow.com format is user-friendly, I enjoy Adam's photographs and I appreciate the whimsical beginnings of the blog. I think Adam does a great job maintaining the blog, and contrary to your opinion, I think the comments over time have been pretty interesting.

--posted by TM @ Saturday, September 27 2003, 0:45 am EDT

Whoa, back up, not only was it me, it simply displays an ability to look at things through a prism not always set on Blast!

As to the new IP, Adam, I am currently in Cincinnati, thus the CB IP... I am using my laptop as opposed to my main frame, and I'm certainly the same fellow I've always been.

The "sons" I was referring to goes back to certain of Moorestowns' citizenry who have left, but may return. If waxing a bit poetic has thrown you off, my humble apologies... but then, yanno, I'm simply me, and sometimes I'm more 'expressive' than others.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, September 29 2003, 11:57 am EDT

Cowsmoo, I would note that I have powerfully refrained from tearing anyone apart on this thread for a long time. Not only that, I have interjected humor and simplistic language into my posts so as not to be misunderstood, and thus stand accused of not being me!

Oh, woe is me!

In any event, while we may indeed be wasting out time, it's out time to waste. Deal with it!

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, September 29 2003, 12:01 pm EDT

out is our.. not once but twice... geebus! :)

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, September 29 2003, 22:55 pm EDT

From reading the article about Moorestown Superintendent of Schools Paul Kadri in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer ... I'd say he's doing an admirable job: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6894830.htm

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, October 1 2003, 11:47 am EDT

... and it appears he will soon have a Ph.D. in education.

BTW, township voters approved a bond referendum yesterday that will provide more than $37,000,000.00 in captial improvements to accomodate the projected growth in student enrollment over the next several years.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, October 1 2003, 12:55 pm EDT

Don't everybody speak at once!

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, October 2 2003, 16:12 pm EDT

Hi S.D-S. I have nothing to say. BLH is happily (at the moment) enscounced in college. I have heard from her. I have spoken to her parents who confirm same.

I believe, as many others in the area are firmly convinced,that Kadri will be shown up in time for whom and what he is.

I do hope that Kadri will go away, as well as the unhappiness that the Hornstines have encountered.

Always nice to hear from you.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Friday, October 3 2003, 12:17 pm EDT

14:45:37, 14:45:38, 14:45:39....

--posted by TM @ Monday, October 6 2003, 20:53 pm EDT

Been away for a couple of weeks and probably haven't missed anything of importance.

Is there any news from the Blair Witch hunters? Is she in school? Where?

--posted by Wondering @ Tuesday, October 7 2003, 16:31 pm EDT

This story has made its way to a famous German news magazine: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/wunderbar/0,1518,268713,00.html

--posted by Eric Schumak @ Wednesday, October 8 2003, 4:42 am EDT

now it's even longer
now it's even longer
now it's even longer

now it's even longer
now it's even longer
now it's even longer

now it's even longer
now it's even longer
now it's even longer

--posted by THIS WEBPAGE IS TOO LONG TO BE READ!!!! @ Wednesday, October 8 2003, 5:04 am EDT

Eric - thanks for posting the link to the Der Spiegel Online article. While it's a rough tranlsation ... one can read it in English after having run it through Google's translation filter ...

http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=de%7Cen&u=http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/wunderbar/0,1518,268713,00.html&prev=/language_tools

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, October 8 2003, 9:39 am EDT

BTW - if the translation doesn't work by clicking on the embedded link (above) ... cut-and-paste the extended URL into the address bar of another opened browser window ... and it should work. It is a very rough translation indeed, but one can get the "gist" of the article.

--posted by cambridgema @ Wednesday, October 8 2003, 9:55 am EDT

Congratulations, Blair, on "winning" something that NOBODY GIVES A ISHT ABOUT.

What a DORK!

--posted by Tibor Horvath @ Wednesday, October 8 2003, 13:45 pm EDT

What is up my homies!! Wiggity wiggity.

--posted by Phishfood @ Thursday, October 9 2003, 0:01 am EDT

I wonder where Der Spiegel got its information. Maybe, they read this site.

A while back I speculated that long after BH’s initial application (and maybe even after her acceptance) BH sent her newspaper columns to Harvard to update the extracurricular part of her application. And if she did, then she broke the rule that the application must be solely her own work. Open and shut. But Harvard never gave any public reason for rescinding her admission.

The Der Spiegel article has this google translated graph about her plagiarism:

“Harvard did not have also. The university withdrew the permission, because Hornstine had specified the copied columns in its [her] personal record and thus its [her] "honesty matured, or moral strengthening" was questionable.”

Are they stating for fact what I thought was a good guess? Here is the German. Is it not saying what it think it is?

“Hatte Harvard denn auch nicht. Die Hochschule zog die Zulassung zurück, weil Hornstine die kopierten Kolumnen in ihrem Lebenslauf aufgeführt hatte und damit ihre "Ehrlichkeit, Reife oder moralische Festigung" fraglich sei.”

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Thursday, October 9 2003, 0:16 am EDT

I should have also said that Gregor Schmitz, who wrote the Der Spiegel piece, is currently a graduate student at Harvard, and reports on Harvard for Der Spiegel. Maybe he has inside info, or he is just reporting accepted campus scuttlebutt. Or maybe he is just trying to gloss over issues so he can wax large about Tom Wolf and the evils and glamour of Harvard and American education.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Thursday, October 9 2003, 1:08 am EDT

Now the real question is: what happened to Blair? Where is she now? Does anybody know?

--posted by Oxonian @ Thursday, October 9 2003, 8:34 am EDT

The spirit behind the application of award and honor in Tempe, AZ stands in stark contrast to the selfish nature and singular focus represented in the Blair Hornstine affair:

Special-Ed Student Voted Homecoming King
The ranks of homecoming kings have classically be filled by jocks or student government officers, but the students at a Tempe high school decided to go a different route this year. Marcos de Niza High School's landslide winner for homecoming king was a 21-year-old student with Down syndrome. Poco Carton is legendary around campus for his daily dance moves at lunch and his insistence on saying hello to nearly everyone. "I'm Mr. Popular here, for this whole school," said Carton, who was crowned Friday. Students across campus said they welcomed the break from the usual homecoming winners. "It's always the same people, but not this year," said senior Kylie Taylor, 18. http://www.local6.com/news/2541164/detail.html

--posted by cambridgema @ Thursday, October 9 2003, 13:07 pm EDT

Hey MA and the other Harvardites: What's this scuttlebutt I hear about Alan Dershkowitiz???????? OOOOH

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, October 14 2003, 11:02 am EDT

Oops. Dershowitz

http://www.thecrimson.com/archiveresults.aspx?w=dershowitz&x=4&y=4

PLAGARISM! Where did I hear that "ugly" word before????

But it's Alan Dershowitz....like King and Kennedy....we will forgive! Yeah!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, October 14 2003, 11:06 am EDT

Oops. Dershowitz

http://www.thecrimson.com/archiveresults.aspx?w=dershowitz&x=4&y=4

PLAGARISM! Where did I hear that "ugly" word before????

But it's Alan Dershowitz....like King and Kennedy....we will forgive! Yeah!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, October 14 2003, 11:06 am EDT

I have never been a fan of Dershowitz. Plagiarism is wrong - no matter who commits such. Add him to the list of other academics - Doris Kearns Goodwin, etc. - who have been accused of such.

--posted by cambridgema @ Tuesday, October 14 2003, 15:03 pm EDT

But are they going to THROW him out of Harvard. Are you and the rest of the Blair naysayers, barb throwers, etc. going to petition, throw eggs, spend countless hours on the net, write and phone with threats. Gee, Dershowitz is slightly older than 17 and has graduated high school, college, law school, etc. Don't you think some of you threw the baby (Blair) out with the dirty bath water?

Fan of Dershowitz or not, I don't see the barbs coming from you that you issued for dear Blair.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Tuesday, October 14 2003, 17:11 pm EDT

more red herrings from MMMMM...

has anyone noticed that she (and possibly SDS) are the ONLY ones who defend plagiarism here? why aren't they arguing for dershowitz' removal? because they think plagiarism is OK!

MMM, if theft is OK, what about writing bad checks? tax evasion? rape? where does it stop???

--posted by cretin @ Tuesday, October 14 2003, 22:22 pm EDT

Cretin: You are still on your anti-Blair S.D-S and Mrs. M. M. kick. Where is there one word that I defend plagiarism? You are still at it! I am pointing out that Harvard, so far, seems to accept Dershowitz' plagiarism because he is Dershowitz, but when it came to Blair, even though her plagiarism had NOTHING to do with her Harvard application, admission papers or attendance papers, her admission was rescinded. As he is a member of Harvard, a "grown-up" with degrees up the kazoo, Harvard is not asking Dershowitz to resign, etc.

Again, Cretin, I AM NOT DEFENDING PLAGIARISM. It is wrong. I AM DEFENDING BLAIR. I am defending "what is good for the goose is good for the gander." In other words, if you still don't get it.....I am saying that Dershowitz, Goodwin, et al be denied their place at Harvard for plagiarism if Blair is denied. If they are not denied, then I believe that Blair is owed an apology and an acceptance to study at the institution. Amen!

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, October 15 2003, 9:08 am EDT

I agree that Dershowitz and Goodwin should be kicked out. I don't know how anyone could think that any of those people OR BLAIR belong at Harvard. Stop trying to twist the situation so that Blair benefits. Plagiarism is wrong. Period.

--posted by cretin @ Wednesday, October 15 2003, 15:11 pm EDT

But equal rights are equal and right.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Wednesday, October 15 2003, 16:34 pm EDT

Please go back and read all the links in the Harvard Crimson articles about the current Dershowitz controversy. This strikes me as far more complicated than what the average high school or college plagiarist does. To compare this to what Blair Hornstine was accused of confuses plain and simple plagiaism (Blair's) with misleading scholarship that relies too heavily on a questionable source (perhaps Dershowitz's). It is more difficult to determine whether and to what extent what Dershowitz did was fraudulent and that is why there is more ambiguity concerning the accusations against him. BH's case was far simpler. She paid for her mistakes. I don't see what is gained by bringing up other examples of bad behavior. She is a young person and it may seem a harsh punishment given that there are other culprits who should know better and who do the wrong thing. But do they get away with anything? How do you now punish the dead who are shown to have been cheats? And since we can't does that really warrant not punishing anyone for a similar flaw? It really has nothing to do with BH's case. She was a kid who paid more dearly for her mistakes than say, Doris Kearns Goodwin or S. Ambrose. And we should try to be more consistent when judging others. But none of this makes what BH did less wrong. It just should be over. BH's supporters keep wanting all this to end but then, they raise weak defenses over and over again. If it is enough, let it be so.

--posted by ? @ Wednesday, October 15 2003, 17:23 pm EDT

Cretin,

At what point did your ignorance actually take over your life? I have never defended plagiarism. I have never said it was all right. I have repeatedly pointed out that if it's wrong for Blair it's wrong for everyone, and even given historical references at to plagiarists who were never singled out as Blair has been.

I have never twisted a situation to benefit Blair, I have said, and you like to quote me, "let the rain fall equally." So let it. Attack Dershowitz and Goodwin like you have Blair and her family. Question their morals, and call into question their integrity. Make as big a deal of it as you have Blair's deeds. I don't care if you agee with me or not, but by your own words you insist that it should be handled the same, so, do exactly that.

And do one other thing. Learn the difference between insisting on equal treatment of the same offense by others, and defense of that offense.

Your characterization of any of my posts as somehow defending Blair's actions only serves to imply that you don't understand simple English, or you are only interested in creating an atmosphere of hostility, and reviving an old and pointless argument because the board is losing steam.

I have said she has been demonized when others were not and that is true. I have said she has been more severly attacked when others were not, and that is true. I have said that it needs to be the same, across the board, and it has not been, and that is true. I never said plagiarism was wrong, and the simple fact that you have taken my words time and again, and used them in your posts, (plagiarizing), is proof that you would rather make an ass of yourself than to present one relevant or even unique opinion that you have not stolen, gleened, or summarized from other, more eloquent persons than yourself.

Learn English, and then make educated, and valid points. And get off of my back, because I can ride you like a wild pony, and get a kick out of doing it. Make a valid point, instead of a childish one, and stop accusing people here who disagree with your approach of things they haven't done.

You're a plagiarist, why don't you start with yourself, and live up to your own standards and kick yourself out of here? After all, it that's good enough for Blair, or Dershowitz or Goodwin, it should indeed be good enough for you?

Get it?

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, October 15 2003, 23:17 pm EDT

Yikes...

I never said plagiarism was wrong,

This line should read, I have never said plagiarism wasn't wrong.

Sometimes I get excited... sorry.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Wednesday, October 15 2003, 23:19 pm EDT

The events of this past summer, while unfortunate and regretable, were not tragic. Blair's publication of numerous plagiarized works shortly before she proclaimed her quixotic legal quest for singular academic recognition engendered serious, foreseeable consequences. Having foolishly "raised the ante" on a poor legal hand, Blair's later attempts to recast herself as a naive innocent necessarily rang false with the public.

Blair is neither the first nor the last young adult plagiarist. Many persons must overcome more significant adversity at an early age, often without family or community support systems.

Whatever personal disappointment Blair may feel because she is not attending her "first choice" school is likely temporary. Many otherwise "qualified" persons, rejected by one or more highly selective schools, are eagerly beginning successful undergraduate careers at other prestigious colleges and universities.

Indeed, Blair is reported to enjoy her freshman year at a reputable school. Her family, friends and former high school administrators guard her privacy, security protects her self-imposed on-campus anomymity and consultants care for her psychological well-being. The school presumably accomodates her medical condition.

Is the Hornstine family experiencing any misgivings about the events of the past six months? Do they care about public opinion? Are there any lessons learned?

--posted by TM @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 0:18 am EDT

SDS, people with Downs Syndrome have an extra chromosome. What's your excuse???

If Blair were pulled over for speeding and given a ticket, MMM would be the first to say that she did not deserve that ticket. Because others who speed were not caught, and because some of those who WERE caught were not ticketed, Blair should not be punished. This is exactly what she is saying. Instead of being glad that at least the system worked the way it should have in Blair's case, MMM would argue that unless EVERYONE is ticketed, Blair should not be. This is utter nonsense. And for some reason, I don't think MMM would defend plagiarism if anyone other than Blair were involved. And even if EVERYONE was punished for plagiarism, MMM would still find a way of arguing that Blair should not be. Don't be fooled by her equal treatment rhetoric. Her goal is to defend Blair at all costs, regardless of Blair's wrongdoings.

Wake up - the rain IS falling equally! Point out where I have defended Goodwin. I dare you. And how do you know that I do not post on other blogs? How do you know that I do not attack them on other websites? Learn to read English. This blog is about BLAIR HORNSTINE. Your momma must have dropped you on your head one too many times...

And since I have witnessed YOUR plagiarism, threats, lies, and antisocial tendencies, it is clear that you should be locked up permenantly. You have made terroristic threats, and quite frankly you are lucky to be a free man right now. It is clear that you are jealous of my greater intelligence. You feel threatened by my opinions, which are obviously better than yours. Unfortunately you are not smart enough to express your opinions in a rational and coherent manner. But then again, retardates are by definition stupid...

I think we have found the "missing link" between monkeys and man. And he goes by the name of "SDS".

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 2:06 am EDT

Cretin: I am not sure why I waste my time on you. Guess it is the social worker, teacher, Mother in me, trying to make the foolish one understand and grow.

I NEVER defended Blair's plagiarism. Repeat....I NEVER defended Blair's plagiarism.

My point is that if Harvard negatively treated Blair for Plagiarism and requested that she not attend their institution, then Dershowitz, Goodwin, etc. be treated the same way - equally. Throw them the hell out, too.

My defense for Blair is over the lawsuit. I do believe if the school didn't approve or like the way she was schooled, the school had four years to complain and/or change her schooling. I do believe that the school approved and honored her schooling until her Senior year when complaints were heard from #2.I do believe she earned the right based on the school rules to be Valedictorian. I do believe she had the right to sue as she was being discriminated against....That is it!

I also defend her for being a lovely, pretty and bright human being.

There is no where on this blog or any other place where I defend her or anyone else for plagiarism. I have compared her to others many more times her age who have plagiarized and not suffered the slings and arrows that the H's have.

Speeding tickets...you equate with plagiarism. If you are caught, you are caught...Plagiarism: if you are caught, you are caught. You think people don't get away with plagiarism? Just as people get away often with speeding. When you are cauaght...you suffer the consequences in speeding punishment and plagiarism punishment.

Cretin...got it yet??????If not, your school or schooling is lacking. Please seek additional help!

You seem to spend too much time here criticizing people, not issues, twisting them and not understanding same. This time should and could be spent on your education, whatever it is. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE seek additional help in your education and psychological counseling.

Now, dont' waste your time comparing me to monkeys, etc. We know how you feel. Get some help for yourself.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 9:02 am EDT

Is the Hornstine family experiencing any misgivings about the events of the past six months? Do they care about public opinion? Are there any lessons learned?

--posted by TM @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 0:18 am EDT

The missgivings being experienced: Additional family illness; spending money in Harvard lawschool; learning true friendship (guess that is not a real "mis" giving).

Public opinion: Not a chance that they care what strangers say. They know they are right; they know who their friends and family are. As a Judge and lawyer of high profile cases, public opinion is something that they have previously encountered.

Any lessions learned: Yes, handicapped people are discriminated against more than they originally believed. True friends are true friends. Some acquaintances are mere gossips.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 9:47 am EDT

Is the Hornstine family experiencing any misgivings about the events of the past six months? Do they care about public opinion? Are there any lessons learned?

--posted by TM @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 0:18 am EDT

The missgivings being experienced: Additional family illness; spending money in Harvard lawschool; learning true friendship (guess that is not a real "mis" giving).

Public opinion: Not a chance that they care what strangers say. They know they are right; they know who their friends and family are. As a Judge and lawyer of high profile cases, public opinion is something that they have previously encountered.

Any lessions learned: Yes, handicapped people are discriminated against more than they originally believed. True friends are true friends. Some acquaintances are mere gossips.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 9:47 am EDT

Misgivings usually refer to a future event, but I understand your question to relate to past event, not future.

The Hornstines also feel that it was unfortunate that Friends and supporters are and were harrassed; their son being chased by press and naysayers; some of BLH's friends were unduly criticized, made fun of, experienced water balloon attacks, etc; Family members not in the area were verbally attacked; "people" still looking for BLH to make her freshman year at school a bad experience or attempt to start more petitions to have her removed.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 10:02 am EDT

Well, typically, you totally missed what my post actually said. I never said you defended anybody, I asked you to treat them as you have Blair, and attack them like you have her. When you learn to read you'll be ever so much more tolorable, cretin.

As for your personal attack on me, once again, I'll say this, take your best shot, and stop talking about it. Of all the folks on this thread, I am most likely the easiest to find. I don't hide out behind a geographical claim of being at a large school east of the Mississippi, nor to I pretend to be somewhere that I am not. So take your best shot, and have at it. Just remember that it's a two way street.

Regarding your accusations of plagiarism, it's rather obvious that you have no original thinking capabilities. If you did, your words would speak to your inteligence, rather than your ignorance. We can read, cretin, and every time you take it upon yourself to use my name in one of your posts, you prove who the missing link is... but since you can't figure out the words, I'll help you, look in the mirror.

I hope you enjoy twisting words. Maybe one day, from the cell on death row where I'm sure you'll wind up, your ability to twist them will keep bubba from making you his lady. Somehow, though, I doubt it. You're a child, cretin, a little boy who thinks because he has hair around his **** that he's a man. You don't even know the meaning of the word.

Grow up.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 12:43 pm EDT

yawn

--posted by cretin @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 15:33 pm EDT

The Hornstine family and its attorneys and advisors were well-advised to maintain a low public profile during the lawsuit and its aftermath. Any crude attempts to cultivate public opinion might have gotten out of hand and distorted the motivations underlying Blair's lawsuit.

As it is, the international media attention focused on the lawsuit, the plagiarism disclosures and the recission of Blair's college acceptance may have dissuaded disability advocacy groups from filing amicus briefs or publicly supporting her, including the American Association for CFS, the CFIDS Association of America or the New Jersey Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association. There were no supportive articles or public comments by persons who worked with Blair or benefitted from her many charitable and humanitarian activities. Apparently, some of the Hornstine family's friends and acquaintances, having supported Blair for years while she learned to live with an intermitently debilitating medical condition her doctors could not clearly diagnose, abandoned her after she filed the lawsuit.

It is unfortunate that all the unintended publicity generated by Blair's attempt to obtain a ground-breaking damages award against her school district might result in verbal abuse and physical attacks against her family and friends hundreds of miles away and months after Blair settled her claim. Even more unsettling is the new allegation about water balloon attacks in town. Townspeople are apparently unconcerned about these attacks -- many persons I met were more excited about the fourth grade teacher from the Upper Elementary School who was a guest weatherman on Good Morning America today.

Blair is rightly the sole valedictorian of her high school class, and only she truly appreciates the sacrifices she made to obtain that singular recognition. One hopes that the valedictorian of the present senior class, identified after this marking period, benefits from Blair's experience.

Other than her immediate family and a few close friends, it is doubtful anyone has either misgivings or concerns about Blair's future. Nothing will change in the Hornstine family except their home address, a circumstance that troubles few other than former anthropology or sociology majors. 3M generates more comment than Blair these days, much of which does not bear repeating.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, October 16 2003, 22:40 pm EDT

the main reason harvard rescinded blair hornstines admission is not because of her alleged plagiarism but because harvard despises the fact she sued her own school district indicating an attidude of selfishness and ,harvards ehtos is one of honesty and integrity,not one of selfishness and self pity,harvard looks at her and says this is not the kind of student we want!

--posted by brian @ Friday, October 17 2003, 6:18 am EDT

Brian,

You know, that may well be, but the JUSTIFICATION for it lies in what we see, and that is the plagarism, which is not alleged at all, it's pretty blatant. Setting Harvard up as somehow morally superior than others is a dangerous thing. We all, mostly, strive for the greater good. Some of us are selfish. If Harvard truly thinks it's better than the humanity that attends and supports it I would remind them of the chain analogy: ...it's only as strong as the weakest link...

Self serving superiority has no place in reality, and orginizations that think it does have no place in society.

Just my opinion. But if they popped her over her suit, and not her actions, seems to me that she has grounds for discrimination there, as well. After all, your message appears to be that Harvard does not let in students who have actually responded to being discriminated against by suing.

Blair was being denied due process. Blair was being discriminated against. Blair also plagarized. Being denied due process is a cause Harvard should have been on from the outset. Discrimination is a process no one should be willing to tolorate. Plagarism does indeed display a lack of moral integrity. It is minor in the day to day of humanity, but it is there. She will/has learned from it, I don't think she'll do it again. I believe that it is the justification for the Harvard recending of her admission. If Harvard used some self righteous moral standard and didn't use the plagarism, then Harvard is just as wrong as Blair is.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Friday, October 17 2003, 11:03 am EDT

The entire college admissions process is one of discrimination... Should those who did not get accepted to Harvard sue?

--posted by cretin @ Saturday, October 18 2003, 13:23 pm EDT

Fair question.

But, in my opinon, it's two different things. She did not fail to get accepted at Harvard, she had that acceptance recinded. Since that had to occur based on certain pre-requisites that Harvard had established, the fact that she sued her school system over the Validictory award, and percieved discrimination can not be justification for that recinding. If it is the reasonable argument could be made that the discrimination process occured at Harvard as well, based on personal bias against her. Harvard may have indeed felt that it was in it's best interests to ditch her over the suit, but you can bet that in their justification process, they took the plagiarism to the center of the fray, because it's not a question of questionable law suits for damages for Harvard, particularly since she in essence, prevailed; rather it's a question of questionable integrity and honesty that Harvard could use to justify revoking her admission.

For Harvard, frankly, the plagiarism was the goose that layed the golden egg because it gave the University a legal and firm reason to withdraw her admission, and left them, (Harvard) in a position to justify their actions without having to make a moral choice about an unpopular, but apparently justified lawsuit.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Sunday, October 19 2003, 12:33 pm EDT

http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m102003a.htm

--posted by TM @ Monday, October 20 2003, 10:06 am EDT

TM, although Moorestown is basically the only connection to the Youngs and Blair, I'll say only this; I knew many of the 206 Marines who died that day, I went to boot camp with three of them. I served with several others durning my own service to this country. Thank you for the poigiant reminder of sacrifice that allows us to spend so much time hashing this thing out. There are indeed, more important things.

--posted by S. Douglas-Smith @ Monday, October 20 2003, 14:41 pm EDT

I am wondering how BLH is going to explain her plagiarism to the appropriate legal ethics committee(s) which will investigate her application, should she ever try to be admitted as a lawyer. Surely, at least seven or eight years off, but it might be interesting to be a fly on the wall.

Perhaps she can atone for her transgressions in the interim by working summers with Habitat for Humanity, or some such good works.

--posted by Wondering @ Monday, October 20 2003, 15:33 pm EDT

Outside of this blog and Harvard, her plagiarism is much ado about nothing to most of the universities that have accepted her for the current year and have offered her scholarships for the "future." Since the articles were never submitted to the universities or used on scholarship applications, etc., most ignored it. Several "big time" universities truly WANT her to matriculate there believing that she will be "big time" in the future...plus I have been TOLD that these other schools want to push this situation down Harvard's throat, believing that Harvard was wrong and their "pompousness" should be negatively rewarded. So, in a few years, most bar associations will not give a hoot, as she will graduate from a high academic school (and might not go to law school) with excellent marks and background.

It was pretty common knowledge that Kenny Mirkin's "sponsor/alum advocate, etc. "knew" that Kenny's admission was being challenged because of his part in the valedictorian fiasco, etc prior to the plagiarism issue being discovered. When this issue became the "topic," his admission was allowed to go through as Harvard felt they now had a bigger apple to deal with in the admission process.

By the way wondering, she has participated in Habitat in the Camden, NJ area and possibly others.

Her life has been so public and possibly will slightly continue that way that you won't have to be a fly. It just seems to me from that comment that you don't want to be a fly, but a loudly speaking naysayer.

--posted by Mrs.M.M. @ Monday, October 20 2003, 17:29 pm EDT

"And be you blithe and bonny/Converting all your sound of woe/Into hey nonny-nonny" -- Much Ado About Nothing, Act II, Scene iii.

BTW, Kate Shindle, the 1998 Miss America, was raised in Moorestown. Kate attended Bishop Eustace High School and won her crown as Miss Illinois while attending Northwestern.

--posted by TM @ Monday, October 20 2003, 22:20 pm EDT

Mrs. MM, you need to get a life. How old are you? You are acting like a rotten teenager. All you do is tear down Kenny Mirkin. He is doing great at Harvard and he is happy. Blair is not at Harvard and she is on a blacklist at the top law schools and will have trouble getting in when she applies in four years. Mrs. MM with all the time you waste on this BLOG, you could be doing something useful for your community.

--posted by I have a life @ Monday, October 20 2003, 19:31 pm EDT

Hey, there student. Did your application to Harvard get rejected? Worse yet...was your offer for admittance rescinded due to a question of your character, of your honesty? Are you guilty of numerous acts of plagiarism in a public forum? Great. Then, please apply to our college. At our institution it's a criteria of acceptance that we be able to shove crow down Harvard's throat. While Harvard won't accept those who plagiarize, we do! Are your ethics in question? Come on down! Do you like to cut corners? Is fudging and fabricating one of your talents? Do you admire Jeff Skilling, Martha Stewart, Dennis Kozlowski - and others of similiar ilk - and aspire to be more like them. We want you!

--posted by unbelievable @ Tuesday, October 21 2003, 3:17 am EDT

Life: I have a wonderful one. Blacklistig is against the law and discriminating. Sorry Charlie your hatred won't float!

--posted by Mrs. M.M. @ Tuesday, October 21 2003, 8:10 am EDT

Let's see if I follow Mrs. MM's logic: Kenny's application to Harvard was going to be challenged but once Blair was found to be a plagiarist, it was decided to let him slide? Yeah, that makes alot of sense. Maybe admitting her nemesis was Harvard's way of further punishing Blair for her trangressions. I think the only thing that is really "common knowledge" is that Mrs. MM needs to adjust her medication levels.

--posted by B.S. Detector @ Tuesday, October 21 2003, 13:50 pm EDT

Admissions Officer 1, University of MMM: Hey guys. You’ll never believe it! We just received an application for admissions from Blair Hornstine.

Admissions Officer 2: No shit! The Blair Hornstine.

AO1: Yep. The Blair Hornstine.

AO2: Ya mean the one who’s goin’ become a real big deal in the future.

AO1: That’s the one.

AO2: I hear she’s really effective at getting what she wants.

AO2: Yeah. She got designated as sole valedictorian of her school.

Admissions Officer 3: Uh, didn’t she sue for $2.7 million and claim discrimination due to a disability? As I recall not one organization dedicated to fighting for the rights of the disabled or those who seek to combat discrimination spoke out publicly on her behalf. Nor, did any file amicus briefs on her behalf. As a matter of fact, the suit was settled … and all she got was a measly $30,000. Sounds like she’s real effective. I’m sure she’ll be “big” someday.

AO1: But, but, but … she did get accepted into Harvard.

AO3: Uh, didn’t they rescind her acceptance due to the fact that her repeated instances of plagiarism demonstrated that she violated the basic tenet of honesty for incoming students?

AO2: Ahhh….yeah, but ya’ know what … they’re all a bunch of pompous assholes up there at Harvard. I never liked that place. The idiots turned me down when I applied for a job in their admissions office. She’s too good for that place. They don’t deserve anyone like her.

AO3: Um, didn’t Blair’s older brother Adam just graduate from Harvard College? Isn’t he now a 1L at their Law School.

AO1: I hear he is. But, he’s only there to stick it to Harvard. He wants to prove to all of those conspiring against his sister that she’s better than the whole damn bunch of them. And those slimy operators in their ivied halls actually let that Kenny Mirkin matriculate. He achieved high academic standards, was well-rounded and didn’t file suit against the Moorestown School District. What a fool! He missed the chance of a lifetime to make a statement!

AO3: So, you propose that we let Blair attend MMM University.

AO2: Yeah, the publicity will be phenomenal. We can stick it to Harvard. We can send a message to the world. We can make a statement. We accept Harvard’s rejects. Plagiarists, liars, cheaters and schemers are welcome with open arms.

AO1: Yeah, we can’t let those Harvard assholes get away with being all “hoity-toity”…and better than Blair.

AO3. Uh, by extension aren’t you painting Blair’s brother Adam…and her father Louis - who has been a lecturer at Harvard Law School on occasion – with the same brush?

AO1: But, Blair’s achieved more than either her brother or her father. She’s going’ be big someday. Mark my words. She’s goin’ have books written about her, she’s gonna be profiled in movies, she’s going to write a column for Seventeen magazine. She’s going to be a paragon of virtue for others.

AO3: Uh, but didn’t her lawsuit go nowhere? I haven’t heard of her being invited to speak up on behalf of the rights of others.

AO2: Oh…but, she’s gonna be big. She’s gonna organize all high school sole valedictorians from the past-and-present. It’ll be a powerful voice with which to contend. She’s got a motto: “One for one; one for one”.

AO3: Sounds like a lonely life…what makes you think it’ll be a big life.

AO1: You just watch. As I said … let the rain fall equally; mark my words. I’m 100% right. She’ll be big. B-I-G.

--posted by University of MMM @ Tuesday, October 21 2003, 15:48 pm EDT

Uh ... all she got from the lawsuit was a measly $15,000 - real effective.

--posted by AO3@University of MMM @ Tuesday, October 21 2003, 15:51 pm EDT

Yawn - what a waste of time - space and lack of knowledfe

--posted by yawner @ Tuesday, October 21 2003, 17:35 pm EDT

Miscellaneous notes...

One of my favorite stories has to do with the founding and endowment of Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/history/begin.html#Found. I do not know whether it is true and I have heard it told more colorfully than on the Stanford website -- in any event, it is a real piece of American cultural heritage.

The October 9 edition of the NEWSWeekly, the local Moorestown newspaper, reported on the investiture of Mayor Michael Sanyour into the rank of Knight of Honour in the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights Hospitalier, an Order of Malta. The article states group is the oldest Order of Chivalry in existence. Chevalier Sanyour received his undergraduate education at Rutgers and an MBA from Harvard, becoming president of Subaru of America at the age of thirty-nine.

Back to topic...

Blair widely published a series of unattributed word-for-word works of plagiarism. She received an award for at least one of these articles, a recognition she accepted silently and did not offer to relinquish.

At a minimum, Blair's plagiarism reflects a lack of imagination and a reckless insensitivity to her peers at the newspaper and the persons who accepted her articles at face value. The fact that Blair published her plagiarized articles in a newspaper, rather than submitting them for school credit or in connection with a college application, is of little consequence. To the contrary, one may argue the circumstances of Blair's plagiarism make it less likely to have been the product of a momentarily stressed innocent. The lack of a sincere apology tends to reinforce this argument.

Blair's plagiarism reflects adversely upon her character and her integrity of her achievements. However, no one suggests Blair's actions should permanently disqualify her from admission to a reputable school. Personally, I would not question a decision by Harvard to admit Blair next year -- the school is responsible to enforce its own code of conduct.

I am nevertheless troubled by the continued victimization of Blair at the expense of other persons. Blair, whatever her accomplishments in high school, is an eighteen-year old untested by the world at large and undeserving of the slavish accolades heaped upon her in various quarters of this blog. Similarly, the denegration of other persons, whatever their roles might have been this past year, is typically nothing more than baseless, vindictive gossip.

It is unclear whether these types of comments are the ramblings of a troll, a manifestation of stress in the Hornstine home or an accurate representation of how the family views the rest of the world. Regardless, like virtually everyone else who reads this blog, I do not expect 3M to support her most recent invective any more than she supported her previous, wide-ranging attacks against "Anything Not Blair."

--posted by TM @ Tuesday, October 21 2003, 18:38 pm EDT

Mrs MM wrote:
"It was pretty common knowledge that Kenny Mirkin's "sponsor/alum advocate, etc. "knew" that Kenny's admission was being challenged because of his part in the valedictorian fiasco, etc prior to the plagiarism issue being discovered."

Mrs MM, back when I brought up the issue of local alum representatives, and pegged the H family spokesman and letter writer as BH's, I asked about Mirkin's local representative. As I recall, you said something like you thought he didn't need one because his parents went to Harvard, but you would check into it.

You never gave information on this but now you are claiming common knowledge about the representative.

This seems entirely wishful thinking as well as your claims about schools being hot to give BH scholarships.

--posted by MonkeyBrains @ Tuesday, October 21 2003, 20:11 pm EDT

To put the saga of the 'wronged' Hornstine young woman and her mega-whiny father in perspective a bit, one might want to read the story of David R. Berstein, the 1997 "sole valedictorian" of Phoenixville Area High School. Did this young man ever complain? Who should his parents sue?

http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10388993&BRD=1673&PAG=461&dept_id=17915&rfi=6

--posted by UallGetReal @ Wednesday, October 22 2003, 4:09 am EDT

That was David R. BERNSTEIN.

--posted by UallGetReal @ Wednesday, October 22 2003, 4:18 am EDT

Lessons in the Fine Art of College Admissions
NEW YORK TIMES
When you're a bright and hard-working student in a top suburban district, how do you stand out among all those deciles of A's?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/education/22EDUC.html (requires free registration)

--posted by best bet - don't plagiarize @ Wednesday, October 22 2003, 8:55 am EDT

Right up there and keeping with the Hornstine family's lawsuits - Adams against the College Boards; Blair's against her school district...

Flunked student sues professor

CHICAGO (Court TV) — A spurned student is suing his professor over a grade gripe. Anton Rozenbaum had a B-plus average and was set to graduate from Northwestern University in 2002 until he was accused of cheating, according to a suit filed last month in Cook County Circuit Court. Rozenbaum is suing Erik Sontheimer, an assistant biochemisty professor, claiming the instructor unfairly changed his grade on a March 2002 biology final exam from a B-plus to an F. The student "has been denied his rightfully earned degree and has also been denied the opportunity to apply to graduate school and further his professional career," the suit states. The suit demands that the university restore Rozenbaum's grade to a B-plus, remove any record of academic dishonesty and confer his biology degree. It also seeks $50,000 in damages.

Full Article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=99&e=15&u=/ct/flunkedstudentsuesprofessor

--posted by blairismyidol @ Wednesday, October 22 2003, 18:01 pm EDT

Our First Annual College-Admissions Survey
Atlantic Monthly Magazine

"Calm Down!" the deans and counselors say. Herewith an exploration of the American college-admissions system.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/11/admissions.htm

--posted by best bet - don't plagiarize @ Wednesday, October 22 2003, 18:07 pm EDT

Thank you for the posts, the articles are thought-provoking.

--posted by TM @ Wednesday, October 22 2003, 19:30 pm EDT

http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=29piper.h21.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/48hours/main510772.shtml.

--posted by TM @ Thursday, October 23 2003, 1:12 am EDT

http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/bolin/bowden.html

--posted by TM @ Thursday, October 23 2003, 1:26 am EDT

14:50:04, 14:50:05, 14:50:06. . .

--posted by TM @ Saturday, October 25 2003, 16:49 pm EDT

For more on the 1997 "sole valedictorian" David R. Bernstein of Phoenixville High School in Pennsylvania who died as honorably as he lived, saving one of the men under his command in Iraq ....

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/7079332.htm

Could the 'wronged' young Miss Hornstine and her mega-whiny father ever understand that kind of sacrifice? Would suing somebody for $2.7 million ever ease the Bernstein family's pain?

--posted by UallGetReal @ Saturday, October 25 2003, 23:43 pm EDT

The face of a genuine "sole valedictorian," and NO, I have never met the young man nor any member of his family. I simply admire those who choose to serve this nation rather clog its legal system with egotistically based frivolous lawsuits which burden its taxpayers.

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?vp=David+R.+Bernstein&vp_vt=any&vst=0&vd=m3&fl=0&ei=UTF-8&vm=p&n=40&url=ShD_zpint7oJ:www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/bucks_county/7062527.htm

--posted by UallGetReal @ Sunday, October 26 2003, 16:40 pm EST

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/7062527.htm

--posted by UallGetReal @ Monday, October 27 2003, 12:19 pm EST

14:57:33, 14:57:34, 14:57:35...

--posted by TM @ Friday, October 31 2003, 4:45 am EST

Where is Blair?

--posted by Where is Blair? @ Friday, October 31 2003, 10:34 am EST

More importantly, WHAT is Blair????

--posted by cretin @ Friday, October 31 2003, 17:20 pm EST

Mrs. MM, what did Blair do with the $15,000 that she won?

--posted by $15K Richer @ Saturday, November 1 2003, 19:33 pm EST

Even though charity begins at home, this money went to a good cause. If I discussed which one, others here would have something negative to say, so let's skip the BS and accept that it went to help someone, something, etc....a worthwhile contribution. THE END.

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, November 3 2003, 21:55 pm EST

TM: We have reached fifteen - 15:00:01

--posted by Mrs. M. M. @ Monday, November 3 2003, 21:56 pm EST

Home | About | Feedback | Contact Me | Links | Site Map

Copyright © 1995-2008, tow.com. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use
Tomorrow begins today.