Interesting theory, that I need to set my readers up better to succeed in a conversation with a Hein supporter. You're the only Hein supporter I know, which is fine, to each their own. And if my readers wants to know how to defeat your arguments? They've come to the right place, as usual.
Let's just handle your criticism and be done with it. You cite the following passage that I wrote: 'None of that had any practical effect on Hein’s behavior… None [of LSSD actions] would alter the path of his actions.” Your critique is as follows: "This is conjecture. Show me the facts, the evidence that demonstrates this rather than giving me your opinion in summary. Even though I may wholly agree with your opinion I need the facts."
My summary is a narrative device that moves a 2500 word story forward. Still, it must be based in fact. For it to stand, I have to show that his behavior continues after he was ordered to stop. In order to evaluate whether the piece achieves this, we have to define behavior, and see whether the article shows that it continues after the district orders. Pretty straight forward.
Behavior = the four months of inappropriate behavior, the boundary invasions. In this article we describe the touching, the contact, the inappropriate conversations, the general grooming behavior in great deal, it's all sourced. Specifically though, at the time of the complaint, the victim isnt in his class anymore, she transferred out. Her first day in a new class is interrupted by his groomer stuff. So the mother and the daughter bring the district up to speed officially, and Hein is officially notified that he must stop contacting the girl. He's told On Feb 1, Feb 2 and Feb 15.
So his behavior is a record of inappropriate contact with the girl, which is why she complains. For my statement to be true, he'd have to continue with the boundary invasions after the notice from the district ordered him not to. Since he's barred from any contact at all with the girl post Feb 15, each instance of contact is another violation, another continuation of the same behavior.
His behavior didn't change, and if you read the article you already know that. Here's the relevant passage in the article:
"To reiterate, a district investigation sustained allegations of misconduct against Hein and on February 15 he was directed for the second time — this time in writing — to leave JANE alone. And yet he spoke to her on February 16, 17 and 18. And then again on February 21, 22, 23. He continued to bother her every day until she transferred again. And then he showed up outside her third math class of the semester."
Then we quote directly from Detective Parnell’s report, where she describes how Hein talked to her EACH DAY following the notice (covering the time period from Feb 15 to March 9), forcing her to stand in place while other kids walked past and asking her weirdo question like "are you mad at me?" Here are a few select statements from the detectives sworn report that are directly sourced in the article and directly support my statement that his behavior continued unaffected by the district notice:
“Due to the fact that Mark continued to ignore direct orders not to contact JANE...JANE had to switch classes again, mid semester.
"JANE told the school administrators that Mark was still having contact with her. "
"JANE called her mom crying because she was so upset that Mark was not following the direction of school administrators. "
"She physically bumped into Mark after turning the corner to the hallway his classroom was located in"
"Mark said, “Hey” to JANE before she ran for her math classroom to get away."
"While sitting in the stands with her friends, she noticed Mark walking nearby (approximately 20 to 30 yards away from her). After talking briefly with two unknown adults, Mark looked at JANE and waved before continuing to a nearby parking lot."
So there you go. I summarized the fact that the district discipline didn't change his behavior, and then I spelled it out in the sections that followed.
The article details some 30 days of contact after he was ordered not to. Because I don't see why I should have to write the entire damn article here again I've excerpted for you a few direct statements from the investigative report. And the report itself summarizes the interviews with 50+ involved people and the evidentiary attachments, which I've corroborated through my own fact checking and interviews as well.
So in summary, you were so far off here that it's hard to believe that you actually believed what you were saying. I took the time to check out this point though because I told you I can and will back up anything I write. And there, I just did. This more than checks out. And it also leads me to believe that you are just on some pro grooming kick bc your arguments are ridiculous.
How could you not notice that he contacted her numerous times including the day after...and every school day that followed until spring break? I said it plain as day.
So yes, my summary is correct, everything I say is cited, and the only argument one could have against it is to say they think the teachers, kids, detective and victims are all lying and therefore I'm, citing a bunch of liars.
Fine take that position. I'll even let you publish it here. If you wanna be that guy, do it on your own time, and let's show everyone where you're coming from.
In the end, I don't think you're acting in good faith and your constant defense of predatory behavior turns my stomach, especially after the time I've taken to see all this up close. It's insulting. And I don't think you'd say this kind of facetious pro hein crap to the face of a little girl dealing with seizures. You wouldnt if I was there. And you can call that white knighting or whatever you wanna call it and I dont give a damn because it's a fact. Mattingly hit me in the face because I pushed back on him too. I guess I'm just against people who prey on kids. So be it.
I've given you the offer to write your own commentary or letter to the editor. That offer is open. Aside from that, you have to subscribe if you want to keep monopolizing my time with bad faith pro-predator arguments that are obviously lacking any merit on their face. You just wasted another 40 minutes of my time here.
So this is it. Subscribe, write your own commentary, or drop it. You've run out of tokens to play this game, no more pro groomer time wasting. Bad faith comments will be deleted from this point forward.
I am at a loss on how charges were dropped (w/out prejudice)?
{administrative direction requiring him to “not engage” with a victim that wanted him to stay away at all times “really unfair toward[himself].”
- After victims transferred out of his classes and/or obtained official administrative help in barring him from contact, he’d simply task other teachers with the job of finding his victim.}
Did female students actually report his behavior and he still was able to teach?
sure but be more specific. i can answer any questions about a claim, fact or quote that you’re wondering about.
if you have a question about anything in particular, just cut and paste it and i’ll answer. in the meantime here’s more evidence of what i’ve told you all along. https://www.thejournal425.com/p/hein-story-unlocked-for-all/comments
Interesting theory, that I need to set my readers up better to succeed in a conversation with a Hein supporter. You're the only Hein supporter I know, which is fine, to each their own. And if my readers wants to know how to defeat your arguments? They've come to the right place, as usual.
Let's just handle your criticism and be done with it. You cite the following passage that I wrote: 'None of that had any practical effect on Hein’s behavior… None [of LSSD actions] would alter the path of his actions.” Your critique is as follows: "This is conjecture. Show me the facts, the evidence that demonstrates this rather than giving me your opinion in summary. Even though I may wholly agree with your opinion I need the facts."
My summary is a narrative device that moves a 2500 word story forward. Still, it must be based in fact. For it to stand, I have to show that his behavior continues after he was ordered to stop. In order to evaluate whether the piece achieves this, we have to define behavior, and see whether the article shows that it continues after the district orders. Pretty straight forward.
Behavior = the four months of inappropriate behavior, the boundary invasions. In this article we describe the touching, the contact, the inappropriate conversations, the general grooming behavior in great deal, it's all sourced. Specifically though, at the time of the complaint, the victim isnt in his class anymore, she transferred out. Her first day in a new class is interrupted by his groomer stuff. So the mother and the daughter bring the district up to speed officially, and Hein is officially notified that he must stop contacting the girl. He's told On Feb 1, Feb 2 and Feb 15.
So his behavior is a record of inappropriate contact with the girl, which is why she complains. For my statement to be true, he'd have to continue with the boundary invasions after the notice from the district ordered him not to. Since he's barred from any contact at all with the girl post Feb 15, each instance of contact is another violation, another continuation of the same behavior.
His behavior didn't change, and if you read the article you already know that. Here's the relevant passage in the article:
"To reiterate, a district investigation sustained allegations of misconduct against Hein and on February 15 he was directed for the second time — this time in writing — to leave JANE alone. And yet he spoke to her on February 16, 17 and 18. And then again on February 21, 22, 23. He continued to bother her every day until she transferred again. And then he showed up outside her third math class of the semester."
Then we quote directly from Detective Parnell’s report, where she describes how Hein talked to her EACH DAY following the notice (covering the time period from Feb 15 to March 9), forcing her to stand in place while other kids walked past and asking her weirdo question like "are you mad at me?" Here are a few select statements from the detectives sworn report that are directly sourced in the article and directly support my statement that his behavior continued unaffected by the district notice:
“Due to the fact that Mark continued to ignore direct orders not to contact JANE...JANE had to switch classes again, mid semester.
"JANE told the school administrators that Mark was still having contact with her. "
"JANE called her mom crying because she was so upset that Mark was not following the direction of school administrators. "
"She physically bumped into Mark after turning the corner to the hallway his classroom was located in"
"Mark said, “Hey” to JANE before she ran for her math classroom to get away."
"While sitting in the stands with her friends, she noticed Mark walking nearby (approximately 20 to 30 yards away from her). After talking briefly with two unknown adults, Mark looked at JANE and waved before continuing to a nearby parking lot."
So there you go. I summarized the fact that the district discipline didn't change his behavior, and then I spelled it out in the sections that followed.
The article details some 30 days of contact after he was ordered not to. Because I don't see why I should have to write the entire damn article here again I've excerpted for you a few direct statements from the investigative report. And the report itself summarizes the interviews with 50+ involved people and the evidentiary attachments, which I've corroborated through my own fact checking and interviews as well.
So in summary, you were so far off here that it's hard to believe that you actually believed what you were saying. I took the time to check out this point though because I told you I can and will back up anything I write. And there, I just did. This more than checks out. And it also leads me to believe that you are just on some pro grooming kick bc your arguments are ridiculous.
How could you not notice that he contacted her numerous times including the day after...and every school day that followed until spring break? I said it plain as day.
So yes, my summary is correct, everything I say is cited, and the only argument one could have against it is to say they think the teachers, kids, detective and victims are all lying and therefore I'm, citing a bunch of liars.
Fine take that position. I'll even let you publish it here. If you wanna be that guy, do it on your own time, and let's show everyone where you're coming from.
In the end, I don't think you're acting in good faith and your constant defense of predatory behavior turns my stomach, especially after the time I've taken to see all this up close. It's insulting. And I don't think you'd say this kind of facetious pro hein crap to the face of a little girl dealing with seizures. You wouldnt if I was there. And you can call that white knighting or whatever you wanna call it and I dont give a damn because it's a fact. Mattingly hit me in the face because I pushed back on him too. I guess I'm just against people who prey on kids. So be it.
I've given you the offer to write your own commentary or letter to the editor. That offer is open. Aside from that, you have to subscribe if you want to keep monopolizing my time with bad faith pro-predator arguments that are obviously lacking any merit on their face. You just wasted another 40 minutes of my time here.
So this is it. Subscribe, write your own commentary, or drop it. You've run out of tokens to play this game, no more pro groomer time wasting. Bad faith comments will be deleted from this point forward.
I am at a loss on how charges were dropped (w/out prejudice)?
{administrative direction requiring him to “not engage” with a victim that wanted him to stay away at all times “really unfair toward[himself].”
- After victims transferred out of his classes and/or obtained official administrative help in barring him from contact, he’d simply task other teachers with the job of finding his victim.}
Did female students actually report his behavior and he still was able to teach?
yup we got one of them institutional issues. pedos lurkin common sense not in application. good time as any tho to make changes