I would stress to anyone who does have opinions concerning any of the discussed matter up to this point, that you probably should take a little time to research Ned Pillersdorf. You may still have your opinions , but you may find out that they either may not be as strong, or, you may in fact, alter your opinions altogether. You absolutely have to know a little about the individual who is the motivator behind this whole ordeal to even begin to form any impression or conclusion of what is actually going on.

 

 

Firebird, ol' Ned could be the devil reincarnated and it would not change my opinion on the flag issue. IMO its offensive . Period. If I'm the principal at AC, that flag never sees the light of day.

If others are interested in being fully informed, I would highly recommend that they follow firebird's recommendation. Firebird, I believe, lives very close to Floyd County and is, I'm sure, well informed on this whole matter. It wouldn't hurt for others to become informed before speaking out so fervently. Facts tend to be helpful if we want to have an informed position on a matter.

 

Cshs81, how long do you think our freedoms would last if we decided issues on "what many people think is right"? The flag may be offensive to you but, last time I checked, you haven't been officially appointed as Dictator of the Commonwealth. I am offended most every time that I turn on the television. I'm sure that is the case with others. Nevertheless, though I might like to dictate what does and does not appear on television, I realize that others have the right to do things that I find offensive. Possibly you should give AC that consideration.

 

If you don't like AC, its nickname, and its flag, that is your right. However, you and your fellow dissenters have no right to force your personal thoughts (and prejudices) on those at that school.

Here it is.

Firebird, ol' Ned could be the devil reincarnated and it would not change my opinion on the flag issue. IMO its offensive . Period. If I'm the principal at AC, that flag never sees the light of day.

You certainly have a right to feel anyway that you wish without being condemed. At the same time others certainly have a right to feel the way as they wish as well. I am not saying I condone or disaprove either way with Allen Centrals use of the flag, but I can honestly say that I strongly feel that there is not the first iota of racial intent at Allen Central. All I am saying is please get all of the facts about all involved and what there real agendas are before you draw your conclusions in this particular case and completely condem a group of people.

Here's how Ned Pillersdorf is described at his law firms website:

 

Ned has been a partner in Pillersdorf, DeRossett & Lane since the firm's

creation in the 1980s under the name Stumbo, DeRossett & Pillersdorf.

Ned was born and raised in Brooklyn in New York City. He came to

Kentucky as a public-defender in the early 80s and has been protecting

the rights of the underdog ever since.

 

Ned is highly active in the eastern Kentucky community. He established

the Floyd County Animal Shelter with his wife, Janet L. Stumbo, and he

has coached in the Prestonsburg Little League for over 20 years. Ned

is also the head coach of The David School varsity high school

basketball team.

You certainly have a right to feel anyway that you wish without being condemed. At the same time others certainly have a right to feel the way as they wish as well. I am not saying I condone or disaprove either way with Allen Centrals use of the flag, but I can honestly say that I strongly feel that there is not the first iota of racial intent at Allen Central. All I am saying is please get all of the facts about all involved and what there real agendas are before you draw your conclusions in this particular case and completely condem a group of people.

 

Firebird, I have made the same suggestion repeatedly throughout this thread. However, those who summarily oppose AC, seem to have no interest in learning any facts. As once was said by an elderly juror in a courtroom comedy, "Don't confuse me with the facts because I have already reached my decision in this case". Funny? Yes. However, it is an indication of prejudice. From the known facts of this matter and from what some have posted, the only evidence of prejudice here is in the words of those who have condemned AC without looking into the situation.

 

Cshs81, how long do you think our freedoms would last if we decided issues on "what many people think is right"? The flag may be offensive to you but, last time I checked, you haven't been officially appointed as Dictator of the Commonwealth. I am offended most every time that I turn on the television. I'm sure that is the case with others. Nevertheless, though I might like to dictate what does and does not appear on television, I realize that others have the right to do things that I find offensive. Possibly you should give AC that consideration.

 

If you don't like AC, its nickname, and its flag, that is your right. However, you and your fellow dissenters have no right to force your personal thoughts (and prejudices) on those at that school.

 

It has nothing to do with being a dictator. It has everything to do with an entity doing what is right. AC is not a television station. You can change the station if you are offended. Its not quite that simple for students who are offended by this flag to simply pick up and move. Its a public entity and should consider ALL of its students - not just the majority.

 

We seem to be arguing two different points. I'm arguing about what is right for the school to do in the name of ALL of its students. You seem to be arguing about "agitators" and the Constitution et al.

 

Let me ask you this. If any of the black AC students came forward and said that they were offended by the flag but the majority of students (say 98%) said they were not, what would you do as principal?

Thank you, shooter. Although firebird and I were already aware of Pillersdorf's history far more than as revealed in your above information, the carefully worded biography from his law firm does reveal a good bit for the edification of others. Also, your picture of the flag is helpful and, I would think, nonthreatening to anyone not looking to cause trouble.

 

Cshs81, who are you to decide what is right for the students at AC? I am, indeed, arguing what you call "agitators, and the Constitution et al."(sic). To put it another way, I am arguing according to the law and not according to prejuduice and emotion. That is how our country is supposed to work.

 

To answer your question, if students of AC came forward and, in the proper manner, expressed their opposition to the flag, I would bet that it would be removed. Students of AC, after all, do have a "vested interest" in the issue. You and the others who oppose AC do not. To be honest, it is none of your business nor is it really any of my business since I don't attend nor do I have a child who attends AC. However, it also is none of the business of Pillersdorf or TDS. If they don't want to play AC, just don't schedule them and don't play them. But, then, we all know that this is just another example of Don Quixote attacking the windmills. Unlike in the case in Dumas's story, in this politically correct world of today, the windmills will fall and that will, in reality, represent another successful attack on our civil rights and a further chipping away at our protected speech (expression) under the First Amendment.

Firebird, I have made the same suggestion repeatedly throughout this thread. However, those who summarily oppose AC, seem to have no interest in learning any facts. As once was said by an elderly juror in a courtroom comedy, "Don't confuse me with the facts because I have already reached my decision in this case". Funny? Yes. However, it is an indication of prejudice. From the known facts of this matter and from what some have posted, the only evidence of prejudice here is in the words of those who have condemned AC without looking into the situation.

 

Again, I'll say that we're confusing the issue. Who cares about Ned? Ned is not the issue. You're smart enough to know that.

 

"...without looking into the issue": The issue is simple. A public school's flag is deemed offensive to a segment of the population. The flag and its controversy is not new nor was it created by ol' Ned. Its an oft discussed topic.

 

I'm asking you to stick to the issue yet you seem to choose to throw mud at Ned et al.

 

Why?

Thank you, shooter. Although firebird and I were already aware of Pillersdorf's history far more than as revealed in your above information, the carefully worded biography from his law firm does reveal a good bit for the edification of others. Also, your picture of the flag is helpful and, I would think, nonthreatening to anyone not looking to cause trouble.

 

Cshs81, who are you to decide what is right for the students at AC? I am, indeed, arguing what you call "agitators, and the Constitution et al."(sic). To put it another way, I am arguing according to the law and not according to prejuduice and emotion. That is how our country is supposed to work.

 

To answer your question, if students of AC came forward and, in the proper manner, expressed their opposition to the flag, I would bet that it would be removed. Students of AC, after all, do have a "vested interest" in the issue. You and the others who oppose AC do not. To be honest, it is none of your business nor is it really any of my business since I don't attend nor do I have a child who attends AC. However, it also is none of the business of Pillersdorf or TDS. If they don't want to play AC, just don't schedule them and don't play them. But, then, we all know that this is just another example of Don Quixote attacking the windmills. Unlike in the case of Dumas's character, in this politically correct world of today, the windmills will fall.

 

 

Again, your arguments of "who are you" and "none of your business" are straight out of the 50s/60s handbook.

Again, your arguments of "who are you" and "none of your business" are straight out of the 50s/60s handbook.

 

This is ridiculous. I would have hoped for more but, alas, should have known better. Go ahead and burn a Confederate flag in your back yard if it makes you feel better. There is apparently no way to intelligently discuss this matter.

Who gets to make the call that a symbol is deemed offensive to a segment of the population? Has that call already been made? Is one call made for everybody? Is the call made on a national, statewide, or community basis? Is it possible for different communities to make different calls? If two communities make different calls, should the community that isn't offended be required to quit using the symbol out of deference to the community that is offended? How many people need to be offended for the symbol to be eliminated? Is one enough?

Again, I'll say that we're confusing the issue. Who cares about Ned? Ned is not the issue. You're smart enough to know that.

 

"...without looking into the issue": The issue is simple. A public school's flag is deemed offensive to a segment of the population. The flag and its controversy is not new nor was it created by ol' Ned. Its an oft discussed topic.

 

I'm asking you to stick to the issue yet you seem to choose to throw mud at Ned et al.

 

Why?

But Ned is part of the issue. That's why we are saying "please do a little homework" .

 

 

The flag is not deemed offensive to anyone at Allen Central High School and hasn't been for almost 34 years now, so where exactly is the issue here.

 

I have to agree that if The David School does not want to play Allen Central then just simply dont play them. I guarantee that nobody in eastern Kentucky will give the first hoot that they dont want to play Allen Central. The media attention is nothing more than an orchestrated grandstanding ploy by it's originator with no other purpose than to see his name plastered in print and on screen. You can bet that there are only self serving interests in this whole ordeal. The David School is located about 5 miles from Allen Central campus and are not even in the same district with the rest of the Floyd Co. schools. They were put in a district by the KHSAA with 3 schools that are all in Pike County, so this is not a must play game for either team. Actually Allen Central should be applauded for even agreeing to play The David School to begin with. There is simply no advantage to the Allen Central program or any other competetive program to schedule a game with the David School. There are only advantages for TDS to play this game , nothing to gain whatsoever for AC.

But Ned is part of the issue. That's why we are saying "please do a little homework" .

 

 

The flag is not deemed offensive to anyone at Allen Central High School and hasn't been for almost 34 years now, so where exactly is the issue here.

I have to agree that if The David School does not want to play Allen Central then just simply dont play them. I guarantee that nobody in eastern Kentucky will give the first hoot that they dont want to play Allen Central. The media attention is nothing more than an orchestrated grandstanding ploy by it's originator with no other purpose than to see his name plastered in print and on screen. You can bet that there are only self serving interests in this whole ordeal. The David School is located about 5 miles from Allen Central campus and are not even in the same district with the rest of the Floyd Co. schools. They were put in a district by the KHSAA with 3 schools that are all in Pike County, so this is not a must play game for either team. Actually Allen Central should be applauded for even agreeing to play The David School to begin with. There is simply no advantage to the Allen Central program or any other competetive program to schedule a game with the David School. There are only advantages for TDS to play this game , nothing to gain whatsoever for AC.

 

You have facts to back this up, I assume, since we are supposed to be operating on a strickly factual basis?

"Facts" shouldn't get in the way of humanity.

 

It is perhaps appropriate on Christmas Eve to say that for those of us who believe in a religion, that our beliefs are not based on "fact" but on "faith". My faith would keep me from supporting a symbol that causes emotional pain to another individual - the law of man may not do that, my my religious beliefs do.