18 responses to “Finally”

  1. Hannah says:

    I’m curious to hear what wisdom you see in this. 🙂

  2. JoshuaR says:

    Me to cause i don’t really see it.

  3. Jacqui says:

    Hmm…expound please? You’ve piqued my interest, but haven’t given us your reasons. This sounds very interesting!

  4. Agent Tim says:

    I’m not going to expound at this very moment, but would anyone care to give a guess as to why, ironically, I think this decision by the school was a good one in an odd sort of way?

  5. David Ketter says:

    Tim: I think what you see here is that the school is locking down on participants who aren’t enrolled at the school. Possibly, you might see people not being able to dance as a good thing (going to a Reformed Presbyterian school, that’s the norm…).

    However, the school is only locking down on homeschoolers – not all participants…and I doubt you hold an anti-dancing positiong. The only thing left, then, is you feel that homeschoolers should not be “mixing” with those enrolled in the public schools, etc.

    I think we may have found grounds for disagreement, then.

  6. Nathan Knapp says:

    The only reason that I can see that you would think this was a good decision would be so schools wouldn’t set a precedent to where anyone could come to a highschool dance.

    Personally, I think its stupidly rediculous, and that the school principle, etc, might just have his head stuck in a whole like a cartoon character trying to hide. The kid’s parents supplied plenty of information about his character, the only reason I can see that the principle wouldn’t allow it would be that he’s biased againt homeschoolers.

  7. Tim says:

    Well, I just can’t hold back the answer to your question.

    I found this story humorous in the fact that they did not allow this young man to attend the school dance…and I’m not a huge fan of school dances/proms. I’m not against dancing as David noticed, but the prom dancing (usually full of awful music and “dirty dancing) and the entire prom scene isn’t something I would want to support.

    And the humorous part is that it may have been a good thing for this individual not being allowed to attend.

    But of course, in the broad spectrum, this is not a good thing because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that he could not attend. It is, as Nathan said, ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for this young man being barred from attending. I’m certain that there were students from other schools there, but they were allowed to attend. What’s the difference? None.

  8. Sparky says:

    So, the question still remains: Why do you view this as a “very wise” decision by the school? It may be ironic, or humorous as you said, but what about the school’s decision was wise?

    Thanks, maybe I am just missing it.

    Mark 16:15

  9. Tim says:

    The school’s decision was “wise” because they didn’t allow the kid to attend prom. But that’s a joke.

    In reality, it was a very bad, wrong decision.

  10. Jacqui says:

    I thought so…:-)
    They were so silly (as my Dad, the bureaucrat, would say). It’s almost as bad as arguing the height restrictions on mulch for two hours…

  11. Palm Boy says:

    Ok, so your saying it was good, because these two youngsters wouldn’t be at the prom.

    I think the two should have figured out who could come and who couldn’t, before he spent so much money on it. But ya know, which is the better of the two options here. Now that they’re kicked out of the prom, they still want the night out together, but they won’t be a crowd of people. Pick your poisen… 😀

  12. Emily says:


    Then again, like Tim said, public school dances aren’t really that great anyways – I’ve been to a few. I can understand if it were only for people attending the school, but since they were letting other kids into the dance who didn’t go to the school either, he should have been able to attend.

  13. Bill W. says:

    Tim, as a resident of the Tampa/St. Pete area, I could vouch for the accuracy of the St. Pete Times, but I won’t. They are the second worst newspaper I have ever read. Only the Times of New York beats ’em in that “respect”, if you will.

    With that being said, allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment.

    Anyway, Citrus County is rural. But it’s also close to where 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped and murdered next-door to her own home. The concerns of the school are legitimate.

  14. RC says:

    The whole story is strange to me. The one who wrote this article tried to tell us that this school rejects homeschoolers, and that it refused Steven’s attendance only because he was homeschooled. This is the impression I got after reading it.
    First, it says that the school discourages outsiders, then it says it’s for safety reasons. Then we understand that there’s not strict rule, it’s just that the school tries to discourage outsiders from participating…

    I read the article twice, but it seems that there are a lot of missing information. Suddenly the principal calls (we don’t know how she knew that Steven would attend). Before that Steven is threatened, and that he would be arrested…

    Either the school is going through a lot of internal problems/issues due to some circumstances/experiences, or that the story lacks information, since it reveals only bits and pieces of the real story.

    As for going to the prom, I don’t think it’s wrong. It’s how you’re going to the prom, how much you’re spending for it, and what you’re doing at the prom other than dancing.
    Since I’m not in the US, I don’t know if Steven spending 140$ is ok.

  15. ClaireBear says:

    Tim, I was just wondering what made you think proms are “full of awful music and wild dancing?” Have you ever been to one or are you just making assumptions and perpetuating stereotypes? I hope this doesn’t come across as too harsh, but too often the problem with “homeschooling blogs” such as this one is that the writers tend to jump to conclusions about people they have never talked to and events they have never attended. I’m sorry, but that’s just uninformed bias. I think we as Christians do ourselves and others a favor when we’re slow to speak, especially about things in which we have no experience.

  16. Tim says:

    Thank you for asking such a good question. First of all, quote me right: awful music and dirty dancing. Now, I should, as you said, kept my mouth shut because this is a logical fallacy because not everyone is dancing in an innapropriate way, and the music isn’t always bad (I’m not talking about taste). But to clarify, I’m talking about it in general — and I’m talking about the non-Christians attending.

    Secondly, your point about talking about things where we have no experience is a good point, but like my statement, it’s not always true. Just because I’ve never gone to a bar or club doesn’t mean I can’t say that it’s a bad place to be. It’s the same way with drugs — just because I haven’t tested them or tried them doesn’t mean I can’t say that they have horrific results. Etc., Etc.

    But, again, I should have just kept my mouth shut and my opinion on the subject to myself. It’s one of those Christian liberty areas — even if it’s close to the edge in many cases. But I hope everyone sensed the sarcasm and satiric nature of the original post.

    Anyway, this post is moving away from the top soon. Thanks for all these comments — it’s been a good discussion.

  17. kaylene says:

    Some good thoughts, and I agree with what you said Tim. I appreciate your humble reply. Its in interesting topic and I think you covered both sides well. I would like to stress, you CAN tell something by its fruits and in many things, a prom, for instance, there is a pattern of “dirty dancing” and “awful music”. We homeschoolers may be considered sheltered, but we are not unaware of what goes on around us… I don’t think speaking of it that way can be considered “jumping to conclusions”.
    Blessings! ~ a new reader

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *