god how i love the first amendment. hehe.

In-depth? Haha, no, no need; you're clearly shallow enough to have made it transparently obvious that pathetically irrelevant ad hominem was the best you had to offer. I thought it'd just be interesting to see if you'd balk or dig your hole a little deeper. And you didn't disappoint! But hey, you keep on pretending that you have even the slightest inkling about the HILARIOUS field of mental health ('therapy' = big laughs!), k? K.

That's it. If you need in depth analysis, your therapist should be able to help you out.

John Doe:
.
Is that it? Anything more to add, or is pathetically irrelevant ad hominem the best you have to offer?

Is this part of your therapy inconvenient?

More has been argued than just a typo, Blue21. Maybe you missed it? Here, let me re-post for you (maybe you can address it this time):

.

"Can't see where you got lost there."

I didn't get lost. If you take a job that some may question as being moral, that decision CAN indeed come back to haunt you, just as anything else can. Just not in this case. That's probably why I wrote that it's "a good lesson, but inapplicable in this case." Can't see where you got lost there.

.

"When young girls are prancing around"

Young girls are not prancing around at Hooters. It's a restaurant, and the young women who work there are serving.

.

"in short-shorts and tight t-shirts (that's the required uniform), and the name of the place is Hooters, let's quit the postering and not pretend what we all know here"

You mean aside from not pretending we know how to correctly spell the word "posturing"? Because we ALL clearly know that...

.

"unless you really are that ignorant and need a picture drawn."

I guess I am pretty ignorant, because I'm still not seeing where you've logically explained how Hooters is a "borderline strip joint." You don't need to draw a picture; just try using your words this time.

.

"I was very clear that I was putting out an opinion."

I think I've been equally clear on that.

.

"You seem to have nothing better to do with your day than nit-pick others' posts."

Well, just those of the ignorant. And the course of a day is about 16-18 hours, so unless you can point to where my posts have spanned that length of time...?

.

"We all have rights to our opinions, whether you agree with them or not... I was talking how the public can judge."

I'm the public. I can judge. And, we all have rights to our opinions, whether you agree with them or not. I'm here to judge you and your illogical opinions, and refute you with evidence and facts.

.

"Nope, I am not. I suppose if I wanted to kill people, because it made me happy, I could do that, too?"

I recall I mentioned "life, liberty, and the pursuit." Mind telling me what kind of a nut believes homicide falls under that category?

.

"Are you playing with semantics now?"

Based off of what? What is this in reference to?

.

"Give me a break. Go play with someone else now."

A break for what? I guess that's the difference between you and me: I'm not playing.

.

"You work yourself into such a tizzy with these posts that you can't even keep them straight anymore"

Yes, quite the tizzy. I'd better be careful or next time I won't just be pasting the wrong name into a post, I'll be asserting uniformed biases like you guys!

.

"You should really get some professional help if internet opinions bother you this much."

Pot calling the kettle black.

.

"don't know why it matters to you so much"

They don't. The truth does. You stand to contradict it. I stand to contradict you. Simple.

"However, at the end of the day, i disagree with you, no matter how well you dissect and counterpoint."

And you can disagree with gravity all you like, but until you literally fly away... At the end of the day, your opinion and subjective/biased opinions do not trump objective facts.

.

"and if we were back in the days of my moral idealism"

Well, we aren't. We live in the present. And idealism is just a nice way of saying revisionist escapism.

.

"i would slap you with my glove and challenge your hands-on aim-and-fire skills."

I see. So, because you can't delude yourself into ignoring pesky truths, you'd rather just shoot at whatever it is that's causing you to have to face up to them? Typical; words fail, so reach for a gun. At least you've given us a taste of your "morals"...

"truth is also subjective."

No, truth is derived from objectivity.

.

"as for third party assumptions. not true."

Yes, it is true. The information that's been posted here (pictures, websites) ARE third-party. They are not yours. You and others Internet-stalked Roehl and posted what you dug up on here. Although, I'm sure Roehl would hold the same assessment as you concerning wishing you didn't know her.

.

"i miss the days where there were higher standards for educators and coaches."

I know you're busy waxing nostalgic, but you're going to need to cite examples of those bygone "higher standards", providing evidence of them.

.

"i suppose in a town where a sex offender can run an ice cream stand"

I suppose in a town where people lack so much intelligence as to seriously assert that pedophiles are on par with a Hooters waitress...

.

"it saddens me to see the school district make a decision, not based on merit, but fear of law suits and the desire to hush the noise."

You know what that "noise" was that was hushed? Evidence of illegal hiring practices by school district administrators. So, in essence, it saddens you that Roehl (who was more than qualified) exposed that. I think what truly saddens you is the fact that we live in a world of laws, which don't always mesh with your morals. And in your mind, your morals should trump those laws. But they don't.

.

"it was a case of bullying plain and simple."

You're going to have to provide some evidence to back up the absurd claim that a recent high school graduate who tends bar at Hooters bullied the Janesville School District, and that the district just rolled over upon being blackmailed despite the media attention.

.

"IF she was so qualified, IF hooters was in fact NOT a factor, IF her hard work ethic and menial highschool pom experience and upstanding character were all considered and weighed or not weighed accordingly—why did it take this to extend the job offer?"

Why? You said it yourself: "not weighed accordingly." Because the school district's administrators were not considering her merits, only her employment at Hooters, which legally has no bearing on her employability. Meaning the school administrators were in the wrong. Meaning Roehl had every right to bring attention to the situation.

.

"it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been a brat and thrown a fit."

Yes, understanding the law, and expecting others to follow it, is pretty "bratty." I mean, it's just like when a theft occurs, and the property owners (aka brats) throw "fits" by involving the police.

.

"i just never thought i'd see the day where society enables this behavior."

What behavior? Lawfulness?

.

"i guess its just time for me to leave janesville...as i am not at the level of those who are reaching success in this area."

Clearly you're not. Don't come back this time.

When you have nothing to do but argue about a typo, you're really reaching.

But thanks for the laugh!

ps. inconvenient, i bet you passed your logic courses with A's...if not, your teacher should be fired. Bravo. Its fun to see how your brain dissects arguments and uses others words against them. I also hope you're a defense lawyer. As some of us could use you. However, at the end of the day, i disagree with you, no matter how well you dissect and counterpoint. and if we were back in the days of my moral idealism, i would slap you with my glove and challenge your hands-on aim-and-fire skills. Just for something to do before dawn.

inconvenienttruth: truth is also subjective. as for third party assumptions. not true. firsthand knowledge here. sorry to say. i wish i didnt know her, b/c maybe i wouldnt be so sad. i thought she was better than this. truly. for me it really extends beyond just this situation. i miss the days where there were higher standards for educators and coaches. i suppose in a town where a sex offender can run an ice cream stand, it only makes sense for this to happen. it saddens me to see the school district make a decision, not based on merit, but fear of law suits and the desire to hush the noise. it was a case of bullying plain and simple. and here is my question...IF she was so qualified, IF hooters was in fact NOT a factor, IF her hard work ethic and menial highschool pom experience and upstanding character were all considered and weighed or not weighed accordingly—why did it take this to extend the job offer? I have to wonder if she truly feels like she earned it. or if somewhere deep down, she knows it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been a brat and thrown a fit. and maybe, just maybe on some level, we ALL would love to be able to get what we want in life by throwing tantrums. i just never thought i'd see the day where society enables this behavior. cause what does it mean? ignorance, self-righteousness and mediocrity have the power. again, this is just poms...but to me it is an example of whats happening all around us. i guess its just time for me to leave janesville...as i am not at the level of those who are reaching success in this area.

"Can't see where you got lost there."

I didn't get lost. If you take a job that some may question as being moral, that decision CAN indeed come back to haunt you, just as anything else can. Just not in this case. That's probably why I wrote that it's "a good lesson, but inapplicable in this case." Can't see where you got lost there.

.

"When young girls are prancing around"

Young girls are not prancing around at Hooters. It's a restaurant, and the young women who work there are serving.

.

"in short-shorts and tight t-shirts (that's the required uniform), and the name of the place is Hooters, let's quit the postering and not pretend what we all know here"

You mean aside from not pretending we know how to correctly spell the word "posturing"? Because we ALL clearly know that...

.

"unless you really are that ignorant and need a picture drawn."

I guess I am pretty ignorant, because I'm still not seeing where you've logically explained how Hooters is a "borderline strip joint." You don't need to draw a picture; just try using your words this time.

.

"I was very clear that I was putting out an opinion."

I think I've been equally clear on that.

.

"You seem to have nothing better to do with your day than nit-pick others' posts."

Well, just those of the ignorant. And the course of a day is about 16-18 hours, so unless you can point to where my posts have spanned that length of time...?

.

"We all have rights to our opinions, whether you agree with them or not... I was talking how the public can judge."

I'm the public. I can judge. And, we all have rights to our opinions, whether you agree with them or not. I'm here to judge you and your illogical opinions, and refute you with evidence and facts.

.

"Nope, I am not. I suppose if I wanted to kill people, because it made me happy, I could do that, too?"

I recall I mentioned "life, liberty, and the pursuit." Mind telling me what kind of a nut believes homicide falls under that category?

.

"Are you playing with semantics now?"

Based off of what? What is this in reference to?

.

"Give me a break. Go play with someone else now."

A break for what? I guess that's the difference between you and me: I'm not playing.

.

"You work yourself into such a tizzy with these posts that you can't even keep them straight anymore"

Yes, quite the tizzy. I'd better be careful or next time I won't just be pasting the wrong name into a post, I'll be asserting uniformed biases like you guys!

.

"You should really get some professional help if internet opinions bother you this much."

Pot calling the kettle black.

.

"don't know why it matters to you so much"

They don't. The truth does. You stand to contradict it. I stand to contradict you. Simple.

good job Blue21...in a nutshell my friend...in a nutshell.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Robert J. Hanlon

Thanks, Blue21. Good to see not everyone is so willing to be blind to the truth, no matter how "inconvenient" it may be.

Since you seem to enjoy copy/paste, I will respond in kind:

"A good lesson, but inapplicable in this case."
Absolutely not. If you take a job that some may question as being moral, that decision can come back to haunt you, just as anything else can. Can't see where you got lost there.
-
"First, there's no logical way to assert that Hooters is a "borderline strip joint." I hope you didn't present it as such when you were teaching your kids that lesson about past decisions, as you'd be simultaneously teaching them a petty bias in the process."
When young girls are prancing around in short-shorts and tight t-shirts (that's the required uniform), and the name of the place is Hooters, let's quit the postering and not pretend what we all know here, unless you really are that ignorant and need a picture drawn.

"Second, as per the law, Roehl's current form of legal employment may not play a detrimental role in the hiring decisions of the school district, unless her performance at that job would reflect poorly on her."
I was very clear that I was putting out an opinion. You seem to have nothing better to do with your day than nit-pick others' posts. We all have rights to our opinions, whether you agree with them or not. I wasn't talking legalities. I was talking how the public can judge.
-
Very true; you COULD be, thanks to "life, liberty, and the pursuit."
" Are you opposed to that? Apparently..."

Nope, I am not. I suppose if I wanted to kill people, because it made me happy, I could do that, too? Are you playing with semantics now? Give me a break. Go play with someone else now.

You work yourself into such a tizzy with these posts that you can't even keep them straight anymore...who you're replying to, etc.
You should really get some professional help if internet opinions bother you this much.

Have a great day, and remember, we all can have our opinions...don't know why it matters to you so much...

What's the problem here? You would think that Hooters is a brothel or something.
.
Most of the people who have a problem with Hooters have not been there....and are uptight women who aren't the easiest on the eyes.

1jvlopinion, I question your thought process and offer you a reality check. Hooters waitresses are very much like cheerleaders. Boys and men both oggle them while they do their best to make their customers enjoy the facility they work in.

At least the hooters girls are making an honest living, paying taxes, and trying (like the person in this story) to make a better life for themselves. Get off your high horse and stop looking down on people for working hard and trying to do the right thing.

I wish the district had stuck to their first decision. I wouldn't want my daughter to have a Hooters waitress for a teacher. I think ALL teachers should take seriously their status as role models to our children. Morals seem to be a thing of the past, unfortunately. So is self-respect. What's ok about ANYONE thinking so little of themselves that they are willing to show off their breasts (and the rest of their bodies) for money/tips. What's there to congratulate folks???

winer, could you please give your definition of "spastic", and provide a quote of mine to which you would attribute this definition?

Woops! That last post should be mostly attributed to Blue21. Except for the last paragraph, which is moralsbedamned's.

To clarify:

"Mot to mention, as a young girl looking for a role model, who WOULDNT want to be seen as this? It speaks volumes. Her name is immortalized in this moment. You can readily see the depths of her intelligence, her strength as more than an object and what she has to offer society as a whole. She feeds no stereotypes and is NOT hiding behind a mask of fear and insecurity. I bet if you took away the outfit, tanning solution, hair dye and makeup, underneath we'd find true, unshakeable morals." - moralsbedamned

Morals are subjective. And you're obviously just as prejudiced as representinbtownyo. You two seem to have this amazing ability to fully judge a person in their entirety from a handful of third-party pictures you roused up on the Internet. "Speaks volumes"? It sure does... though, not about Roehl.

.

"If you don't want to do the required work to obtain a professional position (a.k.a. education, comparable work (not volunteer) experience), simply create a media frenzy and the world is yours." - moralsbedamned

Except for that whole issue of Roehl having volunteered her time with the JV poms she now coaches, aside from her years of experience with poms in general. Required work and unrequired volunteerism experiences were both exhibited by Roehl. Now, when an employer disregards that because they don't agree with a current form of employment, then yes, create a media frenzy. By all means.

.

"Now that's ingenuity and creativity if I ever did see it in action. Not to mention the American Way."

Agreed!

.

"Bravo mediocrity, you win again."

I suppose. After all, you're still free to voice your thoughts.

"I used this as an example to show my children that things they do can come back to haunt them." - moralsbedamned

A good lesson, but inapplicable in this case.

.

"You want to be a waitress in a diner that is a borderline strip joint? Fine, then don't expect big opportunities to come you way, or at the very least, don't whine when they don't."

First, there's no logical way to assert that Hooters is a "borderline strip joint." I hope you didn't present it as such when you were teaching your kids that lesson about past decisions, as you'd be simultaneously teaching them a petty bias in the process. Second, as per the law, Roehl's current form of legal employment may not play a detrimental role in the hiring decisions of the school district, unless her performance at that job would reflect poorly on her.

.

"I could have a doctorate and be qualified to teach, but decide I want to model nighties on the internet. What kind of person does that?"

Very true; you COULD be, thanks to "life, liberty, and the pursuit." Are you opposed to that? Apparently...

.

"Mot to mention, as a young girl looking for a role model, who WOULDNT want to be seen as this? It speaks volumes. Her name is immortalized in this moment. You can readily see the depths of her intelligence, her strength as more than an object and what she has to offer society as a whole. She feeds no stereotypes and is NOT hiding behind a mask of fear and insecurity. I bet if you took away the outfit, tanning solution, hair dye and makeup, underneath we'd find true, unshakeable morals."

Morals are subjective. And you're obviously just as prejudiced as representinbtownyo. You two seem to have this amazing ability to fully judge a person in their entirety from a handful of third-party pictures you roused up on the Internet. "Speaks volumes"? It sure does... though, not about Roehl.

frusion, no. Midnight is an early night for some. We all have our own schedules.

"why did she feel like she 'had' to take this to the paper...she got the job anyway." - BacktoReality

She DID get the job, after taking her story to the Gazette. Prior to that, she’d been given the run-around by school administrators playing fast and loose with their hiring practices.

.

"She took it to the paper because it was the most 'ideal' thing for her to do...because then she got the most undeserved attention for doing a whole bunch of nothing"

Yes, exposing questionably illegal practices is ideally done through the inclusion of the media. Doing the right thing is not “a whole bunch of nothing”, and attention for it isn’t undeserved.

.

"Who said she got the job BECAUSE she went to the paper!"

No one. She was just finally afforded the equal opportunity for the position that she had been denied initially.

.

"Are you implying that she was not talented enough to get the job on her own?"

Nothing I've written has even remotely suggested this, so where you've pulled this illogical conclusion from, I can't even guess.

.

"Maybe she got it because she did what she was told she had to do to get the job"

She was never specifically told to do anything. She was just cryptically told by school administrators to do "something" to make herself more employable "as quickly as possible." As her past fines A) can't be changed, and B) aren't a legally considerable factor in the matter of hiring anyway, we're left to conclude it is something Roehl was currently doing that administrators would have liked to see Roehl stop doing. Like, say, working at Hooters.

.

"I never said anything about her underage drinking 'whatevers'"

"Drinking 'whatevers'"? Really? I guess you forgot about:

"She went to the paper knowing that she had *ehem*..dare I say...underage drinking tickets" - BacktoReality.

Awfully audacious of you to STILL include the word "drinking" in your false claims. Yet AGAIN, there is a difference between POSSESSION and DRINKING. And, yet AGAIN, you'd best learn that difference before you continue to slander someone. Got it? I sure hope so.

.

"I'm talking about the b.s. that comes with 'putting yourself out there'."

And I'm reminding you that "the b.s. that comes with putting yourself out there" has no relevance or legal part to play in this matter, and discussion of that b.s. serves only as a red herring to the shady employment practices of certain school administrators.

.

"not everyone is going to agree with you or me. That's life."

Then you agree I'm entitled to what I've written here. It just so happens that my writings refute unsubstantiated and subjectively biased opinions like yours. That's life.

.

"I'm... amused by the fact that you think I only made a profile because of something you wrote...gimme a break you are not that special."

Except for the fact that you joined yesterday and only have three posts to your name. All of which have been made in response to me.

"When did they pass a law that underage drinking was OK as long as you were a BARTENDER?" - representinbtownyo

Better question: Where did I make this claim?

.

"I find your extremley over the top methods of defending this 'innocent' girl and her 'virtuous' nature somewhat amusing."

Not sure why you're quoting "innocent" or "virtuous." Not only are her general states of innocence or virtuousness irrelevant, but I've never used those words to describe Roehl, and I doubt the Gazette has. I find your extreme, insistent insinuations to the contrary questionable. That, coupled with your stalking of Roehl via the circuit court access and photobucket sites, and I find you to be simply unnerving. This story has NOTHING to do with Roehl's personal life (you might want to get off your ad hominem kick) and everything to do with the actions of school administrators.

.

"Can you honestly tell me that there is no reason to be concerned with this young girl being placed in a position of authority over school aged children (some who she even was in school with at the same time)given her obvious immature actions in the not so distant past?"

Do I see a reason to be concerned that a high school graduate who has years of experience with Parker poms; who maintains steady and legal employment; and who has never been convicted of a crime will be a high school JV poms coach? No, I don't see any reason to be concerned about that at all. And, what "obvious immature actions" would those be, again? They MUST be something relevant to poms, or her current job, or even her performance in high school…right? Or is it something akin to the Internet stalking and character assassination of a stranger that was read about in a newspaper?

.

"Looks like she frequents a few frat parties as well. http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt277...

Case in point.

.

"You can continue to pretend she is this innocent little victim all you want but, to me 'a picture is worth a thousand words.'"

And you can continue to pretend that ad hominem can negate that Roehl was the victim of questionable hiring practices all you want. But, under equal opportunity employment, that picture is worth about as much as your biased opinion. Not that I question how valuable you personally assess that picture to be, though. I’m sure it’s a prized find of your dirt-digging.

Inconvenient: do you have a personal connection to this story...just wondering, you seem unusually, um, spastic.

blue: you most def have a right to your own opinion...and this post is in no way to bash you...but id like to know what hooters you are eating at that are 'borderline stripjoints'?? ive eaten at a few, not my fav place but ok wings, but ive NEVER seen a single employee come close to removing any piece of clothing. in fact back when i had a few drinks with my meal i was politely turned down a few times for making just such a request. so a heads up on where i can get that done would be great. thank you. yer my boy blue.

I used this as an example to show my children that things they do can come back to haunt them.

You want to be a waitress in a diner that is a borderline strip joint? Fine, then don't expect big opportunities to come you way, or at the very least, don't whine when they don't.

I could have a doctorate and be qualified to teach, but decide I want to model nighties on the internet. What kind of person does that? Give me a break.

Of course, just as you all have a right to your opinions, I have a right to mine. I still imagine that I will be "bashed" for my opinions. That's okay. I really don't care.

http://www.myspace.com/276352829

Mot to mention, as a young girl looking for a role model, who WOULDNT want to be seen as this? It speaks volumes. Her name is immortalized in this moment. You can readily see the depths of her intelligence, her strength as more than an object and what she has to offer society as a whole. She feeds no stereotypes and is NOT hiding behind a mask of fear and insecurity. I bet if you took away the outfit, tanning solution, hair dye and makeup, underneath we'd find true, unshakeable morals.

I've really learned something valuable here. If you don't want to do the required work to obtain a professional position (a.k.a. education, comparable work (not volunteer) experience), simply create a media frenzy and the world is yours. Now that's ingenuity and creativity if I ever did see it in action. Not to mention the American Way. Bravo mediocrity, you win again.

She is the wind beneath our "wings".

YES! This story warms the cockles of my heart.

"Hooters Girl" (and shouldn't it be "Hooters' Girl"?)?! The Gazette again tries to tempt us with racy headlines (but could you add some pictures when you do this again?).

Glad for Jennifer, and glad the school district came to its senses by hiring a qualified person who just happens to have another LEGAL job! But why did it take them so long? Testing the waters, are we?

When did they pass a law that underage drinking was OK as long as you were a BARTENDER?
I find your extremley over the top methods of defending this "innocent" girl and her "virtuous" nature somewhat amusing. It's obvious you are either a close family member or perhaps even a parent.
If that is the case I guess I can understand your tactics.
I still think you are being a bit obtuse though.
Can you honestly tell me that there is no reason to be concerned with this young girl being placed in a position of authority over school aged children (some who she even was in school with at the same time)given her obvious immature actions in the not so distant past? And before you proceed to chop apart my post and tell me why I am so wrong, her drinking habits are not only contained at the bar. Looks like she frequents a few frat parties as well. http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt277....
You can continue to pretend she is this innocent little victim all you want but , to me "a picture is worth a thousand words."
And btw, while I do happen to agree with a few of the other previous posts on this subject there is only one representin'. I do not feel the need to create multiple acccounts just to debate this with you.

cookiedough, I'm in only if Jennifer is our server.

inconvenienttruth, it looks like you had insomnia last night?

Chill out everybody and lets go to Hooters to make amends and have a drink!

P.S. slow economy + publicity = bigger tips and an undeserved 15mins

Okay...this is obviously what you "get off" on so please continue your childish rants. But, for the record. The question to ask her would be, why did she feel like she "had" to take this to the paper...she got the job anyway. She took it to the paper because it was the most "ideal" thing for her to do...because then she got the most undeserved attention for doing a whole bunch of nothing...Who said she got the job BECAUSE she went to the paper! Are you implying that she was not talented enough to get the job on her own? Maybe she got it because she did what she was told she had to do to get the job in the first place...I have a great feeling that we are not discussing the same things here...I never said anything about her underage drinking "whatevers" or the fact that she was in a bar underage having anything to do with her not being hired...I'm talking about the b.s. that comes with "putting yourself out there". You think that you can come out with something as controversial as this and people are not going form opinions...it happens...wake up and deal...not everyone is going to agree with you or me. That's life. And by the way I'm the one that's actually flattered or should I say amused by the fact that you think I only made a profile because of something you wrote...gimme a break you are not that special. So yes I am "satiated".

"Yep, I misspelled 'rebut'." - jstwndrn

Yep.

.

"Glad it was fuel for your fire."

Well, that helps fuel it, and all those other arguments I raised, too, which you still conveniently ignore, as you still conveniently play the victim. My, how you revert! You went from calling out and belittling Schultz, the Gazette, and the editor of this ongoing news story to hoping that the "Enquirer-esque" Gazette’s forum posting rules will help stop the logical deconstruction of your weak charges.

.

"If it helps feed your ego and your sense of self-proclaimed superiority, then knock yourself out and mention it two or three more times"

No, I think I've been sufficient. It's the least of what feeds me, anyway (see above).

.

"until now, I have tried to keep my comments so directed, like most others here, while you appear to thrive on launching mean-spirited personal attacks, frequently crossing the line of decency and civility."

You've kept your comments directly related to the article, and have also refrained from mean-spirited personal attacks that cross the line of decency and civility? Umm, now, that's just a lie...

"inconvenienttruth: Wow." - jstwndrn

"...is this just The Gazette's version of sensationalist headlines on slow news days? Does The Gazette sincerely think this story to be worthy of the space or time it takes to write and/or read it or was the editor on this one out to lunch not once, not twice, but thrice? Such a shallow form of gaining media visibility...undermines both the paper's and the reporter's integrity. Maybe there is some hidden agenda for why this 'story' is getting continued coverage. Or perhaps, Mr. Schultz, you are trying to break us in to The Gazette's new 'Enquirer-esque' format. What's your next headline for this entralling epic going to be...'Hooters Girl's Darkest Secrets!'?" - jstwndrn

"My post was mocking" - jstwndrn

.

"You seem like an intelligent person, but you also apparently seem to feed off of creating controversy"

Again:
"...is this just The Gazette's version of sensationalist headlines on slow news days? Does The Gazette sincerely think this story to be worthy of the space or time it takes to write and/or read it or was the editor on this one out to lunch not once, not twice, but thrice? etc..." - jstwndrn

"My post was mocking" - jstwndrn

.

"I decline your taunt to continue further"

Obviously. I wasn't expecting otherwise.

.

"and, again, I would urge you to read the rules of posting"

And again, thank you for rolling over and playing the victim.

"You truly do seem to have way too much time on your hands." - BacktoReality

Seeing as this is your one and only post, I'd say for certain that YOU have too much time (you made an account just to comment on...me?), and may even potentially be a masquerade account created by mark_twain or representinbtownyo or maybe even Katy. Who knows. Either way, I truly cherish your opinion.

.

"Here's my opinion....She is the one that took the story to the paper, no one else"

Plausible so far.

"...and just like every other 'celebrity' (if you can call her that), that opens a whole can of worms"

Ok, I'm going to stop you there. Yet again, this particular "can of worms" was opened by school district administrators. Roehl sought a fair opportunity to be employed doing something she has invested her time and interest in. I hardly think fame was a concern, and it'd simply be shallow to insinuate such.

.

"people will dig deep to find any piece of information on you, whether it be good or bad. She knew this. This is obviously what she wanted from the beginning and guess what, she got it."

She did "get it"; on this we agree. The questionable behavior of school administrators did not continue and Roehl was given her fair opportunity, resulting in her employment.

.

"for you to say that anyone is trying to 'tarnish' her character...excuse me..."

Excuse you...what? You take offense to the reality that representinbtownyo, by the very definition he/she provided, was attempting character assassination (and with information that had no relevance to the employability of Roehl, at that)?

"She went to the paper knowing that she had *ehem*..dare I say...underage drinking tickets, and pictures of her in an establishment, that serves alcohol, while underage." - BacktoReality

First, you MIGHT *ehem*… dare say… Roehl had "underage drinking tickets", but you would be committing *ehem*… defamation… and you could be *ehem*… held liable in a court of law. Do you understand the difference between underage POSSESSION and underage DRINKING? Because there is one. You best learn it before you take the time to level accusations again.
And again, as non-conviction arrests do not play a role in deciding a person's employability, she has no reason to concern herself with a couple fines that she was issued and had paid in the past.
Also, there are a range of reasons for why Roehl could rightfully be in (or even drink in, in some cases) a bar while underage. Least of these being that she's employed as a BARTENDER.

.

“As parents concerned for their own children's well-being, I believe that people had a right to know anyway."

And you do have the right (her public record is just as public as all our own), and now you do know (are you satiated?). However, your beliefs do not negate the legal reality that Roehl's non-conviction arrests play no factor in her employability. So the school district would have no right to take them into account. Her fines had no legal part to play in this matter, and discussion of them serves only as a red herring to the shady employment practices of certain school administrators.

.

"my point is, she did all this to herself."

She caused herself to not initially receive an equal opportunity for employment as a coach by her having maintained steady, legal employment elsewhere, which legally has no impact on her employability? She WAS proactive in her response, though. And she was rewarded for her gamble. No arguments there.

.

"So if you want to write something why don't you ask HER why?"

Ask her "why?" what? Why she works? Why she works at Hooters? Why she wants to be employed doing something she has years of experience with and enjoys? Why she believes she should not be discriminated against for being employed elsewhere (employment she was ready to give up in order to better her chances)? Why she likes being paid for her work? Care to clarify?

"Dear 'inconvenienttruth': you seem to have too much time on your hands." - mark_twain

According to what criteria? And how would that substantially relate to what I've written?

.

"The series of articles concerning this subject do not belong in a daily newspaper but rather in a gossip sheet such as the National Enquirer."

That's a beautifully unsubstantiated opinion. You seem to be following a trend...

.

"Your twisted attempts logic come across as mean-spirited and are based upon ethical fallacies."

My "twisted attempts logic"... yes. Well, I've noticed you've failed to be specific on that point. It's likely you can't be, seeing as I've not been illogical in the least regarding this story. Or, could you tell me: which "attempts" at logic of mine are "twisted", again?
If the inconvenience of the logical evidences and truths I write about here come across as "mean-spirited", then so be it. As they say, the truth hurts.

inconvenient: Yep, I misspelled "rebut". I was going to say "rebuttal" and left on the extra "t" when I changed it. Glad it was fuel for your fire. If it helps feed your ego and your sense of self-proclaimed superiority, then knock yourself out and mention it two or three more times, along with any other spelling errors you can find.
You called my original post a “rant”. Have you looked at your posts?!! My post was mocking, but it was directed at the article, not another poster. And, until now, I have tried to keep my comments so directed, like most others here, while you appear to thrive on launching mean-spirited personal attacks, frequently crossing the line of decency and civility.
You seem like an intelligent person, but you also apparently seem to feed off of creating controversy, to put it mildly, so I decline your taunt to continue further and, again, I would urge you to read the rules of posting and then, this time, open your eyes and seriously examine your posts in comparison to them. Best wishes, peace, out.

Dear "inconvenienttruth" I would have to agree with "mark twain". You truly do seem to have way too much time on your hands. Although I have not previously commented on this "story", I have followed. Here's my opinion....She is the one that took the story to the paper, no one else, and just like every other "celebrity" (if you can call her that), that opens a whole can of worms and people will dig deep to find any piece of information on you, whether it be good or bad. She knew this. This is obviously what she wanted from the beginning and guess what, she got it. So for you to say that anyone is trying to "tarnish" her character...excuse me...She went to the paper knowing that she had *ehem*..dare I say...underage drinking tickets, and pictures of her in an establishment, that serves alcohol, while underage. As parents concerned for their own children's well-being, I believe that people had a right to know anyway. But my point is, she did all this to herself. So if you want to write something why don't you ask HER why ? Maybe it's because this is a slow economy and she needed bigger tips.

Dear "inconvenienttruth": you seem to have too much time on your hands. The series of articles concerning this subject do not belong in a daily newspaper but rather in a gossip sheet such as the National Enquirer. Your twisted attempts logic come across as mean-spirited and are based upon ethical fallacies.

Ooohhhh - 1900 bucks. The Gazette and the school probably wasted more than that in labor discussing this stupid topic. Good for her to get the job as long as she is qualified and does not make the cheers involve a wet T-shirt contest.

"This article should never have been in the paper in the first place." - mark_twain

On what grounds?

.

"The title is inappropriate and degrading."

The title effectively summarizes/helps recall an ongoing story, while correctly referencing the official job title that Roehl holds as a Hooters server. If you have issue with the title of 'Hooters Girl', you'll need to take it up with Hooters rather than the Gazette.

.

"It seems that the Gazette is trying to stir up controversy at the expense of the young lady involved."

There would have been no controversy if the school district had not given Roehl the run-around on baseless grounds regarding her application to the Parker poms coaching position. Further, it was likely Roehl who brought this issue to light. And, as she's now been hired in the coaching position, I fail to see what expense Roehl has paid for this story.

.

"Shame on you Scott Angus, for not exercising your editorial responsibilities for the fair treatment of this women and exploiting the situation to sell newspapers."

The only unfair treatment displayed to Roehl in this case came from district administrators. Roehl's story was fairly treated by the Gazette, and since bringing the shady practices of Schroeder et al to light, Roehl now has an additional source of income as the Parker poms coach. Roehl benefits most out of this than any other party, if anything.

"Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation." - representinbtownyo

Which you DID attempt, did you not? Was I incorrect in this assessment? No. Your wiki-definition only bolsters me.

.

"I think in this case she pretty much took care of that on her own."

She "tarnished" her reputation by having a record of no convictions, with the worst you could dig up being a dismissed case of underage possession, as you apparently decided mentioning her two paid traffic fines wasn't tarnishing enough? This while Roehl has accumulated years of assisting coaching experience with Parker's pom squad and maintains steady employment?

Again, the funny part is, representinbtownyo has the luxury of being anonymous, and I wonder if he/she has had to put his/her neck out there to achieve anything, ever. Just as with Schroeder and Sperry, it would seem that representinbtownyo doesn't have the spine to put him/herself out there the way Roehl bravely did for what she believes.

.

"...I could care less if an obviously biased and most likely immature person, like incongruent tooth..."

First, your hypocrisy in this is wonderful. Not to mention you didn't even have a picture of me to pre-judge me by! Astounding.
Second, "what the writers of this story refused to do"? Correct. The writers of this story HAVE refused to include tangentially irrelevant subject matter, such as a dismissed charge and paid fine, as it is illegal for an employer to ask about non-conviction arrests, or to deny someone employment for the same. In other words, since that issue could have NO possible bearing under the law on Roehl's viability for the job position, to mention it solely for the sake of "casting her in a less flattering light" would lack journalistic integrity, and would serve only as an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. But that wasn't your intent, right?

.

"The school administration should be commended, not condemned, for refusing to comment on the accusations brought against them by this misguided youth."

First, if you have nothing to hide, you should have no reason not to comment. But I guess if false allegations are brought against you, you just plead the fifth or give cryptic half-responses instead of being forthright and eager to use your own facts to disprove your accuser? Is that how it works now?
Second, Schroeder did in fact comment...in an evasively indirect manner. Here it is for you, again:
"If she thinks there’s something she can do to improve and make herself a better candidate, then we obviously want her to do it as quickly as possible." - Schroeder
Finally, we're all entitled to equal and fair employment practices, under the law. Roehl's recognition of that doesn't make her "misguided." In fact, your willful ignorance of that reality makes you the misguided one. The school district has every reason to face criticism for attempting to disregard the legally required equality of their hiring practices.

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. I think in this case she pretty much took care of that on her own. Don't get mad at me for doing what the writers of this story refused to do by highlighting a part of the story that might cast her in a less flattering light than she has enjoyed so far. The school administration should be commended, not condemned, for refusing to comment on the accusations brought against them by this misguided youth.
Frankly, I could care less if an obviously biased and most likely immature person, like incongruent tooth, agrees with me or not. Somehow, I think I'll live.

Katy: For one to accept your theory, they would also have to accept the fact that most Hooters' Girls were pom and/or cheerleaders before that. By the way, most heroin users consumed pop and/or Kool-Aid at a younger age.

If the Gazette wanted to exploit the situation, it could have put this on the front page, complete with photos of the Hooters waitress and old photos of her in her poms outfit.

"It seems that the Gazette is trying to stir up controversy at the expense of the young lady involved. Shame on you Scott Angus, for not exercising your editorial responsibilities for the fair treatment of this women and exploiting the situation to sell newspapers."
.
Are you new, mark_twain? Welcome to the Janesvegas Gazette, where gratuitous exploitation and soap opera-esque drama abound! Just wait until they run a story on religion! They can't sell a paper unless there's sensationalism on every page, apparently.

Hopefully, the Gazette will block this blog soon.

This article should never have been in the paper in the first place. The title is inappropriate and degrading. The comments remind of something we would hear on the Jerry Springer show. It seems that the Gazette is trying to stir up controversy at the expense of the young lady involved. Shame on you Scott Angus, for not exercising your editorial responsibilities for the fair treatment of this women and exploiting the situation to sell newspapers.

On the plus-side, jstwndrn, you now have something mind-riveting and stimulating to read! And isn't that what is REALLY important?

Why, thank you, jstwndrn; I suppose I can be impressive from time to time.

Or was that just all you could muster after you realized you've failed to "rebutt" me?

Really, ms_sassy_wi? Do you REALLY suppose that was a "leap"? Gee, that couldn't have possibly been my intent...could it?

.

You want to know what a "leap" is? A leap is illogically suggesting, because one woman in particular who is now working in porn once worked as a Hooters Girl, and because $1900 "won't pay many bills" (despite her still simultaneously maintaining employment at Hooters), and for no other reasons, that Roehl very likely could follow the same career path as the other woman. THAT is a leap. If you seriously want to ask someone if something was necessary, ask Katy. Sorry if I offended your dainty sensibilities, but nothing I wrote was "graphic" in the least. Nothing was stated that hasn't already been included in the news itself. And certainly no more "gross" than insinuating that Roehl (who Katy likely doesn't know from Bob) may very well become a porn actress simply because she works at Hooters. But I guess this reveals your true priorities.

.

"I think Katy was just making an observation of how society works, and not this particular woman."

You thought wrong. Read it again.

inconvenienttruth: Wow.

wow, inconvenienttruth, that was a leap...and a pretty grossly detailed leap at that. I think Katy was just making an observation of how society works, and not this particular woman. I could be wrong. But wow...were the graphic details about Jeffrey Dahmer necessary on this story?

Oh, so true, Katy. And to prove your totally logical correlation, I'd like to point out that enlistment and service in the U.S. Army absolutely leads a person to later kidnap and molest young minority boys and incapacitate them; drill holes into their skulls to pour in acid; engage in necrophilia with the corpses; and dismember the corpses to cook parts for consumption while saving others in a freezer. I mean, just look at Jeffrey Dahmer!

Katy - Shame on you. According to your logic, all watercolor painters turn into Hitlers.

You "rebutt" my claim of irrefutable intrigue, jstwndrn? Ha! Well, that’s nice that you claim to have done so, but I’ve yet to see it. Care to actually attempt to rebut, rather than claim, it next time?

"Accusing the school system of discriminatory hiring practices is jumping the gun a bit, isn't it?"

Not given the evidence. You’re apparently still unaware of it.

"From these statements, which could be interpreted as contradictory, it doesn't sound like it ever really was an issue."

Key word: "interpreted". And your biased interpretation is disingenuous in the extreme. That administrators never directly stated that employment with Hooters was a problem does not negate that it was clear, from administrator comments, that she would have to do something additionally in order to be considered for the coaching position. Of course, we would have to consider the words of those administrators (which you so conveniently ignored) to make that kind of judgment. Luckily, we have them on record. Let's review:

"If she thinks there’s something she can do to improve and make herself a better candidate, then we obviously want her to do it as quickly as possible" – Parker Principal, Steve Schroeder.
Schroeder also refused to state whether employment at Hooters would raise a red flag or not. A simple 'yes' or 'no' question, and the Principal of Parker High School couldn't manage it.

Steve Sperry, the school district’s director of human resources, also wouldn't comment about the effects of Hooters employment, and would only reference the district's "Standards of Professional Behavior." Sperry refused to say what part applied in Roehl's case.

Hmm. Sounds like there WAS an issue with Roehl's prospects of employment. But I guess that's just my "interpretation"?

As far as the quote "They didn’t say anything about it, so I’m guessing, obviously, it’s not (an issue) anymore," is concerned, this was stated AFTER this story had received coverage and Roehl was hired in the coaching position. It was in response to queries regarding her continued employment at Hooters. But it was cute that you attempted to place it in a different context.

"I still think it was a story without substance."

That’s your opinion, in contradiction to the evidence.

"Lastly, please read the post rules, especially the part about personal attacks on other posters."

Thanks for playing the victim, but pointing out your ignorance, which you not only readily displayed but also admitted to in your post, as well as your hypocrisy in YOUR attacks on The Gazette and its staff, isn’t a "personal attack." It’s just an inconvenient truth.

The funny part is, representinbtownyo (b-town fo shizzo!) has the luxury of being anonymous, and I wonder if he/she has had to put his/her neck out there to achieve anything, ever. This is all the more emphasized in his/her TOTAL lack of decency in trotting out this pathetic attempt at character assassination.

"I'm just saying, funny how all three articles AND the story on the local T.V. news tried to make this girl out to be an angel with nothing but the best intentions." - representinbtownyo

Cite the article and quote the passage that states Roehl to be "an angel." As for "the best intentions", wanting a FAIR employment opportunity at a job which she has years of experience with, while being allowed to hold the steady employment she's maintained elsewhere, sounds like a good intention to me.

"Nowhere in these articles OR the news piece do they even try and pretend to make an effort to assume the school adminstartion just might have actually had valid reasons"

An effort WAS made to discern what valid reasons exist, as school officials were interviewed. Regardless, it's illegal for an employer to ask about non-conviction arrests, or to deny someone employment for the same.

"SHE was the one who jumped to the conclusion that she originally was told that she would not be considered for the position, based soley on her current employment as a Hooters Girl. Then she ran to the media crying "NO FAIR."

First, in addition to non-conviction arrests, it IS unfair to be denied employment based on her current lawful (and unrelated) employment elsewhere. If she was the one who went to the media, then she was correct in doing so.
Second, no conclusion was "jumped" to; it was made clear that there was something she could do to change her employment prospects:

"If she thinks there’s something she can do to improve and MAKE HERSELF A BETTER CANDIDATE, then WE OBVIOUSLY WANT HER TO DO IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE (emphasis mine)" - Parker Principal, Steve Schroeder.
Schroeder also refused to state whether employment at Hooters would raise a red flag or not. A simple 'yes' or 'no' question, and the Principal of Parker High School couldn't manage it. Hmm.

Steve Sperry, the school district’s director of human resources, also wouldn't comment about the effects of Hooters employment, and would only reference the district's "Standards of Professional Behavior." Sperry refused to say what part applied in Roehl's case.

Seems that, like representinbtownyo, neither of these school district officials had the spine to put themselves out there the way Roehl bravely did for what she believed.

"I saw the pics of her posted in the comments section of the last article written about this subject. They just confirmed my initial assesment of this girl as yet another annoying example of the way kids today feel they are entitled to whatever they want..."

Wow. Words fail. You gathered all that just from looking at her, huh?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
"Entitled to whatever they want"? Hardly. We're all entitled to equal and fair employment practices, under the law. Given your familiarity with Wisconsin's Public Record Access site, one would guess you might be more aware of that.

But, hey, you keep reppin b-town, yo!

I'll bet there is more to this than you are guessing. The citation was written by the State Patrol, not local or county cops. It is possible that a trooper wrote a car load of tickets because someone didn't fess up to the beer or wine cooler in a car... and she simply paid the ticket to avoid what you just dug up - embarrassment.
It does say First offense.
Everyone is entitled to a mistake - even role models, this paper has reported on several of them, both local and national who made far larger mistakes than this.

But let's continue the fine local tradition of finding fault with everyone and everything that might be a plus to this community.

inconvenienttruth: I rebutt your claim of irrefutable intrigue. This whole story sounds more like convenient fiction than anything resembling "intriguingly newsworthy".
"A case of discriminatory employment practices by the school district is intriguingly newsworthy."
Accusing the school system of discriminatory hiring practices is jumping the gun a bit, isn't it?
"Roehl said Parker administrators never said that Hooters was a problem, but Roehl said it was clear from their comments that she would have to quit her job in order to be considered for the coaching position."
“They didn’t say anything about it, so I’m guessing, obviously, it’s not (an issue) anymore,” she said."
From these statements, which could be interpreted as contradictory, it doesn't sound like it ever really was an issue. Perhaps it was only a matter of perception and speculation on Roehl's part. I still think it was a story without substance.
Lastly, please read the post rules, especially the part about personal attacks on other posters.

frusion, because she PAID the ticket.
I'm just saying, funny how all three articles AND the story on the local T.V. news tried to make this girl out to be an angel with nothing but the best intentions. Nowhere in these articles OR the news piece do they even try and pretend to make an effort to assume the school adminstartion just might have actually had valid reasons to not offer this GIRL a position. SHE was the one who jumped to the conclusion that she originally was told that she would not be considered for the position, based soley on her current employment as a Hooters Girl. Then she ran to the media crying "NO FAIR. NO FAIR!!!"
I saw the pics of her posted in the comments section of the last article written about this subject. They just confirmed my initial assesment of this girl as yet another annoying example of the way kids today feel they are entitled to whatever they want and their uncanny ability to point the finger of blame at anybody and everybody, as long as it is not pointed at themselves.

representinbtownyo, why was it dismissed?

Yeah, this GIRL is an excellent role model.
(saracastic emphasis on the word "excellent")
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;...

Better headline:
Jennifer Roehl to coach Parker Poms

Rididculous headline.

This shouldn't have even been an issue! Way to go!!! YAY!!

Congratulations Jennifer.

Greeeeeeeeat.....

jstwndrn.... ha, ha. Such inspired writing. Everything does not have to be hard hitting news as you would probably write if you were qualified to write. This is a special interest story that got the attention of a lot of people. Go read about Iran if you are need of mind-riveting, stimulating news.

"Egads!! I don't know which aspect of this mind-riveting saga is the most stimulating and intriguing!" - jstwndrn

Wow; you're apparently either old enough to be a grandparent or you're just painfully pretentious. "Egads"? Really?

First, since when has the news been required to be "mind-riveting" or "stimulating"? Want entertainment or thought-provocation? Read a book.
Second, is this intriguing? Yes, irrefutably so. A case of discriminatory employment practices by the school district is intriguingly newsworthy. Odd that you don't think so.

"Was there actually a conspiracy, or to not-exactly-quote Ms. Roehl, "(an issue)" regarding her occupation or is this simply an unbelievably ridiculous excuse for news?"

I guess you don't read The Janesville Gazette much if you have to ask that question. Your self-proclaimed ignorance of this issue should've been your first indicator that you should've skipped posting this whole embarrassing comment of yours.

"Does this young woman really want to be referred to as the 'Hooters girl' or is this just The Gazette's version of sensationalist headlines on slow news days?"

It's not up to her whether she "wants" to be referred to one; that is the job title: Hooters Girl. There’s nothing “sensationalist” about it. Just another fact you're ignorant of, apparently.

"Does The Gazette sincerely think this story to be worthy of the space or time it takes to write and/or read it or was the editor on this one out to lunch not once, not twice, but thrice?"

I wonder the same about whether you thought your little rant here was worth your time to write, as well as about your brain in the role of editor. Was it out to lunch? I mean, you obviously thought this story was not only worth your time to read, but also comment on. Hypocrisy much?

"Such a shallow form of gaining media visibility may bring some short-term attention, but in the long-term it undermines both the paper's and the reporter's integrity."

What's "shallow" about this, again? That The Janesville Gazette has reported on potential discriminatory hiring practices, or that the official job title of a Hooters server ('Hooters Girl') is used to reference to a... Hooters Girl?

"Maybe there is some hidden agenda for why this 'story' is getting continued coverage."

Oh, tell me about it! I can NOT stand that conspiratorial agenda-excuse of "following up a developing story" being used by the media to continue reporting on previous coverage.

"Or perhaps, Mr. Schultz, you are trying to break us in to The Gazette's new 'Enquirer-esque' format."

Seeing as this story (and, generally, The Janesville Gazette) displays journalistic integrity, and the Enquirer doesn't, I'm not sure where you're drawing this absurd comparison. And, again, news doesn't have to be "entralling", as you put it. It just has to be newsworthy. Apparently that reality is more than you can handle.

'CONGRATULATIONS JENN' Keep up the great work !!!
Stands & Cheers for Jenn.

bout time !!!!!!!!!

Congratulations Jenn;)

Egads!! I don't know which aspect of this mind-riveting saga is the most stimulating and intriguing! Was there actually a conspiracy, or to not-exactly-quote Ms. Roehl, "(an issue)" regarding her occupation or is this simply an unbelievably ridiculous excuse for news? Does this young woman really want to be referred to as the "Hooters girl" or is this just The Gazette's version of sensationalist headlines on slow news days? Does The Gazette sincerely think this story to be worthy of the space or time it takes to write and/or read it or was the editor on this one out to lunch not once, not twice, but thrice? Such a shallow form of gaining media visibility may bring some short-term attention, but in the long-term it undermines both the paper's and the reporter's integrity. Maybe there is some hidden agenda for why this "story" is getting continued coverage. Or perhaps, Mr. Schultz, you are trying to break us in to The Gazette's new "Enquirer-esque" format. What's your next headline for this entralling epic going to be..."Hooters Girl's Darkest Secrets!"?

If I go to a game can I get a dozen hotwings and a spotted cow?

Jennifer, congratulations! I'm looking forward to seeing you at Parker games!!

Congrats! (But why would the Gazette insist on calling a grown woman a "girl" in the title? Why not "employee"?)

Way to go Hooters girl. I voted for ya.

Good for Her!!! Wish her Major Success!!!!!!

I hope that this means the claims of discrimination were unfounded to begin with, rather than a change of heart by the board.

Good for her.

SarahB1, they didn't hire Obama.

Imagine that...

curtaincall - i agree. Funny words picked here. Was turned down because she didnt have all the forms needed to apply which would be givin to her by THEM. I thought she would still get it and all would be good. The school is smart enough to figure that out.

4loughs- funny you say that since they seem to think hooters outfits are WORSE than poms- NOT!

I would think twice now before you post any pics on facebook. They may be watching for any excuse to fire.

What? No veiled threats to keep schoolchildren home from classes over this?! I certainly hope the girls don't attempt to encourage their peers to study hard, play hard and achieve their goals. That is likely to upset a lot of parents. (Sarcasm.) Congratulations to the coach and the team.

Congrats go out to her!

YEE HA!!! There is hope for Janesville yet!

Should of never been an issue to begin with as curtaincall posted. Too bad Parker's colors aren't orange and white. She could go from work to work.

I am very happy for her. It never should have been a issue to begin with.