Share This Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, Oct. 8, 2012, 8:56 p.m.

How did this happen?: Given all the attention and spending on public school security post-Columbine, how did three Monessen High School football players allegedly bring two semi-automatic guns and drugs onto school property? Let's dispense with the hand-wringing over this “discouraging and disappointing” incident. What concerned parents want from their school district is an explanation.

Lessons in government: Franklin Regional high schoolers, who this year turned back a proposal to cut scheduled class periods, are learning that some administrative machinations don't die on the first try. The object of their opposition is back, supposedly to provide a “study session” for students needing extra help during the school day. We suppose scheduling these sessions after school, so other students don't lose valuable class time, is out of the question because of contractual obligations with teachers, the budget, etc. Students who have argued convincingly against cutting class periods shouldn't give up now.

Smoothing things over?: For all the motorists rumbling over Greensburg's pathetically patched-up roads because of gas-line replacement work, the bumpy ride is nearing an end: City officials say road repaving is “on target” and should be finished before the snow flakes fly. That would be a relief. But we wouldn't schedule any vehicle front-end alignments until the rubber meets the new asphalt.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.