Over the past few weeks, there have been over 30 articles and editorials (plus countless comments on various blogs and The Sun Chronicle Web site) relating to the conflict between State Senator Scott Brown and King Philip High School. The chasm between the two points of view is amazingly deep, and which side can hold more weight depends on what story a person's point of view is molded around.

What you have heard about the conflict is most likely wrong.

Both sides have twisted the story to make themselves seem the victim or the hero. Both sides insist they were right. They were not.

We high-schoolers are not children, nor are we adults. We are old enough to be responsible for our actions, but young enough to still make stupid mistakes (though no one truly grows out of the mistake phase). We are at the age where it is normal and natural to test our limitations and explore our rights as citizens and humans. We don't always make the wisest decisions, but we look up to and respect those people (our leaders) who, in theory, do. Those people like Sen. Scott Brown.

We (I am speaking for those who formed or posted on the Facebook account that has caused this entire brouhaha) chose to exercise our freedom of speech in a perfectly legal, but possibly hurtful fashion. The end result of this decision was an eroding of our idolization of our state senator through one simple meeting. One simple mistake. No one should be "taking up arms" against each other, or we will have another war on our hands. Are not most deadly wars caused by simple miscommunications that were never righted? Before we blow this issue even further out of proportion, we need to understand what really happened and fix this problem before it gets even farther out of hand.

On Thursday, Feb. 8, Senator Scott Brown came to King Philip High School to lead a lecture about civil unions and gay marriage.

The visit was prompted by rumors that a history teacher at the school was teaching a one-sided view and threatening students with low grades if they did not agree to rise against the government.

Brown asked the school board if he could come and give a lecture about his own point of view (opposite to the teacher's), as is King Philip's custom. The school agreed, and a group of about 100 students (two junior classes and one freshman class) gathered in the school's media center. The administration attended, as well as a psychology teacher, the school's adjustment counselor, two librarians and the teacher whose classes were attending. There was no media coverage and, although they were initially invited, the Diversity Club, an ethics class, and other history classes were uninvited because of limited space.

The first misunderstanding was between Brown and the school's TV Production group. Brown implied that he believed that when a student asked if he could film the lecture to use in the school's news production, he believed him to mean a local news production, and not a school-run show. A lecture, while meaning little to Brown, is an important event to the school, and his denial of media coverage outraged many students who falsely believed it to be a calculated maneuver on Brown's part.

The timeline of the lecture has confusing to many, and has changed many times. The consensus of five students who were present is the following: Brown was 25 minutes late. He spoke for five minutes about his achievements in the community. He then passed out two packets, one containing the complete works of the Facebook group, expletives and all, the other containing a collection of emails (all against him, with a single pro) that he had received. The senders' names were blacked out. He spoke of the Facebook account for 10 minutes, reading comments verbatim, and even naming the students who wrote them.

He did not directly stop when the mediator requested him to, but he finally went back behind the podium when another teacher spoke up from the back, says junior Emily Cannon.

He then spoke of the legislative process for five minutes before he was cut off to begin the 15-minute question-and-answer session.

Now, the greatest misconception, and the reason why so many people who listen to Brown's version (he shares this same misconception) refer to us as "punks," is that we are upset at Brown's reading verbatim (including expletives) off the Facebook sheet.

That is NOT why the students are angry. We are upset and outraged that our state senator came into our school under false pretenses and degraded himself to a high school level in front of our eyes. We were not prepared for a personal attack, and therefore were unable to stand up for ourselves.

Every student in that library expected an interesting and involved debate on why gay marriage should not be allowed, and many even had questions on the topic ready.

The Facebook account was NOT a personal attack on Brown. It was created in excitement of the upcoming debate between Brown and the history teacher, and they were merely acting as a sports team, on the side of their dedicated teacher.

The outrage would be far different if the students came to school hoping for violence or to see two people physically fight, but they didn't. They came to school excited about a mature ethical debate between two highly educated men.

The Facebook Web site spoke with excitement about the upcoming "ownage" of Brown by their teacher. Ownage is not a bad word. Friends "own" other friends in video games, and it is a laughing matter. It is another word for defeat, and a goofy one at that. It should not be taken as a vulgarity or an insult.

In fact, the entire Facebook account is a laughable matter. Not only because much of the content is actually funny (there is a lengthy song written about the teacher that is well-written and clever, alluding to Bush and joking about how the student has "the IQ of a fence post"), but also because the vulgarity content has been completely exaggerated by Brown.

Out of the 26 comments published in the Facebook account, only six were directly and solely about Scott Brown or his family.

One was merely an agreement to a comment that had been posted earlier. One was actually a thought-provoking question about whether or not Brown would change his views if his daughter were a lesbian. There was nothing insulting in the question.

Out of these six comments, one directly contained one obscenity, and another was an agreement to the initial post. Two obscenities directed towards Brown and his family throughout the entire account. Considering that even Mother Teresa has been called the same obscenity, that doesn't seem like something an intelligent politician like Brown should overreact about.

His actions were especially outrageous since many of the students who posted and whose names were read aloud were not present at the assembly.

Another important misconception is that solely students sent the emails that were included in the second packet. We were not privy to who wrote the emails, but the style of writing makes it obvious that it was not a student, but in fact an adult. Considering that the emails were terrible and harsh, many of which were filled with cynical sarcasm and contained vulgarity, the Internet postings of the students severely paled in comparison.

Perhaps Brown's reaction would have been slightly more accepted if students at King Philip (and who were present at the assembly) had written the emails. Emails constitute a personal attack. They are important messages that are intended to be read by the person they are to/about.

Facebook is a conversation. Students join to converse about various subjects, one of which happened to be the anticipated debate between Brown and their teacher. For Brown to read the comments on Facebook, he is acting more as an eavesdropper than a victim of written attacks.

Most people have been in the position where they have overheard people talking about a bad quality in them. Does that person then run over to the group and angrily lecture them, quoting verbatim what each person said about them?

No.

They let it roll off their back. Not everyone can like you. And this is a normal person who is not often subject to that kind of dislike. For a politician to overreact to this overheard conversation in this fashion is going too far.

Along the same line, the email that the teacher sent to Brown and other local politicians should not be brought into the school's debate. What someone does on their own time in their own house doesn't necessarily reflect how a person speaks or behaves elsewhere.

If a person loves writing poetry at home and spends every waking minute on the weekend with a pen and paper, does she necessarily come into her science classroom and begin beautifying the feathers on the soaring wings of the birds her students are dissecting?

Again, no.

The proper response to a hateful email is to respond back to the person with an explanation of your beliefs, and an offering to hear an explanation of theirs. It is not right, and perhaps paranoid, to assume that the teacher is passing his beliefs on to his students and convincing them to rise against the government.

"It was a conflict between Mr. Ferreira and him and he took it out on us," says Cannon.

An even more improper action is to blatantly make the conflict universal, as Brown did, by stating that "there is a lot of hate being taught in our schools"

There is no hate being taught, and that comment is a disgustingly immature way of rationalizing the actions of that morning. Hate is not taught, but it can still be learned, as was proven by the reactions after Brown's appearance.

When asked if they felt as though Ferreira's views were being pushed on them, the students immediately and simultaneously answered "No. Absolutely not."

"He told us to be polite [to Brown]," says Senior Pat Jennings.

"He was pretty happy when his junior classes kept their cool and curbed their emotion," adds senior Mike Nolan.

Another action of Brown's that was met with annoyance was his insistence on knowing every student's name before they spoke. Normally, this action would not annoy anyone, but Brown's Facebook speech had put the students on the edge of paranoia, and they feared that anything they said could and would be used against them in a room of their peers. Brown's small act of polite normalcy was negated and actually turned evil by his prior actions.

Another problem is that Brown's stories continue to change. The finder of the Facebook account on the Wednesday before his speech has survived various stages from being his younger daughter, to his older daughter, to a teacher, to concerned parents and students. The truth is out there somewhere, but until Brown can keep his stories straight, only he knows.

One more interesting conundrum is Brown's interest in changing the past. He has told some sources that he would change what he did if he were to do it again. Others have him holding steadfast to his decision and refusing to change a word. Again, the truth is out there, but only Brown knows.

Many sources have mentioned that Brown apologized to the school board after the presentation, and it was assumed that he apologized for overreacting. Not so. He explained on WRKO radio that he apologized only because the lecture had not gone as he would have liked.

The main thing that bothers so many people about this entire issue is that, instead of calling students out for posting negative words about Brown on the Internet, intelligent debate may have changed our minds and had a positive instead of negative effect. It would also have been a valuable learning opportunity if he had presented a logical argument that students would have been able to debate with their own thoughts and ideas.

Instead, the childish finger-pointing and "he said that about me!" exclamations not only taught us nothing about the legislative process, but also lessened Brown in the eyes of us citizens, and his soon-to-be voters.

Unfortunately, the later acts of both Brown and two King Philip students further show the immaturity of both opposing sides.

The two King Philip girls had no right nor business to shout profanity-laced exclamations out of the car window as they drove by a jogging Brown. Nothing was accomplished. Nothing was expected to be accomplished by such a childish action. Worse, it further prompted Brown to add his own immaturity to the vat by refusing the school a simple apology.

Like the exclamations, Brown's act also accomplishes nothing except further fueling the King Philip students' and the faculty's annoyance with, and anger at, him. The girls wanted the last word, and Brown wants to be right. This simple problem has become an enormous explosion of pride and the need to be right.

No one was right.

No one will ever be right until they right this problem. I personally will view the first person who begins the apology process as a hero of maturity, an idol of which does not seem to exist at this point in time.

Brianna Chamberlain is a student at King Philip Regional High School and is a contributor to The Page. This story originally appeared in The Place on Feb. 23, 2007.