A question for Matthew's classmates

[Guest Guest]

If someone writes 3 + 4 = 9 and ten people all write back saying that 3 + 4 = 7, what conclusions do you draw?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HUH ???

[Strife767]

HUH ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

His point is that if someone says something absurd, and more than one person correct it, that obviously doesn't mean they're the same person.

[Guest Paul]

HUH ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The "huh" is in response to: "If someone posts 3 + 4 = 9 and ten people respond by posting that 3 + 4 = 7, what conclusions do you draw?"

The point is rather obvious to anyone accustomed to thinking logically. The ten people are stating a mathematical fact. Since their statement is grounded in a well-known reality, it shouldn't come as any surprise that they're all saying the same thing. Of course, that wouldn't occur to people who don't think according to facts.

That's the point, and the fact that you don't get it, "guest," says something about you.

[Guest Guest]

If someone writes 3 + 4 = 9 and ten people all write back saying that 3 + 4 = 7, what conclusions do you draw?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I draw the conclusion that they all saw the same obvious mistake and pointed it out.

I do not draw the conclusion that they collaborated with each other, as there is no basis for that conclusion.

[Guest Guest]

The "huh" is in response to: "If someone posts 3 + 4 = 9 and ten people respond by posting that 3 + 4 = 7, what conclusions do you draw?"

The point is rather obvious to anyone accustomed to thinking logically. The ten people are stating a mathematical fact. Since their statement is grounded in a well-known reality, it shouldn't come as any surprise that they're all saying the same thing. Of course, that wouldn't occur to people who don't think according to facts.

That's the point, and the fact that you don't get it, "guest," says something about you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only you would think up an analogy of 3 + 4 = 9 ? God, you are an A hole. That A must stand for the "A"CLU.

[Guest Guest]

College interviews will take place for Matthew and his classmates. I have a question for those classmates, especially those who were in Mr. Paszkiewicz's history class with him.

Let's assume an interviewer knows or finds out that you were in that class.

Assume further that the interviewer asks you why you didn't speak up for Matthew, who was telling the truth.

It's a legitimate question, which goes to your character.

What are you going to say?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not my brother's keeper.

[Guest Guest]

I agree that 17 and 18 year olds are still young enough get some latitude, but they're not children any more, and some of them have have been absolutely rotten to Matthew. One person posting as guest made it clear that he or she was in that class. I have no sympathy for that person, who is bringing this comment on him/herself. It may not be nice, but it's fair comment, and as to any of the "children" who've jumped on the let's-make-Matt-the-villain bandwagon, it's fair game. If he's old enough to stand up and do the right, thing, then so are they.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

High school is a tough place and kids can be cruel?

Wow. When did that happen?

[Bryan]

The "huh" is in response to: "If someone posts 3 + 4 = 9 and ten people respond by posting that 3 + 4 = 7, what conclusions do you draw?"

The point is rather obvious to anyone accustomed to thinking logically.

Paul sets himself up with that statement.

The ten people are stating a mathematical fact. Since their statement is grounded in a well-known reality, it shouldn't come as any surprise that they're all saying the same thing.

The "reality" of math is disputed in philosophical (logical) circles.

It is a profound puzzle that on the one hand mathematical truths seem to have a compelling inevitability, but on the other hand the source of their 'truthfullness' remains elusive. Investigations into this issue are known as the foundations of mathematics program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

(see the rest of the entry for examples of the controversy)

Even Strife might have figured that out using Wikipedia. Paul LaClair is accustomed to pretending that he knows things and getting people to buy it.

Evidently he doesn't travel near the circles mentioned above.

That shouldn't be news to any regular reader of KOTW.

Of course, that wouldn't occur to people who don't think according to facts.

... said the guy who had just abandoned the facts.

That's the point, and the fact that you don't get it, "guest," says something about you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh. Blowhard.

[Strife767]

Only you would think up an analogy of 3 + 4 = 9 ?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=64519

God, you are an A hole.

Totally--the biggest jerks are definitely analogy-users.

That A must stand for  the "A"CLU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the "A" in ACLU stands for "American." So are you calling him an "American hole?"

[Guest Paul]

I am not my brother's keeper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can say that. Your interviewer will probably conclude five things:

1. You don't have the sense not to be dismissive of a person who is interviewing you for admission to a college you're obviously interested in.

2. You either don't understand or don't appreciate the issues Matthew was defending.

3. You don't exhibit much caring or empathy toward others.

4. You're a bit of a smart-ass.

5. If you are a Jew or a Christian, you have apparently forgotten that Cain's remark was not looked upon favorably.

God's response to this remark, according to Genesis 4:10-12, was as follows:

10: And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

11: And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

12: When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

[an American in Texas]

Once again Bryan conclusively demonstrates that he lives in a world of "logic" completely divorced from reality.

Sad to see a mind so wasted on trivialities.

Leigh

[Guest Guest]

Good answer.

Paul and I also have writing styles that differ a lot more than those "two's."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No you do not. That is one of the funniest comments coming from you, even if it doesn't have any of those immature smilies that you put on. Face it when you want something that is suppose to sound somewhat intellectual, you use one name Matthew, when you want to try to get back with some off wit comment you use the name Strife, but it’s still the same family.

[Strife767]

No you do not.

Sure I do--anyone who's been paying attention to both our posts can see some easy differences. Hell, I've corrected him on a thing or two here, and vice versa. That wouldn't really make sense for one to do to oneself.

That is one of the funniest comments coming from you, even if it doesn't have any of those immature smilies that you put on.

Yes, it's so very immature when I convey an emotion with a picture. What an absurd assertion. At least they fit what I say--others (mostly "guests") have done stuff like throw in " " or " " at random at the beginning and end of their posts for no apparent reason.

It's simply more succinct to use a little emoticon sometimes. Cry me a river.

Face it when you want something that is suppose to sound somewhat intellectual, you use one name Matthew, when you want to try to get back with some off wit comment you use the name Strife, but it’s still the same family.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you explain the contradictions, then? Like when I said straight away that firing was too good for Paszkiewicz, but Paul says that he wasn't trying to get him fired (although in retrospect, he seems to be starting to regret that position), and supported the actions by making no requests concerning him in particular, only of the incorrect and unconstitutional statements being corrected? I bet you'd sooner accuse Paul of having multiple personalities or something than you would simply admit that it's far more likely that we're simply not the same person.

In conclusion, proof or stfu.

[Guest Paul]

No you do not. That is one of the funniest comments coming from you, even if it doesn't have any of those immature smilies that you put on.  Face it when you want something that is suppose to sound somewhat intellectual, you use one name Matthew, when you want to try to get back with some off wit comment you use the name Strife, but it’s still the same family.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it's not, Mr. Paszkiewicz.

Is that appropriate?

[Bryan]

Once again Bryan conclusively demonstrates that he lives in a world of "logic" completely divorced from reality.

... and once again Leigh has made an assertion about reality that she hasn't a prayer of backing up with anything other than either imagined evidence or logical fallacies.

Sad to see a mind so wasted on trivialities.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right. What do you care if LaClair lays it on thick while making his point, so long as you agree with his point?

[an American in Texas]

... and once again Leigh has made an assertion about reality that she hasn't a prayer of backing up with anything other than either imagined evidence or logical fallacies.

Right.  What do you care if LaClair lays it on thick while making his point, so long as you agree with his point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Way to prove my point, Bryan.

Let's put this in context. The original idea was that, if someone posts that "3 + 4 = 9", those who post in reply that in fact "3 + 4 = 7" are not in some conspiracy, but are simply pointing out a factual error.

Your reply was "The "reality" of math is disputed in philosophical (logical) circles."

Apparently "3 + 4 = 7" is "imagined evidence" or a "logical fallacy" to you.

We've watched you slice and dice trivial or tangential points for months now, usually based on this whole "logic" thing you've got going -- and usually while you're arguing that black equals white. Logic is the servant of reason, Bryan, not an excuse to opt out of reality. Come back down to earth, bud. 3+4 DOES equal 7 in the decimal-math, reality-based community.

Leigh

[Bryan]

Way to prove my point, Bryan.

Do tell. That'll be a first.

Let's put this in context.  The original idea was that, if someone posts that "3 + 4 = 9", those who post in reply that in fact "3 + 4 = 7" are not in some conspiracy, but are simply pointing out a factual error.

Your reply was "The "reality" of math is disputed in philosophical (logical) circles."

Heh. It figures that you'd entirely misrepresent the context. I expected nothing less from you.

I had no interest in the original idea, and I didn't reply to it. I replied to Paul's attempt to support his argument on that issue with his appeal to the reality of math.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=64522

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=64928

Given your presentation of the situation compared to the reality of the situation, Leigh, why wouldn't you be aptly described as a liar?

Apparently "3 + 4 = 7" is "imagined evidence" or a "logical fallacy" to you.

Shameless straw man fallacy #394700214

We've watched you slice and dice trivial or tangential points for months now, usually based on this whole "logic" thing you've got going -- and usually while you're arguing that black equals white.

If only you could give an example that didn't rely on yet another fallacy.

Have I mentioned that you are pathetic, Leigh?

Logic is the servant of reason, Bryan, not an excuse to opt out of reality.  Come back down to earth, bud.  3+4 DOES equal 7 in the decimal-math, reality-based community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The "reality-based community" as it is commonly used is an oxymoron. If numbers are not real, how do you justify claiming that 3+4=7? What you appear to do above is to skip over the issue of whether the numbers are real (a type of cowardice all too common on your side of things), and appeal to the people to simply accept it regardless of the evidence referenced above.

Pathetic.

[Guest Guest]

College interviews will take place for Matthew and his classmates. I have a question for those classmates, especially those who were in Mr. Paszkiewicz's history class with him.

Let's assume an interviewer knows or finds out that you were in that class.

Assume further that the interviewer asks you why you didn't speak up for Matthew, who was telling the truth.

It's a legitimate question, which goes to your character.

What are you going to say?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because he's an a**hole drama queen.

[Guest Guest]

College interviews will take place for Matthew and his classmates. I have a question for those classmates, especially those who were in Mr. Paszkiewicz's history class with him.

Let's assume an interviewer knows or finds out that you were in that class.

Assume further that the interviewer asks you why you didn't speak up for Matthew, who was telling the truth.

It's a legitimate question, which goes to your character.

What are you going to say?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have to say, Knowing Matt's reputation I chose to stand down because I knew it was going to escalate into a controversy of church and state. also who am I to say who's truth is right or wrong. I felt both Matt and Mr.P wasted class time with their unwanted opinions. As for my character, I don't think it is in question at all. because of two arrogant individuals trying to prove their right and neither really knows for sure. Or do they? I feel any opinions concerning my character as a result of this Matt,Mr.P matter would be unfair and extreamly judgemental and show a bias on the part of the interviewer. How would he know Matt was telling the truth. They both thought they were telling the truth.That's how I would answer.

[Strife767]

Because he's an a**hole drama queen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol, you can kiss that college goodbye, then.