David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Strife767]

Where can I find all of the tapes and/or the transcripts?

71697[/snapback]

On this page are links to recordings--I don't know if they're excerpts of those that were released, or the entirety of those that were released (I do know that there are more recordings in existence than those that were released--sounds confusing, I know, but it'll sink in):

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2006/...recordings.html

[Guest Guest]

Ignorance of science and/or the Constitution was alleged.

How would you scientifically falsify the claim that dinosaurs were on the ark?  Or is that it that you think the ark violated the Constitution?

I look forward to an attempt from you to explain it so that you aren't one of them.

71848[/snapback]

Dinosaurs became extinct approximately 65 millions years ago. Placental mammals appeared during that time frame, but humans did not appear until within the past 100,000-200,000 years or so.

Here are just a few of the sites to which you can link from a simple search on AOL, or I’m sure google or any number of search engines: dinosaurs - extinct - 65 million years

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70621135213.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/chronology/65/default.htm

http://paleobiology.si.edu/blastPast/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ssilleaves.html

And if you search “homo sapiens appeared” you will come up with many links, including the following.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...P/Primates.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/science/...r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release...11_idaltu.shtml

None of this information is hard to find. If you can come here, you can find this.

[Guest Guest]

I don't think he's entirely heartless, but the fact is, he didn't give a damn about my son when he was being attacked, just like he didn't give a damn about all the other kids he knew didn't agree with him on religious issues. In his eyes, it's OK that they burn in hell. I have no use for that. You're entitled to your views, that is mine. I've never published the letter I wrote him. Would you like me to do that? This discussion should have ended a long time ago. You're really pissing me off, constantly trying to reinvent what happened to suit your wishes. Don't think I don't have more to reveal about him and his conduct if I choose to do it. I do. So if you really care about the guy, end this discussion tonight. You lost. Get used to it. Enough.

And he is a right wing radical. I don't have much use for that either, but at least it doesn't inherently violate the Constitution.

71482[/snapback]

If he has additional information that might embarrass Mr. Paszkiewicz, you can't blame him for disclosing it if you make some charge against him or Matthew that isn't true. Don't forget, they withheld the recording from Somma's office until Paszkiewicz denied that he had lied in that meeting, thereby implying that Matthew lied. After seeing Paul on this forum, my suspicion is that you're getting dangerously close to something that would bring forth more information that you and your favorite teacher wouldn't like.

So if you insist on continuing the discussion, don't say you weren't warned.

Paul let me remind you that this forum is not about you and it doesn't belong to you. This place is called KOTW not POTW.

The same freedom you have to come here and post all of your comments, I have. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't respond to it.

You are acting as a typical bully lawyer. You are making "THREATS" because you did not like what I wrote.

In fact it was very immature of you trying to hurt someone else because of what I said about you (rather mob-like). I must have said something that is true, because if it wasn't you would not have gotten your undies in a bunch threatening me the way you did. It was not very cultured or distiguished for a member of the bar.

BTW, when you come in as a guest and reiterate the same threat, try using different wording so it's not obvious that its you.

[Bryan]

Yes of course, Bryan. I can understand your not wanting to boast of your extensive qualifications in the law. They're quite obvious.

Do tell.

So you know the law and I'm an inter-galactically renowned Martian-spaceship designer. Yup, you sure got me on that one.

Your comment above does not appear to respond directly to anything I wrote.

Are (you) confused or is this perhaps just another one of your red herring fallacies?

Perhaps you missed post 273, which reads as follows:

"For a good analysis of the state actor doctrine, see http://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/opinions/rfn/...63_20060511.pdf.

"See also West v. Atkins, 487 US 42, 49 (1988) and US v. Classic, 313 US 299 (1941).

"These cases can be found through the following links, respectively.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/42/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/313/299/case.html

"There is no doubt under these cases that an individual acting under the state’s authority is a state actor. There is also no doubt that a public school teacher acts under the state’s authority while teaching in the public classroom.

"For an analysis of this legal issue from the perspective of an organization that promotes religious exercise in the public schools, see http://www.nlf.net/Resources/issues/syatp%...on%20letter.htm. Even they recognize that “whether teachers can actively participate in See You at the Pole depends on whether they are acting in their official capacity or as a citizen.”

"In this case, there is no question that Mr. Paszkiewicz was acting in his official capacity while teaching the class. The mere fact that he departed from the curriculum and all good sense does not change that fact.

"How d'ya like them applications, dimwit?"

71839[/snapback]

There was no point in responding to that post, since whether or not Paszkiewicz is a state actor is not a point I've put at issue.

That's "Guest" (you?) doing that, even after I've explained to him the real point of contention.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...c=16892&st=320#

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=71662

Maybe that's your cue to trot out another fallacy of distraction?

Or perhaps you'll deal with this issue:

"Guest"

"... what matters is what is being done, not which state actor is doing it.

Bryan:

And you base this claim on what precedent?

Edited November 4, 2007 by Bryan

[Bryan]

No, he/she suggested exactly what he, she wrote, which was "A religion was promoted, and that's not allowed."

Apparently you haven't read the First Amendment either.

Don't know what Bryan means by "religious speech," but a public school teacher may not misuse the classroom to promote a religion.

If there is a law that prevents the use of a classroomt o promote a religion, and the First Amendment applies to all U.S. law, then then the First Amendment has been curtailed by the First Amendment.

It should be obvious, but I can explain it to you if you have trouble figuring it out.

That is exactly what the guest wrote. You quoted it, Bryan. Did you bother to read it?

I read it and figured out the implications while you were still spinning your wheels.

As for your last few lines, Bryan, quite apart from your now admitted ignorance of the law,

(Non sequitur)

don't you think your repeated cries against ad hominem attacks on others ring hollow in light of your last sentence disparaging lawyers?

No, because I know the difference between an ad hom fallacy, an insult, and a mere true observation.

Apparently you do not.

Really, Bryan, it's like you're standing naked under the big clock at Macy's at noon on Thanksgiving. Do you really think we don't see you?

71713[/snapback]

You appear to have the gift of unintended irony.

[Matthew LaClair]

Ignorance of science and/or the Constitution was alleged.

How would you scientifically falsify the claim that dinosaurs were on the ark?  Or is that it that you think the ark violated the Constitution?

I look forward to an attempt from you to explain it so that you aren't one of them.

71848[/snapback]

I am not going to cover the reasons why Noah's Ark could not have existed as described in the Bible, nor will I cover the reasons why dinosaurs did not exist when humans were alive. I am sure that somebody will do that.

However, I would like to pose an idea. I could claim that an alien from a far away galaxy created a science project; this science project is our planet Earth. He made this Earth in seven days. There is now way to scientifically disprove it, but that does not make it right. It also does not give a public school teacher the right to tell students that it is true because he or she believes it.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I am not going to cover the reasons why Noah's Ark could not have existed as described in the Bible, nor will I cover the reasons why dinosaurs did not exist when humans were alive. I am sure that somebody will do that.

     However, I would like to pose an idea. I could claim that an alien from a far away galaxy created a science project; this science project is our planet Earth. He made this Earth in seven days. There is now way to scientifically disprove it, but that does not make it right. It also does not give a public school teacher the right to tell students that it is true because he or she believes it.

71979[/snapback]

Matt, you need to go to church tomorrow and pray for forgiveness. **** ***l ****

***** *** **** **** ** **** ** **** ** ***** ***** ***** **** **** ****** ****

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Bryan]

I am not going to cover the reasons why Noah's Ark could not have existed as described in the Bible, nor will I cover the reasons why dinosaurs did not exist when humans were alive. I am sure that somebody will do that.

    However, I would like to pose an idea. I could claim that an alien from a far away galaxy created a science project; this science project is our planet Earth. He made this Earth in seven days. There is now way to scientifically disprove it, but that does not make it right. It also does not give a public school teacher the right to tell students that it is true because he or she believes it.

71979[/snapback]

You've learned the fallacy of distraction well from daddy.

Does the science project betray an ignorance of either science or the Constitution?

Or did you just want to change the topic, Matthew?

[Bryan]

Dinosaurs became extinct approximately 65 millions years ago. Placental mammals appeared during that time frame, but humans did not appear until within the past 100,000-200,000 years or so.

Here are just a few of the sites to which you can link from a simple search on AOL, or I’m sure google or any number of search engines: dinosaurs - extinct - 65 million years

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70621135213.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/chronology/65/default.htm

http://paleobiology.si.edu/blastPast/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ssilleaves.html

And if you search “homo sapiens appeared” you will come up with many links, including the following.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...P/Primates.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/science/...r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release...11_idaltu.shtml

None of this information is hard to find. If you can come here, you can find this.

71960[/snapback]

Thanks, but apparently you weren't aware that I am not a young-earth creationist.

The point is that dinosaurs on the ark isn't falsifiable per se, so it doesn't really have anything to do with an understanding of science.

Once can have an absolutely perfect understanding of science while disagreeing with its propositions.

[Bryan]

As the saying goes, sometimes it's better to remain silent and let people wonder whether you are ignorant than speak and remove all doubt. Bryan has just removed all doubt.

Heh. Another "Guest" with the gift of unintended irony.

Bryan, I suggest you read something, anything that is respected in the field, on evolutionary and biological history. Dinosaurs disappeared from Earth approximately 65 million years ago. Humans did not appear until more than 60 million years after that. We know this because we can measure the ages of the remains we have found of various species. And while it's possible for this aspect of science to be off by a little,

It can be way off, actually.

it would be a stretch beyond the point of all credulity to imagine that humans and dinosaurs ever existed at the same time.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,799276,00.html

(the guy probably doesn't know science ... maybe you should send him your collection of links)

Therefore, humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. It was impossible for living humans to have been on the boat with living dinosaurs, because the two species never existed at the same time.

Why are you sure of that when the zoologist isn't?

Bryan will no doubt argue that the past 100 million years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. You can't reproduce a murder, either. That doesn't mean that police can't use forensic evidence to determine what happened.

There's a good reason why cases built merely on circumstantial evidence result in fewer convictions.

And then of course there's the problem of getting all the animal species onto a boat of the size described in the Bible. The animals who were alive when that myth was written wouldn't have fit, much less the enormous dinosaurs.

Maybe only a few smaller dinosaurs were around by then.

I'll leave it to you to collect a series of links showing what dinosaurs absolutely could not have been in existence around the time of the ark.

Oh, by the way, if there was only two of every species on the ark, what did the carnivores eat?

Maybe you should read the Bible regarding that, for your question contains an erroneous premise.

I can't believe that in the year 2007 we still have to tell people that Fred Flintstone didn't have a pet brontosaurus, or that the story of Noah's ark is a freaking myth, a story that makes no more sense and has no more basis in fact than the tooth fairy. Where's my Tylenol?

71950[/snapback]

I think Dino buried it in your back yard.

[Guest Paul]

On this page are links to recordings--I don't know if they're excerpts of those that were released, or the entirety of those that were released (I do know that there are more recordings in existence than those that were released--sounds confusing, I know, but it'll sink in):

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2006/...recordings.html

71958[/snapback]

Kevin Canessa put all the recordings up in February 2007, also on thecanessacorner, but the last time I checked the link it was broken. You can try, though. He put up all the recordings, including the meeting in Somma's office.

[Guest Paul]

If he has additional information that might embarrass Mr. Paszkiewicz, you can't blame him for disclosing it if you make some charge against him or Matthew that isn't true. Don't forget, they withheld the recording from Somma's office until Paszkiewicz denied that he had lied in that meeting, thereby implying that Matthew lied. After seeing Paul on this forum, my suspicion is that you're getting dangerously close to something that would bring forth more information that you and your favorite teacher wouldn't like.

So if you insist on continuing the discussion, don't say you weren't warned.

Paul let me remind you that this forum is not about you and it doesn't belong to you. This place is called KOTW not POTW.

The same freedom you have to come here and post all of your comments, I have. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't respond to it.

You are acting as a typical bully lawyer. You are making "THREATS" because you did not like what I wrote.

In fact it was very immature of you trying to hurt someone else because of what I said about you (rather mob-like). I must have said something that is true, because if it wasn't you would not have gotten your undies in a bunch threatening me the way you did. It was not very cultured or distiguished for a member of the bar.

BTW, when you come in as a guest and reiterate the same threat, try using different wording so it's not obvious that its you.

71967[/snapback]

Nice try, "David," but you took the leash off the dog before. It doesn't hunt.

[Strife767]

How would you scientifically falsify the claim that dinosaurs were on the ark?

Bryan, you can't even prove Noah's Ark (or Noah, for that matter) ever existed in the first place, and you expect no one to notice and just all be strung along with this loaded question? Please.

[mnodonnell]

How would you scientifically falsify the claim that dinosaurs were on the ark?  Or is that it that you think the ark violated the Constitution?

I look forward to an attempt from you to explain it so that you aren't one of them.

71848[/snapback]

You are misunderstanding the role falsifiability in regards to the scientific method. You cannot initially advance claims that are not falsifiable, so your question is irrelevant.

I will grant you that the ark does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution cannot be expected to govern the realm of fantasy.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Apparently you haven't read the First Amendment either.

If there is a law that prevents the use of a classroomt o promote a religion, and the First Amendment applies to all U.S. law, then then the First Amendment has been curtailed by the First Amendment.

It should be obvious, but I can explain it to you if you have trouble figuring it out.

I read it and figured out the implications while you were still spinning your wheels.

(Non sequitur)

No, because I know the difference between an ad hom fallacy, an insult, and a mere true observation.

Apparently you do not.

You appear to have the gift of unintended irony.

71971[/snapback]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Techinically you are correct but then again is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowed theater allowed under this amendment? No. In this specific case I guess they would technically curtail each other.

So does this all mean that any public school teacher should be allowed to promote a particular religion in a public classroom?

[mnodonnell]

Matt, you need to go to church tomorrow and pray for forgiveness. **** ***l ****

***** *** **** **** ** **** ** **** ** ***** ***** ***** **** **** ****** ****

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

71999[/snapback]

Matt, let me give you an alternative: do whatever you want to do, it has the same effect.

2smart4u, what's wrong with you? You seem like a sick little monkey.

Unless, of course, KOTW edited out the prescient comments that illustrate your intellectual superiority. For that, let me say: Thank you KOTW! I don't know if I can handle the embarrassment.

[Guest Guest]

Do tell.

Your comment above does not appear to respond directly to anything I wrote.

Are (you) confused or is this perhaps just another one of your red herring fallacies?

There was no point in responding to that post, since whether or not Paszkiewicz is a state actor is not a point I've put at issue.

That's "Guest" (you?) doing that, even after I've explained to him the real point of contention.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...c=16892&st=320#

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=71662

Maybe that's your cue to trot out another fallacy of distraction?

Or perhaps you'll deal with this issue:

"Guest"

"... what matters is what is being done, not which state actor is doing it.

Bryan:

And you base this claim on what precedent?

71969[/snapback]

Bryan, you tried to distinguish the Paszkiewicz matter from the Engel and Schempp cases on the ground that in the latter two cases the promotion of religion was done via an act of legislation, while in the Paszkiewicz matter it was done through the words of a single teacher, acting on his own. In the law, we call that a distinction without a difference, which is a lawyer’s way of saying it doesn’t matter. The cases cited in post 273 state the rule that applies to all state actors. The definition of a state actor in these cases clearly applies to public school teachers. That answers your question.

Those cases pull the Paszkiewicz, Engel and Schempp cases together under a single rule of law, which governs all three situations. You did put the point at issue, whether you intended to or not, and if you’re now conceding that it’s not at issue, then there’s nothing here for you to discuss. So post 273 and the cases cited therein answer your question completely and directly, but apparently you don’t see it, probably for the same reason you don’t see everything else you don’t want to see.

[Guest Guest]

    However, I would like to pose an idea. I could claim that an alien from a far away galaxy created a science project; this science project is our planet Earth. He made this Earth in seven days. There is now way to scientifically disprove it,

71979[/snapback]

Of course you can pose an idea, anyone can. However, just because an idea is posed, doesn't automatically make it a "reasonable" explanation for the origin of the universe. For example, one weakness of your argument is that you do not account for the origin of the space alien. Was his planet created by a space alien from another planet? If you say he had no beginning, then you are on the same page as the Theist, "God created the universe." No need to use Science to disprove this one. Just common sense. You can't have an infinite regress of alien "creator" beings. There had to be a first being.

[Bryan]

Newton's third law states that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Your accusation was so ridiculous that I felt there should be an equal and opposite ridiculous response. I usually make my arguments in a more intellectual manner, however I felt that your remark did not necessitate such a response.

70692[/snapback]

You must have been out of the loop while your dad registered an entire catalog of embarrassing statements.

My accusation was right on the mark, given the elder LaClair's written admission that he favors (secular) humanism as the default state religion and his repeated slams against conservatism.

If you can't see it then you have little claim to an intellectual approach when it comes to assessing your own family.

Let alone your misconception about the big bang.

"Very dense matter." Heh.

[Guest Guest]

Paul let me remind you that this forum is not about you and it doesn't belong to you. This place is called KOTW not POTW.

The same freedom you have to come here and post all of your comments, I have. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't respond to it.

You are acting as a typical bully lawyer. You are making "THREATS" because you did not like what I wrote.

In fact it was very immature of you trying to hurt someone else because of what I said about you (rather mob-like). I must have said something that is true, because if it wasn't you would not have gotten your undies in a bunch threatening me the way you did. It was not very cultured or distiguished for a member of the bar.

BTW, when you come in as a guest and reiterate the same threat, try using different wording so it's not obvious that its you.

71967[/snapback]

Ooooohhhh, someone needs a nap. Looks like somebody is used to having things his own way, and is getting vewwy, vewwy maddddd that it isn't happening this time.

[Guest Guest]

I just reread the transcripts I could find and, theology and preaching aside, Paszkiewicz, in some parts seems very confused.  He often contradicts what had just said a few minutes before. 

It has already been demonstrated that the Dranger transcript is innacurate.

This is probably because of the poor quality of many parts of the recordings as well as Dranger's personal bias. For example, his hearing the teacher say "salvation" when the recording actually says "celebration." This was demonstrated in an earlier post.

Also, your remarks seem to be off the cuff without any research.

I don't care to put every sentence of your lengthy post under the microscope, but it is a fact that there was an ancient city of Tyre which was in present day Lebanon and one half mile off the coast was an island called Little Tyre.

During periods of invasion, the inhabitants Of Tyre would flee to little Tyre off the coast. When the invaders left, they would return and rebuild.

The specifics of Ezekiel's prophecy in chapter 26 verses 3-21 include:

v-3 " ...I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves."

This comes true literally. Waves of the sea come in succession. Tyre was

conquered by a succession of nations:

1. The Babylonians (Nebuchanezzar) 585-573 BC

2. Alexander the Great 333 BC

3. Antigonus 314 BC

4. The Moslems 1291 AD

V-4 "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock."

(In 333 BC Alexander came to conquer Tyre. The people of Tyre escaped to the island of little Tyre before he arrived. He was so angry that he had his men level the city of Tyre, scrape up its rubble and throw it into the sea to build a causeway to little Tyre for his men to march across. History records that he then killed 8,000 and made 30,000 slaves.)

v-5 "Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets..."

(Today, fishermen mend nets there)

v-8 This verse states that Tyre will be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

(This occured over the period of 585-573 BC)

v-12 "...they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea."

(Alexander did this in 333 BC)

v-14 "...you will never be rebuilt..."

(the immediate areas have been rebuilt as a fishing town unlike the glorious center of Med. Sea trade that Tyre once was. The original city has never been rebuilt)

In short, you are right in saying that Alexander is not mentioned by name in the prophecy, but he fulfills the prophecy to the letter.

[Guest Guest]

If he has additional information that might embarrass Mr. Paszkiewicz, you can't blame him for disclosing it if you make some charge against him or Matthew that isn't true. Don't forget, they withheld the recording from Somma's office until Paszkiewicz denied that he had lied in that meeting, thereby implying that Matthew lied. After seeing Paul on this forum, my suspicion is that you're getting dangerously close to something that would bring forth more information that you and your favorite teacher wouldn't like.

So if you insist on continuing the discussion, don't say you weren't warned.

Paul let me remind you that this forum is not about you and it doesn't belong to you. This place is called KOTW not POTW.

The same freedom you have to come here and post all of your comments, I have. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't respond to it.

You are acting as a typical bully lawyer. You are making "THREATS" because you did not like what I wrote.

In fact it was very immature of you trying to hurt someone else because of what I said about you (rather mob-like). I must have said something that is true, because if it wasn't you would not have gotten your undies in a bunch threatening me the way you did. It was not very cultured or distiguished for a member of the bar.

BTW, when you come in as a guest and reiterate the same threat, try using different wording so it's not obvious that its you.

71967[/snapback]

From what you just wrote, I assume you sided with Mr. Paszkiewicz. So I don't understand why you think this discussion is helping him. If I was this teacher, I would want this over.

Also, you're making a lot of assumptions. How do you know what additional information is out there? You're also stereotyping an entire group of people, which doesn't make you look good, especially if you're going to criticize others. You're inviting remarks like "typical fundie idiot," which we've seen here a lot. I don't even know you're a fundamentalist, but when you write like that . . .

Bottom line: Why do you want to keep this going?

[Guest Candy Man]

I am not going to cover the reasons why Noah's Ark could not have existed as described in the Bible, nor will I cover the reasons why dinosaurs did not exist when humans were alive. I am sure that somebody will do that.

    However, I would like to pose an idea. I could claim that an alien from a far away galaxy created a science project; this science project is our planet Earth. He made this Earth in seven days. There is now way to scientifically disprove it, but that does not make it right. It also does not give a public school teacher the right to tell students that it is true because he or she believes it.

71979[/snapback]

I see you're enjoying the funny little pills you've been getting from me.

[Strife767]

**** ***l ****

***** *** **** **** ** **** ** **** ** ***** ***** ***** **** **** ****** ****

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

71999[/snapback]

Can't help wondering what that "L" is doing there all by itself amidst the censors...

[KOTW]

Can't help wondering what that "L" is doing there all by itself amidst the censors...

72097[/snapback]

Strife767,

The "l" was inadvertently not edited. But you bring to mind an interesting possibility. We could could do a KOTW version of Wheel of Fortune.

KOTW