Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mnodonnell

David Paszkiewicz should be fired

Recommended Posts

Guest Truth Squad
That, friends, is the red herring described succinctly. My issue was with the deceit used by Matthew.

You're a troll, Bryan, and a liar. Here are your "issues" from post 720. These are your exact words:

"More to the point, how would any of this eliminate the privacy rights of the principal and teachers, given that the courts have located privacy rights in the Constitution?"

"Being a public school teacher eliminates the constitutional right to privacy?"

Your issue was privacy until you got your ass kicked on that argument, then it wasn't your issue any more. You're a troll and a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melanie
That, friends, is the red herring described succinctly.

My issue was with the deceit used by Matthew. "Guest," whether deliberately or not, is creating a distraction from that issue.

You're correct, to the extent that I didn't plan to create the platform for your red herring fallacy.

How are you going to make it look like you weren't creating the distraction deliberately? That is now the question.

In other words, your "privacy" argument didn't work for you, so let's forget that you ever brought it up and go back to another argument that also didn't work for you. Maybe people have forgotten the minutae, so you can make all the arguments again (as if you needed an excuse to beat an argument to death and ignore all the facts you don't like).

You've beaten your argument about deception to death (like everything else you've beaten to death), then dropped it when it didn't fly. You lost the argument, and I'm not going to revisit it with you. But I will make one point that I haven't seen made before.

There are many reasons why the reaction to this story was so intense, people writing "Bravo!" to Matthew in big bold letters, calling him their hero, numerous organizations giving him awards. There is a whole set of political reasons for that.

1. Tens of millions of Americans, and counting, are fed up with the religious right in America.

2. People don't like public employees promoting their personal agendas on public time.

3. Most people believe in church-state separation.

4. Some people actually think science and education are important, and that a school teacher should not peddle ignorance under the guise of education.

However, there is another, more visceral reason why this story generated such intense reaction, and it goes directly to who was being deceptive in this story. Most people have felt the exasperation of being powerless in the face of injustice. Well, that's Matthew's story. Here was a 16-year-old boy, accusing a tenured teacher of gross misconduct. The principal is the teacher's former coach, and his friend. The boy sees the principal giving the teacher a big, friendly pat on the back a few days after he has made his accusation. It's obvious to him that if there is a meeting at all, its purpose will not be to investigate what has happened. Its purpose will be to mollify him and make him and the situation go away. And everything that has happened since proves that Matthew's sense of things was correct. And to top all that off, Matthew was told by a school official before the meeting in Somma's office took place that he would get no support in what he was doing, he would have to do it alone. Every card in the deck was stacked against Matthew --- stacked, as in a predetermined outcome, like a game with the fix already in.

A form of deception was already being practiced by school officials, before Matthew ever walked into the meeting in Somma's office. It's the kind of deception that every one of us faces when we try to deal with people who are more powerful than we are, who don't have our interests at heart.

When people saw this story, they saw themselves in their moments of frustration. Matthew did what we cannot usually do, he stood up to power and not only beat it, but embarrassed it. That is why people stood up and cheered. That is why he became our voice and our champion, and the grace he has displayed doing it makes us proud.

You don't have to like it, Bryan. You can argue about it, you can niggle it to death --- and you have. What you can't do is change how people feel about it. That's how we feel about it, and that's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, your "privacy" argument didn't work for you, so let's forget that you ever brought it up and go back to another argument that also didn't work for you.

Eh, no. The privacy argument worked just fine, because it was a response to Paul LaClair's justification of Matthew's deception. He tried to argue that deception was OK where there was no expectation of privacy (he specifically used the classroom example). I pointed out that a private office meeting between four individuals carries with it a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82161

It was the LaClairite cohorts who introduced the distraction of legality with respect to the office meeting.

Maybe people have forgotten the minutae, so you can make all the arguments again (as if you needed an excuse to beat an argument to death and ignore all the facts you don't like).

The facts are all on my side on this one. Apparently you have forgotten even the gigantic minutiae that composed the bulk of the argument.

You've beaten your argument about deception to death (like everything else you've beaten to death), then dropped it when it didn't fly.

On the contrary, I'm continuing to assert the argument about deception, distinct as it is from the argument into which you tried to transform it, and I'll bring it up again every time I see somebody asserting the notion that Matthew is pure as the driven snow, and likewise I'll answer arguments such as Paul's attempting to justify Matthew's deception. As I wrote earlier, there is no question that Matthew acted deceptively. The only question is whether or not it was justified. Claiming that there was no other way (Paul's main approach so far) is implausible as it rests on too many untested and untestable assumptions.

You lost the argument, and I'm not going to revisit it with you.

I don't blame you, since it would make you look bad. Unfortunately, anyone can follow the URL I provided and see that the "reasonable expectation of privacy" was brought up by me with respect to Matthew's deceptive practices, not with respect to asserting a violation of school officials' privacy rights.

But I will make one point that I haven't seen made before.

There are many reasons why the reaction to this story was so intense, people writing "Bravo!" to Matthew in big bold letters, calling him their hero, numerous organizations giving him awards. There is a whole set of political reasons for that.

1. Tens of millions of Americans, and counting, are fed up with the religious right in America.

You mean antireligious bigotry is involved? I hope not.

2. People don't like public employees promoting their personal agendas on public time.

Wake up. It's fairly standard practice in the public school system, only most of the personal agendas favor the politics of the left.

3. Most people believe in church-state separation.

Thanks to secularist propaganda and antireligious bigotry, many of those Americans don't really have a clue as to the Constitutional concept of church-state separation. Perhaps you can count yourself among them.

4. Some people actually think science and education are important, and that a school teacher should not peddle ignorance under the guise of education.

I've already pointed out that science classes routinely teach error as fact (has to do with science always self-correcting--but too late to help the students who were taught ignorance under the guise of education).

If you cared that much about peddling ignorance under the guise of education then you'd go on a crusade to teach philosophy of science in conjunction with science, emphasizing the provisional nature of the findings of science. It's really all about #1, isn't it? :lol:

However, there is another, more visceral reason why this story generated such intense reaction, and it goes directly to who was being deceptive in this story. Most people have felt the exasperation of being powerless in the face of injustice. Well, that's Matthew's story.

That version of the story presupposes that Matthew did not have the power to go directly to Paszkiewicz and reason with him on the matter. Perhaps it was resentment of the religious right that prevented him from taking that course of action?

Here was a 16-year-old boy, accusing a tenured teacher of gross misconduct.

Your description provides grounds for asserting that David Paszkiewicz is the one powerless in the face of injustice. "Gross misconduct"? Please.

The principal is the teacher's former coach, and his friend. The boy sees the principal giving the teacher a big, friendly pat on the back a few days after he has made his accusation. It's obvious to him that if there is a meeting at all, its purpose will not be to investigate what has happened.

Matthew is amazing! I can't glean that much from a pat on the back. Has Matthew been tested for E.S.P.?

Its purpose will be to mollify him and make him and the situation go away.

The situation did go away. Paszkiewicz altered his teaching to eradicate Matthew's reason for complaint. But that wasn't good enough for the LaClairs. They wanted a sincere apology from the guy whom they had accused of gross misconduct for doing essentially what he had been praised and decorated for doing in the past (I'm ignoring for now the hyperbolic interpretations peddled by the LaClairs and echoed by sloppy journalists). The wanted corrections of supposed misstatements by Paszkiewicz.

Given the demands of the LaClairs (sincere apology from Paszkiewicz, correction of alleged misstatements), the school officials appropriately took the tack of having a diplomatic meeting of sorts. Matthew did not enter that meeting with the idea of negotiating his demands, it seems to me. He entered with the aim of securing leverage to better enable his demands to be forced on others.

And everything that has happened since proves that Matthew's sense of things was correct.

Easy to type, but utter baloney. There isn't any way of knowing how Paszkiewicz would have reacted minus the off-the-bat accusations of gross misconduct (unless Matthew really can read minds). Sounds like your resentment of the religious right talking, Melanie.

And to top all that off, Matthew was told by a school official before the meeting in Somma's office took place that he would get no support in what he was doing, he would have to do it alone. Every card in the deck was stacked against Matthew --- stacked, as in a predetermined outcome, like a game with the fix already in.

Oh for a little context on the anonymous school official's comment.

The fix was in because of Matthew's chosen approach. It was reasonable to attempt to get Paszkiewicz to alter his teaching style. That was accomplished, but could have been accomplished otherwise.

The LaClairs made demands predicated on their own failed understanding of science in conjunction with misconstrued versions of Paszkiewicz's words (he said evolution isn't science, for example). By making silly demands, the LaClairs all but guaranteed lack of cooperation from school officials.

A form of deception was already being practiced by school officials, before Matthew ever walked into the meeting in Somma's office. It's the kind of deception that every one of us faces when we try to deal with people who are more powerful than we are, who don't have our interests at heart.

The kind of deception that isn't deception, you mean? Hilarious stuff, Melanie.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deception

When people saw this story, they saw themselves in their moments of frustration. Matthew did what we cannot usually do, he stood up to power and not only beat it, but embarrassed it. That is why people stood up and cheered. That is why he became our voice and our champion, and the grace he has displayed doing it makes us proud.

I think it ultimately comes down to #1 for the majority of you.

You don't have to like it, Bryan. You can argue about it, you can niggle it to death --- and you have. What you can't do is change how people feel about it. That's how we feel about it, and that's why.

I refuse to believe that all of you are completely immune to reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest courage

Just a thought on the "seperation" The constitution guarentees freedon OF religion....not FROM religion. It was specifically crafted toinsure there was no Church of the United States, much like the Church of England they yhad just thrown off. Look to the histories of the colonies......Catholicism was only protected in one colony and barely tolerated by law and fiat in the others. The "wall between " church and state was written in a PRIVATE letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Connecticut Baptists in response to their quierys. The legeal wall was actually the work of Associate Justice Hugo Black, or one of his clerks, in the Warren court of the mid sixties. The quote was included in a decision and has since gained the status of stare decisis....Decided precident. Just some thoughts.....adieu!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
In other words, your "privacy" argument didn't work for you, so let's forget that you ever brought it up and go back to another argument that also didn't work for you. Maybe people have forgotten the minutae, so you can make all the arguments again (as if you needed an excuse to beat an argument to death and ignore all the facts you don't like).

You've beaten your argument about deception to death (like everything else you've beaten to death), then dropped it when it didn't fly. You lost the argument, and I'm not going to revisit it with you. But I will make one point that I haven't seen made before.

There are many reasons why the reaction to this story was so intense, people writing "Bravo!" to Matthew in big bold letters, calling him their hero, numerous organizations giving him awards. There is a whole set of political reasons for that.

1. Tens of millions of Americans, and counting, are fed up with the religious right in America.

2. People don't like public employees promoting their personal agendas on public time.

3. Most people believe in church-state separation.

4. Some people actually think science and education are important, and that a school teacher should not peddle ignorance under the guise of education.

However, there is another, more visceral reason why this story generated such intense reaction, and it goes directly to who was being deceptive in this story. Most people have felt the exasperation of being powerless in the face of injustice. Well, that's Matthew's story. Here was a 16-year-old boy, accusing a tenured teacher of gross misconduct. The principal is the teacher's former coach, and his friend. The boy sees the principal giving the teacher a big, friendly pat on the back a few days after he has made his accusation. It's obvious to him that if there is a meeting at all, its purpose will not be to investigate what has happened. Its purpose will be to mollify him and make him and the situation go away. And everything that has happened since proves that Matthew's sense of things was correct. And to top all that off, Matthew was told by a school official before the meeting in Somma's office took place that he would get no support in what he was doing, he would have to do it alone. Every card in the deck was stacked against Matthew --- stacked, as in a predetermined outcome, like a game with the fix already in.

A form of deception was already being practiced by school officials, before Matthew ever walked into the meeting in Somma's office. It's the kind of deception that every one of us faces when we try to deal with people who are more powerful than we are, who don't have our interests at heart.

When people saw this story, they saw themselves in their moments of frustration. Matthew did what we cannot usually do, he stood up to power and not only beat it, but embarrassed it. That is why people stood up and cheered. That is why he became our voice and our champion, and the grace he has displayed doing it makes us proud.

You don't have to like it, Bryan. You can argue about it, you can niggle it to death --- and you have. What you can't do is change how people feel about it. That's how we feel about it, and that's why.

Add "Melanie" to the list of names Paul uses here. I guess he's getting in touch with his

feminine side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Admiral Obvious
Just a thought on the "seperation" The constitution guarentees freedon OF religion....not FROM religion.

This claim is just as much bullshit now as it was the first time it was proposed. The separation means that government is to be SEPARATE from any and all religious endorsement.

What would you think of this logic if we substituted say, "sex" for "religion"?

"We have freedom of sex, not freedom from sex."

Semantic dance, anyone? Saying that we don't have freedom "FROM religion" would basically mean that we could force religion on anyone--for example, force all women to wear burkas. No woman is forced to wear a burka, therefore they have freedom from Islamic (i.e. religious) mandate. Duh.

And just like no woman should be able to be forced to follow such a rule of Islam, the same goes for Christianity or any other religion. What's so hard to understand about this? Freedom "of" religion and freedom "from" religion are the same thing--free to practice whatever religion you want, and free to not have any religion that you DON'T want forced onto you. Furthermore, the separation of church and state is exactly what it sounds like--the requirement that government not endorse religion, and that religion not govern. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Add "Melanie" to the list of names Paul uses here. I guess he's getting in touch with his

feminine side.

lol, 2dumb4anyone is so paranoid and stupid that he has to pretend everyone who knows what an idiot he is is the same person.

Poor baby, need your blankie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
Just a thought on the "seperation" The constitution guarentees freedon OF religion....not FROM religion. It was specifically crafted toinsure there was no Church of the United States, much like the Church of England they yhad just thrown off. Look to the histories of the colonies......Catholicism was only protected in one colony and barely tolerated by law and fiat in the others. The "wall between " church and state was written in a PRIVATE letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Connecticut Baptists in response to their quierys. The legeal wall was actually the work of Associate Justice Hugo Black, or one of his clerks, in the Warren court of the mid sixties. The quote was included in a decision and has since gained the status of stare decisis....Decided precident. Just some thoughts.....adieu!

There is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion. In order to be free to believe and practice your own religion, we must also be free to reject and not practice someone else's. This is equally for the atheist as anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
lol, 2dumb4anyone is so paranoid and stupid that he has to pretend everyone who knows what an idiot he is is the same person.

Poor baby, need your blankie?

When you're only three inches tall mentally, normal people look like giants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
Eh, no. The privacy argument worked just fine, because it was a response to Paul LaClair's justification of Matthew's deception. He tried to argue that deception was OK where there was no expectation of privacy (he specifically used the classroom example). I pointed out that a private office meeting between four individuals carries with it a reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82161

It was the LaClairite cohorts who introduced the distraction of legality with respect to the office meeting.

The facts are all on my side on this one. Apparently you have forgotten even the gigantic minutiae that composed the bulk of the argument.

On the contrary, I'm continuing to assert the argument about deception, distinct as it is from the argument into which you tried to transform it, and I'll bring it up again every time I see somebody asserting the notion that Matthew is pure as the driven snow, and likewise I'll answer arguments such as Paul's attempting to justify Matthew's deception. As I wrote earlier, there is no question that Matthew acted deceptively. The only question is whether or not it was justified. Claiming that there was no other way (Paul's main approach so far) is implausible as it rests on too many untested and untestable assumptions.

I don't blame you, since it would make you look bad. Unfortunately, anyone can follow the URL I provided and see that the "reasonable expectation of privacy" was brought up by me with respect to Matthew's deceptive practices, not with respect to asserting a violation of school officials' privacy rights.

You mean antireligious bigotry is involved? I hope not.

Wake up. It's fairly standard practice in the public school system, only most of the personal agendas favor the politics of the left.

Thanks to secularist propaganda and antireligious bigotry, many of those Americans don't really have a clue as to the Constitutional concept of church-state separation. Perhaps you can count yourself among them.

I've already pointed out that science classes routinely teach error as fact (has to do with science always self-correcting--but too late to help the students who were taught ignorance under the guise of education).

If you cared that much about peddling ignorance under the guise of education then you'd go on a crusade to teach philosophy of science in conjunction with science, emphasizing the provisional nature of the findings of science. It's really all about #1, isn't it? :rolleyes:

That version of the story presupposes that Matthew did not have the power to go directly to Paszkiewicz and reason with him on the matter. Perhaps it was resentment of the religious right that prevented him from taking that course of action?

Your description provides grounds for asserting that David Paszkiewicz is the one powerless in the face of injustice. "Gross misconduct"? Please.

The principal is the teacher's former coach, and his friend. The boy sees the principal giving the teacher a big, friendly pat on the back a few days after he has made his accusation. It's obvious to him that if there is a meeting at all, its purpose will not be to investigate what has happened.

Matthew is amazing! I can't glean that much from a pat on the back. Has Matthew been tested for E.S.P.?

Its purpose will be to mollify him and make him and the situation go away.

The situation did go away. Paszkiewicz altered his teaching to eradicate Matthew's reason for complaint. But that wasn't good enough for the LaClairs. They wanted a sincere apology from the guy whom they had accused of gross misconduct for doing essentially what he had been praised and decorated for doing in the past (I'm ignoring for now the hyperbolic interpretations peddled by the LaClairs and echoed by sloppy journalists). The wanted corrections of supposed misstatements by Paszkiewicz.

Given the demands of the LaClairs (sincere apology from Paszkiewicz, correction of alleged misstatements), the school officials appropriately took the tack of having a diplomatic meeting of sorts. Matthew did not enter that meeting with the idea of negotiating his demands, it seems to me. He entered with the aim of securing leverage to better enable his demands to be forced on others.

And everything that has happened since proves that Matthew's sense of things was correct.

Easy to type, but utter baloney. There isn't any way of knowing how Paszkiewicz would have reacted minus the off-the-bat accusations of gross misconduct (unless Matthew really can read minds). Sounds like your resentment of the religious right talking, Melanie.

And to top all that off, Matthew was told by a school official before the meeting in Somma's office took place that he would get no support in what he was doing, he would have to do it alone. Every card in the deck was stacked against Matthew --- stacked, as in a predetermined outcome, like a game with the fix already in.

Oh for a little context on the anonymous school official's comment.

The fix was in because of Matthew's chosen approach. It was reasonable to attempt to get Paszkiewicz to alter his teaching style. That was accomplished, but could have been accomplished otherwise.

The LaClairs made demands predicated on their own failed understanding of science in conjunction with misconstrued versions of Paszkiewicz's words (he said evolution isn't science, for example). By making silly demands, the LaClairs all but guaranteed lack of cooperation from school officials.

A form of deception was already being practiced by school officials, before Matthew ever walked into the meeting in Somma's office. It's the kind of deception that every one of us faces when we try to deal with people who are more powerful than we are, who don't have our interests at heart.

The kind of deception that isn't deception, you mean? Hilarious stuff, Melanie.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deception

When people saw this story, they saw themselves in their moments of frustration. Matthew did what we cannot usually do, he stood up to power and not only beat it, but embarrassed it. That is why people stood up and cheered. That is why he became our voice and our champion, and the grace he has displayed doing it makes us proud.

I think it ultimately comes down to #1 for the majority of you.

You don't have to like it, Bryan. You can argue about it, you can niggle it to death --- and you have. What you can't do is change how people feel about it. That's how we feel about it, and that's why.

I refuse to believe that all of you are completely immune to reason.

You see, Bryan, that’s the problem. You think that claiming something is the same thing as “pointing out” something. But when you claim something that does not exist, that’s not pointing out, it’s making it up. It’s an easy mistake for you to make because your religion teaches you that if you believe it, then it’s true. OK, so then what If I believe it, is it true then? Of course not; according to you, what anyone else believes does not matter, only what you believe.

You claimed that the adults in the office meeting had a reasonable expectation of privacy. You were given at least some of the reasons why they don’t, and what did you do? You did what you always do when you’re confronted with facts you can’t address. You ignored them. See post 722, just above, including the questions near the bottom, and your pathetic response in post 724. Out of one side of your mouth, you want to claim that the adults had a reasonable expectation of privacy. And of course when you can’t back that up, you say out of the other side of your mouth that the privacy issue is a red herring.

“Secularist propaganda” – yeah, boy, we should never have listened to Copernicus, that SOB. Tell people that they’re not the center of the universe, and the next thing you know they’ll start questioning and thinking for themselves. Can’t have that, can we. Next thing you know, they'll be inventing condoms and goodness knows what else. (Please, please, make things simple so I can understand them! I don't care if it's true. Just make it reaaaaaaaally simple.)

And yeah, those dumb science classes. Let’s just shut them down. They’re telling all kinds of lies anyway. Who cares if American kids are falling behind the rest of the world in science? Who cares if our kids aren’t going to be able to get jobs in the field? Who cares if our country falls behind the rest of the world on science and scientific innovation? Since when did Americans care about science and innovation anyway --- yeah, OK, there was that going to the moon thing and that nuclear bomb thing and that computer thing and that Salk vaccine thing and that car thing. OK, so there are a few examples, but . . . but . . . yeah.

And yeah, boy, those idiots don’t know how to teach science, do they. We should let Bryan take over the educational system. Who needs labs and experiments and data when we have philosophy? Just think, we could all learn to think like Bryan.

As for religious bigotry and the religious right, don’t even get me started.

You’re right about one thing, Bryan. As far as the school was concerned, the situation was supposed to go away. Paszkiewicz was supposed to be allowed to get away with it, with no corrections being made. That’s what you and he would have liked. It didn’t happen that way, and you have been told why. You just don’t agree.

You’re a troll, Bryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dr. Phil
lol, 2dumb4anyone is so paranoid and stupid that he has to pretend everyone who knows what an idiot he is is the same person.

Poor baby, need your blankie?

This is your brain on drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see, Bryan, that’s the problem. You think that claiming something is the same thing as “pointing out” something. But when you claim something that does not exist, that’s not pointing out, it’s making it up.

I back my claims with evidence and reasoning.

It’s an easy mistake for you to make because your religion teaches you that if you believe it, then it’s true.

It does? Where?

OK, so then what If I believe it, is it true then? Of course not; according to you, what anyone else believes does not matter, only what you believe.

Page me when you're done building the straw man. And let me know if you need assistance in knocking it down.

You claimed that the adults in the office meeting had a reasonable expectation of privacy. You were given at least some of the reasons why they don’t, and what did you do? You did what you always do when you’re confronted with facts you can’t address. You ignored them. See post 722, just above, including the questions near the bottom, and your pathetic response in post 724. Out of one side of your mouth, you want to claim that the adults had a reasonable expectation of privacy. And of course when you can’t back that up, you say out of the other side of your mouth that the privacy issue is a red herring.

You've miscast the debate. I stated that the legality of the recording was not at issue, which is where the LaClairites tried to steer the privacy issue. The expectation of privacy in the closed office meeting means that the participants had a reasonable expectation that their words were not being recorded, not that it was illegal to record them.

You're the one ignoring the real argument.

“Secularist propaganda” – yeah, boy, we should never have listened to Copernicus, that SOB.

Copernicus wasn't a secularist.

http://brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu/a203/Copernicus.htm

It's funny how often your side resorts to such misleading distractions in order to try to bolster its arguments.

Tell people that they’re not the center of the universe, and the next thing you know they’ll start questioning and thinking for themselves. Can’t have that, can we. Next thing you know, they'll be inventing condoms and goodness knows what else. (Please, please, make things simple so I can understand them! I don't care if it's true. Just make it reaaaaaaaally simple.)

Apparently you don't know what "secularism" is.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861710851/secularism.html

It's hard to play truth squad when you don't know what you're talking about, isn't it?

As for religious bigotry and the religious right, don’t even get me started.

Because your religious bigotry against the religious right could be more apparent?

:rolleyes:

You’re right about one thing, Bryan. As far as the school was concerned, the situation was supposed to go away. Paszkiewicz was supposed to be allowed to get away with it, with no corrections being made.

I don't think that's what I wrote.

I think the administration looked into the matter and determined (with the benefit of the recordings) that there was nothing that needed correction. Matthew had misrepresented the situation all along (I don't think he did so deliberately; he simply reacted to information that contradicted his beliefs). I think it was judged that Paszkiewicz hadn't done anything to justify the notion that he got away with something, and they hoped that the LaClairs would be reasonable on that issue since the teaching that had offended the LaClairs had been ended. But the LaClairs insisted on the apology and the supposed corrections (and they haven't gotten either, from what I can tell--certainly not the first one).

That’s what you and he would have liked. It didn’t happen that way, and you have been told why. You just don’t agree.

You're correct that I don't agree. When were Paszkiewicz's statements supposedly corrected?

You’re a troll, Bryan.

Your arguments and attempts at reasoning stink, "Truth Squad."

Troll defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then who are you to decide what is the 'distraction' and what is the 'issue'?

It's not a matter of personal authority but a matter of reasoning. I provided a certain argument making a certain point. Others responded to my post and altered and distracted from my point in the process.

I'm not just talking about straying from the subject, I'm talking about people who write things that are intended to discredit what I wrote where the attack simply misses the mark.

Clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
This is your brain on drugs.

Nice try, 2obvious4deception. We all know it's you. You and your stupid little catchphrases.

By the way, your prediction for president just dropped out of the race:

LOL, fail, 2dim, big fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
You've miscast the debate. I stated that the legality of the recording was not at issue, which is where the LaClairites tried to steer the privacy issue. The expectation of privacy in the closed office meeting means that the participants had a reasonable expectation that their words were not being recorded, not that it was illegal to record them.

You're the one ignoring the real argument.

Copernicus wasn't a secularist.

It doesn't matter whether Copernicus was personally a secularist. He was promoting a view that the earth was not at the center of the universe - based on scientific observation and reasoning - which was inconsistent with the prevailing religious dogma of his time. Therefore, it was a secularist position

As for who is ignoring the privacy argument, you haven't answered any of the questions you were asked. That is quite revealing for someone like you, who nitpicks every phrase, jot and iota to death. You were given reasons why privacy does not attach to the adults in the Somma-office meeting, and you just ignored them. That's ignoring the argument.

You don't think what Paszkiewicz did merited any correction. We already know that. When a teacher says things, in open class, that are contrary to established science and the law, that merits correction; and that is in fact why corrections have now been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter whether Copernicus was personally a secularist. He was promoting a view that the earth was not at the center of the universe - based on scientific observation and reasoning - which was inconsistent with the prevailing religious dogma of his time. Therefore, it was a secularist position

You're an idiot.

The primary resistance to the Copernican system came from other scientists (they loved excoriating one another's ideas). The Ptolemaic system was not a religious dogma of the time. It was the scientific dogma of the time to which many in the Church has subscribed.

As for who is ignoring the privacy argument, you haven't answered any of the questions you were asked.

I find it surprising you would make that claim, as I am above average when it comes to addressing questions (so long as they do not represent red herring fallacies of the like). Did you have one or more examples in mind you could share?

That is quite revealing for someone like you, who nitpicks every phrase, jot and iota to death.

It would be ever so much more revealing if you had actually given an example, wouldn't it?

You were given reasons why privacy does not attach to the adults in the Somma-office meeting, and you just ignored them. That's ignoring the argument.

You're mixing up the argument again. Privacy does attach to the adults in the Somma office meeting in the sense that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, what with it being an office meeting and all. I ignored the questions attempting to assert the lack of legal protection against taping since that was never my point, as I already explained.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82255

You don't think what Paszkiewicz did merited any correction. We already know that.

You don't know that because it isn't true. Yet you're willing to say it anyway.

I stated that Paszkiewicz was overly dogmatic in stating that the first cause had to be a being. That would have been an appropriate correction--but no reason to threaten a lawsuit.

When a teacher says things, in open class, that are contrary to established science and the law, that merits correction; and that is in fact why corrections have now been made.

I doubt it, but if you think so I'd like to see your source or at least hear a summary of what you think was corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
You're an idiot.

The primary resistance to the Copernican system came from other scientists (they loved excoriating one another's ideas). The Ptolemaic system was not a religious dogma of the time. It was the scientific dogma of the time to which many in the Church has subscribed.

I find it surprising you would make that claim, as I am above average when it comes to addressing questions (so long as they do not represent red herring fallacies of the like). Did you have one or more examples in mind you could share?

It would be ever so much more revealing if you had actually given an example, wouldn't it?

You're mixing up the argument again. Privacy does attach to the adults in the Somma office meeting in the sense that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, what with it being an office meeting and all. I ignored the questions attempting to assert the lack of legal protection against taping since that was never my point, as I already explained.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82255

You don't know that because it isn't true. Yet you're willing to say it anyway.

I stated that Paszkiewicz was overly dogmatic in stating that the first cause had to be a being. That would have been an appropriate correction--but no reason to threaten a lawsuit.

I doubt it, but if you think so I'd like to see your source or at least hear a summary of what you think was corrected.

Being called an idiot by Bryan is like being called immature and out of control by Britney Spears.

It was the church that persecuted Copernicus.

http://www.childrensmuseum.org/cosmicquest...enaissance.html

After Copernicus died, Pope Paul V issued a papal bull calling his "solar system" heretical. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/galileo.html

You can declare that adults, who are public employees, have privacy rights in a meeting with a minor student, but the fact is, they don't. They have some privacy rights, like a right against being compelled by the student to disclose their tax records, bank statements and medical records. But everything they say is competely fair game, entitled to no privacy protection of any kind whatsoever. That is because the public has a right to know what they're saying behind those closed doors. It is the student who has the privacy rights in that setting, not the adults. You can shake, wiggle and dance all you like, Bryan, but that's how it is.

And if you want a second opinion, Bryan, you're pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You can declare that adults, who are public employees, have privacy rights in a meeting with a minor student, but the fact is, they don't. They have some privacy rights, like a right against being compelled by the student to disclose their tax records, bank statements and medical records. But everything they say is competely fair game, entitled to no privacy protection of any kind whatsoever. That is because the public has a right to know what they're saying behind those closed doors. It is the student who has the privacy rights in that setting, not the adults. You can shake, wiggle and dance all you like, Bryan, but that's how it is.

A reasonable expectation of privacy is always checked against the party accused of violating or potentially violating it. Matthew can't be accused of a privacy violation in this case. He was sitting right there. He has the right to tell the world everything that was said. The mere fact that he can do that in a way they can't deny doesn't mean that an expectation of privacy was violated. The only thing that was violated was Paszkiewicz's attempt to get away with it.

Second, a reasonable expectation of privacy has to be reasonable. When adults are alone in a room with a minor who is under their control, they have no reasonable expectation for the public not to know everything that goes on. The minor student does, but once he chooses to make the information public, there's no privacy right left for anyone.

Same as if a patient undergoing a medical exam chose to reveal that the doctor groped her. The door to the examining room is closed to ensure her privacy, not his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
A reasonable expectation of privacy is always checked against the party accused of violating or potentially violating it. Matthew can't be accused of a privacy violation in this case. He was sitting right there. He has the right to tell the world everything that was said. The mere fact that he can do that in a way they can't deny doesn't mean that an expectation of privacy was violated. The only thing that was violated was Paszkiewicz's attempt to get away with it.

Second, a reasonable expectation of privacy has to be reasonable. When adults are alone in a room with a minor who is under their control, they have no reasonable expectation for the public not to know everything that goes on. The minor student does, but once he chooses to make the information public, there's no privacy right left for anyone.

Same as if a patient undergoing a medical exam chose to reveal that the doctor groped her. The door to the examining room is closed to ensure her privacy, not his.

You're correct. Paul realized this early on and didn't insist on being in the meeting. Certainly a great technique to increase the drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being called an idiot by Bryan is like being called immature and out of control by Britney Spears.

Provided the person she calls immature and out of control is such, correct.

It was the church that persecuted Copernicus.

http://www.childrensmuseum.org/cosmicquest...enaissance.html

Children's museum, eh? Had you paid a visit recently?

"I CAN easily conceive, most Holy Father, that as soon as some people learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the Earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected. For I am not so much in love with my conclusions as not to weigh what others will think about them, and although I know that the meditations of a philosopher are far removed from the judgment of the laity, because his endeavor is to seek out the truth in all things, so far as this is permitted by God to the human reason, I still believe that one must avoid theories altogether foreign to orthodoxy. Accordingly, when I considered in my own mind how absurd a performance it must seem to those who know that the judgment of many centuries has approved the view that the Earth remains fixed as center in the midst of the heavens, if I should, on the contrary, assert that the Earth moves; I was for a long time at a loss to know whether I should publish the commentaries which I have written in proof of its motion, or whether it were not better to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and of some others, who were accustomed to transmit the secrets of Philosophy not in writing but orally, and only to their relatives and friends . . . . Therefore, when I considered this carefully, the contempt which I had to fear because of the novelty and apparent absurdity of my view, nearly induced me to abandon utterly the work I had begun."

(Copernicus)

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111cop.html

Note that Copernicus says nothing at all about contradicting the doctrines of the Church of which he was a member, but notes that the ideas (of the Ptolemaic system) are held widely and tightly. Copernicus, as I noted earlier, would be arguing against his fellow scientists. And you can't help but have noted the close attachment of that so-called secularist, Copernicus, to the Church, can you?

The reason that Copernicus' ideas ran into opposition, at least in its immediate aftermath was not because of the supposed demotion of humans, but because having a heliocentric system resulted in the creation of a lot of problems for the physical theories that were coexisting with the astronomical models. So much of the initial resistance was from within the physics and astronomy communities, not the religious ones.

http://blog.case.edu/singham/2005/04/21/co...laws_of_physics

After Copernicus died, Pope Paul V issued a papal bull calling his "solar system" heretical.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/galileo.html

So the persecution you talked about above was posthumous? :wub:

Your delivery makes it look like you make it up as you go along.

You can declare that adults, who are public employees, have privacy rights in a meeting with a minor student, but the fact is, they don't.

Still off on that red herring? You're amazing.

You're mixing up the argument again. Privacy does attach to the adults in the Somma office meeting in the sense that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, what with it being an office meeting and all. I ignored the questions attempting to assert the lack of legal protection against taping since that was never my point, as I already explained.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82255

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82377

And if you want a second opinion, Bryan, you're pathetic.

I don't think you could beat Britney Spears in a debate. Train for awhile against Kelli Pickler. When you can beat her consistently then maybe you're ready to challenge Britney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You're correct. Paul realized this early on and didn't insist on being in the meeting. Certainly a great technique to increase the drama.

Even if you were right about that, so what? He didn't ask to be excluded. He just let them do it. He's not obligated to save them from themselves. They were walking into an even bigger problem, but it was of their own doing. So again:

So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Privacy does attach to the adults in the Somma office meeting in the sense that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, what with it being an office meeting and all.

On what basis? None of them has even claimed it. All we have is your say-so against all the reasons they don't have such an expectation.

Re: Copernicus

Just because the pope didn't issue his bull condemning Copernicus as a heretic until after his death doesn't mean that he wasn't persecuted during his life. He knew full well what the implications of a heliocentric solar system were for the prevailing religious dogmas of the time. In fact, one aspect of the persecution is that with that kind of social pressure he probably kept quiet about quite a lot. Good God, Bryan (as it were), now you're going to tell us that the medieval church didn't make life miserable for people it considered heretics? Yes, of course you are. Moons of cheese, sentient rocks. Same old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You're correct. Paul realized this early on and didn't insist on being in the meeting. Certainly a great technique to increase the drama.

Clearly Matthew was able to handle himself. Few would be able to in his position, but he wouldn't be bullied out of his legitimate accusation. Good for him, and for all KHS students, incidentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Even if you were right about that, so what? He didn't ask to be excluded. He just let them do it. He's not obligated to save them from themselves. They were walking into an even bigger problem, but it was of their own doing. So again:

So what?

I imagine had Paul insisted on being in that meeting, which he had every right to be in considering Matthew is a minor, the situation would have been taken much more seriously. And, had Paul notified Somma that the class had been recorded, I think Mr. P would have been stopped dead in his tracks.

The above is one alternative that could have been used, but it doesn't provide the heat that Paul was seeking. There may be nothing wrong with what Paul and Matthew did but lets call a spade a spade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I imagine had Paul insisted on being in that meeting, which he had every right to be in considering Matthew is a minor, the situation would have been taken much more seriously.

Matthew made his case, and had irrefutable proof. Everything needed to take the situation seriously already existed.

And, had Paul notified Somma that the class had been recorded, I think Mr. P would have been stopped dead in his tracks.

So Matthew notifies both Somma and Paszkiewicz that the class had been recorded, and nothing happens. Yet if PAUL had simply "notified" Somma taht there were recordings (him not being the one who either suggested or made the recordings), Mr. P. would have magically been "stopped dead in his tracks?" In what bizarre reality would that work?

The above is one alternative that could have been used,

Nonsense.

but it doesn't provide the heat that Paul was seeking.

Paszkiewicz's lack of ethics, responsibility, and honesty were the source of all the 'heat.' If Paul was 'seeking heat,' why did he give the Board over a month AFTER Matthew handed his irrefutable proof to Somma and Paszkiewicz to act, before he even brought the story to the attention of the media? In fact, why not just take the recordings directly to the media without bothering with a letter from Matthew, or a meeting at all? That would have created more 'heat.' Instead, the LaClairs tried very hard to reach a resolution without making a big scandal out of it, but the Board et al would have none of it--they didn't want to fix anything. They just wanted it all to go away.

Your accusation is inconsistent with Paul's actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...