Board of Education

[Guest Guest]

This is exactly right. We've been hearing it was a dead issue since it happened, and that meant exactly what Strife picks up: many people wanted it to go away because they saw it as a challenge to their religious beliefs, even though it wasn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No Paul, many people wnat to this to be over because they simply can't stand you anymore. That's all!

[Guest Supporter]

Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look, I know anybody has the right to comment on this site, but for the sake of everbody elses IQ, will you please stop posting?

[God Save Us From Christians]

Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And speaking of "truly nonsensical/insulting/uneducated tripe" here we have another intelligent post by "2smart4u."

another product of the Kearny Public School system I guess.

[Strife767]

another product of the Kearny Public School system I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am a product of that school system, so I'd appreciate you not generalizing like that.

[Guest Guest]

And speaking of "truly nonsensical/insulting/uneducated tripe" here we have another intelligent post by "2smart4u."

another product of the Kearny Public School system I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeap, the same school system that Matthew LaClair is coming from...I guess we are all "dumb" then!

[Guest KearnyKard]

And speaking of "truly nonsensical/insulting/uneducated tripe" here we have another intelligent post by "2smart4u."

another product of the Kearny Public School system I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla and Bla.

[Strife767]

Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla  and  Bla.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is probably the strongest argument you've ever made on this forum.

[Guest Paul]

No Paul, many people wnat to this to be over because they simply can't stand you anymore. That's all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that's not the reason. You can easily pass by everything I write. Instead, you choose to read it and comment. I'm going to continue to comment, including occasional comments in response to inane posts like yours. So if you don't like them, or they make you think of me, don't read them.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Look, I know anybody has the right to comment on this site, but for the sake of everbody elses IQ, will you please stop posting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I'll stop posting right after Mumbo & Dumbo (aka: Paulie & Strife) stop their verbal diarrhea.

[Guest Guest]

1.  You likely just misunderstood because you're not familiar with the common retort to that fallacy.

2.  He pointed out the irony that someone posting completely anonymously was 'demanding' that others make public statements about a situation that would invariably be tied to them personally from then on.

3.  I was not suggesting that you could not or should not have an opinion, just that I thought it was ironic that someone not registered to the board would suggest the BOE members state their views "publicly"."

4.  Now, will you apologize for your mistake?

5.  You may think this unfair, but I admit it's a bit harder to take someone seriously when they won't take that tiny step. Doesn't mean I'll just think "who cares what they say, they're a guest," just saying...if someone is intereseted in having a real exchange, then they can easily meet others halfway by at the very least letting everyone know which of these posts you did and did not write.

6.  --that's like someone saying "I refuse to believe that we all came to be by chance" when attacking evolution.

7.  The purpose of any forum is communication. Except in a situation where the object is to have everyone state an opinion once and never directly reply to another person's post, registering is ideal, don't you agree? That's all I or anyone else has been saying on this subject--back and forth exchange between two (or more people) necessitates some sort of defined identity of the people involved to be effective.

8.  You're mischaracterizing me as someone who wholly disregards posts solely on the criterion of "guest or not." I'd like you not to do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. I think you completely underestimate my understanding of argument and debate - much more than you realize. My counter-point is simple. The comment added nothing to your argument - and failed to advance any part of the discussion. I did not take it personally, however, as I have witnessed previously your tendency to make questionable choices in the midst of your verbiage when it comes to trying to prove your point.

2. I didn't "demand" anything. I merely stated that I thought it was important that the candidates weigh in on the subject. How you protract that into "demanding" anything smacks of one making mountains out of molehills. Go re-read my post - then feel free to apologize to me.

3. Are you REALLY stating that it's okay to have an opinion, but it's not okay to express it on a PUBLIC forum unless I register on that forum? And to do otherwise is a form of hypocrisy? Wow. That's some line of logic. I could see if I was suggesting that another "guest" should identify him or herself prior to making a statement - that would be hypocritical. Or if I was a candidate for public office who was refusing to weigh in on an issue but suggesting that others should - then, yes, that would be hypocritical.

But a private citizen simply stating that - in his opinion - it is important to understand the opinions and beliefs of candidates running for public office who will be charged with budgeting more than half of the town's tax levy? Or that it would be of some probative value in determining for whom to vote if candidates for public office weighed in on a hot button issue relating to the application of the Establishment Clause which may ultimately cost the taxpayers money in litigation? Yes, I see your point. How dare someone not make up a completely unidentifiable monniker before suggesting that public officials should make public statements on things that may cost me money in taxes? Oh the horror.

C'mon Stife. I may be wrong - but you don't seem that dense. Instead, I really think you are being self-congratulatory for registering at best, and elitist about your registered status on the forum at worst.

4. I would apologize if I was incorrect (that apology criticism is really gnawing at you, isn't it - I thought I was being constructive).

I also think that you misunderstood Confused's clarification. Confused was making the point that current BOE members may be barred from speaking publicly due to pending litigation - which is a valid consideration. My counter-point is that not all candidates are current members, and I would find their opinions on whether they agreed with the student or the teacher to be important in determining from whom I should cast my vote. Your kneejerk response has really become your trademark - which is both good in honesty but bad in lack of forethought.

5. But that's just YOUR view on the forum. Personally, I don't care if ANYONE registered (sorry, KOTW - I know having more registered users is of benefit to you). Does the registration process really weed out all of the prattle (and, in such case, am I completely missing the brilliance of 2Smart4u?). And if putting you on the same side of an argument with 2Smart4u is not enough to convince you that you are wrong on an issue - nothing will.

6. I just won $20 from Paul. I knew you couldn't get through a post without mentioning evolution or Christians. (I'm joking of course).

7. I don't think that you disregard posts from guests. However, I do think that you tend to make kneejerk responses without a lot of forethought. I also think that you use questionable at best, offensive at worst, statements from time to time when you are trying to make a point. And I think that you fail to apologize when you are wrong. And I think that this is one of those times.

[Guest Guest]

Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your intellectual prowess is overwhelming. And such alliteration!

[Wok2Moons]

OK,  I'll stop posting right after Mumbo & Dumbo (aka: Paulie & Strife) stop their verbal diarrhea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, Strife, I'm with 2Smart4u on this one; if there is really diarrhea coming out of your mouths, then we've got a problem. . .

No Paul, many people wnat to this to be over because they simply can't stand you anymore. That's all!

I am going to ask the age old question here; if you don't want anything to do with him, why do you continue to read/respond to what he is saying?! Your -ahem- argument is getting you nowhere, so stop enforcing it.

[Strife767]

1.  I think you completely underestimate my understanding of argument and debate - much more than you realize.  My counter-point is simple.  The comment added nothing to your argument -

But it defused/exposed a fallacy in the opposing argument. Both adding to your arguments and exposing flaws in the other person's are important when you're debating something, don't you agree?

and failed to advance any part of the discussion.  I did not take it personally, however, as I have witnessed previously your tendency to make questionable choices in the midst of your verbiage when it comes to trying to prove your point.

2.  I didn't "demand" anything.

I never quoted you as having demanded anything. The single quotes were meant to be a kind of approximation to your statement, which was fairly emphatic, imho.

But on the subject of misquoting, neither I nor anyone else actually told you that you are not "entitled" to express your opinion just because you haven't registered, either--you're engaging in a bit of pot kettle, imho. Also, I was the one who had 'Confused's' intention in his post correct, as he confirmed himself. To repeat:

"I was not suggesting that you could not or should not have an opinion, just that I thought it was ironic that someone not registered to the board would suggest the BOE members state their views "publicly"." --"Confused in VA"

I merely stated that I thought it was important that the candidates weigh in on the subject.  How you protract that into "demanding" anything smacks of one making mountains out of molehills.

Single quotes, not double. Don't you make more of what I said than I did.

Go re-read my post - then feel free to apologize to me.

I'll be happy to 'rephrase myself' if you'll retract your allegations that either Confused or I have ever told you that as a Guest, you are not entitled to express an opinion on this or any subject. Deal?

3.  Are you REALLY stating that it's okay to have an opinion, but it's not okay to express it on a PUBLIC forum unless I register on that forum?

Uh, no.

And to do otherwise is a form of hypocrisy?

Maybe more ironic than hypocritical, if you want to get technical. I mean, come on, it _is_ ironic--an anonymous voice calling for public statements on an issue. I guess it's a "form" of hypocrisy, but whatever...I'm burnt out on semantic quibbling, blame Bryan for that.

Wow.  That's some line of logic.  I could see if I was suggesting that another "guest" should identify him or herself prior to making a statement - that would be hypocritical.  Or if I was a candidate for public office who was refusing to weigh in on an issue but suggesting that others should - then, yes, that would be hypocritical.

I'll change it to "ironic in a light/humorous way," then. How's that sound? It made me chuckle a bit when I read the post, and I doubt Confused was seriously pissed off at you for it either--his response wasn't exactly a jump-down-your-throat "how dare you" reply either, you know. I think you took it a little too hard, but that's just me.

But a private citizen simply stating that - in his opinion - it is important to understand the opinions and beliefs of candidates running for public office who will be charged with budgeting more than half of the town's tax levy?  Or that it would be of some probative value in determining for whom to vote if candidates for public office weighed in on a hot button issue relating to the application of the Establishment Clause which may ultimately cost the taxpayers money in litigation?  Yes, I see your point.  How dare someone not make up a completely unidentifiable monniker before suggesting that public officials should make public statements on things that may cost me money in taxes?  Oh the horror.

I really think you've taken Confused's response to your post a bit too personally. But I guess that's something you and he/she should work out amongst yourselves.

C'mon Stife.

Okay, my turn. Come on. It's only six letters. You wouldn't write "Byan," would you? Get that 'r' in there next time, okay?

I may be wrong - but you don't seem that dense.  Instead, I really think you are being self-congratulatory for registering at best, and elitist about your registered status on the forum at worst.

Then I'd say it seems like you completely skimmed over everything I said on that subject. I really don't want to repeat myself, so I won't. Reread it or don't. *shrugs*

(part 1 of 2)

[Strife767]

(part 2 of 2)

4.  I would apologize if I was incorrect (that apology criticism is really gnawing at you, isn't it - I thought I was being constructive).

You were incorrect. You said that you were being told that you're not "entitled" to express an opinion solely because you're not registered. No one ever said that. That's as simple as I can make it.

I also think that you misunderstood Confused's clarification.  Confused was making the point that current BOE members may be barred from speaking publicly due to pending litigation - which is a valid consideration.  My counter-point is that not all candidates are current members, and I would find their opinions on whether they agreed with the student or the teacher to be important in determining from whom I should cast my vote.  Your kneejerk response has really become your trademark - which is both good in honesty but bad in lack of forethought.

In my defense, instead of making infantile personal comments in response, I'm willing to listen and correct myself if need be, especially when the counterpoint is coming from a civil poster.

5.  But that's just YOUR view on the forum.

I never said it was anything else.

Personally, I don't care if ANYONE registered (sorry, KOTW - I know having more registered users is of benefit to you).  Does the registration process really weed out all of the prattle (and, in such case, am I completely missing the brilliance of 2Smart4u?).

In my experience with forum moderation:

Yes, forcing registration (I'm guessing this is what you meant) eliminates a _lot_ of trolling, simply because a lot of people who want to be jerks are less willing to if they have to go through any sort of 'process' first. The bigger problem trolling is, the more 'measures' tend to be implemented. Just look at any large forum and you'll see what I mean.

And if putting you on the same side of an argument with 2Smart4u is not enough to convince you that you are wrong on an issue - nothing will.

Not sure exactly what you're referring to here.

6.  I just won $20 from Paul.  I knew you couldn't get through a post without mentioning evolution or Christians.  (I'm joking of course).

This isn't my fault! When it comes to logical fallacies, it is their fault that the first thing I think of as an example is almost always a creationist argument. They just totally run the gamut of such fallacies--you'd be hard-pressed to find a fallacy that hasn't been beaten to death on the newsgroup talk.origins (where I've spent some time), for example.

7.  I don't think that you disregard posts from guests.  However, I do think that you tend to make kneejerk responses without a lot of forethought.  I also think that you use questionable at best, offensive at worst, statements from time to time when you are trying to make a point.

It's easy to offend people when you are even one notch below not totally coddling them, imho...both online and off. I wish it wasn't true, but people, especially in this country, have developed this strong feeling that somehow it's this horrible outrage if someone offends them, and they tend to be offended way too easily, even by true statements.

Without any hesitation I admit that I am straightforward and to the point. I hate sugar-coating, I hate beating around the bush, I hate 'soft' language people use for no other reason than to try and be 'sensitive' enough and not hurt anyone's feelings, and/or 'drown' the reality of a situation in semantics. It's gone way too far, in my opinion, and my method of protest is to get right to the point and stay there. The saddest part is that this is considered radical behavior in this day and age.

If one gets 'offended' when they hear "died" instead of "passed away/on," "crippled" instead of "handicapped," or "myth" instead of "religion" (share the 20 bucks with me? Or maybe it won't count 'cause I didn't mention Christians directly ), something is wrong with _them_, not me. It's all signs of a culture that has become so afraid of reality that they have to smother it any way they can. Well, not me. Call me an opinionated mother fucker, but that's how I feel, heh. Sorry to kinda go off on a tangent, but I really don't want to backspace all of this now, lol.

And I think that you fail to apologize when you are wrong.

(not just about this) Clearly show me where I'm wrong about something, and I'll prove _you_ wrong about this statement.

And I think that this is one of those times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll agree with you that "hypocrisy" is too strong a term (I'm really not as stubborn as you're making me out to be, see? ), so that's why I kinda 'retracted' that above, but I honestly think that you took things stronger than they were delivered, if that makes sense. And I would like to think that you don't perceive me as someone completely unwilling to listen to anything negative/critical you or anyone else says. I'm always willing to listen, and I can prove it. I promise.

[Strife767]

Paul, Strife, I'm with 2Smart4u on this one; if there is really diarrhea coming out of your mouths, then we've got a problem. . .

Reminds me of a South Park episode...

[Guest 2smart4u]

Reminds me of a South Park episode...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

South Park ?? Do you watch that cuddled up on the couch with Paulie ??

[Strife767]

South Park ??  Do you watch that cuddled up on the couch with Paulie ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are just obsessed with thinking about Paul and I in bed, aren't you? Either keep me (and him) out of your fantasies, or at least don't talk about them publicly like this. Your consumption with this 'situtation' you apparently birthed deep in the recesses of your twisted mind is disturbing.

P.S. It's also hilarious that some people still think that suggesting someone is gay is an insult. :)

[Guest Guest]

You are just obsessed with thinking about Paul and I in bed, aren't you? Either keep me (and him) out of your fantasies, or at least don't talk about them publicly like this. Your consumption with this 'situtation' you apparently birthed deep in the recesses of your twisted mind is disturbing.

P.S. It's also hilarious that some people still think that suggesting someone is gay is an insult. :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you're not insulted, right?

[Strife767]

So, you're not insulted, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the suggestion that I'm gay? No. Maybe creeped out a bit that apparently 2dim4words seems to have become infatuated with the thought of Paul and I 'together,' though.

Also definitely annoyed that some people are still stupid enough to try and use it that way, especially when it's not even based on anything.