We have a settlement

[Bryan]

Bryan, do you really think I need an excuse to ignore the nonsensical tripe you write?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No--did I say I thought so?

I've said repeatedly that it's up to you whether you respond to my posts or not.

If you do, you will make even more mistakes and dig yourself into ever-deeper holes.

If you don't, then the holes you've already dug remain to be exploited and your silence cannot help you (you can depend on Strife to defend you, if you like!).

I'm satisfied either way, though it better suits my purposes for you to try to defend your nonsense.

Case in point x2 in just the past 48 hours or so. Paul recommends a Web site featuring two big fat lies, claiming that it somehow shows the importance of his principled stand in Kearny.

And now the current post, where Paul says I write "nonsensical tripe" but has no argument supporting his assertion.

How easy would it be for me to respond to those with whom I disagree, simply calling their posts "nonsensical tripe"?

Without an accompanying demonstration, I might as well not post at all, unless I were the type of sleazy individual who would try to get his point across by deliberately employing fallacious arguments (such as the appeal to ridicule).

Keep digging, Paul.

[Strife767]

Why don't you start a thread and show us how easy it is?  You pick the topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pff, it's already been done.

Absurdities (1,083): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Contradictions (384): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

You've got your work cut out for you explaining all of THAT away, especially the really straightforward stuff like "Is Divorce permissible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/divorce.html)?"

Why don't you get a jump on it?

[Bryan]

One of the most important things scientists do is challenge long-prevailing assumptions. This is especially true in fields like astrophysics and cosmology, where the field is wide open because of how grand the subject matter is, and how difficult it is for us to get a handle on it. When scientists suggests that the universe may have come from no matter, they're not stating a final conclusion. They're asking students to think without preconceptions.

Let's suppose for a moment you're correct.

Why on earth would the study receive the title "Hints of a fundamental misconception in cosmology"? Are you suggesting that the students displayed their misperception merely by expressing the idea--as certain--that the universe had come from pre-existing matter?

That does not appear to fit the content of the study at all, but do go on--this may be a fascinating study in rationalization on your part.

Isn't this a bunch of wackos with bad haircuts who did too much marijuana in college? Not at all. Physics has altered several of its own fundamental assumptions in the past century alone. Long after people realized that the heliocentric solar system was a fact, not a heresy, scientists discovered that light behaved in ways that suggested it was both waves AND particles. Scientists had always assumed light had to be one or the other. The double-slit experiments proved that it behaves as both. Now, what it is ultimately? We STILL don't know, and may never know what light --- or anything else for that matter --- is ultimately. The ultimate may not be accessible to us.

So what's your point? That these scientists were wrong to point to creation from nothing as the prevailing theory and accuse the students of a misperception?

Science operates from the premise that new information is discoverable via the scientific method. It has an impressive track record to prove it. In contrast with theology, which is no better supported today than it was 3,000 years ago --- and in many ways is far less so --- science is expanding and altering life by the year. In fact, science is so "successful" that if we don't get a handle on it we're going to destroy ourselves with our own ultra-successful technology.

But apparently the students should not lay hold of science's claim respecting the universe coming from nothing--or do I misunderstand you?

Physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists offer the Big Bang not as the final answer to the universe's origins, but as the best answer we have. What does that mean? It means that given what we learned in the past century about light (which is our main source of information about distant stars and galaxies), the universe can be traced back to a singularity, a point in time and space. But since that results in a collection of matter so dense that light couldn't even escape it, we have no way of measuring time within it, or even knowing whether time existed "before" this singularity exploded, creating our universe. Scientists are extrapolating from what they know, and if they want to challenge the assumption that it was all matter in the first place, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that they have hard proof. They have an extrapolation, from which they can work to see if it leads them to anything useful.

Good grief. Paul is going to have to sue you for doubting well-established science.

So, you're saying that these scientists are wrong when they say that it is a misperception of the Big Bang theory to suppose that the universe came from nothing.

Is that correct?

Ah-hah! says Bryan, you've just admitted that science is all guesswork. Not at all. Science does what it can do today, and leaves what it can't yet do open for tomorrow, or whenever it can do it. The Big Bang is a scientific theory because it draws the most sensible conclusion from the available data. If one of the fundamental assumptions underlying the theory is changed, the theory may change. That doesn't mean science is willy-nilly. It means that science doesn't have final answers, but is a constant process of uncovering better answers.

Could you try to apply your rather long-winded reply to the matter at hand, that is, the prevailing view of the Big Bang theory as positing a universe from nothing, and the fact that these scientists consider it a "misperception" (their term) to suppose that the universe ultimately came from pre-existing matter?

Are these scientists being dogmatic, IYO?

And what of the LaClairs? How does your answer excuse them from suggesting that Paszkiewicz was wrong in his presentation of the Big Bang theory when Paszkiewicz offered a closer version of the prevailing view than they did?

The reason David Paszkiewicz's comments on the Big Bang were so damaging to the science curriculum is that they reflect a nearly complete lack of understanding of what science is.

Baloney.

That is probably why Dr. Tyson called Paszkiewicz ignorant and scientifically illiterate.

Dr. Tyson probably didn't read any further than the news accounts, which appeared to take the LaClair's report of what Paszkiewicz said at face value, and show no evidence of a serious attempt to verify the LaClair report via use of the tapes.

David Paszkiewicz is ignorant (in science) and scientifically illiterate, abysmally so.

Well, if you don't have real argument, why don't you just attack Mr. Paszkiewicz, then?

For example, he tried to compare the explosion of the big bang to an exploding firecracker, arguing that no explosion generates order. That isn't just ignorant; it's stupid.

It's not Paszkiewicz's argument, either. Paszkiewicz argued that there was no observation of an explosion producing order, and pointing to the faith element that science employs to suggest otherwise--the very faith you exercise in your next comment.

An exploding firecracker does not produce bodies that are massive enough to exert a gravitational pull. Omitting that "little detail" changes everything.

How?

Do you have examples of gravitational pulls creating order?

Paszkiewicz was completely out of his field commenting out of science, and completely out of line doing it to argue for biblical creationism.

Aren't you completely out of your field commenting on this?

Paszkiewicz was perfectly justified in using an analogy from science to stage a discussion about epistemology. Epistemology is foundational to history, and the parallel to historical science (and the Big Bang is a theory touching history, as Paszkiewicz correctly pointed out).

That is the point here, not whether 100 years from now science will hold that the big bang began with extremely dense matter or no matter.

Okay, so I should drop the whole thing about the LaClairs being wrong about the current state of the Big Bang theory, since you say it's not the point.

Shall I send you a PM to ask permission to make my own points from here on out?

Neither proposition is off the table yet.

Doesn't that imply that Matthew LaClair was wrong to suggest that the Big Bang theory does not state that the universe came from nothing?

Oops. Am I missing the point again?

As each is applied in the face of expanding knowledge, we will learn more about the implications of each way of looking at it. Eventually we may gain enough knowledge to discard one or the other, and maybe both in favor of some other explanation. Meanwhile, however, the big bang theory will have served its function in bringing us forward to the next level of understanding. That is how science works. Newton's theory of gravity, for example, is fundamentally wrong as an explanation. Yet we still use it because it approximates the process in the grossly observable world.

Ah-ha. Science is about how being wrong can be good for us.

If you don't have a little patience and aren't willing to understand how science works, you may throw up your hands and call for your Bible because after all the Bible is a lot simpler. But if you do that, you won't learn science. And if the world had done it, we wouldn't have science, and we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't have the technology that makes the discussion possible.

That's a guide to understanding the damage that teachers like David Paszkiewicz do to young minds. They make them ignorant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to have forgotten to supply an example of how Paszkiewicz supposedly makes young minds ignorant.

But if you just claim that he does that, it's just as good as proving it--right?

Edited May 20, 2007 by Bryan

[Bryan]

Pff, it's already been done.

Absurdities (1,083): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Contradictions (384): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

You've got your work cut out for you explaining all of THAT away, especially the really straightforward stuff like "Is Divorce permissible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/divorce.html)?"

Why don't you get a jump on it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because I'm not dim enough to accept the challenge of proving every single one of the SAB claims false--which is way too convenient a method for one on your side to dodge away from his claim.

It seems fair for me to let you (or whomever) pick out the contradiction you think is best established either by your own reasoning or by reasoning your borrow from one of those cheesy skeptical sites.

I don't care how you settle on your best example. Just don't chicken out by hiding behind 1,000 examples w[h]ere one or less is a plausible argument.

Bawk-bawk.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Guest]

Absurdities (1,083): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Contradictions (384): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Because I'm not dim enough to accept the challenge of proving every single one of the  SAB--which is way too convenient a method for one on your side to dodge away from his claim.

It seems fair for me to let you (or whomever) pick out the contradiction you think is best established either by your own reasoning or by reasoning your borrow from one of those cheesy skeptical sites. 

I don't care how you settle on your best example.  Just don't chicken out by hiding behind 1,000 examples were one or less is a plausible argument.

Bawk-bawk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, Bryan, but you're morally obligated to address all 1,467 points. Please remember to number them for easy reference. (Someone give him a crayon.)

[Strife767]

Because I'm not dim enough to accept the challenge of proving every single one of the  SAB false--which is way too convenient a method for one on your side to dodge away from his claim.

It seems fair for me to let you (or whomever) pick out the contradiction you think is best established either by your own reasoning or by reasoning your borrow from one of those cheesy skeptical sites.

Uh, no. The Bible is FULL of contradictions and absurdities, and you possibly managing to explain one of them away would not make the rest of them vanish or become irrelevant. What sort of dementia would make you think otherwise?

[Bryan]

Absurdities (1,083): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Contradictions (384): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Sorry, Bryan, but you're morally obligated to address all 1,467 points. Please remember to number them for easy reference. (Someone give him a crayon.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're a chicken, then.

The original argument was that it was very easy to point out contradictions in the Bible. How is that argument defended if, say, as few as half of the SAB complaints are plausible (and that estimate may be high by the full total)?

It's so easy that perfessinalz can do it about half the time!!!

Wow.

That's impressive.

[Bryan]

Uh, no. The Bible is FULL of contradictions and absurdities, and you possibly managing to explain one of them away would not make the rest of them vanish or become irrelevant.

lol

Nice red herring fallacy, there, Strifey.

Use your memory for a sec:

Guest:

"What would happen if there was a class like that and some kid exposed all the logical and factual errors in the Bible? It's not hard to do."

*

Bryan:

Why don't you start a thread and show us how easy it is? You pick the topic.

We have a claim that showing logical and factual errors in the Bible is easy to do. Do you really think that "Guest" was suggesting that the kid would stand in front of the class and recite the URL to the SAB?

I think it's far more likely that he had specific examples in mind. Don't you?

Now, I was being nice by not nitpicking over the "all the logical and factual errors" part. And since I am aware of the extraordinary difficulty skeptics have in producing good logical arguments in favor of Bible contradictions and factual errors, that's where I wanted to place the focus.

And what happens? The skeptics run like scared children. Apparently not one of them has sufficient confidence in an alleged error or contradiction to use it as an example of how supposedly easy it is to demonstrate logical errors and contradictions in the Bible.

The skeptics among you are a sorry lot.

What sort of dementia would make you think otherwise?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fallacy of the complex question, with the germ of a straw man growing in the midst.

Way to go, Strife. You haven't lost your knack for fallacious reasoning. Shall we see if you can apply that same gift to Bible criticism?

[Guest Guest]

Here is a list of names. Which of these people were crusaders? Which were crusaders for good and important causes? Explain your answers.

Ralph Nader

Martin Luther King

Jerry Falwell

George W. Bush

Ronald Reagan

Jesse Jackson

Bill Clinton

Jimmy Carter

Pat Robertson

the Dalai Lama

Nelson Mandela

David Duke

Can a person be a citizen without standing up for important causes?

If a person is busy raising and family and paying the bills, does that mean he cannot also fight for important causes?

If citizens don't stand up for the principles that make their country great, how much longer will there be anything left to stand up for?

Obviously you thought your comment important enough to post, and obviously you're taking time to read these posts. Are you really opposed to people spending their time on issues they care about? If Matthew was spending his time collecting stamps, would you criticize him for it? Or is it just that you don't agree with Matthew's cause? If the Constitution, science and the quality of education are not important, then what is? Aren't a lot of things important? Why is this any less important than rehearsing for the school play? Or do you criticize kids for doing that, too? Take a deep breath and think about it, and think about what your comment says about you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You and Matthew are crusaders, period. What the term crusader has come to mean is someone that takes up a cause and fights for it, usually no matter how meaningless it is to the rest of us. Quite often it involves some form of personal gain. Usually the crusader will employ any means necessary to win his battle no matter how sneaky or under handed.

You may not like it but you and Matthew fit this characterization perfectly.

[Guest Guest]

You and Matthew are crusaders, period.  What the term crusader has come to mean is someone that takes up a cause and fights for it, usually no matter how meaningless it is to the rest of us.  Quite often it involves some form of personal gain.  Usually the crusader will employ any means necessary to win his battle no matter how sneaky or under handed. 

You may not like it but you and Matthew fit this characterization perfectly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may not like it, but many people do not see it that way.

[Guest Guest]

I haven't gotten any cash, or money in any other form for this, and I won't. Our lawyers haven't billed us. All reimbursement will go directly to them. They spent a lot of time on it. Had we not been reimbursed for expenses, they would have come out of my pocket.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher is a major international law firm. Look them up on line. They have offices overseas as well as in the United States. Willkie was Wendell Willkie, Republican presidential nominee in 1940. He was a partner there.

Rich Mancino, who is a partner there now, came to us through the National Center for Science Education. He is an extremely busy lawyer who travels almost weekly to places like Switzerland working on securities cases. I don't know what he charges by the hour, but you can bet it's more than a lot of folks make in a week. He thought this cause important enough to take on for free.

There are plenty of snotty noses commenting on this case. They write in a way that makes them easy to spot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wondering which side of your mouth you are talking out of now, Paul ? You always seem to end your response with a question so I will start mine with one.

Your post on May 10 2007, 12:00 AM , which you said that "Our expenses do not include any attorneys' fees , as our attorneys were working pro bono. They believed in the rightness of this cause as much as we did."

I looked up "pro bono" and the definition comes back as "donated without charge".

So therefore why this attached post you say that you have to reimburse your attorneys?

Ask me again if I care about the law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, or who Rich Mancino is? When you profess here that your attorneys were working for free and then come back and say that you have to get money to pay for your lawyers, then one of the Paul LaClairs are lieing? I just wonder which one is?

p.s. There is finished it in a question like you did. And name calling is so very professional of you. I would expect nothing else from a so called attorney like yourself.

[Stixx3969]

You and Matthew are crusaders, period.  What the term crusader has come to mean is someone that takes up a cause and fights for it, usually no matter how meaningless it is to the rest of us.  Quite often it involves some form of personal gain.  Usually the crusader will employ any means necessary to win his battle no matter how sneaky or under handed. 

You may not like it but you and Matthew fit this characterization perfectly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who knows more about crusading than Christians?

[Guest Guest]

Here is a list of names. Which of these people were crusaders? Which were crusaders for good and important causes? Explain your answers.

Ralph Nader

Martin Luther King

Jerry Falwell

George W. Bush

Ronald Reagan

Jesse Jackson

Bill Clinton

Jimmy Carter

Pat Robertson

the Dalai Lama

Nelson Mandela

David Duke

Can a person be a citizen without standing up for important causes?

If a person is busy raising and family and paying the bills, does that mean he cannot also fight for important causes?

If citizens don't stand up for the principles that make their country great, how much longer will there be anything left to stand up for?

Obviously you thought your comment important enough to post, and obviously you're taking time to read these posts. Are you really opposed to people spending their time on issues they care about? If Matthew was spending his time collecting stamps, would you criticize him for it? Or is it just that you don't agree with Matthew's cause? If the Constitution, science and the quality of education are not important, then what is? Aren't a lot of things important? Why is this any less important than rehearsing for the school play? Or do you criticize kids for doing that, too? Take a deep breath and think about it, and think about what your comment says about you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am so happy that you lumped your son with the Grand Master of the KKK, David Duke.

Just to set the record straight there is a difffernce between collecting stamps and attempting to destroy the reputation of an individual. Guess you missed that at your last KKK meeting.

[Guest Guest]

This is great news.

Now, I wonder how many people here will be big enough to apologize for accusing Paul of just being about 'the money' etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yea he boasted that his lawyer worked pro bono and then said he needed the money to pay his lawyers. Nice scam.

[Guest Guest]

lol

Nice red herring fallacy, there, Strifey.

Use your memory for a sec:

Guest:

"What would happen if there was a class like that and some kid exposed all the logical and factual errors in the Bible? It's not hard to do."

*

Bryan:

Why don't you start a thread and show us how easy it is? You pick the topic.

We have a claim that showing logical and factual errors in the Bible is easy to do.  Do you really think that "Guest" was suggesting that the kid would stand in front of the class and recite the URL to the SAB?

I think it's far more likely that he had specific examples in mind.  Don't you?

Now, I was being nice by not nitpicking over the "all the logical and factual errors" part.  And since I am aware of the extraordinary difficulty skeptics have in producing good logical arguments in favor of Bible contradictions and factual errors, that's where I wanted to place the focus.

And what happens?  The skeptics run like scared children.  Apparently not one of them has sufficient confidence in an alleged error or contradiction to use it as an example of how supposedly easy it is to demonstrate logical errors and contradictions in the Bible.

The skeptics among you are a sorry lot. 

Fallacy of the complex question, with the germ of a straw man growing in the midst.

Way to go, Strife.  You haven't lost your knack for fallacious reasoning.  Shall we see if you can apply that same gift to Bible criticism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan deserves all our thanks. From now on when we see the quadruple amputation scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" we'll all appreciate it more deeply for having "known" someone just like that.

[Strife767]

You and Matthew are crusaders, period.  What the term crusader has come to mean is someone that takes up a cause and fights for it, usually no matter how meaningless it is to the rest of us.  Quite often it involves some form of personal gain.  Usually the crusader will employ any means necessary to win his battle no matter how sneaky or under handed. 

You may not like it but you and Matthew fit this characterization perfectly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He may not like that you're lying.

Tell me, if the LaClairs truly wanted to employ "any means necessary":

Why didn't Matthew take his recordings to the media in September when he made them, instead of writing a letter to Principal Somma, and meeting with him and Paszkiewicz to make his requests?

Why did they give the Board several months to act before they took further action?

Why did they wait so long to start the process of potential litigation against the Board?

Why did they not even attempt to get any monetary damages for the gross mishandling of the situation that resulted in a lot of undue suffering for Matthew when they easily could have done so?

-----

Despite all of the accusations of generally 'underhanded' tactics by the LaClairs, there are so many things they could have done (and quite likely gotten away with) that they didn't. They didn't even try to get Paszkiewicz fired. How can you fault them? They've cut Paszkiewicz and the Board a LOT of slack--in the end, all they've really asked for is for the mistakes to be corrected, like not charging a shoplifter who brings back what he/she stole, and simply being satisfied that the item has been returned.

[Strife767]

Bryan deserves all our thanks. From now on when we see the quadruple amputation scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" we'll all appreciate it more deeply for having "known" someone just like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haha, true.

[Guest Paul]

Wondering which side of your mouth you are talking out of now, Paul ? You always seem to end your response with a question so I will start mine with one.

Your post on May 10 2007, 12:00 AM , which you said that "Our expenses do not include any attorneys' fees , as our attorneys were working pro bono. They believed in the rightness of this cause as much as we did."

I looked up "pro bono" and the definition comes back as "donated without charge".

So therefore why this attached post you say that you have to reimburse your attorneys? 

Ask me again if I care about the law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, or who Rich Mancino is?  When you profess here that your attorneys were working for free and then come back and say that you have to get money to pay for your lawyers, then one of the Paul LaClairs are lieing? I just wonder which one is?

p.s.  There is finished it in a question like you did.  And name calling is so very professional of you.  I would expect nothing else from a so called attorney like yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The difference is that I answer legitimate questions, even if they are asked in ignorance. There is absolutely nothing I could say that would satisfy you because you don't agree with us on these issues and you especially don't like how it turned out. Just the same, I will answer your question.

Just because our lawyers didn't charge a fee doesn't mean they and we didn't incur expenses. I say again, if you don't like the agreement, then take it up with your public officials who are responsible for it on your behalf.

As for the quality of representation we received, Willkie Farr & Gallagher does not need to take on pro bono cases. They're very busy working on major business transactions. The fact that they would take this on highlights the importance of the issue.

[Guest Paul]

I am so happy that you lumped your son with the Grand Master of the KKK, David Duke. 

Just to set the record straight there is a difffernce between collecting stamps and attempting to destroy the reputation of an individual.  Guess you missed that at your last KKK meeting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is impossible to destroy a person's reputation with his own words. Only the person who spoke the words can do that.

[Bryan]

He may not like that you're lying.

Tell me, if the LaClairs truly wanted to employ "any means necessary":

Why didn't Matthew take his recordings to the media in September when he made them, instead of writing a letter to Principal Somma, and meeting with him and Paszkiewicz to make his requests?

Probably because that would have degraded their case legally and practically. Do you think that the administration would be more likely to act as the LaClairs wanted if they had gone straight to the media?

Why did they give the Board several months to act before they took further action?

One month, you mean?

Matthew talked to Somma and company in mid October. The LaClairs went to the press in mid November (Canessa posted about it on Nov. 15).

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2006/...board-with.html

Remarkable self-control, waiting 30 days or so.

Why did they wait so long to start the process of potential litigation against the Board?

Because they hoped to intimidate education officials cheaply first. Going to the press is cheap. Threatening a lawsuit is cheap. The costs don't ring in until you retain an attorney and start filing papers with the courts.

I'd prefer to give the LaClairs the benefit of the doubt concerning their sincerity of heart, actually. I think they (probably) earnestly believe in their cause.

It's just that Strife's arguments are so pathetic that it's hard not to riddle them full of holes just for the fun of it.

[Guest Guest]

He may not like that you're lying.

Tell me, if the LaClairs truly wanted to employ "any means necessary":

Why didn't Matthew take his recordings to the media in September when he made them, instead of writing a letter to Principal Somma, and meeting with him and Paszkiewicz to make his requests?

Why did they give the Board several months to act before they took further action?

Why did they wait so long to start the process of potential litigation against the Board?

Why did they not even attempt to get any monetary damages for the gross mishandling of the situation that resulted in a lot of undue suffering for Matthew when they easily could have done so?

-----

Despite all of the accusations of generally 'underhanded' tactics by the LaClairs, there are so many things they could have done (and quite likely gotten away with) that they didn't. They didn't even try to get Paszkiewicz fired. How can you fault them? They've cut Paszkiewicz and the Board a LOT of slack--in the end, all they've really asked for is for the mistakes to be corrected, like not charging a shoplifter who brings back what he/she stole, and simply being satisfied that the item has been returned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There were many ways this could have been properly handled by the LaClairs starting with Paul meeting with Mr. Somma. There are plenty of disciplinary actions that the Administration and BOE take against teachers, students, etc., that are handled quietly and prudently without humiliating those invovled. Instead Paul advised his son to secretly tape his teacher and other conversations with administrators. While the taping was legal and Mr. P shouldn't be discussing religion in his class, it was also sneaky and hardly the act of a heroric student.

Paul didn't have to go to the papers or take this situation public at all. He simply could have gone up the chain of command. If he didn't receive any satisfaction that way he could have still filed his lawsuit. This would have quietly taken its course and Paul probably would have gotten the outcome that he sought without exposing his son to the ridicule of others.

Paul wants it both ways. He wants to use the media and the court of public opinion to his advantage, but he doesn't like it when people call a spade a spade.

[Bryan]

It is impossible to destroy a person's reputation with his own words.

No it isn't.

Only the person who spoke the words can do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, taking a person's words out of context cannot destroy a person's reputation.

That's good to know (except that it isn't true).

[Bryan]

lol

Nice red herring fallacy, there, Strifey.

Use your memory for a sec:

Guest:

"What would happen if there was a class like that and some kid exposed all the logical and factual errors in the Bible? It's not hard to do."

*

Bryan:

Why don't you start a thread and show us how easy it is? You pick the topic.

We have a claim that showing logical and factual errors in the Bible is easy to do.  Do you really think that "Guest" was suggesting that the kid would stand in front of the class and recite the URL to the SAB?

I think it's far more likely that he had specific examples in mind.  Don't you?

Now, I was being nice by not nitpicking over the "all the logical and factual errors" part.  And since I am aware of the extraordinary difficulty skeptics have in producing good logical arguments in favor of Bible contradictions and factual errors, that's where I wanted to place the focus.

And what happens?  The skeptics run like scared children.  Apparently not one of them has sufficient confidence in an alleged error or contradiction to use it as an example of how supposedly easy it is to demonstrate logical errors and contradictions in the Bible.

The skeptics among you are a sorry lot.  smile.gif

Fallacy of the complex question, with the germ of a straw man growing in the midst.

Way to go, Strife.  You haven't lost your knack for fallacious reasoning.  Shall we see if you can apply that same gift to Bible criticism?

Bryan deserves all our thanks. From now on when we see the quadruple amputation scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" we'll all appreciate it more deeply for having "known" someone just like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guest=Sir Robin (the knight who bravely runs away).

Fails to address any of my points, offers fallacy of distraction.

[Strife767]

There were many ways this could have been properly handled by the LaClairs starting with Paul meeting with Mr. Somma.  There are plenty of disciplinary actions that the Administration and BOE take against teachers, students, etc., that are handled quietly and prudently without humiliating those invovled.  Instead Paul advised his son to secretly tape his teacher and other conversations with administrators.  While the taping was legal and Mr. P shouldn't be discussing religion in his class, it was also sneaky and hardly the act of a heroric student.

Matthew gave the Board plenty of opportunity to handle things "quietly and prudently." Did he put the recordings online the moment he made them? No, instead he held onto them, wrote a non-public letter to the principal, and then met with the three of them. Paszkiewicz's humiliation lies 100% on his recorded actions in class, and in his own denial of those actions. Don't tell me you think it's Matthew's fault that Paszkiewicz was humiliated? There isn't, nor should there be, any expectation of privacy of a public school teacher's in-class statements.

Paul didn't have to go to the papers or take this situation public at all.  He simply could have gone up the chain of command.

Uh...and what do you consider teacher -> principal -> Board of Education? I wonder who you think they should have gone to in light of the Board's apparent refusal to rectify the situation. Mind letting me know?

If he didn't receive any satisfaction that way he could have still filed his lawsuit. This would have quietly taken its course

Um, don't you think it's a little naive to think that such a lawsuit wouldn't itself project the issue into the media? What newspaper that covers events in Kearny WOULDN'T be reporting on that? Do you think anyone could "quietly" file such a lawsuit?

Also, Paul's said from the beginning that he doesn't want to sue. He just wanted to see the wrongs righted. Litigation was his last resort--I'm glad it didn't have to come to that.

and Paul probably would have gotten the outcome that he sought without exposing his son to the ridicule of others.

You are blaming the victim. Matthew didn't do anything wrong--why do you seem to suggest that he should be trying to hide his intentions and/or 'keep a low profile?' He is and should be proud! And the ones at fault for the 'ridicule' (that certainly is downplaying it a bit, don't you think? Death threat, remember?) are those 'doing' it, not the one being 'ridiculed!'

Paul wants it both ways.  He wants to use the media and the court of public opinion to his advantage,

I've still seen no evidence of that--on the contrary, if anything, Paszkiewicz's apologists have FREQUENTLY appealed to his popularity among the students when it came time for his side of the story, instead of addressing the actual events.

but he doesn't like it when people call a spade a spade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More like calling a snowflake a spade, heh.

[Guest Guest]

There were many ways this could have been properly handled by the LaClairs starting with Paul meeting with Mr. Somma.  There are plenty of disciplinary actions that the Administration and BOE take against teachers, students, etc., that are handled quietly and prudently without humiliating those invovled.  Instead Paul advised his son to secretly tape his teacher and other conversations with administrators.  While the taping was legal and Mr. P shouldn't be discussing religion in his class, it was also sneaky and hardly the act of a heroric student.

Paul didn't have to go to the papers or take this situation public at all.  He simply could have gone up the chain of command.  If he didn't receive any satisfaction that way he could have still filed his lawsuit.  This would have quietly taken its course and Paul probably would have gotten the outcome that he sought without exposing his son to the ridicule of others.

Paul wants it both ways.  He wants to use the media and the court of public opinion to his advantage, but he doesn't like it when people call a spade a spade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. There were no other effective ways of handling it.

1. If the teacher had admitted he was wrong, apologized and promised never to do it again, would anyone have been embarrassed?

a. Wouldn’t this have been the best solution of all? If not, why not?

b. Since he refuses to apologize and insists that he did nothing wrong, why shouldn’t he be fired?

2. If you don’t care about the Constitution or the quality of education, why not?

3. If you know that someone in a position of authority is doing something wrong, and will get away with it if you don’t sneak under the radar to expose it, is it right or wrong to do it?

4. If you take your concerns to supposedly responsible officials and they try to sweep your concerns under the rug, why should you imagine that they would act any more responsibly if you didn’t pressure them and have evidence to back you up?

5. If public officials are using the power of their positions to cover up improper conduct by their employees, is it right or wrong to fight power with power and beat them at their own game?

6. If public opinion is so strongly against the LaClairs, then how did media exposure force the Board to act? If public opinion was against the LaClairs, wouldn’t media exposure have been the last thing they wanted?

7. How far would the LaClairs have gotten with a lawsuit without hard evidence to back up Matthew’s claims about what happened?

8. If you thought it was important to stop teachers from using their public school classrooms to preach their religions, and if you thought it was important to defend science education from attacks by teachers who are scientifically ignorant, would your conclusions be different? How do you know what you would do if you thought these issues were important, since you don't think they are important and therefore do not understand the importance of what Matthew did?

9. If you don’t understand why these things are important, why should anyone listen to you?

It’s over. The kid and his family did what they thought was right. Many people agree with them. The Board acknowledged the importance of his actions. A teacher made inappropriate comments and got caught. He and his supporters lost this battle. Accept the result, let it go and let it be.