WilliamK

Probably because that was not mentioned in the pdf that you linked to. Thanks for your later link to the referring article. It helps clarify things. So you didn't think that Paszkiewicz should have been fired before that letter was written? "Firing is too good for him. How exactly can anyone justify these reprehensible actions by that teacher?" --Strife767, December 23, 2006 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...583entry39583 By my calculations, this statement of yours preceded Paszkiewicz's letter. Showing that you are inconsistent hardly requires effort, Strife. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What Strife appears to be arguing is that this is a poor parallel to the Paszkiewicz affair. No where does he suggest that this statement to the press was a requirement to deserve firing. That implication is your own invention. If you re-read what he wrote with as much neutrality as you can muster, your conscience will leave you little choice but to at least give him the benefit of the doubt. However, my defense of Strife on this point does not mean that I agree with him overall. I think it is a pretty fair parallel. Some differences, as Strife pointed out, but still a pretty good parallel overall. McDonald's "The Problem With Evil" handout did not directly state what a person should or should not believe, but it is clear enough what view it was intended to promote. When teaching his students, this teacher is a government employee acting on behalf of that government. Therefore, he crossed the church-state boundary just as Paszkiewicz did. He even used Paszkiewicz' excuse that he was trying to get students to think. That may have been true in both cases, but does not make it right in either. And, like Paszkiewicz (as Strife pointed out), this was also entirely off-topic for the class he was teaching, so it is fair to say that both were doing something other than the job they were paid to do. So, I'd say it's a pretty fair parallel, and that this teacher, like Paszkiewicz, stepped well out of bounds. As to whether he should have been fired, that's a harder question. I don't think firing would have been unjust in either case, but neither do I think it would be the best way to solve the problem. Justified though it may be, the resulting outcry would likely galvanize the opposing sides against each other rather than bringing resolution. It is much more important to solve the problem than to punish. I would only advocate firing if they do not stop the inappropriate behavior. Not so much as a punishment, but because the behavior needs to be stopped and voluntary means had failed to do so. So, what's your take on it, Bryan? Did they both do wrong? Only one? Neither? Should both have been fired? Only one? Neither?

"Respondents" does not equal "democrats". Also, "Somewhat likely to have known and taken no action" is quite a different view from "very likely to have participated", yet both would fall within the same 36%. Based only on the information in the linked article, there's no way to know where the respondents fall on that scale any more than to know their party affiliation. I made a brief attempt to find the actual poll questions, but was unsuccessful. Were you able to find them? Not that the existence of such crackpottery is surprising, nor that such a belief would be found more among democrats than republicans (for the same reason that the "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" imbecility is found more among republicans than democrats). I'm just pointing out that the information in the quoted article fails to establish that this is the case. Surely such a master of logic as yourself will recognize that. Given that it is nearly a year old and doesn't mention democrats, I doubt this is the poll 2Smart is referring to. Nor would it help his case any if it was.

Yes, let's. Is this the poll you're referring to? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...acks_in_advance It's the only one I could find that says anything like what you're claiming, and it seems to be a hot topic on lots of right-wing web sites, so I suspect it is. If so, I have to ask by what strange magic you were able to transform "believe Bush knew about 9/11 attacks in advance" into "believe Bush planned 9/11". Granted, the former is still pretty deserving of ridicule, but it is a far cry from the latter. Is it some other poll you're talking about (if so, link please), or did you just go blathering accusations without checking your facts first? More important than the answer to that, though, is to realize that poll results like this shouldn't be very surprising, and collectively say more about the sad state of reasoning skills of the population in general than about any particular political party. Incredulity knows no political boundaries. According to another poll from 03/06, 13% of Republicans believe that Iraq was "directly involved in 9/11", and 50% believe that Iraq "gave al Qeada substantial support". The 50% may not be made up entirely of idiots, as the words "substantial support" do leave quite a lot of room for interpretation. But the 13%? Feel free to point and laugh. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party may attract different sorts of idiots, but neither has a shortage. Each has a contingent that the more intelligent among them wish would just shut up. The minor parties have this problem too. A few even appear to be made up entirely of loonies. Plenty of nuts to go around. Reference: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...nt=186&lb=hmpg2

Laugh all you want, but I'm still waiting for my citation. I'm not ruling it out, as it could be out there somewhere unknown to me. But given the complete failure to back it up BushBacker's claim at this point, it's already obvious that, even if it eventually proves to be true, it was stated by BushBacker, and then defended by you and Bryan, without any of you actually knowing whether it was true. A pure fabrication. If it's true, it's only by accident. So, if the proof turns up, my "amnesia" (or more likely, not-so-great research skill) will be confirmed. But you lot's accuracy and integrity will remain absent.

Yeah, not a good plan. It's sort of like a rice-grain miniature of that republican plan to provide tax breaks and simultaneously increase spending, making the economy look better than it really is in the short term, at the expense of an unprecedented national debt that will burden the economy for decades to come. Robbing our children (and our near-future selves) to buy us bread and circuses in the hope that we won't give their sorry butts a well deserved boot at the next election. You wouldn't think that people would be stupid enough to fall for something so transparent and despicable. But incredibly, many are that stupid. Case in point:

Wow Bryan, that bold effect makes that look almost as if it were relevant. But as it turns out, it's talking about what that democrats were working on at the time it was published in early 2005. Neither the bolded quote nor the linked article contains any promises at all about what the democrats would do after gaining a majority in Congress in the next election. That shouldn't be surprising since the election was still a year and a half away. Sorry Bryan, this citation fails entirely to meet my stated criteria. More importanly, it does not in any way support the claim that I had challenged BushBacker to support. Here it is again, in case you've forgotten: "When the defeatocrats took over the congress they promised us lower gas prices." Strike 1, Bryan. Well, surprise surprise. No promises in that article either. Just criticism of the republicans. Steee-rike two! Which promise is that, Bryan? The one that BushBacker made up and that you pretended to validate? Uh oh. No promises there either. Just action. (Notice that I'm not arguing that it's GOOD action, but it is action, not promises.) Impressive, Bryan. Three strikes in one post. p.s. Please forgive me for that smug and stupid "three strikes" thing, folks. I'm just hoping that Bryan might be able to see how prickish his behavior is when it is turned back at him.

Citation please? And by "citation", I mean an actual, verifiable, quote of a democrat making such a promise. One who was either a current or potential office holder, or with official involvement in a campaign, not just some journalist or arm-chair political commentator blathering his opinion from the sidelines. A real quote. A real promise. Not just some generic criticism of the republicans for the prices getting so high on their watch, and not just someone else repeating the same unsubstantiated assertion that you've just made. Can you provide that?

To be fair, "g" and "t" are adjacent on a qwerty keyboard. That the same mistake is repeated twice in one post makes it look a bit less accidental, but there are plausible explanations that involve neither ignorance nor malice. (sticky keys, a physical condition limiting reach of the left index finger, exhaustion, etc.) Of course, this argues neither for nor against this poster being the person claimed.

He made no error for which to apologize. You did commit a straw man fallacy. The error is in your denial, not in his assessment. Your accusation is false. Your prediction remains unrealized. It is you who owes an apology.

I'm well aware of what a straw man fallacy is. And I suspect that if you had actually thought that I didn't (and Paul as well, about whom you floated the same lie, but more explicitly), you would not have offered your "helpful" explanation in such an insulting and "playing to the crowd" way. It's rather transparent goading. But I have to admit that it has been somewhat successful. You've pissed me off enough to descend to name calling just as you wanted, you arrogant and obnoxious jerk. Not "miraculously", Bryan. I am correctly able to identify exactly that, as did Paul. Your comment countered points that were no part of his argument, and in doing so, implied that they were. It's classic straw man. And since I'm certain that you do understand what a straw man is, and since I do not wish to descend to your tactic of insinuating otherwise, I'll leave it to you to re-read it and figure out why. The only question is whether you can muster enough self-honesty to identify and acknowledge one of your own fallacies as readily as you identify and point out those of others. No, Bryan, you certainly shouldn't rule that out. It wasn't subtle. I was indeed ridiculing you. And why not? You've provided something that is very worthy of ridicule, and oh so much provocation to do so. You have on multiple occasions been called out on a fallacy, sometimes correctly, sometimes not. And your response, even when the accusation was accurate, has pretty consistently been to 1) deny having made the fallacy, and 2) accuse the accuser (typically in a rather demeaning way) of not understanding what that fallacy is. You know, Bryan, a simple "oops" will get you a lot more slack than a lame and obvious lie such as this one: You challenged him to find a fallacy of yours. He scored a bullseye hit. Then you pulled an al-Sahaf and blatantly lied about it. Just as you lied to me about your ridiculous grammar argument not being about grammar, when it so obviously was. And then you defend your fallacies and lies by insinuating that your detractors only think they're fallacies and lies only because they're too stupid to comprehend your superior logic. You are a dishonest debater, Bryan. A liar. A hypocrite. A belligerent and arrogant jerk. Smart, yes. But you abuse your intelligence to rationalize away your own error, to justify your arrogance and demeaning behavior towards others, to deceive others that you are right, and most of all, to deceive yourself. Perhaps you should consider taking the high road a bit more often. You know, admit when you've misunderstood what someone said, or when you didn't think something through completely, or when you were a bit pricklier than was called for, or when you just plain goofed up. Maybe concede a point when you've clearly been bested, or just agree to disagree, instead of falling back to denial and derision. You are well spoken and correct often enough that you will not be thought an idiot for your occasional mistakes. But you will be thought a dishonest jerk for weaseling and demeaning those who call you on it. And rightly so. And one last gripe. Your incessant nit picking and fallacy hunting is getting very tiresome and obnoxious. Calling out a fallacy here and there when the debate gets serious is fine. But it has gone way beyond that, into the ridiculous. This is an informal discussion board. People don't just "debate" here. They express opinions. They "vent" (as I've done some of in this post). Not every nit needs picked. Oh, and one last bit of counterproductive name calling, just because it makes me feel better. I justify it only by my entirely emotional sense that you deserve it. I fully admit that this is an illogical and very poor reason, and that this is a very wrong thing to do. Insufferable git.

"Self proclaimed" means that HE made the claim. And yet, it appears that the only one who has voiced it is YOU. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> p.s. to Guest: This is the point where you are expected to reply that he has made an implied claim of expertise by voicing his opinions on the topic. Which would, of course, raise the question of why that does not make your own comments on this or any other topic an implicit claim of expertise. To which you might counter (perhaps preemptively) that it applies to him, and not you, because he's posted a lot more about it than you have. This, however, still leads to no consensus at all about exactly how many posts it takes to qualify as an implicit claim of expertise, or about why the threshold seems to be different depending on whether the one judging likes the one judged, or about whether such a weak and subjective implication as that can ever really justify the accusation of being a "self proclaimed" anything. The discussion goes nowhere. Eventually (preferably quickly) either dwindling to nothing or drifting to another topic, leaving no one any more enlightened than before. Just thought I'd save you some time.

Heh! And don't forget these classics: "Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected." "Today I have visited whole Baghdad city, no invaders found. You go and see how we have ousted them from this city. They are cying outside and waiting to receive bullets. They will be killed shortly." "Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed." Bryan and Mr al-Sahaf should meet sometime and compare notes.

"Self proclaimed" means that HE made the claim. And yet, it appears that the only one who has voiced it is YOU.

Your position is absurd. By that standard, ALL reporting would be unethical. Being human beings, all journalists have opinions. Ethical news reporting requires only that they do their best to report the "who what where when" as plainly and detached as possible, and keep opinions to the editorial pages or other venues where it is understood and expected that opinions will be expressed. Having an opinion and expressing it in the proper forum does not, in itself, make a journalist's reporting unethical or untrustworthy. Get a clue, Guest.

I think that was intended as sarcasm.

He could be trying to bait you into revealing your identity.

I once saw that one performed at a church. Not very memorable as the acting wasn't very good and it was not well planned. Not saying that's because it was at a church, just that this particular play was poorly done. I also saw Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat as a school play when I was in high school. It was amazingly well done. They had great sets and costumes, and even hired a professional choreographer. It was so well done that it was hard to believe that the actors were amateurs, and high school students at that. But I recognized most of them. The kid who played the Elvis impersonator Pharoah was in my algebra II class. Before seeing the play, I had no idea he could sing like that, or do such a good Elvis, or could present such a professional seeming stage presence. There was also a girl who sang fabulously and who also gave the impression of being a seasoned professional, though she too was a student at the school. It was by far the best school play I've ever seen. Those two really carried the show, though there were others who performed competently as well. It was a very good performance in the general sense, not just "good for a bunch of amateurs". I guess my point is, don't assume that an amateur production with high school kids as actors will necessarily S**K. It can, of course. But not always. If this Annie production is anywhere near as good as the one I mention above, and if what folks have said in another thread about a particularly talented girl is true, then it's worth seeing. I think I'd take a chance on it if I lived there.

Don't forget poisoning the well. Bryan's last sentence ("I hope that Paul will be as amenable in providing this piece of information as he was with that other.") is an example of that. Poisoning the well is more usually in the form of setting up a negative expectation to create a prejudice against an opponent's response. But setting up a positive expectation also qualifies. The positive expectation serves to pressure the opponent into providing some concession that he does not wish to provide, or potentially be made to look bad by failing or refusing to do so.

Four possibilities spring to mind, though there may be others. 1. The numbers include more than just the direct salary. Things like benefits and the usual overhead costs that employers bear (equipment, training, facilities, etc.). 2. The crossing guards earn more than you think they do. Maybe you misheard. Or maybe you heard a long time ago and it's changed since then. Or maybe the ones you know are not a very representative sample. 3. The numbers are simply in error. 4. The numbers are intentionally inflated and someone's pocketing the difference.

Do you contend that you were not talking about grammar when you said "Paraphrases do not belong within quotation marks. Unless, of course, you're directly quoting somebody else's paraphrase."? Yes, it was an effort to show misrepresentation. But your argument was clearly based on grammar. It is obvious from Calybos statement that the quote marks were there to set apart the phrase being talked about from the sentence talking about it, not to show it as a direct quote. The misrepresentation is your own. Headed for? You crossed that bridge quite some time ago. Equivocation is the very foundation of your defense of Paszkiewicz statement about evolution. Equivocation is a lot like ignoring context in that it's something you accuse others of even as you engage in it yourself. Somehow I doubt that this: is what Paszkiewicz had in mind. As it applies to everything, it makes a pretty poor criticism of any one particular idea (evolution, in this case). Ok. I'm not convinced that was his point, but I can see how it could have been. But, if correct, wouldn't that mean only that he's arguing essentially the same point (that evolution and creation are on similar footing in regard to faith) from a different angle? Arguing that "faith" in religion is of the reasoned, evidence based sort instead of arguing that the "faith" in science is of the "blind faith" sort? My accusation was not false. I stand by it. Same to you, Bryan.

Speak for yourself.

The opposing side has been far from silent. Do not assume that because I don't agree with your position, that I have not heard or understood it.

Lame, Bryan. Lame. Here's what Calybos said: In this case, his use of quotation marks is correct regardless of whether the quoted part is a direct quote, a paraphrase, or even his original idea. It's obvious from the original context that Paszkiewicz meant to imply, at the very least, that evolution requires "faith" in the same sense as "religious faith". The statement "Now, I would also say that evolution is based on faith, too." would not have made much sense in context with any other meaning of the word "faith". It would not have supported his position. He may have also intended to imply (and very likely believes*) that it requires a similar or greater degree of faith. That is less clear, but even so, the paraphrase is a better representation of Paszkiewicz' meaning than the direct quote taken out of context. And much more accurate than your attempt to substitute some other usage of of the word faith. * So why do I think it likely that he believes that? One reason is simply that this is a pervasive idea among creationists, and all else being equal, rules are better bets than exceptions. A better reason is that later in the same transcript he, stunningly, actually argues that the roles are reversed; that Christian faith is of the reasoned sort, and (by very clear implication, having said that this is what makes them different) that evolution is not. Here's the quote: Context, Bryan. Context. You know, that thing you accuse others of ignoring then ignore it yourself? Back at ya.

I was not able to find this online. Perhaps it was only in the actual printed newspaper, or maybe I just failed to look in the right place. If it is online somewhere, a link would be appreciated. Thanks. (I did find your letter there, though) What exactly did he say that infringed (or even suggested infringing) your rights? Nothing you've quoted supports that. Criticizing what someone says, or even criticizing them for saying it, is not the same as denying them the right to say it. That supports his position, not yours. That you think otherwise suggests that you don't understand what's going on any better than your child does.

One question: Whom are you quoting? You tell me the source of your quotation, and then we'll talk about true and false. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was not Mr. P's words, but a paraphrase of Paul's assessment of Mr. P's position. That's what you're getting at with this question, isn't it? But regardless of the source, is this not the idea (even if not the exact words) that you were referring to when you said "Paszkiewicz is correct about it. It's about an objective an observation as one could make."? That rather looks like both an agreement with the idea, and an implied agreement that Paul's paraphrase is a fair representation of Paszkiewicz's position. It appears to me that Calybos' post is entirely honest, (independent of whether it is a compelling or correct) and that your insinuation with the leading question about the source of the quote is anything but.