Dissecting the Doofus

[Strife767]

really? this is still being discussed?

71883[/snapback]

KHS can do better--this guy doesn't deserve to teach there. For as long as he remains teaching at KHS, a disservice is being done to its students.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

really? this is still being discussed?

71883[/snapback]

From what I'm hearing, Mr. P will be named "teacher of the year". A well-deserved

award.

[mnodonnell]

Don't rationalists consider themselves the enlightened minority?  They have their own deviant behavior to think about.

Indeed?  Can we expect you to assist in spearheading the attempt to repeal the First Amendment?

Yet given the opportunity, perhaps you'd try aggressive steps to stem the madness ... as was done in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

No?

71846[/snapback]

Long live deviant behavior. so long as the deviants are not inflicting their deviance to others.

The First Amendment is my favorite amendment. Why would I repeal it? What are you talking about?

I do not propose to do anything to stop people from freely practicing their religions -- just keep it to yourself. Have you listened to anything I've said? I think you're stuck in the echo chamber. Do not fret -- it's a common malady.

[Strife767]

From what I'm hearing, Mr. P will be named "teacher of the year".

Cite, cite, cite. I'd love to know who is even entertaining such an absurd notion.

A well-deserved award.

72018[/snapback]

Yeah, who could deserve that award more than a lying, incompetent teacher? Oh, that's right, anybody.

[Guest Guest]

From what I'm hearing, Mr. P will be named "teacher of the year". A well-deserved

award.

72018[/snapback]

When is the award announced? Or is this like all those end-of-the-world stories that we keep hearing from the likes o' you? (she said in her best Scottish brogue)

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

After Matthew asked Paszkiewicz (P) on what basis it could be decided which religion, or which scripture, would be taught in the public schools, P then gratuitously and unconstitutionally contrasted evolution with creationism. The following then ensued:

Paszkiewicz: "But the statement was that evolution is scientific. Now you assume that because you've been indoctrinated for at least 11 years now, right, at least, because you have the pre-kinder . . . if you went to the state babysitting agency, it might be longer. But, this roughly accepted scientific fact, right? When you get to up to this old creation/evolution debate, the argument goes something like this: ‘You're a believer. Your argument is based on faith. But I, I believe in evolution. My ideas are based on -‘

LaClair: Facts?

Teacher: Science, or facts, right. Now, I can see a (inaudible), but the idea of faith is much different that what you're taught faith is in school. Now, I would also say that evolution is based on faith, too. Because - what's the hypothesis, what's the assumption of evolution? You look at the world - or let's take biological life - you look at biological life. There's small life, and there's big life. Or there's simple life, and intelligent life and somehow we all evolved from simple life forms into complex life forms, ok, that's the assumption, that may be your hypothesis. Uh, anyone ever observe it? No? You can collect some data, right, like a fossil record? Anybody ever produce it? No? They say that life can spontaneously generate, but as often as scientists have tried, they've never done it. Ok, so can the experiment be reported or repeated? So can it be a scientific fact? No. Cause this is how it works: like, if I were to say water were to boil at 212 degrees Farenheit -

Students: 100 degrees Celsius!

Teacher: That we know. Ok, 100 degrees Celsius - that can be tested, I could say, or LaClair could say, that's my hypothesis - and then I'll let you raise your question; don't let me forget, though - let's say that's our assumption: water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. We can very easily test that. We take a pot of water and put it on a coffee [....noise noise noise] ...at each second, each minute, what's occurring with the water, we can record temperatures; at 100 degrees, what do we see happen? The bubbles. But that's not enough; that's not scientific fact. I have to repeat it, many times myself. Then I take those notes and give them to the scientific community. If other scientists who are unbiased come to the same conclusion, it becomes a scientific fact, right? How can you say that evolution is a scientific fact, you just can't; it's a theory

So what's wrong with that? Where to start?

1. Nothing like putting your biases up front as fact, calling the teaching of established science indoctrination and calling the promotion of your religion fact. Arrogant and biased beyond belief.

2. Well, there he is, making this explicitly about creationism versus evolution. If you're going to violate the Constitution, you might as well be explicit about it.

3. There is no justification for telling a public school class that evolution is based on faith. Evolution is based on mounds of empirical data, and established scientific methods. He has no idea what he is talking about, and this is just more proof of the fact.

4. Evolution has been reproduced. Mr. Doofus is wrong. Scientists do it regularly with simple species like bacteria. That is how scientists keep heading off new strains of bacteria, by creating conditions in which new forms of bacteria emerge; then those new forms are used to fight emerging diseases. Scientists have also reproduced evolution in species like fruit flies. The reason they can reproduce evolution in simple species is that their lifespans are short and they reproduce quickly. Humans reproduce hundreds or thousands of times more slowly, depending on how you look at it. Evolution in more advanced species, like humans, takes a long time. But that doesn't mean that we can't extrapolate our results from simpler species, especially when we have an overwhelming body of data from the fossil and DNA records, all of which fit evolutionary theory perfectly.

5. Unbiased scientists all over the world have concluded that evolution is a scientific fact. They are applying it, with practical results in fields like medicine, and in fact evolution is the unifying explanation for modern biology, the explanation that ties everything together. So if we take P's standard ("If other scientists who are unbiased come to the same conclusion, it becomes a scientific fact, right?"), then evolution is a scientific fact, which in fact it is. P is just dead wrong again, and that's because he lecturing on something he knows nothing about. This is educational malfeasance, meriting termination if it persists.

6. "How can you say that evolution is a scientific fact, you just can't; it's a theory." This is a common mistake, and yet again a reflection of Mr. Doofus' woeful ignorance. This is the sort of thing people say when they don't understand science. A theory is an organized explanation based on data. Gravity, for example, is a theory. It is also a fact. The same with evolution. Evolution is a theory, and also a fact. People have the false idea that theory and fact are opposite categories. That's just not true. This little stinkbomb of a remark is a perfect illustration why Mr. Proselytizing Doofus should never discuss science in class - ever. He doesn't know the first thing about it.

[Guest Guest]

As expected, the apologist has nothing but ad hominem to respond with.

71814[/snapback]

It’s always nice to know that you are again adding absolutely nothing to this blog. I guess you are just sad that you didn't have a Paul post to respond too. I guess you are going through withdrawals

[Bryan]

Long live deviant behavior. so long as the deviants are not inflicting their deviance to others.

So you wouldn't inflict the deviancy of rationalism on others?

The First Amendment is my favorite amendment.  Why would I repeal it?  What are you talking about?

I'm just trying to understand your world view as a coherent whole--which may be a futile undertaking, admittedly.

I do not propose to do anything to stop people from freely practicing their religions -- just keep it to yourself.

If you demand that I observe your religion that demands I keep my religion to myself, doesn't that make you a hypocrite (tell-tale sign of logical inconsistency, in other words)?

Have you listened to anything I've said?

Yes. Don't you understand what you are saying?

I think you're stuck in the echo chamber.  Do not fret -- it's a common malady.

72027[/snapback]

More of that patented unintended irony ...

[Guest All Hail O'Donnell]

If schools didn't encourage social acceptance of individual deviant behavior, how would rationalists deal with religious people?  It's hard for ethical people to sit idly by as children are dragged into church every Sunday, like lemmings over a cliff.  But we learn to tolerate the madness, as sad as it may be.

71826[/snapback]

Wow. How wonderful it must be to live in your world of intellectual perfection, blissfully ignorant to the possibility that you may be wrong ... equalling ... nay, surpassing ... any potentially greater forces at work in the universe. For whatever God may be or not be ... He, She or It shall always have the comfort of knowing you are there to be worshipped.

[mnodonnell]

So you wouldn't inflict the deviancy of rationalism on others?

What is deviant about being rational?

I'm just trying to understand your world view as a coherent whole--which may be a futile undertaking, admittedly.

Using message board postings to gain an understanding of my world view is probably futile.

If you demand that I observe your religion that demands I keep my religion to myself, doesn't that make you a hypocrite (tell-tale sign of logical inconsistency, in other words)?

I do not have a religion to observe.

[mnodonnell]

Wow.  How wonderful it must be to live in your world of intellectual perfection, blissfully ignorant to the possibility that you may be wrong ... equalling ... nay, surpassing ... any potentially greater forces at work in the universe.  For whatever God may be or not be ... He, She or It shall always have the comfort of knowing you are there to be worshipped.

72273[/snapback]

I'll put you on the list for my fan club meetings. Our next session concerns the spelling difficulties presented by double consonants and the proper use of the ellipsis.

I'll give you a preview of the introduction of the next meeting, which is where I lay out what I do know.

1. I know enough to admit that I do not know something. For example, what came before the Big Bang? I do not have the faintest clue.

2. However, I do not fall back on a supernatural deistic force as the default answer to things I do not know. I do not consult 4,000+ year old books for answers to these kinds of questions. Despite what you have perceived, I'm content with simply not knowing.

3. I know that there is a big difference between deism and theism. It is the difference between: "I believe there is some higher intelligence that is responsible for the universe in which I exist."; and "I believe there is some higher intelligence that is responsible for the universe in which I exist; and he has said unto me: do not eat the pork."

[Guest Guest]

Cite, cite, cite. I'd love to know who is even entertaining such an absurd notion.

Yeah, who could deserve that award more than a lying, incompetent teacher? Oh, that's right, anybody.

72118[/snapback]

I am sure that award would look well on your trophy case along with the 100's of your other trophys and plaques for incompetence and lying. You would have more but Paul seemed to steal your thunder on a few of them.

[Guest Guest]

Still on page three, Mr. Doofus makes the following two statements within a minute or so of each other.

Mr. Doofus (1): ". . . but yet the state comes up with some weird perception of what educatin ought to be . . ."

Mr. Doofus (2): ". . . the public schools shouldn't teach a religion - but the scriptures aren't religion."

Egads, where to begin?

Well, for starters, we're back to "what do you mean by 'we,' Kimo Sabe?" Now you don't suppose Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus is including the Koran or the Upanishads when he refers to "scriptures," do you? He alludes to other religions in his next statement, but the only one he actually discusses is Christianity in its various denominations. His vision of the world is clear enough, and he's explicit about it. He wants the Bible taught in the public schools --- but that wouldn't be teaching a religion.

Yeah, right. Way to be objective and intellectually honest, Doofus.

By this time, Matthew has finally asked a question, two of them in fact. The second was (Matthew): "What would decide what should be - what religion should be taught in the schools, what would decide that?" It's a great question, and it goes to the heart of the problem with what Mr. Doofus is doing. You can't have a religiously diverse society in which people of all religions are treated equally, and yet at the same time teach a particular religion in the public schools. Oddly, Mr. Doofus seems to acknowledge this in his response, which begins with a statement that "it's not about teaching religion . . . the public schools should teach a religion."

There it is, from Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus' own mouth. Even he acknowledges the importance of separating church and state. (A point he has vigorously denied since, most notoriously in a letter to the Kearny Observer.) And then negates the whole thing by denying that teaching the Bible is teaching a religion.

Weird perceptions, indeed. And this delusional buffoon is allowed to continue teaching?

71743[/snapback]

I started reading this and what came to mind is how many useless breathes of air you had to take to write this. Must be nice knowing you have become just a mindless puppet of Paul LaClair. I would tip my hat to you if I had one on, but I do not. Name calling went out in the second grade. To us here, a grade that seems that you did not successfully complete. But anyway, carry on. There is probably nothing useful you could do with your pathetic life anyway.

[Guest Guest]

If schools didn't encourage social acceptance of individual deviant behavior, how would rationalists deal with religious people?  It's hard for ethical people to sit idly by as children are dragged into church every Sunday, like lemmings over a cliff.  But we learn to tolerate the madness, as sad as it may be.

71826[/snapback]

"lemmings over a cliff"?? Are you for real? You must have REALLY hated church as a kid. I could just see you crying in your pillow while your mother screamed at you to get ready for church ("pweeze momma, I don't wanna go to church, it's so borrring"). Meanwhile, your heathen friends are outside playing soccer!! I hope your a young guy, your statement is beyond childish and completely ignorant.

[Guest Guest]

KHS can do better--this guy doesn't deserve to teach there. For as long as he remains teaching at KHS, a disservice is being done to its students.

71963[/snapback]

And as long as Matthew LaClair is there the same can be said as well. Graduation should be interesting to say the least. I am sure he will be chillin with his Muslim friends.

Since you are not there you do not know the good he does. There actually is a world just beyond your computer screen that you should explore.

[Guest Paul]

Wow.  How wonderful it must be to live in your world of intellectual perfection, blissfully ignorant to the possibility that you may be wrong ... equalling ... nay, surpassing ... any potentially greater forces at work in the universe.  For whatever God may be or not be ... He, She or It shall always have the comfort of knowing you are there to be worshipped.

72273[/snapback]

I can't speak for Michael, but I think you missed the satire in his post, which reads as follows: "If schools didn't encourage social acceptance of individual deviant behavior, how would rationalists deal with religious people? It's hard for ethical people to sit idly by as children are dragged into church every Sunday, like lemmings over a cliff. But we learn to tolerate the madness, as sad as it may be."

Those of us who do not believe in or practice a traditional religion are bombarded with the arrogance of self-proclaimed "believers" all the time, as though belief was the exclusive province of Christians, or whatever group is culturally dominant in a particular area. We non-theists are treated like deviants all the time, to such an extent that both president Bushes said that an atheist was ipso facto not a good American. This is a tragic strain of thinking that has appeared many times in American history.

If I interpret Michael correctly, he was pointing this out by turning back at y'all what y'all do to us all the time, the main difference being that for those of us who think according to the evidence and not according to what we wish was true, theistic belief has many foundations, but truth is not one of them; however, conformity is. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but that is how I read his intent.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo.]

So you wouldn't inflict the deviancy of rationalism on others?

I'm just trying to understand your world view as a coherent whole--which may be a futile undertaking, admittedly.

If you demand that I observe your religion that demands I keep my religion to myself, doesn't that make you a hypocrite (tell-tale sign of logical inconsistency, in other words)?

Yes.  Don't you understand what you are saying?

More of that patented unintended irony ...

72234[/snapback]

"deviancy of rationalism" Holy Shit Bryan! I've heard it all now!

I guess thats ranks right up there with the:

"deviancy of peace"

"deviancy of Love"

"deviancy of caring" etc.

So now the simple act of someone requesting that you keep your religion to yourself is classified by you as a "religion"? I guess I would have classified it as common courtesy.

You said that your were trying to understand "thier worldview". I started a whole thread trying to get you to tell me about your world view as a whole - Remember the "World according to Bryan" and the only reply you bothered to make was infantile at best.

Tell me you actually don't believe this crap you write, Bryan. You just get off from the pure aspect of debate don't you? Makes you feel superior when you think that you have verbally and intellectually thrashed someone, doesn't it Bryan? Unfortunatley that is rarely if ever the case. More often then not you come off looking like a complete self-centered,childish buffoon. One more thing. You should really tread lightly when calling someone else a hypocrite. Talk about "unintended irony".

[Bryan]

After Matthew asked Paszkiewicz (P) on what basis it could be decided which religion, or which scripture, would be taught in the public schools, P then gratuitously and unconstitutionally contrasted evolution with creationism.

Way to stumble out of the blocks, there.

Young LaClair asked about which religion (not which scripture):

LaClair: What would decide what should be - what religion should be

taught in schools, what would decide that?

Teacher: No, it's not about teaching - my point is it's not about

teaching religion - and you know, these issues will come up when we

get to the 1920s, and things begin to get legislated, and we'll talk

about it in class. But the public schools shouldn't teach a religion -

but the scriptures aren't religion.

http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Then LaClair asked what happens if a student doesn't believe the Bible. That's when Paszkiewicz (quite constitutionally) brought up the comparison to evolution--an epistemological comparison.

The following then ensued:

Paszkiewicz: "But the statement was that evolution is scientific. Now you assume that because you've been indoctrinated for at least 11 years now, right, at least, because you have the pre-kinder . . . if you went to the state babysitting agency, it might be longer. But, this roughly accepted scientific fact, right? When you get to up to this old creation/evolution debate, the argument goes something like this: ‘You're a believer. Your argument is based on faith. But I, I believe in evolution. My ideas are based on -‘

LaClair: Facts?

Teacher: Science, or facts, right. Now, I can see a (inaudible), but the idea of faith is much different that what you're taught faith is in school. Now, I would also say that evolution is based on faith, too. Because - what's the hypothesis, what's the assumption of evolution? You look at the world - or let's take biological life - you look at biological life. There's small life, and there's big life. Or there's simple life, and intelligent life and somehow we all evolved from simple life forms into complex life forms, ok, that's the assumption, that may be your hypothesis. Uh, anyone ever observe it? No? You can collect some data, right, like a fossil record? Anybody ever produce it? No? They say that life can spontaneously generate, but as often as scientists have tried, they've never done it. Ok, so can the experiment be reported or repeated? So can it be a scientific fact? No. Cause this is how it works: like, if I were to say water were to boil at 212 degrees Farenheit -

Students: 100 degrees Celsius!

Teacher: That we know. Ok, 100 degrees Celsius - that can be tested, I could say, or LaClair could say, that's my hypothesis - and then I'll let you raise your question; don't let me forget, though - let's say that's our assumption: water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. We can very easily test that. We take a pot of water and put it on a coffee [....noise noise noise] ...at each second, each minute, what's occurring with the water, we can record temperatures; at 100 degrees, what do we see happen? The bubbles. But that's not enough; that's not scientific fact. I have to repeat it, many times myself. Then I take those notes and give them to the scientific community. If other scientists who are unbiased come to the same conclusion, it becomes a scientific fact, right? How can you say that evolution is a scientific fact, you just can't; it's a theory

So what's wrong with that? Where to start?

1. Nothing like putting your biases up front as fact, calling the teaching of established science indoctrination and calling the promotion of your religion fact. Arrogant and biased beyond belief.

1a) What bias was supposedly presented as fact?

1b) Paszkiewicz did not call the teaching of evolution indoctrination but the manner in which it is taught indoctrination. The understanding of evolution produced on this message board provides considerable support for his statement. People don't seem to have any sense of the epistemic limits of science.

1c) Arrogant and biased beyond belief? Plausible as your self-description, perhaps.

2. Well, there he is, making this explicitly about creationism versus evolution. If you're going to violate the Constitution, you might as well be explicit about it.

There's nothing unconstitutional about discussing the creationism versus evolution debate.

3. There is no justification for telling a public school class that evolution is based on faith. Evolution is based on mounds of empirical data, and established scientific methods. He has no idea what he is talking about, and this is just more proof of the fact.

If only you could put aside your bias for a moment and pay attention to what Pasziewicz said.

It's a pity that the philosophy of science (including epistemology) gets so little time in public schools.

4. Evolution has been reproduced. Mr. Doofus is wrong. Scientists do it regularly with simple species like bacteria. That is how scientists keep heading off new strains of bacteria, by creating conditions in which new forms of bacteria emerge; then those new forms are used to fight emerging diseases. Scientists have also reproduced evolution in species like fruit flies. The reason they can reproduce evolution in simple species is that their lifespans are short and they reproduce quickly. Humans reproduce hundreds or thousands of times more slowly, depending on how you look at it. Evolution in more advanced species, like humans, takes a long time. But that doesn't mean that we can't extrapolate our results from simpler species, especially when we have an overwhelming body of data from the fossil and DNA records, all of which fit evolutionary theory perfectly.

Paszkiewicz was obviously dealing with macroevolutionary claims, not bare-minimum speciation.

"we all evolved from simple life forms into complex life forms, ok, that's the assumption, that may be your hypothesis."

Evolution from a bacterium to a bacterium is not evolution from simple life forms to complex life forms.

Evolution of one fruit fly species to another fruit fly species is not evolution from simple life forms to complex life forms, either (unless the new fruit fly species reflects a marked upgrade in terms of design complexity).

5. Unbiased scientists all over the world have concluded that evolution is a scientific fact. They are applying it, with practical results in fields like medicine, and in fact evolution is the unifying explanation for modern biology, the explanation that ties everything together. So if we take P's standard ("If other scientists who are unbiased come to the same conclusion, it becomes a scientific fact, right?"), then evolution is a scientific fact, which in fact it is. P is just dead wrong again, and that's because he lecturing on something he knows nothing about. This is educational malfeasance, meriting termination if it persists.

Scientists who conclude that evolution is a scientific fact without acknowledging its basis in faith have made an epistemic error. Note that faith is not belief without evidence.

6. "How can you say that evolution is a scientific fact, you just can't; it's a theory." This is a common mistake, and yet again a reflection of Mr. Doofus' woeful ignorance. This is the sort of thing people say when they don't understand science. A theory is an organized explanation based on data. Gravity, for example, is a theory. It is also a fact. The same with evolution. Evolution is a theory, and also a fact. People have the false idea that theory and fact are opposite categories. That's just not true. This little stinkbomb of a remark is a perfect illustration why Mr. Proselytizing Doofus should never discuss science in class - ever. He doesn't know the first thing about it.

72214[/snapback]

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol1.html

"No qualified scientist or educator would teach dogmatically, or compel student belief."

http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles...icle=university

"A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation."

http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm

Paszkiewicz seems to be on solid ground while you seem to be, well, an idiot.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Bryan

[Strife767]

It’s always nice to know that you are again adding absolutely nothing to this blog.

1. It's a forum.

2. As opposed to the wealth of information contributed by the poster I responded to? Psst, your bias is showing.

I guess you are just sad that you didn't have a Paul post to respond too. I guess you are going through withdrawals

72225[/snapback]

You need more guessing practice.

[Strife767]

Wow.  How wonderful it must be to live in your world of intellectual perfection, blissfully ignorant to the possibility that you may be wrong ... equalling ... nay, surpassing ... any potentially greater forces at work in the universe.  For whatever God may be or not be ... He, She or It shall always have the comfort of knowing you are there to be worshipped.

72273[/snapback]

Just because one thinks it's obvious that the Abrahamic religions are nonsensical doesn't mean that one considers oneself divine. In fact, even considering how many more theists are around than atheists, I've still met more atheists who are willing to admit a possibility of error. Why do you suppose that is?

[mnodonnell]

"lemmings over a cliff"?? Are you for real? You must have REALLY hated church as a kid. I could just see you crying in your pillow while your mother screamed at you to get ready for church ("pweeze momma, I don't wanna go to church, it's so borrring"). Meanwhile, your heathen friends are outside playing soccer!! I hope your a young guy, your statement is beyond childish and completely ignorant.

72303[/snapback]

It actually went like this: "Please, mother, I do not want to go to church. It is so boring!" I took my grammar and diction very seriously. I would also cry on my pillow -- it was simply too difficult to get inside of it after a while.

I actually had the opportunity to go to church AND play soccer. How Kearnyite-American!

Regarding ignorance, that is what I was saddled with back when I actually believed the nonsense I was being taught at Sunday School. I am still ignorant of many subjects, but this is one where I have gained great clarity.

If you are curious about my age you can reference my only topic posting on this message board. I dated myself quite precisely.

[Strife767]

And as long as Matthew LaClair is there the same can be said as well.

Sure, if the person saying it enjoys lying. The school could use more people like Matthew.

There actually is a world just beyond your computer screen that you should explore.

72305[/snapback]

[Strife767]

"lemmings over a cliff"?? Are you for real? You must have REALLY hated church as a kid. I could just see you crying in your pillow while your mother screamed at you to get ready for church ("pweeze momma, I don't wanna go to church, it's so borrring"). Meanwhile, your heathen friends are outside playing soccer!! I hope your a young guy, your statement is beyond childish and completely ignorant.

72303[/snapback]

You have no idea how ironic that last comment is, do you?

[Strife767]

I started reading this and what came to mind is how many useless breathes of air you had to take to write this.

...what?

Must be nice knowing you have become just a mindless puppet of Paul LaClair.  I would tip my hat to you if I had one on, but I do not.  Name calling went out in the second grade.

Let me get this straight, you're getting on his case for name calling?

To us here, a grade that seems that you did not successfully complete.

Don't pretend to speak for others. "To us here" indeed.

But anyway, carry on.  There is probably nothing useful you could do with your pathetic life anyway.

72302[/snapback]

Yup, don't bother straying from the manner that's become typical of the Paszkiewicz apologist. Still sickening, though.

[Strife767]

I am sure that award would look well on your trophy case along with the 100's of your other trophys and plaques for incompetence and lying.

Let's try this again: cite me lying, and prove the alleged lie is indeed a lie. Come on, put up or shut up. Are you going to run and hide at the challenge too?

You would have more but Paul seemed to steal your thunder on a few of them.

72300[/snapback]

How laughably weak.