We have a settlement

[Bryan]

Gavin, I just read your response to Bryan in its entirety. Bravo, Gavin, on a job superbly done. As a fellow member of the pedant's club, my hat is off to you for taking the time to put matters in perspective, no small feat I'm sure. How long did it take you?

It is particularly hilarious that Bryan's "response" is, for once, truncated and selective.

I seem to have addressed almost every single one of the points that you felt were worth repeating.

So I must be ducking Gavin's best arguments, right?

Unfortunately, the length of your post no doubt put many people off, so I took the liberty of reducing it to its finest gems, above. It is well worth a careful read in its entirety.

Pip, pip.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not duck any point that my opponent wishes to see me address, unless it constitutes an obvious (fallacious) shift of the burden of proof (and even then I'll make exceptions).

I picked out the best and most interesting of what Gavin wrote for my responses, and the invitation remains open for him to point out additional material for me to address.

My example offers Paul no solace at all for his craven methods of response.

[Bryan]

First of all, don't trivialize/sugarcoat it. He didn't say 'whack his backside,' he said "break his backside." Break! I don't know about you, but I don't think anyone could reasonably assume this means anything less than a serious beating (of course, someone like Bryan would happily pick at the semantics like the grammatical vulture that he is, but I did say "reasonably" ).

"Break your backside," at least in my experience, is a fairly common household term for corporal punishment. "Tan your hide" is another; it doesn't have anything to do with literally skinning and curing the flesh of the victim. Both terms employ hyperbole, which is a type of figure of speech that uses exaggeration for emphasis. As such, it is fair to say that both terms denote relatively more severe corporal punishment (or at least the threat thereof). It's probably more intended to cause some physical pain than serve as a mere symbolic gesture.

Child abuse is horrifying, and having a public school teacher, during classtime, saying such things is unbelievable! It's incredible that you apparently feel I'm overreacting, especially when he followed his comment on beating his child with this:

"...do as your old man tells you to do, or suffer the consequences." --David Paszkiewicz

Nothing less than reprehensible, and I pity anyone who disagrees with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're overreaching.

http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html

[Guest Guest]

He told me enough ... he told me you killed him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well played, sir.

[Guest Guest]

"As I've told you over and over again, we received no paycheck." --Paul LaClair

Pay attention, stupid. You didn't even have to look outside this thread (less than 10 posts back) to see that.

And why would he be scared of people finding out public information? Are you off your meds or something? How absurd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you so much for being Paul's puppet.

[Strife767]

You're overreaching.

http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, really? From the URL above:

"While conducting the meta-analysis, which included 62 years of collected data, Gershoff looked for associations between parental use of corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences, including several in childhood (immediate compliance, moral internalization, quality of relationship with parent, and physical abuse from that parent), three in both childhood and adulthood (mental health, aggression, and criminal or antisocial behavior) and one in adulthood alone (abuse of own children or spouse).

Gershoff found "strong associations" between corporal punishment and all eleven child behaviors and experiences. Ten of the associations were negative such as with increased child aggression and antisocial behavior. The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child." --http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html

Doesn't sound too great.

[an American in Texas]

Gavin, thank you so much for replying to Bryan. I'm not thanking you for sounding trouncing him (although you did), but for trying so hard to engage him and teach him something in the process. You must be quite remarkable in the claassroom. I wish I could see you in action.

Bryan's head is hard, but perhaps the seeds you've planted will someday bear fruit and he will take off the self-imposed blinders of religious fundamentalism. It's such a pity that a bright intelligence like his is being wasted in the service of foolishness.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest bewildered]

First of all, don't trivialize/sugarcoat it. He didn't say 'whack his backside,' he said "break his backside." Break! I don't know about you, but I don't think anyone could reasonably assume this means anything less than a serious beating (of course, someone like Bryan would happily pick at the semantics like the grammatical vulture that he is, but I did say "reasonably" ).

Child abuse is horrifying, and having a public school teacher, during classtime, saying such things is unbelievable! It's incredible that you apparently feel I'm overreacting, especially when he followed his comment on beating his child with this:

"...do as your old man tells you to do, or suffer the consequences." --David Paszkiewicz

Nothing less than reprehensible, and I pity anyone who disagrees with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I had a 3rd grade teacher who was a complete B**ch. Her husband was a police officer. They had a bunch of kids--all boys, I think. She used to tell us regularly about how, if one of the boys ticked him off, they had to go downstairs and get a leather razor strop and bring it to him. They then had to take off their pants and underwear and lay across his knees. He would then beat them with the strop. If they were crying when he stopped, he would start beating them again. He would repeat this until they stopped crying. My father was abusive so I knew about getting beating, but the casual way she would describe this torture simply appalled me. I met two of the sons years later. They are both Roman Catholic priests and they are both extremely f****** up. Tanning someone's rear or breaking their backside is way different than a smack on the bottom. Unfortunately some people's philosophy is still "Spare the rod and spoil the child."

ucked up. Breaking someone's backside is not a simple smack on the rear. Neither is tanning one's backside. Both fall into the catergory of child abuse.

[Guest Guest]

Gavin, thank you so much for replying to Bryan.  I'm not thanking you for sounding trouncing him (although you did), but for trying so hard to engage him and teach him something in the process.  You must be quite remarkable in the claassroom.  I wish I could see you in action.

Bryan's head is hard, but perhaps the seeds you've planted will someday bear fruit and he will take off the self-imposed blinders of religious fundamentalism.  It's such a pity that a bright intelligence like his is being wasted in the service of foolishness.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

PPPPompous.

[Guest Guest]

I had a 3rd grade teacher who was a complete B**ch.  Her husband was a police officer.  They had a bunch of kids--all boys, I think.  She used to tell us regularly about how, if one of the boys ticked him off, they had to go downstairs and get a leather razor strop and bring it to him.  They then had to take off their pants and underwear and lay across his knees.  He would then beat them with the strop.  If they were crying when he stopped, he would start beating them again. He would repeat this until they stopped crying.  My father was abusive so I knew about getting beating, but the casual way she would describe this torture simply appalled me.  I met two of the sons years later.  They are both Roman Catholic priests and they are both extremely f****** up.  Tanning someone's rear or breaking their backside is way different than a smack on the bottom.  Unfortunately some people's philosophy is still "Spare the rod and spoil the child."

ucked up.  Breaking someone's backside is not a simple smack on the rear.  Neither is tanning one's backside.  Both fall into the catergory of child abuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What the f**k is a "strop"? Did you get the spelling beat out of you?

[Guest Guest]

I had a 3rd grade teacher who was a complete B**ch.  Her husband was a police officer.  They had a bunch of kids--all boys, I think.  She used to tell us regularly about how, if one of the boys ticked him off, they had to go downstairs and get a leather razor strop and bring it to him.  They then had to take off their pants and underwear and lay across his knees.  He would then beat them with the strop.  If they were crying when he stopped, he would start beating them again. He would repeat this until they stopped crying.  My father was abusive so I knew about getting beating, but the casual way she would describe this torture simply appalled me.  I met two of the sons years later.  They are both Roman Catholic priests and they are both extremely f****** up.  Tanning someone's rear or breaking their backside is way different than a smack on the bottom.  Unfortunately some people's philosophy is still "Spare the rod and spoil the child."

ucked up.  Breaking someone's backside is not a simple smack on the rear.  Neither is tanning one's backside.  Both fall into the catergory of child abuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In fairness to David Paszkiewicz, he may not have meant it that way. However, it is what he said, and there is a tragic history of child abuse and viciousness in our culture. At the very least, his words were poorly chosen. If for nothing else, he should have apologized for the intemperance of these remarks.

[Guest Guest]

First of all, don't trivialize/sugarcoat it. He didn't say 'whack his backside,' he said "break his backside." Break! I don't know about you, but I don't think anyone could reasonably assume this means anything less than a serious beating (of course, someone like Bryan would happily pick at the semantics like the grammatical vulture that he is, but I did say "reasonably" ).

Child abuse is horrifying, and having a public school teacher, during classtime, saying such things is unbelievable! It's incredible that you apparently feel I'm overreacting, especially when he followed his comment on beating his child with this:

"...do as your old man tells you to do, or suffer the consequences." --David Paszkiewicz

Nothing less than reprehensible, and I pity anyone who disagrees with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you've never heard of a turn-of-phrase? "Break his backside" was/is a phrase commonly used in reference to a spanking which - at least in the 49 states not named California - is not considered "child abuse" (and there's it's only been suggested). And again, "suffer the consequences" necessarily means child abuse to you?

Sure, child abuse IS horrifying - but I'd suggest that without knowing that Mr. P would do anything other than a spanking - you're insinuating that he is a potential child abuser (a pretty hefty insinuation) without knowing the facts. That's going too far. Also, I am sure that people can dig through your many posts here and extrapolate them to mean all sorts of insidious things about you - which may or may not be true. I know that - although you're an atheist - you're still well versed in the Bible. And even if you believe it's fiction, the phrase "judge not lest ye be judged" is loaded with common sense.

Listen, there's enough about what Mr. P did to be upset about without expanding this beyond reasonable bounds. And as much as you may hate the guy, just be thankful that no one has caught you doing your worst on your worst day and splashed it across the national media. Warranted in this instance? Yes. But still, glad it wasn't me, and you should be too.

[Guest Guest]

Breaking someone's backside is not a simple smack on the rear.  Neither is tanning one's backside.  Both fall into the catergory of child abuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Love how everyone is suddenly an expert at inferring what Mr. P implied during a random conversation.

Isn't it wonderful how we're all so perfect? We should really start a club.

[Bryan]

Oh, really?

Yeah, really.

From the URL above:

(I've already read it, thanks. Don't forget to read the stuff you didn't quote.)

"While conducting the meta-analysis, which included 62 years of collected data, Gershoff looked for associations between parental use of corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences, including several in childhood (immediate compliance, moral internalization, quality of relationship with parent, and physical abuse from that parent), three in both childhood and adulthood (mental health, aggression, and criminal or antisocial behavior) and one in adulthood alone (abuse of own children or spouse).

Gershoff found "strong associations" between corporal punishment and all eleven child behaviors and experiences. Ten of the associations were negative such as with increased child aggression and antisocial behavior. The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child." --http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html

Doesn't sound too great.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't sound like you escaped the conclusion that you overreached, either.

[Bryan]

Gavin, thank you so much for replying to Bryan.  I'm not thanking you for sounding trouncing him (although you did), but for trying so hard to engage him and teach him something in the process.  You must be quite remarkable in the claassroom.  I wish I could see you in action.

Bryan's head is hard, but perhaps the seeds you've planted will someday bear fruit and he will take off the self-imposed blinders of religious fundamentalism.  It's such a pity that a bright intelligence like his is being wasted in the service of foolishness.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't take more than the faintest flicker of hope to find a cheerleading squad forming for Gavin, did it?

Gavin is beaten. He's not going to be able to support his charges that I committed fallacies--some of you think otherwise because you don't like my positions and you don't know logic.

On top of that Gavin hints very strongly at agreement with the views I've already expressed on epistemology, and agreed with me that Paszkiewicz has had his quotations misrepresented. That directly contradicts a number of you on the cheerleading squad.

[Guest Guest]

Love how everyone is suddenly an expert at inferring what Mr. P implied during a random conversation.

Isn't it wonderful how we're all so perfect?  We should really start a club.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The man is well-known for a lack of control on religious issues. Kids in his classes joke about being sent to hell for touching his desk. Before he was busted, students used to be able to shut down history class any time they wanted by bringing up religion, and if they got tired of listening to him ramble on about that they could switch him onto politics by saying anything that was politically to the left of Mussolini. Paszkiewicz has been known to berate and abuse students he deems outside the fold, mostly homosexuals and deviants as he understands, or perhaps misunderstands deviance. Given his pattern of behavior over many years, it's fair to infer that the comment about breaking his son's backside if he refused to go to church was shaped in part by the issue involved, namely going to church.

What Paszkiewicz must remember if he intends to continue to be employed in the Kearny public schools is that it is a public school system, and therefore he must keep his personal religious feelings under control and, in the classroom, to himself. Reasonable people understand that he was speaking colorfully, but also understand that the color was a fairly bright red, influenced by his uncontrolled emotions on this subject matter.

[Strife767]

Love how everyone is suddenly an expert at inferring what Mr. P implied during a random conversation.

Considering he chose to use "break" and then later "suffer" (isn't it more common to say "face the consequences?"), it's hard to infer otherwise.

Honestly, I've never heard the term "break [one's] backside" out of the mouth of anyone who was ever talking about a tap or light 'whack.' (as if that's so much better anyway). They're usually the same people that talk about "whooping" which is usually a reference to being hit with a belt or something similar.

At the very least Paszkiewicz should be confronted about this statement, because it sounds bad on its face--really bad. I for one would feel relieved to hear him say that he is adamantly against the use of corporal punishment, and that he didn't mean it literally etc.

[Strife767]

And you've never heard of a turn-of-phrase?  "Break his backside" was/is a phrase commonly used in reference to a spanking which - at least in the 49 states not named California - is not considered "child abuse" (and there's it's only been suggested).  And again, "suffer the consequences" necessarily means child abuse to you?

I'm not talking about legal terms here. Disagree if you want, but I think that striking a child (or anyone, for that matter) is inherently abusive, especially considering the power imbalance between the child and his/her parent.

And yes, call me crazy, but I get uncomfortable when someone puts the word "suffer" anywhere near him talking about his kids not obeying him.

Sure, child abuse IS horrifying - but I'd suggest that without knowing that Mr. P would do anything other than a spanking - you're insinuating that he is a potential child abuser (a pretty hefty insinuation) without knowing the facts.

Not at all--what I've been calling for is to, as a result of that very inappropriate comment, call him on what he said and get the facts. At the very least this should be throwing up red flags, imo. Do you disagree? A public school teacher saying that really doesn't phase you in the least?

That's going too far.  Also, I am sure that people can dig through your many posts here and extrapolate them to mean all sorts of insidious things about you - which may or may not be true.

But that's not what I've done. Again, it's a "red flag" thing. I sure don't know what goes on in his house, but from what he let slip, he should at least be questioned to some extent, no? Do you truly feel that those statements merit zero concern/attention?

I know that - although you're an atheist - you're still well versed in the Bible.  And even if you believe it's fiction, the phrase "judge not lest ye be judged" is loaded with common sense.

Considering I would have zero objection to being questioned about my own statements, as I'm suggesting Paszkiewicz should be, I fail to see where the hypocrisy comes in, which you seem to be accusing me of.

Listen, there's enough about what Mr. P did to be upset about without expanding this beyond reasonable bounds.  And as much as you may hate the guy, just be thankful that no one has caught you doing your worst on your worst day and splashed it across the national media.  Warranted in this instance?  Yes.  But still, glad it wasn't me, and you should be too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fail to see what this has to do with anything, honestly. It seems like a red herring.

[Strife767]

What the f**k is a "strop"? Did you get the spelling beat out of you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You really ought to look up an unfamiliar word before you make fun of someone for using it--what's very possible, and is true in this case, is that you just made yourself look very stupid.

"noun: a leather strap used to sharpen razors" --http://www.onelook.com/?w=strop

You remind me of the large group of people that e-mailed the owner of a website, ridiculing him for misspelling "insane." The morons didn't know that "inane" was a word.

[Guest Guest]

What the f**k is a "strop"? Did you get the spelling beat out of you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You probably should have checked a dictionary before making a fool of yourself.

[Guest Guest]

You really ought to look up an unfamiliar word before you make fun of someone for using it--what's very possible, and is true in this case, is that you just made yourself look very stupid.

"noun:  a leather strap used to sharpen razors" --http://www.onelook.com/?w=strop

You remind me of the large group of people that e-mailed the owner of a website, ridiculing him for misspelling "insane." The morons didn't know that "inane" was a word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah yes, Strifey "Super Civil Servant" to the rescue. Strop is a word but hardly common in modern usage. Of course anything goes when trying to make Mr. P look like an out of control animal.

And no one mentioned the rest of bewildered's poorly written post, including the generalized attack on priests.

[Guest Guest]

You probably should have checked a dictionary before making a fool of yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See the answer to Strifey's post.

[Bryan]

The man is well-known for a lack of control on religious issues.

What rot. This is some of the dumbest stuff Paszkiewicz's detractors have come up with yet.

It's disgraceful (but it's a credit to LaClair for staying out of this one).

It's more understandable from Gavin, because the Europeans are so sensitive about corporal punishment, capital punishment, or virtually any conflict.

Most of the rest of you don't have that excuse.

[Strife767]

Gavin is beaten.

And then you wake up.

[Strife767]

Ah yes, Strifey "Super Civil Servant" to the rescue.  Strop is a word but hardly common in modern usage.

The guy even said "razor strop!" How much more obvious could it have been? Alright, man, tell me:

"What the f**k is a "strop"? Did you get the spelling beat out of you?" <-- is this an appropriate reaction to someone using a word you're unfamiliar with? Yes or no?

Of course anything goes when trying to make Mr. P look like an out of control animal.

Wow, talk about a leap. That person invited ridicule for his/her ludicrous outburst, all because he/she read a word he/she didn't know and assumed it was a misspelling on the other person's part. That's all.

And no one mentioned the rest of bewildered's poorly written post, including the generalized attack on priests.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, maybe some constructive criticism of that on your part would have been a better use of your time than defending that ridiculous outburst.

[Strife767]

What rot.  This is some of the dumbest stuff Paszkiewicz's detractors have come up with yet.

So, you're calling his former students liars? Do you think the nickname "Pastor Paszkiewicz" created itself spontaneously?

It's more understandable from Gavin, because the Europeans are so sensitive about corporal punishment, capital punishment, or virtually any conflict.

Wow, no one could fault you for generalizing. Oh, wait...