T1B

NOTE TO SELF:
Never get in an arguement with Mike the Lab Rat.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The concept of "the ends justifies the means" short-circuits ethics, character, due process, etc. You want to teach kids THAT lesson? On top of the vulgarity and misuse of classroom time?

If you could read and didn’t just lash out with some canned retort you would know that is what I said in my first post. I said it wasn’t the most logically sound argument . I know I have a high burden to prove that what this guy did was right because in almost every other situation he would be in the wrong. Did you address that? No. You went into a bunch of crap about how he is a science teacher and calling Bush an asshole isn’t science. Blah blah blah. You don’t buy the premise that Bush has fucked up enough to warrant this type of action. Fine. Be blind or partisan or whatever you need to do to keep your head in the sand on this issue. That doesn’t change the fact that we are in a world of hurt due to Bush’s actions and if a few 13 year old have to hear about it in a science class (Do I even need to get into what Bush has done to set back science thereby making his asshole policies relevant in a science class?) that is a small price to pay.

As for my political views coloring my judgement and your wacky ‘pro/Bush’ argument, no matter how GOOD a POTUS is he should never be praised in a science class, unless it is for science. A GOOD POTUS is not a threat to America or American 13 year olds. We are not talking about a GOOD POTUS we are discussing a terrible one and whether or not a terrible one should ever be mocked in a HS science class. If you can't even make a good analogy how can you ever hope to make a decent argument?

You have the easier argument to defend and you are still fumbling and stammering to form a relevant, coherent take...


... and you are an educator?

God help us.

88 wrote:Isn't this the point in most threads when you throw out the "You should have posted a white flag" line and exit?

If Mike makes a stupid remark that has nothing to do with my last post like you do all the time I will, but Mike is not pile of shit pansyassed cut and run fuckstain like you so I don't see that happening.

Don't you have a Down's Syndrome kid to feed or walk or something?

Moving Sale wrote:If you could read and didn’t just lash out with some canned retort you would know that is what I said in my first post. I said it wasn’t the most logically sound argument .

Canned? How about the idea that I refused to accept your little disclaimer as remotely worthwhile? After all, the endless stream of illogic and fundamental ignorance of education law spewing from your keyboard went far beyond not the "most logically sound argument."

Frigging stupid and demagogic is closer to the truth.

Moving Sale wrote:I know I have a high burden to prove that what this guy did was right because in almost every other situation he would be in the wrong. Did you address that? No.

Yes, repeatedly. I explained why the guy was in the wrong on several points:

1) He stole time he was being paid to teach curriculum to show a video that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the curriculum. He was on the district's clock and absolutely must spend that time as the district intended. That video did not qualify.

2) He showed a video that was inappropriate for children of that age, based on the repeated vulgarity. The guy knew damned well that what he was showing was inappropriate, hence the complete lack of parental notification.

3) He is a Democratic candidate for state political office and forced children to watch a video that aligns with his (and his party's) views. he has NO right to use his on-the-clock time to campaign for his party's platform.

Moving Sale wrote:You went into a bunch of crap about how he is a science teacher and calling Bush an asshole isn’t science. Blah blah blah.

Pretty piss-poor attempt to ignore my arguments, "counselor." I listed THREE separate reasons why his actions were worthy of punishment. You consistantly failed to address ANY of them up until this point, and even now, addressing only one of them, your witty retort is "blah blah blah."

Outstanding.

The Algonquin Round Table would be dazzled by your sparkling wit and gift for repartee.

Moving Sale wrote:You don’t buy the premise that Bush has fucked up enough to warrant this type of action.

Regardless of the actions of the POTUS, Congress, SCOTUS or your opinion of them, political attacks on them, especially those with vulgarity have no place in an 8th grade classroom.

If you think otherwise, you are, quite frankly, a simpleton.

Moving Sale wrote:Be blind or partisan or whatever you need to do to keep your head in the sand on this issue. That doesn’t change the fact that we are in a world of hurt due to Bush’s actions

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. The teacher's opinions (and yours) do not change the fact that what he did was inappropriate.

If you can't see that, then YOU have your head..well....let's just say that it's not as clean a location as sand.

Moving Sale wrote:....and if a few 13 year old have to hear about it in a science class (Do I even need to get into what Bush has done to set back science thereby making his asshole policies relevant in a science class?) that is a small price to pay.

Your partisan politics have completely blinded you to the FACT that despite the intensity of emotions a teacher may feel on a topic, he still has NO RIGHT - not legally, not morally, NONE - to hijack a classroom and shove his political views down 13-year-old kids' throats.

Moving Sale wrote:As for my political views coloring my judgement and your wacky ‘pro/Bush’ argument, no matter how GOOD a POTUS is he should never be praised in a science class, unless it is for science. A GOOD POTUS is not a threat to America or American 13 year olds. We are not talking about a GOOD POTUS we are discussing a terrible one and whether or not a terrible one should ever be mocked in a HS science class. If you can't even make a good analogy how can you ever hope to make a decent argument?

The analogy is completely valid. Your argument, OTOH, is based on absolutely nothing but sheer opinion.

I don't give a rat's ass if the teacher sincerely, genuinely believes deep down in his heart that Bush is the frigging Antichrist...his political views on the POTUS have no place in class.

By your idiotic standards, every pro-life biology teacher could appropriately show "Silent Scream" to the same kids (after all, abortion is, in their deeply-held convictions, murder), every Nazi apologist should show Holocaust denial videos (after all, those folks take the Zionist conspiracy threat very seriously also), etc. After all, the perceived threat to our way of life (as interpreted by the teacher) warrants violation of his contract!

Never mind the fact that there are folks out there that think that Bush is the greatest thing since toilet paper (insert obvious jokes here...). You and this teacher apparently believe that you guys, and you alone, can perceive the nature of the Beast and must get the word out...

You see, THIS is where the "blah blah blah" stuff is appropriately used.

Moving Sale wrote:You have the easier argument to defend and you are still fumbling and stammering to form a relevant, coherent take...


... and you are an educator?

God help us.

Honestly, after the way this biology educator just performed vivisection on your allegedly-legally-trained ass, I'm pretty sure God is laughing his omniscient, omnipotent ass off...

Moving Sale wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The concept of "the ends justifies the means" short-circuits ethics, character, due process, etc. You want to teach kids THAT lesson? On top of the vulgarity and misuse of classroom time?

If you could read and didn’t just lash out with some canned retort you would know that is what I said in my first post. I said it wasn’t the most logically sound argument . I know I have a high burden to prove that what this guy did was right because in almost every other situation he would be in the wrong. Did you address that? No. You went into a bunch of crap about how he is a science teacher and calling Bush an asshole isn’t science. Blah blah blah. You don’t buy the premise that Bush has fucked up enough to warrant this type of action. Fine. Be blind or partisan or whatever you need to do to keep your head in the sand on this issue. That doesn’t change the fact that we are in a world of hurt due to Bush’s actions and if a few 13 year old have to hear about it in a science class (Do I even need to get into what Bush has done to set back science thereby making his asshole policies relevant in a science class?) that is a small price to pay.

As for my political views coloring my judgement and your wacky ‘pro/Bush’ argument, no matter how GOOD a POTUS is he should never be praised in a science class, unless it is for science. A GOOD POTUS is not a threat to America or American 13 year olds. We are not talking about a GOOD POTUS we are discussing a terrible one and whether or not a terrible one should ever be mocked in a HS science class. If you can't even make a good analogy how can you ever hope to make a decent argument?

You have the easier argument to defend and you are still fumbling and stammering to form a relevant, coherent take...


... and you are an educator?

God help us.

That was one of the most verbose posts that said absolutely nothing that I have ever read, props.

You are one very dumb human being, frankly. And that isn't smack.

Mike,
Jebus Christ. You really don’t get it do you? This isn’t about the teacher, his contract, his normal duties or the captive nature of his audience. It is about Bush. If you think for one second that it is more important for13yos to know about the pythagorean theorem than it is to help protect them from even the anti-christ then you are one narrow minded sombith.

That you miss the corollary between Bush saying he has certain powers that he would not have had if the times were not so dire and this teacher taking him up on his word is not surprising because you are an idiot. That you can’t even read my post, process the info and form a relevant retort and not keep talking about the teacher’s normal duties is not surprising because you are a dolt. That the right wing wacko brigade is half way up your colon by now is, likewise not surprising.

You are either spouting talking points you heard at some educational seminar or you really believe that A(sq)+B(sq)=C(sq) is more important than doing something to try and reverse the incoming tide of lies, death and debt. I don’t know which is worse, but it’s pretty sad either way.

Take some time. Try and actually read what I wrote. Try not to let your cries of “I got Bode’ distract you and please tell me how the PT could be more important to kids 5 yrs from draft age than a healthy dose of skepticism of Bush. If your answer is that he just isn’t that dangerous, remember you said even the anti-christ should not be called and asshole in a HS science class. That is, almost by definition, not a defendable position.

BTW- Nice strawmen you erected along the way. That is what you call “vivisection?” “Holocaust denial?” “Abortion?” This isn’t about deeply held conviction you stupid fucking dolt. This is about danger. God you are stupid. Brush up on Logic 101 before you respond…….. PLEASE!

DMike316 wrote:NOTE TO SELF:
Never get in an arguement with Mike the Lab Rat.

It's OK to get in a debate with Mike. You just better have your facts together. And it wouldn't hurt to be sporting an IQ 100 points higher than TVO.

Moving Sale wrote:Mike,
Jebus Christ. You really don’t get it do you? This isn’t about the teacher, his contract, his normal duties or the captive nature of his audience. It is about Bush.

Ummmmmm.....no.

It's about the teacher.

Always has been.

Moving Sale wrote:If you think for one second that it is more important for13yos to know about the pythagorean theoremthan it is to help protect them from even the anti-christ then you are one narrow minded sombith.

Actually, that's math class.

Otter: "Never mind, he's on a roll."

Moving Sale wrote:That you miss the corollary between Bush saying he has certain powers that he would not have had if the times were not so dire and this teacher taking him up on his word is not surprising because you are an idiot.

Ahm I see, the old "If you don't agree with me, I'll call you names" defense. Brilliant.

Moving Sale wrote:That you can’t even read my post, process the info and form a relevant retort and not keep talking about the teacher’s normal duties is not surprising because you are a dolt.

The point, "dolt," is that the teacher is an employee of the district who was hired to do a job. The employer has the reasonable expectation that a SCIENCE TEACHER will, in fact, TEACH SCIENCE while on the job. If he did this outside of the school day, fine. During school hours, when he was supposed to be doing what the district hired him to do (and the local taxpayers PAID him to do...), not fine.

He was not doing his job while on duty. Case frigging closed.

You are not going to win this one in any way, shape, or form.

Moving Sale wrote:That the right wing wacko brigade is half way up your colon by now is, likewise not surprising.

Ah, the obligatory anal reference. Always a sign of a deep mind.

[golf claps]

Moving Sale wrote:You are either spouting talking points you heard at some educational seminar or you really believe that A(sq)+B(sq)=C(sq)

Once again.....that's math.

But then again, given your inability to defend your points with logic or facts thus far, screwing up science and math twice in one post seems par for the course for the incisive mind that is our own William Jenning Cryin'

Moving Sale wrote:is more important than doing something to try and reverse the incoming tide of lies, death and debt.

My God. It's all so clear to me now.

Yes.

You are right.

The way to stop the rampant abuse of power by Bush and his cronies is to........

Show three-minute videos that repeat the word "asshole" to 13-year-olds.

It's so obvious I don't know why the Democrats haven't leapt all over that one.

I'm positive that 13-year-old boys and girls obsessing over potty humor will get past the repeated use of a forbidden word, cease from giggling incessantly, and form a Children's Crusade against Bush.

My God, you are stupid.

Moving Sale wrote:Take some time. Try and actually read what I wrote.

I have, but the glare of the rampant stupidity coming off your posts is one of those things that has to be observed indirectly, like solar flares.

Rumor has it that people have actually become stupider from having read your inane ramblings, and well, I want to avoid that.

Maybe I'll re-read them through smoked glass. Or through one of those shoebox and wax paper things with a pinhole (which would be apropos for reading posts written by a pinhead.

Moving Sale wrote:Try not to let your cries of “I got Bode’ distract you and please tell me how the PT could be more important to kids 5 yrs from draft age than a healthy dose of skepticism of Bush. If your answer is that he just isn’t that dangerous, remember you said even the anti-christ should not be called and asshole in a HS science class. That is, almost by definition, not a defendable position.

Well, since religion is verboten in public school science classes, it's a completely defendable position.

You are amazingly bad at this debating thing.

Are you sure you're really a lawyer and not some Krispy Kreme counter slob who just likes to watch re-runs of "LA Law" and tell fibs on chatboards?

Moving Sale wrote:BTW- Nice strawmen you erected along the way. That is what you call “vivisection?” “Holocaust denial?” “Abortion?” This isn’t about deeply held conviction you stupid fucking dolt. This is about danger. God you are stupid. Brush up on Logic 101 before you respond…….. PLEASE!

Why is it that when I read your posts, I picture you as the Martin Short character "Nathan Thurm?"


"I know that. I know that. It's so funny that you didn't think I knew that."

Hey shit for brains! Math is a science. It is the science “dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement.” What? You get thrown because most Universities and the like have a Math and Science Dept.? What a dumbass you are. You teach in a public school?

Again, this is not about the teacher or my argument would not hold up for other public employees when it does. Almost any public official would be doing a public service by taking a few minutes out of their day to call Bush and asshole.

Way to dodge my “corollary between Bush” argument with a distracter. Another Mike post, another fallacy or ten. Speaking of fallacies, how about the old “put words into the opponent’s mouth" fallacy? I know that the state has a “reasonable expectation that a SCIENCE TEACHER will, in fact, TEACH SCIENCE while on the job.” I have stipulated to that. Saying otherwise is putting words into my mouth. My argument, if you could read, is that Bush has fucked things up so royally that it is okay for this teacher step outside of his regular duties to call Bush an asshole. Can you form ONE take that is not a fallacy?

I guess not. It is not true that religion is “verboten in public school science classes.” Your statement is a falsehood and hence a fallay. If it passes the Lemon test it is in, but you knew that right? And since you know the Lemon test you know that if Bush was the anti-christ incarnate a HS science teacher would be allowed to call him an asshole without running a foul of the Establishment Clause.

Way to fuck up your only good argument btw. Way to say that even the anti-christ incarnate can’t be called an asshole by a public HS science teacher. Way to take your only good argument and run it down a rathole. Props I guess.

Are you going to consult a HS logic 101 textbook, a dictionary to look up the word ‘math’ and a law book or two before you post next? I hope that you will, but I fear that you will not.

Ignorance is bliss… Have a wonderful evening.

Don't you have a wife someplace to fuck in the hope of producing at least one child with normal human features?

Dumbass, white-flag-waving yahoo.

Moving Sale wrote:Don't you have a wife someplace to fuck in the hope of producing at least one child with normal human features?

Dumbass, white-flag-waving yahoo.

seriously dude. you are consumed. it's really a sight to see.


oh, and you're short.

Moving Sale wrote:Math is a science. It is the science “dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement.” What? You get thrown because most Universities and the like have a Math and Science Dept.? What a dumbass you are. You teach in a public school?

You are incredibly desperate.

We're discussing the actions of a junior high school science teacher and the curriculum at that level.

You went and, in your rabid state, used math examples. I pointed out that you screwed up.

And now you're going to laughably try to defend your idiocy by whipping out a dictionary definition that has precisely nothing to do with science in the context of the discussion?

You are a piss-poor example of a debater.

Not only are science and math considered separate disciplines in universities, but they are considered separate departments/disciplines in the junior high and secondary levels also. Completely distinct certification requirements, methods of instruction, curricula, etc. In fact, science teachers are not permitted to teach math unless they are specifically certified in math, and math teachers are not permitted to teach science unless they are specifically certified in science.

You can complain about the compartmentalization of subjects, but that doesn't change the fact that they are compartmentalized at the junior high/high school levels, but that dosn't change the fact that they are, and as such, your example of the Pythagorean theorem being taught in science class is invalid.

And forget trying the line about how math is "used in science." That's not a logical defense with regards to the specific example you (mis)used.

You have absolutely no idea of what you are speaking any time you attempt to delve into the topic of education, curriculum, instruction. You are completely out of your depth and have screwed up every time you touch the subject.

Moving Sale wrote:Again, this is not about the teacher or my argument would not hold up for other public employees when it does. Almost any public official would be doing a public service by taking a few minutes out of their day to call Bush and asshole.

In your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, you've stated this point repeated as if it is absolutely, universally accepted prima facie. Contrary to your argument, it is not. It is opinion. I agree that Bush is a raging sphincter, but that is merely my opinion and not something that should be foisted on 13-year-old children while I am working as a science instructor.

Moving Sale wrote:Way to dodge my “corollary between Bush” argument with a distracter. Another Mike post, another fallacy or ten.

In this debate as well as others, you love to toss that "fallacy" word around.

I'm convinced that someone got tired of you tripping all over yourself legally, logically, and verbally and bought you a 'Word-A-Day" calendar.

Better check it again, Sparky, because labelling every argument you don't like isn't working here. Hasn't worked for you yet, in fact.

Moving Sale wrote:Speaking of fallacies, how about the old “put words into the opponent’s mouth" fallacy? I know that the state has a “reasonable expectation that a SCIENCE TEACHER will, in fact, TEACH SCIENCE while on the job.” I have stipulated to that.

No, you haven't.

Moving Sale wrote:Saying otherwise is putting words into my mouth.

How? I put forth one of my arguments. The fact that you think that my stating an obvious fact -that science teachers should be teaching science- is "putting words in [your] mouth" shows yet again that you have, despite your ostensible legal training, no comprehension on logic or debate.

Moving Sale wrote:My argument, if you could read, is that Bush has fucked things up so royally that it is okay for this teacher step outside of his regular duties to call Bush an asshole.

A "point" that you have never, at any point backed up with one scintilla of anything other than sheer opinion of your own.

Moving Sale wrote:It is not true that religion is “verboten in public school science classes.”

Really? Apparently you know absolutely nothing about education law. Within the context you would have it used (referring to the President as the Antichrist and warning kids about him that way) it would absolutely be against the law in a public school science classroom. The fact that you, as a lawyer, aren't aware of the mountain of legal precedent that keeps us from invoking God/supernatural in a science class shows how utterly laughable you are, "counselor."

Moving Sale wrote:Your statement is a falsehood and hence a fallay. If it passes the Lemon test it is in, but you knew that right? And since you know the Lemon test you know that if Bush was the anti-christ incarnate a HS science teacher would be allowed to call him an asshole without running a foul of the Establishment Clause.

False, since the entire argument that Bush "is" the Antichrist would be dependent upon sectarian interpretation of particular denominations' religious writings. It would not be an opinion that was objectively testable or falsifiable outside of religious writings.

You lose again, "counselor."

Moving Sale wrote:Are you going to consult a HS logic 101 textbook, a dictionary to look up the word ‘math’ and a law book or two before you post next? I hope that you will, but I fear that you will not.

How 'bout you consult the state curriculum in any or all of the 50 states and show me just one example of where the Pythagorean theorem would be taught as science in a junior high science class, as you posited.

Just one?

Moving Sale wrote:Ignorance is bliss…

Then you must be one giddy freak.

There should be a 10 post mercy rule or something in this place.

Short and stupid is no way to go through life TVO.

Another Mike post, ten more shit argument. Sorry if me calling them what they are, fallacies, has got your panties all in a bunch.

First shit argument? The fallacy of distraction again. Does it really matter if Math is taught by ‘science’ teachers in AL? No. That is what is known as a collateral matter. You can’t impeach on a collateral matter using extrinsic evidence in a court of law for the same reasons it’s a shit argument when you do it here. It is a collateral matter. It proves nothing because it is not relevant to the case at hand. You say dude can’t teach the PT? Fine. Doesn’t mean math isn’t a science, which was all I stated. How about this? “It’s more important that he tell them Bush is an asshole than to teach Newton’s First Law.” You happy now? Physics is a science right? Or do you have some nugget of information about Psychics to prove that this teacher can’t teach Newton’s First Law?

Second shit argument? The old “Put words into the opponent’s mouth” fallacy… again. I never said, nor did I imply that my stance on this was “universally accepted prima facie.” I have, in fact, stated the opposite. In my very first post to you I stated that ‘this teacher gets a pass from me.” (Emphasis added.) But by all means twist and turn and lie hoping that nobody will remember what I have actually posted. You related to Sean Hannity or Bill O’Rielly?

Third shit argument? Another dodge. This time a dodge of the same argument of mine you dodged last time, the “corollary between Bush” argument. Saying I am “labelling” (Sic) your arguments as fallacies and not showing how that ‘label’ is incorrect is a dodge and hence a shit argument. Well Science Guy? Care to address the actual charge and not dodge it for a third time?

Next argument from Mike? Will it be shit? Yes it will. “No, you haven’t.” Hello? What fucking thread are you in? I told you in the first post to you that I was going to use Machiavellin principles in my argument. That, almost by definition, supposes that I will have to stipulate that this guy was not doing his normal job. In my third post after you chimed in I stated that sometimes things that are usually out of bounds are sometimes in bounds. What the fuck do you think that meant?

Next shit argument? Lie. I told you about the Lemon test and you bold face lied in your retort. (You get the argument ass backwards but I’ll hold off on that till the next paragraph.) The issue is: “If Bush was the anti-christ would the Lemon test allow an 8th grade public school teacher to call him and asshole.” The three part Lemon test is the rule that is used. Show me this “mountain of legal precedent that keeps {you} from invoking God… in a science class.” I’ll give you a link to the Lemon test if you are too dumb to goggle “Lemon test.” There is no ABSOLUTE restriction on God in public schools you fucking stupid simple fuck. To say otherwise is a lie.

The argument isn’t about “warning kids about him” as the anti-christ. It’s “can you call him and asshole if he is the anti-christ. Jebus. This isn’t about proof. The stipulation YOU put out (because you are too dumb to realize it was throwing away your best argument) is that even if Bush was the AC this guy would have been out of bounds, not if you could prove he was. Not, if you could get the info into a public school, but if he was the AC… this teacher would not be able to call him an asshole. Way to fuck up two parts of a one part argument. I fear for your student’s education if your memory is this fucking feeble.

PLEASE try and come back with something resembling a good argument. You have the easier side of this thing and you’re still fucking it up. That is just plain embarrassing.

Jsc810 wrote: Since the evidence overwhelmingly supports the commonly accepted theory (I consider them facts, but for sake of discussion, "theory"), it is you who bears the burden of proof, in the same way as those with alleged wild UFO alien encounters bear the burden of proof.

What a crock of shit. What fucking evidence? My whole point is that the overwhelming physical evidence does NOT support the theory. Name ONE piece of physical evidence that supports the theory.

As for UFO's. How dumb are you. That IS what we are talking about. Every flying object is a UFO until it is identified. YOU say the identification is flight 77. Prove it.

Moving Sale wrote:First shit argument? The fallacy of distraction again. Does it really matter if Math is taught by ‘science’ teachers in AL? No. That is what is known as a collateral matter. You can’t impeach on a collateral matter using extrinsic evidence in a court of law for the same reasons it’s a shit argument when you do it here. It is a collateral matter. It proves nothing because it is not relevant to the case at hand. You say dude can’t teach the PT? Fine. Doesn’t mean math isn’t a science, which was all I stated.

Sorry, shyster, but you screwed up by using a bad example in your lathered-up frenzy. I called you on it, you tried -badly- to defend it by whipping out Webster's dictionary, and now that you can't defend your point, it's conveniently "collateral"

Tell me....have you ever honestly won any argument? Ever?

Moving Sale wrote:How about this? “It’s more important that he tell them Bush is an asshole than to teach Newton’s First Law.” You happy now? Physics is a science right? Or do you have some nugget of information about Psychics to prove that this teacher can’t teach Newton’s First Law?

Now see, what you have there is a better example of what a science teacher would teach, but your argument still completely unsupported by anything remotely resembling evidence.

As far as psychics, well, I don't have a lot of information on them, other than they're frauds.

Kinda like you're shaping up to be.

Moving Sale wrote:Second shit argument? The old “Put words into the opponent’s mouth” fallacy… again. I never said, nor did I imply that my stance on this was “universally accepted prima facie.” I have, in fact, stated the opposite. In my very first post to you I stated that ‘this teacher gets a pass from me.” (Emphasis added.) But by all means twist and turn and lie hoping that nobody will remember what I have actually posted. You related to Sean Hannity or Bill O’Rielly?

What a convoluted, incoherent mess you've devolved into.

Not to mention the fact that you still haven't proved any of your points...

Moving Sale wrote:Next argument from Mike? Will it be shit? Yes it will. “No, you haven’t.” Hello? What fucking thread are you in? I told you in the first post to you that I was going to use Machiavellin principles in my argument. That, almost by definition, supposes that I will have to stipulate that this guy was not doing his normal job. In my third post after you chimed in I stated that sometimes things that are usually out of bounds are sometimes in bounds. What the fuck do you think that meant?

"Usually out of bounds?"

A public school science teacher running for state office using school time to proselytize(to 13-year-olds) against the sitting president goes way over the "usually out of bounds" bit.

And you've yet to defend, in any way, how circumstances justify making his actions "in bounds."

Moving Sale wrote:Next shit argument? Lie. I told you about the Lemon test and you bold face lied in your retort. (You get the argument ass backwards but I’ll hold off on that till the next paragraph.) The issue is: “If Bush was the anti-christ would the Lemon test allow an 8th grade public school teacher to call him and asshole.” The three part Lemon test is the rule that is used. Show me this “mountain of legal precedent that keeps {you} from invoking God… in a science class.”

Save it.

Science, by definition, deals only with the natural world and natural explanations for events.

The Antichrist, is by any reasonable definition, a purely religious concept. Period. It is not a concept that holds any scientific merit or credibility, and the standards for defining it and testing for it do not fall under scientific rubrics.

Secondly, the concept of the Antichrist is held by most to be a Christian fixation, and a teacher seriously putting forth that a specific elected official (or anyone alive, for that matter) as this Christian bogeyman would most definitely violate the neutrality concept and violate federal law.

Moving Sale wrote:I’ll give you a link to the Lemon test if you are too dumb to goggle “Lemon test.” There is no ABSOLUTE restriction on God in public schools you fucking stupid simple fuck. To say otherwise is a lie.

"fucking stupid simple fuck?"

Geez, MS, looks to me that you're the one who's got his panties in a wad.

Or are you normally this stammeringly ineloquent?

Who's putting words in whose mouth, now? I never said that there was an absolute ban on God in the classroom. Never said it. Ever. Not even close.

I said that religion was verboten in science classes. In a social studies class in which cultures and creeds and their impact on societies are discussed? Absolutely appropriate. Hell, it's even OK for me to mention that Mendel was a monk or how evil spirits and sin were believed to be causes of infectious diseases prior to the Germ Theory.

However, once again, teaching kids in public schools that our President is a character out of the (exclusively Christian) Book of Revelations would be a violation of federal law.

For you to even try to claim otherwise shows a profound ignorance of law, curriculum, and even religion.

(As someone who teaches evolution in a district that (up until recently) had a bunch of holy rollers trying to ban our 'Blue Devil" logo as Satanism, I've been quite on top of following the rules on religion and classrooms. I cheered like crazy when the Dover decision came down the way it did.)

Moving Sale wrote:The argument isn’t about “warning kids about him” as the anti-christ. It’s “can you call him and asshole if he is the anti-christ. Jebus. This isn’t about proof.

You wish that were so, chiefly because you have none.

Moving Sale wrote:The stipulation YOU put out (because you are too dumb to realize it was throwing away your best argument) is that even if Bush was the AC this guy would have been out of bounds, not if you could prove he was. Not, if you could get the info into a public school, but if he was the AC… this teacher would not be able to call him an asshole.

See above.

Moving Sale wrote:PLEASE try and come back with something resembling a good argument. You have the easier side of this thing and you’re still fucking it up. That is just plain embarrassing.

You're right - this is embarrassing....just not in the way you think.

Many years ago, there was another poster who called himself "TVO." This poster was a man of wit and creativity, who composed song parodies that reduced opponents to tears (of laughter and pain...), who had deathsmack down to an art, and even had a poetic, metered riddle named for him (the Malovian triplet). And although I disagreed with this "TVO" on more than one occasion (once, famously, on Elba), even I agreed that this was a man of eminent style, intelligence, and wit.

You sir, are not fit to wash his socks.

Screw the "Mother of all anvils" Mace,
TVO was squashed by a 15 story high rise.....


Sheesh Mike, show the Liliputian some mercy! This is like watching the Rodney King beating.....

Moving Sale,

I don't know how to put this any more clearly.

A) You lost.

B) You lost badly.

C) With every new post, you look even dumber.

D) Do yourself a favor, and just let this one die, dumbfuck.

Mike,
Posting the same shit over and over while dodging what my post actually says doesn’t make your arguments any better. My premise is that what this guy did was okay even though it is outside his normal duties. You state that even if he were the ‘worst person on earth’ it still would not be okay for him to call Bush an asshole. Not sure why you did that because your best argument was that Bush is just not that bad, but once you equated him to the AC you took that arrow out of your quiver. If you think for one minute that it is not okay for this guy to call ‘the worst person on earth’ an asshole in front of13yos then you are a fucking moron. There is no reason to learn science if you’re never going to use it because your world is going to be torn apart. Most every rule has an exception and there is an exception to the rule that science teachers should teach science. That rule is that if the science teaching itself is threatened then the threat must be dealt with first.

You are a goosstepping fucko. You know it and I know it and those people that are not up your colon know it too. Education is not more important than self preservation. It is not the end all. Hugely important yes, but not so high up on a pedestal that it’s principles can not be rightly compromised for a few minutes to achieve a higher cause. Sorry, but your chosen filed is just not that important. Your Ivory Tower nonsense is just that, nonsense.

As for the Lemon test. You are wrong and you know you are wrong because you did not show me one case out of the mountain of cases you assert show your point that says that the Lemon test is not the true test of the Establishment Clause. Religion is not verboten in science class it is just that simple. That you refuse to accept that you are wrong shows me a lot about you and your stance on the issue of this teachers actions. It shows me that even if you decided that you were wrong you would not let go out of pride or the like. That is a very poor quality to have in a science teacher. You’re supposed to be able to admit when the facts show that you are wrong, which they have.

Is it my opinion that this teachers actions were okay? Well duh! I have gone on to explain why I think that. I have stated that there is no reason to learn science if you aren’t going to be able to use it. I stated way back that this was about danger and that if ‘the worst person in the world” was our prez it wouldn’t be wrong to call him an asshole. That you are so wrapped up in your life as a scientist that you are unable to see that science is not the sole reason for existence is not surprising to me. I see it all the time at the local University and CC. It is, in my opinion, the single worst prevalent trait amongst scientists. They somehow think science answers all questions and when it doesn’t they get all flustered and act stupid.

I have asked you before to please read my post before you retort, but I don’t expect that will happen. I don’t expect you to see the light. Why should you when your false belief that science is so important it drummed into your head every day by like minded and equally misguided colleagues. Add to that the posters who will lick anyone’s ass that disagrees with me and you have a very dangerous mix.

Have a nice day Mike. It’s been fun. I’m going to head out for a while but if you do retort try and use what little logical capacity you have this time. Reading your same false statements, dodges and out and out lies is getting old.

You’re flat wrong, IMO, but you’re still a more entertaining foil than 90% of the braindead tards on this board. As for Mal, he was THE best poster these boards ever had. It is nice that you remember him as fondly as I do.

Jsc810 wrote: Burden of proof is on you, so where is your evidence?

Et Tu Chip? Appeal to sympathy? Dodges? Begging the question? I thought you were better than that. At least it took Mike a few posts to rack up that many fallacies. Jebus.

Again? What physical evidence shows that Flight 77 hit the pentagon? I have stated MANY times the evidence that it didn’t. All I ever get back are.. “Every knows that’s what happened” and “Where are the people?” or “It is ridiculous to think that Bush would do that”

If it is so gawd damned obvious that it happened that way why not just show me why the physical evidence points your way? Why not explain how the spools are intact? Why not explain the size of the mark? Or the punch out hole? Gunslinger was the only one to even attempt to try and show I’m wrong using actual physical evidence.

The math is all wrong. {Or is that science? }The angle of the approach. The lampposts. The generator. The windows. The wrong plane parts. Ground effects. The KE displacement. All out of wack with the conspiracy theory foisted on the American public to explain what happened.

I’m out for a few try and form a logical argument this time.

Pictures of people in the shape of a building? Yea that’s actual evidence. :meds:X 911

Moving Sale wrote: I got to go with Machiavelli on this one. The ends justify the means. Not the logically soundest argument I've ever made, but this teacher gets a pass from me.

You should've stop there, then you would've only been an idiot. At this point, that would be a huge victory for you.

This is just a 'drive-by' because I don't have time for a full retort, which will follow...

Millions of people saw 77 hit the pentagon on TV?

Link?

Jsc810 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Et Tu Chip? Appeal to sympathy? Dodges? Begging the question? I thought you were better than that.

Also, I'm calling bullshit on this.

You would (and probably have) done all of the above and more in Court on behalf of your criminal defendant clients. Pot meet kettle, etc. :P

I've done worse to save a client. Not my fault the DA NEVER calls me on it. :wink:

You have just been called on it.

Moving Sale wrote:My premise is that what this guy did was okay even though it is outside his normal duties.

And my argument is that your premise is unfounded. What the teacher did was not merely "outside his normal duties." It was inappropriate on at least three different levels, two of which you failed to address at any point (the vulgarity and his conflict of interest in being a candidate for office and promoting his party's position in class).

Moving Sale wrote:You state that even if he were the ‘worst person on earth’ it still would not be okay for him to call Bush an asshole. Not sure why you did that because your best argument was that Bush is just not that bad, but once you equated him to the AC you took that arrow out of your quiver.

Nope. I went the hyperbole route deliberately. Regardless of the teacher's opinion of Bush and Bush's actions, it was wrong of the teacher to, completely on his own initiative, show the video.

Moving Sale wrote:If you think for one minute that it is not okay for this guy to call ‘the worst person on earth’ an asshole in front of13yos then you are a fucking moron.

For a classroom teacher to do so is entirely inappropriate.

Let me put it to you this way - I think most folks would agree that Adolph Hitler is probably the lead candidate for "worst person." If an 8th grade social studies teacher showed a musical sketch that used the word "asshole" a dozen or more times, they should still be reprimanded for the vulgarity.

The classroom is not a frigging barroom, bowling alley, or family den. It's a place of learning, and parents sure as hell don't want teachers throwing around language that the kids are punished for using.

Moving Sale wrote:There is no reason to learn science if you’re never going to use it because your world is going to be torn apart.

That argument is based purely on speculation. Neither you nor the science teacher knows for a fact (or can prove in any way) that "the world is going to be torn apart."

Furthermore, one could argue that especially in the event of an apocalypse, we'd need all the scientific know-how possible to rebuild society.

BTW......you suck at this.

Moving Sale wrote:Most every rule has an exception and there is an exception to the rule that science teachers should teach science. That rule is that if the science teaching itself is threatened then the threat must be dealt with first.

Really? Where'd you find that nugget? Link? (since you're so hot on having folks "prove" their cases...)

Moving Sale wrote:You are a goosstepping fucko. You know it and I know it and those people that are not up your colon know it too.

"Goosestepping?" Because I expect a teacher to do his frigging job and not go on some hellbent leftist MTV tangent that involves showing vulgar messages to kids?

Yeah.....asking a teacher to save his politicking for afterschool activities is right up there with slavishly Nazi-istic regimen to rules...

Moving Sale wrote:Education is not more important than self preservation.

I've had drug-dealing students who use that line to justify the crap they sell, too.

Moving Sale wrote:It is not the end all. Hugely important yes, but not so high up on a pedestal that it’s principles can not be rightly compromised for a few minutes to achieve a higher cause.

'Higher cause?" Why is it defined that way? Because you feel that way?

Tell ya what, Sparky...I'm a Christian. Baptised, confirmed, accepted Christ as my personal savior, etc......can't I argue that the rules should be bent for me to "save" my students and convert them? I mean, isn't eternal salvation truly a "higher cause" that justifies bending the rules? I mean, screw your candyass worries about whether or not Bush will bring the end...the end will come to all of us sooner or later, so gettin' right with God by accepting His Son is even more important than school, state, or federal rules, and...

...see where I'm going with this, numbnut?

I don't CARE how devoutly you and this teacher believe in your cause.

Your beliefs and his are completely irrelevant. It is not up to him or you when he can abandon his paid responsibilities to go "Joan of Arc" about Bush.

Moving Sale wrote:Sorry, but your chosen filed is just not that important. Your Ivory Tower nonsense is just that, nonsense.

You should listen to yourself just now and take your own advice.

Moving Sale wrote:As for the Lemon test. You are wrong and you know you are wrong because you did not show me one case out of the mountain of cases you assert show your point that says that the Lemon test is not the true test of the Establishment Clause. Religion is not verboten in science class it is just that simple.

The Lemon test:
Under the so-called "Lemon test," a court must inquire
(1) whether the government's action has a secular or a religious purpose;
(2) whether the primary effect of the government's action is to advance or endorse religion; and
(3) whether the government's policy or practice fosters an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

I'm contending that a teacher specifically arguing that Bush is, in fact, the AntiChrist, a "character" from Christian Scripture (esp. the Book of Revelations) violates the Lemon test because it would most definitely have a religious purpose, endorses a specific religion (Christianity) and fosters an excvessive entanglement btw government and religion (tax-paid teacher teaching Christian doctrine).

Neener neener.

BTW, the reason I haven't sought out and listed the numerous cases is specifically because there are so many. No one else here is going to pore over scads of listed cases, but we all know theie effects (like it or not):
- no school prayers
- no benediction at graduations or athletic events
- no teaching of creationism in science classes
- no "period of silent reflection"
- the dropping or balancing of sectarian songs at "December holiday" concerts

If anyone genuinely wants a list of the legal precedents involved in keeping religion out of science class, they 9and you) can freaking Google the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision and read it.

Moving Sale wrote:That you refuse to accept that you are wrong shows me a lot about you and your stance on the issue of this teachers actions.

It should show you that I genuinely believe that I am right.

Moving Sale wrote:It shows me that even if you decided that you were wrong you would not let go out of pride or the like.

Cue violins...

Moving Sale wrote:That is a very poor quality to have in a science teacher. You’re supposed to be able to admit when the facts show that you are wrong, which they have.

Your opinions on what I am or am not supposed to do as a science teacher are, from what we've all seen, baseless. You've shown that you haven't the slightest idea of how educational disciplines are compartmentalized, how curricula are developed, how teachers are supposed to deliver content, what teacher's contractual and moral responsibilities are, and you are astonishingly ignorant as to educational law.

That latter bit is a "very poor quality" to have in a lawyer, as is your poor debating skill.

Moving Sale wrote:That you are so wrapped up in your life as a scientist that you are unable to see that science is not the sole reason for existence is not surprising to me.

I find that hard to believe. From what I've read here, I think shadow puppets are surprising to you.

Moving Sale wrote:I see it all the time at the local University and CC. It is, in my opinion, the single worst prevalent trait amongst scientists.

Yeah.....compared to the paragons of virtue, intellect, and humility that we find in the legal profession, scientists are a bunch of no-goodniks.

You really are a hoot.

Moving Sale wrote:I have asked you before to please read my post before you retort, but I don’t expect that will happen. I don’t expect you to see the light. Why should you when your false belief that science is so important it drummed into your head every day by like minded and equally misguided colleagues.

Somehow, my argument that the teacher should do his job has turned into yet another one of your tangential tirades. The teacher could just as well have been an English teacher or a gym teacher...my argument would still be to teach the damned curriculum.

So, once again, your little straw man falls apart.

Moving Sale wrote:Add to that the posters who will lick anyone’s ass that disagrees with me and you have a very dangerous mix.

Yeah, those ass-lickers are a dangerous lot. Their breath alone is pretty bad.

J,
Of those 7 questions only one is on point {5}, one is close to being on point {7} and 5 are just wack.
No.1- Only damaged outside? Huh? Who said that? Then how was there a punch-out hole a few rings in if it only damaged outside?
No.2- Just the ground floor? This is close but off the mark. The question is not that it only hit the ground floor, the question is if it did only hit the ground floor how is the punch-out hole at the same height as the point of entry? The entry angle is all wrong then. Well no so much ‘wrong’ as impossible.
We don’t get to any thing worth a shit till number 5. The Wings. Your answer?
…the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane.
Likely? Probably? What the fuck is that? A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless it is probably pushed inward? Tell me you don’t think THAT is physical evidence of a 757 hitting the pentagon.

Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire.
The mark on the outside is smaller than a 757 because of an explosion OR a fire? Holy crap that is a dumb argument. The engines weighed 6 tons each. Did they get pushed inward or were they destroyed? Make up you fucking mind.

Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
Go fuck yourself. It is not. I have posted the pics that show that to be a lie a number of times. What horseshit.

Now to No. 7- The impact. Your answer? There is no pics of the time between impact and collapse. Wrong. I have posted them many times. They show the whole scene. Fucking liars.

So there we have J answering my question about the spools (which you can see in one of his pics) by not answering it. Nothing about the lamp posts or the punch-out hole or the windows. That is piss poor lazy Lawyering J. First Fallacies and then this? A website that doesn’t even TRY and answer a freaking question? Jebus Christ if it is so easy why do I get this half-assed, lazy, wrong, bile as a retort? It’s a simple set of questions if the fact is that a 77 hit that building. Right? How could it not be easy to prove? It is a 100 ton fucking plane for gawd’s sake.

Look at the WTC. A plane hit those things. A big fucking plane! All the evidence shows that. The hole is right. The punch-out explosion is right. There are no ground effect problems. The KE is all right. There are no un-moved object directly in the flight path. No sheared of wings or broken lamp posts.

Try harder next time or go home because you appealing to sympathy and telling lies is Bush League.

Moving Stale, let's assume for the sake of argument that your take that it was not flight 77 that hit the pentagon is correct.

Absolute lunacy, IMO, but.....let's go there anyway.

OK....

What is your theory then about what happened to that flight..?

poor wittle MS. no one buys his wild tinfoil hat stories. keep trying, oompa loompa.

88 wrote:When I get depressed about the current state of America, I try to imagine what things would have been like if Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry would have been elected president. Then I read some Moving Sale and LTS TRN 2 threads. Things always seem better after that.

Rack

I don't think I have ever read something more deserving a rack than this.

88 wrote:Based on the size of the hole and the location of the spools, its fairly obvious that Dennis Kucinich used a remotely controlled missile to strike the Pentagon. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

Nah, I think Iran tested a invisible missile on the Pentagon. So, now we can go invade them too..eh Moving Sale? :P

Mike,
If you think for one minute that there are not things in a HS science teacher’s job description, like getting the kids out in a fire or telling them to leave the building if he smells gas or breaking up a fight in class, or any number of things that make them safer, then you are a bigger dolt than I had imagined. Just because you are a fucking pussy and wouldn’t think of trying to help protect your class from danger (Hitler as POTUS) doesn’t mean it is wrong for this guy to do it.

“I'm contending that a teacher specifically arguing that Bush is, in fact, the AntiChrist…”
You are a fucking idiot. The issues ‘is IF HE WAS HITLER would it be okay to call him an asshole.’ Not ‘can he prove he is Hitler.’ That you can’t even argue a point for a few posts without twisting and turning the playing field (A fallacy btw) shows me you are an idiot.

Nice application of the Lemon test. Fuck you are stupid.

~~~
JinLa.,
I have answered that question many times. I think something other than flight 77 caused the damage to the building. That’s what I think happened. Doesn’t really matter what did caused the damage to the building once you buy that premise. Which you won't because you are a tard... or at least acting like one. Nice troll job.

Care to answer any of my questions or are you just going to dodge and weave and post fallacy after fallacy?

Just shut the fuck up dude.

You're just making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post, lessening the likelihood that you were kidding or were temporarily retarded with every new paragraph. You'd be doing yourself a favor more so than anyone else if you would just take your beating like a man and not like, a Democrat.

WhatsMyName wrote: You're just making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post...

Why?

Please try and make your retort logically sound for once okay?

Follow this logic...

The first time you posted, you sounded dumb.

The second time you posted, you also sounded dumb, but further removed doubt that the first post was a fluke.

The third post you wrote was also dumb, but worse yet it only further entrenched the fact that the first two posts weren't accidents.

Now after post 1,728 on the subject, it has become readily apparent that not only are we 100% sure you really are as dumb as your posts said you were, but you're also stubborn and a sore loser, which is a trait of immaturity, which in itself is another argument to your idiocy.

WhatsMyName wrote:Follow this logic...

Logic? I Laughed!

The first time you posted, you sounded dumb.

Why?

The second time you posted, you also sounded dumb, but further removed doubt that the first post was a fluke.

Why?

The third post you wrote was also dumb, but worse yet it only further entrenched the fact that the first two posts weren't accidents.

Why?

Saying that your conclusion is supported by your premise when your premise is your conclusion is a fallacy you fucking dolt.

"I said so, therefore it’s true."
Fuck you are stupid.

Don't forget your binky when you go to bed tonight you fucking tard.

Jsc810 wrote:Maybe you're being consistant (Sic) with California's rules of criminal procedure, I really don't know.

Criminal Procedure? I thought we were being civil? Care to answer my question? No, you don't... because you can't. Nice dodge counselor.

Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon and I don't know where it is.

So tell me why the spools were not hit. Or why the wings left no marks and the body went a few rings in when the wings weighed around 20% of the plane? Or how the lamp posts were knocked down? Or why a wrong tire rim was found?

Oh that's right there is a pic of the victims made into the WTC so 77 must have hit the pentagon. Wow amazing legal analysis there J.

Jsc810 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: Millions of people saw 77 hit the pentagon on TV?

Link?

Mere obfuscation, and you know it.

You're still stuck in Public Defender mode, you're just saying nyah, nyah, you haven't proven it so therefore I win. That ain't gonna cut it here.

BTW- You implied that millions of people saw 77 hit the pentagon.

Link?

What a tard you are.

Moving Sale wrote:

WhatsMyName wrote:Follow this logic...

Logic? I Laughed!

The first time you posted, you sounded dumb.

Why?

The second time you posted, you also sounded dumb, but further removed doubt that the first post was a fluke.

Why?

The third post you wrote was also dumb, but worse yet it only further entrenched the fact that the first two posts weren't accidents.

Why?

Saying that your conclusion is supported by your premise when your premise is your conclusion is a fallacy you fucking dolt.

"I said so, therefore it’s true."
Fuck you are stupid.

Don't forget your binky when you go to bed tonight you fucking tard.

Might wanna retract any "tard" statements not directed toward yourself, sport.

Go fuck yourself...tard.

Sweet meltdown, 'tard.



Bwaaaaa hahaha