Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

'You've been accused of wizardry,'
" Piculas said.
He said the statement seemed bizarre to him, like something out of Harry Potter.
Piculas said he replied, "I have no idea what you're talking about."
He said he also told Sinclair, "It's not black magic. It's a toothpick."
The school district puts a somewhat different spin on the disappearing-toothpick incident.
Assistant Superintendent Renalia DuBose said the word "wizardry" never came up on the school district's end.
"That was his rendition of what happened," she said.
DuBose also said "there was a lot more involved" than a simple magic-trick demonstration.
She said the principal interviewed students after the regular teacher complained about Piculas' performance in the classroom. The principal then requested that Piculas not return to the school and said he "absolutely should not be subbing," DuBose said.
"The toothpick demonstration was minor compared to the other problems," she said.
In a letter the district sent to Piculas, performing a magic trick at Rushe Middle is just one of the reasons the district gives for dumping him from the substitute-teacher list. The others are that Piculas did not follow the lesson plans, he allowed students on computers even though another teacher said not to and he told the fifth-period student peer that she was in charge.
Piculas said those other reasons are just window dressing. He said he finished the lesson plan, another teacher knew the students were on the computers and he never put the student peer in charge.
Piculas said he thinks his troubles all come down to the disappearing-toothpick trick and a student who may have interpreted the trick as wizardry.
The trick requires a toothpick and transparent tape. A sleight-of-hand maneuver causes the toothpick to disappear then reappear. At least, so it seems. In reality, the toothpick hides behind the performer's thumb, held in place by the tape.
"The whole thing lasted 45 seconds," Piculas said.
He said the students liked the trick. He showed them how to do it so they could perform it at home.
One student in the Rushe Middle class apparently took the trick the wrong way, Piculas said. He said he was told the student became so traumatized that the student's father complained.
Sinclair wrote Piculas a letter, dated Jan. 28, to say the district would "no longer be using your services." The letter mentioned magic tricks at the end of the list of other classroom offenses he is accused of committing.
The word "wizardry" does not appear in the letter.
"I think she was trying to downplay it because it sounded so goofy," Piculas said.
Piculas had worked as a substitute teacher for eight or nine months, spending time at 15 schools. He said he also was working toward teacher certification with the dream of being hired full time.
That appears unlikely now. Piculas said he applied for a job as a GED instructor but wasn't allowed to interview.
"My whole career is in limbo," he said.

lol

This qualifies for one of the most ridiculous things I have read on these forums in the last month or so.

Nothing surprises me anymore. Not even wizards

what did they think, he is a witch or something?

seems phony. the guy's story i mean. be funny if it was real though

hahaha...this is a truely brilliant story...

WARLOCKS ARE THE ENEMY OF GOD!!!

Just to check, why does everyone believe this guy?

We have two scenarios. Either a school has genuinely 'fired' a teacher for performing a petty piece of conjuring, calling it 'wizardry', OR the school has 'fired' him for being shit and he's made this wizardry thing up as an excuse for himself.

The second strikes me as more likely.

The sad part is that I would be skeptical of either scenario.

Maybe he had a "picture" of something. Hell, I don't know LOL.

Originally posted by Schecter
In a letter the district sent to Piculas, performing a magic trick at Rushe Middle is just one of the reasons the district gives for dumping him from the substitute-teacher list. The others are that Piculas did not follow the lesson plans, he allowed students on computers even though another teacher said not to and he told the fifth-period student peer that she was in charge.

I agree with Ush. They were probably looking for reasons a long-time ago to fire this nutcase. This wizardry thing apparantly fell within the legal boundaries of such a termination act and thus became the means to achieve the end.

Originally posted by Bardock42
WARLOCKS ARE THE ENEMY OF GOD!!!
tru dat

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just to check, why does everyone believe this guy?

We have two scenarios. Either a school has genuinely 'fired' a teacher for performing a petty piece of conjuring, calling it 'wizardry', OR the school has 'fired' him for being shit and he's made this wizardry thing up as an excuse for himself.

The second strikes me as more likely.

dont you find it a bit hypocritical to criticize others for assuming one way and then go on to assume another?

I very much do not find anything I said even slightly hypocritical, no. I did find it an exceptionally valid counterpoint to the general mood of the thread though.

no, i found you point on assumption to be quite valid. in fact i would like the title changed to "Teacher claims to have been fired for performing magic trick".

no thats fine. 2 conflicting stories, 2 motives to lie. the guy may lie to avoid looking like a hack, the school may do so to avoid looking incredibly silly.

however you then go on to assume that the guy is full of shit. well he may be, but how would you know?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I very much do not find anything I said even slightly hypocritical, no. I did find it an exceptionally valid counterpoint to the general mood of the thread though. I agree with you. The sorcerer had it coming.

I didn't actually say that now, did I? I did say it was more likely, which I do not feel is contentious. There also appears to be not one scrap of proof for his suggestions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I didn't actually say that now, did I? I did say it was more likely, which I do not feel is contentious. There also appears to be not one scrap of proof for his suggestions.

I said I agree with you, jee...

My reply was to Schecter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
My reply was to Schecter.

And here I was, feeling special.

I agree with what Schecter said though. Your point is obviously valid, I just wouldn't necessarily say that the second is more likely.

Consdering the second happens all the time (person makes silly excuse for being fired) and the first is an extraordinary circumstance with no backing evidence, I find that point of view odd.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I didn't actually say that now, did I? I did say it was more likely, which I do not feel is contentious.
said likelyhood is a blind assumption

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There also appears to be not one scrap of proof for his suggestions. how could he possibly go about obtaining proof?

Well, he could provide any documentation relating to his dismissal that actually SAYS that is why he was to be no longer used, instead of saying "Oh yeah, they told me it was for wizardry", which is feeble.

The official process which has seen him dismissed... is nothing to do with his claims at all.

To call that a blind assumption, btw, shows a want of reason, to me.

"...and for my next trick watch me disappear from this school kiddies..."

*POOF*

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Consdering the second happens all the time (person makes silly excuse for being fired) and the first is an extraordinary circumstance with no backing evidence, I find that point of view odd.

Well, I agree in so far that they obviously gave many other reasons. That they would even put a magic trick on is incredibly odd though. Also, whether the one woman said that or not I wouldn't regard as more or less likely.

Well, we don't know the context of that. I would not be surprised if the context was he spent his time arsing around showing off tricks when he should have been delivering his lesson.

There's certainly no reason to think that this is some sort of modern superstition at work. It is, frankly, irrational to give his extraordinary and unlikely story equal credence with the other very normal and everyday one.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, he could provide any documentation relating to his dismissal that actually SAYS that is why he was to be no longer used, instead of saying "Oh yeah, they told me it was for wizardry", which is feeble.

why would the school discredit itself by documenting that they fired someone for wizardry?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The official process which has seen him dismissed... is nothing to do with his claims at all.

people are fired all the time while the genuine reasons are not documented.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
To call that a blind assumption, btw, shows a want of reason, to me.

a blind assumption as well. i already argued that both sides have ample reason to lie, and ample means to do it. im trying to avoid accusing you of being deliberately obtuse, so please extend the same courtesy

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, we don't know the context of that. I would not be surprised if the context was he spent his time arsing around showing off tricks when he should have been delivering his lesson.

There's certainly no reason to think that this is some sort of modern superstition at work. It is, frankly, irrational to give his extraordinary and unlikely story equal credence with the other very normal and everyday one.

Again, if it is whether he got fired for fear of witches or for many other things including magic tricks...I agree that it is more likely.

But if it is about whether the woman said something ridiculous like that and whether a father actually complained about his kid being traumatized vs. that not happening I don't see how you could say either is likelier. And to me, it was more the ridiculousness of those statements (in bold) that was what the thread is about than his termination...which might very well have been reasonable.

Your first answer there, Schecter, is getting into conspiracy theory territory- abrogating the basic need to actually have cause to believe something in order to try and defend a point that has not actually found any way to establish itself. He may as well have said that aliens mind controlld the Principal into letting him go.

I'm not inclined to show courtesy to such lack of logic.

Using magic tricks and wizard stuff is the most lamest scape goat ever crafted for getting fired. I'm incline to agree the guy was some A-hole and he had it coming.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, if it is whether he got fired for fear of witches or for many other things including magic tricks...I agree that it is more likely.

But if it is about whether the woman said something ridiculous like that and whether a father actually complained about his kid being traumatized vs. that not happening I don't see how you could say either is likelier. And to me, it was more the ridiculousness of those statements (in bold) that was what the thread is about than his termination...which might very well have been reasonable.

Yet the bit in bold is not an independant fact, merely a rumour the offending (and hence exceptionally biased) teacher has reported. It's not even first hand.

All this comes down to is that he was let go for- officially- being rubbish and he wants to dispute it. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe his excuse- nothing documented backs it, and no official reason given for his dismissal backs it (if, say, he appealed it or complained, the case wouldn;'t revolve around that at all), and yet for some reason many people want to find his claim credible. It's absurd and rather saddening.

He should either back it or shut up. As it is he is just shit stirring. Anyone can make a wild claim llike that when fired.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your first answer there, Schecter, is getting into conspiracy theory territory- abrogating the basic need to actually have cause to believe something in order to try and defend a point that has not actually found any way to establish itself. He may as well have said that aliens mind controlld the Principal into letting him go.

I'm not inclined to show courtesy to such lack of logic.

an accusation of 'wizardry' can easily lead to a lengthy legal battle wore wrongful firing which he would likely win.

many firings are documented ingenuinely to avoid legal battles. a person is caught stealing but no proof is obtained, so that person is fired because of 'poor performance' because they showed up late a couple of times. awoman refuses to give her boss a blowjob., so she is laid off because of 'cutbacks'. (second part was to be funny, but the point is that reason for firing is very touchy and is often ingenuine to avoid legal issues/defamation of character)

Originally posted by Schecter
why would the school discredit itself by documenting that they fired someone for wizardry?
why would they tell him the real reason at all then?

i'd like this story to be true as much as anyone else.. i find it funny.. but it's just too hard to believe they'd willingly risk a lawsuit over some sub pulling a magic trick..

i hear land o lakes is a little backwards. but i'm still gonna have to give the school the benefit of the doubt unless he has any real evidence that he was wronged.

um...when did i say i would like it to be true?

Originally posted by red g jacks
why would they tell him the real reason at all then?

they didnt give it as the reason. they mentioned it as he was fired, so he claims. reasonable to assume that if true, it was one of if not the motivator for firing him considering the timing.


Originally posted by red g jacks
i'd like this story to be true as much as anyone else.. i find it funny.. but it's just too hard to believe they'd willingly risk a lawsuit over some sub pulling a magic trick..

right, so thats why they wouldnt document it in the first place....which they didnt...jeez

Originally posted by red g jacks
i hear land o lakes is a little backwards. but i'm still gonna have to give the school the benefit of the doubt unless he has any real evidence that he was wronged.

unless he had tapped his phone, what evidence could he possibly produce.
its all based on one word versus another.

Oh brother.

Sounds like he was a piss-poor sub...get his ass canned.

"Teacher fired for performing...." I expected to see "oral sex."

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
"Teacher fired for performing...." I expected to see "oral sex."

Originally posted by Schecter
they didnt give it as the reason. they mentioned it as he was fired, so he claims. reasonable to assume that if true, it was one of if not the motivator for firing him considering the timing.




right, so thats why they wouldnt document it in the first place....which they didnt...jeezhad they been trying to cover it up it wouldn't make sense to mention it period, especially in today's age of frivolous lawsuits



exactly.. which is why its basically an unverifiable and baseless claim

I believe him. Schools are so petty and crybabyish these days that I can see them firing someone because of a magic trick.

Hell, I even heard that some teachers get fired for having sex with the children that they teach. So ridiculous.

Originally posted by red g jacks
had they been trying to cover it up it wouldn't make sense to mention it period, especially in today's age of frivolous lawsuits

mentioning something over the phone or in person, even carelessly, holds practically no weight unless recorded or confessed to. what matters is what is on an employees record. now, who wrote the record? the same people who claim otherwise. so there is unquestionable bias on BOTH SIDES.



Originally posted by red g jacks
exactly.. which is why its basically an unverifiable and baseless claim

unverifiable, yes. baseless...how in hell are you able to determine that?

everyone is free to believe what they wish, but to state with certainty that you know who's lying is an act of pure idiocy, on both sides of this argument.

Originally posted by Schecter
mentioning something over the phone or in person, even carelessly, holds practically no weight unless recorded or confessed to. what matters is what is on an employees record. now, who wrote the record? the same people who claim otherwise. so there is unquestionable bias on BOTH SIDES. true.. but why would you take that risk.. its just giving him an excuse to *****

on a side note i do have bias because i've seen so many people that i know personally get fired and never be quite honest about why it is they were fire.. 'oh it's cause the manager doesnt like me..' no ***** you stole a camera





ok my bad. i wasnt trying to say i know anyway just that there isn't really anything to base his claim on besides his word.. which is a base i suppose... but i dunno i figured we were gonna take the whole 'innocent til proven guilty' method. i mean before we accuse the school of something as absurd as a witchtrial.

I would think this teacher has one helluva lawsuit to serve up to the school.

That's just flat out retarded. Not much more to be said on the matter.

I would like to see the piece of paper that actually says "Reason for Termination: Wizardry".

yp_l5ntikaU

Lol.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I would think this teacher has one helluva lawsuit to serve up to the school.
Nothing would come of it, seeing as how it's his word against theirs and vice versa.

The students could testify.

But, the students aren't the ones who fired him.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The students could testify.
What could they say that will change anything?

All they can say is that he showed them a magic trick. Which is already known.

His job did a disappearing act of it's own lol. He must have pissed someone in that school off so much they found an excuse to get rid oh him.

maybe he can start a new career as a kids birthday party performer

Originally posted by Devil King
But, the students aren't the ones who fired him. Well I am sure there are some students that will testify on his behalf, say that they didn't take offense to it, maybe?

Sure. Sure. I have no doubt. It's like the recent story that a teacher was having a student run the computer projector for a film he was going to show and the student started "randomly" clicking on files and ended up "accidentally" playing gay porn in front of the whole class. Well, a few of the kids told their mothers, who created a HUGE stink about it and got the teacher in trouble. The majority of the students, apparently, said they thought it was funny. (The guy was the art teacher, they had likely figured out he was gay already) It was only a few parents that really had an issue with the guy being gay, over the trouble making kid who clicked on the file in the first place, that took such huge offense at the situation. Of course, the teacher was a dumbass for using his personal laptop that had such files on it. But anyone on these forums can understand that it was likely much more convenient to use the hardwear that already had the film on it.

But in the case of the topic, it wasn't the students that apparently needed convincing.

Jeez.....that shit really happened? WTF was the teacher thinking?

I would imagine the teacher was thinking it was easier to use the hardwear that already had the film on it; his own laptop.

Yes, it really happened. The specific details I cannot really address, as I heard about it on a podcast.

Dumbshit should have made sure the files were erased, that or run the projector himself.

knowing what i do, i can't disagree with that. but there is more to consider. like, for example, the trouble-making little shit that went searching for the files.

Maybe he accidentally just came across it?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Maybe he accidentally just came across it?

Now you're just trying to be subversive.

The student saw an opprotunity and went for it, proving himsef and others right about this teacher.

But, maybe the teacher didn't and this gay teacher tried to screw himself over, in a freudian kind of way. I can't explain it. But what I do know is that children who express a sudden exposure to "adult" themes are rarely guilty of making a stink. Should their parent's shared definition of responsability be propogated, when the children shouldn't have a basis on which to build their objection? A blank slate has not the presence on which to base it's objection, unless it has already been exposed to a measure of objection.

And what's left? I see only my experience. And in my experience, my younger family members only object to the issue when based on what they hear, in church. (REad a proclivity of the older members to seek a solution in their church, which itself professes an all-knowing perspective on every issue) But, by condemning homoseuality in church, you expose (or influence) gay kids to homosexuality. Look at homosexuality in regards to the catholic priesthood. People are raised to think their impulses are un-natural. So, the answer to their un-natural impulses is to join a lifestyle that prohibits sexual consideration. Far too many of which end up molesting children and far too many think their choice to join a sexless institute will counter their impulses. And why focus that effort on children? Because the children are the only members of the "flock" who are most susceptible to the authority granted by such a position.

I know that went way tangental, but it does consider human intent; As well as human inabiltiy to counter intent. ..or desire. Make a man bishop of the diocese and feed him for a day. Make a man bishop of the diocese and ignore his very basic and contradictory hman needs and he'll seek them elsewhere. And don't for one second deny that sex isn't a need. Far too many humans deny that need based on some oppressive religious dontrine.

Maybe the kid was a trouble maker, maybe not. I still say it's the teachers fault for having the file there for the kid to see in the first place.

And as far as sex being a need, I agree, but more from a psychological and emotional point of view, not physical.

This reminds me of that episode of The Office where Michael gets reprimanded for using his company credit card to buy an $80 magic kit. He said he bought it to entertain potential clients, so the bottom line was PR. And going off that, I'm sure this guy did the trick to get on the kids' goodside, because kids always pull pranks on the sub.

Originally posted by Devil King
I would like to see the piece of paper that actually says "Reason for Termination: Wizardry".

i think its possible.....but only in kansas or perhaps utah