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.
Originally posted by Ushgarakhow could he possibly go about obtaining proof?
There also appears to be not one scrap of proof for his suggestions.
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.
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.
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 Schecterwhy would they tell him the real reason at all then?
why would the school discredit itself by documenting that they fired someone for wizardry?
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.
Originally posted by Schecterhad they been trying to cover it up it wouldn't make sense to mention it period, especially in today's age of frivolous lawsuits
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...jeez
unless he had tapped his phone, what evidence could he possibly produce.exactly.. which is why its basically an unverifiable and baseless claim
its all based on one word versus another.
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 Schectertrue.. but why would you take that risk.. its just giving him an excuse to *****
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.
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
unverifiable, yes. baseless...how in hell are you able to determine that?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.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.