Put your money where your mouth is

[Guest Guest]

I can't say I blame junior very much. Daddy made him do it.  Daddy convinced

junior he would be a hero in his dark atheist world if he secretly tape recorded

an honorable teacher trying to steer his students down the right path in life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He doesn't live in a dark "atheist" world. He lives in a bright world where people respect each other, think clearly and contribute to their society. You can't see the light because your eyes are closed.

There's nothing honorable about what this teacher did. You can't appreciate how dark it is because you're living in that darkness.

[Guest Guest]

It's just my relief that someday, your judgement will come, and what will you say then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A parable:

In a small village lived a wise man and a smart-aleck boy. The boy was desperate to prove the wise man wrong, but the man always had an answer for him.

Having caught a little bird one day, the boy devised what he thought was an ingenious plan. He would hide the bird in his hands, take it to the old man and say "Old man, I have a bird in my hands. Is it dead or alive?" If the man said the bird was dead, the boy would open his hands and let the living bird go free. If the man said the bird was alive, the boy would crush it, open his hands and prove to everyone that their precious "wise man" was wrong.

Knowing how wise the man was, the boy was sure he would know the bird was alive. "The old man is done," he thought to himself. "No matter what he does, I'll prove him wrong, and what's even better, the old man is going to be responsible for the death of this little bird. Finally, everyone will see his true colors."

Supremely confident, the boy placed the bird in his hands, found the wise man and demanded loudly so everyone could hear, "Old man, I have a bird in my hands. Is it dead or alive?"

Patiently, compassionately, lovingly, the man looked at the boy and said, quietly, "Young man, the bird is in your hands."

[Guest Guest]

I can't say I blame junior very much. Daddy made him do it.  Daddy convinced

junior he would be a hero in his dark atheist world if he secretly tape recorded

an honorable teacher trying to steer his students down the right path in life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know whether either of them is an atheist, but whatever world they're living in, it's much brighter and much more honest than yours. Real Christians don't appreciate the image you're conveying.

[Guest Guest]

That it a terrible statement, and I am not just talking about the spelling error. A patriotic person in America protects the Constitution to the best of his or her responsibility. You do not need a badge to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before you go criticizing a typo you'd better go back and check some of your previous posts. This post also contains, at the very least, a poor choice of words.

I wish I had so much time on my hands to go picking apart everything everyone else does.

[Guest Guest]

I can't say I blame junior very much. Daddy made him do it.  Daddy convinced

junior he would be a hero in his dark atheist world if he secretly tape recorded

an honorable teacher trying to steer his students down the right path in life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's nothing honorable about feeding ignorance to young people and calling it education.

There's nothing honorable about disrespecting other people's religion.

There's nothing honorable about using a position of authority to promote a personal agenda that has nothing to do with his job.

There's nothing honorable about lying when he was caught doing all of that.

There's nothing honorable about trying to get his 16-year-old student in trouble for his own misconduct.

There's nothing honorable about saying nothing while his supporters attacked this 16-year-old in his name.

There's nothing honorable about letting other people slander and attack a student he knew was telling the truth.

[Guest Guest]

I can't say I blame junior very much. Daddy made him do it.  Daddy convinced

junior he would be a hero in his dark atheist world if he secretly tape recorded

an honorable teacher trying to steer his students down the right path in life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't "blame" someone for protecting the Constitution. Whew! I am sure that the souls of our forefathers expelled a sigh of relief that they will be escaping your judgment for their actions.

[Guest Guest]

Every citizen has the right to enforce the Constitution. That is why private cases go to the Supreme Court. If everyone took your approach, rights would never be enforced, and wrongs would be allowed to continue. That is what was happening, and Matthew put a stop to it. He shouldn't have had to do it. The administration should have dealt with it a long time ago, but they didn't, so Matthew did.

I appreciate that you accept the reality of Paszkiewicz's behavior, but think through what you're saying about how a situation like this can, and must, be handled. Our Constitutional system doesn't work unless every one of us is a potential enforcer of the Constitution. Don't blame the one person who did his job. He is the last person you should be criticizing, but because he sticks his neck out and is visible, he is the first. That's not fair to him, and it's not fair to our system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matthew could have protected his rights by openly recording the class. He could have even secretly recorded the class and gone to Mr. Somma and said this is what happened and I have it recorded. Instead he waited for the "gotcha" moment. You'll never admit to this because it wouldn't have provided you with the outcome you desired.

Paszkiewicz's behavior was wrong. However, Matthews actions are not those of an honorable person simply trying to protect their rights and the Constitution. The way Matthew handled the situation is the primary reason for the criticism you and he have received.

[Guest Guest]

Someone was whining on another topic that the media only heard our side of the story in the proselytizing teacher case. To them, that explains why the news coverage was all in our favor. While I appreciate the admission that the coverage was all in our favor, which it was, the explanation simply is not true.

But if you think it is, do something about it instead of whining. A documentary film maker is filming on this story right now, and has been looking for people to speak in support of Paszkiewicz. That's because so few are willing to come forward. Here's your chance. Set the record straight. Strike a blow for justice, mom, apple pie, God and his humble servant. Let me know how the film maker can reach you, and I'll put you in contact with him.

Put your money where your mouth is, or prove yet again that your side has nothing to offer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We can' put our money up because it's gone to pay taxes.

[Guest Paul]

Matthew could have protected his rights by openly recording the class.  He could have even secretly recorded the class and gone to Mr. Somma and said this is what happened and I have it recorded.  Instead he waited for the "gotcha" moment.  You'll never admit to this because it wouldn't have provided you with the outcome you desired.

Paszkiewicz's behavior was wrong.  However, Matthews actions are not those of an honorable person simply trying to protect their rights and the Constitution.  The way Matthew handled the situation is the primary reason for the criticism you and he have received.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Matthew had been interested only in his personal rights, he could have protected those by asking the teacher to stop, then if the teacher didn't stop, record him. Or he could have told me and I would have spoken to the teacher, or the department head. That's not the point. None of those actions would have been as effective in stopping the behavior long term as what Matthew actually did. When a teacher is this far out of line, the administration and the community are entitled to know. Matthew wanted the conduct stopped, not just in his class but permanently. In considering the best interests of all concerned, he demonstrated exemplary citizenship, for which he has been and is being commended.

Have we so lost our sense of citizenship, fallen so low in our willingness to put ourselves on the line for the common good that a person like Matthew has his motives not merely questioned but falsely assumed? The most troubling part of this story is that people criticize Matthew because they cannot fathom anyone standing up for what is right; like you, they assume he was only interested in his personal rights. Nearly fifty years ago a young president challenged a nation to "ask not what your country can do for you (but) what you can do for your country." Has our sense of giving something of ourselves for the common good fallen so far off our list of important American values that we can no longer even imagine someone doing something for the good of all, not just for his own personal well-being? Why aren't you asking the question: "What was best for everyone," instead of assuming it was just about what was best for Matthew? If you would be so kind as to think about it, I'd appreciate a response because while I disagree with you, you don't seem like a kook.

As to your other points: Matthew needed the recordings in case he wasn't believed. He couldn't have made them after the fact. He had to choose while the misconduct was going on, before he outed it.

Openly recording the class would not have put a lid on the teacher, except in that class while Matthew was in it. The conduct would have continued in all P's other classes. Besides, if you're admitting that the mere sight of a recording device would have changed the teacher's behavior, what does that say?

Matthew had no means to manufacture a "gotcha" moment. Matthew's responsibility was to give Paszkiewicz a fair opportunity to do what was right. That is what he did, and Paszkiewicz failed. There would have been no "gotcha" moment had Paszkiewicz been truthful. Matthew offered the man a chance to come clean, and he failed, putting Matthew in a position of having to defend himself, because the way Somma and Wood would have seen it, a student had falsely accused a teacher. From the beginning, Matthew preferred not to make the recordings public at all, not even to Somma or Paszkiewicz. An adult was offered a more than fair opportunity to make it happen that way. When that adult failed to state the facts accurately (I'm being diplomatic here), Matthew produced the recordings. He did exactly what an honorable person would do. He protected himself. He offered the wrongdoer a chance to do the right thing. He made the recordings public only when that party failed. Even then, the recordings were not given to the press for over a month, at which time they went to the news media because the administration and the Board also failed to take appropriate action.

At every step in the process, Matthew offered people in responsible positions the chance to do what was right. The recordings went public only after they failed. Those are the facts. He has no regrets, and I have only praise and admiration for him.

So you can guess at Matthew's motives, but you have no evidence that they were anything but what he says they were. His every action was consistent with what he has said. I can't stop you, of course, from guessing at my son's motives. However, as one who lives with him I know that you're incorrect, and I also know that you have no evidence to support your argument. There isn't any.

Seriously, why do people assume that Matthew did this for himself? Why isn't it possible for someone to do what he did because he cares about the Constitution and the quality of education? When you completely and totally discount that possibility, aren't you saying more about yourself than about Matthew?

This could be a great discussion. I'll look for your response. If you post one, please let me know you're the same person.

[Guest Guest]

Matthew could have protected his rights by openly recording the class.  He could have even secretly recorded the class and gone to Mr. Somma and said this is what happened and I have it recorded.  Instead he waited for the "gotcha" moment.  You'll never admit to this because it wouldn't have provided you with the outcome you desired.

Paszkiewicz's behavior was wrong.  However, Matthews actions are not those of an honorable person simply trying to protect their rights and the Constitution.  The way Matthew handled the situation is the primary reason for the criticism you and he have received.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem with this argument is that none of Matthew's critics analyzes the whole picture. Anyone can pick at just about any action by looking at just one thing, but if we look at the whole picture and think about the real choices that person faced, it's not so easy.

Tell us how Matthew could have stopped the behavior long-term, protected himself from being made out the bad guy and called attention to what even the Kearny BoE has acknowledged was a serious matter without recording the classes. Then you'll have grounds to criticize, but until then I don't think you do.

[Strife767]

Matthew could have protected his rights by openly recording the class.  He could have even secretly recorded the class and gone to Mr. Somma and said this is what happened and I have it recorded.  Instead he waited for the "gotcha" moment.

The fact that Paskiewicz disgraced himself by lying his ass off in that meeting is no one's doing but his own. Matthew was probably curious (as I would have been as well) to learn if Paszkiewicz truly thought that there was nothing wrong with the stuff he said in class. If, as Paszkiewicz himself claimed, he felt he had done nothing wrong, why then did he blatantly lie about the things he said in class? In fact, I bet that if Paszkiewicz had been honest about the stuff he did, those CDs never would have left his backpack. After all, they were a precaution. Unfortunately, it was one that Paszkiewicz proved needed to be taken.

You'll never admit to this because it wouldn't have provided you with the outcome you desired.

Assuming that the actual outcome was "the outcome [he] desired," I must say that, the outcome probably would have been similar, if not exactly the same. Paszkiewicz just would have harmed his reputation slightly less. But is it Matthew's fault that when given the opportunity, Paszkiewicz would rather try to lie and deny his way out the situation? I think not.

Paszkiewicz's behavior was wrong.  However, Matthews actions are not those of an honorable person simply trying to protect their rights and the Constitution.  The way Matthew handled the situation is the primary reason for the criticism you and he have received.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the contrary--the consistent (and in most cases, obviously deliberate) misinterpretation of Matthew's actions, the aribtrary assignment of motives, etc. are the primary source of his criticism.

Your last statement is absolutely false--I personally saw the horde Paszkiewicz had following him around and supporting him, and the vast majority of those people's criticism lied in outright fallacies that had nothing to do with "the way Matthew handled the situation." Their criticisms rested on baseless and completely invented accusations like 'he's promoting an atheist agenda' or 'he's trying to destroy Mr. P.'s career' or 'he's attacking Christianity.' That was/is the "primary reason" Matthew has gotten any criticism at all--hyper-sensitive Christians with persecution complexes overreacted (to say the least) in a knee-jerk manner and completely missed the reality of the situation.

[Guest Paul]

The problem with this argument is that none of Matthew's critics analyzes the whole picture. Anyone can pick at just about any action by looking at just one thing, but if we look at the whole picture and think about the real choices that person faced, it's not so easy.

Tell us how Matthew could have stopped the behavior long-term, protected himself from being made out the bad guy and called attention to what even the Kearny BoE has acknowledged was a serious matter without recording the classes. Then you'll have grounds to criticize, but until then I don't think you do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I spoke to Vic Losick today to give him some information he had requested. Has any of you contacted him? He didn't mention it.

[Guest Guest]

The fact that Paskiewicz disgraced himself by lying his ass off in that meeting is no one's doing but his own. Matthew was probably curious (as I would have been as well) to learn if Paszkiewicz truly thought that there was nothing wrong with the stuff he said in class. If, as Paszkiewicz himself claimed, he felt he had done nothing wrong, why then did he blatantly lie about the things he said in class? In fact, I bet that if Paszkiewicz had been honest about the stuff he did, those CDs never would have left his backpack. After all, they were a precaution. Unfortunately, it was one that Paszkiewicz proved needed to be taken.

Assuming that the actual outcome was "the outcome [he] desired," I must say that, the outcome probably would have been similar, if not exactly the same. Paszkiewicz just would have harmed his reputation slightly less. But is it Matthew's fault that when given the opportunity, Paszkiewicz would rather try to lie and deny his way out the situation? I think not.

On the contrary--the consistent (and in most cases, obviously deliberate) misinterpretation of Matthew's actions, the aribtrary assignment of motives, etc. are the primary source of his criticism.

Your last statement is absolutely false--I personally saw the horde Paszkiewicz had following him around and supporting him, and the vast majority of those people's criticism lied in outright fallacies that had nothing to do with "the way Matthew handled the situation." Their criticisms rested on baseless and completely invented accusations like 'he's promoting an atheist agenda' or 'he's trying to destroy Mr. P.'s career' or 'he's attacking Christianity.' That was/is the "primary reason" Matthew has gotten any criticism at all--hyper-sensitive Christians with persecution complexes overreacted (to say the least) in a knee-jerk manner and completely missed the reality of the situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your not really a janitor are you?

[Guest Guest]

The fact that Paskiewicz disgraced himself by lying his ass off in that meeting is no one's doing but his own. Matthew was probably curious (as I would have been as well) to learn if Paszkiewicz truly thought that there was nothing wrong with the stuff he said in class. If, as Paszkiewicz himself claimed, he felt he had done nothing wrong, why then did he blatantly lie about the things he said in class? In fact, I bet that if Paszkiewicz had been honest about the stuff he did, those CDs never would have left his backpack. After all, they were a precaution. Unfortunately, it was one that Paszkiewicz proved needed to be taken.

Assuming that the actual outcome was "the outcome [he] desired," I must say that, the outcome probably would have been similar, if not exactly the same. Paszkiewicz just would have harmed his reputation slightly less. But is it Matthew's fault that when given the opportunity, Paszkiewicz would rather try to lie and deny his way out the situation? I think not.

On the contrary--the consistent (and in most cases, obviously deliberate) misinterpretation of Matthew's actions, the aribtrary assignment of motives, etc. are the primary source of his criticism.

Your last statement is absolutely false--I personally saw the horde Paszkiewicz had following him around and supporting him, and the vast majority of those people's criticism lied in outright fallacies that had nothing to do with "the way Matthew handled the situation." Their criticisms rested on baseless and completely invented accusations like 'he's promoting an atheist agenda' or 'he's trying to destroy Mr. P.'s career' or 'he's attacking Christianity.' That was/is the "primary reason" Matthew has gotten any criticism at all--hyper-sensitive Christians with persecution complexes overreacted (to say the least) in a knee-jerk manner and completely missed the reality of the situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Until this even happened you have no idea what probably Matthew thought the probability would have been unless you were Matthew yourself.

And to say that Mr Paskiewicz had "hordes" of people following him might be some indication that maybe what that boy LaClair did was incorrect and what Mr. Paskiewicz was doing was not improper. You keep getting it WRONG. Listen to the tapes you young fool since you recorded them. It has been at least a year and still you are trying to fool the people of this town with your tripe. People in this town know what happened and they do not need a one sided movie to prove otherwise.

[Matthew LaClair]

Before you go criticizing a typo you'd better go back and check some of your previous posts.  This post also contains, at the very least, a poor choice of words.

I wish I had so much time on my hands to go picking apart everything everyone else does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I made clear in my last post, the spelling error was not my main issue. Also, I was not aware that I made any spelling errors in my previous posts. If you can point them out to me, I would be grateful.

I also did not know it took a long time for people to differentiate between the letter "c" and the letter "n". There is one thing I find hypocritical about your post. You said that I should go back to my other posts to check for spelling errors. If I did have any errors in my previous posts as you implied, would it not show that you are using much of your time "to go picking apart everything everyone else does?" Or perhaps you did not look at my previous posts at all, and you are making claims based on nothing but the fact that you want them to be true.

[Guest Guest]

Before you go criticizing a typo you'd better go back and check some of your previous posts.  This post also contains, at the very least, a poor choice of words.

I wish I had so much time on my hands to go picking apart everything everyone else does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently you do.

[WilliamK]

I spoke to Vic Losick today to give him some information he had requested. Has any of you contacted him? He didn't mention it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps they're afraid that he might tell the plain, unembellished truth about them.

[WilliamK]

Your not really a janitor are you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. That's just his cover. This is his real occupation:

http://www.pureimagination.co.uk/captainca...hooey/index.htm

[Guest Guest]

As I made clear in my last post, the spelling error was not my main issue. Also, I was not aware that I made any spelling errors in my previous posts. If you can point them out to me, I would be grateful.

I also did not know it took a long time for people to differentiate between the letter "c" and the letter "n". There is one thing I find hypocritical about your post. You said that I should go back to my other posts to check for spelling errors. If I did have any errors in my previous posts as you implied, would it not show that you are using much of your time "to go picking apart everything everyone else does?" Or perhaps you did not look at my previous posts at all, and you are making claims based on nothing but the fact that you want them to be true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look genius, we're talking about you looking for issues to pick on all the time not just these posts. Like the custodian you didn't like too much.

[Guest Paul]

Look genius, we're talking about you looking for issues to pick on all the time not just these posts.  Like the custodian you didn't like too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean the one who took it upon himself to start yelling at the kid in an open hallway during the middle of the day because he didn't like Matthew's political views? I didn't know that's what the custodians were being paid to do.

Would that custodian be you, by any chance?

[oldfart56]

Perhaps they're afraid that he might tell the plain, unembellished truth about them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1st how do i get in tuch with this guy? but I WILL TALK WITH HIM!!!and un like you and your son i will tell the truth!!!!!

[Guest Paul]

1st how do i get in tuch with this guy? but I WILL TALK WITH HIM!!!and un like you and your son i will tell the truth!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Send him an e-mail at Vic@Losick.com

If for any reason he doesn't respond, let me know.

[Guest Guest]

You mean the one who took it upon himself to start yelling at the kid in an open hallway during the middle of the day because he didn't like Matthew's political views? I didn't know that's what the custodians were being paid to do.

Would that custodian be you, by any chance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean the custodian doesn't have freedom of speech?

[Strife767]

Until this even happened you have no idea what probably Matthew thought the probability would have been unless you were Matthew yourself.

Or unless Matthew stated it himself in the past? Or unless I said "probably" because it was an educated guess?

And to say that Mr Paskiewicz had "hordes" of people following him might be some indication that maybe what that boy LaClair did was incorrect and what Mr. Paskiewicz was doing was not improper.

Nope, fallacious appeal to the majority. Though the fact that you'd even try to argue that "lots of people think X so X must be right" says a lot about your tendencies.

You keep getting it WRONG.

Repeat it until you die and it won't be any truer.

Listen to the tapes you young fool since you recorded them.  It has been at least a year and still you are trying to fool the people of this town with your tripe.  People in this town know what happened and they do not need a one sided movie to prove otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't make me laugh--most people in this town weren't even capable of differentiating Matthew's actions from an outright attack on Christianity.

[Strife767]

Your not really a janitor are you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never stated what my job title is on this forum.

That ought to give you the information I think you were looking for.