Jump to content

Answers on Kearny HS teacher controversy


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Don't Jews, Muslims, and quite a few others believe that?

And isn't it a classic philosophical problem apart from that?

Bryan was referring to the statement that a being must have created the universe. Many people do believe it, but many don't. Our Constitution prohibits a public school teacher from taking a position in class. The fact that it is also a philosophical issue doesn't remove it from the establishment clause, as it is also part of a theology, several theologies if you like --- doesn't matter, it's still a theological argument not uniformly believed, and is therefore prohibited.

That is not something that Paszkiewicz presented as a dogma to be accepted by the class . . .

Yes it was. People who wish to hear the recordings can make up their own minds, as have all the journalists, educators, scientists and others who have commented on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 390
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bryan was referring to the statement that a being must have created the universe. Many people do believe it, but many don't.

In the greater context, I was referring to Paul's claim that Paszkiewicz was specifically promoting the religion of Christianity.

This instance does not support Paul's claim, since the point is too broad. Even Paul now seems to admit that many non-Christians believe that an intelligence created the universe.

Our Constitution prohibits a public school teacher from taking a position in class.

No, it doesn't.

Courts might do that sometimes, OTOH.

The fact that it is also a philosophical issue doesn't remove it from the establishment clause, as it is also part of a theology, several theologies if you like --- doesn't matter, it's still a theological argument not uniformly believed, and is therefore prohibited.

Scarcely anything is "uniformly believed" and religious views are not necessarily theological, are they?

Applying your view across the board as stated, Paul, leads to absurd outcomes. Can you provide a better expression of the principle you're recommending?

Yes it was. People who wish to hear the recordings can make up their own minds, as have all the journalists, educators, scientists and others who have commented on this.

All of the scientists who have commented on this have listened to the recordings?

:angry:

I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story containing that quotation appears at the Lippard blog, but without (AFAICT) referring to the original source, and without revealing the source of the quotation--not exactly standard journalistic practice.

You know the original source for that one, Paul?  Anybody?

He can't answer this question or show the recording (if there is any)because this will prove that Matthew lied. YOU TWO ARE LIARS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it was. People who wish to hear the recordings can make up their own minds, as have all the journalists, educators, scientists and others who have commented on this.

But then, until people have heard all of the information from both sides and all of the recordings, along with a full explanation as to why Matthew was sent to a meeting as important to you as this one supposedly was armed only with a recorder instead of a parent, they really can't make a fully informed decision now, can they? That recording didn't make its way to the media. Why is that? It's valid information necessary to make an intelligent, thoughtful decision. It would shed a more complete light on the background of the situation. Leaving part of the information out of a story.....to me that doesn't seem quite fair to the people who are supporting you in good faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comment: "The fact that it is also a philosophical issue doesn't remove it from the establishment clause, as it is also part of a theology, several theologies if you like --- doesn't matter, it's still a theological argument not uniformly believed, and is therefore prohibited."

Bryan's response: Scarcely anything is "uniformly believed" and religious views are not necessarily theological, are they?

Applying your view across the board as stated, Paul, leads to absurd outcomes.  Can you provide a better expression of the principle you're recommending?

There's no need for me to do that. Non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Humanism, of which Ethical Culture is a part, are widespread. We're not just talking about one or two people with idiosyncratic beliefs. (Which is not to say we could necessarily ignore them either.)

So the question to ask in this context is not whether all religions are theistic, which they are not, but wheter all theologies are religious in the Constitutional sense, which they are. I don't see an absurd outcome from the argument, Bryan. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can't answer this question or show the recording (if there is any)because this will prove that Matthew lied. YOU TWO ARE LIARS!

Great argument... and so well supported, too!

I especially like how you ignored the recordings which are available online for all to hear, in order to pretend that they don't exist. You truly embody the religious-fundamentalist mindset, wishing reality away like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Great argument... and so well supported, too!

I especially like how you ignored the recordings which are available online for all to hear, in order to pretend that they don't exist. You truly embody the religious-fundamentalist mindset, wishing reality away like that.

"wishing reality away". Sort of like the Darwiniacs with their "evolution" of the eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no need for me to do that.

Your present response re-illustrates the need.

Non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Humanism, of which Ethical Culture is a part, are widespread. We're not just talking about one or two people with idiosyncratic beliefs. (Which is not to say we could necessarily ignore them either.)

On the one hand, you excuse the problem based on the rationale that "[w]e're not just talking about one or two people with idiosyncratic beliefs," while in the next (parenthetical) breath you claim that we can't ignore two people with idiosyncratic beliefs.

Either we can ignore two people with idiosyncratic beliefs, or your explanation (as given) doesn't wash.

So the question to ask in this context is not whether all religions are theistic, which they are not, but whet[h]er all theologies are religious in the Constitutional sense, which they are. I don't see an absurd outcome from the argument, Bryan. Perhaps you can elaborate.

You have to have your position on the table for me to illustrate the problem, without risking a straw man, at least.

You're on the fence. Climb down, and I will proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then, until people have heard all of the information from both sides and all of the recordings, along with a full explanation as to why Matthew was sent to a meeting as important to you as this one supposedly was armed only with a recorder instead of a parent, they really can't make a fully informed decision now, can they?  That recording didn't make its way to the media.

Yes they did.

http://www.davidkowalski.com/teachpreach.mp3

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2006/...recordings.html

Partial (the last one might be complete, I'm not 100% sure) Transcripts

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/11/...m_right_now.php

http://rationalrant.blogspot.com/2006/11/t...ew-laclair.html

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258518.htm

http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for sending the links to the recordings and transcripts that were published. It took a few minutes and I appreciate your effort.

But it doesn't answer to the issue of all the recordings, and I'm afraid that unless you are Paul, you are not in a position to be able to answer. If I missed it, I apologize and ask that you please point out where the recording made of the meeting is in your list. If I didn't, the question remains valid and unanswered:

QUOTE(Paul @ Jan 2 2007, 08:13 AM)

Yes it was. People who wish to hear the recordings can make up their own minds, as have all the journalists, educators, scientists and others who have commented on this.

QUOTE(Guest @ Jan 3 2007, 02:58 AM)

But then, until people have heard all of the information from both sides and all of the recordings, along with a full explanation as to why Matthew was sent to a meeting as important to you as this one supposedly was armed only with a recorder instead of a parent, they really can't make a fully informed decision now, can they? That recording didn't make its way to the media. Why is that? It's valid information necessary to make an intelligent, thoughtful decision. It would shed a more complete light on the background of the situation. Leaving part of the information out of a story.....to me that doesn't seem quite fair to the people who are supporting you in good faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NY Transfer News

We were appalled by this teacher's ignorant and unconstitutuional behavior when we read the original New York Times story Dec 18, and found Matthew's actions admirable. We were glad to see an editorial follow-up in the Dec 31 NY Times

NY Times Editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/opinion/.../NJteacher.html

And very happy to see Nat Hentoff take up the issue in his Jan 1 Village Voice column:

Hentoff column:

http://villagevoice.com/generic/show_print...toff&issue=0701

We sent all of these on to the Freedom from Religion Foundation a group in Wisconsin that is dedicated to separation of church and state and defending the First Amendment. We also suggested that Matthew is an ideal nominee for their annual Student Activist Award.

This group also participates in litigation by filing amicus briefs, bringing suit itself, etc.

If you decide legal action is needed, I hope you will find they are interested in helping out. Their website is at http://www.ffrf.org

Good for you, Matthew. Let's hope you helped to educate a whole lot of Jerseyites about what the Bill of Rights is all about, especially the 1st Amendment.. Some teachers need to go back to school for basic civics lessons.

NY Transfer News Collective

Since 1985 - All the News that Doesn't Fit

http://www.blythe.org

mailing list: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for sending the links to the recordings and transcripts that were published.  It took a few minutes and I appreciate your effort. 

But it doesn't answer to the issue of all the recordings, and I'm afraid that unless you are Paul, you are not in a position to be able to answer.  If I missed it, I apologize and ask that you please point out where the recording made of the meeting is in your list.  If I didn't, the question remains valid and unanswered:

QUOTE(Paul @ Jan 2 2007, 08:13 AM)

Yes it was. People who wish to hear the recordings can make up their own minds, as have all the journalists, educators, scientists and others who have commented on this.

QUOTE(Guest @ Jan 3 2007, 02:58 AM)

But then, until people have heard all of the information from both sides and all of the recordings, along with a full explanation as to why Matthew was sent to a meeting as important to you as this one supposedly was armed only with a recorder instead of a parent, they really can't make a fully informed decision now, can they? That recording didn't make its way to the media. Why is that? It's valid information necessary to make an intelligent, thoughtful decision. It would shed a more complete light on the background of the situation. Leaving part of the information out of a story.....to me that doesn't seem quite fair to the people who are supporting you in good faith.

With all due respect, you don't need more than the three days of recordings from 9/13-15 to make an informed decision about how far over the edge Paszkiewicz's proselytizing was. Your argument is like saying that when you videotape a crime the information isn't complete unless you also have a video of the perpetrator throughout the entire day. Those three days of recordings have been made available to media and others, and at least 9/13 and 9/14 have been put online. I'm not sure about 9/15. The media include NBC, ABC, Fox, The New York Times, Kearny Observer, Jersey Journal, CNN and others.

Also with all due respect, when you're not inside a situation, you're not in a position to judge why things are done the way they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, you don't need more than the three days of recordings from 9/13-15 to make an informed decision about how far over the edge Paszkiewicz's proselytizing was.

Huh. I'm very one-sided.

Your argument is like saying that when you videotape a crime the information isn't complete unless you also have a video of the perpetrator throughout the entire day.

Not at all. You've been asked about a particular quotation, one that you've been using as part of your argument against Paszkiewicz. That's the quotation from the office meeting, where Matthew was present with school officials and Mr. Paskiewicz. We have a written account that appears at Jim Lippard's blog, but without attribution as to the author, and without attribution as to the source providing the quotation of Paszkiewicz.

That quotation is not likely to appear on any of the classroom transcripts, so no amount of listening is going to address that issue.

Simply tell us, Paul, if you know who wrote that piece on the Lippard blog, and whether Matthew is the sole source relating that quotation of Paszkiewicz.

That should be simple enough, regardless of any profusion of recorded classroom sessions

Also with all due respect, when you're not inside a situation, you're not in a position to judge why things are done the way they are.

Hence the pesky questions directed at one who was largely on the inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com

For Mr LaClair. I have a question from your comment made on this blog on Nov26, 2006 at 02:23 p.m. In his own words he says “We have nothing to gain from this but a lot of aggravation.” I want to make sure I have this correct so I copied and pasted the exact words from your post. If you have nothing to gain then why would your wife even have to bring up the fact that you do not wish to sue? With you being a lawyer I know she was probably rehearsed and made sure to say that it was referred to as you being righteous and would not sue. Hoping that is the case. By now everyone knows your case, even nationwide so you have gained plenty. Matthew has been interviewed by several known TV shows. If you were a “good lawyer” you would have resolved this issue by now and stop the smearing of the Town of Kearny and all the people in Kearny as well. For your own gain you have prostituted your son and your quest long enough. Not even sure if this wasn’t your idea in the first place. It is time for you to move on.

You have gained plenty now enough already.

Also checked on one word you used and one that I did, so we have the definitions correct:

pros•e•ly•tize (prŏs'ə-lĭ-tīz')

To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

pros•ti•tute (prŏs'tĭ-tōōt', -tyōōt')

A person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Mr LaClair.  I have a question from your comment made on this blog on Nov26, 2006 at 02:23 p.m.  In his own words he says “We have nothing to gain from this but a lot of aggravation.”  I want to make sure I have this correct so I copied and pasted the exact words from your post.  If you have nothing to gain then why would your wife even have to bring up the fact that you do not wish to sue?  With you being a lawyer I know she was probably rehearsed and made sure to say that it was referred to as you being righteous and would not sue.  Hoping that is the case.  By now everyone knows your case, even nationwide so you have gained plenty. Matthew has been interviewed by several known TV shows.  If you were a “good lawyer” you would have resolved this issue by now and stop the smearing of the Town of Kearny and all the people in Kearny as well.  For your own gain you have prostituted your son and your quest long enough. Not even sure if this wasn’t your idea in the first place. It is time for you to move on.

You have gained plenty now enough already. 

Also checked on one word you used and one that I did, so we have the definitions correct:

pros•e•ly•tize   (prŏs'ə-lĭ-tīz')

   To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

pros•ti•tute   (prŏs'tĭ-tōōt', -tyōōt')

   A person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way,  usually for money.

Please note that the above post was allowed per KOTW's policy to err on the side of allowing individuals to express their opinion without editing from KOTW.

It is also KOTW's policy not to get involved in the discussions. KOTW's opinions are expressed on our Main Page. In fairness to Mr. Paul LaClair, KOTW must state that it is clear that Mr. LaClair has not "prostituted" his son. On the contrary, Mr. LaClair has shown great restraint in the face of some harsh criticism on this discussion board. Why allow the post to go through? Because I believe stongly in our democracy and the importance of freedom of speech. It is my belief that the continued attacks on the LaClairs on KOTW formed in part the basis of the New York Times article. The LaClairs deserve praise not ridicule.

So much for KOTW's policy on not getting involved in discussions. I just simply could not allow the post to go without a comment. The word "prostitute" is simply too strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Mr LaClair.  I have a question from your comment made on this blog on Nov26, 2006 at 02:23 p.m.  In his own words he says “We have nothing to gain from this but a lot of aggravation.”  I want to make sure I have this correct so I copied and pasted the exact words from your post.  If you have nothing to gain then why would your wife even have to bring up the fact that you do not wish to sue?  With you being a lawyer I know she was probably rehearsed and made sure to say that it was referred to as you being righteous and would not sue.  Hoping that is the case.  By now everyone knows your case, even nationwide so you have gained plenty. Matthew has been interviewed by several known TV shows.  If you were a “good lawyer” you would have resolved this issue by now and stop the smearing of the Town of Kearny and all the people in Kearny as well.  For your own gain you have prostituted your son and your quest long enough. Not even sure if this wasn’t your idea in the first place. It is time for you to move on.

You have gained plenty now enough already. 

Also checked on one word you used and one that I did, so we have the definitions correct:

pros•e•ly•tize  (prŏs'ə-lĭ-tīz')

  To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

pros•ti•tute  (prŏs'tĭ-tōōt', -tyōōt')

  A person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way,  usually for money.

What a jerk. Since you looked up the definition of prostitution you are well aware that the definition you listed is not the number 1 definition of the word. Here's the full definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prostitute

pros·ti·tute /ˈprɒstɪˌtut, -ˌtyut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pros-ti-toot, -tyoot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tut·ed, -tut·ing.

–noun

1. a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.

2. a man who engages in sexual acts for money.

3. a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.

–verb (used with object)

4. to sell or offer (oneself) as a prostitute.

5. to put to any base or unworthy use: to prostitute one's talents.

Of course you realize that the first two definitions are the commonly used ones and do not apply to this situation in any way. You were simply being a jerk and using the word as a way to debase the LaClairs as much as possible.

What Mr. P did was against the law. What Matthew did was stand up for his constitutional right to a government that is neutral on religion. Matthew is a true patriot in every sense of the word.

Those who do not like separation of church and state would perhaps find themselves more comfortable living in a theocracy which shares their view. You will find many such countries in the middle east that are exactly in line with your attitudes and beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, you don't need more than the three days of recordings from 9/13-15 to make an informed decision about how far over the edge Paszkiewicz's proselytizing was. Your argument is like saying that when you videotape a crime the information isn't complete unless you also have a video of the perpetrator throughout the entire day. Those three days of recordings have been made available to media and others, and at least 9/13 and 9/14 have been put online. I'm not sure about 9/15. The media include NBC, ABC, Fox, The New York Times, Kearny Observer, Jersey Journal, CNN and others.

Also with all due respect, when you're not inside a situation, you're not in a position to judge why things are done the way they are.

With all due respect back at you, the reverse is true. When you're inside a situation, sometimes you are the least qualified to judge your own situation, either actions or motives. Look at these boards for confirmation of that--everyone thinks they're right.

As long as you are comfortable with quoting (apparently) verbatim parts of what was said in the recorded meeting with the principal and Matthew, then it became a factor that's integrated into the situation; not separate from it. As such without releasing all of the recordings, it looks like you're selectively slipping bits out that benefit your own position alone. It doesn't give any impartial person an opportunity to view the situation as a whole (yes, including the whys involved), and it hinders their ability to make a reasoned, thoughtful decision based on all the facts. It also makes one wonder what else is being left out.

Your analogy makes no sense. I don't care what the perpetrator's day was like. But if he stole the gun from the local shop and then went and shot his ex-wife, the two crimes would certainly be connected. The recordings in the classroom and of the meeting follow the same line--you posted the first and quoted from the second, no? That makes for a connection, and my question is still valid and still unanswered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect back at you, the reverse is true.  When you're inside a situation, sometimes you are the least qualified to judge your own situation, either actions or motives.  Look at these boards for confirmation of that--everyone thinks they're right.

As long as you are comfortable with quoting (apparently) verbatim parts of what was said in the recorded meeting with the principal and Matthew, then it became a factor that's integrated into the situation; not separate from it.  As such without releasing all of the recordings, it looks like you're selectively slipping bits out that benefit your own position alone.  It doesn't give any impartial person an opportunity to view the situation as a whole (yes, including the whys involved), and it hinders their ability to make a reasoned, thoughtful decision based on all the facts.  It also makes one wonder what else is being left out.

Your analogy makes no sense.  I don't care what the perpetrator's day was like.  But if he stole the gun from the local shop and then went and shot his ex-wife, the two crimes would certainly be connected.  The recordings in the classroom and of the meeting follow the same line--you posted the first and quoted from the second, no?  That makes for a connection, and my question is still valid and still unanswered.

No way. There is ample audio evidence that Mr. P preached to his students. The tapes don't lie, and nothing can change the facts of what he did, though he could make it right by apologizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect back at you, the reverse is true.  When you're inside a situation, sometimes you are the least qualified to judge your own situation, either actions or motives.  Look at these boards for confirmation of that--everyone thinks they're right.

As long as you are comfortable with quoting (apparently) verbatim parts of what was said in the recorded meeting with the principal and Matthew, then it became a factor that's integrated into the situation; not separate from it.  As such without releasing all of the recordings, it looks like you're selectively slipping bits out that benefit your own position alone.  It doesn't give any impartial person an opportunity to view the situation as a whole (yes, including the whys involved), and it hinders their ability to make a reasoned, thoughtful decision based on all the facts.  It also makes one wonder what else is being left out.

Your analogy makes no sense.  I don't care what the perpetrator's day was like.  But if he stole the gun from the local shop and then went and shot his ex-wife, the two crimes would certainly be connected.  The recordings in the classroom and of the meeting follow the same line--you posted the first and quoted from the second, no?  That makes for a connection, and my question is still valid and still unanswered.

Great points! Plus the LaClairs keep saying Paszkiewicz lied. If he lied I'm sure those tapes would have been released months ago. Its apparent to me the a good man is being slandered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh.  I'm very one-sided.

Not at all.  You've been asked about a particular quotation, one that you've been using as part of your argument against Paszkiewicz.  That's the quotation from the office meeting, where Matthew was present with school officials and Mr. Paskiewicz.  We have a written account that appears at Jim Lippard's blog, but without attribution as to the author, and without attribution as to the source providing the quotation of Paszkiewicz.

That quotation is not likely to appear on any of the classroom transcripts, so no amount of listening is going to address that issue.

Simply tell us, Paul, if you know who wrote that piece on the Lippard blog, and whether Matthew is the sole source relating that quotation of Paszkiewicz.

That should be simple enough, regardless of any profusion of recorded classroom sessions

Hence the pesky questions directed at one who was largely on the inside.

Understood and appreciated, Bryan. I'm not willing to provide more information publicly right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect back at you, the reverse is true.  When you're inside a situation, sometimes you are the least qualified to judge your own situation, either actions or motives.  Look at these boards for confirmation of that--everyone thinks they're right.

As long as you are comfortable with quoting (apparently) verbatim parts of what was said in the recorded meeting with the principal and Matthew, then it became a factor that's integrated into the situation; not separate from it.  As such without releasing all of the recordings, it looks like you're selectively slipping bits out that benefit your own position alone.  It doesn't give any impartial person an opportunity to view the situation as a whole (yes, including the whys involved), and it hinders their ability to make a reasoned, thoughtful decision based on all the facts.  It also makes one wonder what else is being left out.

Your analogy makes no sense.  I don't care what the perpetrator's day was like.  But if he stole the gun from the local shop and then went and shot his ex-wife, the two crimes would certainly be connected.  The recordings in the classroom and of the meeting follow the same line--you posted the first and quoted from the second, no?  That makes for a connection, and my question is still valid and still unanswered.

Then withhold judgment. If more people would have done that, this situation would not have grown ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect back at you, the reverse is true.  When you're inside a situation, sometimes you are the least qualified to judge your own situation, either actions or motives.  Look at these boards for confirmation of that--everyone thinks they're right.

As long as you are comfortable with quoting (apparently) verbatim parts of what was said in the recorded meeting with the principal and Matthew, then it became a factor that's integrated into the situation; not separate from it.  As such without releasing all of the recordings, it looks like you're selectively slipping bits out that benefit your own position alone.  It doesn't give any impartial person an opportunity to view the situation as a whole (yes, including the whys involved), and it hinders their ability to make a reasoned, thoughtful decision based on all the facts.  It also makes one wonder what else is being left out.

Your analogy makes no sense.  I don't care what the perpetrator's day was like.  But if he stole the gun from the local shop and then went and shot his ex-wife, the two crimes would certainly be connected.  The recordings in the classroom and of the meeting follow the same line--you posted the first and quoted from the second, no?  That makes for a connection, and my question is still valid and still unanswered.

The other point in response, after a night's sleep: I didn't begin posting here as an affirmative way of getting "our message" out. I began posting because Matthew was being verbally attacked by people who had already made up their minds in thoroughly arbitrary ways, and were attacking him: viciously and for absolutely no defensible reason. Had I been silent, the impressions that were beginning to form in the community might have gone unchallenged.

I am not asking the community to judge this entire situation, but I do continue to believe that a judgment can be made about the extent of Paszkiewicz's in-class violations by listening to the in-class recordings, and I do think the administration and BOE should act. They have the full information, or can get it if they want it. (They still haven't listened to the recordings they have!) If there are other issues for the public to address, that will have to wait for another day. Meanwhile, we know what we know, and you have every right and much good reason to hold your judgments about that part of it in abeyance.

If nothing else, I appreciate your willingness to withhold judgment, as long as we aren't being considered guilty until proved innocent. Of course, the standard should be the same on all sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes he did. He requested an apology and correction of inappropriate remarks. He kept this matter out of the press for six weeks. When accused of twisting Mr. P's words, he called a meeting in the principal's office to have Mr. P. explain. In that meeting, Mr. P denied making statements he clearly made. In other words, he did not tell the truth. At every opportunity, Mr. P has failed to own up to what he did. He was given more than a fair opportunity to do the right thing, and failed.

To the first question: Things like this should always be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...