Paul LaClair is a Liar!

[Guest Paul]

You are absolutly right Paul, they also smoked a lot of marijuna laced with LSD and refused to trust anyone over 30! You go dude!

Oh! by the way mini skirts came out in the sixties too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matthew does not smoke marijuana or ingest LSD or any other illegal substance in any form. He also trusts a great many people over 30, including most of his teachers. And it wasn't a mini-skirt.

If you folks would spend just a little time thinking, instead of reflexively attacking Matthew at every turn, you might learn something.

Maybe this time around, we could have a generation that understood how to question authority with more maturity than was the case in the sixties. I understand the problems with the sixties, but I also understand what was accomplished. Those accomplishments have been swept out of public consciousness for far too long.

[Guest Paul]

The skirt was very clever and humorous! What was the final outcome? Did you and Matt go to the BOE and request a policy change? It's not a bad idea to have a clause added to that policy, maybe something like "if weather reports on a certain radio or tv station report a high of 80 degrees or more (from day to day), shorts may be aloud before May 1st (but on a day to day basis). sounds reasonable to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He made his point and he let it go. That one, in his judgment, wasn't worth a big fight.

[Guest Paul]

Who wrote God instead of god? Well, I can see great improvements here. I am actually very happy for you Paul! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you just don't understand what I'm telling you. You've noticed that I sometimes refer to a god, as distinguished in this instance from God. You don't have a clue why, but of course that doesn't stop you from drawing conclusions.

If you'd like to know why, you can ask me.

[Guest Guest]

Identify yourself. Then we'll talk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am Michael Jackson, now can we talk?

[Guest Guest]

He made his point and he let it go. That one, in his judgment, wasn't worth a big fight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That one, The New York Times would not be interested in.

[Guest Paul]

Let's stop comparing Matthew's attention seeking nonsense to MLK and the founders of this country.

Hey Paul, next time you're in court why don't you try wearing a skirt.  See how fast the judge throws your ass out of there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A few days ago Matthew was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Student Activist award and a scholarship for his stance on this matter by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I suppose that offends you too.

Many comparisons will be drawn. You can be offended by them all you like, but to no productive end.

[Guest Guest]

Even though I previously stated that I find it un-American to tape someone in secret, I've now realized that it was necessary.

It seems Matthew wouldn't have been believed unless he had absolute proof - recordings. Shameful that you need to go to those lengths to get the truth out.

Considering the recordings, I don't understand how anyone can support the teacher. And, also I can't see Paul lying about the office conversation with witnesses present. He would then lose all credibility.

I understand Mr. P is a youth pastor in some Church. Considering some of the response in support of Mr. P (infantile name calling without presenting facts), I'm wondering if a lot of his support is from the less mature members of his Church group. Could he be instigating them?

[Strife767]

Let's stop comparing Matthew's attention seeking nonsense

If anyone sought attention, it was Paszkiewicz and the board etc. by ignoring Matthew's complaints. They brought the 'scandal' on themselves--if only they had responded appropriately from the start, the media (for example) would have never even known about this incident.

to MLK and the founders of this country.

Hey Paul, next time you're in court why don't you try wearing a skirt.  See how fast the judge throws your ass out of there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why would a guy get thrown out of court for wearing a skirt? What a silly notion.

[Guest Paul]

Even though I previously stated that I find it un-American to tape someone in secret, I've now realized that it was necessary.

It seems Matthew wouldn't have been believed unless he had absolute proof - recordings. Shameful that you need to go to those lengths to get the truth out.

Considering the recordings, I don't understand how anyone can support the teacher. And, also I can't see Paul lying about the office conversation with witnesses present. He would then lose all credibility.

I understand Mr. P is a youth pastor in some Church. Considering some of the response in support of Mr. P (infantile name calling without presenting facts), I'm wondering if a lot of his support is from the less mature members of his Church group. Could he be instigating them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. Matthew would not have done this if the circumstances were not unusual. The proof is that he has never done it on any other matter.

I hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is not having this understood.

[Guest Guest]

Paul, can Mr. Somma or Miss Wood confirm this?  This is a serious charge.  Sounds like Libel to me.  Your taking a big chance damaging Mr. P's rep in writing like this.  This is not the first time either.  About that interview, I'll bet the questions went something like this:  So Mr. P, are you still beating your wife? Answer yes or no!    Mr. P was damned either way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said! That same thought had come into my mind when I had first read that front page of the Jersey Journal. I had wanted to stay neutral on the subject, but it wasn't long before I concluded ( it took one minute) that Mr. P is not a liar. The LeClairs continue to play it so that "they are damned if they do and damned if they don't".

[Guest Guest]

A few days ago Matthew was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Student Activist award and a scholarship for his stance on this matter by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I suppose that offends you too.

Many comparisons will be drawn. You can be offended by them all you like, but to no productive end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have owe Mr. P. a big thank you. You could not have done without him.

[Guest Guest]

Well said! That same thought had come into my mind when I had first read that front page of the Jersey Journal. I had wanted to stay neutral on the subject, but it wasn't long before I concluded ( it took one minute) that Mr. P is not a liar. The LeClairs continue to play it so that "they are damned if they do and damned if they don't".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you came to this conclusion on what basis?

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

A few days ago Matthew was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Student Activist award and a scholarship for his stance on this matter by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I suppose that offends you too.

Many comparisons will be drawn. You can be offended by them all you like, but to no productive end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do enjoy your irony in all this. Remembering to one of your early posts that Paul said the LaClairs were not after any financial gains but going after Mr. P. He is singing a different tune now. He (Mr. P) was just a pawn set up by Paul and his puppet son for scholarship gains because thats the only way he could achieve it. Certainly he wasn't going to get it on the admiration and letters of recommendation of his teachers. It's all about the money and this high priced NY laywer. Even if it means selling his soul. Opps. Religious comments are against the LaClairs beliefs. Unlike them I am going back to reality.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, can Mr. Somma or Miss Wood confirm this?  This is a serious charge.  Sounds like Libel to me.  Your taking a big chance damaging Mr. P's rep in writing like this.  This is not the first time either.  About that interview, I'll bet the questions went something like this:  So Mr. P, are you still beating your wife? Answer yes or no!    Mr. P was damned either way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand the nature of the charges, and you are incorrect. Throughout the meeting, Matthew asked questions that were entirely fair, factual as opposed to loaded, and that fairly permitted a response. On multiple occasions, Mr. Paszkiewicz's answers are not in conformance with the facts. Other times, Mr. Paszkiewicz attempted to evade the issue and change the subject on multiple occasions, in what appeared to be an attempt to use his authority to intimidate the student. On multiple occasions, after giving Matthew the floor, Mr. Paszkiewicz interrupted him to change the subject. On multiple occasions, Mr. Paszkiewicz made sweeping accusations against Matthew, in direct contradiction to a statement he made in the same meeting to the effect that he does not make sweeping accusations. However, he did.

You have no basis for your speculation. I have a complete factual basis for mine.

What you are doing is morally wrong. In Judeo-Christian morality, it is called bearing false witness. The mere fact that you would like the facts to support Mr. Paszkiewicz does not mean that they do; they do not.

As for being damned, all Mr. Paszkiewicz had to do was tell the truth, or if he did not remember something, just say that. On multiple occasions in that meeting, he made statements that are not true. I know. You don't.

[Strife767]

I do enjoy your irony in all this.  Remembering to one of your early posts that Paul said the LaClairs were not after any financial gains but going after Mr. P. He is singing a different tune now.

Matthew was awarded that scholarship. He didn't go ask them for it. The guys who award it are who choose the recipient.

He (Mr. P) was just a pawn set up by Paul and his puppet son for scholarship gains because thats the only way he could achieve it.

Please prove that Mr. P. was somehow forced or manipulated by Matthew or Paul to preach to his public school classroom. Sounds like a baseless allegation to me.

Certainly he wasn't going to get it on the admiration and letters of recommendation of his teachers.

How would you know? Sounds like more preconception--Matthew has accomplished a lot in his life thus far, especially considering how young he still is.

It's all about the money and this high priced NY laywer.  Even if it means selling his soul. Opps.  Religious comments are against the LaClairs beliefs.  Unlike them I am going back to reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, because reality is where all the souls are.

[Guest Guest]

I understand the nature of the charges, and you are incorrect. Throughout the meeting, Matthew asked questions that were entirely fair, factual as opposed to loaded, and that fairly permitted a response. On multiple occasions, Mr. Paszkiewicz's answers are not in conformance with the facts. Other times, Mr. Paszkiewicz attempted to evade the issue and change the subject on multiple occasions, in what appeared to be an attempt to use his authority to intimidate the student. On multiple occasions, after giving Matthew the floor, Mr. Paszkiewicz interrupted him to change the subject. On multiple occasions, Mr. Paszkiewicz made sweeping accusations against Matthew, in direct contradiction to a statement he made in the same meeting to the effect that he does not make sweeping accusations. However, he did.

You have no basis for your speculation. I have a complete factual basis for mine.

What you are doing is morally wrong. In Judeo-Christian morality, it is called bearing false witness. The mere fact that you would like the facts to support Mr. Paszkiewicz does not mean that they do; they do not.

As for being damned, all Mr. Paszkiewicz had to do was tell the truth, or if he did not remember something, just say that. On multiple occasions in that meeting, he made statements that are not true. I know. You don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hahaahah! And you believe that because Matthew told you? Or he recorded the meeting? He probably did, it is just not convinient to show, right? Why is that?

[Guest Paul]

You have owe Mr. P. a big thank you. You could not have done without him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Had that been his intention, you would be correct.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE  He (Mr. P) was just a pawn set up by Paul and his puppet son for scholarship gains because thats the only way he could achieve it.

Sure,

The LaClairs sat around the kitchen table and said "Oh, lets get a scholarship for the kid. Setting up teachers usually gets scholarships".

Then the teacher was forced to say words that miraculously caused the scholarship to be generated. Cause and effect.

Is there a psychological term that describes people who come up with these theories? Is it a form of paranoid delusion?

Having read all these threads I think real money can be made writing books about Kearny and its wacky inhabitants. This could start a new HBO series.

[Guest Watching From Afar]

My recommendations are these:

1. The teacher should be fired for incompetence, along with the school's principal.

2. Once that happens, the student's father should take "Yes" for an answer and allow things to cool off. Religious people should take their lumps and back off.

3. The school board should rescind its anti-taping policy.

4. School administrators should act forcefully to retain control of their school. Harassment of this student should not be tolerated. If the school refuses to do that, then I'd be all in favor of the student's father taking legal action.

Here's my reasoning.

The teacher runs a history class, not a comparative religions class. The tape showed a class seriously off track, and in fact out of control. It's immaterial that the students in that class were engaged in the religious debate. It's the teacher's responsibility to teach the curriculum. Beyond that, the teacher's likening of the Theory of Evolution to a religious faith was factually wrong to the point of delusion. He completely misrepresented the science behind evolution; more importantly he misrepresented the fundamental elements of the scientific method, an elementary building block of modern literacy.

The principal should lose his or her job for having allowed this teacher to turn his class into a pulpit. The articles made it clear that this was not an aberration, but standard operating procedure for that teacher. A public school history class is not the right place to teach religion. We have houses of worship to do that. This standard is well known to everyone, including the administrator directly responsible for the teacher's conduct.

If the principal was ordered to keep the teacher on, then the principal should be reprimanded and whoever gave the order should be fired.

I am not hostile to spiritual faith in general, or to the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Faith has always been a strong part of this country's culture. But so is freedom from religion a strong part of our culture and history. America is a creature of the Enlightenment, which stresses the individual's absolute freedom in matters of conscience. As a result, in this country we keep the government out of the pulpit. As a taxpayer, I do not want to fund the teaching of religion in public schools, nor do I think youngsters should be compelled to attend schools where religion is part of the curriculum. People who want their children to get a religious education should send them to private schools.

On to my second point. When the student's father points to the East Coast and the world being shocked, it tells me that he's too eager to step into the spotlight. While I agree with his basic point as I've made clear, I have mixed feelings about all the publicity. His son needs an education, not a fight.

It's understandable that tempers are high, but the goal should be to reduce them. The father, his son AND those who are branding them "liars" should all take a deep breath and calm down. They are doing no one any good. Intelligent people of good will could have solved this problem in an afternoon, and they still can.

A corollary point concerns his son's prior wearing of a skirt to school to protest an inequity in the dress code. If my son had done it, my son would have been in serious trouble at home. Not for the skirt per se, but for the foolishness and disruption it entailed. I would have told my son that I expect more maturity from my offspring. I'd have told him that people who do foolish things run the risk of being taken as fools at other times.

To my third and fourth points. The school board's taping policy is clearly punitive and defensive. The student's father makes a good case that his son made the recording as a last resort. The school board appears as if it is punishing the messenger. The same goes for harassment of the student. There is utterly no excuse for it.

Finally, I will be happy to discuss and debate what I've written, but I'm not going to argue with bumper stickers nor will I stoop to personal attacks. I thought I'd say that to head a few people off at the pass, although I'll be surprised if it works.

[Guest Keith-Marhsall,Mo]

My recommendations are these:

1. The teacher should be fired for incompetence, along with the school's principal.

2. Once that happens, the student's father should take "Yes" for an answer and allow things to cool off. Religious people should take their lumps and back off.

3. The school board should rescind its anti-taping policy.

4. School administrators should act forcefully to retain control of their school. Harassment of this student should not be tolerated. If the school refuses to do that, then I'd be all in favor of the student's father taking legal action.

Here's my reasoning.

The teacher runs a history class, not a comparative religions class. The tape showed a class seriously off track, and in fact out of control. It's immaterial that the students in that class were engaged in the religious debate. It's the teacher's responsibility to teach the curriculum. Beyond that, the teacher's likening of the Theory of Evolution to a religious faith was factually wrong to the point of delusion. He completely misrepresented the science behind evolution; more importantly he misrepresented the fundamental elements of the scientific method, an elementary building block of modern literacy.

The principal should lose his or her job for having allowed this teacher to turn his class into a pulpit. The articles made it clear that this was not an aberration, but standard operating procedure for that teacher. A public school history class is not the right place to teach religion. We have houses of worship to do that. This standard is well known to everyone, including the administrator directly responsible for the teacher's conduct.

If the principal was ordered to keep the teacher on, then the principal should be reprimanded and whoever gave the order should be fired.

I am not hostile to spiritual faith in general, or to the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Faith has always been a strong part of this country's culture. But so is freedom from religion a strong part of our culture and history. America is a creature of the Enlightenment, which stresses the individual's absolute freedom in matters of conscience. As a result, in this country we keep the government out of the pulpit. As a taxpayer, I do not want to fund the teaching of religion in public schools, nor do I think youngsters should be compelled to attend schools where religion is part of the curriculum. People who want their children to get a religious education should send them to private schools.

On to my second point. When the student's father points to the East Coast and the world being shocked, it tells me that he's too eager to step into the spotlight. While I agree with his basic point as I've made clear, I have mixed feelings about all the publicity. His son needs an education, not a fight.

It's understandable that tempers are high, but the goal should be to reduce them. The father, his son AND those who are branding them "liars" should all take a deep breath and calm down. They are doing no one any good. Intelligent people of good will could have solved this problem in an afternoon, and they still can.

A corollary point concerns his son's prior wearing of a skirt to school to protest an inequity in the dress code. If my son had done it, my son would have been in serious trouble at home. Not for the skirt per se, but for the foolishness and disruption it entailed. I would have told my son that I expect more maturity from my offspring. I'd have told him that people who do foolish things run the risk of being taken as fools at other times.

To my third and fourth points. The school board's taping policy is clearly punitive and defensive. The student's father makes a good case that his son made the recording as a last resort. The school board appears as if it is punishing the messenger. The same goes for harassment of the student. There is utterly no excuse for it.

Finally, I will be happy to discuss and debate what I've written, but I'm not going to argue with bumper stickers nor will I stoop to personal attacks. I thought I'd say that to head a few people off at the pass, although I'll be surprised if it works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, that was very well said. Very well said indeed!

[Guest Guest]

My recommendations are these:

1. The teacher should be fired for incompetence, along with the school's principal.

2. Once that happens, the student's father should take "Yes" for an answer and allow things to cool off. Religious people should take their lumps and back off.

3. The school board should rescind its anti-taping policy.

4. School administrators should act forcefully to retain control of their school. Harassment of this student should not be tolerated. If the school refuses to do that, then I'd be all in favor of the student's father taking legal action.

Here's my reasoning.

The teacher runs a history class, not a comparative religions class. The tape showed a class seriously off track, and in fact out of control. It's immaterial that the students in that class were engaged in the religious debate. It's the teacher's responsibility to teach the curriculum. Beyond that, the teacher's likening of the Theory of Evolution to a religious faith was factually wrong to the point of delusion. He completely misrepresented the science behind evolution; more importantly he misrepresented the fundamental elements of the scientific method, an elementary building block of modern literacy.

The principal should lose his or her job for having allowed this teacher to turn his class into a pulpit. The articles made it clear that this was not an aberration, but standard operating procedure for that teacher. A public school history class is not the right place to teach religion. We have houses of worship to do that. This standard is well known to everyone, including the administrator directly responsible for the teacher's conduct.

If the principal was ordered to keep the teacher on, then the principal should be reprimanded and whoever gave the order should be fired.

I am not hostile to spiritual faith in general, or to the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Faith has always been a strong part of this country's culture. But so is freedom from religion a strong part of our culture and history. America is a creature of the Enlightenment, which stresses the individual's absolute freedom in matters of conscience. As a result, in this country we keep the government out of the pulpit. As a taxpayer, I do not want to fund the teaching of religion in public schools, nor do I think youngsters should be compelled to attend schools where religion is part of the curriculum. People who want their children to get a religious education should send them to private schools.

On to my second point. When the student's father points to the East Coast and the world being shocked, it tells me that he's too eager to step into the spotlight. While I agree with his basic point as I've made clear, I have mixed feelings about all the publicity. His son needs an education, not a fight.

It's understandable that tempers are high, but the goal should be to reduce them. The father, his son AND those who are branding them "liars" should all take a deep breath and calm down. They are doing no one any good. Intelligent people of good will could have solved this problem in an afternoon, and they still can.

A corollary point concerns his son's prior wearing of a skirt to school to protest an inequity in the dress code. If my son had done it, my son would have been in serious trouble at home. Not for the skirt per se, but for the foolishness and disruption it entailed. I would have told my son that I expect more maturity from my offspring. I'd have told him that people who do foolish things run the risk of being taken as fools at other times.

To my third and fourth points. The school board's taping policy is clearly punitive and defensive. The student's father makes a good case that his son made the recording as a last resort. The school board appears as if it is punishing the messenger. The same goes for harassment of the student. There is utterly no excuse for it.

Finally, I will be happy to discuss and debate what I've written, but I'm not going to argue with bumper stickers nor will I stoop to personal attacks. I thought I'd say that to head a few people off at the pass, although I'll be surprised if it works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You name says all "from afar" that's where you should stay... far! You don't pay taxes in Kearny, therefore, your opinion in Kearny doesn't matter. When there is a problem in your town, feel free to say whatever you want.

[Guest Paul]

You name says all "from afar" that's where you should stay... far! You don't pay taxes in Kearny, therefore, your opinion in Kearny doesn't matter. When there is a problem in your town, feel free to say whatever you want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

. . . since the person makes far too much sense for you to deal with, and doesn't agree with you.

[Guest Paul]

Paul LaClair is a liar. First, he said that Mr. Paszkiewicz lied during the meeting with Mr. Somma, Miss Wood and Matthew. He said it and never proved it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There. Now I proved it. Now what?

[Guest Watching From Afar]

You name says all "from afar" that's where you should stay... far! You don't pay taxes in Kearny, therefore, your opinion in Kearny doesn't matter. When there is a problem in your town, feel free to say whatever you want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that an outsider's relatively dispassionate and disinterested view can be worthwhile. But you're absolutely correct that I don't have a vote on the matter and therefore the town is perfectly free to ignore my sentiments. Nevertheless, I will continue to "feel free" to say or write what I want at any time. If you don't like it, too bad. It's called free speech. Get used to it. If you can't, then I suggest you hold your breath and wait for me to stop feeling free to express my views.

[Strife767]

There. Now I proved it. Now what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol

And then the squirming commenced.