Jump to content

"You got what you deserved"


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

So contrary to Paul's attitude of trying to do the right thing, all of which could have been accomplished by meeting with the administrators, this was really about kicking someone's ass.

No, the ass-kicking came after the attempt to meet with the administrators, which was refused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest
No, the ass-kicking came after the attempt to meet with the administrators, which was refused.

Paul you never attempted to meet with Somma or any administrators. You then sent your son into a meeting with the administrators and claimed they would not allow you to be present. This is completely unbelievable. No truly concerned parent, especially one that is a lawyer, would have allowed this to take place. Of course you had a reason to do it. You hoped that Matthew would be able to record further evidence. What an upstanding kid.

Don't be so proud of your victory. It's a hollow one at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Guest
Paul you never attempted to meet with Somma or any administrators.  You then sent your son into a meeting with the administrators and claimed they would not allow you to be present.  This is completely unbelievable.  No truly concerned parent, especially one that is a lawyer, would have allowed this to take place.  Of course you had a reason to do it.  You hoped that Matthew would be able to record further evidence.  What an upstanding kid.

Don't be so proud of your victory.  It's a hollow one at best.

In other words, the administrators were allowed to do what they wanted to do and you don't like the outcome. Like you're really concerned about Paul's parenting skills.

Matt is an upstanding kid, exceptionally so, at least that's what a lot of people think. Pretty much everyone except those who don't like the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Studies and Observations

Back on the original Track... Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung.. All of THOSE people would be deserving of an eternity of Torment IMO... 20 Million for Hitler, 20 Million EACH (of their OWn people) for Stalin and Mao.... would you say that Hell would NOT be fitting for these Monsters?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
In other words, the administrators were allowed to do what they wanted to do and you don't like the outcome. Like you're really concerned about Paul's parenting skills.

Matt is an upstanding kid, exceptionally so, at least that's what a lot of people think. Pretty much everyone except those who don't like the outcome.

No. Read the post again. Paul never attempted to meet with the administartors.

Matt is like a kid that's always looking for a fight. This silliness was going on in Lincoln School and now he finally hit on a subject that caused a big controversy. It's really no big deal. If you raise your kid right a few Noah's Ark statements aren't going to change him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No.  Read the post again.  Paul never attempted to meet with the administartors.

Matt is like a kid that's always looking for a fight.  This silliness was going on in Lincoln School and now he finally hit on a subject that caused a big controversy.  It's really no big deal.  If you raise your kid right a few Noah's Ark statements aren't going to change him.

As someone wrote a few posts back, getting through to some people is like potty training. Matt didn't do it for himself. Paszkiewicz's rants weren't going to change him. He did it to stand up for the Constitution and a quality education. Do you really think that there's no such thing as a conscientious kid any more, that the only reason people do things is to protect or serve themselves? We're in big trouble if that has become our national ethic, or even our community ethic. Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean it isn't important. You just don't get it.

Four letters qualifies as more than a fair attempt to meet with the administrators.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back on the original Track... Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung.. All of THOSE people would be deserving of an eternity of Torment IMO... 20 Million for Hitler, 20 Million EACH (of their OWn people) for Stalin and Mao.... would you say that Hell would NOT be fitting for these Monsters?

What purpose would it serve?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back on the original Track... Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung.. All of THOSE people would be deserving of an eternity of Torment IMO... 20 Million for Hitler, 20 Million EACH (of their OWn people) for Stalin and Mao.... would you say that Hell would NOT be fitting for these Monsters?

Your statement supports the argument that hell is unjust.

A kid who commits an act like sex out of marriage and who has not been born again or confessed his sin could end up in hell eternally punished like the ilk you mentioned above.

True equality in hell. All are given the same sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back on the original Track... Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung.. All of THOSE people would be deserving of an eternity of Torment IMO... 20 Million for Hitler, 20 Million EACH (of their OWn people) for Stalin and Mao.... would you say that Hell would NOT be fitting for these Monsters?

Um, you contradicted yourself, I think. Twenty million years? Do you think that's even close to being the same thing as eternity? That's almost like comparing the size of a neutrino to that of our universe. Also, I think you're just coming in with this really over-the-top number. You want these 'bad guys' to suffer for a number of years several orders of magnitude higher than the amount of time modern humans have even existed. I know that it's normal to react that way, but that does seem excessive (and if you respond to this, and don't let a knee-jerk reaction dictate that response, you will avoid the very emotional and illogical "nothing would be excessive for these horrible people" argument, as that would stick you into the same position as the fundies who are left sputtering when the question is posed to them, "How do you justify eternal torment?").

Link to post
Share on other sites
No.  Read the post again.  Paul never attempted to meet with the administartors.

Considering that

1. Paul has said the exact opposite, and has credibility

2. 95+% of the accusations "guests" have pointed at any of the LaClairs have been shown to be utterly false

Pardon me for doubting that. :lol:

Matt is like a kid that's always looking for a fight.  This silliness was going on in Lincoln School and now he finally hit on a subject that caused a big controversy.  It's really no big deal.  If you raise your kid right a few Noah's Ark statements aren't going to change him.

So you're arguing that Matthew was raised right, since those statements didn't change him at all. But it was part of something he correctly perceived as being something that's not supposed to be said by a public school teacher to his class during school hours. So, he acted against it. Why is this so hard to understand? He's no more "picking a fight" than someone who takes action after reading libel directed toward a close friend of his/hers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Studies and Observations
Um, you contradicted yourself, I think. Twenty million years? Do you think that's even close to being the same thing as eternity? That's almost like comparing the size of a neutrino to that of our universe. Also, I think you're just coming in with this really over-the-top number. You want these 'bad guys' to suffer for a number of years several orders of magnitude higher than the amount of time modern humans have even existed. I know that it's normal to react that way, but that does seem excessive (and if you respond to this, and don't let a knee-jerk reaction dictate that response, you will avoid the very emotional and illogical "nothing would be excessive for these horrible people" argument, as that would stick you into the same position as the fundies who are left sputtering when the question is posed to them, "How do you justify eternal torment?").

obviously you didnt pay too much attention in history class..20 Million MURDERS each for Hitler, Stalin and Mao... Maybe if you werent such a pissy little B**ch always looking to get one up on someone you wouldnt be such a dipstick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
As someone wrote a few posts back, getting through to some people is like potty training. Matt didn't do it for himself. Paszkiewicz's rants weren't going to change him. He did it to stand up for the Constitution and a quality education. Do you really think that there's no such thing as a conscientious kid any more, that the only reason people do things is to protect or serve themselves? We're in big trouble if that has become our national ethic, or even our community ethic. Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean it isn't important. You just don't get it.

Four letters qualifies as more than a fair attempt to meet with the administrators.

Condescending as ever, right Paul? Four letters weren’t necessary. A simple phone call would have gotten you an appointment to see Mr. Somma and anyone else you cared to discuss the situation with. But that didn’t suit your purpose or agenda did it?

Call it standing up for The Constitution if you like. For those who have watched this situation develop since grammar school Matt’s motives are obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Condescending as ever, right Paul? Four letters weren’t necessary.  A simple phone call would have gotten you an appointment to see Mr. Somma and anyone else you cared to discuss the situation with.  But that didn’t suit your purpose or agenda did it?

Call it standing up for The Constitution if you like.  For those who have watched this situation develop since grammar school Matt’s motives are obvious.

In other words you don't agree with us, or the ACLU or PFAW or the New York Times or the Bergen Record or the executive at a major financial house who saw the story and offered Matthew a summer internship or the hundreds of people who wrote KOTW from all over the world to support Matt or the dozens of bloggers who did the same thing or the three organizations that have given Matthew awards for this so far or the universities and colleges that have already invited him to apply based on this story, et. al. You don't agree. That is your prerogative, but if you want to call names we could talk about your insistence on anonymity making remarks like that.

Yes I could have insisted on being present in the principal's office, but after the principal refused to have us at the meeting Matthew wanted, Matt preferred to handle it on his own; and after that the principal no longer had jurisdiction over the matter, which I was asked to discuss with counsel thereafter. Part of the reason Matt did it that way was that he wanted first the administration, and when the administration did not respond, the community to know what was going at Kearny High. I don't think it's a bad thing that the adults who are in charge of our kids were allowed to do what they wanted to do and the community gets to see what it looks like. I think that's good for the community to know, and that Matthew exercised exceptional courage and foresight in bringing it to their attention in a way that could not be denied. That's what's really bothering you, isn't it: it was done in a way that couldn't be denied. The kid was smart and he was effective, whereas you wish he had been stupid about it so he couldn't make any of it stick. And will we ever hear the end of the whining? If you're going to keep whining about it, at least sign your name.

So you don't agree. That is your prerogative, but it would be nice for you to remember that just because you don't think this is an important issue doesn't mean that we don't and that others don't.

You're absolutely right, Matt's motives are obvious and they go back to his commitment to justice as he sees it. He just doesn't see it the way you see it. You seem to be perfectly happy with a world in which teachers cross lines you don't mind them crossing. Of course you are, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us don't see the problem. At least have the courtesy to acknowledge the fact and the decency to state your name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
obviously you didnt pay too much attention in history class..20 Million MURDERS each for Hitler, Stalin and Mao...

Uh, what about your math? :lol: So you'd say that one should suffer nonstop for one MILLION years for killing somebody? You don't think that's the least bit excessive? Do you have any idea how long one million years really is? Modern humans haven't even been around for 200,000.

Maybe if you werent such a pissy little B**ch always looking to get one up on someone you wouldnt be such a dipstick.

It's funny to read this while you're making fun of something that makes perfect sense. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your statement supports the argument that hell is unjust.

No, it doesn't. You're just jumping to conclusions.

A kid who commits an act like sex out of marriage and who has not been born again or confessed his sin could end up in hell eternally punished like the ilk you mentioned above.

Same destination and same length of sentence does not equate with the same punishment. The Bible describes the punishment of hell as "according to his works."

"For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury."

(Romans 2)

True equality in hell. All are given the same sentence.

Non sequitur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
As someone wrote a few posts back, getting through to some people is like potty training. Matt didn't do it for himself. Paszkiewicz's rants weren't going to change him. He did it to stand up for the Constitution and a quality education. Do you really think that there's no such thing as a conscientious kid any more, that the only reason people do things is to protect or serve themselves? We're in big trouble if that has become our national ethic, or even our community ethic. Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean it isn't important. You just don't get it.

Four letters qualifies as more than a fair attempt to meet with the administrators.

Funny how you think that no one on this planet gets it except you. I loved the post like the one before this because I have also seen it first hand for a number of years as well. Your son was no more defending the Constitution of the United states than the Delta's were defending it in the movie "Animal House". It was just a ploy and you can throw Strife's 95 % of your comments are accurate out the window because he was not there either. Now maybe you might get it. We are in trouble with both our cumminity and national ethics. And it begins at home in how we raise our children. If it is important to you than start teaching it at home before you broadcast it to the community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how you think that no one on this planet gets it except you.  I loved the post like the one before this because I have also seen it first hand for a number of years as well.  Your son was no more defending the Constitution of the United states than the Delta's were defending it in the movie "Animal House".  It was just a ploy and you can throw Strife's 95 % of your comments are accurate out the window because he was not there either.  Now maybe you might get it. We are in trouble with both our cumminity and national ethics. And it begins at home in how we raise our children.  If it is important to you than start teaching it at home before you broadcast it to the community.

On the contrary, most people do get it. You don't. What makes you think that you speak for the entire planet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
In other words you don't agree with us, or the ACLU or PFAW or the New York Times or the Bergen Record or the executive at a major financial house who saw the story and offered Matthew a summer internship or the hundreds of people who wrote KOTW from all over the world to support Matt or the dozens of bloggers who did the same thing or the three organizations that have given Matthew awards for this so far or the universities and colleges that have already invited him to apply based on this story, et. al. You don't agree. That is your prerogative, but if you want to call names we could talk about your insistence on anonymity making remarks like that.

Yes I could have insisted on being present in the principal's office, but after the principal refused to have us at the meeting Matthew wanted, Matt preferred to handle it on his own; and after that the principal no longer had jurisdiction over the matter, which I was asked to discuss with counsel thereafter. Part of the reason Matt did it that way was that he wanted first the administration, and when the administration did not respond, the community to know what was going at Kearny High. I don't think it's a bad thing that the adults who are in charge of our kids were allowed to do what they wanted to do and the community gets to see what it looks like. I think that's good for the community to know, and that Matthew exercised exceptional courage and foresight in bringing it to their attention in a way that could not be denied. That's what's really bothering you, isn't it: it was done in a way that couldn't be denied. The kid was smart and he was effective, whereas you wish he had been stupid about it so he couldn't make any of it stick. And will we ever hear the end of the whining? If you're going to keep whining about it, at least sign your name.

So you don't agree. That is your prerogative, but it would be nice for you to remember that just because you don't think this is an important issue doesn't mean that we don't and that others don't.

You're absolutely right, Matt's motives are obvious and they go back to his commitment to justice as he sees it. He just doesn't see it the way you see it. You seem to be perfectly happy with a world in which teachers cross lines you don't mind them crossing. Of course you are, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us don't see the problem. At least have the courtesy to acknowledge the fact and the decency to state your name.

So what you are really saying it that your son, Matthew LaClair did it for the money. Justice? I dont think so. Or else how would he have received all these things ?

If this topic was so important to you then, I think you would have made it a point to be there instead of writing about it a year later here.

Think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how you think that no one on this planet gets it except you.

Uh, his support may have been relatively minor in Kearny, but practically everywhere else, Matthew has gotten a hell of a lot more glowing praise than denigration. And we all 'get it.' :P

I loved the post like the one before this because I have also seen it first hand for a number of years as well.  Your son was no more defending the Constitution of the United states than the Delta's were defending it in the movie "Animal House".  It was just a ploy

So you say there's absolutely nothing wrong with what Paszkiewicz did? You truly and sincerely believe that Matthew's actions were "just a ploy," that they had no merit whatsoever? If so, I truly pity you for your ignorance of the founding principles of the country in which you live.

and you can throw Strife's 95 % of your comments are accurate out the window because he was not there either.

So you throw my comments out, but not those of the people making the baseless accusations, who also weren't there?

Who else do you expect to expose lies like the allegation that Paul's daughter had class with Paszkiewicz (and then when Paul pointed out it was a lie, they tried it again, except this time alleging that she 'merely' had study hall with him)?

Now maybe you might get it. We are in trouble with both our cumminity and national ethics. And it begins at home in how we raise our children.

You got that right. It's truly shameful that Matthew rose alone against Paszkiewicz. Why aren't any of these other kids learning these basic principles of the Constitution that were being very obviously violated? Or, if they knew, why weren't they being taught by their parents to not be afraid to stand up to an authority figure who you know is in the wrong?

If it is important to you than start teaching it at home before you broadcast it to the community.

What makes you think Paul's ideas and values, which he's talking about here, aren't being taught "at home?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
So what you are really saying it that your son, Matthew LaClair did it for the money. Justice? I dont think so.  Or else how would he have received all these things ?

If this topic was so important to you then, I think you would have made it a point to be there instead of writing about it a year later here.

Think about it.

What are you babbling about? The kid did the right thing and people recognized it, so they rewarded him. That doesn't mean he did it for personal gain. What does writing about it now have to do with anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Uh, his support may have been relatively minor in Kearny, but practically everywhere else, Matthew has gotten a hell of a lot more glowing praise than denigration. And we all 'get it.' :P

So you say there's absolutely nothing wrong with what Paszkiewicz did? You truly and sincerely believe that Matthew's actions were "just a ploy," that they had no merit whatsoever? If so, I truly pity you for your ignorance of the founding principles of the country in which you live.

So you throw my comments out, but not those of the people making the baseless accusations, who also weren't there?

Who else do you expect to disprove lies like the allegation that Paul's daughter had class with Paszkiewicz (and then when Paul pointed out it was a lie, they tried it again, except this time alleging that she 'merely' had study hall with him)?

You got that right. It's truly shameful that Matthew rose alone against Paszkiewicz. Why aren't any of these other kids learning these basic principles of the Constitution that were being very obviously violated? Or, if they knew, why weren't they being taught by their parents to not be afraid to stand up to an authority figure who you know is in the wrong?

What makes you think Paul's ideas and values, which he's talking about here, aren't being taught "at home?"

Strife is now claiming to have intimate knowledge of what ideas and values are being taught in the LaClair home.

Strife, are you having sleep-overs with Paul or Matthew??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Condescending as ever, right Paul? Four letters weren’t necessary.  A simple phone call would have gotten you an appointment to see Mr. Somma and anyone else you cared to discuss the situation with. But that didn’t suit your purpose or agenda did it?

I don't for a moment believe that you have any idea whether Paul made any phone calls, any more than you knew whether he had made any other attemp to meet with the administrators when you said this:

"Paul you never attempted to meet with Somma or any administrators. You then sent your son into a meeting with the administrators and claimed they would not allow you to be present."

And this:

"No. Read the post again. Paul never attempted to meet with the administartors."

Those are your words, are they not? Either that or we have multiple "Guests" posting with a truly remarkable continuity and consistency of style.

Tell me, Guest, do you make a habit of accusing people of things that you just make up? Things that you merely want them to be guilty of, but have no indication that they actually are? Is that honest? Is that honorable?

If it had turned out that he had made four phone calls instead of four letters, would you have then criticized him for not sending letters? If he had done both, would you have complained that he didn't just drop in at their offices unannounced, or stalk them while they did their grocery shopping?

So, is it true that "A simple phone call would have gotten you an appointment to see Mr. Somma and anyone else you cared to discuss the situation with."? I have no way to know. And I strongly suspect that you don't know either, just like the other wishes that you've asserted as if they were known facts. But even if true, it does not change that your original accusation was false. Even one letter qualifies as an attempt. And four should be enough to meet any sane person's definition of "due diligence".

How do you justify making such malicious and obviously fabricated accusations? Do you think it's ok because you judge Paul to be a bad person? Would it not be just as much of a lie even if he was the scumbag that you wish to paint him as? Are you so full of hate and devoid of integrity that you can't bring yourself to make an apology, or even just a bland retraction, now that you can clearly see that you've made a false accusation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Uh, his support may have been relatively minor in Kearny, but practically everywhere else, Matthew has gotten a hell of a lot more glowing praise than denigration. And we all 'get it.' :P

So you say there's absolutely nothing wrong with what Paszkiewicz did? You truly and sincerely believe that Matthew's actions were "just a ploy," that they had no merit whatsoever? If so, I truly pity you for your ignorance of the founding principles of the country in which you live.

So you throw my comments out, but not those of the people making the baseless accusations, who also weren't there?

Who else do you expect to expose lies like the allegation that Paul's daughter had class with Paszkiewicz (and then when Paul pointed out it was a lie, they tried it again, except this time alleging that she 'merely' had study hall with him)?

You got that right. It's truly shameful that Matthew rose alone against Paszkiewicz. Why aren't any of these other kids learning these basic principles of the Constitution that were being very obviously violated? Or, if they knew, why weren't they being taught by their parents to not be afraid to stand up to an authority figure who you know is in the wrong?

What makes you think Paul's ideas and values, which he's talking about here, aren't being taught "at home?"

Once AGAIN................. poor Matthew really felt threatened, i'm sure. Poor Matthew was fearful that his mind would be corrupted. It was beyond his control to stop the horror. Matthew, determined and resolved, stood steadfast and faced the Unconstitutional Red Menace otherwise known as, "Proselytizing Paszkiewicz" and single handily neutralized the threat. KHS is safe once more for open forum discussion - bring your ideas, opinions and beliefs on down. Let's talk - shall we?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
In other words you don't agree with us, or the ACLU or PFAW or the New York Times or the Bergen Record or the executive at a major financial house who saw the story and offered Matthew a summer internship or the hundreds of people who wrote KOTW from all over the world to support Matt or the dozens of bloggers who did the same thing or the three organizations that have given Matthew awards for this so far or the universities and colleges that have already invited him to apply based on this story, et. al. You don't agree. That is your prerogative, but if you want to call names we could talk about your insistence on anonymity making remarks like that.

Yes I could have insisted on being present in the principal's office, but after the principal refused to have us at the meeting Matthew wanted, Matt preferred to handle it on his own; and after that the principal no longer had jurisdiction over the matter, which I was asked to discuss with counsel thereafter. Part of the reason Matt did it that way was that he wanted first the administration, and when the administration did not respond, the community to know what was going at Kearny High. I don't think it's a bad thing that the adults who are in charge of our kids were allowed to do what they wanted to do and the community gets to see what it looks like. I think that's good for the community to know, and that Matthew exercised exceptional courage and foresight in bringing it to their attention in a way that could not be denied. That's what's really bothering you, isn't it: it was done in a way that couldn't be denied. The kid was smart and he was effective, whereas you wish he had been stupid about it so he couldn't make any of it stick. And will we ever hear the end of the whining? If you're going to keep whining about it, at least sign your name.

So you don't agree. That is your prerogative, but it would be nice for you to remember that just because you don't think this is an important issue doesn't mean that we don't and that others don't.

You're absolutely right, Matt's motives are obvious and they go back to his commitment to justice as he sees it. He just doesn't see it the way you see it. You seem to be perfectly happy with a world in which teachers cross lines you don't mind them crossing. Of course you are, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us don't see the problem. At least have the courtesy to acknowledge the fact and the decency to state your name.

To be accurate, I don’t agree with your methods and I doubt that we need Matt to save The Constitution for us. You found an issue that was easily used to polarize people, big deal. You say that Matthew wasn’t being self-serving yet in the same breath you’re bragging about all of the offers and support. Most of your supporters don’t know Matt’s history and therefore could not know Matt’s motives.

The true reason you didn’t push a meeting with the administrators is because it would have been resolved there. None of us would know about it and no one would be talking about it. There wouldn’t be any offers from companies or colleges or need of support from the ACLU. You wouldn’t have been able to strong arm the BOE into declaring Matt a hero.

How do you know what I wish for? I certainly don’t look to drag other people down to further my own ideals. Whining? It’s time for you to take a look in the mirror. What you don’t like is being in the minority.

Why do you need names. Are you compiling a lawsuit list?

Link to post
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...