A student of uncommon courage

[Guest Guest]

Like what? If there were many alternatives, which would have accomplished all his objectives, then why can't you name even one?

68626[/snapback]

How about approaching the teacher? So keep trying to defend your son which in itself is a noble cause, however, you keep theorizing that if he had done that, nothing would have been done. That is just your theory and it has no proof because he never did appraoach the teacher. So there I named one. Now what is your excuse ?

[Guest Guest]

Gimme a break! It's not more important to me. I don't want teachers preaching in public school.

68649[/snapback]

Please go back to your own hick state. If you listened to the tape you would might learn something.

[Guest Guest]

Would it possible for one of you right-wingers to discuss the issues, once? Just once?

68627[/snapback]

Would it BE possible for you to pose your question in English that can form a complete sentense without making you sound stupid?

[Guest Guest]

Gimme a break! It's not more important to me. I don't want teachers preaching in public school.

68649[/snapback]

Really? You've got strange priorities.

[Guest Guest]

Please go back to your own hick state. If you listened to the tape you would might learn something.

68699[/snapback]

My own hick state? I guess only people from NJ get to have an opinion on this forum? Make fun of Missouri all you want but we are no more backwards than your state is.

[Guest Paul]

How about approaching the teacher?  So keep trying to defend your son which in itself is a noble cause, however, you keep theorizing that if he had done that, nothing would have been done. That is just your theory and it has no proof because he never did appraoach the teacher.  So there I named one. Now what is your excuse ?

68698[/snapback]

Approaching the teacher in this case obviously would not have worked. David Paszkiewicz denied making the comments, so he could not possibly have corrected comments he denied making. In fact, he wouldn't make corrections even after he listened to the recordings. The man still thinks he did nothing wrong, insists there is no separation between church and state, thinks he should be free to promote Christianity as a teacher in a public school, and no doubt still thinks dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago.

Had he been approached, there would have been no corrections to his remarks about evolution, the big bang and science in general. It took us a year, but those corrections are going to be made. I suggest you keep your eyes open for developments later this week.

Had he been approached, he would have denied any wrongdoing. How do I know? Because that's exactly what he did, even though Matthew had written a letter and he was called down to the principal's office to explain himself. I know he would have done it because he did it.

So you named something, but it obviously would not have worked. The challenge was for you to name something that would have accomplished the goals, which I identified in my earlier post. You haven't come close.

[Bern]

Would it BE possible for you to pose your question in English that can form a complete sentense without making you sound stupid?

68700[/snapback]

Paul asks a valid question and this is the reply.

This bunch will never discuss the issues. How can they? They have nothing valid to say. Instead, they reply with personal insults.

Looking at this forum, you can see that almost all personal insults are from the right wing.

[Bern]

Really? You've got strange priorities.

68719[/snapback]

Maybe he does not buy into this terror cell bs.

There are people who are proud and brave and not servile. They don't get scared or manipulated whenever the "terror" bogeyman is brought forward.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Maybe he does not buy into this terror cell bs.

There are people who are proud and brave and not servile. They don't get scared or manipulated whenever the "terror" bogeyman is brought forward.

68742[/snapback]

Thanks Bern,

You hit the nail right on the head. The fact of the matter is that no matter what do we can never thwart all attempts from anyone hell bent on attacking us. Of course I want to be vigilant in our quest to do so but not at the expense of my civil liberties because it seems that given our current political climate that once they are gone, they may be gone for good.

It's kinda like Gulianni and his constant beating of the 9-11 drum. He may have been a good mayor, I don't know. He also may have been a comforting soul for New Yorkers in the wake of 9-11 but I still don't get where the whole "hero" thing comes from.

I certainly will not rollover and relinquish my civil liberties because we got hit and in all probability we will get hit again someday. To me the best thing we can do to give the terrorists the finger is to not only maintain, but strengthen our liberties because isn't that what pisses them off anyway? Or maybe we should let them change how we live our lives because we are afraid of them? Screw 'em! If we do roll over then we have in fact "lost the war" on terrorism.

[Guest Guest]

You guys just never, ever, ever get it, do you. No matter how many times we explain it to you, you never get it.

68361[/snapback]

Paul, I don't know if this will help to narrow any gaps here, but I think there's a disconnect between you and many in the community (at least from what I'm seeing on some of the posts). I really think that when you're referring to right-wing fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists, many people in the community who are otherwise moderates (at best) think that you are referring to them (because they count themselves as Republicans or Christians). As a result, they are adopting a defensive posture and are less open to your reasoning. Some also tend to strike back when they feel that you are insulting them (when it is clearly not your intention).

Of course, there are some fundies weighing in, but many people on the board should be made aware that they can be Republican without being a right-wing fundamentalist, and a Christian, without being a Christian fundamentalist. And, further, when you refer to what these folks are doing, you are not necessarily referring to what the members of the community are doing. These distinctions may be escaping some folks.

This is my major criticism of the left these days (strictly from a political standpoint). Since 2000, Bush and the Republicans have been playing the "Us versus Them" game a lot better than their Democratic counterparts. More often than not, the party that wins that game is the party that wins the election.

[Guest Guest]

Looking at this forum, you can see that almost all personal insults are from the right wing.

68740[/snapback]

C'mon. That's a little self-congratulatory, don't you think. I'd have to say that neither "side" has done a stellar job avoiding personal insults.

[Guest Guest]

Approaching the teacher in this case obviously would not have worked. David Paszkiewicz denied making the comments, so he could not possibly have corrected comments he denied making. In fact, he wouldn't make corrections even after he listened to the recordings. The man still thinks he did nothing wrong, insists there is no separation between church and state, thinks he should be free to promote Christianity as a teacher in a public school, and no doubt still thinks dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago.

Had he been approached, there would have been no corrections to his remarks about evolution, the big bang and science in general. It took us a year, but those corrections are going to be made. I suggest you keep your eyes open for developments later this week.

Had he been approached, he would have denied any wrongdoing. How do I know? Because that's exactly what he did, even though Matthew had written a letter and he was called down to the principal's office to explain himself. I know he would have done it because he did it.

So you named something, but it obviously would not have worked. The challenge was for you to name something that would have accomplished the goals, which I identified in my earlier post. You haven't come close.

68739[/snapback]

It is obvious only to you since you chose not to go that route of not approaching the teacher. You have no proof what would or would not have worked. You attempts at strong-arming both the school and the school board cause pushback and therefore your "obvious" opinions are only speculation. For a lawyer, you are pretty bad at providing a case. The "what if" approach doesn't work especially in law. You did not do it that way; therefore your case is invalid.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, I don't know if this will help to narrow any gaps here, but I think there's a disconnect between you and many in the community (at least from what I'm seeing on some of the posts).  I really think that when you're referring to right-wing fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists, many people in the community who are otherwise moderates (at best) think that you are referring to them (because they count themselves as Republicans or Christians).  As a result, they are adopting a defensive posture and are less open to your reasoning.  Some also tend to strike back when they feel that you are insulting them (when it is clearly not your intention).

Of course, there are some fundies weighing in, but many people on the board should be made aware that they can be Republican without being a right-wing fundamentalist, and a Christian, without being a Christian fundamentalist.  And, further, when you refer to what these folks are doing, you are not necessarily referring to what the members of the community are doing.  These distinctions may be escaping some folks.

This is my major criticism of the left these days (strictly from a political standpoint).  Since 2000, Bush and the Republicans have been playing the "Us versus Them" game a lot better than their Democratic counterparts.  More often than not, the party that wins that game is the party that wins the election.

68782[/snapback]

I know. Excellent observations. Someone figured out the "game."

Problem is, people are posting here anonymously. Good luck figuring out who's who.

So now what?

[Guest Paul]

It is obvious only to you since you chose not to go that route of not approaching the teacher. You have no proof what would or would not have worked. You attempts at strong-arming both the school and the school board cause pushback and therefore your "obvious" opinions are only speculation.  For a lawyer, you are pretty bad at providing a case.  The "what if" approach doesn't work especially in law. You did not do it that way; therefore your case is invalid.

68806[/snapback]

It is not obvious only to me. It is obvious to anyone who looks objectively at the facts. It's like a guy who watches two football games every Sunday afternoon: I don't need to wait until next Sunday to know where he's going to be.

Bern, Keith and Strife, how about it: is it obvious only to me?

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

It is not obvious only to me. It is obvious to anyone who looks objectively at the facts. It's like a guy who watches two football games every Sunday afternoon: I don't need to wait until next Sunday to know where he's going to be.

Bern, Keith and Strife, how about it: is it obvious only to me?

68823[/snapback]

Am I missing something or wasn't he approached before the tapes were made available and given a chance to come clean but didn't so the tapes were then made available? Seems perfectly logical to me that had he been approached before the recording was made the outcome would be the same. Since he was willing to lie about his behavior It seems unlikely that just being approached about it would have made him stop. He had the chance to redeem himself but he didn't. He lied because he knew it was a mistake. Obviously the tapes contained enough for the board to act. If there were nothing incriminating then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm not as offended about the actual subject matter as I am about the guy lying about it. Only the guilty lie. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[agyness]

I'm a long time Kearny (and Harrison) resident and a graduate of KHS. I'm depressed and disturbed to know that I live and walk among people who are so obviously unobjective and so overwhelmingly behind a 'teacher' who is scientifically illiterate!

As a local, I have wanted to reach out to Matthew and his family since this broke. I wanted them to know that not all Kearny residents think what Matthew did was illegal or motivated by attention seeking. Far from it. What Matthew did was, in fact, brave and courageous.

Having recently found this forum and seeing that residents are still having issues with this I thought I would finally speak up. I support what Matthew did and I applaud it. I graduated long before Paskiewicz started teaching at KHS but I would have done EXACTLY the same thing Matthew did. We go to school to be educated, not indoctrinated.

It is not obvious only to me. It is obvious to anyone who looks objectively at the facts. It's like a guy who watches two football games every Sunday afternoon: I don't need to wait until next Sunday to know where he's going to be.

Bern, Keith and Strife, how about it: is it obvious only to me?

68823[/snapback]

[Bern]

It is not obvious only to me. It is obvious to anyone who looks objectively at the facts. It's like a guy who watches two football games every Sunday afternoon: I don't need to wait until next Sunday to know where he's going to be.

Bern, Keith and Strife, how about it: is it obvious only to me?

68823[/snapback]

Its obvious to me. He went into a the meeting, lied and when caught by the tapes said "Ok, you got me".

He lied because he knew he was doing something reprehensible, which he hoped to cover up. If it were not for the tapes he could have. And if approached directly he would have. Almost always, a teachers word is taken above a students.

The teachers were given a seminar on the legal aspects of this issue, so hopefully this will not occur again. They can't plead ignorance. I think an appropriate addition would have been a seminar on ethical behavior.

In most jobs, being caught in unethical behavior are grounds for dismissal.

[Guest Loki]

I'm a long time Kearny (and Harrison) resident and a graduate of KHS.  I'm depressed and disturbed to know that I live and walk among people who are so obviously unobjective and so overwhelmingly behind a 'teacher' who is scientifically illiterate!

As a local, I have wanted to reach out to Matthew and his family since this broke.  I wanted them to know that not all Kearny residents think what Matthew did was illegal or motivated by attention seeking.  Far from it.  What Matthew did was, in fact, brave and courageous.

Having recently found this forum and seeing that residents are still having issues with this I thought I would finally speak up.  I support what Matthew did and I applaud it.  I graduated long before Paskiewicz started teaching at KHS but I would have done EXACTLY the same thing Matthew did.  We go to school to be educated, not indoctrinated.

68843[/snapback]

Go to almost any university in the country, they will gladly indoctrinate you into their line of thinking. They tried it with me, it just never took. I do not have issues w/ what Matt did, (though I do think there was some attention seeking IMO, and ONLY my opinion), but really enough is enough. Paul has come to dominate this board on all topics and I am just tired.

He talks of meaningful debate, but unilaterally dismisses ALL who disagree with him. I promised not to respond to his posts, but frankly won't give him the satisfaction.

It is simple, and I've said it before, I believe what I believe. I am not asking anyone to share my beliefs, but bet your ass I am allowed to hold my own beliefs; it is after all a free country.

[Guest Guest]

I know. Excellent observations. Someone figured out the "game."

Problem is, people are posting here anonymously. Good luck figuring out who's who.

So now what?

68822[/snapback]

So now ... build some bridges. Focus on the things that make the average Kearny Christian different than the religious fundamentalists. Have Strife and others stop insulting the basic foundations of Christianity because all they are doing is making more "Us" into "Them", and making things harder on Matthew than they need to be. Ask the simple questions.

[Guest Guest]

Am I missing something or wasn't he approached before the tapes were made available and given a chance to come clean but didn't so the tapes were then made available? Seems perfectly logical to me that had he been approached before the recording was made the outcome would be the same. Since he was willing to lie about his behavior It seems unlikely that just being approached about it would have made him stop. He had the chance to redeem himself but he didn't. He lied because he knew it was a mistake. Obviously the tapes contained enough for the board to act. If there were nothing incriminating then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm not as offended about the actual subject matter as I am about the guy lying about it. Only the guilty lie. He knew exactly what he was doing.

68841[/snapback]

You are such an idiot!

The point was why Mathew did not approach the teacher when he was not happy with the discussions. He was given that opportunity instead he decided to record the teacher. As far as I heard, he did not show any dislike on those recordings in anyway. He ACTED like he was enjoying the discussions in fact he participated in the discussions.

Did you ever payed attention to how many questions were asked? How many was asked by Mathew?

Ask Paul how many times he went to talk to the teacher himself?

Get your head out of Paul’s behind and you might learn something.

Don't be a follower Keith. Or maybe you are not capable of doing that either?

[Strife767]

Like you always say "where is your proof" ?

I didn't say I could prove it--I can't, not being a student in the classrooms. I said that's what I've been hearing, that's all. Although, to be fair, even the most clearcut of proof doesn't satisfy those unwilling to listen, as has been seen from so many people defending Paszkiewicz even after the recordings were released to the general public.

You loser ! Speaking of lack of guts.

68512[/snapback]

Would you care to tell me what exactly is cowardly about saying what I did? Can you?

[Strife767]

If you repeat your lies over and over, does that make it now the truth?

Repetition does not make truth, which is the reason why Matthew is still in the right regardless of statements like yours.

There is no getting over what a bad person you really are !

68514[/snapback]

Apparently there's no supporting the claim either.

[Strife767]

I'd say trying to stop terror cells from operating freely in this country is slightly more important than an attention seeking high school student.

68565[/snapback]

If someone's doing something wrong, it is okay to gather evidence of that wrongdoing to support one's later accusation. Period. And if Paszkiewicz wasn't saying such blatantly foolish and inappropriate things on the job, Matthew would have gotten no attention at all. Ever think about that, hotshot?

The source of that controversy is, and always was, the preaching liar (save the whining at my "name-calling," he was caught doing both things in spades--it's a 100% accurate description) in charge of that classroom. All the whining in the world will not change that fact.

[Strife767]

There were many alternatives to Matthew's method.

68566[/snapback]

Name one that would have had the same result.

[Strife767]

Amazing, this ***** ** * kid gets away with an illegal act

Which law did Matthew break, liar?

and gains National attention, and his father (what else a lawyer) defends his sons illegal act. WHAT A COUNTRY, WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Paul?

Freedom of speech does not extend to violating others' rights, moron. Your civil rights end where another's start--this doesn't magically change for people you agree with, nor does it magically disappear for those you don't agree with.