Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mnodonnell

David Paszkiewicz should be fired

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul
Really? Are you sure?

If so, then maybe we should drop all laws, rules, regulations, and evey other tactic that is used to keep people in line.

80159[/snapback]

It's really scary that so many people can't think in any but the most simplistic possible terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's dial down the over-reaction on the door taping for a moment, and look at it from a different perspective.

I have been a chaperone, and I take the safety of the kids under my charge (and the trust placed in me by their parents) very, very seriously.  Accordingly, I placed clear, scotch tape on doors to help to ensure the safety of the children. 

The fact is that the doors are not taped shut (scotch tape is not very strong).  That is, anyone who chooses to leave the room can do so.  It is not a prison cell.

I don't think anyone here came to the conclusion that the doors were being taped shut. 

What taping DOES do, is that it creates an opportunity to monitor the kids' safety with minimal intrusion.  A simple late-night walk down the hallway can determine if anyone is out of their rooms.  Doors that are taped do not need a room check.  Doors that are not do.  We take no less than 4 "monitoring" trips down the hallway per night.

This sounds nice but you are still not preventing anything from happening.  A kid can do a lot in two hours.

Now, your kids may be great kids (the clear majority of the kids who I have chaperoned are), but there are a few points that you are missing.

My kids are great boys.  Being a single parent I had to leave them home alone often. They were 13 and 11 when this started.  They never did anything bad that I discovered later.  I trusted them.

(1) You cannot assume who the "bad" kids are, and discriminately tape their doors - I think for obvious reasons. 

I agree but no one here suggested that.

Accepting this non-intrusive, non-discriminatory, broad policy gives the kids who need closer supervision the oversight they require, while not violating the rights of the "good" kids; (2) Sometimes good kids make bad decisions - it is a fact of life -and getting notice of a bad decision at 10:30 pm or even 2 am instead of at breakfast the next morning is preferable; and (3) you cannot also assume that the danger only rests with kids leaving their rooms voluntarily.  From sexual predators to potential adbuctors to the cute guy or girl that they met on the trip, I want to know if anyone went INTO the room at 10:30 pm rather than breakfast.

Again, you are not preventing anything from happening.  A clever teen could bring his/her own tape, leave and break your tape, then use their tape to reseal the door.  He/she could be out all night.  The tape will still be broken the next morning but the teen(s) would have had eight hours to do what they wanted.

Has anyone left their rooms under my charge?  Yes, twice.  Once was a sleepwalker who went to the hotel lobby to play the piano (even though she didn't know how to play the piano).  The other was a so-called "good" girl who was just feeling her oats a little and snuck out to meet a boy at the hotel's pool.  An 11:15 walk-by saw the broken tape, by 11:20 the hotel went on lock-down, and she was back in her room by 11:35. 

Did taping prevent other kids from trying to leave?  Who the heck knows.  The only thing that I am SURE of is that I would have no idea how many kids were out of their rooms if I did not tape doors.  And I will trade off whatever hurt feelings there may be for taking doors shut, for being able to return the kids to their parents safely and securely.

80192[/snapback]

I was always the type of kid who regularly broke my parents rules. I could be away for days without their knowing. I did a lot of stupid and dangerous things but I never was caught. My parents were physically abusive so I knew there would be hell to pay. They didn't really care what we were doing as long as it didn't cause them any inconvenience. I have two brothers and two sisters and for as long as I can remember we would leave the house in the morning and come back at sundown and my parents never knew where we were or what we were doing. I was a straight-A student but I was an alcoholic by the time I was 16 and I started having sex when I was 12 but everyone considered me to be an example for other kids. When I became a father I let my sons know that I cared about them and I always had a good idea where they were and what they were doing. The difference is having parents who love and trust their kids.

Chaperoning a group of teens is hard. You never really know what they might do so I think you need to be more proactive than reactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ninja of Reason
This is the most idiotic post I've ever seen on KOTW.

80099[/snapback]

Either you read very few posts on KOTW, or you are on some good drugs. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It's really scary that so many people can't think in any but the most simplistic possible terms.

80252[/snapback]

What's really scary is knowing that there are people out there willing to secretly tape others, portray themselves as heroes, and do speaking tours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Let's dial down the over-reaction on the door taping for a moment, and look at it from a different perspective.

I have been a chaperone, and I take the safety of the kids under my charge (and the trust placed in me by their parents) very, very seriously.  Accordingly, I placed clear, scotch tape on doors to help to ensure the safety of the children. 

The fact is that the doors are not taped shut (scotch tape is not very strong).  That is, anyone who chooses to leave the room can do so.  It is not a prison cell.

What taping DOES do, is that it creates an opportunity to monitor the kids' safety with minimal intrusion.  A simple late-night walk down the hallway can determine if anyone is out of their rooms.  Doors that are taped do not need a room check.  Doors that are not do.  We take no less than 4 "monitoring" trips down the hallway per night.

Now, your kids may be great kids (the clear majority of the kids who I have chaperoned are), but there are a few points that you are missing.  (1) You cannot assume who the "bad" kids are, and discriminately tape their doors - I think for obvious reasons.  Accepting this non-intrusive, non-discriminatory, broad policy gives the kids who need closer supervision the oversight they require, while not violating the rights of the "good" kids; (2) Sometimes good kids make bad decisions - it is a fact of life -and getting notice of a bad decision at 10:30 pm or even 2 am instead of at breakfast the next morning is preferable; and (3) you cannot also assume that the danger only rests with kids leaving their rooms voluntarily.  From sexual predators to potential adbuctors to the cute guy or girl that they met on the trip, I want to know if anyone went INTO the room at 10:30 pm rather than breakfast.

Has anyone left their rooms under my charge?  Yes, twice.  Once was a sleepwalker who went to the hotel lobby to play the piano (even though she didn't know how to play the piano).  The other was a so-called "good" girl who was just feeling her oats a little and snuck out to meet a boy at the hotel's pool.  An 11:15 walk-by saw the broken tape, by 11:20 the hotel went on lock-down, and she was back in her room by 11:35. 

Did taping prevent other kids from trying to leave?  Who the heck knows.  The only thing that I am SURE of is that I would have no idea how many kids were out of their rooms if I did not tape doors.  And I will trade off whatever hurt feelings there may be for taking doors shut, for being able to return the kids to their parents safely and securely.

80192[/snapback]

Your exactly correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hypocrisy Detector
What's really scary is knowing that there are people out there willing to secretly tape others,

Knowing exactly what you're talking about:

So, what are your feelings on Bush's warrantless wiretapping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's really scary is knowing that there are people out there willing to secretly tape others, portray themselves as heroes, and do speaking tours.

80345[/snapback]

No, what's really scary is knowing that there are people out there willing to enable a public school teacher's flagrant abuse of his authority and violation of the Constitution, and who denigrate and even threaten those who bring such violations to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
What's really scary is knowing that there are people out there willing to secretly tape others, portray themselves as heroes, and do speaking tours.

80345[/snapback]

Matthew LaClair has never portrayed himself as a hero. The only time he addressed the subject, at the BoE meeting last spring, he said that he did not consider himself a hero, only a citizen. Other people have called him a hero. Many others. If you Google "Matthew LaClair - hero" you'll see what I mean.

Obviously you do not understand why it was important for Matt to do what he did. What's scary is that this teacher was allowed to do this for years, and not one other student did anything about it. What's scary is all the other students saying Paszkiewicz did nothing wrong even after the recordings were public knowledge, making it obvious that Paszkiewicz was completely out of line. What's scary is an administration trying to defend the indefensible while its student was threatened and harassed. You don't understand because you don't want to understand. There's no other explanation at this point.

As for speaking tours, are you jealous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Knowing exactly what you're talking about:

So, what are your feelings on Bush's warrantless wiretapping?

80376[/snapback]

Concerning national defense, warrantless wiretapping is prudent and smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Matthew LaClair has never portrayed himself as a hero. The only time he addressed the subject, at the BoE meeting last spring, he said that he did not consider himself a hero, only a citizen. Other people have called him a hero. Many others. If you Google "Matthew LaClair - hero" you'll see what I mean.

Obviously you do not understand why it was important for Matt to do what he did. What's scary is that this teacher was allowed to do this for years, and not one other student did anything about it. What's scary is all the other students saying Paszkiewicz did nothing wrong even after the recordings were public knowledge, making it obvious that Paszkiewicz was completely out of line. What's scary is an administration trying to defend the indefensible while its student was threatened and harassed. You don't understand because you don't want to understand. There's no other explanation at this point.

As for speaking tours, are you jealous?

80393[/snapback]

What is the topic for discussion, "How to be a sneak" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Charlie Brown
Matthew LaClair has never portrayed himself as a hero. The only time he addressed the subject, at the BoE meeting last spring, he said that he did not consider himself a hero, only a citizen. Other people have called him a hero. Many others. If you Google "Matthew LaClair - hero" you'll see what I mean.

Obviously you do not understand why it was important for Matt to do what he did. What's scary is that this teacher was allowed to do this for years, and not one other student did anything about it. What's scary is all the other students saying Paszkiewicz did nothing wrong even after the recordings were public knowledge, making it obvious that Paszkiewicz was completely out of line. What's scary is an administration trying to defend the indefensible while its student was threatened and harassed. You don't understand because you don't want to understand. There's no other explanation at this point.

As for speaking tours, are you jealous?

80393[/snapback]

When will all of you anal people put an end to this "beaten to death" topic??

Good Grief!!

Charlie Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Matthew LaClair has never portrayed himself as a hero. The only time he addressed the subject, at the BoE meeting last spring, he said that he did not consider himself a hero, only a citizen. Other people have called him a hero. Many others. If you Google "Matthew LaClair - hero" you'll see what I mean.

Obviously you do not understand why it was important for Matt to do what he did. What's scary is that this teacher was allowed to do this for years, and not one other student did anything about it. What's scary is all the other students saying Paszkiewicz did nothing wrong even after the recordings were public knowledge, making it obvious that Paszkiewicz was completely out of line. What's scary is an administration trying to defend the indefensible while its student was threatened and harassed. You don't understand because you don't want to understand. There's no other explanation at this point.

As for speaking tours, are you jealous?

80393[/snapback]

Most true heroes do what they do and walk away. If Matt wasn't interested in self promotion we would've heard very little about this situation.

Jealous? No. In this case I don't think the end justifies the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
What's really scary is knowing that there are people out there willing to secretly tape others, portray themselves as heroes, and do speaking tours.

80345[/snapback]

Dear Idiot,

The kid is a hero. You're an ignorant jerk.

He's right. You're wrong.

He won. You lost.

The whole world is laughing at you. You're too stupid to notice.

Get used to it.

Get over it.

It's over.

Move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Matthew LaClair has never portrayed himself as a hero. The only time he addressed the subject, at the BoE meeting last spring, he said that he did not consider himself a hero, only a citizen. Other people have called him a hero. Many others. If you Google "Matthew LaClair - hero" you'll see what I mean.

Obviously you do not understand why it was important for Matt to do what he did. What's scary is that this teacher was allowed to do this for years, and not one other student did anything about it. What's scary is all the other students saying Paszkiewicz did nothing wrong even after the recordings were public knowledge, making it obvious that Paszkiewicz was completely out of line. What's scary is an administration trying to defend the indefensible while its student was threatened and harassed. You don't understand because you don't want to understand. There's no other explanation at this point.

As for speaking tours, are you jealous?

80393[/snapback]

What's scarey is that Mrs. LaClair has to post this posts to pretend that her son is a hero to keep his name in the media. Sorry I don't go posting Matthew LaClair in Google. I have a life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Knowing exactly what you're talking about:

So, what are your feelings on Bush's warrantless wiretapping?

80376[/snapback]

I'm not involved in any criminal activity so it doesn't frighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Statesman
Concerning national defense, warrantless wiretapping is prudent and smart.

80511[/snapback]

"Oh, please, take my liberties, take them all, if it means you can assure my safety (even if you're lying when you say it)!"

Coward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Statesman
Most true heroes do what they do and walk away.  If Matt wasn't interested in self promotion we would've heard very little about this situation.

If the Board didn't try to sweep the issue under the rug, there would have been no need to raise its exposure, and none of us would have even been aware that something so shameful was being done by a teacher in a public high school.

Jealous? No.  In this case I don't think the end justifies the means.

80610[/snapback]

Seeing as how Paszkiewicz has already proven himself to be a liar about what he said, which alternative "means" do you think Matthew could have taken instead to try and stop the preaching in class, hmmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Laughing out loud
What's scarey is that Mrs. LaClair has to post this posts to pretend that her son is a hero to keep his name in the media. Sorry I don't go posting Matthew LaClair in Google. I have a life.

80696[/snapback]

Your spelling is 'scarey'. *lol*

The fact that you're so afraid of accepting that the LaClairs have near-universal support except for some very stubbon, Constitutionally-ignorant people in Kearny, that you will accuse an anonymous poster praising Matthew of being a family member, is shameful. Get over yourself--only the truly ignorant give Matthew flak for what he did. As he himself proved, there was no other way! If he didn't gather proof, Paszkiewicz would have gotten away with the LYING he did in that meeting about not having said the things he said! ;) *lol*

And wtf, posting Mathew LaClair in Google? Google's a search engine, nitwit. The point is that you can find tons of people calling Matthew a hero all over the Internet. But show me one single example where Matthew refers to himself as a "hero". I dare you. I double dare you.

You imbecile. *lol*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's scarey is that Mrs. LaClair has to post this posts to pretend that her son is a hero to keep his name in the media. Sorry I don't go posting Matthew LaClair in Google. I have a life.

80696[/snapback]

Another inane, bring nothing to the table comment.

You people can't argue on facts, and I really think you also live in your own made up world of complete fantasy.

The shame is that normal people, like us, have to suffer because of the inanities and viciousness of you and your cohorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I was always the type of kid who regularly broke my parents rules.  I could be away for days without their knowing.  I did a lot of stupid and dangerous things but I never was caught.  My parents were physically abusive so I knew there would be hell to pay.  They didn't really care what we were doing as long as it didn't cause them any inconvenience.  I have two brothers and two sisters and for as long as I can remember we would leave the house in the morning and come back at sundown and my parents never knew where we were or what we were doing.  I was a straight-A student but I was an alcoholic by the time I was 16 and I started having sex when I was 12 but everyone considered me to be an example for other kids.  When I became a father I let my sons know that I cared about them and I always had a good idea where they were and what they were doing.  The difference is having parents who love and trust their kids.

Chaperoning a group of teens is hard.  You never really know what they might do so I think you need to be more proactive than reactive.

80267[/snapback]

One quick point - you cannot retape a door from the inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Concerning national defense, warrantless wiretapping is prudent and smart.

80511[/snapback]

Another clear-thinking rational person. Thank You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Most true heroes do what they do and walk away.  If Matt wasn't interested in self promotion we would've heard very little about this situation.

Jealous? No.  In this case I don't think the end justifies the means.

80610[/snapback]

You're wrong. You would have heard very little about the situation if David Paszkiewicz (DP) and the administration had done what we asked them to do in the beginning, before the story went public. Matthew gave DP a chance to tell the truth about what he had done, but he did not. Matthew also gave him the opportunity to make it right, but he did not do that either. In fact, to this day DP seems to believe that he did nothing wrong. So that was door number one closed to Matthew's attempt to do his job and walk away. He tried. He effort was refused.

Similarly, the administration refused to act. We gave them a month, and I wrote four letters personally asking them to address the situation. They refused. That was the second door closed. We tried. Our efforts were refused.

At that point, we had three choices: (1) file a Notice of Claim, (2) go to the press or (3) drop the whole thing. Option 3 was out of the question. The issue was too important. Obviously you don't think so, and you refuse to accept that our motives were what we say they are. You are desperate for another explanation why Matthew has been given multiple awards, and continues to be sought after. You just can't understand why anyone would want to give him an award or call him a hero. And since you don't understand what he did, naturally you make it out to be something negative. That's just your biases and your ignorance talking. "Ignorance" is a tough word, I know, but unfortunately the shoe fits, and others have already put it on you whether you accept the fact or not.

So now your claim is that Matthew should have done his job and walked away. The problem with that way of looking at it is that there was no way to do the job without making a very big public fuss. And why? Because people like you were already telling us to shut up and go away. You didn't want the situation corrected. You didn't care. So we had to make it a very public fight.

Even if we had filed a Notice of Claim, it still would have ended up in the press. So we decided to go to the press first, hoping that would shame the administration into action when the community saw this for what it was: blatant and indefensible misconduct. The community reacted, alright, but mainly to defend the indefensible. The Board refused to act, thinking they could ride it out.

Then I got the call from the New York Times. I knew your goose was cooked, but no one would listen. The Board still refused to act. On the evening after the story had just run in the New York Times, the Board issued a statement (read on air by Anderson Cooper), saying it was refusing to act so as not to "reopen" the issue. What a ridiculous thing to say. The issue was wide open. How much more wide open could it be?

Two months of highly unfavorable publicity followed, including an editorial in The New York Times entitled "A Strange Silence in Kearny," all blasting the Board for its inaction. Finally, in Febuary, we filed our Notice of Claim and held a press conference, which all the regional news channels covered. DP had just written a letter denying that he had not been forthcoming in the meeting in Mr. Somma's office in October. Since those remarks called Matthew's public statements into question, Matthew felt he should now release the recording he had made of the October meeting. He announced that fact at the February Board meeting and handed them a CD of the recording, which all the regional news channels covered. At that point, the Board finally started negotiating.

You can say what you like, but the fact is that nothing was going to be done unless we made this very public and put on the pressure. How do I know for sure? Simple. The Board said publicly they weren't going to do anything. I heard their statement as I was sitting just off camera while Anderson Cooper was interviewing Matthew.

By this point, the whole world knew about the story. Now I suppose Matthew could have refused all the offers that came his way, but why should he? He didn't ask for any of those awards, or for a documentary film to be made, or to be offered a summer internship at a major financial house because the former CEO admired what he had done. All of that came from others, freely and without our asking for any of it.

And you're just dead wrong if you think that this could have been done any other way. This was the only way to make it happen. The proof is that the Board said they would not act. They said it publicly and explicitly. That's proof beyond any doubt.

So what was the end? It was to defend the US Constitution against blatant religious proselytizing in a public school, to defend science education and the integrity of education generally. These are important principles. They are why Matthew is a hero to Americans United, People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union. They are why an evangelical minister from Texas wrote Matthew personally to tell him that he was doing the right thing. That is why people all over the world read this story and wrote in or posted on their own blogs to call him a hero.

What were the means? Number one, they were completely within the law. Number two, they violated no rule, regulation or policy. There was nothing wrong with the means. Number three, they were necessary. Matthew acted in the only way he could that would be effective. He preserved an undeniable record of what was going on. Had he not done that, we wouldn't have gotten to first base, and you know it. In fact, that's what you wanted. Sorry, but we're not playing by your rules, and if he had to do it over again, he would. In a heartbeat. And I'd be right behind him, and so would a lot of other people.

You may not like it, but those are the facts. You just don't like how it turned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
You're wrong. You would have heard very little about the situation if David Paszkiewicz (DP) and the administration had done what we asked them to do in the beginning, before the story went public. Matthew gave DP a chance to tell the truth about what he had done, but he did not. Matthew also gave him the opportunity to make it right, but he did not do that either. In fact, to this day DP seems to believe that he did nothing wrong. So that was door number one closed to Matthew's attempt  to do his job and walk away. He tried. He effort was refused.

Similarly, the administration refused to act. We gave them a month, and I wrote four letters personally asking them to address the situation. They refused. That was the second door closed. We tried. Our efforts were refused.

At that point, we had three choices: (1) file a Notice of Claim, (2) go to the press or (3) drop the whole thing. Option 3 was out of the question. The issue was too important. Obviously you don't think so, and you refuse to accept that our motives were what we say they are. You are desperate for another explanation why Matthew has been given multiple awards, and continues to be sought after. You just can't understand why anyone would want to give him an award or call him a hero. And since you don't understand what he did, naturally you make it out to be something negative. That's just your biases and your ignorance talking. "Ignorance" is a tough word, I know, but unfortunately the shoe fits, and others have already put it on you whether you accept the fact or not.

So now your claim is that Matthew should have done his job and walked away. The problem with that way of looking at it is that there was no way to do the job without making a very big public fuss. And why? Because people like you were already telling us to shut up and go away. You didn't want the situation corrected. You didn't care. So we had to make it a very public fight.

Even if we had filed a Notice of Claim, it still would have ended up in the press. So we decided to go to the press first, hoping that would shame the administration into action when the community saw this for what it was: blatant and indefensible misconduct. The community reacted, alright, but mainly to defend the indefensible. The Board refused to act, thinking they could ride it out.

Then I got the call from the New York Times. I knew your goose was cooked, but no one would listen. The Board still refused to act. On the evening after the story had just run in the New York Times, the Board issued a statement (read on air by Anderson Cooper), saying it was refusing to act so as not to "reopen" the issue. What a ridiculous thing to say. The issue was wide open. How much more wide open could it be?

Two months of highly unfavorable publicity followed, including an editorial in The New York Times entitled "A Strange Silence in Kearny," all blasting the Board for its inaction. Finally, in Febuary, we filed our Notice of Claim and held a press conference, which all the regional news channels covered. DP had just written a letter denying that he had not been forthcoming in the meeting in Mr. Somma's office in October. Since those remarks called Matthew's public statements into question, Matthew felt he should now release the recording he had made of the October meeting. He announced that fact at the February Board meeting and handed them a CD of the recording, which all the regional news channels covered. At that point, the Board finally started negotiating.

You can say what you like, but the fact is that nothing was going to be done unless we made this very public and put on the pressure. How do I know for sure? Simple. The Board said publicly they weren't going to do anything. I heard their statement as I was sitting just off camera while Anderson Cooper was interviewing Matthew.

By this point, the whole world knew about the story. Now I suppose Matthew could have refused all the offers that came his way, but why should he? He didn't ask for any of those awards, or for a documentary film to be made, or to be offered a summer internship at a major financial house because the former CEO admired what he had done. All of that came from others, freely and without our asking for any of it.

And you're just dead wrong if you think that this could have been done any other way. This was the only way to make it happen. The proof is that the Board said they would not act. They said it publicly and explicitly. That's proof beyond any doubt.

So what was the end? It was to defend the US Constitution against blatant religious proselytizing in a public school, to defend science education and the integrity of education generally. These are important principles. They are why Matthew is a hero to Americans United, People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union. They are why an evangelical minister from Texas wrote Matthew personally to tell him that he was doing the right thing. That is why people all over the world read this story and wrote in or posted on their own blogs to call him a hero.

What were the means? Number one, they were completely within the law. Number two, they violated no rule, regulation or policy. There was nothing wrong with the means. Number three, they were necessary. Matthew acted in the only way he could that would be effective. He preserved an undeniable record of what was going on. Had he not done that, we wouldn't have gotten to first base, and you know it. In fact, that's what you wanted. Sorry, but we're not playing by your rules, and if he had to do it over again, he would. In a heartbeat. And I'd be right behind him, and so would a lot of other people.

You may not like it, but those are the facts. You just don't like how it turned out.

80842[/snapback]

Paul/Rex/Guest must be OCD. Only someone afflicted with OCD would

continuously type the same trite garbage over and over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When will all of you anal people put an end to this "beaten to death" topic??

80525[/snapback]

Why not direct this to the one who actually reopened the topic? Could it be that your actual desire is not that everyone stop talking about it, but only the side you disagree with?

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...