Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mnodonnell

David Paszkiewicz should be fired

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul
I'm interested to hear what the board thinks on these issues:

1.  Should a teacher at a public school be restricted, in any manner, from straying from an approved curriculum?  Are there any subjects (e.g. religion) that should be especially avoided or controlled?

2.  If a student explicitly asks a question that concerns a restricted topic (as you have judged in question #1), how should the teacher respond?

69831[/snapback]

Michael, thank you for coming forward personally and by name, and for your excellent contribution here.

To answer your questions, especially as they pertain to this topic, religion is obviously a subject on which public school teachers must be very careful, as it is a matter of US Constitutitional law. The Kearny BoE adopted a policy earlier this year, consistent with existing law (so they would have been held to it anyway), explicitly stating that teachers are not to promote any religion in class. The fact that a student asks a question makes no difference as a matter of law. To illustrate that point, consider two examples.

Example 1: A student enjoys religious discussions, and so does the teacher. If the law was not what it was, it could circumvented simply by a Christian student asking questions of a Christian teacher, and presto, we've pulled an end run around the Constitution. Pretty soon, dominionists all over the country have caught on, and voila, Bible study is back in the public schools. For obvious reasons, that's not permitted.

Example 2: By way of analogy, if a male teacher walks into his classroom and sees a sixteen-year-old female student nude, on her back and atop his desk, does that mean that he can take advantage of the situation? After all, she obviously wants to have sex with him. Obviously he may not take advantage, and while the situations are very different, the legal principle is the same. The teacher is supposed to be the adult, responsible and in control of the situation, he has certain responsibilities to his students, and there are certain lines he may not cross even if a student or students ask him to. The Board's stated policy, as well as the existing law on the subject, are crystal clear on this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I know there are going to be people who disagree with me (by virtue of the fact that there are people here who will disagree with even the most obvious things (read: Bryan challenging statements about Paszkiewicz having lied)).

69862[/snapback]

"I don’t remember saying that and I don’t think I would say that."

That WAS Mr. P's statement, was it not? It was not, "under oath and penalty of perjury, I did not say that."

Therefore, no matter how you try to frame it, you cannot PROVE that Mr. P lied. It's really that simply, Strife.

Now, you can BELIEVE that he lied. And you can BELIEVE that he should have remembered EXACTLY what he said in a free-form discussion from weeks previous. And you would be sharing the same side of the fence with me.

BUT there is also room for someone else to believe that he did not recall exactly what he said, and that he did not think that he would ever say such a thing. Refusing to acknowledge this gray area is neither fair to Mr. P, nor does it encourage our neighbors over the fence to open to the idea that maybe what he DID actually say might have crossed a line or two such that he needed a little re-education on where appropriate bounds of classroom discussion lie.

Sorry to come down on you, but I'm getting a little tired of the absolute characterizations of both Matthew and Mr. P - one of which is that it is a well-established fact that Mr. P lied. It is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Well, sure. A teacher shouldn't be talking about his/her personal life in general--not on class time. I mean, okay, if the class is on or ahead of schedule as far as the curriculum goes, I wouldn't jump down a teacher's throat for having a bit of a 'normal' chat with his/her students in the tail-end of a class, but long-winded 'speeches' about truly personal stuff (like the teacher (Adamski, iirc) who apparently (as one student who wrote to the Observer claimed) went on about her depression and medication etc.) should be at least heavily discouraged.

Religion in particular, just by virtue of being such a contentious issue, should be a topic avoided by just about any teacher. I'm sure there are teachers out there fully capable of having such a 'chat' about religion completely objectively, but those are few and far between--most cannot divorce personal feelings from it, and it's better to not say anything than to risk crossing the line with something like that, especially when we're talking about 'extracurricular' (technically, I guess) interaction with students during the class time proper.

Well, if they don't want to respond, they can answer as they otherwise would. Otherwise, they should let the student know that it isn't an appropriate topic for class time and offer maybe to talk to the student(s) in question after school or something instead.

I know there are going to be people who disagree with me (by virtue of the fact that there are people here who will disagree with even the most obvious things (read: Bryan challenging statements about Paszkiewicz having lied)), so I'll ask in advance: what's so unreasonable about the above? Be specific, please.

69862[/snapback]

Now, to the substance of your opinion. I do not see how you can avoid religion entirely. So much of history has been intertwined with religion, that you cannot simply ignore the relationship. From the Inquisition, to the Magna Carta, to religious objections to slavery and on and on and on. Religion is the pervasive thread that has woven the tapestry of our past.

The difficulty in determining to what extent religion should be discussed will always comeback to SOMEONE'S opinion. The question is, who's opinion?

From the various authors who write the texts, to the beaurocrat who determines which text is the most appropriate, to the administrator who establishes the guidelines, to the teacher who interprets the guidelines - there is so much room for opinion to creep into the discussion.

There is simply no way of avoiding this altogether. And the tighter the grip, the more discussions will slip through our fingers.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, broad and general guidelines are appropriate. How broad and how general are greater discussions about which I am not prepared to think on a Sunday morning. But ignoring religion as a topic will only serve to lessen the quality of historical education in our schools (thus dooming our children to repeat the religious-based mistakes of our past).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"I don’t remember saying that and I don’t think I would say that."

That WAS Mr. P's statement, was it not?  It was not, "under oath and penalty of perjury, I did not say that." 

Therefore, no matter how you try to frame it, you cannot PROVE that Mr. P lied.  It's really that simply, Strife. 

Now, you can BELIEVE that he lied.  And you can BELIEVE that he should have remembered EXACTLY what he said in a free-form discussion from weeks previous.  And you would be sharing the same side of the fence with me.

BUT there is also room for someone else to believe that he did not recall exactly what he said, and that he did not think that he would ever say such a thing.  Refusing to acknowledge this gray area is neither fair to Mr. P, nor does it encourage our neighbors over the fence to open to the idea that maybe what he DID actually say might have crossed a line or two such that he needed a little re-education on where appropriate bounds of classroom discussion lie.

Sorry to come down on you, but I'm getting a little tired of the absolute characterizations of both Matthew and Mr. P - one of which is that it is a well-established fact that Mr. P lied.  It is not.

69959[/snapback]

I don't see how a reasonable person who listened to the recordings can conclude that Paszkiewicz didn't lie. You might overlook a denial or two, especially on an innocuous point, but not this many denials when the proselytizing is this blatant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Now, to the substance of your opinion.  I do not see how you can avoid religion entirely.  So much of history has been intertwined with religion, that you cannot simply ignore the relationship.  From the Inquisition, to the Magna Carta, to religious objections to slavery and on and on and on.  Religion is the pervasive thread that has woven the tapestry of our past. 

The difficulty in determining to what extent religion should be discussed will always comeback to SOMEONE'S opinion.  The question is, who's opinion?

From the various authors who write the texts, to the beaurocrat who determines which text is the most appropriate, to the administrator who establishes the guidelines, to the teacher who interprets the guidelines - there is so much room for opinion to creep into the discussion.

There is simply no way of avoiding this altogether.  And the tighter the grip, the more discussions will slip through our fingers.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, broad and general guidelines are appropriate.  How broad and how general are greater discussions about which I am not prepared to think on a Sunday morning.  But ignoring religion as a topic will only serve to lessen the quality of historical education in our schools (thus dooming our children to repeat the religious-based mistakes of our past).

69963[/snapback]

Oh, come on. The distinction between proselytizing and discussing religion as history is not hard to draw. Responsible, adult teachers do it every day all over the country. They are free to tell the students what religious views various historical figures held, but they are not free to tell the students what views they hold. Give me a break.

A public school teacher may not promote a religion, but may discuss religion as history within the context of the curriculum. There is not one thing of value lost to the students in following this simple distinction, which grown-up teachers do all the time. You make it sound as though the rule puts us in danger in losing something of educational value, but that's just not true, and your argument is completely beside the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I don’t remember saying that and I don’t think I would say that."

That WAS Mr. P's statement, was it not?  It was not, "under oath and penalty of perjury, I did not say that." Therefore, no matter how you try to frame it, you cannot PROVE that Mr. P lied.  It's really that simply, Strife.

No:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...985entry46985

"I never said that. Now if you, you you use the word belong here. I didn’t say that."

"I didn’t stand in front of the class and say ‘if you reject this . . .’"

Also, care to explain this statement Paszkiewicz made at the meeting?

"I stand by everything I said, and, uh, it’s no different than things I’ve said for fifteen years."

Now, you can BELIEVE that he lied.

No, I can accept the fact that he did.

And you can BELIEVE that he should have remembered EXACTLY what he said in a free-form discussion from weeks previous.  And you would be sharing the same side of the fence with me.

BUT there is also room for someone else to believe that he did not recall exactly what he said, and that he did not think that he would ever say such a thing.

Not when you have several instances of flat denial coming out of him.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...985entry46985

Refusing to acknowledge this gray area is neither fair to Mr. P,

There is no gray area. Paszkiewicz did not blanket every question with "I do not recall," first of all (which would have been sketchy, anyway), and there is no escaping the fact that even AFTER the recordings proving he DID make all those statements were released, he didn't even apologize or anything. But he did make it clear he meant what he said, as well as admitting that kind of "teaching" has been par for the course for him for his entire career at KHS:

"I stand by everything I said, and, uh, it’s no different than things I’ve said for fifteen years."

nor does it encourage our neighbors over the fence to open to the idea that maybe what he DID actually say might have crossed a line or two such that he needed a little re-education on where appropriate bounds of classroom discussion lie.

Sorry to come down on you, but I'm getting a little tired of the absolute characterizations of both Matthew and Mr. P - one of which is that it is a well-established fact that Mr. P lied.  It is not.

69959[/snapback]

Yes, it is:

"I never said that [if you reject Christ you belong in hell]." And yet he did--it's right on the recording. What do you call that? In the real world, we call it a lie.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...985entry46985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, to the substance of your opinion.  I do not see how you can avoid religion entirely.  So much of history has been intertwined with religion, that you cannot simply ignore the relationship.

Okay, let me clarify what I meant--no personal statements about religion. No matter what one is or isn't, nothing but the historical facts regarding religion on class time. I have no problem with it being discussed in that context (in relevant subjects--a math teacher has no reason to talk about religion during class even in that context, I'm sure you'd agree), and never have.

I snipped most of your post because it mostly rested on that miscommunication. I understand what you're saying--I don't feel religion should be akin to a taboo word that shouldn't be uttered. The reason I talked about avoiding it was introspective--it came out that way as I was thinking of how contentious an issue it is. Perhaps a better way to word it would be "avoid the topic entirely unless it has relevance to the curriculum." How does that sound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody apparently forgot that LaClair didn't exhaustively tape every single thing Paszkiewicz uttered.  It would be stupid to conclude that Paszkiewicz didn't say something he said he said merely because it didn't occur on the tape.

69859[/snapback]

Not necessarily. It depends on whether he specified when he said it ...

That's more than "merely."

Pay attention next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, come on. The distinction between proselytizing and discussing religion as history is not hard to draw.

69972[/snapback]

Do it, then. Use what Paszkiewicz said to demonstrate it without taking him out of context.

And pick out a name so that you don't blend with all the other guests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...985entry46985

"I never said that. Now if you, you you use the word belong here. I didn’t say that."

More of the LaClairian truth-twisting.

Matthew took Paszkiewicz out of context. Paszkiewicz is addressing the claim that he supposedly proselytized.

"I didn’t stand in front of the class and say ‘if you reject this . . .’"

That's in the midst of this exchange:

"And if I said anything it might be that’s what the Bible says."

"So, okay."

"I didn’t stand in front of the class and say if you reject this."

It should be obvious that Paszkiewicz is defending himself from the portrayal that he gave some kind of "turn or burn" speech in class, which is exactly the effect Matthew achieved by taking the comments out of context like he did.

I'll bet most of the people reading this, if not all of them, would have trouble remembering their exact words from a conversation taking place weeks before. And if the comments were taken out of context and presented as something you said where the meaning was changed by the dropping of the context, you'd deny having said it. And you'd be right to do it.

It's one thing to ask "Did these words come out of your mouth, under any set of circumstances?" It's another thing to ask if you made a statement with a certain meaning.

The elder LaClair should know this because of his experience in law. That's what makes his behavior in this rather despicable.

Also, care to explain this statement Paszkiewicz made at the meeting?

"I stand by everything I said, and, uh, it’s no different than things I’ve said for fifteen years."

Sure. That's easy. It means that he stands by what he said, and the types of comments he made are in keeping with his teaching methods over the years.

No, I can accept the fact that he did.

Not when you have several instances of flat denial coming out of him.

Flat denial of proselytizing, that is. Bear in mind that Matthew had not revealed that he had a record of the class lecture. On the contrary, Matthew presented himself (deceivingly) as one who wasn't quite certain he had heard things correctly.

Wherever the context of the comments was presented clearly, it appears that Paszkiewicz affirmed that he made the statements attributed to him (in spite of Matthew's feigned uncertainty).

It's hilarious that so many biased folk here are talking about how no fair minded person can disagree with their point of view, by the way.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...985entry46985

There is no gray area. Paszkiewicz did not blanket every question with "I do not recall," first of all (which would have been sketchy, anyway), and there is no escaping the fact that even AFTER the recordings proving he DID make all those statements were released, he didn't even apologize or anything.

Overlooking for the moment that you appear to be changing the subject, what should he apologize for?

Yes, it is:

"I never said that [if you reject Christ you belong in hell]." And yet he did--it's right on the recording. What do you call that? In the real world, we call it a lie.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...985entry46985

69975[/snapback]

In the context, he was not denying allowing those exact words to escape his lips, for Matthew never made that suggestion (Matthew feigned uncertainty about what was said). As a result, Paszkiewicz denied the intent given to his words via the dropping of the context.

I trust that Matthew didn't know any better than to act as he did. His father should have known better, however. And one might hope that when he counseled Matthew as to how to deal with the situation that he would advise some sort of reasonable caution with this technique.

Paul LaClair has disgraced himself. Strife gets runnerup out of those who have bothered to identify themselves as other than "Guest."

And for those of you who can't see the truth of what I'm saying ... perhaps this should happen to you one day so you can see what it's like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. It depends on whether he specified when he said it ...

That's more than "merely."

Ah yes, I did miss that. I'll agree then that "It would be stupid to conclude that Paszkiewicz didn't say something he said he said merely because it didn't occur on the tape." Well, I'll partially agree anyway. I will call it "erroneous" rather than "stupid".

But I have to ask: Who has reached that conclusion?

Here's what you had replied to:

He made numerous statements about things he supposedly did say, which were blatantly false per the classroom recordings, and numerous denials of saying things he did say.

At no point does Guest claim that the absence of something on tape ("merely" or otherwise) would prove that something wasn't said. It's not even clear that there are any missing statements at all. He could just as easily have been referring to something that was there, but different from the way Paszkiewicz described it.

Pay attention next time.

Good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
More of the LaClairian truth-twisting.

Matthew took Paszkiewicz out of context.  Paszkiewicz is addressing the claim that he supposedly proselytized.

That's in the midst of this exchange:

"And if I said anything it might be that’s what the Bible says."

"So, okay."

"I didn’t stand in front of the class and say if you reject this."

It should be obvious that Paszkiewicz is defending himself from the portrayal that he gave some kind of "turn or burn" speech in class, which is exactly the effect Matthew achieved by taking the comments out of context like he did.

I'll bet most of the people reading this, if not all of them, would have trouble remembering their exact words from a conversation taking place weeks before.  And if the comments were taken out of context and presented as something you said where the meaning was changed by the dropping of the context, you'd deny having said it.  And you'd be right to do it.

It's one thing to ask "Did these words come out of your mouth, under any set of circumstances?"  It's another thing to ask if you made a statement with a certain meaning.

The elder LaClair should know this because of his experience in law.  That's what makes his behavior in this rather despicable.

Sure.  That's easy.  It means that he stands by what he said, and the types of comments he made are in keeping with his teaching methods over the years.

Flat denial of proselytizing, that is.  Bear in mind that Matthew had not revealed that he had a record of the class lecture.  On the contrary, Matthew presented himself (deceivingly) as one who wasn't quite certain he had heard things correctly. 

Wherever the context of the comments was presented clearly, it appears that Paszkiewicz affirmed that he made the statements attributed to him (in spite of Matthew's feigned uncertainty).

It's hilarious that so many biased folk here are talking about how no fair minded person can disagree with their point of view, by the way.

Overlooking for the moment that you appear to be changing the subject, what should he apologize for?

In the context, he was not denying allowing those exact words to escape his lips, for Matthew never made that suggestion (Matthew feigned uncertainty about what was said).  As a result, Paszkiewicz denied the intent given to his words via the dropping of the context.

I trust that Matthew didn't know any better than to act as he did.  His father should have known better, however.  And one might hope that when he counseled Matthew as to how to deal with the situation that he would advise some sort of reasonable caution with this technique.

Paul LaClair has disgraced himself.  Strife gets runnerup out of those who have bothered to identify themselves as other than "Guest."

And for those of you who can't see the truth of what I'm saying ... perhaps this should happen to you one day so you can see what it's like.

69993[/snapback]

"We'll be right back to the Bryan Show after these messages.........."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Oh, come on. The distinction between proselytizing and discussing religion as history is not hard to draw. Responsible, adult teachers do it every day all over the country. They are free to tell the students what religious views various historical figures held, but they are not free to tell the students what views they hold. Give me a break.

A public school teacher may not promote a religion, but may discuss religion as history within the context of the curriculum. There is not one thing of value lost to the students in following this simple distinction, which grown-up teachers do all the time. You make it sound as though the rule puts us in danger in losing something of educational value, but that's just not true, and your argument is completely beside the point.

69972[/snapback]

Okay, genius, you're missing the point altogether. Strife stated that religion should be avoided altogether. Apparently, you did not bother to read the post to which I was referring.

So, for those in need of remedial help, let's try again, with a different spin.

Where would YOU draw the line and how would YOU enforce your rules and regulations and how would YOU handle any transgressions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Example 2: By way of analogy, if a male teacher walks into his classroom and sees a sixteen-year-old female student nude, on her back and atop his desk, does that mean that he can take advantage of the situation? After all, she obviously wants to have sex with him. Obviously he may not take advantage, and while the situations are very different, the legal principle is the same.

69927[/snapback]

To put it bluntly, you have to be one of the sickest people in the world to sit at home and think of things like this. I wonder if this is how you spend those quiet nights of yours at home ? Please do not bring your personal experience into this?

There are too many good people in this town for you to try to corrupt. I just hope that none of these 16 year old girls have nothing to do with your son. Maybe next time you could get more graphic in your details of this like it was in a dream of yours or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's more than "merely."

Ah yes, I did miss that. I'll agree then that "It would be stupid to conclude that Paszkiewicz didn't say something he said he said merely because it didn't occur on the tape." Well, I'll partially agree anyway. I will call it "erroneous" rather than "stupid".

You're too kind. :)

But I have to ask: Who has reached that conclusion?

Guest, perhaps.

Here's what you had replied to:

"He made numerous statements about things he supposedly did say, which were blatantly false per the classroom recordings, and numerous denials of saying things he did say."

Good idea.

70012[/snapback]

Is the contrast between "things he supposedly did say" and "things he did say" lost on you or what?

You can correct your second recent failure to read carefully by noting that I said that Guest "appeared" to have forgotten that not everything was recorded. That means that I'm going on the impression he created with his sentence. I point where the logic leads if that impression is correct, and "Guest" is welcome to better explain what he was trying to say.

And you'll go right on being WilliamK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"We'll be right back to the Bryan Show after these messages.........."

70042[/snapback]

I apologize for making you so uncomfortable with the truth that you had to resort to mockery. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Okay, genius, you're missing the point altogether.  Strife stated that religion should be avoided altogether.  Apparently, you did not bother to read the post to which I was referring.

So, for those in need of remedial help, let's try again, with a different spin.

Where would YOU draw the line and how would YOU enforce your rules and regulations and how would YOU handle any transgressions ...

70064[/snapback]

The line is already appropriately drawn by the courts under the Constitution: "A public school teacher may not promote a religion, but may discuss religion as history within the context of the curriculum." It's a reasonable and easily understandable rule.

If I were in charge at Kearny High, I would make sure teachers understood the distinction. If any teacher stepped as far over the line as Paszkiewicz did, especially with the lying that came later, I would fire him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
I apologize for making you so uncomfortable with the truth that you had to resort to mockery.  :)

70086[/snapback]

Uncomfortable? No. Not in the least. I know your type. I deal with people like you everyday. I did used to become infuriated by thier insatiable need to follow the leader. I used to feel sorry for them as they waddled thier way to the proverbial cliff in lock step with all of the other lemmings. I also used to pity them as they pasted Ann Coulter's face on the body of a woman because that was the only way they could become aroused.

Uncomfortable? No. Laughable? Yes.

I mock you Bryan because you deserve it.

Get over yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncomfortable? No. Not in the least. I know your type. I deal with people like you everyday. I did used to become infuriated by thier insatiable need to follow the leader. I used to feel sorry for them as they waddled thier way to the proverbial cliff in lock step with all of the other lemmings. I also used to pity them as they pasted Ann Coulter's face on the body of a woman because that was the only way they could become aroused.

Uncomfortable? No. Laughable? Yes.

I mock you Bryan because you deserve it.

Get over yourself.

70118[/snapback]

Okay, so obviously I'm so much in your head that you're making me the topic instead of O'Donnell's topic.

Funny stuff, Keith. You make a mockery of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To put it bluntly, you have to be one of the sickest people in the world to sit at home and think of things like this.  I wonder if this is how you spend those quiet nights of yours at home ? Please do not bring your personal experience into this?

There are too many good people in this town for you to try to corrupt.  I just hope that none of these 16 year old girls have nothing to do with your son. Maybe next time you could get more graphic in your details of this like it was in a dream of yours or something?

70067[/snapback]

...it's a hypothetical situation. Mature adults are capable of understanding his point without going into this rant about how 'sick' Paul is. His whole freaking point was that in both cases, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to act despite what the student(s) want(s). Use your head, geez!

By your logic, if I said "Well, taking a submachine gun to school and slaughtering a bunch of innocent people would also be wrong," I'm now a murder-obsessed, "sick" person. Don't you see how absurd this logic is? Are you so mentally bereft that you are incapable of understanding even the slightest bit of analogy/hypothetical/metaphor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Uncomfortable? No. Not in the least. I know your type. I deal with people like you everyday. I did used to become infuriated by thier insatiable need to follow the leader. I used to feel sorry for them as they waddled thier way to the proverbial cliff in lock step with all of the other lemmings. I also used to pity them as they pasted Ann Coulter's face on the body of a woman because that was the only way they could become aroused.

Uncomfortable? No. Laughable? Yes.

I mock you Bryan because you deserve it.

Get over yourself.

70118[/snapback]

Yeah Keith, get in line and smoke 'em if you got 'em, because you're not one to follow the leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The line is already appropriately drawn by the courts under the Constitution: "A public school teacher may not promote a religion, but may discuss religion as history within the context of the curriculum." It's a reasonable and easily understandable rule.

If I were in charge at Kearny High, I would make sure teachers understood the distinction. If any teacher stepped as far over the line as Paszkiewicz did, especially with the lying that came later, I would fire him.

70113[/snapback]

But you are not in charge at Kearny High and go back to picking up the trash where ever you come from. At this website you are privy to only one side of the story and therefore you base your judgment on that. The guidelines are not clearly set and therefore your comment is stupid or do you think fat man LaClair would have had the teacher fired already. Do not think that he is benevolent by any means. He only looks after himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"We'll be right back to the Bryan Show after these messages.........."

70042[/snapback]

You are such a hypocrite. You were not there so you do not know what actually happened, but I guess being a friend of the LaClairs you think you try to be cleaver but again you fail at this two. Good luck trying to handle your own ignorant state and stay out of ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You are such a hypocrite.  You were not there so you do not know what actually happened, but I guess being a friend of the LaClairs you think you try to be cleaver but again you fail at this two.  Good luck trying to handle your own ignorant state and stay out of ours.

70187[/snapback]

My comment had to do with Bryan, not the LaClairs whom I've never met.

BTW, were you there? Was Bryan or 2smart or Patriot?

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...