Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

Answers on Kearny HS teacher controversy

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul

I am Paul LaClair, father of Matthew LaClair. I am opening this topic to invite all concerned, in whatever way they may be concerned, to ask questions and engage in a respectful and thoughtful discussion of this incident. I may post threads myself to initiate topics.

I am doing this because if people are going to discuss this, it should be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way. There is no call for the vicious attacks that have been publicly posted against a young man whose actions were not motivated by self-interest, but by a passionate commitment to our Constitution, separation of church and state, the integrity and value of science, the quality of education and the rule of law. With all due respect to those who have presumed to know Matthew's motives --- who have not been the least bit respectful in some cases --- I am certain that I know him better than you do.

All appropriate and respectful questions will be answered. All personal attacks will be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fraud!!

All he wanted was to get attention. Come on all the students know that he just provokes these kind of discussions. Matt should switch teachers and not complain about the questions that he asked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Hi Paul - as the son of three small children, I am trying to get a sense of whether - when posed with this situation - I would have (as you did) encouraged my child to go to the extreme measures taken to advocate a position (unpopular or otherwise), or whether I would have (as you did not) used the opportunity to teach my child about quiet confidence, humility and tolerance for antithetical viewpoints. I have to say that I completely oppose the extreme measures (not going to the administration, but going to the papers, threatening a civil rights suit, etc.) employed by you and your son in this matter - which is making it difficult for me to be objective. I am trying be aware of the fact that if Mr. P was advocating flag-burning as a mode of free expression I would probably feel differently about the tactics. I am cognizant of the fact that separation of church and state may be your "line in the sand" so to speak, so I am trying to glean some insight on your decision process - one parent to another.

Separately (but of similar interest) I noticed that many of your points on the other posting site discuss the legality of the taping, the Constitutionality of various parties' conduct, and similar "technical" considerations. Again, without trying to be judgmental, in your strategy in all of this was there ever a discussion of what is right - not just what is legal? If so, how did you broach that topic and how do you know when justice has been done in the matter? I am just now reaching those issues with my oldest in a separate setting, and I am trying to understand how to get the point across that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean that you should. Also, as may be the case with your biases in regard to this matter, I am also considering how to initiate the conversation of fighting for what you believe in - no matter what the costs - as well.

As I hope you can tell, I'm really interested in the dynamics that lead you and your son to employ the polarizing strategies you have taken to date. In postings, it is difficult to convey the proper tone - so I would reiterate that I am truly not looking to judge the ultimate conduct (as I understand that the issues that incite one person may have little or no effect on another). I am more interested in the process, and how you both arrived at a situation that could have dire consequences on your son's quality of life and (Heaven forbid someone considers protesting you in your legal practice) your ability to make a living.

Thank you for your patience and consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I am Paul LaClair, father of Matthew LaClair. I am opening this topic to invite all concerned, in whatever way they may be concerned, to ask questions and engage in a respectful and thoughtful discussion of this incident. I may post threads myself to initiate topics.

I am doing this because if people are going to discuss this, it should be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way. There is no call for the vicious attacks that have been publicly posted against a young man whose actions were not motivated by self-interest, but by a passionate commitment to our Constitution, separation of church and state, the integrity and value of science, the quality of education and the rule of law. With all due respect to those who have presumed to know Matthew's motives --- who have not been the least bit respectful in some cases --- I am certain that I know him better than you do.

All appropriate and respectful questions will be answered. All personal attacks will be ignored.

Why should it be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way? Did Matthew give Mr. P those considerations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob
I am Paul LaClair, father of Matthew LaClair. I am opening this topic to invite all concerned, in whatever way they may be concerned, to ask questions and engage in a respectful and thoughtful discussion of this incident. I may post threads myself to initiate topics.

I am doing this because if people are going to discuss this, it should be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way. There is no call for the vicious attacks that have been publicly posted against a young man whose actions were not motivated by self-interest, but by a passionate commitment to our Constitution, separation of church and state, the integrity and value of science, the quality of education and the rule of law. With all due respect to those who have presumed to know Matthew's motives --- who have not been the least bit respectful in some cases --- I am certain that I know him better than you do.

All appropriate and respectful questions will be answered. All personal attacks will be ignored.

Paul,

I write this sincerely:

Why not take yourself, your wife and your son to the High school, sit down with the Supt., Prin., and teacher and work this matter out with the parties that this should be worked out with??

Stop all these public forums, because now it's starting to look like you're enjoying all this fanfare.

Go to the BOE, solve your problem and move on. Enough of the spotlights!

You are an attorney, act like one and not like a reporter for the Enquirer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bemused Outsider
Did Matthew give Mr. P those considerations?

Actually, from what I've heard and read, he did. It was Mr. P who refused to discuss this in a thoughtful and respectul way and chose to lie instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Hi Paul - as the son of three small children, I am trying to get a sense of whether - when posed with this situation - I would have (as you did) encouraged my child to go to the extreme measures taken to advocate a position (unpopular or otherwise), or whether I would have (as you did not) used the opportunity to teach my child about quiet confidence, humility and tolerance for antithetical viewpoints.  I have to say that I completely oppose the extreme measures (not going to the administration, but going to the papers, threatening a civil rights suit, etc.) employed by you and your son in this matter - which is making it difficult for me to be objective.  I am trying be aware of the fact that if Mr. P was advocating flag-burning as a mode of free expression I would probably feel differently about the tactics.  I am cognizant of the fact that separation of church and state may be your "line in the sand" so to speak, so I am trying to glean some insight on your decision process - one parent to another. 

Separately (but of similar interest) I noticed that many of your points on the other posting site discuss the legality of the taping, the Constitutionality of various parties' conduct, and similar "technical" considerations.  Again, without trying to be judgmental, in your strategy in all of this was there ever a discussion of what is right - not just what is legal?  If so, how did you broach that topic and how do you know when justice has been done in the matter?  I am just now reaching those issues with my oldest in a separate setting, and I am trying to understand how to get the point across that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean that you should.  Also, as may be the case with your biases in regard to this matter, I am also considering how to initiate the conversation of fighting for what you believe in - no matter what the costs - as well.

As I hope you can tell, I'm really interested in the dynamics that lead you and your son to employ the polarizing strategies you have taken to date.  In postings, it is difficult to convey the proper tone - so I would reiterate that I am truly not looking to judge the ultimate conduct (as I understand that the issues that incite one person may have little or no effect on another).  I am more interested in the process, and how you both arrived at a situation that could have dire consequences on your son's quality of life and (Heaven forbid someone considers protesting you in your legal practice) your ability to make a living.

Thank you for your patience and consideration.

Excellent questions. Justice was our primary consideration at all times. We reasoned that this teacher was out of control and had been proselytizing students for a long time. It was also obvious that no one else was going to do anything about it, whether because they were not aware it was wrong, did not care or whatever. For us, separation of church and state and the integrity of science were paramount issues throughout, and still are. So there was an inclination from the beginning to want people to know what was going on.

Notwithstanding that, we gave both the teacher and the administration multiple opportunities to rectify the matter privately. The first step was a letter by Matthew to the principal requesting an apology from the teacher and corrections. The teacher's response was to stop the behavior (he had no choice), but no apology. On the contrary, he started making remarks in class that were directed against Matthew, though at that time none of the other students knew what had happened. All they knew was that something was different. Had the teacher responded appropriately and had appropriate corrections been made, that would have ended the matter. Unfortunately, what he did was claim that Matthew had taken his remarks out of context, which as the world now knows is not true.

Matthew then spent two weeks chasing after the principal for a meeting with the principal and the teacher. Matt requested that we, the parents, be present, but that was declined. So when Matthew finally was given the meeting in the principal's office on October 10, he was alone in that office with the principal, the department head and an angry teacher. Most of the meeting was spent with Matthew chasing after the teacher for specification of any remarks taken out of context. The teacher specifically denied making many of the remarks that are clearly revealed on the recordings, including the infamous "you belong in hell." Matthew assessed that the other adults in the room were buying it, and at the end of the meeting produced the CDs. These were kept between us and the school for more than a month after that.

We then spent a month chasing after the administration for a resolution. I wrote three letters practically begging for a meeting and a resolution. My wife went to the district's attorney's office unannounced one day, only to be told in response to her telling him that we did not wish to sue the school district, the attorney said, "then go ahead." Throughout this month, the administration refused to discuss the matter with us in any detail, and its representatives were disrespectful and discourteous. The excuse was that disciplinary matters are not our concern, but we made it clear that was not our issue, so the excuse was no answer, it was irrelevant. Our issues are the correction of misinformation and quality control. We have never been given any reason why those cannot be addressed, yet we were completely blown off. My last discussion with Mr. Lindenfelser (the district's attorney) consisted of my chasing him around on the phone for a straight answer, only to be told that what goes on in my son's classroom is none of my business. As a practicing attorney for 29 years, I know that it is my business legally as well as ethically and morally since my son is in the class.

That left one avenue: litigation. With litigation, no matter how we did it, the matter was going to go public. The recordings were going to come out, it was all going to come out. So we asked ourselves what was the best way to do it, and decided the best way was to put it all on the table at once. So we did.

I respectfully suggest that the only reason this is divisive is that some people in town like this teacher and wish to condone his behavior. However, the law does not condone it, and neither does practically anyone outside Kearny. Read the multiple blogs discussing this. Everything Matthew and I have done was done for a good reason, and after exhausting all other reasonable avenues. It's easy enough, of course, to say "don't do anything to ruffle any feathers," but unfortunately sometimes there is little moral and ethical choice. In our eyes, this was one of those cases. I may speak and write like a lawyer (because I am a lawyer), but right and wrong are always the first concern. We have nothing to gain from this but a lot of aggravation. I am lucky enough to have a son who has a rock-solid commitment to justice; anything less than my full support would be wrong.

Thank you for asking the questions in the way you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Why should it be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way? Did Matthew give Mr. P those considerations?

Yes he did. He requested an apology and correction of inappropriate remarks. He kept this matter out of the press for six weeks. When accused of twisting Mr. P's words, he called a meeting in the principal's office to have Mr. P. explain. In that meeting, Mr. P denied making statements he clearly made. In other words, he did not tell the truth. At every opportunity, Mr. P has failed to own up to what he did. He was given more than a fair opportunity to do the right thing, and failed.

To the first question: Things like this should always be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Paul,

I write this sincerely:

Why not take yourself, your wife and your son to the High school, sit down with the Supt., Prin., and teacher and work this matter out with the parties that this should be worked out with??

Stop all these public forums, because now it's starting to look like you're enjoying all this fanfare.

Go to the BOE, solve your problem and move on. Enough of the spotlights!

You are an attorney, act like one and not like a reporter for the Enquirer.

We did all of those things. We begged for meetings, only to be refused, except for the one meeting Mr. Somma gave Matthew in his office with Paszkiewicz. It was only when it was clear that the administration was refusing to act that we went to the press. See my response to the post above that begins "Hi, Paul."

And if you think this is fun, you haven't been living here. Do you really think we're enjoying all the name-calling and threats? What makes you think you know what is going through our minds and hearts? Why are people so quick to judge things they know nothing about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Paul,

If the teacher is on an "evangelical mission and completely out of control" as you've stated, what are we to consider you and your son's behavior? Looks like a couple of self serving crusaders seeking attention to me.

This guys been teaching for fifteen years and we needed Matt and Paul, Kearny's very own Constitutional scholars, to save us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Paul,

I write this sincerely:

Why not take yourself, your wife and your son to the High school, sit down with the Supt., Prin., and teacher and work this matter out with the parties that this should be worked out with??

Stop all these public forums, because now it's starting to look like you're enjoying all this fanfare.

Go to the BOE, solve your problem and move on. Enough of the spotlights!

You are an attorney, act like one and not like a reporter for the Enquirer.

He is acting like an attorney. Can't you tell by his actions and the posts with the enormous word counts. Rule one of practicing law; bury your adversary in paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Paul,

If the teacher is on an "evangelical mission and completely out of control" as you've stated, what are we to consider you and your son's behavior? Looks like a couple of self serving crusaders seeking attention to me.

This guys been teaching for fifteen years and we needed Matt and Paul, Kearny's very own Constitutional scholars, to save us.

Perhaps you do not value the First Amendment, or the Constitution. We do.

We are upholding the Constitution in what you call our crusade, while the teacher is violating the Constitution in his. We are within the law, he is not. We weren't looking to be the only people in Kearny who care about this, and I doubt that we are; but if we are, then so be it.

As for our being Constitional scholars, perhaps we'll have an opportunity to see which side the courts will take. Care to bet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
He is acting like an attorney.  Can't you tell by his actions and the posts with the enormous word counts.  Rule one of practicing law; bury your adversary in paper.

Rule number one if you have nothing to say: attack the other guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Paul stated:

Notwithstanding that, we gave both the teacher and the administration multiple opportunities to rectify the matter privately. The first step was a letter by Matthew to the principal requesting an apology from the teacher and corrections. The teacher's response was to stop the behavior (he had no choice), but no apology. On the contrary, he started making remarks in class that were directed against Matthew, though at that time none of the other students knew what had happened. All they knew was that something was different. Had the teacher responded appropriately and had appropriate corrections been made, that would have ended the matter. Unfortunately, what he did was claim that Matthew had taken his remarks out of context, which as the world now knows is not true.

My question:

You state above that your son wrote a letter to the principal requesting and apology and corrections. Then you fully acknowledge that the teacher's response was to STOP THE BEHAVIOR. Well, if he STOPPED THE BEHAVIOR, it would seem that the bulk of your significant ends were met, so why continue with the religion based concerns? It would seem that your concerns at that point should have been student-teacher relations based having nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with whether the teacher was singling out, or otherwise mistreating, your son. I know that you wanted an open-classroom correction and other oversight to avoid future issues (I don't know how you could even begin to monitor everything - or where the money would come from in an over-strapped budget). But with the former being not substantially more than punitive, and with the latter fundamentally flawed - why continue on the religion issue but for an application of leverage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Rule number one if you have nothing to say: attack the other guy.

Sorry Paul, you're correct, that is probably rule number one. But the list of underhanded attorney tricks is so long who can really keep track.

But let's stop the nonsense here and really talk facts. Matt is a long way from being the innocent victim of a fanatical teacher. The fact is your son has been seeking out issues like this for a long time and may have bitten off more than he can chew. I hope all of the effort is worth it for the sake of what you call justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Perhaps you do not value the First Amendment, or the Constitution. We do.

We are upholding the Constitution in what you call our crusade, while the teacher is violating the Constitution in his. We are within the law, he is not. We weren't looking to be the only people in Kearny who care about this, and I doubt that we are; but if we are, then so be it.

As for our being Constitional scholars, perhaps we'll have an opportunity to see which side the courts will take. Care to bet?

I might just take that bet. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the justice system can be a very funny thing.

Let's see, just some of the items you'll have to overcome;

Was Mr. P, a popular teacher, teaching religion as part of the history curriculum or merely engaged in an informal, off topic discussion of personal opinion? A discussion that was being led by your son.

Your son's history of seeking out these so called injustices, just looking for a fight.

How well defined is the seperation of church and state in public education? Most public school districts, including Kearny, include the historical aspects of world religions and religious figures in their curriculum.

The teacher has some rights in this case also. How about the fact that he and the students in the class were recorded without their knowledge. Not very constitutional of you and the NJEA may have plenty to say on that.

Of course you won't be up against the district's attorney in this. If it comes to it you'll probably be battling some NJEA pitbull lawyer and the district will have someone that fights these specific types of cases all of the time.

I could go on, so be careful about placing that bet.

Another attorney rule; Muddy up the water until nobody knows what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Actually, from what I've heard and read, he did. It was Mr. P who refused to discuss this in a thoughtful and respectul way and chose to lie instead...

So you'd be all for sitting down with a person who set you up, recorded you without your knowledge, and was trying to ruin your career?

I guess you really are bemused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Yes he did. He requested an apology and correction of inappropriate remarks. He kept this matter out of the press for six weeks. When accused of twisting Mr. P's words, he called a meeting in the principal's office to have Mr. P. explain. In that meeting, Mr. P denied making statements he clearly made. In other words, he did not tell the truth. At every opportunity, Mr. P has failed to own up to what he did. He was given more than a fair opportunity to do the right thing, and failed.

To the first question: Things like this should always be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way.

In other words;

First discuss things in a thoughful and respectful way.

Then, if you don't get the desired outcome, sandbag the guy.

Is the law in Matt's future? He's an attorney in the making for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Rule number one if you have nothing to say: attack the other guy.

RULE # 2:

If you are such a caring, protective and involved parent, why did you "leave" it up to Matt to hold a meeting.

You have started a full blown war over this topic and treated this whole episode as being a "very serious" matter.

As a parent, and you as an attorney, why in the world would you not attend the most important meeting of your family's lives????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jerry Lewis

That seems to show restraint, but at what point did he begin making the recordings?

Excellent questions. Justice was our primary consideration at all times. We reasoned that this teacher was out of control and had been proselytizing students for a long time. It was also obvious that no one else was going to do anything about it, whether because they were not aware it was wrong, did not care or whatever. For us, separation of church and state and the integrity of science were paramount issues throughout, and still are. So there was an inclination from the beginning to want people to know what was going on.

Notwithstanding that, we gave both the teacher and the administration multiple opportunities to rectify the matter privately. The first step was a letter by Matthew to the principal requesting an apology from the teacher and corrections. The teacher's response was to stop the behavior (he had no choice), but no apology. On the contrary, he started making remarks in class that were directed against Matthew, though at that time none of the other students knew what had happened. All they knew was that something was different. Had the teacher responded appropriately and had appropriate corrections been made, that would have ended the matter. Unfortunately, what he did was claim that Matthew had taken his remarks out of context, which as the world now knows is not true.

Matthew then spent two weeks chasing after the principal for a meeting with the principal and the teacher. Matt requested that we, the parents, be present, but that was declined. So when Matthew finally was given the meeting in the principal's office on October 10, he was alone in that office with the principal, the department head and an angry teacher. Most of the meeting was spent with Matthew chasing after the teacher for specification of any remarks taken out of context. The teacher specifically denied making many of the remarks that are clearly revealed on the recordings, including the infamous "you belong in hell." Matthew assessed that the other adults in the room were buying it, and at the end of the meeting produced the CDs. These were kept between us and the school for more than a month after that.

We then spent a month chasing after the administration for a resolution. I wrote three letters practically begging for a meeting and a resolution. My wife went to the district's attorney's office unannounced one day, only to be told in response to her telling him that we did not wish to sue the school district, the attorney said, "then go ahead." Throughout this month, the administration refused to discuss the matter with us in any detail, and its representatives were disrespectful and discourteous. The excuse was that disciplinary matters are not our concern, but we made it clear that was not our issue, so the excuse was no answer, it was irrelevant. Our issues are the correction of misinformation and quality control. We have never been given any reason why those cannot be addressed, yet we were completely blown off. My last discussion with Mr. Lindenfelser (the district's attorney) consisted of my chasing him around on the phone for a straight answer, only to be told that what goes on in my son's classroom is none of my business. As a practicing attorney for 29 years, I know that it is my business legally as well as ethically and morally since my son is in the class.

That left one avenue: litigation. With litigation, no matter how we did it, the matter was going to go public. The recordings were going to come out, it was all going to come out. So we asked ourselves what was the best way to do it, and decided the best way was to put it all on the table at once. So we did.

I respectfully suggest that the only reason this is divisive is that some people in town like this teacher and wish to condone his behavior. However, the law does not condone it, and neither does practically anyone outside Kearny. Read the multiple blogs discussing this. Everything Matthew and I have done was done for a good reason, and after exhausting all other reasonable avenues. It's easy enough, of course, to say "don't do anything to ruffle any feathers," but unfortunately sometimes there is little moral and ethical choice. In our eyes, this was one of those cases. I may speak and write like a lawyer (because I am a lawyer), but right and wrong are always the first concern. We have nothing to gain from this but a lot of aggravation. I am lucky enough to have a son who has a rock-solid commitment to justice; anything less than my full support would be wrong.

Thank you for asking the questions in the way you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Paul stated:

Notwithstanding that, we gave both the teacher and the administration multiple opportunities to rectify the matter privately. The first step was a letter by Matthew to the principal requesting an apology from the teacher and corrections. The teacher's response was to stop the behavior (he had no choice), but no apology. On the contrary, he started making remarks in class that were directed against Matthew, though at that time none of the other students knew what had happened. All they knew was that something was different. Had the teacher responded appropriately and had appropriate corrections been made, that would have ended the matter. Unfortunately, what he did was claim that Matthew had taken his remarks out of context, which as the world now knows is not true.

My question:

You state above that your son wrote a letter to the principal requesting and apology and corrections.  Then you fully acknowledge that the teacher's response was to STOP THE BEHAVIOR.  Well, if he STOPPED THE BEHAVIOR, it would seem that the bulk of your significant ends were met, so why continue with the religion based concerns?  It would seem that your concerns at that point should have been student-teacher relations based having nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with whether the teacher was singling out, or otherwise mistreating, your son.  I know that you wanted an open-classroom correction and other oversight to avoid future issues (I don't know how you could even begin to monitor everything - or where the money would come from in an over-strapped budget).  But with the former being not substantially more than punitive, and with the latter fundamentally flawed - why continue on the religion issue but for an application of leverage?

Because misinformation must be corrected, certainly on important issues like these. We think there is also a value to making it clear that imparting misinformation will not be allowed to stand, especially when that misinformation is part and parcel of an agenda that is inconsistent the school's purposes. Zealots must understand that they may not use agencies of government as a soapbox for their agendas.

We appreciate that the school cannot monitor everything to perfection, but at least a best effort should have been made. That's fair, don't you think?

How is the one punitive and the other flawed? Most respectfully, I don't see that at all.

Thank you, however, for your courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
That seems to show restraint, but at what point did he begin making the recordings?

The first recording was on the third day of class, after it became obvious that the teacher was intentionally proselytizinig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
So you'd be all for sitting down with a person who set you up, recorded you without your knowledge, and was trying to ruin your career?

I guess you really are bemused.

That is not an accurate characterization. If my own words ruin my career, whose fault is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
In other words;

First discuss things in a thoughful and respectful way.

Then, if you don't get the desired outcome, sandbag the guy.

Is the law in Matt's future? He's an attorney in the making for sure.

That is not an accurate characterization. No one forced this teacher to violate the Constitution, undermine the science curriculum or lie about it. He did all of that of his own volition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
RULE # 2:

If you are such a caring, protective and involved parent, why did you "leave" it up to Matt to hold a meeting.

You have started a full blown war over this topic and treated this whole episode as being a "very serious" matter.

As a parent, and you as an attorney, why in the world would you not attend the most important meeting of your family's lives????????????????

Even if it was true, how is that your concern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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  

×