Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest A Student

Paul LaClair is a Liar!

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul
No, it's an excellent argument. I do see how poorly you process simple analogies, though... however, I can't think of another way to dumb it down for you even further.

Either answer the question, or admit you have a bias for preaching and against freedom.

One of the hallmarks of this mentality --- rigid, authoritarian, literalistic --- is that they rarely admit or acknowledge anything. The behavior is as predictable as two pups in a litter play-fighting. Once you understand how this mentality operates, dealing with it becomes easier --- not always easy, but easier than it was before you understood it.

Psychology must address this. I wonder why this isn't categorized as a pathology. Maybe it is. It should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(A Student @ Jan 6 2007, 12:32

QUOTE

First, he said that Mr. Paszkiewicz lied during the meeting with Mr. Somma, Miss Wood and Matthew. He said it and never proved it. It was on the news everywhere and yet no one ever questioned it.

QUOTE

How does that prove he was lying (and I thought Matthew said that originally, not Paul)? I bet you would have called Matthew a liar too, if he hadn't made those recordings as proof.

Where are the CDS that proves that Mr P is a liar?

The CDS that Matthew has only show that Mr. P was actually answering Matthew's questions.

Dishonesty is not what Mr. P. is primarily in trouble for--proselytizing is. Why are you trying to dodge the actual issue?

QUOTE

Paul mentioned that Mr. P said that a Muslim girl would go to hell and if you listen to the recording it is clear that Mr. P said to leave individuals out of the conversation.

LOL, except that he makes that statement AFTER he talks about that girl. It wasn't to her face, and she wasn't in the classroom at the time, but still--that statement you're quoting was a lame attempt to cover his tracks.

The statement was not about the girl itself. That question was about muslin in general, not a specific person. In fact Mr. P. said only good things about the Muslin girl Mr. LaClair is talking about.

Utterly false. She was asked about specifically (something like "but this person is nice, why would she be condemned?") after he made a general statement about Muslims, and he answered quite unambiguously--he almost sounded like he was sorry, "but if you ask me, well you know." What kind of answer is that? Not one that needs to be analyzed very much, I'll say that much.

QUOTE

He probably knew that Paszkiewicz was a Christian and he wanted to find a way to make him say what he wanted to hear so he could record it.

Matthew came to that class with the intention to record Mr. P. Because there was an award given to him for it.

...what? His motive was a later event? Do you have any idea what a retarded suggestion that is?

This came from ParentAdvocates.org

The E-Accountability Foundation announces the'A for Accountability' Award

to those who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. They ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up. These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions. The winners of our "A" work to expose wrong-doing not for themselves, but for others - total strangers - for the "Greater Good"of the community and, by their actions, exemplify courage and self-less passion. They are parent advocates. We salute you.

QUOTE By the way, still no proof that Paul lied about anything.

There is no proof that Mr. P lied.

There is plenty of proof that he was preaching in class. Anything else he did or didn't do wrong (I see no reason to doubt the LaClairs' word) is just 'frosting' at this point, paling in comparison.

You sound like someone who is going on and on about how the guy who just robbed a convience store a minute before was MOST CERTAINLY NOT JAYWALKING as he took off.

So, what's your defense for the _actual_ issue?

In fact, Mr. P is accused by the LaClairs of preaching in class.

And there is indisputable evidence for it.

Have you ever been to a preaching service where people asked questions?

The act of proselytizing doesn't magically go away just because there is a Q&A afterwards. Preaching + questions still contains preaching.

I never have, there is a difference between "preaching" and answering questions.

All questions were asked AFTER the religious topics were introduced, not before. Have you actually listened to the recordings?

COLOR=blue]QUOTE  But the motives _are_ clear...they're just not the ones you allege.

You are right, Mr LaClair and Matthews motives are very clear.

And their standing up for the Constitution is to be commended.

They have an agenda and people are begining to see it for what it is. :lol:

Better put your tinfoil hat back on. Obviously you can't handle reality, so you need to create conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Just start the retailiation against this forum and start bringing back the good name of Kearny.  Dont you dare not post this because its also going to newpapers about your sensorship as well.

Very mature philosophy you've got there. If you can't win the debate, just scream and holler until no one can talk anymore.

I'm sure your childish denial of service attack would do wonders for Kearny's reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
One of the hallmarks of this mentality --- rigid, authoritarian, literalistic --- is that they rarely admit or acknowledge anything. The behavior is as predictable as two pups in a litter play-fighting. Once you understand how this mentality operates, dealing with it becomes easier --- not always easy, but easier than it was before you understood it.

Psychology must address this. I wonder why this isn't categorized as a pathology. Maybe it is. It should be.

Speaking of pathologies, I wonder if Paul's condition should be categorized as a pathology. The symptoms include delusions of superiority, a sense of infallibilty and a general feeling of smugness. Paul must be an absolute joy to live with. My sympathy is for Matt, he has to live with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com

Yesterday Sunday Jan 7th at 11:48, when most people are doing thier religious beliefs. Paul was writing this: " Finally, I do believe that defense of the law and the Constitution is every citizen's duty. Those are the values in which we trained Matthew." Let me just check most people raise their son's and daughters and "train" their dogs. I am so very happy that you had Matthew trained. He certainly knows how to go on the paper now, no matter if its the Observer or New York Times. You never do stop, do you? He certainly knows how to do what you tell him to do.

train -

1. to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

2. to treat or manipulate so as to bring into some desired form, position, direction

Good Job LaClairs. This is the direction we want our town going in. And those are your exact words. Thanks for all the media attention. Good luck on your quest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Yesterday Sunday Jan 7th at 11:48, when most people are doing thier religious beliefs. Paul was writing this: " Finally, I do believe that defense of the law and the Constitution is every citizen's duty. Those are the values in which we trained Matthew."  Let me just check most people raise their son's and daughters and "train" their dogs.    I am so very happy that you had Matthew trained. He certainly knows how to go on the paper now, no matter if its the Observer or New York Times. You never do stop, do you? He certainly knows how to do what you tell him to do.

train -

  1. to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

  2. to treat or manipulate so as to bring into some desired form, position, direction

Good Job LaClairs. This is the direction we want our town going in. And those are your exact words. Thanks for all the media attention.  Good luck on your quest.

This is so funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest
Oh, what the heck, I'll try to put this into perspective. One of our cats was sleeping one day, and awoke in a sudden fit, ran around the living room a couple times and ran into a wall. We know the brain was processing information, else she wouldn't have been running. What that information was, and how it was being processed, remains a mystery to us.

Was that your cat or your son that did that....?

It would explain a lot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered
Yesterday Sunday Jan 7th at 11:48, when most people are doing thier religious beliefs. Paul was writing this: " Finally, I do believe that defense of the law and the Constitution is every citizen's duty. Those are the values in which we trained Matthew."  Let me just check most people raise their son's and daughters and "train" their dogs.    I am so very happy that you had Matthew trained. He certainly knows how to go on the paper now, no matter if its the Observer or New York Times. You never do stop, do you? He certainly knows how to do what you tell him to do.

train -

  1. to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

  2. to treat or manipulate so as to bring into some desired form, position, direction

Good Job LaClairs. This is the direction we want our town going in. And those are your exact words. Thanks for all the media attention.  Good luck on your quest.

Hey bic check out this list of meanings for the word "train"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/train

Here are the relevant parts:

–verb (used with object) 18. to develop or form the habits, thoughts, or behavior of (a child or other person) by discipline and instruction: to train an unruly boy.

19. to make proficient by instruction and practice, as in some art, profession, or work: to train soldiers.

20. to make (a person) fit by proper exercise, diet, practice, etc., as for an athletic performance.

21. to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

22. to treat or manipulate so as to bring into some desired form, position, direction, etc.: to train one's hair to stay down.

I have never heard of anyone doing their religious beliefs. How do you do that?

All I see in Paul's statements and responses is a father defending his son after the son does something courageous to fix a wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest to Paul

Just an observer. What exactly is it that the LaClair family wants? I say family because it's obvious to me and will be to an unterested party, such as a judge, that this is not simply a high school kid pursuing his own interests. Let me suggest that the LaClair family and Mr. P sit down together around a table and discuss between themselves what actually happened and see if a conclusion can be reached. If the LaClairs or Mr. P wouldn't see this as an option then obviously there's more to this than Matt LaClair being offended. But let's get it over with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prove it.

How does that prove he was lying (and I thought Matthew said that originally, not Paul)? I bet you would have called Matthew a liar too, if he hadn't made those recordings as proof.

IF that's true (we all know how true the last random statement made about Paul's daughter was), that still doesn't make his statement a lie. Study hall isn't colloquially considered a class--believe me, I've been in that school for four years. Nobody calls the teacher that happens to be watching you during study hall your "study hall teacher" or does anyone call it a "class." You're just whining over semantics--obviously, Paul's statement was meant to refute the lie that his daughter was in his history class.

LOL, except that he makes that statement AFTER he talks about that girl. It wasn't to her face, and she wasn't in the classroom at the time, but still--that statement you're quoting was a lame attempt to cover his tracks.

And you call Paul a liar? This is not true at all--he was assigned to the class just like everyone else. You just bought in to the fallacious rumors some moron made up.

Still zero evidence of Paul having lied at all.

This reminds me of a blog on the subject, where someone wrote:

"This proves that teenagers are smarter than fundamentalists."

Mr. P. should have known better--even though it's obvious he wasn't baited into saying what he did, the fact is that even if a student tried to bait him into saying something he shouldn't be saying at work, that does not magically remove the wrongdoing. You're making Mr. P. look even worse by suggesting he was too stupid to say "I can't talk about that during classtime."

He deserves all the praise he got for taking an unpopular stand against a teacher's blatantly unconstitutional actions. If anything, Mr. P. created this opportunity for Matthew by acting like an idiot on government time. And whose fault is that? Matthew just happened to be the one guy with the balls to call him on it. On top of THAT, if Mr. P. wasn't so belligerent, stubborn, and indignant about it when he first brought it up (before he had recorded anything), Matthew would have never bothered with recordings or taking him to the principal.

By the way, still no proof that Paul lied about anything.

Not at all. But the motives _are_ clear...they're just not the ones you allege.

I couldn't have phrased it better myself. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Paul LaClair is a liar. First, he said that Mr. Paszkiewicz lied during the meeting with Mr. Somma, Miss Wood and Matthew. He said it and never proved it. It was on the news everywhere and yet no one ever questioned it. He also said that his daughter was never in Mr. Paszkiewicz’s class, which in fact she did have study hall with him. Paul mentioned that Mr. P said that a Muslim girl would go to hell and if you listen to the recording it is clear that Mr. P said to leave individuals out of the conversation. Matthew mentioned that he had no idea that this kind of things were going on in public schools (the thing that they call “preaching” which in fact was Mr. P answering Matthew’s questions and giving his opinion) and yet Matthew changed his schedule in order to have Mr. Paszkiewicz as a teacher. He probably knew that Paszkiewicz was a Christian and he wanted to find a way to make him say what he wanted to hear so he could record it. I have to say that Paul is not just a liar, but an opportunist as well!He used this situation in order to promote his son, “You may not like it, but the New York Times singled Matthew out for courage yesterday. That is a high honor for anyone. On the blogs he has been called a hero, spoken of as a present and future leader, and mentioned for several awards. One person went so far as to mention him for a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and two people got so carried away as to mention him as a presidential candidate some day…” Paul LaClair.  This statement shows the reason why Matthew, influenced by his attorney father, did what he did

THIS IS RIDICULOUS... I AM SO TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THIS ALREADY. EVERY TIME WE COME ON THIS BOARD IT'S ALL ABOUT PAUL LECLAIR AND MR.P.

CAN'T WE START ANOTHER TOPIC... LIKE HOW THE HELL IS KEARNY DOING???? GET OVER THIS LECLAIR CRAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Just an observer.  What exactly is it that the LaClair family wants? I say family because it's obvious to me and will be to an unterested party, such as a judge, that this is not simply a high school kid pursuing his own interests. Let me suggest that the LaClair family and Mr. P sit down together around a table and discuss between themselves what actually happened and see if a conclusion can be reached. If the LaClairs or Mr. P wouldn't see this as an option then obviously there's more to this than Matt LaClair being offended. But let's get it over with!

Are you aware that we have been asking the administration to sit and talk with us since October, and that they have refused? Actually, they ignored us. It wasn't until I had Mr. Lindenfelser on the telephone that he finally told me that how they address this matter was not my business to know. This is not what I would expect of a colleague in the law, not to mention that he is simply wrong on the law. The legal concept is called standing, and I am shocked that the school district's attorney does not think I have it.

I have not taken a position on whether or to what extent Paszkiewicz should be disciplined, because I thought we was not wise for us to make such a request. The flip side of that coin is that there is nothing for us to negotiate. Matthew had a meeting with Paszkiewicz, at which he was not truthful, and tried to intimidate Matthew. If that is any indication of what we might expect from him, and obviously it is, I can't see a purpose to a meeting. I do think he should have apologized to us, but obviously he does not think so.

Having said that, we would be willing to sit with Mr. Paszkiewicz and discuss these matters, if he would identify and commit to a good purpose for such a meeting. However, I wrote him a personal note approximately three weeks ago, and he has not responded to me in any way --- not even so much as the courtesy of telling me he received it.

Please tell the administration and the school board "let's get it over with." We completely agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Speaking of pathologies, I wonder if Paul's condition should be categorized as a pathology.  The symptoms include delusions of superiority, a sense of infallibilty and a general feeling of smugness.  Paul must be an absolute joy to live with. My sympathy is  for Matt, he has to live with him.

Add to the above, Paul's admitted "training" of his son Matt. I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Oh, what the heck, I'll try to put this into perspective. One of our cats was sleeping one day, and awoke in a sudden fit, ran around the living room a couple times and ran into a wall. We know the brain was processing information, else she wouldn't have been running. What that information was, and how it was being processed, remains a mystery to us.

I hope that clarifies 2smart's post.

I can explain your cat's behavior. She was awoken by your voice telling Matt you were going to train the cat together with him. Since the cat had witnessed this "training" before, she went beserk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Dishonesty is not what Mr. P. is primarily in trouble for--proselytizing is. Why are you trying to dodge the actual issue?

Dishonesty is not the issue when the LaClairs are the ones lying, huh? It was an issue before when Paul and Matthew said in every newspaper that Mr. P has lied during the meeting. You know the meeting that Paul said he was not allowed to attend! :P Give me a break! You know they are lying,it is obvious! By the way, don't forget that there were two witnesses in the room and apparently Matthew didn't record that meeting or if he did, the LaClairs are hidding something. I wonder what it is! How about asking the LaClairs where that CD is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Prove it.

How does that prove he was lying (and I thought Matthew said that originally, not Paul)? I bet you would have called Matthew a liar too, if he hadn't made those recordings as proof.

.

Oh yeah..Matthew is a liar! I think the person who posted here, left this part out! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dishonesty is not the issue when the LaClairs are the ones lying, huh?

1. It never was the real issue.

2. I defy you to prove any dishonesty on the part of either Matthew or Paul.

It was an issue before when Paul and Matthew said in every newspaper that Mr. P has lied during the meeting. You know the meeting that Paul said he was not allowed to attend!

Uh durr, don't you think maybe Matthew, who WAS present, just might have, oh, I don't know, told his dad about the meeting after it was over? Leave it to someone like you to miss such an obvious explanation.

:P  Give me a break! You know they are lying,it is obvious!

Fact is, you can call it "obvious" all you want, but the reality is that you have nothing but empty accusations you, for some reason, think will convince anyone with a working brain. Pony up some evidence of any dishonesty on Matthew or Paul's part if you can (as if we don't both know you can't)--until then, your wishful thinking will remain nothing but.

By the way, don't forget that there were two witnesses in the room and apparently Matthew didn't record that meeting or if he did, the LaClairs are hidding something. I wonder what it is! How about asking the LaClairs where that CD is?

Because it doesn't exist--that meeting wasn't recorded. And why should it be? Like I said, the issue is the proselytizing. Matthew didn't really care whether or not his teacher was going to lie at that meeting, because it wouldn't matter. Either way, the important part was presenting the proof of his unconstitutional preaching, and that's exactly what he did.

So, tell me again why you're avoiding the issue? Can you justify Mr. P.'s proselytizing, or are you just going to willfully ignore it some more, and focus on trying to smear the LaClairs, in order to make your own motives and (lack of) morals even more obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The flip side of that coin is that there is nothing for us to negotiate.

You are probably right, there is nothing to negotiate. Negotiation should had happen before all your newspapers apperances. Actually even before Matthew recorded those CDs. I think you got things a little backwards. Maybe they did not teach you common sense in Law School.

Matthew had a meeting with Paszkiewicz, at which he was not truthful and tried to intimidate Matthew. If that is any indication of what we might expect from him, and obviously it is, I can't see a purpose to a meeting. I do think he should have apologized to us, but obviously he does not think so.

However, I wrote him a personal note approximately three weeks ago, and he has not responded to me in any way --- not even so much as the courtesy of telling me he received it.

Again your timing is a little off. Your PERSONAl NOTE should have gone to Mr. P 3 MONTHS a go, not 3 WEEKS. Before your news crusades.

Please tell the administration and the school board "let's get it over with." We completely agree.

Please tell the LaClairs to get over, and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can explain your cat's behavior. She was awoken by your voice telling Matt you were going to train the cat together with him. Since the cat had witnessed this "training" before, she went beserk.

Wow, you've really got nothing left to argue and you know it, huh? Obsessing over the word "train" as yet another desperate distraction from the inescapable fact that the teacher violated the Constitution, clearly and unequivocally. He's inarguably in the wrong.

So, like a true fundie zealot, you ignore the reality and turn to wild guesses and speculation on the thinnest of evidence--did he use a word you dislike? Did his father offer an opinion, thus "proving" he's really behind it all? Isn't it obvious that the LaClairs are commie-atheist-terrorist-loving-insurgents out to destroy America by undermining a teacher's credibility at a Kearny high school?

These desperate tactics are both amusing and pathetic to watch, 2smart. Keep it up! The whole country's laughing at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
THIS IS RIDICULOUS... I AM SO TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THIS ALREADY.  EVERY TIME WE COME ON THIS BOARD IT'S ALL ABOUT PAUL LECLAIR AND MR.P. 

CAN'T WE START ANOTHER TOPIC... LIKE HOW THE HELL IS KEARNY DOING????  GET OVER THIS LECLAIR CRAP.

Yes, you can start another topic any time you like. What you cannot do is prevent people from posting on this or any other topic if that is what they choose to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Dishonesty is not the issue when the LaClairs are the ones lying, huh? It was an issue before when Paul and Matthew said in every newspaper that Mr. P has lied during the meeting. You know the meeting that Paul said he was not allowed to attend!  :excl:  Give me a break! You know they are lying,it is obvious! By the way, don't forget that there were two witnesses in the room and apparently Matthew didn't record that meeting or if he did, the LaClairs are hidding something. I wonder what it is! How about asking the LaClairs where that CD is?

If we had it recorded, and Mr. P

--- denied four times using the phrase "you belong in hell";

--- claimed that all his religious comments were in response to questions about the Bible;

--- claimed that Matthew's letter of complaint had distorted his words;

--- said "you got the big fish" after Matthew produced the recordings;

--- tried to make Matthew feel guilty for reporting his conduct:

Would you change your mind? If so, how? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve_C
Dishonesty is not the issue when the LaClairs are the ones lying, huh? It was an issue before when Paul and Matthew said in every newspaper that Mr. P has lied during the meeting. You know the meeting that Paul said he was not allowed to attend!  :excl:  Give me a break! You know they are lying,it is obvious! By the way, don't forget that there were two witnesses in the room and apparently Matthew didn't record that meeting or if he did, the LaClairs are hidding something. I wonder what it is! How about asking the LaClairs where that CD is?

So you believe that Mr. P admitted to preaching in his class when confronted by the principal?

And you believe that Matt didn't ask for his parents to be at the meeting?

Interesting. Doesn't make much sense though. Why would they lie? They had nothing to hide. :excl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com
Hey bic check out this list of meanings for the word "train"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/train

Here are the relevant parts:

–verb (used with object) 18. to develop or form the habits, thoughts, or behavior of (a child or other person) by discipline and instruction: to train an unruly boy. 

19. to make proficient by instruction and practice, as in some art, profession, or work: to train soldiers. 

20. to make (a person) fit by proper exercise, diet, practice, etc., as for an athletic performance. 

21. to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks. 

22. to treat or manipulate so as to bring into some desired form, position, direction, etc.: to train one's hair to stay down. 

I have never heard of anyone doing their religious beliefs.  How do you do that?

All I see in Paul's statements and responses is a father defending his son after the son does something courageous to fix a wrong.

And whether is be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or "Martian" as some scholar referred, Saturday and Sunday has been historically know at the day of observance of ones beliefs. For others it is a day of rest. Could you imagine what "Paul, or "Strife" or even "guest" as I suspect he sometimes uses could actually do if he didn’t spend all this time on the computer? Maybe even spend more quality family time or doing good for the community instead of trying to destroy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve_C
Dishonesty is not the issue when the LaClairs are the ones lying, huh? It was an issue before when Paul and Matthew said in every newspaper that Mr. P has lied during the meeting. You know the meeting that Paul said he was not allowed to attend!  :excl:  Give me a break! You know they are lying,it is obvious! By the way, don't forget that there were two witnesses in the room and apparently Matthew didn't record that meeting or if he did, the LaClairs are hidding something. I wonder what it is! How about asking the LaClairs where that CD is?

If Mr. P is not a liar, why hasn't he made a public statement? It's obvious why he's laying low. He did exactly what Matt said he did and is trying to minimize the damage to his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com

Reply from Paul at 9:44 PM on January 8th.

"I have not taken a position on whether or to what extent Paszkiewicz should be disciplined."

Excuse me? 235 slanderous posts and you cannot take a position? You would make a good lawyer. Glad you don't represent me. You know exactly what you want so just say it here.

You keep accusing everyone of speculating on what you or your trained Matthew is thinking or wanting. Just come out and say it. We would like to hear it in your own words instead of trying to hear it from everyone else. It will eventually get out.

Forewarned, is this meeting going to taped as well? Will the tapes be hidden like Matthew did in the classroom, in his bag, or will you or him be bugged? Hoping this discussed prior to the meeting so everyone is on the same playing field this time.

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...