Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest A Student

Paul LaClair is a Liar!

Recommended Posts

Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com

quote=bewildered,Jan 10 2007, 09:30 PM]

Bix, your mendacity is astounding. Tellling a half-truth is the same thing as lying.

You may fool your fellow sheep by quote mining, but anyone with half a brain could see this. Bix quotes only a very short part of the whole conversation and then say we are taking it out of context. The religious propaganda and pseudo-science came a long time before the part you quote. If any of you Paszkiewicz-supporters would read the the entire transcript, you will find all your arguments about what happened in that class will vaporize. How many people live in Kearny?

With people like bix in the town I wonder that anything gets done. My prayer would be that the anti-separation people are the ones making Kearny look bad.

First of all, its BIK (Born In Kearny). Were you? 49 years in Kearny. Increase your font size or get better glasses.

The course that was being taught was US History and the subject right from the transcript was Halloween and costumes. I didn't make up Halloween but the event of Halloween has religious overtones. Try to tell me otherwise on that one. It has been in this country for more years than you and I have been alive. I am not necessarily a "Paszkiewicz- -supporter" as you label me, but would like to know where the so-called comments from Paul LaClair come from. Reading the transcript provided, it is young Matthew continuously probing the questions and the teacher answering them. That's what teachers do. I may not always like the answer and at times I have found the teachers, like lawyers, to be even wrong. But be it as it may, I can't see the attempts to ruin one persons career because of an answer.

And I do not see why Mr. LaClair young or old needs an apology either. Until someone can show me otherwise (and no one has been able to direct me to the transcipt that apparently does) then my opinion is that this is just grandstand of a lawyer looking to make a buck of his son. In his own words he still doesnt know what he wants?

We have to stop catering to the wants of the one, and instead care for the needs of the many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He called Mr. P a liar!!!!! Never proved it!

That doesn't prove he lied--your idea of a lie is to say ANYTHING without having proof ready for it? Don't be foolish.

Besides, what kind of proof would you like? Surely not recording him lying (can you think of any other way to prove that?), since you guys got your panties in a bunch when you learned that Matthew recorded his preaching. I don't doubt for one second you'd be calling Matthew a liar too had he not gotten the hard proof that is oh-so-inconvenient for you apologists.

For someone to be accurately labeled a liar, you need proof that they said something that was not true, and that they knew was not true. Do you have any such proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered

quote=bewildered,Jan 10 2007, 09:30 PM]

Bix, your mendacity is astounding. Tellling a half-truth is the same thing as lying.

You may fool your fellow sheep by quote mining, but anyone with half a brain could see this. Bix quotes only a very short part of the whole conversation and then say we are taking it out of context. The religious propaganda and pseudo-science came a long time before the part you quote. If any of you Paszkiewicz-supporters would read the the entire transcript, you will find all your arguments about what happened in that class will vaporize. How many people live in Kearny?

With people like bix in the town I wonder that anything gets done. My prayer would be that the anti-separation people are the ones making Kearny look bad.

First of all, its BIK (Born In Kearny). Were you? 49 years in Kearny. Increase your font size or get better glasses.

The course that was being taught was US History and the subject right from the transcript was Halloween and costumes. I didn't make up Halloween but the event of Halloween has religious overtones. Try to tell me otherwise on that one. It has been in this country for more years than you and I have been alive. I am not necessarily a "Paszkiewicz- -supporter" as you label me, but would like to know where the so-called comments from Paul LaClair come from. Reading the transcript provided, it is young Matthew continuously probing the questions and the teacher answering them. That's what teachers do. I may not always like the answer and at times I have found the teachers, like lawyers, to be even wrong. But be it as it may, I can't see the attempts to ruin one persons career because of an answer.

And I do not see why Mr. LaClair young or old needs an apology either. Until someone can show me otherwise (and no one has been able to direct me to the transcipt that apparently does) then my opinion is that this is just grandstand of a lawyer looking to make a buck of his son. In his own words he still doesnt know what he wants?

We have to stop catering to the wants of the one, and instead care for the needs of the many.

This is just part of what Bix missed when he quoted the transcript above:

The highest value in public education is tolerance. But

tolerance - of what? Deviant behavior? There are a lot of things I

don't want my kids tolerating. Ethnic diversity? Yes. Sexually deviant

behavior? No. Things like that, and that's all being taught right from

kindergarten and up. I still believe in the concept of sin, man's born

in nature, all that stuff, and uh, you know, that's considered

old-fashioned nowadays, and that's how my kids are being raised...

Send your kid - you surrender your kid to the state from

preschool on through 12th grade, and Mom and Dad are trying to tell

you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooted in

faith... but yet the "smart" people - and I say that in quotations,

because they're not all really that smart - the teachers that you're

exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you

see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it,

never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips. Over the course of

12 years, what's the transfer? Smart people don't have faith, don't

believe.

LaClair: Isn't the whole point of public school so that you can

separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from

non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all

that?

Teacher: No. The purpose of public school is to provide free education

to people that couldn't afford education. Period. That's the purpose

of public school. What it's become is social engineering. It's

supposed to reflect the values and belief systems of the parents;

that's why we have school boards elected from the population. Now I

gotta believe that most of the people on the school board have faith

maybe similar to mine, but yet the state comes up with some weird

perception of what education oughta be, and there's nothing [...?]

LaClair: What would decide what should be - what religion should be

taught in schools, what would decide that?

Teacher: No, it's not about teaching - my point is it's not about

teaching religion - and you know, these issues will come up when we

get to the 1920s, and things begin to get legislated, and we'll talk

about it in class. But the public schools shouldn't teach a religion -

but the scriptures aren't religion.

LaClair: They're not...?

Teacher: The scriptures are at the foundation of the world's

religions. The world's main religions, anyway. Religion is a set way

of doing things. For example if you take Christian faiths, right, you

have many varieties; there's Roman Catholicism, the Methodists, the

[...?], the Baptists, who differ on church government, things like

that but [..LaClair moving about...?] book - the Bible. We should be

able to bring that into the classroom, read it, and shouldn't be

threatened by anybody.

But um, my assertion to you is that

evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's

the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a

reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there

was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke

it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of

the text??]. The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.

Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes

about the [Thelassians?]. But think about the order of the events. So

we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates

man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440

BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher

lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created

then. You know where I'm going with this.

Student K1: Were there dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Sorry, I -

Teacher: One at a time, okay. I will answer that question. Short

answer, yes, and it was a problem; I'll explain that.

Student K1: Okay.

Teacher: But uh, Moses writes in 1440 BC. Most of you have probably

read that first chapter of Genesis: In the beginning God created the

Heavens and the Earth, and [....?]

Teacher: ...Where

did Moses' conception of the universe come from? Cause it was unlike

anything he'd been taught in school. And he had the order

scientifically correct. You start with light, and then you go to -

because you can't live without light generated from the sun. The

energy that we get from the food that we eat, ultimately finds its way

back to the source, the sun. Plants and photosynthesis, the beef that

we enjoy eats the plants, and we get that energy from the beef. It

transfers, and Moses had the order correct. Now, this whole idea of

faith, my faith is reasoned...

Student M1: What were the prophecies?

Teacher: What were they? There were actually hundereds of 'em...

Student M1: ...that came true...

Teacher: New Testament, Old Testament?

LaClaire: The ones that came true.

Student M2: Go with easier.

Teacher: I'll give you a major Old Testament prophecy, I'll give you

two. One, the children of Israel themselves. Moses in Genesis talks

about one day they're going to be in slavery for 400 years. Long

before the event, but God would deliver them. And then in Exodus,

they're in slavery, and He delivers 'em 430 years later. Things like

that.

LaClaire: Man and the land. Who proved that this God did this in this

amount of time if God was the only one that would know about this? In

other words, if he created light, and it took him until the 6th day to

create man, then between those, between that time period, who knew

besides him that this stuff happened? Only him.

Teacher: Nah, he just told Moses. You get it?

LaClaire: And we know - wait, wait, and we know -

Teacher: Yeah, for 6 days, there was only him and man.

LaClaire: Him and man. Ok -

Teacher: As far as life on Earth, I mean you do have angelic teams,

and things like that...

Teacher: The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of

different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to

the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like

this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text

itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of

writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're

writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from

God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was

Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two

animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could

find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the

technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses

had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah

was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least

one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now

let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time

after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was

his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these

stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in

my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have

operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is that the

accuracy is ensured by God.

...

Teacher: It would be boring. And the love would not be real. It would

not be real. It has to be a choice, initiated by you. When God created

man, he gave him free will. He could have very easily wound us up like

robots and said "serve me" like the angels. But he's a good God, he's

a holy God, and the choice is up to you. You can reciprocate properly

to the very one that gave you life, or you don't have to, I love you

that much, the choice is yours.

...

Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of

you believe in purgatory; I don't.

Student 4: Neither do I.

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

(love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You're a (???), you belong here.

LaClaire: But would you still do that to your child? If your child

disagreed with you, if your child let's say, lied to you about

something very important, and you were very angry at them for the

moment. Would you throw your child in a burning oven for eternity?

Teacher: No I wouldn't, but neither does God. Because we disagree with

God on many issues, and we're treated like we're all his children, and

he does things to try and draw us back. But we can't disagree with him

on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject

his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong.

LaClaire: But if he loved the child, he would not do that to the child

no matter what he did.

I was born in the United States of America. My ancestors fought in every war this country ever had. They fought for the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Some of my ancestors did not go to war because they were Christian and thought war was wrong. They followed their conscience and accepted the consequences.

When you break the law as flagrantly as Paszkiewicz did you have to face the consequences for what you did.

"We have to stop catering to the wants of the one, and instead care for the needs of the many."

Didn't Spock say this in one of the Star Trek movies?

Bixie, I think we are all waiting for you to show exactly when and where Paul lied and what the lies were.

Share this post


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

First of all, its BIK (Born In Kearny). Were you? 49 years in Kearny. Increase your font size or get better glasses.

The course that was being taught was US History and the subject right from the transcript was Halloween and costumes. I didn't make up Halloween but the event of Halloween has religious overtones. Try to tell me otherwise on that one. It has been in this country for more years than you and I have been alive. I am not necessarily a "Paszkiewicz- -supporter" as you label me, but would like to know where the so-called comments from Paul LaClair come from. Reading the transcript provided, it is young Matthew continuously probing the questions and the teacher answering them. That's what teachers do. I may not always like the answer and at times I have found the teachers, like lawyers, to be even wrong. But be it as it may, I can't see the attempts to ruin one persons career because of an answer.

And I do not see why Mr. LaClair young or old needs an apology either. Until someone can show me otherwise (and no one has been able to direct me to the transcipt that apparently does) then my opinion is that this is just grandstand of a lawyer looking to make a buck of his son. In his own words he still doesnt know what he wants?

We have to stop catering to the wants of the one, and instead care for the needs of the many.

This is just part of what Bix missed when he quoted the transcript above:

The highest value in public education is tolerance. But

tolerance - of what? Deviant behavior? There are a lot of things I

don't want my kids tolerating. Ethnic diversity? Yes. Sexually deviant

behavior? No. Things like that, and that's all being taught right from

kindergarten and up. I still believe in the concept of sin, man's born

in nature, all that stuff, and uh, you know, that's considered

old-fashioned nowadays, and that's how my kids are being raised...

Send your kid - you surrender your kid to the state from

preschool on through 12th grade, and Mom and Dad are trying to tell

you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooted in

faith... but yet the "smart" people - and I say that in quotations,

because they're not all really that smart - the teachers that you're

exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you

see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it,

never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips. Over the course of

12 years, what's the transfer? Smart people don't have faith, don't

believe.

LaClair: Isn't the whole point of public school so that you can

separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from

non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all

that?

Teacher: No. The purpose of public school is to provide free education

to people that couldn't afford education. Period. That's the purpose

of public school. What it's become is social engineering. It's

supposed to reflect the values and belief systems of the parents;

that's why we have school boards elected from the population. Now I

gotta believe that most of the people on the school board have faith

maybe similar to mine, but yet the state comes up with some weird

perception of what education oughta be, and there's nothing [...?]

LaClair: What would decide what should be - what religion should be

taught in schools, what would decide that?

Teacher: No, it's not about teaching - my point is it's not about

teaching religion - and you know, these issues will come up when we

get to the 1920s, and things begin to get legislated, and we'll talk

about it in class. But the public schools shouldn't teach a religion -

but the scriptures aren't religion.

LaClair: They're not...?

Teacher: The scriptures are at the foundation of the world's

religions. The world's main religions, anyway. Religion is a set way

of doing things. For example if you take Christian faiths, right, you

have many varieties; there's Roman Catholicism, the Methodists, the

[...?], the Baptists, who differ on church government, things like

that but [..LaClair moving about...?] book - the Bible. We should be

able to bring that into the classroom, read it, and shouldn't be

threatened by anybody.

But um, my assertion to you is that

evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's

the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a

reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there

was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke

it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of

the text??]. The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.

Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes

about the [Thelassians?]. But think about the order of the events. So

we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates

man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440

BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher

lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created

then. You know where I'm going with this.

Student K1: Were there dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Sorry, I -

Teacher: One at a time, okay. I will answer that question. Short

answer, yes, and it was a problem; I'll explain that.

Student K1: Okay.

Teacher: But uh, Moses writes in 1440 BC. Most of you have probably

read that first chapter of Genesis: In the beginning God created the

Heavens and the Earth, and [....?]

Teacher: ...Where

did Moses' conception of the universe come from? Cause it was unlike

anything he'd been taught in school. And he had the order

scientifically correct. You start with light, and then you go to -

because you can't live without light generated from the sun. The

energy that we get from the food that we eat, ultimately finds its way

back to the source, the sun. Plants and photosynthesis, the beef that

we enjoy eats the plants, and we get that energy from the beef. It

transfers, and Moses had the order correct. Now, this whole idea of

faith, my faith is reasoned...

Student M1: What were the prophecies?

Teacher: What were they? There were actually hundereds of 'em...

Student M1: ...that came true...

Teacher: New Testament, Old Testament?

LaClaire: The ones that came true.

Student M2: Go with easier.

Teacher: I'll give you a major Old Testament prophecy, I'll give you

two. One, the children of Israel themselves. Moses in Genesis talks

about one day they're going to be in slavery for 400 years. Long

before the event, but God would deliver them. And then in Exodus,

they're in slavery, and He delivers 'em 430 years later. Things like

that.

LaClaire: Man and the land. Who proved that this God did this in this

amount of time if God was the only one that would know about this? In

other words, if he created light, and it took him until the 6th day to

create man, then between those, between that time period, who knew

besides him that this stuff happened? Only him.

Teacher: Nah, he just told Moses. You get it?

LaClaire: And we know - wait, wait, and we know -

Teacher: Yeah, for 6 days, there was only him and man.

LaClaire: Him and man. Ok -

Teacher: As far as life on Earth, I mean you do have angelic teams,

and things like that...

Teacher: The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of

different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to

the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like

this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text

itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of

writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're

writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from

God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was

Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two

animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could

find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the

technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses

had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah

was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least

one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now

let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time

after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was

his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these

stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in

my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have

operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is that the

accuracy is ensured by God.

...

Teacher: It would be boring. And the love would not be real. It would

not be real. It has to be a choice, initiated by you. When God created

man, he gave him free will. He could have very easily wound us up like

robots and said "serve me" like the angels. But he's a good God, he's

a holy God, and the choice is up to you. You can reciprocate properly

to the very one that gave you life, or you don't have to, I love you

that much, the choice is yours.

...

Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of

you believe in purgatory; I don't.

Student 4: Neither do I.

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

(love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You're a (???), you belong here.

LaClaire: But would you still do that to your child? If your child

disagreed with you, if your child let's say, lied to you about

something very important, and you were very angry at them for the

moment. Would you throw your child in a burning oven for eternity?

Teacher: No I wouldn't, but neither does God. Because we disagree with

God on many issues, and we're treated like we're all his children, and

he does things to try and draw us back. But we can't disagree with him

on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject

his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong.

LaClaire: But if he loved the child, he would not do that to the child

no matter what he did.

I was born in the United States of America. My ancestors fought in every war this country ever had. They fought for the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Some of my ancestors did not go to war because they were Christian and thought war was wrong. They followed their conscience and accepted the consequences.

When you break the law as flagrantly as Paszkiewicz did you have to face the consequences for what you did.

"We have to stop catering to the wants of the one, and instead care for the needs of the many."

Didn't Spock say this in one of the Star Trek movies?

Bixie, I think we are all waiting for you to show exactly when and where Paul lied and what the lies were.

It's nice to know that your ancestors fought in the war. So did I. And I can tell you that just about every soldier out there today and everyday they are on the battlefield says a prayer to just get through another day.

If you had fought in a war you might have known this instead of being the coward hiding behind a computer screen.

If you just read your own quotes from the LaClair child you would see that it was the young LaClair asking all the questions. The human nature is that if one doesn't like what they hear then they normally shun away from it and become reclusive. The LaClair student is anything but reclusive and in many instances attempts to inject further discussion so he can fill his tapes, even to the point of laughing. He hardly seemed upset with all this but rather amused. It was a nice scheme and I will leave it at that. The boy got is 15 minutes of fame. Big deal.

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

What a liar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
.

Some people may conclude that we, or Matthew alone, did prove it. They might consider Matthew's statements in light of his other statements, all of which have been proved, and conclude he is telling the truth in this, as in everything else. In court, one person's testimony is sufficient to prove a case, especially when it is unchallenged, and especially when that person is credible. In that same venue (court), allegations without a foundation (such as the writer's) are not proof, or evidence of any kind. Of course, what constitutes "proof" depends on the matters at stake, and as in this case, the person evaluating the claim. You're free to adopt whatever standard you like here, but that may say more about you than about the facts of the case. And even if you don't accept Matthew's statement, or mine, as the final word, that does not mean that our statement isn't true. Matthew and I stand by our comments. If we haven't proved it to your satisfaction, then the most responsible course is to withhold your judgment. But then if you were being responsible, you wouldn't have posted this.

Prove that Mr. P lied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mathew is credible? lol! Just remember Mr. Laclair, there were two witness in the room with Matthew and Mr.P! :) That can be a problem, huh? I am sure the courts will want to hear what these two people have to say...don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom
Prove that Mr. P lied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mathew is credible? lol! Just remember Mr. Laclair, there were two witness in the room with Matthew and Mr.P!  :(  That can be a problem, huh? I am sure the courts will want to hear what these two people have to say...don't you?

You have no evidence that Paul or Matthew has lied. Your post only expresses what you wish to believe.

Calling somone a liar without evidence is bearing false witness. If this sort of thing is considered acceptable, it is a sad commentary on our community.

In sum: being called a liar by this "guest" is like being called ugly by a frog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
What makes you think Matthew is not credible? (I can't wait to hear this)

Matthew's words will not be enough to prove that Mr. P lied. There were two witness in the room. If Matthew recorded that meeting, he is hiding something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matthew's words will not be enough to prove that Mr. P lied.

This is irrelevant. Answer the question. What has Matthew done for you to reach the conclusion that he is not credible?

P.S. The lack of a sound recording is not enough to prove that Matthew or his father lied, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You have no evidence that Paul or Matthew has lied. Your post only expresses what you wish to believe.

Calling somone a liar without evidence is bearing false witness. If this sort of thing is considered acceptable, it is a sad commentary on our community.

In sum: being called a liar by this "guest" is like being called ugly by a frog.

Turn this right back on yourself Tom, aren't you condemning Mr. P as a liar on the testimony of just one individual? That individual, by the way, is a media whore who can't stop repeating the refrain "Mr. P lied." I thought the issue was "preaching" in class (by the way, there is no dialogue or discussion in actual preaching, therefore, that is not what occured as far as I can tell by those tapes). I guess the steam has run out of that train so now he has to resort to personal attacks. You criticize this community for its attacks on Mathew, but did it ever occur to you that Mr. P has not fired back attacks at this slander against him. You can't find any in the media. Tom, are you ignorant or just a hypocrit? By the way, nice attempt at quoting the Bible. Actually, the Bible makes it clear in both testaments that it takes the testimony of at least "two" witnesses in order to establish the truth of a matter (Deuteronomy 17:6 and John 8:17). Where is Mathew's other witness Tom? Where are your witnesses? In anticipation of your clitheted response that I'm "mean spirited," even Jesus had to call the Pharisees hypocrits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom
Matthew's words will not be enough to prove that Mr. P lied. There were two witness in the room. If Matthew recorded that meeting, he is hiding something...

Not necessarily. So far, we have Matthew's unchallenged testimony, and he seems quite sure of himself. We also have Matthew's father in support, who as an attorney presumably knows better than to slander his son's teacher. I wouldn't bet against them.

If there are recordings, and they back up Matthew's story, will you change your mind and apologize for calling him a liar? I'd like to have everyone who makes this claim against him on record with an answer --- not that I expect they have the integrity to give one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matthew's words will not be enough to prove that Mr. P lied. There were two witness in the room. If Matthew recorded that meeting, he is hiding something...

Talk about shooting the messenger! The recording proves that Mr. P is the one who violated the Constitution... so you assume that the guy who MADE the recording must have been trying to hide something. Wow, that's some real desperate tactics there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turn this right back on yourself Tom, aren't you condemning Mr. P as a liar on the testimony of just one individual?

But the individual is credible, and I see no motive for Matthew or Paul making something trivial like that up, because it doesn't really affect the issue one way or the other.

Also, Mr. P. is condemned by all of the rational people not because of that, but because he was preaching to public school students while on the clock. Have you forgotten, or are you avoiding the real issue on purpose?

That individual, by the way, is a media whore who can't stop repeating the refrain "Mr. P lied." I thought the issue was "preaching" in class (by the way, there is no dialogue or discussion in actual preaching, therefore, that is not what occured as far as I can tell by those tapes).

Well, now that you've admitted profound ignorance...where can it go from here? Your understanding of the situation is so out there that you can't be expected to reach any reasonable conclusion about anything related to it.

I guess the steam has run out of that train so now he has to resort to personal attacks. You criticize this community for its attacks on Mathew, but did it ever occur to you that Mr. P has not fired back attacks at this slander against him.

Did it ever occur to you that that's because Matthew is telling the truth, and that Mr. P. would instantly be caught lying if he denied it? I'm sure Principal Somma would take notice.

You can't find any in the media.  Tom, are you ignorant or just a hypocrit?  By the way, nice attempt at quoting the Bible.  Actually, the Bible makes it clear in both testaments that it takes the testimony of at least "two" witnesses in order to establish the truth of a matter (Deuteronomy 17:6 and John 8:17).

The USA's government (and therefore, its judicial system) is secular--we don't play by your holy book's barbaric rules (good thing, too; otherwise, all the people that don't attend church on Sunday would be stoned). Deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered
Turn this right back on yourself Tom, aren't you condemning Mr. P as a liar on the testimony of just one individual?  That individual, by the way, is a media whore who can't stop repeating the refrain "Mr. P lied."  I thought the issue was "preaching" in class (by the way, there is no dialogue or discussion in actual preaching, therefore, that is not what occured as far as I can tell by those tapes).  I guess the steam has run out of that train so now he has to resort to personal attacks.  You criticize this community for its attacks on Mathew, but did it ever occur to you that Mr. P has not fired back attacks at this slander against him.  You can't find any in the media.  Tom, are you ignorant or just a hypocrit?  By the way, nice attempt at quoting the Bible.  Actually, the Bible makes it clear in both testaments that it takes the testimony of at least "two" witnesses in order to establish the truth of a matter (Deuteronomy 17:6 and John 8:17).  Where is Mathew's other witness Tom?  Where are your witnesses?  In anticipation of your clitheted response that I'm "mean spirited," even Jesus had to call the Pharisees hypocrits!

Sorry, but the bible is not the law. It really doesn't matter what the bible says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TomRam
Turn this right back on yourself Tom, aren't you condemning Mr. P as a liar on the testimony of just one individual?  That individual, by the way, is a media whore who can't stop repeating the refrain "Mr. P lied."  I thought the issue was "preaching" in class (by the way, there is no dialogue or discussion in actual preaching, therefore, that is not what occured as far as I can tell by those tapes).  I guess the steam has run out of that train so now he has to resort to personal attacks.  You criticize this community for its attacks on Mathew, but did it ever occur to you that Mr. P has not fired back attacks at this slander against him.  You can't find any in the media.  Tom, are you ignorant or just a hypocrit?  By the way, nice attempt at quoting the Bible.  Actually, the Bible makes it clear in both testaments that it takes the testimony of at least "two" witnesses in order to establish the truth of a matter (Deuteronomy 17:6 and John 8:17).  Where is Mathew's other witness Tom?  Where are your witnesses?  In anticipation of your clitheted response that I'm "mean spirited," even Jesus had to call the Pharisees hypocrits!

Your biases are clear enough. I'll answer your questions as objectively as I can.

Matthew and his father say P lied. Matthew is an eye-witness, and both he and his father are credible to me. No one has contradicted them; those with no knowledge of what happened have attacked them viciously, but it is without any factual foundation. I have a factual foundation (Matthew's eyewitness account), and on that basis I conclude that P lied. The testimony of one witness is enough to prove a case in court.

Just because someone references the Bible does not mean he endorses everything in it. If we lived by everything in the Bible, we'd be stoning a lot of people, and our neighborhoods would smell of offal. (The stench would be awful.)

However, if you want to discuss hypocrisy, where was this so-called disciple of Jesus when his student was being attacked and persecuted by his fellow students and the community. P could have spoken out to defend him, saying "I will not have my student attacked in my name, or in the name of my savior." His silence speaks volumes about his moral character. Hypocrisy, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the individual is credible, and I see no motive for Matthew or Paul making something trivial like that up, because it doesn't really affect the issue one way or the other.

Why would you call Matthew LaClair credible? Is he a friend of yours? I'm serious. What's the evidence?

Also, Mr. P. is condemned by all of the rational people not because of that, but because he was preaching to public school students while on the clock. Have you forgotten, or are you avoiding the real issue on purpose?

Wait a minute. This thread is dedicated to the veracity (or not) of the LaClairs.

Why isn't that a real issue?

Well, now that you've admitted profound ignorance...where can it go from here? Your understanding of the situation is so out there that you can't be expected to reach any reasonable conclusion about anything related to it.

He's right. Paul LaClair has come on KOTW and spent time painting Paszkiewicz as dishonest (I don't remember Strife asking LaClair to focus on the "real issue" at that time, FWIW).

Beyond that LaClair wasn't very clear that his accusations rested solely on his son's testimony (which appears to be the case at this stage).

Did it ever occur to you that that's because Matthew is telling the truth, and that Mr. P. would instantly be caught lying if he denied it? I'm sure Principal Somma would take notice.

Somma isn't likely to comment on what went on in the meeting unless he's subpoenaed.

Again, we find Strife arguing from silence (fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam: Lack of comment by Somma validates LaClair; silence from Paszkiewicz stems from the 'fact' that Somma would contradict Paszkiewicz--even though Somma is silent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I don't have an obligation to respond to this, but I will, solely for the purpose of stating the facts yet again, calmly.

Some people may conclude that we, or Matthew alone, did prove it. They might consider Matthew's statements in light of his other statements, all of which have been proved, and conclude he is telling the truth in this, as in everything else.

Some of us may wonder what other statements Matthew made that were proved, and how relevant the specific true statements were to his veracity in this case.

Matthew: "I skinned my knee."

Observer: "Yup, there's an abrasion on your knee, suggesting that you're telling the truth."

2nd Observer: "That shows he told the truth about the meeting."

I really don't know what other relevant claims young LaClair has made that might assist in circumstantially supporting his case regarding the meeting.

In court, one person's testimony is sufficient to prove a case, especially when it is unchallenged, and especially when that person is credible.

Lawyer LaClair intended, I'm sure, to say that one person's testimony may be sufficient to prove a case (to the satisfaction of a court, that is), especially where certain conditions are met.

I would expect that the first condition will go unmet (the testimony about the meeting will not go unchallenged), and young LaClair's credibility will need to stack up against the credibility of at least one other.

Perhaps young LaClair's acting experience will help him in that. :P

In that same venue (court), allegations without a foundation (such as the writer's) are not proof, or evidence of any kind. Of course, what constitutes "proof" depends on the matters at stake, and as in this case, the person evaluating the claim. You're free to adopt whatever standard you like here, but that may say more about you than about the facts of the case. And even if you don't accept Matthew's statement, or mine, as the final word, that does not mean that our statement isn't true. Matthew and I stand by our comments. If we haven't proved it to your satisfaction, then the most responsible course is to withhold your judgment.

I agree with that.

But then if you were being responsible, you wouldn't have posted this.

But the elder LaClair should have stopped one sentence ago (in terms of this issue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Why would you call Matthew LaClair credible?  Is he a friend of yours?  I'm serious.  What's the evidence?

Wait a minute.  This thread is dedicated to the veracity (or not) of the LaClairs.

Why isn't that a real issue?

He's right.  Paul LaClair has come on KOTW and spent time painting Paszkiewicz as dishonest (I don't remember Strife asking LaClair to focus on the "real issue" at that time, FWIW).

Beyond that LaClair wasn't very clear that his accusations rested solely on his son's testimony (which appears to be the case at this stage).

Somma isn't likely to comment on what went on in the meeting unless he's subpoenaed.

Again, we find Strife arguing from silence (fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam:  Lack of comment by Somma validates LaClair; silence from Paszkiewicz stems from the 'fact' that Somma would contradict Paszkiewicz--even though Somma is silent).

Somma is his buddy. Just follow the link on the main page to the Kearny Crew website and then to the Coaches Corner. Somma and Mr. P perfect together. When Matthew went to Principal Somma he must have called his buddy and started skeeming on how to cover up. I'm sure Somma called the superintendent who called the board's lawyer. Let's just sweep it under the rug, nobody will notice it. What's wrong with a little preaching in public school? So what nobody will believe this kid. The punk his father thinks he's a big shot lawyer. We'll teach him us Christians are superior. Wait, we didn't count on that pesky internet and dame that New York Times. How dare they. That Canessa guy and KOTW they should have not kept the story alive. What will we do now. Oh, a policy. But how do we protect Mr. P from getting caught again. A no recorders policy. Brilliant, there will be no evidence next time. Somma, Mr. P, perfect together at KHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you call Matthew LaClair credible?  Is he a friend of yours?  I'm serious.  What's the evidence?

So you assume he's a liar unless he can somehow prove he's telling the truth? Talk about 'guilty until proven innocent.' I'm glad this country doesn't work the way you do.

Paul LaClair has come on KOTW and spent time painting Paszkiewicz as dishonest (I don't remember Strife asking LaClair to focus on the "real issue" at that time, FWIW).

Which has been shown to be completely true--if not regarding that little 'meeting,' then by the fact that Paszkiewicz lied quite blatantly about the history of this nation in his little 'letter.' I can't attribute it to mere ignorance, because he's a history teacher--I have little doubt that he knew very well what he was doing.

Again, we find Strife arguing from silence (fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam:  Lack of comment by Somma validates LaClair; silence from Paszkiewicz stems from the 'fact' that Somma would contradict Paszkiewicz--even though Somma is silent).

It's only a fallacy to you because of your 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality, as shown above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somma is his buddy.  Just follow the link on the main page to the Kearny Crew website and then to the Coaches Corner.  Somma and Mr. P perfect together.  When Matthew went to Principal Somma he must have called his buddy and started skeeming on how to cover up.  I'm sure Somma called the superintendent who called the board's lawyer.  Let's just sweep it under the rug, nobody will notice it.  What's wrong with a little preaching in public school?  So what nobody will believe this kid.  The punk his father thinks he's a big shot lawyer.  We'll teach him us Christians are superior.  Wait, we didn't count on that pesky internet and dame that New York Times.  How dare they.  That Canessa guy and KOTW they should have not kept the story alive.  What will we do now.  Oh, a policy.  But how do we protect Mr. P from getting caught again.  A no recorders policy.  Brilliant, there will be no evidence next time.  Somma, Mr. P, perfect together at KHS.

As far as I can tell, you didn't address any of the issues I included in my post.

Why bother quoting me if you're going to ignore what I wrote?

You make a big deal about Somma sticking up for Paszkiewicz, but Somma brought the department chair (over Paszkiewicz) to the meeting.

I guess you could charge that they're all friends, but OTOH Matthew is probably fairly friendly with Matthew. Always seems to cover for himself, anyway. :blink:

None of what you've written excuses Strife's fallacies, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you assume he's a liar unless he can somehow prove he's telling the truth?

No, but that's a nice strawman (one of your favorite fallacies, it seems).

I was commenting on this:

"But the individual is credible, and I see no motive for Matthew or Paul making something trivial like that up, because it doesn't really affect the issue one way or the other."

I suppose I could have been Strife-like and said:

So you assume he's a truth-teller unless he somehow proves he's lying?

... but even then I doubt that Strife perceives his inconsistency.

You formed an opinion about young LaClair's reliability. I asked you your basis in evidence, and you pulled your appeal to ignorance fallacy again (if we don't know LaClair is a liar, then he is telling the truth) in the form of shifting the burden of proof.

I haven't said anything about young LaClair's reliability. I just asked you for the foundation you use to assess him as credible--and you dodged.

Talk about 'guilty until proven innocent.' I'm glad this country doesn't work the way you do.

Straw man repetition + ad hominem.

Which has been shown to be completely true--if not regarding that little 'meeting,' then by the fact that Paszkiewicz lied quite blatantly about the history of this nation in his little 'letter.'

You're just demonstrating that your reasoning skills are poor.

First, specify whether by "lie" you mean providing inaccurate information or deliberate deceit.

Either way, your argument is in deep trouble.

1) Paszkiewicz allegedly provided inaccurate information. The quote from Jefferson is misleading out of context, but Paszkiewicz offered no commentary on that issue. Assuming that it is true that Paszkiewicz provided wrong information, this has no bearing on his veracity in the office testimony, since that is an issue of lying as deceit, not lying in terms of providing inaccurate information

Strife ends up trying to lead the reader into a fallacy of equivocation (A said x. x is not true. Saying something untrue is a lie. People who say things that are untrue are liars, therefore A is a liar {deliberately deceives people}.

2) Paszkiewicz deliberate attempted to deceive, supposedly. This version supposes that Paszkiewicz knew full well that Jefferson was a deist (despite the fact that Jefferson maintained his membership with the Episcopal church) and presented the quotation in order to provide an impression contrary to Paszkiewicz's knowledge of the truth.

There simply isn't any solide evidence to support this charge, and in any case the Jefferson quotation doesn't appear to contribute significantly to Paszkiewicz's overall point.

One option leads directly to a fallacy by Strife; the other leads to a burden of proof that Strife has yet to bear (which may yet qualify as a fallacy of argument by assertion--the person making the argument insists that the conclusion is true without providing supporting premises or a suggested logical inference).

I can't attribute it to mere ignorance, because he's a history teacher--I have little doubt that he knew very well what he was doing.

How many times have you called Paszkiewicz ignorant or stupid or the like?

Regardless, educational requirement for high school history teachers place no special importance on knowledge of the personal beliefs of the Framers.

It is ignorant of you to rule out ignorance, particularly on such an esoteric issue.

It's only a fallacy to you because of your 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality, as shown above.

You didn't show anything except that you have no command of logic.

You constructed a straw man and projected onto me your own logical fallacy; judging LaClair reliable based on no evidence that you were willing to share (fallacy of shifting the burden of proof).

My position would be to refrain from judging LaClair as either reliable or unreliable without additional evidence, as I showed here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=380&p=43204

Strife should rightly have fairly wide recognition of the fact that he routinely employs fallacious reasoning in his posts to KOTW.

(Master's)

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/programs/edu/...seduc.html#Reqs

AREA E: SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

(18 quarter units required)

HIS 220A History of the United States I [+]

(Prerequisite: ENG 100/101)

HIS 220B History of the United States II [+]

(Prerequisite ENG 100/101)

PSY 100 Introduction to Psychology

SOC 260 Cultural Anthropology

(Prerequisites: ENG 100/101)

http://www.nu.edu/Academics/Schools/SOE/Te...BATeaching.html

Were you unaware of the relatively low specific content required of high school history teachers, Strife?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Somma is his buddy.  Just follow the link on the main page to the Kearny Crew website and then to the Coaches Corner.  Somma and Mr. P perfect together.  When Matthew went to Principal Somma he must have called his buddy and started skeeming on how to cover up.  I'm sure Somma called the superintendent who called the board's lawyer.  Let's just sweep it under the rug, nobody will notice it.  What's wrong with a little preaching in public school?  So what nobody will believe this kid.  The punk his father thinks he's a big shot lawyer.  We'll teach him us Christians are superior.  Wait, we didn't count on that pesky internet and dame that New York Times.  How dare they.  That Canessa guy and KOTW they should have not kept the story alive.  What will we do now.  Oh, a policy.  But how do we protect Mr. P from getting caught again.  A no recorders policy.  Brilliant, there will be no evidence next time.  Somma, Mr. P, perfect together at KHS.

Yeah, now that we are all coming to the conclusion that maybe Matthew is not telling the truth, we blame the witness. LOL!!!!! Ok, let's say Mr. Somma and Mr. P are buddies..okay...but we still have Ms. Wood...hum...interesting. Are Ms. Wood and Mr. P "buddies" too? Well, in order to defend Matthew, people may argue that, which is okay. So, let's go to the cd, the "only" concrete evidence :o ...oh wait a minute, there is no CD!!!! :( then I guess the witnesses, credible wintnesses, I should say, should be enough in court! :D

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...