Paul LaClair is a Liar!

[Strife767]

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

BS--exactly that accusation has been made several times on this forum. Look at the title of the damned thread, you imbecile; I am not being inaccurate at all.

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you kidding me? It is irrelevant if Mr. P lied? It was in every newspaper that he lied during the meeting and you tell me it is irrelevant? About Matthew, it doesn't matter if he is credible or not, what matter is that there were two other witnesses in the room! The principal and the head of the department. If Mr. P was really lying like Matthew said, then we will know.

[Guest second-guest]

To all the Guests supporting Mr. P, are any of you willing to answer the question that's been asked so many times? If Mr. P had been Islamic, and went on at length about how he believed Christians were infidels, despised by Allah, would you still argue that his statements were innocuous? And if your answer is "No," then for bonus points, please explain the difference that makes his original statements OK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would any of the Mr. P backers please answer the above question (sans inane Martian remarks), which was posed at the beginning of this thread?

[Guest Lazarus]

...Except there is credible evidence. The audio tapes. Many people have heard them and argee that he was preaching.

[Bryan]

Would any of the Mr. P backers please answer the above question (sans inane Martian remarks), which was posed at the beginning of this thread?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've answered it before, but since you ask:

I wouldn't argue that the comments were "innocuous" per se, but I wouldn't call it proselytizing if it were truly parallel to the Paszkiewicz comments with which I am familiar.

[Strife767]

Are you kidding me? It is irrelevant if Mr. P lied?

Considering he has so many other things to answer for as well...

It was in every newspaper that he lied during the meeting and you tell me it is irrelevant? About Matthew, it doesn't matter if he is credible or not,

Uh, yeah, it does, since he is an eyewitness. He is credible--that was enough for the newspapers etc. telling the story.

what matter is that there were two other witnesses in the room! The principal and the head of the department. If Mr. P was really lying like Matthew said, then we will know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet, I'd like to hear your explanation for the fact that neither of those other witnesses has stepped forward to contradict Matthew's statement about Mr. P. lying. Are you using your brain? If Matthew wasn't telling the truth, they would have come forward about that long ago.

[Bryan]

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).

BS--exactly that accusation has been made several times on this forum. Look at the title of the damned thread, you imbecile; I am not being inaccurate at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're pathetic.

No matter how many times others might accuse LaClair of being a liar, you can't accuse me of that without committing a straw man fallacy.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...pic=3619&st=80#

That's what you did.

Ignoring the context won't get you off the hook, because I will simply restore the context and show how you're misleading people with your words.

You're a disgrace, Strife.

[Guest Steve_C]

...Except there is credible evidence. The audio tapes. Many people have heard them and argee that he was preaching.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AND... he was talking nonsense! Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark!!!

How can the town not be tossing him out just because he's a freaking LOON!

Does he think we never got to the moon too?

Owww! The stupid it burns!

[Strife767]

You're pathetic.

Whatever. Our respective post histories tell the real story well enough.

No matter how many times others might accuse LaClair of being a liar, you can't accuse me of that without committing a straw man fallacy.

There is no middle ground between "Matthew was telling the truth" and "Matthew was lying" here. You saying that Matthew's statement as an eyewitness with no reputation for dishonesty, about a man whose dishonesty has been clearly shown, both in audio and in print, shouldn't be taken as true, is ridiculous. By your logic, all eyewitness accounts that weren't recorded in some way are to be dismissed outright. Your doubts are not reasonable--simple as that.

[Bryan]

Whatever. Our respective post histories tell the real story well enough.

If only you had the gumption to read it accurately.

There is no middle ground between "Matthew was telling the truth" and "Matthew was lying" here.

Sure there is. One need not take a position (especially where evidence is scant).

You [are] saying that Matthew's statement as an eyewitness with no reputation for dishonesty,

Heh. You're spinning.

You said that Matthew was credible. I asked you why Matthew was credible and you've been dancing away from your justification ever since.

about a man whose dishonesty has been clearly shown, both in audio and in print, shouldn't be taken as true, is ridiculous.

Again, Strife is plagued by a lack of evidence.

Can you give us one example of a lie by Paszkiewicz that does not rely on the testimony of the person for whom you can give no account of the "credible" assessment?

By your logic, all eyewitness accounts that weren't recorded in some way are to be dismissed outright.

Straw man (again).

Your doubts are not reasonable--simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What doubts? The doubt that Matthew has an affirmatively positive reputation for truth-telling?

[Guest Guest]

...both in audio and in print, shouldn't be taken as true, is ridiculous.

If the recordings could be trusted. Would be great.

But these can't be trusted since they were edited.

The same goes for transcript.

[Guest Guest]

Would any of the Mr. P backers please answer the above question (sans inane Martian remarks), which was posed at the beginning of this thread?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's been answered in another thread weeks ago. Since I'm not saavy enough to quote the thread, you'll have to do a little homework. Sorry.

[Guest WilliamK]

Heh.  You're spinning.

You said that Matthew was credible.  I asked you why Matthew was credible and you've been dancing away from your justification ever since.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless I've missed something, everything Matthew has claimed about this affair that has been confirmed at all, has been confirmed true.

So, what we have is: several claims proven true; several claims unproven; and zero claims proven false.

If that's not enough to deem a man credible, then it's hard to see how anyone could be considered credible.

[Guest Guest]

Unless I've missed something, everything Matthew has claimed about this affair that has been confirmed at all, has been confirmed true.

Confirmed by whom? Did you hear Mr. P's side yet?

You heard what Mathew claims it happened, not what really happened.

So, what we have is: several claims proven true; several claims unproven; and zero claims proven false.

What several claims? The only thing you have is a CD that has been corrupted my a person who wants to make a name for himself and get his dad some clients. Free advertisement.

If that's not enough to deem a man credible, then it's hard to see how anyone could be considered credible.

What is credible about a man that makes a career out of destroying people who do not agree with him.

Besides Mr P. here are some other examples of someone trying to destroy another so they can advance in one way or another: Mat putting Anti Bush stickers on Public school locker. He was told his not allowed. What does Mat do? Try to get that person fired.

Try to get a substitute teacher in trouble because that teacher told him he needed to stand for the Pledge. That teacher had no idea that Mat had a problem showing his respect to the pledge.

Would you consider a person like that credible?

He has a history of causing trouble.

[Strife767]

...both in audio and in print, shouldn't be taken as true, is ridiculous.

If the recordings could be trusted. Would be great.

But these can't be trusted since they were edited.

The same goes for transcript.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL, I was wondering how long it would be before this bit of conspiracy theory surfaced. So hilariously pathetic. I really wish people like you would make these outrageous claims in person so that you could hear the laughter. Maybe that would put your in your place, and then you wouldn't suggest something so stupid next time. Not even Paszkiewicz has made such a ridiculous claim.

[Strife767]

Unless I've missed something, everything Matthew has claimed about this affair that has been confirmed at all, has been confirmed true.

So, what we have is: several claims proven true; several claims unproven; and zero claims proven false.

If that's not enough to deem a man credible, then it's hard to see how anyone could be considered credible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly--Bryan's logic seems to dictate that no one is trustworthy at all. *shrugs*

[Guest Guest]

Unless I've missed something, everything Matthew has claimed about this affair that has been confirmed at all, has been confirmed true.

So, what we have is: several claims proven true; several claims unproven; and zero claims proven false.

If that's not enough to deem a man credible, then it's hard to see how anyone could be considered credible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure about that William? He never proved that Mr. P lied during the meeting. Interesting, huh?

[Guest Guest]

Liar Liar! Show us the cds! Where are the CDS Mr. LaClair?????? we want cds!

[Strife767]

Liar Liar! Show us the cds! Where are the CDS Mr. LaClair?????? we want cds!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You want CDs? Why? Even _with_ CDs you idiots still denied that Paszkiewicz did anything wrong in class. Why bother asking for proof when you would just ignore it anyway?

[Strife767]

Are you sure about that William? He never proved that Mr. P lied during the meeting. Interesting, huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would fall in the "unproven" category. Like he said, several proven right, some unproven, and ZERO proven wrong.

Tell me, what does it take for you to consider someone credible?

[Guest Paul]

That would fall in the "unproven" category. Like he said, several proven right, some unproven, and ZERO proven wrong.

Tell me, what does it take for you to consider someone credible?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many people will never accept the truth, because it isn't what they wish to hear. Tragically, fundamentalist theology teaches them to think this way: its premise is that if you believe it, it's true. It's a perfect invitation to irresponsibility, and we are living in a culture that has been conditioned to accept this nonsense.

[Guest Paul]

Liar Liar! Show us the cds! Where are the CDS Mr. LaClair?????? we want cds!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're in no position to make any demands, but the facts regarding the meeting in Al Somma’s office on October 10 are these:

--- Paszkiewicz emphatically denied saying “you belong in hell”;

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

--- he claimed that he shut down the discussion regarding the Muslim student immediately, but in fact he shut it down only after giving his own opinion that she will burn in hell;

--- he claimed his remarks were unfairly taken out of context.

Each of his claims is false.

Furthermore, when the recordings were produced, he made a rank admission --- “You got the big fish” --- and wondered aloud whether the recordings were legal. Obviously, he knew they did not support his position. Throughout the meeting, he tried to bully and intimidate a teenage student, thinking the teenager would back down.

Continue to make a fool out of yourself if you like. Be sure not to let anyone know who you are. How courageous of you.

[Guest Paul]

What is credible about a man that makes a career out of destroying people who do not agree with him.

Besides Mr P. here are some other examples of someone trying to destroy another so they can advance in one way or another: Mat putting Anti Bush stickers on Public school locker. He was told his not allowed. What does Mat do? Try to get that person fired.

Try to get a substitute teacher in trouble because that teacher told him he needed to stand for the Pledge. That teacher had no idea that Mat had a problem showing his respect to the pledge.

Would you consider a person like that credible?

He has a history of causing trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matthew expresses his political views openly. In a democracy, is there something wrong with that, or is it just that you don't agree with what he's saying? When the school got its act together and advised him that all locker postings were prohibited, he never did it again. Initially, he was told that he couldn't post because of content, and that the school may not do. You're going back to his first week as a freshman, more than two years ago.

So who are you? The school employee who called him a Communist because he stood up to your bullying? The teacher who kept tearing the sign off his locker, telling him he couldn't post it because she didn't like what it said? The teacher who had to apologize to him in open class for having berated him for standing up for himself? The substitute teacher who tried telling him he had to do something he knows he doesn't have to do, and walked away in a huff when he wasn't buying what he knew not to be true? There aren't many choices as to who you might be. It's amazing how thoroughly people can twist reality to suit their biases. So what is it you dislike the most: his political views, or the fact that he doesn't back down to bullying?

Forty years ago, tens of millions of Americans called Martin Luther King a trouble-maker, and worse. Today he is the closest we have to a national saint. Trouble is in the eye of the beholder, and like many people who can't see past their own biases, yours are obvious.

[Bryan]

Unless I've missed something, everything Matthew has claimed about this affair that has been confirmed at all, has been confirmed true.

Like what?

It would sure help if you had more than zero examples.

So, what we have is: several claims proven true; several claims unproven; and zero claims proven false.

Could you name at least one of the several claims proven true?

If that's not enough to deem a man credible, then it's hard to see how anyone could be considered credible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh?

I asked Strife what evidence he had to support his claim that young LaClair was credible. He came up with absolutely nothing--not even an unsupported claim like yours that LaClair had made some number of claims that panned out.

Is it completely ridiculous for me to want specific examples?

If I said that LaClair had numerous examples of claims proven false, wouldn't you want a specific example (or even two)?

[Guest M.L.K BACKER]

Matthew expresses his political views openly. In a democracy, is there something wrong with that, or is it just that you don't agree with what he's saying? When the school got its act together and advised him that all locker postings were prohibited, he never did it again. Initially, he was told that he couldn't post because of content, and that the school may not do. You're going back to his first week as a freshman, more than two years ago.

So who are you? The school employee who called him a Communist because he stood up to your bullying? The teacher who kept tearing the sign off his locker, telling him he couldn't post it because she didn't like what it said? The teacher who had to apologize to him in open class for having berated him for standing up for himself? The substitute teacher who tried telling him he had to do something he knows he doesn't have to do, and walked away in a huff when he wasn't buying what he knew not to be true? There aren't many choices as to who you might be. It's amazing how thoroughly people can twist reality to suit their biases. So what is it you dislike the most: his political views, or the fact that he doesn't back down to bullying?

Forty years ago, tens of millions of Americans called Martin Luther King a trouble-maker, and worse. Today he is the closest we have to a national saint. Trouble is in the eye of the beholder, and like many people who can't see past their own biases, yours are obvious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Y ou fool HOE DARE YOU! your son or you are in no way like M.L.K he was a follower of JESUS! he did GOD WORK AND PAID A PRICE FOR IT! are you saying your son is doing gods work? GODS WORK? " FOOL FOLLY ' THATS YOU! AND YOUR SON!