Is a Paterson School Teacher What the Kearny Board of Education Needs?

[Guest Guest]

You're back to name calling although "partisan" is a vast improvement over "slimeball" and "stupid".

The question in the title is important because of the teacher labor unrest in the Paterson school district, including a picket of the Paterson Board of Education and a teacher slowdown in the classroom as a tactic in labor negotiations. The Paterson unrest is a fact. Ms. Davidson's membership in the Paterson union is a fact. Her presence at the picket is a fact.

Do you know for a fact that teachers in Paterson stopped staying after hours? This is what you're calling a teacher slowdown. Did it happen? Did Davidson participate in any such a thing? The fact is that you have no evidence (a.) that the union's threat was carried out (the union discussed it apparently but that is not the same thing) or (b.) that Davidson participated in it. Your questions are fair questions but your insinuations are not fair. If you don't like the term "slimeball," then let's call it slimebag, because that's what it is. You don't want a teacher on our BOE, so you twist the truth to try to slander her. That's slimebag by any reasonable standard. Or we can stick with "slimeball." If the shoe fits, wear it. Well, the shoe fits. Whine all you want, the term is accurate and I'm going to use it. If you don't like it, then stop making things up.

And no, I don't have any affiliation with Davidson. I've never met her. I just don't like slimeball tactics. You're not fooling anyone. We know where it's coming from.

[Guest Fact Check]

Do you know for a fact that teachers in Paterson stopped staying after hours? This is what you're calling a teacher slowdown. Did it happen? Did Davidson participate in any such a thing? The fact is that you have no evidence (a.) that the union's threat was carried out (the union discussed it apparently but that is not the same thing) or (b.) that Davidson participated in it. Your questions are fair questions but your insinuations are not fair. If you don't like the term "slimeball," then let's call it slimebag, because that's what it is. You don't want a teacher on our BOE, so you twist the truth to try to slander her. That's slimebag by any reasonable standard. Or we can stick with "slimeball." If the shoe fits, wear it. Well, the shoe fits. Whine all you want, the term is accurate and I'm going to use it. If you don't like it, then stop making things up.

And no, I don't have any affiliation with Davidson. I've never met her. I just don't like slimeball tactics. You're not fooling anyone. We know where it's coming from.

For someone who has no affiliation with Ms. Davidson, you certainly are very defensive about her.

I've stated the facts. If you wish to call me versions of "slime" because you don't want Kearny residents to know, so be it. You're entitled to your opinion but I have to say your continued bullying is very sad.

Here's another fact: after four years of no contract and teachers' pickets in the Paterson school district, there was finally a settlement last month. FOUR YEARS.

[Guest Guest]

I don't think anyone knows who anyone of us is on this board, so that last comment of yours is meant to knock me for the sole purpose of knocking me. You sure are good at bullying.

I'm not "sliming" anyone, those are your words, not mine. Concerned Taxpayer and Fact Check have raised important questions about Mercedes Davidson that you can't or won't answer. Nothing twisted, just questions based on real facts directed at a candidate for PUBLIC office on the Kearny Board of Education. Your continuing refusal to answer means you don't have an answer or don't want the Kearny public to know where Ms. Davidson stands on those questions. If I were to guess, I'd say you don't want the public to know.

I don't know the answer, I already told you that several times. I also told you that's it's a perfectly legitimate question and that you should ask the candidate. I also pointed out that your tactics are those of a slimeball. The election campaign for the school board, such as it is, has barely started. Claiming that the candidate has refused to answer a question that you have no evidence has ever been asked OF HER is a slimeball tactic.

If you were asking fair questions and stating facts, I would have no problem with it, but that's not what you're doing. You're making cheap accusations and insinuations based on nothing. You're not fooling anyone. You're obviously a partisan here.

[Guest Guest]

I don't think anyone knows who anyone of us is on this board, so that last comment of yours is meant to knock me for the sole purpose of knocking me. You sure are good at bullying.

I'm not "sliming" anyone, those are your words, not mine. Concerned Taxpayer and Fact Check have raised important questions about Mercedes Davidson that you can't or won't answer. Nothing twisted, just questions based on real facts directed at a candidate for PUBLIC office on the Kearny Board of Education. Your continuing refusal to answer means you don't have an answer or don't want the Kearny public to know where Ms. Davidson stands on those questions. If I were to guess, I'd say you don't want the public to know.

This is ridiculous.

Look, school boards are notoriously bad. You could say they stink.

Now, there are various grades of stink. A few years ago, Kearny elected five guys to the Board who were critical of the regular crew and promised to shake things up and improve the board, the schools and our teeth. They really stank. They were stink on steroids. They ran the board the same way as they campaigned, by arguing, complaining and fighting. So they never got anything done. They couldn't even hire a new super until they were about to lose their majority. First opportunity, we voted them out, and now only two of them are left. Soon, only one will be left, or maybe none. So they're stink, stank, stunk.

Along comes a Kearny resident, who is also a school teacher but she teaches in Paterson. All we've seen on KOTW since the Observer announced that she was one of the candidates is mud-slinging at her. And the people throwing the mud admit they don't know her.

Look, "Fact Check II" (really?), you like questions. OK, I have some for you.

Aren't the criticisms aimed at Davidson premature?

Why do you assume that the people/person defending Davidson should be able to answer for her?

Are you one of the five (Fab or Stooges, take your pick) who were recently in the majority on the school board?

Have you had any direct dealings with the Kearny school board that might lead anyone to think you have an axe to grind? If so, please explain.

Those are all fair questions, which you are in a position to answer. And I haven't called you any names.

[Guest Guest]

Fact: "Concerned Taxpayer" (post 16) and "Fact Checker" (post 19) both make the same false accusation, accusing Davidson of "refusing" to answer a question, even though there is no indication she has ever been asked that question.

Fair inference I: They are the same person, along with Concerned Taxpayers II, III and IV, and Fact Checker II.

Fair inference II: CTs I, II, III and IV, a/k/a FC I and II, is an individual with an axe to grind, and/or a political agenda completely divorced from the common concerns of Kearny residents.

[Guest Fact Check]

Do you know for a fact that teachers in Paterson stopped staying after hours? This is what you're calling a teacher slowdown. Did it happen? Did Davidson participate in any such a thing? The fact is that you have no evidence (a.) that the union's threat was carried out (the union discussed it apparently but that is not the same thing) or (b.) that Davidson participated in it. Your questions are fair questions but your insinuations are not fair. If you don't like the term "slimeball," then let's call it slimebag, because that's what it is. You don't want a teacher on our BOE, so you twist the truth to try to slander her. That's slimebag by any reasonable standard. Or we can stick with "slimeball." If the shoe fits, wear it. Well, the shoe fits. Whine all you want, the term is accurate and I'm going to use it. If you don't like it, then stop making things up.

And no, I don't have any affiliation with Davidson. I've never met her. I just don't like slimeball tactics. You're not fooling anyone. We know where it's coming from.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm re-stating what was published in the local Paterson press. I live in Kearny, not Paterson. The stories raise legitimate questions that deserve answers. Only last month, after four years of no labor contract, did Paterson teachers finally reach a settlement. Along the way, news stories indicate there were teacher pickets (at least three based on stories) and the union leadership recommended a classroom slowdown. Are those actions that Ms. Davidson, a Paterson school teacher, would condone for the Kearny school district? Did she support them in Paterson?

They're facts and reasonable questions. You can't run away from them. Or bully your way out. Nor can Ms. Davidson.

You used "slime" four times in your last posting. When bullies are called out, not only do they usually deny it, they often double down on their bullying conduct. You've quadrupled down. You also want to have the last word so probably more will be coming.

I very much doubt you have no affiliation with Ms. Davidson.

And it must bother you that my grammar and spelling don't give you a basis to criticize me as unknowing.

[Guest Guest]

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm re-stating what was published in the local Paterson press. I live in Kearny, not Paterson. The stories raise legitimate questions that deserve answers. Only last month, after four years of no labor contract, did Paterson teachers finally reach a settlement. Along the way, news stories indicate there were teacher pickets (at least three based on stories) and the union leadership recommended a classroom slowdown. Are those actions that Ms. Davidson, a Paterson school teacher, would condone for the Kearny school district? Did she support them in Paterson?

They're facts and reasonable questions. You can't run away from them. Or bully your way out. Nor can Ms. Davidson.

You used "slime" four times in your last posting. When bullies are called out, not only do they usually deny it, they often double down on their bullying conduct. You've quadrupled down. You also want to have the last word so probably more will be coming.

I very much doubt you have no affiliation with Ms. Davidson.

And it must bother you that my grammar and spelling don't give you a basis to criticize me as unknowing.

Of course you are insinuating. Among the insinuations are (1) the insinuation that Davidson is "refusing" to answer your questions, (2) the insinuation that she didn't fulfill her duties toward her students, and now (3) the insinuation that Davidson is responsible for the labor dispute in Paterson. In addition, you are not re-stating what was written in the press, in Paterson or otherwise, you're taking license with it.

What evidence do you have that Davidson has been asked the questions you claim she refuses to answer?

What basis have you for saying the she participated in what you call a "teacher slowdown?"

Of what relevance is the longstanding labor dispute in Paterson to her candidacy?

The fact is, I have never met Mercedes Davidson, and have no connection to the Kearny BoE. I just don't like your tactics.

We agree on the main point: those are legitimate questions, which the candidate should answer. (Perhaps you'll be equally as energetic with your questions to Mr. Plaugic about his conduct during the disastrous tenure of the Five . . . [call them what you will].) But you're jumping the gun, distorting the facts and being unfair. Let's see if you'll answer the questions you've been asked.

[Guest Guest]

I very much doubt you have no affiliation with Ms. Davidson.

Why would you have such a hard time accepting that?

. . . .

You just told on yourself.

[Guest Fact Check]

This is ridiculous.

Look, school boards are notoriously bad. You could say they stink.

Now, there are various grades of stink. A few years ago, Kearny elected five guys to the Board who were critical of the regular crew and promised to shake things up and improve the board, the schools and our teeth. They really stank. They were stink on steroids. They ran the board the same way as they campaigned, by arguing, complaining and fighting. So they never got anything done. They couldn't even hire a new super until they were about to lose their majority. First opportunity, we voted them out, and now only two of them are left. Soon, only one will be left, or maybe none. So they're stink, stank, stunk.

Along comes a Kearny resident, who is also a school teacher but she teaches in Paterson. All we've seen on KOTW since the Observer announced that she was one of the candidates is mud-slinging at her. And the people throwing the mud admit they don't know her.

Look, "Fact Check II" (really?), you like questions. OK, I have some for you.

Aren't the criticisms aimed at Davidson premature?

Why do you assume that the people/person defending Davidson should be able to answer for her?

Are you one of the five (Fab or Stooges, take your pick) who were recently in the majority on the school board?

Have you had any direct dealings with the Kearny school board that might lead anyone to think you have an axe to grind? If so, please explain.

Those are all fair questions, which you are in a position to answer. And I haven't called you any names.

I'm not running for PUBLIC office on the Kearny Board of Education. I am not a member of the Kearny Board of Education. I have not ever been a member of the Board. I have no axe. I am a keen observant of Kearny politics and will continue to be.

That's why people get disgusted with politics. Instead of answering reasonable questions about a candidate for office, you attack the poster's credibility. If the questions are fair, does it matter who's asking? Isn't the important thing that someone actually ASKS questions of those who wish to be our elected leaders? Each of us can then judge the answers. Despite all your wordy and bullying responses, none of the questions about Ms. Davidson's role in the Paterson school district labor actions have been answered. None.

[Guest Another Taxpayer]

Fact: "Concerned Taxpayer" (post 16) and "Fact Checker" (post 19) both make the same false accusation, accusing Davidson of "refusing" to answer a question, even though there is no indication she has ever been asked that question.

Fair inference I: They are the same person, along with Concerned Taxpayers II, III and IV, and Fact Checker II.

Fair inference II: CTs I, II, III and IV, a/k/a FC I and II, is an individual with an axe to grind, and/or a political agenda completely divorced from the common concerns of Kearny residents.

Here's a news flash for you: With this forum's anonymity, there will be repeat posters using different names on BOTH sizes of this, or any other, debate.

I will also add this. With over 800 unique hits in one week, the original post in this thread has definitely struck a cord on one or both sides of this issue. Supporters of Ms. Davidson won't like it, but they will have to deal with the questions raised.

[Guest Guest]

So . . . is "Fact Check" or "Fact Check II" going to answer any of the questions?

[Guest Guest]

I'm not running for PUBLIC office on the Kearny Board of Education. I am not a member of the Kearny Board of Education. I have not ever been a member of the Board. I have no axe. I am a keen observant of Kearny politics and will continue to be.

That's why people get disgusted with politics. Instead of answering reasonable questions about a candidate for office, you attack the poster's credibility. If the questions are fair, does it matter who's asking? Isn't the important thing that someone actually ASKS questions of those who wish to be our elected leaders? Each of us can then judge the answers. Despite all your wordy and bullying responses, none of the questions about Ms. Davidson's role in the Paterson school district labor actions have been answered. None.

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't know the answer? I am not the candidate, and do not speak for her, do not know her and do not know whether I will vote for her. But I do know a cheap shot when I see one, and the attacks against her here are cheap shots.

Your questions are fair but the insinuations that accompany them are not. I am not in a position to answer those questions, as I have told you repeatedly. And since there is no reason to think that Mercedes Davidson is participating on this forum, any claim that she is "refusing" to answer those questions is unfounded, and a cheap insinuation without basis in fact.

And of course, you do not answer any of the questions asked of you. They are all questions that you are in a position to answer. Your answers, if honestly given, could flesh out and perhaps clarify this discussion. Yet you ignore them. So your credibility is at issue, because a fair-minded person would wonder why you are being unfairly one-sided. You have attacked someone without foundation, and it now appears that you have partisan reasons for doing so. If you were only interested in fair inquiry, you would have answered the questions.

And I have news for you: posting under yet another SN ("Another Taxpayer") doesn't fool anyone either. You're a partisan here. Your motives are transparent from your latest post: repeat a lie enough times, and people will believe it. That's why I called you a slimeball: you're acting like one. The issue is not that you take a side but that you have taken a side unfairly; not that you criticize but that you criticize without basis in fact.

Here's another question for you. Every candidate of the five has weaknesses. Why are you singling out Ms. Davidson?

[Guest Guest]

Here's a news flash for you: With this forum's anonymity, there will be repeat posters using different names on BOTH sizes of this, or any other, debate.

I will also add this. With over 800 unique hits in one week, the original post in this thread has definitely struck a cord on one or both sides of this issue. Supporters of Ms. Davidson won't like it, but they will have to deal with the questions raised.

Not as Anonymous as you think, as the Original owners of the board found out years ago, once the subpoenas started coming in.

[Guest Guest]

Supporters of Ms. Davidson won't like it, but they will have to deal with the questions raised.

Like you're dealing with the questions that have been put to you? Don't know whether you're any of the other things you've been called but you're certainly being hypocritical.

The voters will decide what questions the candidates "have to deal with."

[Guest Guest]

Dear Concerned Taxpayers I, II, III and IV, Fact Checkers I and II, and Another Taxpayer:

Obviously, you're obviously one person pretending to be several. Until you didn't get away with it, then you changed your tune, and said everybody does it.

Equally obvious, you're one of the Five Stooges. You write the same way as they "ran" the BoE, if you can call it "running" anything. All they ever brought to Kearny was constant accusing and bad-mouthing of others, but when it came time to do a job, they had nothing to offer. Their time in the majority was a disaster. It will take years to undo the damage they did.

In the same way, you insist that other people answer your questions but you absolutely refuse to answer any questions yourself. How perfectly stooge-like of you. So come January, at most, there will be one stooge left, and don't bet on that.

But you're entitled to your opinion, so OK, there are five candidates for the BoE. If you don't want Davidson, then who do you want? Plaugic, it seems, maybe Fernandez. But why? What did Plaugic do to distinguish himself on the BoE during his first term? Nothing. And why is Fernandez better qualified for the Board than Viscuso, Hill or Davidson? That could be a useful discussion, but a useful discussion isn't what you want, is it. You think that by keeping multiple topics open slandering Davidson, you can get your stooge back on the BoE. I almost hope he wins, so he can be a visible reminder how useless he was, and is. Hearing the phrase "tits on a boar" is one thing; seeing one is quite another.

So just to recap: You slandered someone without any basis in fact, and you got called a slimeball for doing it. Serves you right.

You insisted that other people answer your questions, even though there was no reason to think they could. Yet when you are asked questions that you should be able to answer, you don't.

We had our fill of the Five Stooges. Once was more than enough. Now go away.

[Guest Multiplicity]

Here's a news flash for you: With this forum's anonymity, there will be repeat posters using different names on BOTH sizes of this, or any other, debate.

I will also add this. With over 800 unique hits in one week, the original post in this thread has definitely struck a cord on one or both sides of this issue. Supporters of Ms. Davidson won't like it, but they will have to deal with the questions raised.

800 hits doesn't mean anything. It just means that the 20 or so people who are really active on this blog have no lives, right Bobby and Joann? Just sayin'.

[Guest Still Fact Checking]

So . . . is "Fact Check" or "Fact Check II" going to answer any of the questions?

Who's running for public office?

[Guest Guest]

Who's running for public office?

I don't know whether you are a slimeball but you're certainly being a slimeball.

The people posting on this forum aren't running for office either, yet you insisted that they should. According do you, everyone is under an absolute responsibility to answer questions, except you. You don't have to answer any questions, even when you should be able to.

I call that slimeball because that's what it is.

[Guest Guest]

Who's running for public office?

Plaugic is running. Why aren't you after him to account for his miserable record on the Board? Why aren't you asking him what good he accomplished, and why he thinks the voters should put him in again, after he did such a lousy job the first time?

Don't worry, you don't have to answer those questions. (You won't anyway.) You've already made the answers obvious.

[Guest Guest]

Who's running for public office?

I'm not running for public office either, yet you insisted that I should read Davidson's mind and answer your questions about her positions on some of the issues. But of course, you're not going to answer any questions, even after you've made false accusations. So in addition to being a slimeball, you're also a hypocrite.

[Guest Eyes of the world]

And don't forget bob o malley

[Guest Fact Check]

I'm not running for public office either, yet you insisted that I should read Davidson's mind and answer your questions about her positions on some of the issues. But of course, you're not going to answer any questions, even after you've made false accusations. So in addition to being a slimeball, you're also a hypocrite.

The posts were base on reported news stories. Ms Davidson needs to explain her role in the Paterson labor unrest, not I. If she can't, then she should not run. Don't attack me for her failure. Nor should you keep bullying those who disagree with you.

[Guest Guest]

"Fact Check," the news stories do not say what you claim they say. There's no failure on Davidson's part, at least not yet, because there is no evidence that she has been asked any of these questions. And it's not up to you to decide whether she should run or not. We've been over all of that. If you're going to persist in this, then address the responses that have already been made to your points, and answer the questions that have been asked of you. They are all fair questions, you are in a position to answer them, and you are participating here. Every time you avoid them, you just make it all the clearer that you're a partisan who is hell-bent on attacking this candidate regardless of the facts.

[Guest Fact Check]

"Fact Check," the news stories do not say what you claim they say. There's no failure on Davidson's part, at least not yet, because there is no evidence that she has been asked any of these questions. And it's not up to you to decide whether she should run or not. We've been over all of that. If you're going to persist in this, then address the responses that have already been made to your points, and answer the questions that have been asked of you. They are all fair questions, you are in a position to answer them, and you are participating here. Every time you avoid them, you just make it all the clearer that you're a partisan who is hell-bent on attacking this candidate regardless of the facts.

I'm amazed. You attack the person who's asking legitimate questions of a candidate for PUBLIC office. You try to put the legitimate questioner on the defensive by suggesting (or is it "insinuating" to use your word?) that she is distorting facts. You come up with a series of questions that you expect the poster, a PRIVATE citizen, to answer before Ms. Davidson answers the legitimate questions originally posed to her as a candidate for public office.

For the record, yet one more time, there are reported news stories in which Ms. Davidson is quoted as a participant in labor actions against the Paterson Board of Education. There were pickets of the Board of Education and at least one reported attempt by the teachers' union in Paterson to engage in a classroom slow down to gain negotiating leverage in their contract talks. That's the equivalent of using school children as ammunition. In a news story that criticized the teachers' union for calling for that action, Ms. Davidson posted a comment, using her name, that the reporter is "really ignorant".

I want answers to my legitimate questions. In my opinion, you're doing your best to divert attention from a real issue which is what do the candidates for the Kearny Board of Education, a public office, stand for regarding the expired Kearny teachers' contract. That's the biggest cost item in the Kearny school district budget and 45% of my property tax bill goes to the school district.

[Guest Too much overtime]

You don't pay taxes Danny, you live with mommy and daddy