Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

Attempted intimidation

Recommended Posts

As the only self-professed practicing Methodist on the board, I can tell you that those universities affiliated with my denomination have no problem matriculating and graduating good students from a wide variety of religious backgrounds.

That's about the only way to get the foot in the door with those government funds (make the religious affiliation MOL insignificant).

I can also say that most members of my denomination would have a real problem with Mr. P's proselytizing in class, and not just because the theology he was teaching is not the same as ours.  If he'd been a good Methodist preacher riffing on our own party line, we would still think his behavior was grossly inappropriate in a public school classroom.  We believe in and uphold the principle of separation of church and state and regard his behavior as an unconstitutional violation of that principle.  We believe our young people should be taught theology in our homes and churches, not at school.

United Methodists decline, signs of it are everywhere, a staggering loss of membership, the erosion of the Sunday school, a pervasive sense that the church is not meetng the spiritual needs of people.

http://cmpage.org/rekindling/

The Rev. R. Randy Day, general secretary of the General Board of Global Ministries, challenged United Methodists to be confident as they deal with contemporary realities. One of those realities, he noted, is declining membership in the United States. US membership has dropped below eight million, a drop of some four million over the last four decades.

http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/pr.cfm?art...FTOKEN=12340798

And thus most members of the denomination participate in the destruction of the denomination, not even realizing that they've been snookered

"The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life.

http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6384

(bold emphasis added)

The Methodists need to consider more carefully where that line is drawn, lest they commit cultural suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Burning a flag on the steps of Kearny High would probably violate a fire ordinance, and while citizens have the right to burn the flag, neither of us has ever done it and does not intend to do it. But if a country removes the right to do it, that country is headed toward tyranny.

Tell it to each soldier who fought for this country and died for it as I have placed over 500 flags on their graves during Memorial Day ceremonies that its ok to burn the flag. Not burning the flag would not cause tyranny. It would just give it the respect to something held with great regard.

The reason the recordings were ethical is same reason that undercover operations are ethical: systematic improper behavior called for action to stop it. This was the most effective (and the only) way to do it, it didn't violate any substantial rights, and therefore it was ethical. You just don't like the outcome.

So you are admitting this was an undercover operation. I am glad Kearny needs your son to be the Secret Service. It was improper and immoral. The week before the recordings he was out of school probably planning the whole thing or colaberating his assignment with you.

Confronting the teacher would not have stopped the behavior. The teacher's superiors needed to know, and for that the recordings were necessary.

How can you say that since you never even approached that as an option? Now is too late as you have decided to take it a different route.

Thousands of people are calling Matthew patriot, including many Christians. Yet again, you just don't like the outcome. Why don't try listening for a change? If you think Matthew doesn't care about his country, then you don't know much about him.

I know at least Matthew doesn’t care about his town or this would have been resolved months ago. The last I did look was that this town was a part of this country. Therefore by conclusion Matthew doesn’t care about this country.

Your arguments are typical of people who throw away their freedoms because they do not understand that those freedoms depend on the integrity of a legal system. In our country, that includes separation of church and state. You don't get why that's important. Matthew does. If you understood why it matters, you would probably hold a different view.

I hold the Constitution to be highest regard. What I do disagree with Paul on is the fact that the School Board said that this was handled and yet he continues to harass and blog and degrade the people of this town as well as the Administration. Since that time I have not heard of one more instance of his so called preaching. It is just you trying to keep digging up old history and keeping your name and that of your son in the news. Has anyone else heard of anything recently? I think the Kearny School System is doing an excellent job.

So you a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
P.S. There's no "e" at the end of "ignoramus," ignoramus. ;)

I beg to differ, Strife. You seem to be a muse for the ignorant. Every time you post, you inspire others to spit out drivel and ridiculous commentary. Which makes you an ignora-muse! Congratulations and call Noah Webster - you've inspired a new addition to the English language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell it to each soldier who fought for this country and died for it as I have placed over 500 flags on their graves during Memorial Day ceremonies that its ok to burn the flag.  Not burning the flag would not cause tyranny.

That's because it would BE tyrannical, and saying that something causes itself is redundant.

Prohibiting flag-burning is just as unconstitutional as forcing standing and/or recitation of the pledge of allegiance. Do you understand what freedom of expression means?

It would just give it the respect to something held with great regard.

It would be pissing on what the flag symbolizes to forbid flag burning.

So you are admitting this was an undercover operation.  I am glad Kearny needs your son to be the Secret Service.  It was improper and immoral.

Of course the irony is that you can say this while defending a teacher who spits all over the Constitution. Guess preaching in public school is proper and moral, huh? And it's improper and immoral to expose his actions, in your eyes. Ludicrous.

The week before the recordings he was out of school probably planning the whole thing or colaberating his assignment with you.

1. Yes, because putting a recording device in one's pocket and pressing 'record' takes a week of planning, lol.

2. He was sick, you heartless scumbag. Is nothing not a conspiracy to you?

How can you say that since you never even approached that as an option?

How about BECAUSE HE WAS CAUGHT LYING IN AN ATTEMPT TO COVER UP HIS ACTIONS?!

Now is too late as you have decided to take it a different route.

I know at least Matthew doesn’t care about his town

Maybe it's the town that doesn't care about the Constitution. Matthew has done nothing but stand up for the Consitution, and against the actions of someone who breached it. That's what people like you are opposing. Do you even realize what that opposition entails?

or this would have been resolved months ago.  The last I did look was that this town was a part of this country.

Which is why the Constitution applies to it.

Therefore by conclusion Matthew doesn’t care about this country.

I hold the Constitution to be highest regard.

Yet you oppose someone who is defending it. Hypocrite.

What I do disagree with Paul on is the fact that the School Board said that this was handled

Yes, it's a fact they said it was. It's also a fact that it wasn't.

and yet he continues to harass and blog and degrade the people of this town as well as the Administration.

The only people degrading Kearny are Paszkiewicz and his apologists. They and they alone are the reason Kearny is being made out to be a laughingstock in this country and beyond.

(part 1 of 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(part 2 of 2)

Since that time I have not heard of one more instance of his so called preaching.

So no one should ever have to face any consequences for anything they do wrong, as long as when they're caught, they don't do it again? What a stupid suggestion.

It is just you trying to keep digging up old history

Paul didn't write this: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=5875

Nor any of the other stories that are now coming out about former students of his.

and keeping your name and that of your son in the news.

The issue would die instantly if Paszkiewicz and the Board did what they need to do. The ball is in their court. Every day this issue continues unresolved, it is because of them. They keep this in the news, no one else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Tell it to each soldier who fought for this country and died for it as I have placed over 500 flags on their graves during Memorial Day ceremonies that its ok to burn the flag.  Not burning the flag would not cause tyranny. It would just give it the respect to something held with great regard. 

So you are admitting this was an undercover operation.  I am glad Kearny needs your son to be the Secret Service.  It was improper and immoral. The week before the recordings he was out of school probably planning the whole thing or colaberating his assignment with you.

How can you say that since you never even approached that as an option? Now is too late as you have decided to take it a different route.

I know at least Matthew doesn’t care about his town or this would have been resolved months ago.  The last I did look was that this town was a part of this country. Therefore by conclusion Matthew doesn’t care about this country.

I hold the Constitution to be highest regard. What I do disagree with Paul on is the fact that the School Board said that this was handled and yet he continues to harass and blog and degrade the people of this town as well as the Administration.  Since that time I have not heard of one more instance of his so called preaching. It is just you trying to keep digging up old history and keeping your name and that of your son in the news.  Has anyone else heard of anything recently?  I think the Kearny School System is doing an excellent job. 

So you a

1. Not burning the flag is a way of showing respect to those who died for our freedom. Burning the flag is another way of showing the same respect. The flag is a symbol of our government. If we are not free to criticize the government and its symbols, including by symbolic expression, then we will not remain free. Many Americans think we are immune to the laws of human nature, but we are not. The Stars and Stripes under the wrong leaders could easily become as the Swastika or the hammer and sickle. That has not happened yet. To ensure that it does not happen, citizens must remain free to criticize, demonstrate and protest as they see fit, even if some find it offensive. Freedom can survive offenses to our sensibilities, but it cannot survive the government declaring its own symbols sacred and inviolable.

2. It was very much an undercover operation. What is "improper" or "immoral" about that? Please explain yourself if you're going to make that accusation.

3. It was not planned. Matthew determined to record Mr. P after two days of sustained in-class proselytizing. You do yourself no credit speculating like that without any foundation.

4. We concluded that approaching Mr. P would serve little purpose because of the fervency and sustained character of his proselytizing. It was and is obvious just from listening to the recordings that he has been doing this for a very long time, a fact that has been borne out by testimony from many people. It would have been very convenient for Mr. P and his apologists had we simply taken the matter to him, but that would not have stopped the behavior overall, which of course is what he and his apologists would have preferred. The behavior is not acceptable. So Matthew chose the route that was likely to be most effective in stopping it.

5. The mere fact that Mr. Paszkiewicz has stopped preaching means very little in this context. That is only a first step. A series of wrongs was done, which must be corrected. We have made it crystal clear from the beginning what will put this matter to rest. Those things have not yet occurred. They are in someone else's hands, so your suggestion that Matthew could have generated an appropriate resolution on his own is incorrect and without foundation in fact or reason. The mere fact that some have claimed this matter has been sufficiently addressed does not mean that it has been. Once again, you appear to be operating from your sense of what would be convenient to your position and your personal tastes. You may think you value the Constitution, but when it comes to standing up for it in practice, your understanding is lacking. With all due respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell it to each soldier who fought for this country and died for it as I have placed over 500 flags on their graves during Memorial Day ceremonies that its ok to burn the flag.  Not burning the flag would not cause tyranny. It would just give it the respect to something held with great regard. 

So you are admitting this was an undercover operation.  I am glad Kearny needs your son to be the Secret Service.  It was improper and immoral. The week before the recordings he was out of school probably planning the whole thing or colaberating his assignment with you.

How can you say that since you never even approached that as an option? Now is too late as you have decided to take it a different route.

I know at least Matthew doesn’t care about his town or this would have been resolved months ago.  The last I did look was that this town was a part of this country. Therefore by conclusion Matthew doesn’t care about this country.

I hold the Constitution to be highest regard. What I do disagree with Paul on is the fact that the School Board said that this was handled and yet he continues to harass and blog and degrade the people of this town as well as the Administration.  Since that time I have not heard of one more instance of his so called preaching. It is just you trying to keep digging up old history and keeping your name and that of your son in the news.  Has anyone else heard of anything recently?  I think the Kearny School System is doing an excellent job. 

So you a

As far as flag burning goes look at it this way. I have never done it, no one I know has done it or plans to do it. I would do it however as a protest if they did in fact make it illegal. Why? Because if I burn a flag, I merely destroy a symbol but I did not destroy what it stands for. The minute that burning a flag is made illegal however, we have managed to destroy what the flag actually stands for which is far worse than the destruction of the symbol itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I beg to differ, Strife.  You seem to be a muse for the ignorant.  Every time you post, you inspire others to spit out drivel and ridiculous commentary.  Which makes you an ignora-muse!  Congratulations and call Noah Webster - you've inspired a new addition to the English language.

By the way, Strife, where were you yesterday? We missed you at the meeting...We also missed Mr. Pinho, he makes the BOE meeting so much fun and he wasn't there yesterday... :( .....lol! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Watching From Afar

quote=Guest,Mar 19 2007, 09:17 AM]Tell it to each soldier who fought for this country and died for it as I have placed over 500 flags on their graves during Memorial Day ceremonies that its ok to burn the flag. Not burning the flag would not cause tyranny. It would just give it the respect to something held with great regard.

How is this issue relevant to the dispute between the LeClairs and the school district, other than as a means of "Christians" to call these people traitors, too?

I know at least Matthew doesn’t care about his town or this would have been resolved months ago.

The LeClairs contacted the school administration and school board months before they went public. Those entities ignored them. The fault is theirs, not the LeClairs'.

The last I did look was that this town was a part of this country. Therefore by conclusion Matthew doesn’t care about this country.

It eventually comes down to the smear, doesn't it? Some "Christians" just seem to require enemies for their survival.

I hold the Constitution to be highest regard. What I do disagree with Paul on is the fact that the School Board said that this was handled and yet he continues to harass and blog and degrade the people of this town as well as the Administration.

It was not handled appropriately. An incompetent, dishonest teacher is still in place, along with those who put him in the job and tolerated his misconduct and incompetence. The student and his family have been harrassed. That's wrong.

Since that time I have not heard of one more instance of his so called preaching. It is just you trying to keep digging up old history and keeping your name and that of your son in the news.

Justice has not been done. The teacher shouldn't be there, nor should those who kept the teacher there. The student and his family should not be harrassed or defamed by so-called "Christians" who disagree with them and are willing to use any tactic, including lies, to destroy them.

I write fast, and I have my reasons. One thing you may notice about the mind-set supporting Mr P: they think they can make things true by repeating them. That means they must be met with a consistent and unflinching response, which I realize most people don't require. If I wasn't doing this, this forum would have taken on a different look. There is the disadvantage of what happens when one is engaged in a pissing match with a skunk, but given the alternative, I chose to respond to a lot of nonsense lest some people think it wasn't nonsense. Please don't think I insist that you read everything I write.

Good for you, Mr. LeClair. I have been skeptical of some elements of your tactics, but the more I read on these message boards the more I am inclined to support you. I could do without some of the soaring rhetoric, but frankly I can understand it more now than I did before. I can certainly feel for you and your family when it comes to the difficulty of dealing with people who refuse to follow the law and who refuse to act in good faith.

One of the worst aspects of this situation is the condemnation of the LeClairs for continuing to stand up for themselves. Somehow, their responding to attacks is held against them. This is straight out of the Middle Ages. In the Spanish and Portugese Inquisitions, denial of the charges by the accused was considered evidence of guilt. Those who are doing this to the LeClairs are, unfortunately, reviving an old Christian tradition best left in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as flag burning goes look at it this way. I have never done it, no one I know has done it or plans to do it. I would do it however as a protest if they did in fact make it illegal.

Me too. *nods*

Why?  Because if I burn a flag, I merely destroy a symbol but  I did not destroy what it stands for. The minute that burning a flag is made illegal however, we have managed to destroy what the flag actually stands for which is far worse than the destruction of the symbol itself.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell it to each soldier who fought for this country and died for it as I have placed over 500 flags on their graves during Memorial Day ceremonies that its ok to burn the flag.  Not burning the flag would not cause tyranny. It would just give it the respect to something held with great regard. 

So you are admitting this was an undercover operation.  I am glad Kearny needs your son to be the Secret Service.  It was improper and immoral. The week before the recordings he was out of school probably planning the whole thing or colaberating his assignment with you.

How can you say that since you never even approached that as an option? Now is too late as you have decided to take it a different route.

I know at least Matthew doesn’t care about his town or this would have been resolved months ago.  The last I did look was that this town was a part of this country. Therefore by conclusion Matthew doesn’t care about this country.

I hold the Constitution to be highest regard. What I do disagree with Paul on is the fact that the School Board said that this was handled and yet he continues to harass and blog and degrade the people of this town as well as the Administration.  Since that time I have not heard of one more instance of his so called preaching. It is just you trying to keep digging up old history and keeping your name and that of your son in the news.  Has anyone else heard of anything recently?  I think the Kearny School System is doing an excellent job. 

So you a

I respect the thoughtfulness and passion of heart that would prompt you to memorialize veterans of our wars. Loss of life in war is the epitome of pure grief. Yet even pure grief and the ultimate sacrifice of a soldier does not grant them, nor those that follow them, ownership of the definition of patriotism, or the right to define the boundaries that any veteran dies to defend. NO group -- veterans, non-veterans, Christians, Atheists, liberals, conservatives, has a monopoly on patriotism. That fact is one of the precious things that is on the line when we send our troops into danger.

I do NOT respect your contorted logic that starts with "this would have been resolved months ago" and lands on "Matthew doesn't care about this country." For some reason this reminds me of a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail here a batch of brainless villagers try to reason out the logic for burning a suspected witch. You can read the dialogue here. Not surprisingly, the video is funnier, but the outcome, alas, is the same. Hint: Matthew does not weigh the same as a duck, but he does, in fact, care about this country. :D

If you truly "hold the Constitution in the highest regard," as you state, then you obviously know that the First Amendment guarantees our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Mr. L. appears to be leaving the door open for just that, with an offramp encouraging the government (in this case, the school board and the teacher) to provide a remedy that doesn't involve a lengthy Constitutional court battle. Extra Credit: (1) How has the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of public schools having written policy guidelines on religious proselytizing? (2) Does any reputable source offer templates for such policies, ones that might keep school districts out of sticky situations like the one with Mr. P.? (3) Does the Kearny district have such a policy in the public record? We DO know they now have one on recording in the classroom.

With your high regard for the Constitution, I would expect to see your 3-page typed essay on Mr. P's U.S. History class desk in the morning, articulating why Matthew and Mr. L. are (1) entirely within their Constitutional rights to seek redress of their grievances; (2) why the public evidence of the case indicates the grievance is not frivolous, that is -- has merits that could reasonably warrant consideration by a court (not prejudging the outcome); (3) why their grievance is rooted in Constitutional issues so basic that they are worthy of the most thoughtful public dialogue. Extra Credit option: Name the justices of the Supreme Court who wrote the operatived language on the Constitutional tests for separation of church and state, who nominated them to the Court, and whether those justices are considered in any reputable legal circles to be "liberal" or "activist" judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

quote=Guest,Mar 19 2007, 09:17 AM]Tell it to each soldier who fought for this country and died for it as I have placed over 500 flags on their graves during Memorial Day ceremonies that its ok to burn the flag. Not burning the flag would not cause tyranny. It would just give it the respect to something held with great regard.

How is this issue relevant to the dispute between the LeClairs and the school district, other than as a means of "Christians" to call these people traitors, too?

The LeClairs contacted the school administration and school board months before they went public. Those entities ignored them. The fault is theirs, not the LeClairs'.

It eventually comes down to the smear, doesn't it? Some "Christians" just seem to require enemies for their survival.

It was not handled appropriately. An incompetent, dishonest teacher is still in place, along with those who put him in the job and tolerated his misconduct and incompetence. The student and his family have been harrassed. That's wrong.

Justice has not been done. The teacher shouldn't be there, nor should those who kept the teacher there. The student and his family should not be harrassed or defamed by so-called "Christians" who disagree with them and are willing to use any tactic, including lies, to destroy them.

Good for you, Mr. LeClair. I have been skeptical of some elements of your tactics, but the more I read on these message boards the more I am inclined to support you. I could do without some of the soaring rhetoric, but frankly I can understand it more now than I did before. I can certainly feel for you and your family when it comes to the difficulty of dealing with people who refuse to follow the law and who refuse to act in good faith.

One of the worst aspects of this situation is the condemnation of the LeClairs for continuing to stand up for themselves. Somehow, their responding to attacks is held against them. This is straight out of the Middle Ages. In the Spanish and Portugese Inquisitions, denial of the charges by the accused was considered evidence of guilt. Those who are doing this to the LeClairs are, unfortunately, reviving an old Christian tradition best left in the past.

You are obviously watching from too afar to get a grasp of what is really happening here. It is not know if or what the Board did to this teacher. The fact does show that the incident was handled and it has not happened again. The fact now is mainly that Mr. LaClair did not get his public apology. It is not the attacks on the LaClairs, but mainly their public outcries by themselves and Strife. Where is the post that calls them traitors ? I do not recall anyone using those words. What I do think that It was underhanded not to approach the teacher first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest you're going to hate this po

While Matt Leclair stands for liberty and freedom of speech, our soldiers only die for the interests of a few very rich, manipulative people. So I'd have to say, MAtt has stood up for a more worthy cause than any of the men serving in Iraq have.

This is in no way to put down the soldiers in Iraq. To support your government even when your government is wrong is more corageous and dignified than anything. All I'm saying is that these soldiers serve no purpose in Iraq and defend nothing but their own lives.

think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
2. It was very much an undercover operation. What is "improper" or "immoral" about that? Please explain yourself if you're going to make that accusation.

3. It was not planned. Matthew determined to record Mr. P after two days of sustained in-class proselytizing. You do yourself no credit speculating like that without any foundation.

Ok, lets for giggles that it was not planned. How many people do you know just happen to have a tape recorder in their back pocket with enough tapes to last the period of the entire class for days? This recording was just by coincidence?

4. We concluded that approaching Mr. P would serve little purpose because of the fervency and sustained character of his proselytizing. It was and is obvious just from listening to the recordings that he has been doing this for a very long time, a fact that has been borne out by testimony from many people. It would have been very convenient for Mr. P and his apologists had we simply taken the matter to him, but that would not have stopped the behavior overall, which of course is what he and his apologists would have preferred. The behavior is not acceptable. So Matthew chose the route that was likely to be most effective in stopping it.

Why does this have begin with "We" instead of Matthew? You say from the recordings you can conclude that he has been doing this for a very long time? How many years of tape do you have? You are supposed to be an attorney but you just blot out these unjust comments without any proof. Where is your proof that he has been doing this for a "very long time?" PROOF!! Not just you speculation. Your credibility is lousy. You are going by some testimony from someone named "guest"? Both my nephews have had him and they do not recall any of this ongoing that you keep blabbering about. OK so you have a few tapes.

So in your answer to number 4 you are admitting that Matthew consulted you before recording Mr. P. Therefore your answer to number 3 is a LIE, LIE, LIE.

5. The mere fact that Mr. Paszkiewicz has stopped preaching means very little in this context. That is only a first step. A series of wrongs was done, which must be corrected. We have made it crystal clear from the beginning what will put this matter to rest. Those things have not yet occurred. They are in someone else's hands, so your suggestion that Matthew could have generated an appropriate resolution on his own is incorrect and without foundation in fact or reason. The mere fact that some have claimed this matter has been sufficiently addressed does not mean that it has been. Once again, you appear to be operating from your sense of what would be convenient to your position and your personal tastes. You may think you value the Constitution, but when it comes to standing up for it in practice, your understanding is lacking. With all due respect.

Therefore your witch-hunt goes on. Your condemnation of a man continues. If this has been resolved between the Board and him is not good enough for you. It’s therefore not about correcting a wrong, but for your personal gain.

Stop throwing the word Constitution about. It gets tiring. This problem has been corrected. It’s time for you to grow and stop tossing the constitution around like you do your constipation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This problem has been corrected. It’s time for you to grow and stop tossing the constitution around like you do your constipation.

How has this been corrected? Paskewicz is still teaching, no apology has been offered, no rebuke has been given to him.

This has not been corrected until the person responsible has been held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul

How is this issue relevant to the dispute between the LeClairs and the school district, other than as a means of "Christians" to call these people traitors, too?

The LeClairs contacted the school administration and school board months before they went public. Those entities ignored them. The fault is theirs, not the LeClairs'.

It eventually comes down to the smear, doesn't it? Some "Christians" just seem to require enemies for their survival.

It was not handled appropriately. An incompetent, dishonest teacher is still in place, along with those who put him in the job and tolerated his misconduct and incompetence. The student and his family have been harrassed. That's wrong.

Justice has not been done. The teacher shouldn't be there, nor should those who kept the teacher there. The student and his family should not be harrassed or defamed by so-called "Christians" who disagree with them and are willing to use any tactic, including lies, to destroy them.

Good for you, Mr. LeClair. I have been skeptical of some elements of your tactics, but the more I read on these message boards the more I am inclined to support you. I could do without some of the soaring rhetoric, but frankly I can understand it more now than I did before. I can certainly feel for you and your family when it comes to the difficulty of dealing with people who refuse to follow the law and who refuse to act in good faith.

One of the worst aspects of this situation is the condemnation of the LeClairs for continuing to stand up for themselves. Somehow, their responding to attacks is held against them. This is straight out of the Middle Ages. In the Spanish and Portugese Inquisitions, denial of the charges by the accused was considered evidence of guilt. Those who are doing this to the LeClairs are, unfortunately, reviving an old Christian tradition best left in the past.

You are obviously watching from too afar to get a grasp of what is really happening here. It is not know if or what the Board did to this teacher. The fact does show that the incident was handled and it has not happened again. The fact now is mainly that Mr. LaClair did not get his public apology. It is not the attacks on the LaClairs, but mainly their public outcries by themselves and Strife. Where is the post that calls them traitors ? I do not recall anyone using those words. What I do think that It was underhanded not to approach the teacher first.

No, sir or madam, you are the one who is not paying attention. Teacher discipline is not our issue. An apology is not our issue. Our issues are quality control and correction of false and inappropriate remarks. We have said that over and over again, and yet those who will support this teacher at all costs refuse to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Ok, lets for giggles that it was not planned.  How many people do you know just happen to have a tape recorder in their back pocket with enough tapes to last the period of the entire class for days?  This recording was just by coincidence?

Why does this have begin with "We" instead of Matthew?  You say from the recordings you can conclude that he has been doing this for a very long time?  How many years of tape do you have?  You are supposed to be an attorney but you just blot out these unjust comments without any proof.  Where is your proof that he has been doing this for a "very long time?"  PROOF!!  Not just you speculation.  Your credibility is lousy.  You are going by some testimony from someone named "guest"?  Both my nephews have had him and they do not recall any of this ongoing that you keep blabbering about.  OK so you have a few tapes. 

So in your answer to number 4 you are admitting that Matthew consulted you before recording Mr. P. Therefore your answer to number 3 is a LIE, LIE, LIE.

Therefore your witch-hunt goes on. Your condemnation of a man continues. If this has been resolved between the Board and him is not good enough for you. It’s therefore not about correcting a wrong, but for your personal gain.

Stop throwing the word Constitution about. It gets tiring. This problem has been corrected. It’s time for you to grow and stop tossing the constitution around like you do your constipation.

1. Matthew carried the recorder beginning on the third day of class. You suggested he had planned this the week before class started, which is not true. If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen the difference.

2. Any reasonable person listening to those recordings with an open mind will recognize instantly that the teacher's behavior reflected exactly what he wanted to do, and was not new behavior.

3. This is at least the third post in which I've had to correct the same tired and empty argument this evening. Our issue is not teacher discipline, but quality control and correction of false and improper remarks in a way that sends a clear and effective message. You can insist all you like that we are attacking Mr. Paszkiewicz; the fact is, we are requesting corrective action not against him, but in response to the misconduct.

4. As for your accusation about lying, perhaps you could spell that out more clearly. I'm missing your point, and we're not lying about anything.

5. How inconvenient our US Constitution is --- the one the president is sworn to preserve, protect and defend --- when you want to support a proselytizing teacher whose opinions you just happen to share. What a coincidence, and oh how convenient for you if we stopped focusing on the Constitution. "Let's not talk about the Constitution, we want Mr. P to preach in class." Not in this lifetime, or in the lifetime of anyone who cares about this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Watching From Afar
You are obviously watching from too afar to get a grasp of what is really happening here.  It is not know if or what the Board did to this teacher.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem that the incompetent teacher still has his job. He shouldn't. The teacher lost control of his classroom, turned a public school into a pulpit, and taught mythology as fact. If he wants to do that, he should find a job at a Christian school; tax funds should not be used for this sort of lunacy.

The fact does show that the incident was handled and it has not happened again.

That's a halfway measure.

The fact now is mainly that Mr. LaClair did not get his public apology.

Even that doesn't go far enough. The teacher should be dismissed, along with whatever administrators allowed this situation to persist for so long.

Where is the post that calls them traitors ?  I do not recall anyone using those words.

They were accused of not caring about their country. That's close enough for horseshoes. What is it about those so-called "Christians" who feel a need to use such tactics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No you were not!

lol

Why do you insist so strongly to know better of my whereabouts than I? Here, I'll prove it, D**bA**:

When Nick Lento went to speak, despite the fact that he was cut short while he was speaking, he said before he started that he had timed his 'speech' to four minutes thirty seconds.

No one mentioned that detail (because it's trivial) on this forum, yet I'm aware of it, as would be anyone else who had been there. So, what conspiracy theory will you concoct to explain me knowing that tidbit while still insisting that I wasn't there? :unsure:

Now, let's find out if YOU were there, hotshot: what reason did Marks (sp?) give for being late?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Matthew carried the recorder beginning on the third day of class. You suggested he had planned this the week before class started, which is not true. If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen the difference.

That seems like a reasonable explanation.

2. Any reasonable person listening to those recordings with an open mind will recognize instantly that the teacher's behavior reflected exactly what he wanted to do, and was not new behavior.

During the office meeting, Paszkiewicz stated that he had been teaching using essentially the same methods for years. There is no solid evidence other than that that could be used to support the assertion that "any reasonable person" would conclude that it was not new behavior.

Paul's #2 might as well be an if/then fallacy.

3. This is at least the third post in which I've had to correct the same tired and empty argument this evening. Our issue is not teacher discipline, but quality control and correction of false and improper remarks in a way that sends a clear and effective message.

Except that the LaClairs have trouble giving an accurate account of what was said, representing several straw man positions for which apologies/corrections are apparently expected.

You can insist all you like that we are attacking Mr. Paszkiewicz; the fact is, we are requesting corrective action not against him, but in response to the misconduct.

Paul, you have repeatedly launched character attacks against Paszkiewicz on this message board.

4. As for your accusation about lying, perhaps you could spell that out more clearly. I'm missing your point, and we're not lying about anything.

Matthew either lied about feeling "safe" in the office meeting or he gave an apparently deliberately false explanation for his decision to record Paszkiewicz in the classroom.

Not lying about anything?

5. How inconvenient our US Constitution is --- the one the president is sworn to preserve, protect and defend --- when you want to support a proselytizing teacher whose opinions you just happen to share. What a coincidence, and oh how convenient for you if we stopped focusing on the Constitution. "Let's not talk about the Constitution, we want Mr. P to preach in class." Not in this lifetime, or in the lifetime of anyone who cares about this country.

You still don't get it, Paul?

You can't operate a government without teaching metaphysics at some level, and the problem (such as it is) is compounded by government involvement in schooling. Somebody's values will be taught, either explicitly or implicity (and John Dewey realized this).

Your group is the religion of the future, forcing itself on the population through the courts, using the courts to twist the Constitution into funny balloon animals. Your interest group doesn't get its way by legislation through the democratic process. Instead, it coerces institutions with threats of lawsuits and rewrites the law via the interpretations of judges.

Or maybe you get it and you just don't want to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
That seems like a reasonable explanation.

During the office meeting, Paszkiewicz stated that he had been teaching using essentially the same methods for years.  There is no solid evidence other than that that could be used to support the assertion that "any reasonable person" would conclude that it was not new behavior.

Paul's #2 might as well be an if/then fallacy.

Except that the LaClairs have trouble giving an accurate account of what was said, representing several straw man positions for which apologies/corrections are apparently expected.

Paul, you have repeatedly launched character attacks against Paszkiewicz on this message board.

Matthew either lied about feeling "safe" in the office meeting or he gave an apparently deliberately false explanation for his decision to record Paszkiewicz in the classroom.

Not lying about anything?

You still don't get it, Paul?

You can't operate a government without teaching metaphysics at some level, and the problem (such as it is) is compounded by government involvement in schooling.  Somebody's values will be taught, either explicitly or implicity (and John Dewey realized this).

Your group is the religion of the future, forcing itself on the population through the courts, using the courts to twist the Constitution into funny balloon animals.  Your interest group doesn't get its way by legislation through the democratic process.  Instead, it coerces institutions with threats of lawsuits and rewrites the law via the interpretations of judges.

Or maybe you get it and you just don't want to admit it.

I get it, Bryan, but I wouldn't call it metaphysics. If you define religion as a values system, then of course you would be right. However, what I believe the Constitution addresses is theism. That is what has a divisive history, far more than fundamental values. The reason is that there is a rational and universal basis for values systems. Of course, atheism may no more be promoted under our Constitution than theism. You're also right that Humanism is the religion of the future. That is because it is based on universal values independent of theistic belief. Secular values are the only sound foundation for a government in a nation with people of many religions. Humanism is the religion of the present and of our Constitution, though most Americans are loathe to admit it.

Your other points are old news, and have been addressed repeatedly. Matthew felt safe in the office meeting, with his recorder running, because he knew that would preserve a record that could not be denied. He did not feel safe in Paszkiewicz's class before he brought in his recorder. There's no inconsistency. The illogic is in your attempt draw the comparison to how he felt in class with the recorder running. His point was about how he felt without it, hence the decision to record. You have a lot of nerve calling him a liar based on nothing more than your own flight of illogic and your own disortion of what he said.

And speaking of distorting what someone said, if you don't think it's obvious that Paszkiewicz's in-class preaching wasn't new behavior, then it is because you do not wish to believe it. It is abundantly obvious. Teachers don't just start spouting off like that out of the blue. It was obviously the continuation of a longstanding pattern, and Paszkiewicz unwittingly admitted it. He did not say he was using the same methods. He said he was saying the same things. So who's lying about it, Bryan? Or maybe we could tone down the rhetoric. Up to you.

I do ask, though, what character attack have I made against David Paszkiewicz? I've commented on his character based on the facts, and stand by every word of it. Please post whatever it is that you find offensive, and I'll explain it to you again.

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...