Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

We have a settlement

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
The Board announced after we filed our Notice of Claim that they would conduct in-service training for teachers, but had not yet done or arranged it. They did not commit to addressing this subject with the students until this agreement. So yes, there is a difference.

None of the items you mention will be reimbursed by the Board. Really, Bryan, you betray yourself with a post like that.

If you are even man enough, could you please explain then what you did charge the the Board of Education for since these are my tax dollars as well? I think you owe it to the people of this town how you and your son embarrassed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no way that all the matter in the entire universe could condense into a pinpoint

Fallacious argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand how it couldn't have happened doesn't mean there's "no way." Have you ever asked a scientists in a relevant field, or done some actual research into the subject? How about reading articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Of course not, or else you wouldn't have said something so ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
You really do not care about the town of Kearny or its people. As I had mentioned about it originally, it was always about the money.  You and Matthew are nothing more than black spots on our town that has continued to embarrass this town we live in and its people all for your self gain.  Maybe you could have received more money, but the money you already received is nothing more than blood money anyway. 

The issue is that you do not care.  You never cared about this topic only trying to clear the smeared name of your son, “the instigator”, “the troublemaker”, and the "black spot". 

Have a nice day.

Then how do you explain the fact that we dropped the lawsuit with no money to us except expenses when the Board agreed to do what we asked them to do last October? We could have continued to press the case. Our lawyers were working for free. But we didn't make a cent on it. In fact, we incurred expenses, which we had no guarantee of getting back. If we were after money, why did we incur expenses, and then resolve it this way?

And if you think Matthew's name has been smeared, then why has he received three job offers for the summer, two honorary awards, two cash awards, and commendations from the Board of Education and the editorial page of the New York Times and elsewhere? Why is he so well liked by people who cover the story whose views aren't jaded by their biases, as your views obviously are?

And if you think we're the ones embarrassing Kearny, then why is nearly everyone who has commented on this story saying that people with views like yours are the embarrassment? Have you read some of the things that have been posted all over the net? Try it, but you won't like it.

Libeling people is not nice. In fact, I think there's a commandment about it. But why bother with what religion really means when you have your mind made up?

And you don't mean "have a nice day," so don't bother writing it on my behalf. Now if you'd like to get a group of Kearny-ites together and have a rational discussion about it, just let me know. But please leave the nastiness at home.

There's a black eye on Kearny, alright. Just read your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really do not care about the town of Kearny or its people.

Then why did he fight to uphold the Constitution, which protects all people?

As I had mentioned about it originally, it was always about the money.

And how much were they awarded in damages in the settlement again? Refresh my memory.

You and Matthew are nothing more than black spots on our town that has continued to embarrass this town we live in and its people all for your self gain.

The only thing they've really gained is recognition for upholding the Constitution. One can also argue they "gained" a lot of unchristian 'sass' from people like you. Why don't you have anything negative to say about the person who threatened Matthew's life just because he exposed Paszkiewicz's wrongdoing for all to hear? Maybe you'd like to see Matthew dead too...

Maybe you could have received more money, but the money you already received is nothing more than blood money anyway.

Blood money?! Talk about exaggeration--do you even know what that phrase means? Although I'm sure a bunch of you sorry excuses for christians would have been happy to pay bail (if there was bail) for someone who set out to physicall harm or even kill Matthew as a result of his courageous stand against illegal preaching. That would be "blood money."

The issue is that you do not care.  You never cared about this topic only trying to clear the smeared name of your son, “the instigator”, “the troublemaker”, and the "black spot".

Heartless scumbags like you don't deserve having people that are willing to put themselves on the line to protect your rights--people like Matthew.

Have a nice day.

F**K you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
If you are even man enough, could you please explain then what you did charge the the Board of Education for since these are my tax dollars as well?  I think you owe it to the people of this town how you and your son embarrassed.

I suggest that if you don't want to have expenses like this in the future, you should inform your public officials to act expeditiously so as to avoid further situations like this from occurring. We are being reimbursed for our expenses. If you don't like it, take it up with the Board. And before you lecture me or anyone else on being a man, may I suggest that you identify yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan, grow up.

It's rarely a good sign for the ensuing argument where the lead is an insult.

Now you want to center your argument around the distinction between a democracy and a republic.

No, I'm not centering my argument around the distinction. I am forcing my opponents to take the distinction into account in their own arguments.

That way, when the issue of the authority for governmental action comes up, it's easier to pin down my opponent's views definitively.

Some opponents don't want their true views known, so they get flustered when I press for distinctions.

That isn't the point. What's being discussed here are rights under our system and our Constitution. The mere fact that people often call our system a democracy when it's technically a republic has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

It allows you to use the term "democracy" to substitute for "republic" without being a total idiot. I thought it fair to point out that your words did not mean that you were a total idiot. I'll try to avoid that type of implication in the future, if you wish.

There's no point trying to have a discussion with you. You don't listen and you re-frame every argument however makes it possible for you to imagine that you are right.

lol

You're the one who responded to my question asking about the ultimate authority for rights with a dodge (or at least you share the name of the one who did so: "Guest").

What kind of discussion do you wish to have with me, given that you dodged the question and the question is the only thing you quoted from my post?

Well, you're not right. Your side lost this battle. Your side was wrong.

You only say that because you don't listen to my arguments. ;)

Case in point: you didn't answer my question but went off on your own irrelevant tangent.

Paszkiewicz was wrong and so are you. Wrong legally, educationally, scientifically, ethically and spiritually.

You forgot to add "Nyah, nyah!"

The Board of Ed knows it, the public knows it and I suspect you know it. You got pasted by a 16-year-old. Take your lumps like a man and move on.

I got pasted by Matthew LaClair? The kid who presented a misleading case against Paszkiewicz and who deceived the administrators by implying that he was not recording the office conversation?

The kid who has the misperception that the Big Bang starts with compressed matter?

Get real. If Matthew LaClair has addressed anything I've written, it's been either in a different forum or anonymously.

I doubt he'd be different from anybody else in his handling of the Jefferson quotation your side has avoided like the plague.

This is what it seems to always come to. I present an argument, and the other side fails to address the argument other than by repeating that it's wrong.

That's reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Matthew is more than capable of embarassing a fundamentalist all by himself. Any middle schooler with his/her head on straight is. Perhaps Paszkiewicz is just too stupid to know his limits as a public school teacher. :)

"...we can't disagree with [God] on salvation...if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong." --http://dranger.com/classtranscript.html (emphasis added) <-- What exactly do you think Paszkiewicz is saying here, moron? Seriously. ;)

Strife, you put a lot of confidence in the dranger transcript. Why is it cited as authoritative? Is it certified somehow, or is it just an internet hack's transcript. I found it wasn't completely faithful to the recordings. In fact I know this because I took the "hell quote" and listened for it in the classroom recordings myself and reconstructed it. This error might not have been intential, but it is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Then how do you explain the fact that we dropped the lawsuit with no money to us except expenses when the Board agreed to do what we asked them to do last October? We could have continued to press the case. Our lawyers were working for free. But we didn't make a cent on it. In fact, we incurred expenses, which we had no guarantee of getting back. If we were after money, why did we incur expenses, and then resolve it this way?

And if you think Matthew's name has been smeared, then why has he received three job offers for the summer, two honorary awards, two cash awards, and commendations from the Board of Education and the editorial page of the New York Times and elsewhere? Why is he so well liked by people who cover the story whose views aren't jaded by their biases, as your views obviously are?

And if you think we're the ones embarrassing Kearny, then why is nearly everyone who has commented on this story saying that people with views like yours are the embarrassment? Have you read some of the things that have been posted all over the net? Try it, but you won't like it.

Libeling people is not nice. In fact, I think there's a commandment about it. But why bother with what religion really means when you have your mind made up?

And you don't mean "have a nice day," so don't bother writing it on my behalf. Now if you'd like to get a group of Kearny-ites together and have a rational discussion about it, just let me know. But please leave the nastiness at home.

There's a black eye on Kearny, alright. Just read your post.

About that commendation by the BOE, that was part of the settlement. In effect, the BOE agreed to "your demand" that they publicly commend your son in order to head of a costly lawsuit. Every parent wants there child to be a hero, but precious few would stoop to the level of threatening a lawsuit for an insincere commendation making their child a pseudo hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It's rarely a good sign for the ensuing argument where the lead is an insult.

No, I'm not centering my argument around the distinction.  I am forcing my opponents to take the distinction into account in their own arguments. 

That way, when the issue of the authority for governmental action comes up, it's easier to pin down my opponent's views definitively.

Some opponents don't want their true views known, so they get flustered when I press for distinctions.

It allows you to use the term "democracy" to substitute for "republic" without being a total idiot.  I thought it fair to point out that your words did not mean that you were a total idiot.  I'll try to avoid that type of implication in the future, if you wish.

lol

You're the one who responded to my question asking about the ultimate authority for rights with a dodge (or at least you share the name of the one who did so:  "Guest").

What kind of discussion do you wish to have with me, given that you dodged the question and the question is the only thing you quoted from my post?

You only say that because you don't listen to my arguments.  ;)

Case in point:  you didn't answer my question but went off on your own irrelevant tangent.

You forgot to add "Nyah, nyah!"

I got pasted by Matthew LaClair?  The kid who presented a misleading case against Paszkiewicz and who deceived the administrators by implying that he was not recording the office conversation?

The kid who has the misperception that the Big Bang starts with compressed matter?

Get real.  If Matthew LaClair has addressed anything I've written, it's been either in a different forum or anonymously.

I doubt he'd be different from anybody else in his handling of the Jefferson quotation your side has avoided like the plague.

This is what it seems to always come to.  I present an argument, and the other side fails to address the argument other than by repeating that it's wrong.

That's reasonable.

Bryan's arguments are meaningless. All he does is flyspeck his "opponents'" arguments (an interesting choice of a word to say the least) until he finds what he perceives to be something wrong with them. Then, satisfied that he has cut to the heart of the matter, he posts his response and declares himself the winner.

The reason most of his arguments are meaningless is that they lack perspective. He does not seem to have any sense of where he is in the discussion, or where the discussion is in relation to the issues. That is why he argues about the distinction between a democracy and a republic, for example, even though it has nothing to do with this discussion. He defends himself in this, but the defense is not persuasive.

What he doesn't do is offer any clear sense of how he would like to see all of this resolved. So I have some questions, for anyone who cares to address them, that I think cut to the heart of the matter.

1. The Kearny Board of Education (BoE) has agreed to bring in the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to conduct in-service training for teachers and staff on these issues, free of charge. The ADL was contacted and chosen by the Board for this purpose because it has programs specifically designed for this purpose. Considering the apparent lack of understanding of and sensitivity to these issues among some staff members, the training seems like a good idea. Is it? Why or why not?

2. The BoE has agreed to bring in the ADL to educate the student body on these issues. Considering the students' abysmal response to the situation, their apparent non-understanding of these issues, and what appears to be their utter cowardice in attacking, intimidating and shunning their classmate who has now been lauded for his courage and integrity in standing up to them, the ADL program seems like a good idea. Is it? Why or why not?

3. The BoE has commended Matthew LaClair for his exemplary actions in bringing this matter to their attention, and for his courage and integrity. Some people have called the young man names, insulted him, demeaned him, etc., but does anyone have a shred of proof that his conduct on this matter isn't exactly what the BoE is describing in its commendation? Is the Board's commendation justified? Why or why not?

4. The LaClair family has been accused of using this situation to seek money through litigation. Yet they just dropped the case with no monetary recovery except their expenses. They maintained throughout that their preference was to avoid litigation. Do those who accused the LaClairs of using this situation as an opportunity or excuse to seek money owe them an apology? Why or why not?

5. The BoE has just agreed to do everything the LaClairs asked them to do in October. Had the BoE committed to this in October, this would all have been resolved long ago without all the fuss and without all the legal expenses the BoE has incurred. (Forgot about the expenses the BoE is reimbursing the LaClairs. Ask the BoE how much their attorneys billed them.) Yet in December, on the day this issue appeared in the New York Times, the Board attorney said in response to an inquiry from the Anderson Cooper show that they would not address these issues because that would re-open them. Considering how idiotic that remark is (the story is in the Times and on CNN and Lindenfelser is worried about the story being "reopened"), why would anyone think the BoE would have acted if the LaClairs hadn't pressed the case? Isn't it obvious that they were doing everything they could to ride it out until it went away, even when it was obvious that it wasn't going away? What evidence is there that the BoE would have taken the actions it has now agreed to take on its own, when it explicitly refused to take them? Isn't the Bergen Record exactly right, that this was a pitiful bureaucratic non-response to an unwinnable situation? Why isn't the community calling the BoE to account?

Some people think there's nothing wrong with what this teacher did. In fact, they approve and applaud it. There's no talking to or convincing people like that. I'm interested in what reasonable people think about this, and wonder why more of them haven't spoken up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Then how do you explain the fact that we dropped the lawsuit with no money to us except expenses when the Board agreed to do what we asked them to do last October? We could have continued to press the case. Our lawyers were working for free. But we didn't make a cent on it. In fact, we incurred expenses, which we had no guarantee of getting back. If we were after money, why did we incur expenses, and then resolve it this way?

And if you think Matthew's name has been smeared, then why has he received three job offers for the summer, two honorary awards, two cash awards, and commendations from the Board of Education and the editorial page of the New York Times and elsewhere? Why is he so well liked by people who cover the story whose views aren't jaded by their biases, as your views obviously are?

And if you think we're the ones embarrassing Kearny, then why is nearly everyone who has commented on this story saying that people with views like yours are the embarrassment? Have you read some of the things that have been posted all over the net? Try it, but you won't like it.

Libeling people is not nice. In fact, I think there's a commandment about it. But why bother with what religion really means when you have your mind made up?

And you don't mean "have a nice day," so don't bother writing it on my behalf. Now if you'd like to get a group of Kearny-ites together and have a rational discussion about it, just let me know. But please leave the nastiness at home.

There's a black eye on Kearny, alright. Just read your post.

Paul LaClair, you are a complete joke to this town. You never did mention what expenses you could have possibly occurred? Why charge the town for something that you originated trying to clear the name of your son.

It wasn't the town or the people that originated this. It was the behind the back attempts of your son to discredit his teacher. Why did you incur expenses if you didn't think you were going to sue to get them back?

You try to come across as this righteous figurehead but we all know better. Therefore except for sitting behind a computer and blogging and attending a town meeting or two there should be no expenses occurred to you. With all this money that Matthew received, how can you still charge the Town? That did not cover the expenses? And another thing, as far as the commendations from the Board of Education, that was because you and your band of thieves Lawyers working for free strong-handed them threatening them with lawsuits, unless you forget that as well. I guess it’s just "your people" who are commenting on my posts because those of whom I talk to agree with me on them.

It soon Matthew moves on the cleaner this town will be. I am sure Matthew can get jobs and money from all sorts. There are many occupations that pay for services. It just depends what you will do for them and how far you will go.

The cash awards and honorary awards were from Atheist Groups that front with names of Presidents right? Glad you can live with that so please don't bother the trivial tripe of yours with comments on religion. We already know where you stand.

You do have brass ones I will give you credit for that. I am sure those are one the expenses you submitted to the town as well.

And again, have a nice day. I know I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Then why did he fight to uphold the Constitution, which protects all people?

And how much were they awarded in damages in the settlement again? Refresh my memory.

The only thing they've really gained is recognition for upholding the Constitution. One can also argue they "gained" a lot of unchristian 'sass' from people like you. Why don't you have anything negative to say about the person who threatened Matthew's life just because he exposed Paszkiewicz's wrongdoing for all to hear? Maybe you'd like to see him dead too...

Blood money?! Talk about exaggeration--do you even know what that phrase means? Although I'm sure a bunch of you sorry excuses for christians would have been happy to pay bail (if there was bail) for someone who set out to physicall harm or even kill Matthew as a result of his courageous stand against illegal preaching. That would be "blood money."

Heartless scumbags like you don't deserve having people that are willing to put themselves on the line to protect your rights--people like Matthew

F**K you.

I am glad Paul has his hand up your back guiding your every motion. Please tell me what frontline Matthew is defending? That is a joke in himself because he would sooner run to Canada then pick up a weapon and fight for this country. Please tell me the names of the persons who were attempting to "kill Matthew"? So far my list is empty. I never even thought about that remotely.

I guess if you think that trying to destroy someone’s reputation by intimidation and then try to collect off it isn't a form of blood money, then I stand corrected. It doesn’t always have to be death involved just the blood and sweat of many years trying to make an honest living, unlike yourself. And using Paul's kind tactics, thank you for all the kind words you called me in your posts. My posts were not directed to you, so therefore this was a direct attack on me.

Have a nice day as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I suggest that if you don't want to have expenses like this in the future, you should inform your public officials to act expeditiously so as to avoid further situations like this from occurring. We are being reimbursed for our expenses. If you don't like it, take it up with the Board. And before you lecture me or anyone else on being a man, may I suggest that you identify yourself.

Hearing a baby crying in the background. Oh wait that must be Matthew needing another lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
About that commendation by the BOE, that was part of the settlement.  In effect, the BOE agreed to  "your demand" that they publicly commend your son in order to head of a costly lawsuit.  Every parent wants there child to be a hero, but precious few would stoop to the level of threatening a lawsuit for an insincere commendation making their child a pseudo hero.

Then why have the Bergen Record, the New York Times, Nat Hentoff and countless bloggers said the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
About that commendation by the BOE, that was part of the settlement.  In effect, the BOE agreed to  "your demand" that they publicly commend your son in order to head of a costly lawsuit.  Every parent wants there child to be a hero, but precious few would stoop to the level of threatening a lawsuit for an insincere commendation making their child a pseudo hero.

You're entitled to think as you please. However, if you google "Matthew LaClair" - hero you'll come up with quite a few hits. Here are some samples from the first two pages.

http://obscenedesserts.blogspot.com/2006/1...new-kansas.html

http://www.essexethical.org/mar07.pdf

http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2007/01/american-hero.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0701,hentoff,75417,2.html

http://blog.au.org/2007/02/26/tale-of-the-...ds-his-actions/

http://www.pookastew.com/k123/2006_12_01_archive.html

http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/22/teac...-back-in-class/

http://newplasticmusic.blogspot.com/2007/0...air-badass.html

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/11/rel...red-handed.html

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4117

Could this be why you're upset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bryan's arguments are meaningless. All he does is flyspeck his "opponents'" arguments (an interesting choice of a word to say the least) until he finds what he perceives to be something wrong with them. Then, satisfied that he has cut to the heart of the matter, he posts his response and declares himself the winner.

The reason most of his arguments are meaningless is that they lack perspective. He does not seem to have any sense of where he is in the discussion, or where the discussion is in relation to the issues. That is why he argues about the distinction between a democracy and a republic, for example, even though it has nothing to do with this discussion. He defends himself in this, but the defense is not persuasive.

What he doesn't do is offer any clear sense of how he would like to see all of this resolved. So I have some questions, for anyone who cares to address them, that I think cut to the heart of the matter.

1. The Kearny Board of Education (BoE) has agreed to bring in the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to conduct in-service training for teachers and staff on these issues, free of charge. The ADL was contacted and chosen by the Board for this purpose because it has programs specifically designed for this purpose. Considering the apparent lack of understanding of and sensitivity to these issues among some staff members, the training seems like a good idea. Is it? Why or why not?

2. The BoE has agreed to bring in the ADL to educate the student body on these issues. Considering the students' abysmal response to the situation, their apparent non-understanding of these issues, and what appears to be their utter cowardice in attacking, intimidating and shunning their classmate who has now been lauded for his courage and integrity in standing up to them, the ADL program seems like a good idea. Is it? Why or why not?

3. The BoE has commended Matthew LaClair for his exemplary actions in bringing this matter to their attention, and for his courage and integrity. Some people have called the young man names, insulted him, demeaned him, etc., but does anyone have a shred of proof that his conduct on this matter isn't exactly what the BoE is describing in its commendation? Is the Board's commendation justified? Why or why not?

4. The LaClair family has been accused of using this situation to seek money through litigation. Yet they just dropped the case with no monetary recovery except their expenses. They maintained throughout that their preference was to avoid litigation. Do those who accused the LaClairs of using this situation as an opportunity or excuse to seek money owe them an apology? Why or why not?

5. The BoE has just agreed to do everything the LaClairs asked them to do in October. Had the BoE committed to this in October, this would all have been resolved long ago without all the fuss and without all the legal expenses the BoE has incurred. (Forgot about the expenses the BoE is reimbursing the LaClairs. Ask the BoE how much their attorneys billed them.) Yet in December, on the day this issue appeared in the New York Times, the Board attorney said in response to an inquiry from the Anderson Cooper show that they would not address these issues because that would re-open them. Considering how idiotic that remark is (the story is in the Times and on CNN and Lindenfelser is worried about the story being "reopened"), why would anyone think the BoE would have acted if the LaClairs hadn't pressed the case? Isn't it obvious that they were doing everything they could to ride it out until it went away, even when it was obvious that it wasn't going away? What evidence is there that the BoE would have taken the actions it has now agreed to take on its own, when it explicitly refused to take them? Isn't the Bergen Record exactly right, that this was a pitiful bureaucratic non-response to an unwinnable situation? Why isn't the community calling the BoE to account?

Some people think there's nothing wrong with what this teacher did. In fact, they approve and applaud it. There's no talking to or convincing people like that. I'm interested in what reasonable people think about this, and wonder why more of them haven't spoken up.

You haven't heard from reasonable people because they are too busy working, raising their families, paying bills, etc. to comment on this petty nonsense.

Bottom line: As Matthew's history reveals, LaClair is a crusader and he was looking for a cause to fight. Now it's over, everyone will forget about it and go back to more important issues in their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strife's right on that one, at least superficially.

The problem comes when it comes time to explain why matter reduced to the volume of a pinpoint would ever expand, since gravitational forces should it compacted (as with a black hole. Or, if we use the real model of the Big Bang that the LaClairs thus far reject, figuring out how something comes from nothing without fundamentally violating the naturalistic worldview.

Just because you don't understand how it could[] have happened doesn't mean there's "no way."

Just remember that when you're arguing against theological explanations.

Have you ever asked a scientists in a relevant field, or done some actual research into the subject?

How does one do research on quantum fluctuations of nothing?

How about reading articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Of course not, or else you wouldn't have said something so ridiculous.

Perhaps Strife will provide a synopsis of one of the peer-reviewed scientific journals he's read on the subject and link to the original to facilitate the understanding of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan's arguments are meaningless.

Is that why you avoided my question to run off on a tangent?

All he does is flyspeck his "opponents'" arguments (an interesting choice of a word to say the least)

Oh, really?

a person who is on an opposing side in a game, contest, controversy, or the like; adversary.

"...or the like"--as with an argument, where there are opposing positions. But secretly, it means that I want to put stinkbombs in their mailboxes, sugar in their gasoline tanks and moles in their gardens--or so I suppose "Guest" imagines.

until he finds what he perceives to be something wrong with them.

(like not addressing the question)

Then, satisfied that he has cut to the heart of the matter, he posts his response and declares himself the winner.

As with Strife, I'll wait until after you try to address the question before declaring myself the winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Then why have the Bergen Record, the New York Times, Nat Hentoff and countless bloggers said the same thing?

All they heard was a certain media whore's side of the story, which by the way makes a habit of quoting the teacher out of context. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Wow! With all the publicity on so many left-leaning and atheist websites, I wonder why you had to threaten your own community with a lawsuit in order to force them to recognize Mathew as a hero. After all, they know him best, or is that the problem? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
All they heard was a certain media whore's side of the story, which by the way makes a habit of quoting the teacher out of context. :D

Then set the record straight. We'll all look for your story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

With names like Daylight Atheism and Obscene Deserts and names like Pook-A-Stew, these are the literary rags that are just trying to make a name for them. That is some scrapbook you are collecting. I would much rather respect my child for the good things he does instead of selling him out. That is what you have done.

Have a nice day.

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...