Jump to content

We have a settlement


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Everyone agrees with Bryan eventually --- that's the way of nature. Just ask him.

Actually, quite a few (most?) continue to disagree with me, but they stop presenting real arguments and begin to stick with various types of personal attacks (like what you just did).

Goodness knows, the LaClairs could never get the ACLU to help them --- or two private law firms to work on the case for free. No, that would never happen.

If the LaClairs were counting on pro bono legal representation, then that would help explain their motive in going to the press.

But that wasn't your point, was it? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Paul
I am a curious Kearny taxpayer and in my interpretation in your opening comment on this blog was that your lawyers worked for free. I think a lot of people got the same interpretation as well.

I thought that was a pretty good deal, but you then said you needed money to pay the lawyers and it sounded sneaky?  Why did you say that they worked for free and then go to someone who would charge you unless you were after the money?

A better question would be: why were we willing to put ourselves on the line for laying out money just to stand up for a principle. There was no guarantee when we started this that this would be the outcome. Without the media coverage and several mis-steps by others, it might not have happened, in which case we would have been left holding the bag and swallowing the expenses. We took a risk, and we did it because we believe in the Constitution and the quality of education, particularly in the sciences.

Go ahead, tell me you don't believe us. That only cements my point. It floors me that the idea of a citizen standing up for these principles is considered so far-fetched that people can't even conceive of it.

If Americans can't think about citizenship in those terms, there is practically no hope for the survival of democracy. All the odds are stacked against it as it is, from globalization to the increasing strength of forces pushing toward greater inequality. If we want to preserve any semblance of a constitutional democracy, we're going to have to fight for it. Forget about this particular case for a moment and think about the issue. Then maybe you'll understand, as do those who already get it, and therefore see Matthew's actions in glowing terms. If you can't or won't do that, there's not much more that I can tell you.

And if you don't agree that these are important principles, at least give us the courtesy of recognizing that we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul
YES !!  But I don't think he's going away any time soon.  He's going to milk his grandiose  notion that anyone is actually interested in hearing from him.

  Fortunately, we can delete him.

I really thought this was over. The amazing thing is that people keep posting on it. You're right, I'll be here to close the place down. This can stop any time you like.

You don't even have to let me know when y'all are done. All you have to do is stop posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Yah, shame on you, Matthew. You were supposed to give Mr. Lying Proselytizing Fundie Hypocrite a way out (let’s call him Mr. FH for short), so he could continue lying for Jesus to all his other students, and deny what he was doing if you ever complained about it. Mr. FH was supposed to have all the power in that classroom, and you took it away from him. Him teacher, you student. Don't you get it? Shame on you.

You were supposed to warn Mr. FH that you were going to record him. Because if he had known that, he wouldn’t have said all those things. . . . No, wait a minute . . . OK, we’ll talk about that part later --- ah, maybe, if I can just think this through . . . OK, so gimmie time.

And shame on you for giving Mr. FH and his complicit school board a royal public ass-kicking. Lighten up, kid, Mr. FH was only pitching his religion there for fourteen years. It takes time for people to figure these things out.

Oh wait, I forgot. Mr. FH wasn’t preaching. So what has he stopped doing? . . .

And besides, he said he was sorry . . . well, OK, not exactly.

Never mind all that. This isn’t about a lying, proselytizing fundie hypocrite telling kids there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark. It’s about you. We’re going to talk about you. So there. And don't try to sugarcoat it. Everyone thinks you're a coward. After all, they just said so . . . Well, OK, that wasn't everyone, but you know what I mean. I think. So, yeah! Shame on you for forcing the school board, the New York Times, the Bergen Record, the American Ethical Union and I forget who else to call you a hero. And shame on you for forcing all those hundreds of people to write to KOTW last December in your support. . . Ah, how did you force them to do that exactly?

And shame on your unprofessional lawyers from Willkie Farr & Gallagher (you know, the international law firm with offices all over the world) for not giving you a good smack and telling you "don't bother us." Why, everyone knows that a good law firm would never take your case.  . . . Oh, well, wait a minute . . . Never mind, dammit! In Kearny, we know real professionals when we see them. Just look at our . . . ah . . . OK, never mind that either. But we're not changing our minds no matter what. So nyah!

And shame on you for making everyone in Kearny endure all that mental suffering and stuff. Ah, just who has been suffering? . . .

OK, forget that. Shame on you, you coward, for standing up to your teacher, your peers,  the school’s administration, the school board and the local bigot brigades. What a coward. Shame on you for making them call you all these names. What’s the big deal? Angry, irrational mobs never hurt anyone.

Bad boy, Matthew. Bad, bad boy.

Talk about angry fundies.

Did you know that Mr. P had the ACLU on his side also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul
Talk about angry fundies.

Did you know that Mr. P had the ACLU on his side also?

I think that will come as quite a surprise to the ACLU, which backed us. We had our press conference at their Newark office. Do you have anything to support your claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the drug deal did not take place in public (like on a street corner), then you may well have broken the law.  And it is doubtful that the police could make use of the tape under current law.  The taped evidence would probably be inadmissible.

The police could use the evidence as probable cause to seek a warrant to collect their own evidence, however.

You could be potentially become an object of prosecution for invasion of privacy.

Of course, that all relies on the "if" at the beginning, which I obviously didn't mean, because as an analogy, I would OBVIOUSLY be talking about something that ISN'T happening in a private place. Is a public school classroom a private place? No. So try actually answering the question instead of doing your little evasion dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah, shame on you, Matthew. You were supposed to give Mr. Lying Proselytizing Fundie Hypocrite a way out (let’s call him Mr. FH for short), so he could continue lying for Jesus to all his other students, and deny what he was doing if you ever complained about it. Mr. FH was supposed to have all the power in that classroom, and you took it away from him. Him teacher, you student. Don't you get it? Shame on you.

You were supposed to warn Mr. FH that you were going to record him. Because if he had known that, he wouldn’t have said all those things. . . . No, wait a minute . . . OK, we’ll talk about that part later --- ah, maybe, if I can just think this through . . . OK, so gimmie time.

And shame on you for giving Mr. FH and his complicit school board a royal public ass-kicking. Lighten up, kid, Mr. FH was only pitching his religion there for fourteen years. It takes time for people to figure these things out.

Oh wait, I forgot. Mr. FH wasn’t preaching. So what has he stopped doing? . . .

And besides, he said he was sorry . . . well, OK, not exactly.

Never mind all that. This isn’t about a lying, proselytizing fundie hypocrite telling kids there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark. It’s about you. We’re going to talk about you. So there. And don't try to sugarcoat it. Everyone thinks you're a coward. After all, they just said so . . . Well, OK, that wasn't everyone, but you know what I mean. I think. So, yeah! Shame on you for forcing the school board, the New York Times, the Bergen Record, the American Ethical Union and I forget who else to call you a hero. And shame on you for forcing all those hundreds of people to write to KOTW last December in your support. . . Ah, how did you force them to do that exactly?

And shame on your unprofessional lawyers from Willkie Farr & Gallagher (you know, the international law firm with offices all over the world) for not giving you a good smack and telling you "don't bother us." Why, everyone knows that a good law firm would never take your case.  . . . Oh, well, wait a minute . . . Never mind, dammit! In Kearny, we know real professionals when we see them. Just look at our . . . ah . . . OK, never mind that either. But we're not changing our minds no matter what. So nyah!

And shame on you for making everyone in Kearny endure all that mental suffering and stuff. Ah, just who has been suffering? . . .

OK, forget that. Shame on you, you coward, for standing up to your teacher, your peers,  the school’s administration, the school board and the local bigot brigades. What a coward. Shame on you for making them call you all these names. What’s the big deal? Angry, irrational mobs never hurt anyone.

Bad boy, Matthew. Bad, bad boy.

Hahaha, that was great. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, that all relies on the "if" at the beginning, which I obviously didn't mean, because as an analogy, I would OBVIOUSLY be talking about something that ISN'T happening in a private place. Is a public school classroom a private place? No.

A public school is a private place in the relevant sense.

Off-Limit Public Places

There are some public places which by custom are not truly open to the public.

A public school classroom, for instance, is a public building, paid for with tax dollars. The teacher is a public employee.

But custom says you can’t just barge in and interrupt the class. Even if your child is a student there, you’re expected to check in at the principal’s office and get permission.

Reporters and photographers are expected to do the same thing, and would probably lose a lawsuit if they suddenly entered, cameras rolling, disturbing the teacher and the students.

http://www.winning-newsmedia.com/privacy.htm

The law is constructed largely around the "reasonable expectation of privacy," and there is arguably a reasonable expectation of privacy in many public school locations, including the classroom and private offices.

So try actually answering the question instead of doing your little evasion dance.

A public school classroom is not a public place in the same sense as a street corner for purposes of the right to privacy.

You thought differently. You were wrong. Your streak is still intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A public school is a private place in the relevant sense.

Off-Limit Public Places

There are some public places which by custom are not truly open to the public.

That is not the "relevant sense." The relevant sense is "can you record someone without their consent legally here."

But thanks for proving my point--evasion, evasion, evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest
Yah, shame on you, Matthew. You were supposed to give Mr. Lying Proselytizing Fundie Hypocrite a way out (let’s call him Mr. FH for short), so he could continue lying for Jesus to all his other students, and deny what he was doing if you ever complained about it. Mr. FH was supposed to have all the power in that classroom, and you took it away from him. Him teacher, you student. Don't you get it? Shame on you.

You were supposed to warn Mr. FH that you were going to record him. Because if he had known that, he wouldn’t have said all those things. . . . No, wait a minute . . . OK, we’ll talk about that part later --- ah, maybe, if I can just think this through . . . OK, so gimmie time.

And shame on you for giving Mr. FH and his complicit school board a royal public ass-kicking. Lighten up, kid, Mr. FH was only pitching his religion there for fourteen years. It takes time for people to figure these things out.

Oh wait, I forgot. Mr. FH wasn’t preaching. So what has he stopped doing? . . .

And besides, he said he was sorry . . . well, OK, not exactly.

Never mind all that. This isn’t about a lying, proselytizing fundie hypocrite telling kids there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark. It’s about you. We’re going to talk about you. So there. And don't try to sugarcoat it. Everyone thinks you're a coward. After all, they just said so . . . Well, OK, that wasn't everyone, but you know what I mean. I think. So, yeah! Shame on you for forcing the school board, the New York Times, the Bergen Record, the American Ethical Union and I forget who else to call you a hero. And shame on you for forcing all those hundreds of people to write to KOTW last December in your support. . . Ah, how did you force them to do that exactly?

And shame on your unprofessional lawyers from Willkie Farr & Gallagher (you know, the international law firm with offices all over the world) for not giving you a good smack and telling you "don't bother us." Why, everyone knows that a good law firm would never take your case.  . . . Oh, well, wait a minute . . . Never mind, dammit! In Kearny, we know real professionals when we see them. Just look at our . . . ah . . . OK, never mind that either. But we're not changing our minds no matter what. So nyah!

And shame on you for making everyone in Kearny endure all that mental suffering and stuff. Ah, just who has been suffering? . . .

OK, forget that. Shame on you, you coward, for standing up to your teacher, your peers,  the school’s administration, the school board and the local bigot brigades. What a coward. Shame on you for making them call you all these names. What’s the big deal? Angry, irrational mobs never hurt anyone.

Bad boy, Matthew. Bad, bad boy.

I thought I recognized Matthew LaClairs sarcasm in an earlier post, now I'm sure this is him jumping on the band wagon posting as quest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not the "relevant sense." The relevant sense is "can you record someone without their consent legally here."

Here's what you wrote:

"So if you secretly videotape a drug deal going down and submit it to the police, they should ignore the tape and admonish you for being underhanded?

Maybe that's how it works in your bizarro world, but not in this reality."

The relevant sense is not whether or not you can record somebody legally, but when that evidence is legally admissible over legitimate privacy concerns.

But thanks for proving my point--evasion, evasion, evasion.

You're just proving your tendency to project.

You evaded your own point by changing it to something else in midstream.

Congratulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I recognized Matthew LaClairs sarcasm in an earlier post, now I'm sure this is him jumping on the band wagon posting as quest.

Can't you see the outright hypocrisy of making such an accusation, safe behind your Guest sign-on, not registered, with no way to compare your comments for their consistency or credibility? Do you wish to claim credit for any of the other thousands of such Guest quotes on this blog, in the process of using your one-post wonder-slam-by-innuendo on Matthew? Do you have the guts that Matthew had, to stand up to the inevitable abuse, flowing from the "Christians" of Kearny through the community and through this blog? How would you like it if someone said this post bore obvious resemblance to some other specific, truly foul Guest hand grenade thrown in Matthew or Paul's direction, and therefore "you" must be "they?" I'm disgusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Can't you see the outright hypocrisy of making such an accusation, safe behind your Guest sign-on, not registered, with no way to compare your comments for their consistency or credibility?  Do you wish to claim credit for any of the other thousands of such Guest quotes on this blog, in the process of using your one-post wonder-slam-by-innuendo on Matthew?  Do you have the guts that Matthew had, to stand up to the inevitable abuse, flowing from the "Christian" of Kearney through the community and through this blog?  How would you like it if someone said this post bore obvious resemblance to some other specific, truly foul Guest hand grenade thrown in Matthew or Paul's direction, and therefore "you" must be "they?"  I'm disgusted.

You're naive to think Dad and Lad haven't been posting under "Guest". They've been playing this juvenile game for a long time. BTW, it's KEARNY, you idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul
Here's what you wrote:

"So if you secretly videotape a drug deal going down and submit it to the police, they should ignore the tape and admonish you for being underhanded?

Maybe that's how it works in your bizarro world, but not in this reality."

The relevant sense is not whether or not you can record somebody legally, but when that evidence is legally admissible over legitimate privacy concerns.

You're just proving your tendency to project.

You evaded your own point by changing it to something else in midstream.

Congratulations.

Of course it's admissible. You don't know a thing about the law, Bryan, and as usual, you're just wrong. The "relevant sense" has nothing to do with the considerations that lead schools to keep news reporters out of classrooms (with exceptions, of course, e.g., the reading of "My Pet Goat"). Those are safety and imminent disruption issues, which don't apply to the Paszkiewicz case, where no one even knew that the class was being recorded. You're wrong, Bryan, and Strife is absolutely right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're naive to think Dad and Lad haven't been posting under "Guest".  They've been playing this  juvenile game for a long time.  BTW, it's KEARNY, you idiot.

Dad and Lad, as you call them, are registered, and have put plenty out there for others to think about, trigger conversations, arguments, prompt an insult or hand grenade, and more. The "Guest" I responded to has not, that I can tell, anyway, because he is not registered and his comments can't be searched or compiled. His response regarding Paul is hypocritical. You did not address that.

Perhaps Paul and Matthew have posted anonymously under Guest. Does that make me naive? I don't mind being naive, sometimes; it often brings out the best in people rather than the worst. You were, apparently, an exception.

Typing, by the way, takes me an extremely long time. I have a manual Parkinsonianism, which multiplies my mistakes many times over what you probably make. I routinely go back through my posts multiple times before hitting the "send", just fixing the goofs, and KTOW would tell you that I've asked him more than once to call back a message that got away with gibberish in it due to shakey keyboard or mousework. (This message took me 45 minutes to type! Stay tuned, Bryan, I will rise to your last challenge to me one of these evenings.) That doesn't mean I'm an idiot, even if my typo was on Kearny this time (how many other times have I misspelled it, 2S?). It just makes me human. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I don't understand your question. The lawyers did work for free. They don't make any money getting their expenses back, and neither do we. This isn't really hard to understand, is it?

Assuming you're not the same guest posting the other comments today, it is obvious that some people just don't want to understand what happened.

Then what expenses did you charge the town for? You said it was the lawyers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I really thought this was over. The amazing thing is that people keep posting on it. You're right, I'll be here to close the place down. This can stop any time you like.

You don't even have to let me know when y'all are done. All you have to do is stop posting.

If you really wanted this over then why did you speak up again at the last Board of Education meeting and pronounce that Matthew is not getting the recognition he deserves in Kearny High?

This was after you received your blackmail paycheck from the Board of Education.

You might be surprised that the students of Kearny High really do know what went on and even though you constant posting trying to correct your son's wrongs, they still know happened there. Young minds might be a little nieve at times but they still know right from wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having heard the BBC piece on this issue yesterday, I thought I'd look into it and found my way here. As an educator myself, specializing in sciences and epistemology, specifically Theory of Knowledge, I have an interest in this debate. I must confess to more than a little surprise that it seems to be ongoing.

From what little I have read so far I think Matthew LaClair is to be commended very highly, the BOE couldn't be more right in their settlement statement. I wish I had more students like him in my classes, challenging the material being taught and thereby elliciting a sturdy and rational defence of it.

Has a mountain been made out of a molehill though? I don't think so, although it would seem that some of Matthew's detractors here would happily write pages of argument over the tiniest detail in a post. The devil, as they say, is in the detail, but it does smack of sour grapes to me.

The basic issue in all of this, for me, is the whole church and state seperation idea. I see this as being very important in a country such as the US which on the one hand espouses a secular system of government and yet which demands religious belief from its politicians so comprehensively. To an outsider, it seems like a populace winding itself in ever tighter fundamentalist circles as its lawmakers plod steadfastly on in the original spirit of the republican and democratic ideals that the nation was founded upon.

I may be repeating a comment somewhere else in these and related threads but can I ask what people would have said if a teacher with Hindu beliefs had aired them in class? Stating that it was their considered belief that the Big Bang was bunk and that the entire universe sat on the back of a giant elephant standing atop a celestial turtle. Would Matthew have raised similar objections? I doubt it, I think he'd have been amused. Matthew is worried, as should all Americans be, that the increasing dominance of Christianity in US society is posing a genuine threat to some of the freedoms that the US is supposed to champion.

Evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, does not have to be accepted by anyone as true. It is, after all, only a theory and as such it cannot be proved to be true. What distinguishes it as something scientific is that it sets itself up to be disproven, something that has failed to happen. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it cannot be disproved because it is a belief, lacking any testable qualities it is not amenable to the scientific method and therefore not science.

Evolution is scientific and as such it ought to be recognized as something worthy of being taught because it is useful. It does actually explain things, with enormous success. Whether or not it is "true" is neither here nor there, it is simply the single most successful interpretation of the diversity of life. Nothing else, in any pantheon, comes close to the success of evolution in explaining the observable facts. Any history or science teacher who fails to acknolwedge this must surely be failing their students. As a math teacher would be if she refused to allow graphics calculators in class, claiming that she didn't trust them and that, anyway, an abacus is a perfectly good tool for performing arithmetic.

It is the intolerance of fundamentalist religious conviction that worries the free thinking world. Intolerance of alternative viewpoints, religions, theories, lifestyles etc. What amazes me is that there are people in the US who can decry the religious intolerance of the Taliban and then saunter off to their school board and vote to have Creationism taught as part of a science curriculum. It simply isn't science.

As I write, a Malaysian court has denied a woman the right to renounce her Islamic status and become a Christian in the eyes of the law. This is a secular country with a constitutional seperation of Church and State. Ring any bells? Be careful my American friends, be very, very careful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're naive to think Dad and Lad haven't been posting under "Guest".  They've been playing this  juvenile game for a long time.  BTW, it's KEARNY, you idiot.

Its my experience that people who accuse others of reprehensible behavior usually are guilty of the same type of behavior. They do it, so they feel everyone else does it too. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the students of Kearny High really do know what went on and even though you constant posting  trying to correct your son's wrongs, they still know happened there.  Young minds might be a little nieve at times but they still know right from wrong.

Oh, is that why several of his classmated lied about Paszkiewicz's words in class, the same way he did? Interesting.

Link to comment
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...

×
×
  • Create New...