School Board takes new Steps

[Strife767]

I can't say that I do,

Darn.

Strife, and in a way I'm glad I'm not because I'm not in a hurry to move to a community where I could (very potentially) get persecuted and receive death threats for standing up for civil rights. Once the fundamentalists saw my atheist bumpersticker, or saw me wearing my atheists in foxholes sweatshirt, for example, I have little doubt that I would suffer the same discrimination as the LeClair family has. Also, taking into consideration all these ad hominem attacks that have been baselessly hurled against you in this forum, it evinces how welcome someone in your community might be that rejects ancient religious dogma. My hat is totally off to you for handling all those ad hominem attacks in such a dignified and respectable way. Keep up the good work!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The sentiment is appreciated. Thanks!

[Strife767]

prove what that matthew secretely recorded a class????

...no. No, not even close! Pay attention. I asked him to prove his allegation that Matthew is acting as some sort of puppet of his father (as if I don't already know he can't).

[Aaron P.]

Correction, it's LaClaire, not LeClair. I spelled it wrong in my previous post. Apologies for the error.

[Guest Guest]

...no. No, not even close! Pay attention. I asked him to prove his allegation that Matthew is acting as some sort of puppet of his father (as if I don't already know he can't).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because of the kind of person you are, you will not accept this as proof. But this spoke values to me. Mathew's father is behind all of this. This is more about Paul than anything else. I found this:

I am Matthew's father. I have been practicing law for 29 years. New Jersey is a one-party consent state, meaning he was entirely within his rights to record the classes. He would never have done it without consulting me.

Comment by: Paul LaClair | November 16, 2006, 6:00 pm

[Strife767]

Correction, it's LaClaire, not LeClair. I spelled it wrong in my previous post. Apologies for the error.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*chuckles softly* You're close. No 'e' at the end.

[Strife767]

Because of the kind of person you are, you will not accept this as proof. But this spoke values to me. Mathew's father is behind all of this. This is more about Paul than anything else. I found this:

I am Matthew's father. I have been practicing law for 29 years. New Jersey is a one-party consent state, meaning he was entirely within his rights to record the classes. He would never have done it without consulting me.

Comment by: Paul LaClair | November 16, 2006, 6:00 pm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"If it wasn't for my horse..."

I think you're just reading into it what you want to. Don't you think it's more likely that Paul encouraged him to do what he was thinking of doing, and/or assured him that it would be okay legally, given that you have here a kid who has a lawyer for a father (the fact that he used the word "consult" makes the latter seem more likely)?

Let me ask you--who do you think WOULD accept that as proof, other than people who have already made up their minds beforehand? Who would take this single statement, in light of all of Matthew's 'lack of meekness,' completely bound past the most likely meaning(s), and jump to it being a confession of Paul having manipulated Matthew from the beginning? This is just more conspiracy theory.

[Strife767]

So are you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol

[Guest Guest]

Because of the kind of person you are, you will not accept this as proof. But this spoke values to me. Mathew's father is behind all of this. This is more about Paul than anything else. I found this:

I am Matthew's father. I have been practicing law for 29 years. New Jersey is a one-party consent state, meaning he was entirely within his rights to record the classes. He would never have done it without consulting me.

Comment by: Paul LaClair | November 16, 2006, 6:00 pm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul says that Matthew consulted with him. We will never know what they talked about. Even if Matthew just asked his father about the legality of taping a teacher in class, this consultation is irrelevant. Paul did not plant this idea in Matthew's head. Matt is a very intelligent individual. Anyway, if one of my sons told me that there was a teacher preaching in class, I would advise him do do what he thinks best. Matt has never come across as as an unreasonable, pliable individual. Paul has never shown the hatred and meanness that it would force a kid to do what Matthew did.

[Guest Guest]

Paul says that Matthew consulted with him.  We will never know what they talked about.  Even if Matthew just asked his father about the legality of taping a teacher in class, this consultation is irrelevant.  Paul did not plant this idea in Matthew's head.  Matt is a very intelligent individual.  Anyway, if one of my sons told me that there was a teacher preaching in class, I would advise him do do what he thinks best.  Matt has never come across as as an unreasonable, pliable individual.  Paul has never shown the hatred and meanness that it would force a kid to do what Matthew did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are sure about that?

Seen what they done so far, I do not put nothing past them.

Nothing they do would surprise me.

You don't see as unreasonable that instead of going to his teacher if he had a problem go to the media? A reasonable person would have gone to the person who offended him first. Mat was given that opportunity to say something, and said nothing. He decided that he was going to record that class. He knows that Mr. P. was answering his question. If he had no bad intentions, why Mat did not mention that part of that cd is missing? Because he edited for his own convenience. To make Mr. P. look bad.

[Guest bewildered]

Are sure about that?

Seen what they done so far, I do not put nothing past them.

Nothing they do would surprise me.

You don't see as unreasonable that instead of going to his teacher if he had a problem go to the media? A reasonable person would have gone to the person who offended him first. Mat was given that opportunity to say something, and said nothing. He decided that he was going to record that class. He knows that Mr. P. was answering his question. If he had no bad intentions, why Mat did not mention that part of that cd is missing? Because he edited for his own convenience. To make Mr. P. look bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly what have they done "so far"? Going to the media was Matthew's last resort. He tried talking to the principal and the teacher but nothing was done. Do you really think anyone teaching the crap Paszkiewic did, when confronted by a student would say anthing rational, like, "I see your point. I will stop throwing out bullshit right away"? The teacher has a lot of power over his students. Since a lot of areas of teaching are not subjective, like class participation, turning in late homework assignments, or writing essays, that gives a teacher a lot of leeway with grades. And grades affect college admissions.

And please listen to the recordings and read the transcripts. Paszkewiecz started spouting religion a long time before Matthew said anything. Even if he were baiting the teacher, a good teacher, unlike Paszkiewicz, would know not to get trapped and move the subject along another path.

[Aaron P.]

*chuckles softly* You're close. No 'e' at the end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

D'oh. Thanks for the correction of my correction.

[Guest Guest]

Exactly what have they done "so far"?  Going to the media was Matthew's last resort. He tried talking to the principal and the teacher but nothing was done.  Do you really think anyone teaching the crap Paszkiewic did, when confronted by a student would say anthing rational, like, "I see your point. I will stop throwing out bullshit right away"?  The teacher has a lot of power over his students.  Since a lot of areas of teaching are not subjective, like class participation, turning in late homework assignments, or writing essays, that gives a teacher a lot of leeway with grades.  And grades affect college admissions.

And please listen to the recordings and read the transcripts.  Paszkewiecz started spouting religion a long time before Matthew said anything.  Even if he were baiting the teacher, a good teacher, unlike Paszkiewicz, would know not to get trapped and move the subject along another path.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you 100% sure he spoke with the teacher first?

I do not want to hear Mathew said so. I want you to tell me you are 100% sure, because you went to someone other than the LaClairs and got your answer. And by the way I do not mean he spoke with the teacher at the meeting with Mr. Somma either. I mean exactly after what was said in class, after Mr.P. answered Mathew's question. Ask Mathew if he raised his hand in class, when Mr. P. gave everyone the opportunity to speak up if they felt uncomfortable with him answering the student's question? Ask Mathew if he ever wrote Mr. P. with his concerns or complaints? Ask Mat why he did go to the principal first, instead of the head of the department?

And I did listen to the tape. There are parts missing. Ask Mathew what was the subject that started the whole conversation? Why don't to ask Mathew why he deleted parts where Mr. P. defended him in class. Do you see? Mathew is not the angel that people are making him to be. He and his father are keeping information out so they can make things to be bigger than they are.

[Strife767]

Are you 100% sure he spoke with the teacher first?

One thing's for sure, the media did not hear about this story until several months after the events in question occurred. So where is the basis for people who claim he ran straight to the media? At least someone involved in the actual events (Matthew himself) is the source of our information--the 'ran to the media' crowd don't even have that--they have no evidence whatsoever. Guess which side would win in a lawsuit?

[Guest bewildered]

Are you 100% sure he spoke with the teacher first?

I do not want to hear Mathew said so. I want you to tell me you are 100% sure, because you went to someone other than the LaClairs and got your answer. And by the way I do not mean he spoke with the teacher at the meeting with Mr. Somma either. I mean exactly after what was said in class, after Mr.P. answered Mathew's question. Ask Mathew if he raised his hand in class, when Mr. P. gave everyone the opportunity to speak up if they felt uncomfortable with him answering the student's question? Ask Mathew if he ever wrote Mr. P. with his concerns or complaints? Ask Mat why he did go to the principal first, instead of the head of the department? 

And I did listen to the tape. There are parts missing. Ask Mathew what was the subject that started the whole conversation? Why don't to ask Mathew why he deleted parts where Mr. P. defended him in class. Do you see? Mathew is not the angel that people are making him to be. He and his father are keeping information out so they can make things to be bigger than they are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said he spoke with the teacher first. He spoke with the teacher and principal together.

Paszkiewicz made many statements of his religious beliefs that were inappropriate in the classroom. How could any "missing" parts of the tape change that?

It must have been a long time ago that you were in school. You know nothing of the dynamics between the teacher and the students. Especially with a teacher like Paszkiewicz who wastes time on matters not relevant to his subjects, a student would never know what the teacher would do

What has Matthew done wrong? Unless he was sitting in class with a gun pointed to Paszkiewicz's head, forcing him to expose his silly religious beliefs, he has done nothing wrong.

[Guest Guest]

Paul is lying....How about asking Mr. Paul Laclair where the recoding of the meeting with Mr. Somma and Mrs. Wood is? If Mr. P really lied, as he claimed he did, where is the cd to prove. Liar! That's what he is...a big fat liar!

[Strife767]

Paul is lying....

Prove it, lest you prove your own dishonesty with this accusation.

How about asking Mr. Paul Laclair where the recoding of the meeting with Mr. Somma and Mrs. Wood is?  If Mr. P really lied, as he claimed he did, where is the cd to prove. Liar! That's what he is...a big fat liar!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, people are still trying this retarded argument?

Good luck proving the negative, doofus...free clue: you're not even close with this post.

[Guest Guest]

Don't worry Strifey. Don't you see how quite Paul has been? No more posts to explain The Constitution to the rest of us dumb asses.

We are about to see what Paul is really all about.

[Guest Guest]

Prove it, lest you prove your own dishonesty with this accusation.

Wow, people are still trying this retarded argument?

Good luck proving the negative, doofus...free clue: you're not even close with this post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear lawyer Strife, how about proving that Matthew did not lie? Don't say because Matthew said so. Show us the cds!

[Guest Guest]

One thing's for sure, the media did not hear about this story until several months after the events in question occurred. So where is the basis for people who claim he ran straight to the media? At least someone involved in the actual events (Matthew himself) is the source of our information--the 'ran to the media' crowd don't even have that--they have no evidence whatsoever. Guess which side would win in a lawsuit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess it is up to the court to decide, not some idiot that doesn't work and spends his entire day posting.

[Guest Guest]

Prove it, lest you prove your own dishonesty with this accusation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LIAR

[Strife767]

LIAR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Concession in the form of a non-response noted. Thanks.

[Strife767]

Dear lawyer Strife, how about proving that Matthew did not lie?

How about no, because proving the negative is not how logic works. If that's the way it worked, you could be locked up for child molestation, for example, because you can't prove that you've never molested a child. See how stupid your suggestion is, yet?

Don't say because Matthew said so. Show us the cds! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the end, it's a non-issue. Whether Mr. P. lied in that meeting about what he said doesn't really matter at all. What matters is that he did say a whole lot of things he shouldn't have, and those things just happen to be on tape.

Of course, this is par for the course for one of his apologists--focus on a tiny, irrelevant detail in hopes you'll get people to forget all about the real issue/big picture. How pathetic.

[Strife767]

I guess it is up to the court to decide, not some idiot that doesn't work and spends his entire day posting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No court needs to decide whether or not Mr. P. lied about what he said, because what he said in itself is the real issue.

[Guest Guest]

LIAR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See what you get, Strife? You try to have a reasoned debate, and what you get in return is the intellectual equivalent of monkeys throwing poo at you.

[Strife767]

See what you get, Strife? You try to have a reasoned debate, and what you get in return is the intellectual equivalent of monkeys throwing poo at you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I know. Isn't it just pitiful?