Guidelines?

[Strife767]

You talk of maturity but have to put little smiley faces in all your posts.

It's immature to put a representation of one's facial expression at the time of writing in a textual post? News to me--would you call someone immature for saying something with anything but a blank expressionless face in person? Doofus.

YOU have to keep that subscript going in each on of your posts because you can't seem to get your point across.

My point gets across just fine to those who aren't complete buffoons. And those who are intelligent enough to understand it and debate it maturely because they disagree, just as much. This is, of course, opposed to the kind of people who can't stop talking about Kool-aid...

And your name calling is definitely a nice sign of your maturity level.

It's not immature to call someone what they are. If someone displays ridiculous logic and doesn't respond to attempts to correct the mistakes, and/or if someone blatantly lies in a desperate attempt to smear a young man who stood up for the Constitution when no one else in that classroom would...then they deserve the ridicule they get. Shame on them for being against Matthew.

You really are a big embarrassment to this town.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only among those deluded enough to be on Paszkiewicz's side. Look at all those news reports and blogs on the issue. Care to tell me who was more made fun of, Matthew's supporters, or Paszkiewicz's? I think you've willingly shielded yourself from the facts. I know, and most of this country and the world knows who is embarassing Kearny, and it's not the LaClairs or people like me.

[Strife767]

I guess the people who post as guests retain that to keep their quota downs. Unlike you who have to post their 9.9 posts per day and the only reason you don't get ten a day is because you started late and the KOTW limited you.

You know, I was never aware of my posts per day before people started talking about it. I don't count my posts, nor my rate of posting. And yet there are people here who never met me who deliberately look me up just for this information, and then use it to argue some sort of obsessiveness on my part. Very interesting...

And tell me Strife767 is better than guest.

When engaging in debate, identity is better than anonymity.

You make it clear whom you are

Because I registered. See how that works? Now I'm easy to have a back-and-forth with, because people can see exactly which posts I wrote or didn't write. Ah, the wonders of registered posting... *chuckles*

and are never willing to admit who you are so you have no right to talk !

By your logic, neither do you or anyone else on this forum (except maybe Paul, irony of ironies, since I'm sure you wouldn't like the idea of only him being allowed to post here), because no one here that I know of has shared any significant amount of personal information about themselves on this forum. How stupid.

Why do people like you keep trying to uncover things about me? What do you want to do, stab me in my sleep? I'll reveal who I am if and when I want to, and you'll just have to deal with it.

So just SHUT UP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/ima...top-whining.jpg

[Guest Paul]

QUOTE(Paul @ Feb 9 2007, 08:31 AM)

As I recall it, the school would not allow students to wear shorts until after a certain date. Meanwhile, the girls were wearing skirts, which exposed every bit as much leg. One day the weather was unseasonably warm. So, to illustrate the absurdity of the rule, Matthew wore a skirt. Horror of horrors that anyone in administration would get the point, chuckle with bemusement and reconsider the rule --- or maybe some of them did. We have met educators in the Kearny school system who do get it.

In doing that, Matthew wasn't violating any rule or policy. (What if he had worn a kilt?) He was making a point. Did he hurt anyone? Disrupt anything? Step back from your assumptions and think. That's how we trained him, but what you don't get is that training is a method, much like science. When someone is trained to think for himself, he takes it in his own direction.

In the sixties, people understood the importance of challenging rules and assumptions. It was a turbulent time, but it was also the time in which our country began to take the rights of African Americans and other minorities seriously for the first time in our history. It's always more convenient and easier to go along, and people who don't will always be criticized, especially by the narrow-minded. But if we really value the individual, we will understand the importance of using humor on occasion to make a point. I have to admit, I wouldn't have thought of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you are trying to get someone in the Observer by the name of Vic Torrini to apologize for stating a comment that he said that Paul never said. Then he felt the urge to make a formal apology saying that he felt he had to apologize too poor Mr. LaClair for his mistake? What mistake did he make? Paul posted it here too and I just copied and pasted it so I wouldn't get it wrong.

I checked both the local and larger Yellow pages telephone books, on Yahoo.Com people search, and 411.com search and for someone so outspoken you would think that at least he would have a telephone. But no one with that name exists. Just makes me as well as others wonder? This guy would do anything keep this quiet. This reminds me a lot of Hillary and the Whitewater deals. There was an interesting documentary on HBO which reminded me a lot of this. It dealt with a child's inability to conform to society and finding ways to get the approval of his parents by doing absurd things to get attention because his parents were too busy to notice it. This was just my observation but the similarities were astonishing. If anyone knows the exact name of that show I would like to find out so that it could be shared here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Imagine a world in which no one could rely on anything that anyone else said, a world in which everyone just made up whatever they liked whether it was based in fact or not. The world couldn't function like that.

Politics has degenerated into this to a large degree. Politicians just throw accusations out, hoping some of them will stick. If they're repeated often enough and with enough conviction, often they do stick. Hitler mastered this technique, which is known as the big lie.

The "Guest" who posted the above is doing exactly that. He or she has absolutely no basis for the claims being made, but because he writes and posts it, some people will be gullible enough to wonder. Guest, your behavior is disgraceful.

I'll say it again. I recall Matthew wearing a long, black outfit to school, which could be called a skirt because it doesn't have pant legs. I leave for work long before he gets up, and come home hours after he does, so I did not see him in it that day. But I do recall him discussing the school's policy and talkinig about wearing the outfit for that reason. I recall he wore it another time or two as well, just because he liked it. He also wore it in a play on the Lincoln School stage, as I mentioned in my letter to the Observer. He never wore a dress, to school or anywhere else that I recall. Those are the facts, like them or not.

But what's most outrageous here is that "Guest" thinks this is worth discussing at all. "Guest," you're not answering the question. What does Matthew's conduct at school have to do with the merits of the issues? You'll probably never answer the question. People like you never do. You're content to throw mud at everyone else --- perish the thought that you would ever have an ounce of integrity in doing it, or the minimal courage it would take to identify yourself. I don't suppose we'll be seeing you identify yourself, will we, except maybe with some smart-aleck remark identifying yourself as my wife. Maybe you think it's funny, but if you take a minute to think about it, you'll realize that the world can't function doing things the way you're doing them. A functioning world requires people to conduct themselves with at least a minimum of respect toward others. What you're doing is completely disrespectful, not only toward Matthew and me, but also to every person you're misinforming. Have the courage for once to identify yourself. Then we'll talk.

[an American in Texas]

QUOTE(Paul @ Feb 9 2007, 08:31 AM)

Now you are trying to get someone in the Observer by the name of Vic Torrini to apologize for stating a comment that he said that Paul never said. Then he felt the urge to make a formal apology saying that he felt he had to apologize too poor Mr. LaClair for his mistake? What mistake did he make? Paul posted it here too and I just copied and pasted it so I wouldn't get it wrong. 

I checked both the local and larger Yellow pages telephone books, on Yahoo.Com people search, and 411.com search and for someone so outspoken you would think that at least he would have a telephone. But no one with that name exists.  Just makes me as well as others wonder? This guy would do anything keep this quiet.  This reminds me a lot of Hillary and the Whitewater deals.  There was an interesting documentary on HBO which reminded me a lot of this.  It dealt with a child's inability to conform to society and finding ways to get the approval of his parents by doing absurd things to get attention because his parents were too busy to notice it.  This was just my observation but the similarities were astonishing. If anyone knows the exact name of that show I would like to find out so that it could be shared here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh? This post is largely incoherent, Yet Another Unidentified Guest. It would help a lot if you'd refrain from using the pronoun "this" several times in every sentence. We can't tell what the antecedent (reference) for "this" is.

Example: You searched Yahoo, 411, etc., for an outpoken guy. I'm guessing this Vic fellow (?) Then, "this guy" (Vic? Paul? David?) would do anything to keep this (the proselytizing? the whole flap? Matthew's skirt?) quiet. And what does Whitewater have to do with it?

Now, maybe I've missed some posts, but this is all clear as mud to me right now. I can't even tell if you're pro- or anti-Leclair, though I'm guessing anti- since you brought up Whitewater (still don't know what that has to do with it, though).

I am gathering that the next part, on the HBO special, is directed at Matthew, Paul, and Debra. You seem to think that the skirt incident was Matthew's attempt to get his parents' attention. I guess he decided skipping school, drinking, smoking dope, knocking up some girl -- you know, the usual attention-getters -- were too tame? Matthew has made it plain that he was making a (in my opinion quite witty) protest about a school dress code. Paul was amused and certainly got the point. And I see no evidence whatsoever that Paul and Debra aren't attentive parents; quite the contrary, in fact. It's a pretty sure bet that when your son internalizes your most dearly-held principles and begins to act on them, you've been a winner as a parent.

Leigh

[Bryan]

He's saying exactly what he said. Someone who publishes false statements is legally responsible for doing it.

Ah.

So Paul might have to sue KOTW if KOTW allows things to be posted that Paul thinks are untrue.

That's a good point, I suppose, though it's not entirely settled in the laws respecting the Internet.

[Guest Paul]

Huh?  This post is largely incoherent, Yet Another Unidentified Guest.  It would help a lot if you'd refrain from using the pronoun "this" several times in every sentence.  We can't tell what the antecedent (reference) for "this" is. 

Example:  You searched Yahoo, 411, etc., for an outpoken guy.  I'm guessing this Vic fellow (?)  Then, "this guy" (Vic? Paul? David?) would do anything to keep this (the proselytizing? the whole flap? Matthew's skirt?) quiet.  And what does Whitewater have to do with it?

Now, maybe I've missed some posts, but this is all clear as mud to me right now.  I can't even tell if you're pro- or anti-Leclair, though I'm guessing anti- since you brought up Whitewater (still don't know what that has to do with it, though).

I am gathering that the next part, on the HBO special, is directed at Matthew, Paul, and Debra.  You seem to think that the skirt incident was Matthew's attempt to get his parents' attention.  I guess he decided skipping school, drinking, smoking dope, knocking up some girl -- you know, the usual attention-getters -- were too tame?  Matthew has made it plain that he was making a (in my opinion quite witty) protest about a school dress code.  Paul was amused and certainly got the point.  And I see no evidence whatsoever that Paul and Debra aren't attentive parents; quite the contrary, in fact.  It's a pretty sure bet that when your son internalizes your most dearly-held principles and begins to act on them, you've been a winner as a parent.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leigh, you may have touched on what's really bothering some of these folks.

[Guest Guest]

Now you are trying to get someone in the Observer by the name of Vic Torrini to apologize for stating a comment that he said that Paul never said. Then he felt the urge to make a formal apology saying that he felt he had to apologize too poor Mr. LaClair for his mistake? What mistake did he make? Paul posted it here too and I just copied and pasted it so I wouldn't get it wrong.

I checked both the local and larger Yellow pages telephone books, on Yahoo.Com people search, and 411.com search and for someone so outspoken you would think that at least he would have a telephone. But no one with that name exists. Just makes me as well as others wonder? This guy would do anything keep this quiet. This reminds me a lot of Hillary and the Whitewater deals. There was an interesting documentary on HBO which reminded me a lot of this. It dealt with a child's inability to conform to society and finding ways to get the approval of his parents by doing absurd things to get attention because his parents were too busy to notice it. This was just my observation but the similarities were astonishing. If anyone knows the exact name of that show I would like to find out so that it could be shared here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Imagine a world in which no one could rely on anything that anyone else said, a world in which everyone just made up whatever they liked whether it was based in fact or not. The world couldn't function like that.

Politics has degenerated into this to a large degree. Politicians just throw accusations out, hoping some of them will stick. If they're repeated often enough and with enough conviction, often they do stick. Hitler mastered this technique, which is known as the big lie.

The "Guest" who posted the above is doing exactly that. He or she has absolutely no basis for the claims being made, but because he writes and posts it, some people will be gullible enough to wonder. Guest, your behavior is disgraceful.

I'll say it again. I recall Matthew wearing a long, black outfit to school, which could be called a skirt because it doesn't have pant legs. I leave for work long before he gets up, and come home hours after he does, so I did not see him in it that day. But I do recall him discussing the school's policy and talkinig about wearing the outfit for that reason. I recall he wore it another time or two as well, just because he liked it. He also wore it in a play on the Lincoln School stage, as I mentioned in my letter to the Observer. He never wore a dress, to school or anywhere else that I recall. Those are the facts, like them or not.

But what's most outrageous here is that "Guest" thinks this is worth discussing at all. "Guest," you're not answering the question. What does Matthew's conduct at school have to do with the merits of the issues? You'll probably never answer the question. People like you never do. You're content to throw mud at everyone else --- perish the thought that you would ever have an ounce of integrity in doing it, or the minimal courage it would take to identify yourself. I don't suppose we'll be seeing you identify yourself, will we, except maybe with some smart-aleck remark identifying yourself as my wife. Maybe you think it's funny, but if you take a minute to think about it, you'll realize that the world can't function doing things the way you're doing them. A functioning world requires people to conduct themselves with at least a minimum of respect toward others. What you're doing is completely disrespectful, not only toward Matthew and me, but also to every person you're misinforming. Have the courage for once to identify yourself. Then we'll talk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It shows the lenghts that Matthew will go to draw attention to his little causes. It's funny you should talk about respect when Matthew won't even respect a trivial rule that's only meant to keep some order in the school environment. Do you have any idea what would happen if things like this were left up to the parents and children? Why don't you try wearing a dress, sorry a long black outfit without pant legs, to court? See where that gets you with the judge.

[Strife767]

It shows the lenghts that Matthew will go to draw attention to his little causes.

Exactly how much effort does it take to wear one outfit instead of another? Some "lengths." Matthew could have made a sign, vocally protested, and any number of other 'showier,' more disruptive, and more attention-grabbing (yet still not requiring much actual effort) things in protest of the same dress code rule. Yet he didn't. Wonder how you'd explain that?

It's funny you should talk about respect when Matthew won't even respect a trivial rule that's only meant to keep some order in the school environment.

Could you please explain how allowing skirts while simultaneously disallowing shorts creates any more order in "the school environment" than prohibiting or allowing both at the same time?

Do you have any idea what would happen if things like this were left up to the parents and children?  Why don't you try wearing a dress, sorry a long black outfit without pant legs, to court? See where that gets you with the judge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any honorable or respectable judge would care very little about how someone's dressed in court. They care about the facts only--which is more than I can say about many people on this forum.

[Guest Paul]

Imagine a world in which no one could rely on anything that anyone else said, a world in which everyone just made up whatever they liked whether it was based in fact or not. The world couldn't function like that.

Politics has degenerated into this to a large degree. Politicians just throw accusations out, hoping some of them will stick. If they're repeated often enough and with enough conviction, often they do stick. Hitler mastered this technique, which is known as the big lie.

The "Guest" who posted the above is doing exactly that. He or she has absolutely no basis for the claims being made, but because he writes and posts it, some people will be gullible enough to wonder. Guest, your behavior is disgraceful.

I'll say it again. I recall Matthew wearing a long, black outfit to school, which could be called a skirt because it doesn't have pant legs. I leave for work long before he gets up, and come home hours after he does, so I did not see him in it that day. But I do recall him discussing the school's policy and talkinig about wearing the outfit for that reason. I recall he wore it another time or two as well, just because he liked it. He also wore it in a play on the Lincoln School stage, as I mentioned in my letter to the Observer. He never wore a dress, to school or anywhere else that I recall. Those are the facts, like them or not.

But what's most outrageous here is that "Guest" thinks this is worth discussing at all. "Guest," you're not answering the question. What does Matthew's conduct at school have to do with the merits of the issues? You'll probably never answer the question. People like you never do. You're content to throw mud at everyone else --- perish the thought that you would ever have an ounce of integrity in doing it, or the minimal courage it would take to identify yourself. I don't suppose we'll be seeing you identify yourself, will we, except maybe with some smart-aleck remark identifying yourself as my wife. Maybe you think it's funny, but if you take a minute to think about it, you'll realize that the world can't function doing things the way you're doing them. A functioning world requires people to conduct themselves with at least a minimum of respect toward others. What you're doing is completely disrespectful, not only toward Matthew and me, but also to every person you're misinforming. Have the courage for once to identify yourself. Then we'll talk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It shows the lenghts that Matthew will go to draw attention to his little causes. It's funny you should talk about respect when Matthew won't even respect a trivial rule that's only meant to keep some order in the school environment. Do you have any idea what would happen if things like this were left up to the parents and children? Why don't you try wearing a dress, sorry a long black outfit without pant legs, to court? See where that gets you with the judge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US Constitution is not a little cause, but a big one. The quality of education is not a little cause, but a big one. Both are fundamental to our quality of life in the USA. Those are the issues Matthew has stood for in this matter.

Evolutionary theory is one of the fundamental building blocks of modern biology. A teacher dismissing it in favor of dinosaurs living less than 6,000 years ago (on a boat roughly the size of a single football field, no less) is no small matter. Matthew stood up for science, too, because his teacher attacked it and made fun of it, out of nothing more than his ignorance. Not every teacher is called "ignorant and scientifically illiterate" by a world-renowned astrophysicist, but David Paszkiewicz was. This view is not unique with Matthew, but on the contrary is held by virtually every enlightened mind that has become aware of this matter. It's a black eye on American culture that anyone thinks there's a debate to be had on this subject. The fact that we're discussing it at all, instead of discussing the details and promise of evolutionary theory, for example, tells us how the schools have failed to teach science, and helps explain why the USA is falling behind the world in the sciences. So go ahead and tell me how boring a discussion that would be; the fact that you think that is exactly my point. Evolution of species is exciting because it is opening up the fields of biology and medicine, helping us live longer and healthier lives. Maybe you don't think that's exciting, but many of us do.

By contrast, a rule about when students may begin wearing shorts in itself is not a big deal. Neither is a student calling attention to the absurdity of the rule. Matthew made his point once and let it go. He didn't petition the school board to change the rule. He didn't hire a legal team. He was content making his point and moving on, because in that case the issue was not of the gravity of a Constitutional violation or an educational abomination. You're making a bigger deal out of this than Matthew ever did.

I do know an attorney who wears some pretty outrageous outfits to court. He is very successful. If a male attorney decided to wear a skirt to court, I'd like to see the court try to stop him. However, I don't choose to do that.

[Guest Paul]

Huh?  This post is largely incoherent, Yet Another Unidentified Guest.  It would help a lot if you'd refrain from using the pronoun "this" several times in every sentence.  We can't tell what the antecedent (reference) for "this" is. 

Example:  You searched Yahoo, 411, etc., for an outpoken guy.  I'm guessing this Vic fellow (?)  Then, "this guy" (Vic? Paul? David?) would do anything to keep this (the proselytizing? the whole flap? Matthew's skirt?) quiet.  And what does Whitewater have to do with it?

Now, maybe I've missed some posts, but this is all clear as mud to me right now.  I can't even tell if you're pro- or anti-Leclair, though I'm guessing anti- since you brought up Whitewater (still don't know what that has to do with it, though).

I am gathering that the next part, on the HBO special, is directed at Matthew, Paul, and Debra.  You seem to think that the skirt incident was Matthew's attempt to get his parents' attention.  I guess he decided skipping school, drinking, smoking dope, knocking up some girl -- you know, the usual attention-getters -- were too tame?  Matthew has made it plain that he was making a (in my opinion quite witty) protest about a school dress code.  Paul was amused and certainly got the point.  And I see no evidence whatsoever that Paul and Debra aren't attentive parents; quite the contrary, in fact.  It's a pretty sure bet that when your son internalizes your most dearly-held principles and begins to act on them, you've been a winner as a parent.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, we've been pretty kind to the KHS parents who have been critical of us. Not that we haven't heard stories about some of their kids. They're very lucky, a few of them (one especially, not surprisingly one of the most vocal) that we don't play their game. Don't worry, parents. We're not going there. It's not our style. However, Leigh is absolutely right. There are plenty of attention-getters, and there are KHS students who have engaged in one, a few or all of them.

[Guest Paul]

It shows the lenghts that Matthew will go to draw attention to his little causes.  It's funny you should talk about respect when Matthew won't even respect a trivial rule that's only meant to keep some order in the school environment.  Do you have any idea what would happen if things like this were left up to the parents and children?  Why don't you try wearing a dress, sorry a long black outfit without pant legs, to court? See where that gets you with the judge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Goodness yes, if people wore what they wanted to wear the world world turn to chaos. Like at places where they don't have dress codes, like professional sporting events or high school basketball games for that matter. My goodness, the kids can dress as they please, and look at all the chaos it causes.

If it's a trivial rule, then by definition it is without purpose. Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.

[Guest Guest]

It's funny you should talk about respect when Matthew won't even respect a trivial rule that's only meant to keep some order in the school environment.

How does a rule allowing girls to wear dresses but not allow boys to wear shorts keep order?

Do you feel that showing those muscular thighs and legs will cause lewd and riotous behavior amongst the students? Take their minds off their work and actually think about S*X in school? Is that the effect on you?

Yet they aren't worried about dresses. Or maybe they should be. They could implement a rule stating that a dress hemline must be within 1/2 inch of the calf.

[Guest Guest]

Goodness yes, if people wore what they wanted to wear the world world turn to chaos. Like at places where they don't have dress codes, like professional sporting events or high school basketball games for that matter. My goodness, the kids can dress as they please, and look at all the chaos it causes.

If it's a trivial rule, then by definition it is without purpose. Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right again Paul. We should just allow people to do whatever they please. Why don't you show up for your next court date in jeans, t-shirt, and sneakers?

I like your selective answer to the post. True lawyering at work.

[Guest Guest]

Exactly how much effort does it take to wear one outfit instead of another? Some "lengths." Matthew could have made a sign, vocally protested, and any number of other 'showier,' more disruptive, and more attention-grabbing (yet still not requiring much actual effort) things in protest of the same dress code rule. Yet he didn't. Wonder how you'd explain that?

Could you please explain how allowing skirts while simultaneously disallowing shorts creates any more order in "the school environment" than prohibiting or allowing both at the same time?

Any honorable or respectable judge would care very little about how someone's dressed in court. They care about the facts only--which is more than I can say about many people on this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's just one of the things that Matt has done to stir things up. It's really not that unique, one or more dopey kids will usually pull this stunt pretty regularly. Sorry, Paul, I know you like to paint Matt as a deep thinker and defender on The Constitution.

Judges don't mind how you appear in their courts? That's news to me. Funny how all of those innocent defendents have such nice outfits on. I've suggested Paul show up in jeans, t-shirt, and sneakers for his next trial.

It's about respect for other people Strifey. Something you and Paul seem to lack. Paul says it's no big deal that he and his family don't stand for the pledge. I guess it's his right. What he shows however, is a lack of respect for the people who do stand and say the pledge and feel it has meaning.

[Guest Guest]

It's funny you should talk about respect when Matthew won't even respect a trivial rule that's only meant to keep some order in the school environment.

How does a rule allowing girls to wear dresses but not allow boys to wear shorts keep order?

Do you feel that showing those muscular thighs and legs will cause lewd and riotous behavior amongst the students? Take their minds off their work and actually think about S*X in school? Is that the effect on you?

Yet they aren't worried about dresses. Or maybe they should be. They could implement a rule stating that a dress hemline must be within 1/2 inch of the calf.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow dumba** did you just come up with that?

There is a rule regarding skirt length.

[Guest Guest]

It shows the lenghts that Matthew will go to draw attention to his little causes. It's funny you should talk about respect when Matthew won't even respect a trivial rule that's only meant to keep some order in the school environment. Do you have any idea what would happen if things like this were left up to the parents and children? Why don't you try wearing a dress, sorry a long black outfit without pant legs, to court? See where that gets you with the judge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US Constitution is not a little cause, but a big one. The quality of education is not a little cause, but a big one. Both are fundamental to our quality of life in the USA. Those are the issues Matthew has stood for in this matter.

Evolutionary theory is one of the fundamental building blocks of modern biology. A teacher dismissing it in favor of dinosaurs living less than 6,000 years ago (on a boat roughly the size of a single football field, no less) is no small matter. Matthew stood up for science, too, because his teacher attacked it and made fun of it, out of nothing more than his ignorance. Not every teacher is called "ignorant and scientifically illiterate" by a world-renowned astrophysicist, but David Paszkiewicz was. This view is not unique with Matthew, but on the contrary is held by virtually every enlightened mind that has become aware of this matter. It's a black eye on American culture that anyone thinks there's a debate to be had on this subject. The fact that we're discussing it at all, instead of discussing the details and promise of evolutionary theory, for example, tells us how the schools have failed to teach science, and helps explain why the USA is falling behind the world in the sciences. So go ahead and tell me how boring a discussion that would be; the fact that you think that is exactly my point. Evolution of species is exciting because it is opening up the fields of biology and medicine, helping us live longer and healthier lives. Maybe you don't think that's exciting, but many of us do.

By contrast, a rule about when students may begin wearing shorts in itself is not a big deal. Neither is a student calling attention to the absurdity of the rule. Matthew made his point once and let it go. He didn't petition the school board to change the rule. He didn't hire a legal team. He was content making his point and moving on, because in that case the issue was not of the gravity of a Constitutional violation or an educational abomination. You're making a bigger deal out of this than Matthew ever did.

I do know an attorney who wears some pretty outrageous outfits to court. He is very successful. If a male attorney decided to wear a skirt to court, I'd like to see the court try to stop him. However, I don't choose to do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the court would have a very easy time stopping him. It's about respect for the procedings and those involved.

Most people would have blown off this Mr. P thing for what it is, a teacher with some wacky ideas and opinions. You're just pissed off because you came to a blog to publicize your cause and you don't like the outcome. Welcome to the real world. If you want this fought out on fact, then file your suit. But I think you'll be rolling the dice on this one.

[Strife767]

If you want this fought out on fact, then file your suit.  But I think you'll be rolling the dice on this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no way Mr. P. would win in court. Anyone with the slightest inkling of the Constitution and legal precedent would be more than aware of that. Paul's lack of haste in filing suit is a sign of mercy to that idiot, seriously. He's just going to look even worse if it actually reaches court. It's sad that it has to come to that, really.

[Strife767]

It's just one of the things that Matt has done to stir things up.

Oh, I see. Dodging because you have no answer. Sorry, not letting you. How do you explain Matt's actions coupled with his lack of a myriad more drastic methods of protest?

It's really not that unique, one or more dopey kids will usually pull this stunt pretty regularly.

Tell that to everyone who treated it like the most insane action ever. Don't try to twist things around. Go argue with them--they are the ones who made a big deal out of it...and they are the ones who brought it up on this forum first in a stupid attempt to make him look bad. Don't forget that either.

Sorry, Paul, I know you like to paint Matt as a deep thinker and defender on The Constitution.

Matthew stood up against his entire class and his teacher to point out a violation of the Constitution, and got backlash as extreme as a death threat for it. Nobody needs to paint him as a true defender of the Constitution. He has done that quite well on his own.

Judges don't mind how you appear in their courts?

Any good, respectable judge cares about the facts of the case, not appearances.

It's about respect for other people Strifey.  Something you and Paul seem to lack.

Cite examples. Calling someone what they are doesn't count.

Paul says it's no big deal that he and his family don't stand for the pledge.

And he's absolutely right. It makes absolutely no difference in the end one way or the other.

I guess it's his right.  What he shows however, is a lack of respect for the people who do stand and say the pledge and feel it has meaning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you ever considered that you are showing a lack of respect for him by injecting more importance into rote recitation of a bunch of words than into actual activism that promotes the rights of every citizen?

It's ridiculous to suggest that having a different opinion about something automatically is to be considered disrespectful.

[Guest Guest]

Any honorable or respectable judge would care very little about how someone's dressed in court. They care about the facts only--which is more than I can say about many people on this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Next time you go for a job interview(in a decent place) try wearing a skirt and then let us know what happened, ok?

[Guest Paul]

The US Constitution is not a little cause, but a big one. The quality of education is not a little cause, but a big one. Both are fundamental to our quality of life in the USA. Those are the issues Matthew has stood for in this matter.

Evolutionary theory is one of the fundamental building blocks of modern biology. A teacher dismissing it in favor of dinosaurs living less than 6,000 years ago (on a boat roughly the size of a single football field, no less) is no small matter. Matthew stood up for science, too, because his teacher attacked it and made fun of it, out of nothing more than his ignorance. Not every teacher is called "ignorant and scientifically illiterate" by a world-renowned astrophysicist, but David Paszkiewicz was. This view is not unique with Matthew, but on the contrary is held by virtually every enlightened mind that has become aware of this matter. It's a black eye on American culture that anyone thinks there's a debate to be had on this subject. The fact that we're discussing it at all, instead of discussing the details and promise of evolutionary theory, for example, tells us how the schools have failed to teach science, and helps explain why the USA is falling behind the world in the sciences. So go ahead and tell me how boring a discussion that would be; the fact that you think that is exactly my point. Evolution of species is exciting because it is opening up the fields of biology and medicine, helping us live longer and healthier lives. Maybe you don't think that's exciting, but many of us do.

By contrast, a rule about when students may begin wearing shorts in itself is not a big deal. Neither is a student calling attention to the absurdity of the rule. Matthew made his point once and let it go. He didn't petition the school board to change the rule. He didn't hire a legal team. He was content making his point and moving on, because in that case the issue was not of the gravity of a Constitutional violation or an educational abomination. You're making a bigger deal out of this than Matthew ever did.

I do know an attorney who wears some pretty outrageous outfits to court. He is very successful. If a male attorney decided to wear a skirt to court, I'd like to see the court try to stop him. However, I don't choose to do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the court would have a very easy time stopping him. It's about respect for the procedings and those involved.

Most people would have blown off this Mr. P thing for what it is, a teacher with some wacky ideas and opinions. You're just pissed off because you came to a blog to publicize your cause and you don't like the outcome. Welcome to the real world. If you want this fought out on fact, then file your suit. But I think you'll be rolling the dice on this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So a female in a skirt is respectful, but a male in a skirt isn't. What about a powdered wig: is that respectful? (It is in Britain.) How about a female in a business suit with trousers? There was a day when that was considered scandalous; today it is perfectly acceptable. What is the rational basis for deciding these things? There isn't one. Attorneys don't generally test these matters, but if someone did, a court would be hard-pressed to justify the usual norms as law.

You're right, most people would blow off Mr. P's proselytizing. Most people also blow off tax evasion, but if you get enough of it the system doesn't work. We see the threat of dominionism, and Matthew wasn't going to put up with it. He violated the community norm by insisting that the law be followed. This principle is important enough that someone should stand up for it, and he did.

So when you try to borrow my phrase about being upset about the outcome, that won't fly. The Paszkiewicz side took a powdering in the press and on KOTW. Some people will never change their minds, but if I'm wasting my time here, that's my problem. As for a lawsuit, we'll decide whether and when to do that, not you.

[Strife767]

Next time you go for a job interview(in a decent place) try wearing a skirt and then let us know what happened, ok?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does that have to do with anything? The school's dumb rule about allowing skirts but not shorts does not exist either in court, or at job interviews, etc. There is no reason for the same protest at these places. The analogy is false. Try again.

[Guest Guest]

There is no way Mr. P. would win in court. Anyone with the slightest inkling of the Constitution and legal precedent would be more than aware of that. Paul's lack of haste in filing suit is a sign of mercy to that idiot, seriously. He's just going to look even worse if it actually reaches court. It's sad that it has to come to that, really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what was said about OJ. If Paul leaves this up to a jury he will be rolling the dice. I'm sure with 30 years of experience he knows that better than a town worker.

[Guest Guest]

I think the court would have a very easy time stopping him. It's about respect for the procedings and those involved.

Most people would have blown off this Mr. P thing for what it is, a teacher with some wacky ideas and opinions. You're just pissed off because you came to a blog to publicize your cause and you don't like the outcome. Welcome to the real world. If you want this fought out on fact, then file your suit. But I think you'll be rolling the dice on this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So a female in a skirt is respectful, but a male in a skirt isn't. What about a powdered wig: is that respectful? (It is in Britain.) How about a female in a business suit with trousers? There was a day when that was considered scandalous; today it is perfectly acceptable. What is the rational basis for deciding these things? There isn't one. Attorneys don't generally test these matters, but if someone did, a court would be hard-pressed to justify the usual norms as law.

You're right, most people would blow off Mr. P's proselytizing. Most people also blow off tax evasion, but if you get enough of it the system doesn't work. We see the threat of dominionism, and Matthew wasn't going to put up with it. He violated the community norm by insisting that the law be followed. This principle is important enough that someone should stand up for it, and he did.

So when you try to borrow my phrase about being upset about the outcome, that won't fly. The Paszkiewicz side took a powdering in the press and on KOTW. Some people will never change their minds, but if I'm wasting my time here, that's my problem. As for a lawsuit, we'll decide whether and when to do that, not you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul file the suit already. I have a feeling you won't like the outcome.

[Guest Guest]

Oh, I see. Dodging because you have no answer. Sorry, not letting you. How do you explain Matt's actions coupled with his lack of a myriad more drastic methods of protest?

Tell that to everyone who treated it like the most insane action ever. Don't try to twist things around. Go argue with them--they are the ones who made a big deal out of it...and they are the ones who brought it up on this forum first in a stupid attempt to make him look bad. Don't forget that either.

Matthew stood up against his entire class and his teacher to point out a violation of the Constitution, and got backlash as extreme as a death threat for it. Nobody needs to paint him as a true defender of the Constitution. He has done that quite well on his own.

Any good, respectable judge cares about the facts of the case, not appearances.

Cite examples. Calling someone what they are doesn't count.

And he's absolutely right. It makes absolutely no difference in the end one way or the other.

Have you ever considered that you are showing a lack of respect for him by injecting more importance into rote recitation of a bunch of words than into actual activism that promotes the rights of every citizen?

It's ridiculous to suggest that having a different opinion about something automatically is to be considered disrespectful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What makes you think you can judge whether people are just reciting a bunch of words? Talk about condescending. What have you done to promote the rights of every citizen? For most people reciting a pledge or taking an oath is just a small way of being thankful that they have what they have because they live here.

[Strife767]

What makes you think you can judge whether people are just reciting a bunch of words?

Well, you see, I use these things called eyes...and then there are also these wonderful organs called ears. And using them together, I can see a group of people standing and reciting the same words they've been told to say over and over and over again, with monotone voice and slouched posture, especially at a high school.

The Pledge of Allegiance is made up of a bunch of words, you see. And when people speak those words in the correct order from memory, it's called recitation. So yes, I think that I'm justified in "judg[ing] that people are just reciting a bunch of words."

Hey, you asked for it with such an idiotic question.

Talk about condescending.  What have you done to promote the rights of every citizen?

And wham, pedal to the metal and slam right into ad hominem; what does my personal life have to do with the assertion that reciting the pledge of allegiance does nothing to protect or promote rights? Considering the lack of sanity I've seen on this forum, I won't go into detail because it might help identify me. Therefore, my answer will be "more than you've assumed, surely."

For most people reciting a pledge or taking an oath is just a small way of being thankful that they have what they have because they live here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have tons more respect for people who correctly judge the words to be meaningless without action. What you just said does NOTHING to refute the assertion that reciting the pledge promotes/protects NOTHING and NO ONE. They're just words. Giving one a warm fuzzy feeling is not equivalent to actually promoting people's rights. Not even close. It's a shame you don't realize that.