A student of uncommon courage

[Guest 2smart4u]

Once again, you are absolutely sure of something you know nothing about. If it wasn't about the issue, that would mean we don't really care about church-state separation. Yet you call us Loony Lefties who want to take God out of the schools. Which is it: Are we Loony Lefties who don't like teachers pushing religion in public schools, or opportunists who don't really care about that issue and are just using the opportunity for personal gain? You can't have it both ways, jackass, not to mention the fact that you know absolutely nothing about it, and not to mention the fact that we could not have predicted that so many people would make such poor decisions, thereby turning this into national news.

Yet again you display the same inability to think logically that drives everything you write. What you believe is not a function of the evidence or the facts, but solely a function of what you wish to believe. As long as you keep writing like this, I will keep putting you back on the potty. Your boy got schooled, but like you he hasn't learned anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bingo !! You hit the nail on the head. You are a Loony Lefty who wants to take

God out of our schools AND you're an opportunistic ambulance chaser. When

junior came home and told you about this teacher talking about God in his

classroom, you saw an opportunity to create problems for the teacher and to cast

your son as a hero in the eyes of some other Loony Lefties. No matter how much

noble spin you put on this, your son secretly taped a teachers conversation

without his knowledge or consent. Sneaking behind a teachers back to try

to harm him is not an honorable thing to do, it's certainly not a "life skill" that I

would want my son to practice.

[Guest Guest]

Potty training time again. You people never get it, do you. This has all been said before, but obviously you don't get it, so I'll say it again:

1. It wasn't about Matthew personally.

2. There is a difference between forcing and a renegade teacher misusing his position of authority.

3. Caricatures and straw men don't address the issues, which you obviously do not wish to address honestly.

Don't you ever get tired of being sat on the potty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For once Paul just answer the question. Did Matt sit there quietly in horror while Mr. P forced his beliefs down his throat?

[Guest Guest]

Once again, you are absolutely sure of something you know nothing about. If it wasn't about the issue, that would mean we don't really care about church-state separation. Yet you call us Loony Lefties who want to take God out of the schools. Which is it: Are we Loony Lefties who don't like teachers pushing religion in public schools, or opportunists who don't really care about that issue and are just using the opportunity for personal gain? You can't have it both ways, jackass, not to mention the fact that you know absolutely nothing about it, and not to mention the fact that we could not have predicted that so many people would make such poor decisions, thereby turning this into national news.

Yet again you display the same inability to think logically that drives everything you write. What you believe is not a function of the evidence or the facts, but solely a function of what you wish to believe. As long as you keep writing like this, I will keep putting you back on the potty. Your boy got schooled, but like you he hasn't learned anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like the truth hurts. It's really funny how Paul trys so hard to convince himself and us that he had no way to predict the outcome from this. I guess he has to satisfy the humanist part of his conscience by believing that he actually treated Mr. P in a humane fashion.

[WilliamK]

For once Paul just answer the question.  Did Matt sit there quietly in horror while Mr. P forced his beliefs down his throat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoever first penned the saying: "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.", obviously didn't know what he/she was talking about.

[Strife767]

Looks like the truth hurts.  It's really funny how Paul trys so hard to convince himself and us that he had no way to predict the outcome from this.

Of course he didn't. Think about it--do you think Paul expected the administration and the Board to completely ignore the issue even after Matthew handed copies of the evidence of his claims all around? No, because that's astonishingly stupid. We were all surprised--hell, the world was surprised when it hit the media.

I guess he has to satisfy the humanist part of his conscience by believing that he actually treated Mr. P in a humane fashion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, boo hoo, it's so 'inhumane' to point out a teacher is doing wrong, and then have the gall ( ) to back it up with irrefutable evidence. Wah wah.

[Guest Senior Kearny Resident]

Bingo !!  You hit the nail on the head.  You are a Loony Lefty who wants to take

  God out of our schools  AND  you're an opportunistic ambulance chaser. When

  junior came home and told you about this  teacher talking about God in his

  classroom, you saw an opportunity to create problems for the teacher and to cast

  your son as a hero in the eyes of some other Loony Lefties. No matter how much

  noble spin you put on this, your son secretly taped a teachers conversation 

  without his knowledge or consent. Sneaking behind a teachers back to try

  to harm him is not an honorable thing to do, it's certainly not a "life skill" that I

  would want my son to practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with all you're saying, especially the "life skill" part.

[Guest Paul]

Bingo !!  You hit the nail on the head.  You are a Loony Lefty who wants to take

  God out of our schools  AND  you're an opportunistic ambulance chaser. When

  junior came home and told you about this  teacher talking about God in his

  classroom, you saw an opportunity to create problems for the teacher and to cast

  your son as a hero in the eyes of some other Loony Lefties. No matter how much

  noble spin you put on this, your son secretly taped a teachers conversation 

  without his knowledge or consent. Sneaking behind a teachers back to try

  to harm him is not an honorable thing to do, it's certainly not a "life skill" that I

  would want my son to practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would if you valued separation of church and state, which you don't as long as you think your religion is in the majority. Catching a wrongdoer in the act is honorable, especially when it is obvious that no one else is willing to do it. It's taking a situation where all the power was on the teacher's side, and suddenly flipping the power. It's just and right and honorable because the teacher was abusing his position of authority, and his students. People cheer for that kind of thing, and have done so in this case, because they recognize that when power is being abused like that, the abuser should feel what it's like with the shoe on the other foot, and either should make it right on his own by showing some humility and acknowledging that he had done wrong (all of which Matthew offered him the opportunity to do) or be exposed for what he really is: in this case, a manipulative phony. You'd be cheering this, and Matthew, if you agreed with him on the issue. But since you don't, Matthew and I can do nothing right no matter what we do, and it's possible for you to see us as two contradictory things at the same time. And I haven't even addressed the fact that it's not possible for you to know our true motives. All you're revealing is that if you don't like something, you're willing to make up any and all facts to support your biases.

The reasons have been explained to you. You just don't agree that this matter was important, except of course until your proselytizing comrade is in trouble. Then suddenly it becomes important to you. I probably will never convince you how hypocritical and how blisteringly ignorant and stubborn you are, but I assure you that others do see it.

[Guest Paul]

Looks like the truth hurts.  It's really funny how Paul trys so hard to convince himself and us that he had no way to predict the outcome from this.  I guess he has to satisfy the humanist part of his conscience by believing that he actually treated Mr. P in a humane fashion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please explain, then, how it was possible for us to predict:

1. Paszkiewicz wouldn't show any humility;

2. The students' reaction would be so one-sided even after the evidence was produced;

3. The administration would refuse to make any corrections of what Paszkiewicz had said, notwithstanding the fact that his remarks bear directly on the curriculum, a fact which the Board has since acknowledged;

4. The board's attorney would fail to see that this was a legal nightmare for the school district, something they could never defend;

5. The Board of Education would refuse to act, but would insist that the matter was closed without any corrections having been made;

6. The New York Times would pick up the story, bringing the story to national and international attention.

Please explain in detail how we could possibly have predicted that so many people in the Kearny school system would show such abysmal judgment and such a complete absence of common sense.

As for Mr. P, Matthew and I gave him more than ample time to show some humility and some contrition, and to acknowledge he had done wrong. Instead, he ignored my personal e-mail to him and remained silent on the matter publicly until he wrote a letter to the Kearny Observer in January or February insisting that church-state separation was a myth, and misquoted several of our founding fathers to do it. He has allowed his attorney and members of his church to fight his battle for him, and they have fought it by attacking someone who merely produced the truth, which is obviously not what they are interested in; and all the while Mr. P. sat and watched it happen. We gave him a long time to do the right thing, but he never did. We never asked that he be fired, an act of restraint on our part that I now regret.

That is just a very brief summary of the factual evidence that supports what we did. Where is the evidence to support your unsubstantiated claims?

[Guest Paul]

Bingo !!  You hit the nail on the head.  You are a Loony Lefty who wants to take

  God out of our schools  AND  you're an opportunistic ambulance chaser. When

  junior came home and told you about this  teacher talking about God in his

  classroom, you saw an opportunity to create problems for the teacher and to cast

  your son as a hero in the eyes of some other Loony Lefties. No matter how much

  noble spin you put on this, your son secretly taped a teachers conversation  

  without his knowledge or consent. Sneaking behind a teachers back to try

  to harm him is not an honorable thing to do, it's certainly not a "life skill" that I

  would want my son to practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A post of mine, posted at 8:52 a.m., responded to this one from 2dim. I put up another related post just after 9:00 a.m. I'm posting again to illustrate how easy the radical right fundie crowd is to predict. I had "edited" this post because 2dim hadn't responded, and am putting it back up exactly as it was except for this sentence now that nitwit has checked in.

I can't predict exactly how 2dim4words will respond to my post of 8:52 a.m., but the most likely response at this point is that 2dim will string together another set of conclusions not based on any facts. The second most likely possibility is that 2dim will revert to a one- or two-liner about Loony Lefties and Kool Aid. The third most likely possibility is that 2dim will ignore my latest post.

What 2dim won't do is what he/she can't do. (I'm going to presume based on the writing style and several comments over time that 2dim4words is a male.) He will not take any of the facts and attempt to relate them to values in an attempt to support his conclusions. For example, one fact that his side of this argument seems to think important is that Matthew recorded secretly. OK, that's a fact. The way 2dim and everyone on that side of the argument "argues" the point is to jump straight from there to the ethical conclusion, without discussing the values that would support or undermine the conclusion. The argument would go like this: "Matthew did x, y and z. X is ethically wrong because of a, b and c, and there are no redeeming qualities to this aspect of the behavior (none have been argued). Y is ethically wrong because of d and e, and although Matthew and his supporters argue f, that's not persuasive because of g and h." And so forth. In other words, they would respond to the arguments from the other side and try to relate them to recognizable human values.

But that's not what they do. Instead, their argument goes like this.

"Matthew secretly recorded Paszkiewicz. Therefore he's a sneak. Therefore, regardless of all other considerations, Matthew was wrong, villainous, Satanic and horrid." They miss all the intermediate steps, for example:

1. Was an important value served by preserving the evidence via secret recording?

2. Was the evidence likely to be preserved in any other way?

3. Would anything of importance have been lost by giving notice?

On our side of the argument, we have explored these points over and over. We have explained why it was important for the administration, the Board and finally the community (when the administration and the Board refused to act) to know what was going on it that classroom, not the cleaned up version that would have resulted from notice, but what was really happening when Paszkiewicz thought no one was going to catch him doing it. We have explained that without the recordings the facts would have been denied and the denials would have stuck, a fact proved beyond any reasonable doubt by Paszkiewicz's response and the responses of the students. We have explained how Paszkiewicz would have slipped under the radar and continued to have free license to continue his inappropriate behavior had he been given notice so as to avoid having the full extent of his inappropriate behavior exposed. To any reasonable mind, these are all undeniable conclusions based on the facts.

Has the other side ever once addressed any of those points? No. Not once. What I'm trying to get 2dim4words to understand is two things:

1. That he is overlooking all of the ethical considerations that lead to the ethical judgment; and

2. The most likely reason he is doing that are:

{A} He has literally trained himself not to be able to think. The reason he's not responding in a more reasoned and thoughtful fashion is that he can't any more. He has spent so many years firing off juvenile and content-free responses like "Kool-Aid drinker" and "Loony Leftie" and thinking he's saying something in the process; and has so conditioned himself to draw his conclusions from his wishes instead of from the facts that he literally can't think these things through.

{B} Reasoning it through would require him to consider another point of view. Absolutists resist that and train themselves not to do it. That's why the rest of us can't talk to them.

This is in perfect keeping with the way overzealous religious fundamentalists are trained to think, and make no mistake about it, this is training like one would perform with a seal. I'm not referring to all Christians or to all Bible-believers here. My reference is to the tragically large number of people in our culture who see no shades of gray in anything and believe that things are true because they want them to be true. It's what our current occupant of the White House calls "faith-based thinking." It completely destroys the integrity of thought, and it's killing our culture.

You can see this, just as one example, in the movement to teach first creationism and now so-called intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in the public schools. The reason the Supreme Court has ruled this to be unconstitutional is that creationism and "intelligent design" are not science, and therefore may not be taught as such. Science proceeds through a series of steps: (1) hypothesis, (2) observation and data collection, (3) theoretical development based on evidence, (4) peer review via established scientific methods and (5) inclusion in legitimate science books, so that after going through these steps the theory is taught. By contrast, creationism and "intelligent design" propose to skip straight from step (1) to step (5), without the intermediate steps, which constitute the meat and essence of the science. 2dim4words is "arguing" the Paszkiewicz case in exactly the same way, skipping directly from his hypothesis without (a.) considering all the facts, including the ones that don't support his hypothesis, (b.) integrating all the facts so that his hypothesis accounts for all of them and (c.) openly listening to what other reasonable people have to say in order to test his ideas against theirs. He dismisses all the intermediate steps, and it's because having been trained to do things that way he is literally incapable at this point in his life of doing it the right way.

If you don't believe me, and assuming his response to my previous post is put up by KOTW at the same time this one is, check his response against this one. If you're looking honestly and openly, you'll see that everything I'm saying about the way he "thinks" is true. That's the problem here. This isn't just about a difference of opinion. This is about whether some people in our culture are capable of thinking and reasoning any more. For as long as I've "known" him, 2dim is not.

And yet I believe there is a part of him that sees and understands what I'm writing here, even though he doesn't want to. That's the part of him that I'm appealing to. He may not understand this now, but we'll see if my Faith in him is rewarded.

[Guest Loki]

You would if you valued separation of church and state, which you don't as long as you think your religion is in the majority. Catching a wrongdoer in the act is honorable, especially when it is obvious that no one else is willing to do it. It's taking a situation where all the power was on the teacher's side, and suddenly flipping the power. It's just and right and honorable because the teacher was abusing his position of authority, and his students. People cheer for that kind of thing, and have done so in this case, because they recognize that when power is being abused like that, the abuser should feel what it's like with the shoe on the other foot, and either should make it right on his own by showing some humility and acknowledging that he had done wrong (all of which Matthew offered him the opportunity to do) or be exposed for what he really is: in this case, a manipulative phony. You'd be cheering this, and Matthew, if you agreed with him on the issue. But since you don't, Matthew and I can do nothing right no matter what we do, and it's possible for you to see us as two contradictory things at the same time. And I haven't even addressed the fact that it's not possible for you to know our true motives. All you're revealing is that if you don't like something, you're willing to make up any and all facts to support your biases.

The reasons have been explained to you. You just don't agree that this matter was important, except of course until your proselytizing comrade is in trouble. Then suddenly it becomes important to you. I probably will never convince you how hypocritical and how blisteringly ignorant and stubborn you are, but I assure you that others do see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm curious were you similarly OUTRAGED when Al Gore collected campaign dollars at a fundraiser held at a Buddhist temple, or does separation not count for those seeking office?

[Guest 2smart4u]

You would if you valued separation of church and state, which you don't as long as you think your religion is in the majority. Catching a wrongdoer in the act is honorable, especially when it is obvious that no one else is willing to do it. It's taking a situation where all the power was on the teacher's side, and suddenly flipping the power. It's just and right and honorable because the teacher was abusing his position of authority, and his students. People cheer for that kind of thing, and have done so in this case, because they recognize that when power is being abused like that, the abuser should feel what it's like with the shoe on the other foot, and either should make it right on his own by showing some humility and acknowledging that he had done wrong (all of which Matthew offered him the opportunity to do) or be exposed for what he really is: in this case, a manipulative phony. You'd be cheering this, and Matthew, if you agreed with him on the issue. But since you don't, Matthew and I can do nothing right no matter what we do, and it's possible for you to see us as two contradictory things at the same time. And I haven't even addressed the fact that it's not possible for you to know our true motives. All you're revealing is that if you don't like something, you're willing to make up any and all facts to support your biases.

The reasons have been explained to you. You just don't agree that this matter was important, except of course until your proselytizing comrade is in trouble. Then suddenly it becomes important to you. I probably will never convince you how hypocritical and how blisteringly ignorant and stubborn you are, but I assure you that others do see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I know your true motives. You're an insecure opportunistic ambulance

chaser that took advantage of an honorable teacher and tried to hurt him.

Condoning and abeting your sons actions will not help him in the future. When he gets out in the real world and secretly tape records his boss, he'll be out the door. And the Loony Left boys clubs won't be there to name him "snitch of the year".

[Strife767]

Oh, I know your true motives. You're an insecure opportunistic ambulance

    chaser

Blah, blah, you don't know anything except your preconceptions, doofus.

that took advantage of an honorable teacher

It's telling you consider a liar "honorable."

[Guest Paul]

Oh, I know your true motives. You're an insecure opportunistic ambulance

    chaser that took advantage of an honorable teacher and tried to hurt him.

      Condoning and abeting your sons actions will not help him in the future. When he gets out in the real world and secretly tape records his boss, he'll be out the door. And the Loony Left boys clubs won't be there to name him "snitch of the year".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you don't. You're wrong about me and about my son.

As for Paszkiewicz, he was hurt by his own words. You boneheads never seem to want to address that fact. Of course not. You can't.

As for your abysmal response, see post 83.

[Guest Paul]

I'm curious were you similarly OUTRAGED when Al Gore collected campaign dollars at a fundraiser held at a Buddhist temple, or does separation not count for those seeking office?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're not curious at all. You've already made your mind up about what you presume my answer is. There's no other reasonable explanation for your raising this incident, which is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.

Potty training time again, you people never get it. Reality is about facts, not about what you've decided to believe.

[Guest Guest]

You're not curious at all. You've already made your mind up about what you presume my answer is. There's no other reasonable explanation for your raising this incident, which is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.

Potty training time again, you people never get it. Reality is about facts, not about what you've decided to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fact: Matthew secretly taped a teacher when he simply could have put the recording device on the desk and stopped the behavior right there. Mattthew's actions were just as mean spirited as anything Mr. P. was doing.

You can name call and talk down to people all you want it doesn't change how you handled it.

[Guest Loki]

You're not curious at all. You've already made your mind up about what you presume my answer is. There's no other reasonable explanation for your raising this incident, which is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.

Potty training time again, you people never get it. Reality is about facts, not about what you've decided to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Answer, please?

[Guest Guest]

Please explain, then, how it was possible for us to predict:

1. Paszkiewicz wouldn't show any humility;

2. The students' reaction would be so one-sided even after the evidence was produced;

3. The administration would refuse to make any corrections of what Paszkiewicz had said, notwithstanding the fact that his remarks bear directly on the curriculum, a fact which the Board has since acknowledged;

4. The board's attorney would fail to see that this was a legal nightmare for the school district, something they could never defend;

5. The Board of Education would refuse to act, but would insist that the matter was closed without any corrections having been made;

6. The New York Times would pick up the story, bringing the story to national and international attention.

Please explain in detail how we could possibly have predicted that so many people in the Kearny school system would show such abysmal judgment and such a complete absence of common sense.

As for Mr. P, Matthew and I gave him more than ample time to show some humility and some contrition, and to acknowledge he had done wrong. Instead, he ignored my personal e-mail to him and remained silent on the matter publicly until he wrote a letter to the Kearny Observer in January or February insisting that church-state separation was a myth, and misquoted several of our founding fathers to do it. He has allowed his attorney and members of his church to fight his battle for him, and they have fought it by attacking someone who merely produced the truth, which is obviously not what they are interested in; and all the while Mr. P. sat and watched it happen. We gave him a long time to do the right thing, but he never did. We never asked that he be fired, an act of restraint on our part that I now regret.

That is just a very brief summary of the factual evidence that supports what we did. Where is the evidence to support your unsubstantiated claims?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll start by saying that Mr. P needs to be made to understand that his actions were inappropriate. However, you new damn well what was likely to happen. If you thought it was going to be handled properly why did you have Matthew secretly record the class and the meeting with Mr. Somma and Mr. P.?

You don't have to be a lawyer to realize how the teacher, the administrators, and the BOE would act when they came under attack. So please stop with the babe in the woods routine.

[Guest Tom]

Oh, I know your true motives. You're an insecure opportunistic ambulance

    chaser that took advantage of an honorable teacher and tried to hurt him.

      Condoning and abeting your sons actions will not help him in the future. When he gets out in the real world and secretly tape records his boss, he'll be out the door. And the Loony Left boys clubs won't be there to name him "snitch of the year".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm surprised that Paul lowers himself to discussing this with someone like 2stupid4words. It makes it look like two people are just arguing.

But if you read Paul's posts carefully, which most people won't do, you realize that he's right. This isn't just a disagreement. It's not even just a difference in the way he and 2s think. The difference is that Paul thinks and reasons. 2stupid doesn't, and he doesn't even appreciate the difference.

Paul is always careful to support his arguments with facts. 2s doesn't do that. He just states his opinions as though they were facts, filling in the places where facts should be with guesses and outright lies, and again he doesn't seem to get the difference. That seems to be the point Paul is making.

[Guest Paul]

I'll start by saying that Mr. P needs to be made to understand that his actions were inappropriate.  However, you new damn well what was likely to happen.  If you thought it was going to be handled properly why did you have Matthew secretly record the class and the meeting with Mr. Somma and Mr. P.?

You don't have to be a lawyer to realize how the teacher, the administrators, and the BOE would act when they came under attack.  So please stop with the babe in the woods routine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We anticipated that Paszkiewicz would not be completely forthright about what had happened. We also anticipated that the administration would defend him until the recordings were revealed, if it came to that. The meeting was recorded because the principal insisted that we, the parents, not attend. Yes I could have forced that issue, but frankly the recording was all we needed.

We did not anticipate that once the recordings were available:

1. The Board's attorney would instruct everyone else not to listen to them;

2. The Board's attorney himself would not listen to them for ten days;

3. The Board's attorney would say they were no big deal once he heard them;

4. The Board would completely ignore our request that they meet with us and handle the matter themselves --- we did not anticipate that they would continue to leave this in the hands of the attorney, apparently being directed by the superintendent;

5. The superintendent would make indefensible remarks when the story broke in the press;

6. For months thereafter, even as the matter was becoming national and international news the district through its representatives would continue to try to ignore the matter until March.

We antcipated none of that, especially the part about the administration not appreciating how big a problem they had, and I don't think we could have, since "you belong in hell" is a statement bound for headlines if the matter isn't resolved. We were shocked that the administration thought it would just go away, as was most of the world. That is why the first New York Times editorial was titled "A Strange Silence in Kearny." The whole thrust of the editorial was that the inaction by the administration and the Board was inexplicable, and all over the world that opinion was overwhelmingly shared. When the whole world thinks that silence and inaction are inexplicable, I don't we can be blamed for thinking the same thing.

So you may say as you please, but those are the facts. The other fact is that the Board and administration did not have to be under attack, and were not under attack in the beginning. The problem was their teacher's behavior; we expected them to address the matter and for everyone to move on. In fact, I suggested to the Board that the next headline could easily read "Board takes action, resolves dispute." That was in November. Had they listened to me, they could have been the heroes in this piece. Instead, they ignored my suggestion and the result is as you see it.

[Guest Paul]

Fact: Matthew secretly taped a teacher when he simply could have put the recording device on the desk and stopped the behavior right there.  Mattthew's actions were just as mean spirited as anything Mr. P. was doing.

You can name call and talk down to people all you want it doesn't change how you handled it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do continue to ignore the facts that:

1. This behavior had obviously been going on for years and would have continued in every other class had Matthew done it your way;

2. Mr. Paszkiewicz was offered multiple opportunities first to tell the truth and then to atone and correct the situation once the truth was known, and failed at every turn?

Mean-spirited would have been taking the class recordings to press immediately. That was not done until mid-November.

So you keep saying these things, but you have to ignore the facts to do it. I can address all the facts and still support our argument. You can't. You continually ignore the facts that destroy your argument. That's the difference between us.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, you don't. You're wrong about me and about my son.

As for Paszkiewicz, he was hurt by his own words. You boneheads never seem to want to address that fact. Of course not. You can't.

As for your abysmal response, see post 83.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The main point of this story is not Paszkiewicz, what he did or said is insignificant

in the scheme of things.

The story here is secretly taping a teachers comments without his knowledge and

consent. The end didn't justify the means, it was a malicious, mean-spirited and

devious act commited by a naive boy pushed by an atheist father for his own

personal agenda.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I'm surprised that Paul lowers himself to discussing this with someone like 2stupid4words. It makes it look like two people are just arguing.

But if you read Paul's posts carefully, which most people won't do, you realize that he's right. This isn't just a disagreement. It's not even just a difference in the way he and 2s think. The difference is that Paul thinks and reasons. 2stupid doesn't, and he doesn't even appreciate the difference.

Paul is always careful to support his arguments with facts. 2s doesn't do that. He just states his opinions as though they were facts, filling in the places where facts should be with guesses and outright lies, and again he doesn't seem to get the difference. That seems to be the point Paul is making.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL Add "Tom" to the list of aliases used by Paul to support his Kool-aid

diatribes.

[Strife767]

Fact: Matthew secretly taped a teacher when he simply could have put the recording device on the desk and stopped the behavior right there.

Yeah, in that class, and only while he was there. If you think the behavior would have stopped completely merely from doing that, then you are extremely gullible.

Example: a friend of mine works in a major retail chain, and they told me about how once word spreads that one of the cameras aren't working, 'customers' (informed by a buddy who works there) and employees (yes, even employees) will make a beeline for that area in order to 'ditch evidence' for shoplifting. For example, getting a DVD case from the electronics section, then going to that section to pry open the case and remove the disc so that they can walk out undetected.

In short, your 'solution' would fail miserably on a dishonest person (which Matthew guessed Paszkiewicz would be, and CORRECTLY, I might add). And an honest person wouldn't require evidence-gathering at all, so...

Mattthew's actions were just as mean spirited as anything Mr. P. was doing.

Would you call one of those people who secretly videotapes a crime out their windows and then calls the cops, giving them the evidence when they show up, "mean-spirited?"

Explain what's mean-spirited about gathering evidence of wrongdoing so that one can't be dismissed in a he-said-she-said situation.

You can name call and talk down to people all you want it doesn't change how you handled it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your false accusations also don't change how it was handled, and why.

[Strife767]

I'll start by saying that Mr. P needs to be made to understand that his actions were inappropriate.  However, you new damn well what was likely to happen.  If you thought it was going to be handled properly why did you have Matthew secretly record the class and the meeting with Mr. Somma and Mr. P.?

Both were precautions, and both recordings were made because of Paszkiewicz, not the Board (neither was used against the Board, remember?).

You don't have to be a lawyer to realize how the teacher, the administrators, and the BOE would act when they came under attack.

Well, maybe we're all not as cynical as you are--I personally was shocked that the board sat on its hands the way it did.

[Guest Guest]

The main point of this story is not Paszkiewicz, what he did or said is insignificant

in the scheme of things.

  The story here is secretly taping a teachers comments without his knowledge and

  consent. The end didn't justify the means, it was a malicious, mean-spirited and

  devious act commited by a naive boy pushed by an atheist father for his own

  personal agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But in fact that wasn't the story anywhere. News organizations picked this up all over the country, and that wasn't the story anywhere.