I'm finished I can't take it

[Guest Guest]

Stop what, telling the truth, since it's not what you want to hear? I issued you an open invitation to lay me flat and you don't have a single thing to say except to repeat the lie, yet again, that Matthew was after Paszkiewicz. That is absolutely false.

As for intimidation, size does matter whether there is any real threat of physical violence or not. Ask any psychologist or for that matter nearly any woman. Hillary Clinton's first senatorial opponent sealed his own doom just by approaching her physically during a debate. Or ask Chris Wallace, who got hammered verbally by Bill Clinton during the famous interview a few months ago. Wallace, a professional journalist of longstanding (if anyone from Fox can still be called a professional) specifically described how intimidated he was by Clinton's presence, Clinton being much larger than he. Or look at the famous photograph of Lyndon Johnson towering over a much smaller senator verbally twisting his arm; or the photograph of Johnson melting Bill Moyers, who was then on his staff, with a withering look. Johnson was a master at using his size, and he did, even though no one really thought LBJ was going to hit them. Superior size takes us right back to our evolutionary past and to some very basic survival instincts that don't disappear just because we know intellectually that we're not really in danger. And if you think for one second that Matthew wasn't aware of the physical dynamics in that room, think again. So yet again you don't know what you're talking about.

An intelligent, calm, objective and discerning person probably can infer something about my thoughts and feelings from what I write and how I write it. But I issued you an invitation to be specific because what you WERE writing wasn't true. And as I suspected you avoided it completely because you don't have a single thing to say. And now everyone knows because you just proved it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again, your actions and Matt's actions leading up to the Paszkiewicz issue speak for themselves. You have a history of getting into these Constitutional pissing matches because things aren't the way you want them to be.

[Guest Guest]

Once again, your actions and Matt's actions leading up to the Paszkiewicz issue speak for themselves.  You have a history of getting into these Constitutional pissing matches because things aren't the way you want them to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If a person believes things aren't as they should be, isn't that exactly what they should do?

[Guest Guest]

Sorry for posting on this twice, but Matt did not find an easy target and go after him. If that was his intention, he would have taken the recordings straight to the press in September. Instead, he wrote a letter of complaint to the principal.

If that was not his intention (to get publicity) why Mat did not go to his teacher first like a normal person.

Or was publicity your idea? You know one more year of high school left, what could your son do this time to top it all and be recognized worldwide?

Publicity was what you wanted. That was how Matt got all the awards and scholarships. You do brag about very often. Going to his teacher first Matt would just be “plain Matt”.

So now you got everything, your son got his 5 minutes of fame, scholarships, awards a forced recognition from the board and everyone knows now that you are a lawyer.

If you got everything you wanted why you still spend so much time talking about Mr. P.?

You just can’t let it go, can you?

[Guest Guest]

Where is the face of Strife? Show to me, please. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look for him on Kearny ave. Pushing his broom as always.

[Guest Guest]

Of course not. He's saying that to be a smallish kid confronting a larger and stronger adult is intimidating. No actual (or even imagined) physical threat is necessary for this to have a psychological effect. This, in itself, is not the result of any wrongdoing on the part of Paszkiewicz or Somma. But still it serves as one example of the courage that Matt has demonstrated throughout this situation.

Even if you don't agree with Matthew's cause, why can't you at least acknowledge his courage in pursuing it? Are you so desperate to vilify your perceived enemy that you've lost your capacity for honesty and rational thought? Can you not acknowledge that someone who pursues a cause that you detest can still have genuine courage, noble motivations, and honorable actions?

Where's the dishonor that you're so desperate to prove? Was Paszkiewicz accused of anything other than what he did, in fact, do? Were Paszkiewicz and the school board not given ample opportunity to take appropriate action of their own accord well before any of this went public? Were they not then given additional opportunity to act before going public with the recording from the meeting? Was there any demand for action that would end or permanently harm Paszkiewicz' career?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul has already stated that Matt wrote a letter to the principal and that Paszkiewicz must have been spoken to because his preaching in the classroom stopped. And yes I know that Paszkiewicz took some sarcastic digs at Matthew after this. But that wasn't good enough. I wish it had gone to court so we could have seen how this would have played out. But as I said before the BOE, the administrators, and the teachers have more pressing issues to deal with. Just take a look through some of the minutes of the BOE meetings and you'll see this. But I'm sure Paul and Matt will come up with an encore for Matt's senior year.

And of course I can "acknowledge that someone who pursues a cause that you detest can still have genuine courage, noble motivations, and honorable actions?" but not this time. And by the way, I've said that Paszkiewicz needed some discipline and guidance on this issue. Maybe what I detest is sneakiness masquerading as courage.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry for posting on this twice, but Matt did not find an easy target and go after him. If that was his intention, he would have taken the recordings straight to the press in September. Instead, he wrote a letter of complaint to the principal. Paszkiewicz was reprimanded and stopped the proselytizing, but started whining in open class that he couldn't conduct the class the same way any more. His big mistake was saying in open class that he would like to answer a student's question, but "someone might change my words." Matthew recognized that this was directed at him, which Paszkiewicz never denied even after Matthew confronted him with it, and that is why he insisted on a meeting in Mr. Somma's office.

He gave Mr. Paszkiewicz another chance to tell the truth in that meeting. However, whenever there's a chance to tell the truth, there's also a chance not to tell the truth. It's not a set-up. It's how things work. Not only that, Paszkiewicz used the opportunity to bully and intimidate a student he didn't agree with (which is a common theme I've heard from several of his other students he didn't agree with over the years), but unfortunately for him, this time he chose a student who was more than his equal, and who had him headed off at every pass. In a way, Matthew stood up for every student this teacher ever bullied or intimidated, which is why the cheers from some former students were so loud.

Now you may not find it particularly courageous, but I think that when a sixteen-year-old high school student who is about 5'7" tall and very thin is sitting in the principal's office right next to his 38-year-old teacher, who is fit and over six feet tall; and then that student essentially cross-examines the teacher for nearly an hour, in the face of repeated interruptions and lectures from the teacher; and the principal is doing nothing to protect the student; and then the teacher denies making statements that the student knows he made; and then the student, sitting right next to this teacher who has spent the better part of an hour trying to intimidate him (and across from the principal, who is the teacher's former coach and teacher, and now his friend), unzips his back pack and not only produces recordings proving beyond a doubt that the teacher has not told the truth, but hands a copy of these very recordings to the teacher himself . . . yeah, you go ahead and tell me you would have had the courage to do that. But don't even bother if you won't state your name, because I'd like to see some hard proof on that one. Matthew has the proof. You don't. You may not like it, but what Matt did is extremely rare. Your saying it isn't courageous is a joke, especially when you hide behind your cloak of anonymity to do it.

Go ahead, wise guy. Show us that you'd be willing to do something like that. Don't even bother posting here to claim that you would. Show us like Matthew did. Let us know when you have something to report.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

STOP... I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE

[Stixx3969]

Once again, your actions and Matt's actions leading up to the Paszkiewicz issue speak for themselves.  You have a history of getting into these Constitutional pissing matches because things aren't the way you want them to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least someone is standing up for OUR constitution! It's obvious that our current administration is not up to the task of guarding our constitution so maybe it has to start at the local level.

[Strife767]

Where is the face of Strife? Show to me, please. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Point is that you will always know which posts are mine, period.

[Strife767]

Once again, your actions and Matt's actions leading up to the Paszkiewicz issue speak for themselves.  You have a history of getting into these Constitutional pissing matches because things aren't the way you want them to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He wants them to be the way the Constitution dictates they are to be.

Failing to see the problem here.

[Strife767]

         

STOP... I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you expect a post like this to receive anything but ridicule?

[Guest Paul]

Once again, your actions and Matt's actions leading up to the Paszkiewicz issue speak for themselves.  You have a history of getting into these Constitutional pissing matches because things aren't the way you want them to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I get into these issues because I believe in them. So does Matthew. Why is that wrong?

[Guest Paul]

Sorry for posting on this twice, but Matt did not find an easy target and go after him. If that was his intention, he would have taken the recordings straight to the press in September. Instead, he wrote a letter of complaint to the principal.

If that was not his intention (to get publicity) why Mat did not go to his teacher first like a normal person.

Or was publicity your idea? You know one more year of high school left, what could your son do this time to top it all and be recognized worldwide?

Publicity was what you wanted. That was how Matt got all the awards and scholarships. You do brag about very often. Going to his teacher first Matt would just be “plain Matt”.

So now you got everything, your son got his 5 minutes of fame, scholarships, awards a forced recognition from the board and everyone knows now that you are a lawyer.

If you got everything you wanted why you still spend so much time talking about Mr. P.?

You just can’t let it go, can you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We've explained this many times. I'll explain it yet again.

It was obvious that Paszkiewicz was on an evangelical mission. That's not surprising, since he is an evangelical Christian, and in itself there's nothing wrong with it. However, he's not allowed to evangelize in class. Matthew calculated, correctly, that this teacher's commitment to his religious beliefs is deeper than his commitment to church-state separation, which Paszkiewicz has explicitly said he doesn't believe in at all. You don't deny that, do you? Matthew drew that conclusion because of how Paszkiewicz was presenting himself in those first few days of class. He made a judgment that confronting Paszkiewicz might stop the behavior in that class, but Paszkiewicz would just continue to do it in all the other classes he teaches. (Even with all this publicity, we continue to get reports that Paszkiewicz is still crossing the line occasionally.) So Matthew decided he had to go over Paszkiewicz's head.

You don't have a basis to doubt Matthew's intentions. He wanted an apology from Mr. Paszkiewicz for crossing the line and appropriate corrections of his remarks. Had that happened, it would have ended there. Paszkiewicz was given multiple opportunities to admit his transgressions, apologize and move on. A mature person would have done all of that. To this day, Paszkiewicz has failed to do any of it.

If you think I imagined this would end up in worldwide recognition for my son, you must think I'm psychic, which I am not. Getting to this point took a lot more stupid from far more people than I ever could have imagined, and quite a few breaks to boot. There's no way I could have foreseen this. That's just not a reasonable claim on your part.

As for letting it go, people keep attacking my son and questioning our motives. As long as that continues I will continue to respond.

Now let's discuss your motives. I understand the religious right. For you, it's all about the word. If it's said, and you like it, then it's true. You people revise history all the time, and thought you were going to do it on this forum. Well, it ain't happening. Here, you're going to be challenged. Get used to it.

[Guest Paul]

Paul has already stated that Matt wrote a letter to the principal and that Paszkiewicz must have been spoken to because his preaching in the classroom stopped.  And yes I know that Paszkiewicz took some sarcastic digs at Matthew after this.  But that wasn't good enough.  I wish it had gone to court so we could have seen how this would have played out.  But as I said before the BOE, the administrators, and the teachers have more pressing issues to deal with.  Just take a look through some of the minutes of the BOE meetings and you'll see this.  But I'm sure Paul and Matt will come up with an encore for Matt's senior year.

And of course I can "acknowledge that someone who pursues a cause that you detest can still have genuine courage, noble motivations, and honorable actions?" but not this time.  And by the way, I've said that Paszkiewicz needed some discipline and guidance on this issue.  Maybe what I detest is sneakiness masquerading as courage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't get it. Matthew doesn't go to school every year looking for an issue to take on. But somehow every year he has been in Kearny High, someone has managed to do something stupid, crossing an important Constitutional line. So every year Matthew has taken on one teacher or another, and guess what - Matthew has been vindicated every single time, without exception. Don't blame Matthew for the fact that some of the teachers at Kearny High don't understand the US Constitution. That's why the ADL is coming in to train them, and why the Board agreed for that to happen - so that this will stop happening.

As for past incidents, most of the teachers understood what Matthew was telling them. One teacher thought about it and acknowledged Matt's point; Matt was satisfied with that and that was the end of it. And you've never heard about it, now have you; in fact, you don't even know who that teacher is, and neither does the administration because Matthew never told them about it. Unlike Paszkiewicz, that teacher wasn't on an obvious and extended evangelical mission. That's the difference. So don't give me this garbage about Matthew being out to get teachers, because it's just not true. And if you ask me or Matthew who that teacher was, we won't tell you because the response was appropriate and under those circumstances it's best to let it rest. Another teacher publicly berated Matthew in front of an entire class, and told him that if he fought her on the issue he would lose; I wrote a letter to Mr. Mooney, that teacher publicly apologized to Matthew the very next day, and again that was the end of it. And again, you don't know who that is, do you. That teacher's response after the fact wasn't terrific, but at least she apologized and that was the end of it. Another teacher Matt had a run-in with now greets him very warmly every time she sees him, and they have an excellent relationship. It seems that she respects what he did in standing up to her, even though she didn't agree with him at the time. So when you make the charge that Matthew was in it for the publicity, I know that's not true, and he has a track record of resolving these matters privately without anyone outside the administration knowing about it.

The only teacher who has been so stubborn about this as to blow it up into international news is David Paszkiewicz. So Matthew continued to pursue the matter because he insists that teachers and administrators respect and abide by the US Constitution. Now maybe you don't think that the US Constitution is important, but we do.

Now why don't you recognize that Matthew's actions are a service to the community, and why did it take Matthew's presence in that school to bring about training this teaching staff has obviously needed for a long time? Why aren't you asking those questions?

[Guest Guest]

He wants them to be the way the Constitution dictates they are to be.

Failing to see the problem here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dictates according to him. That's the problem.

[Guest Guest]

At least someone is standing up for OUR constitution! It's obvious that our current administration is not up to the task of guarding our constitution so maybe it has to start at the local level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which of your rights have been violated by the government?

[Guest Guest]

Point is that you will always know which posts are mine, period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Big deal, you're still anonymous.

[Guest Guest]

I get into these issues because I believe in them. So does Matthew. Why is that wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because you may not always be right and people can get hurt just so that you get to prove your point.

[Guest Guest]

We've explained this many times. I'll explain it yet again.

It was obvious that Paszkiewicz was on an evangelical mission. That's not surprising, since he is an evangelical Christian, and in itself there's nothing wrong with it. However, he's not allowed to evangelize in class. Matthew calculated, correctly, that this teacher's commitment to his religious beliefs is deeper than his commitment to church-state separation, which Paszkiewicz has explicitly said he doesn't believe in at all. You don't deny that, do you? Matthew drew that conclusion because of how Paszkiewicz was presenting himself in those first few days of class. He made a judgment that confronting Paszkiewicz might stop the behavior in that class, but Paszkiewicz would just continue to do it in all the other classes he teaches. (Even with all this publicity, we continue to get reports that Paszkiewicz is still crossing the line occasionally.) So Matthew decided he had to go over Paszkiewicz's head.

You don't have a basis to doubt Matthew's intentions. He wanted an apology from Mr. Paszkiewicz for crossing the line and appropriate corrections of his remarks. Had that happened, it would have ended there. Paszkiewicz was given multiple opportunities to admit his transgressions, apologize and move on. A mature person would have done all of that. To this day, Paszkiewicz has failed to do any of it.

If you think I imagined this would end up in worldwide recognition for my son, you must think I'm psychic, which I am not. Getting to this point took a lot more stupid from far more people than I ever could have imagined, and quite a few breaks to boot. There's no way I could have foreseen this. That's just not a reasonable claim on your part.

As for letting it go, people keep attacking my son and questioning our motives. As long as that continues I will continue to respond.

Now let's discuss your motives. I understand the religious right. For you, it's all about the word. If it's said, and you like it, then it's true. You people revise history all the time, and thought you were going to do it on this forum. Well, it ain't happening. Here, you're going to be challenged. Get used to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So now we're expected to believe that an experienced lawyer, who sues people and companies on a regular basis, had absolutely no idea where this situation was heading.

Saying what your motives are doesn't make them so.

[Guest Guest]

You don't get it. Matthew doesn't go to school every year looking for an issue to take on. But somehow every year he has been in Kearny High, someone has managed to do something stupid, crossing an important Constitutional line. So every year Matthew has taken on one teacher or another, and guess what - Matthew has been vindicated every single time, without exception. Don't blame Matthew for the fact that some of the teachers at Kearny High don't understand the US Constitution. That's why the ADL is coming in to train them, and why the Board agreed for that to happen - so that this will stop happening.

As for past incidents, most of the teachers understood what Matthew was telling them. One teacher thought about it and acknowledged Matt's point; Matt was satisfied with that and that was the end of it. And you've never heard about it, now have you; in fact, you don't even know who that teacher is, and neither does the administration because Matthew never told them about it. Unlike Paszkiewicz, that teacher wasn't on an obvious and extended evangelical mission. That's the difference. So don't give me this garbage about Matthew being out to get teachers, because it's just not true. And if you ask me or Matthew who that teacher was, we won't tell you because the response was appropriate and under those circumstances it's best to let it rest. Another teacher publicly berated Matthew in front of an entire class, and told him that if he fought her on the issue he would lose; I wrote a letter to Mr. Mooney, that teacher publicly apologized to Matthew the very next day, and again that was the end of it. And again, you don't know who that is, do you. That teacher's response after the fact wasn't terrific, but at least she apologized and that was the end of it. Another teacher Matt had a run-in with now greets him very warmly every time she sees him, and they have an excellent relationship. It seems that she respects what he did in standing up to her, even though she didn't agree with him at the time. So when you make the charge that Matthew was in it for the publicity, I know that's not true, and he has a track record of resolving these matters privately without anyone outside the administration knowing about it.

The only teacher who has been so stubborn about this as to blow it up into international news is David Paszkiewicz. So Matthew continued to pursue the matter because he insists that teachers and administrators respect and abide by the US Constitution. Now maybe you don't think that the US Constitution is important, but we do.

Now why don't you recognize that Matthew's actions are a service to the community, and why did it take Matthew's presence in that school to bring about training this teaching staff has obviously needed for a long time? Why aren't you asking those questions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do think the Constitution is important. It's been around for awhile and it may or may not last into the future. The point is that Matthew fighting these petty issues has nothing to do with the upholding the Constitution, and alot more to do with making people think his way.

[Guest Patriot]

You don't get it. Matthew doesn't go to school every year looking for an issue to take on. But somehow every year he has been in Kearny High, someone has managed to do something stupid, crossing an important Constitutional line. So every year Matthew has taken on one teacher or another, and guess what - Matthew has been vindicated every single time, without exception. Don't blame Matthew for the fact that some of the teachers at Kearny High don't understand the US Constitution. That's why the ADL is coming in to train them, and why the Board agreed for that to happen - so that this will stop happening.

As for past incidents, most of the teachers understood what Matthew was telling them. One teacher thought about it and acknowledged Matt's point; Matt was satisfied with that and that was the end of it. And you've never heard about it, now have you; in fact, you don't even know who that teacher is, and neither does the administration because Matthew never told them about it. Unlike Paszkiewicz, that teacher wasn't on an obvious and extended evangelical mission. That's the difference. So don't give me this garbage about Matthew being out to get teachers, because it's just not true. And if you ask me or Matthew who that teacher was, we won't tell you because the response was appropriate and under those circumstances it's best to let it rest. Another teacher publicly berated Matthew in front of an entire class, and told him that if he fought her on the issue he would lose; I wrote a letter to Mr. Mooney, that teacher publicly apologized to Matthew the very next day, and again that was the end of it. And again, you don't know who that is, do you. That teacher's response after the fact wasn't terrific, but at least she apologized and that was the end of it. Another teacher Matt had a run-in with now greets him very warmly every time she sees him, and they have an excellent relationship. It seems that she respects what he did in standing up to her, even though she didn't agree with him at the time. So when you make the charge that Matthew was in it for the publicity, I know that's not true, and he has a track record of resolving these matters privately without anyone outside the administration knowing about it.

The only teacher who has been so stubborn about this as to blow it up into international news is David Paszkiewicz. So Matthew continued to pursue the matter because he insists that teachers and administrators respect and abide by the US Constitution. Now maybe you don't think that the US Constitution is important, but we do.

Now why don't you recognize that Matthew's actions are a service to the community, and why did it take Matthew's presence in that school to bring about training this teaching staff has obviously needed for a long time? Why aren't you asking those questions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your boy could have chosen to ignore these teachers that "offended" him.

"Service to the community" ? Only in your bizarre radical left world.

[Autonomous]

Your boy could have chosen to ignore these teachers that "offended" him.

    "Service to the community" ?  Only in your bizarre radical left world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being opposed to religion is not radical left. There are plenty of atheists on the right as well.

[Guest Paul]

Because you may not always be right and people can get hurt just so that you get to prove your point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one was at risk of being hurt except the one person who brought it on himself, and even he was given many opportunities to admit the mistake, apologize, correct it and move on. You don't think this involved an important issue, but it is. The day Americans can no longer stand up to defend the Constitution is the day this country is no longer free.

[Guest Paul]

So now we're expected to believe that an experienced lawyer, who sues people and companies on a regular basis, had absolutely no idea where this situation was heading.

Saying what your motives are doesn't make them so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I had no idea that this would generate so much press. I hoped and believed that the administration would act appropriately. The fact that they acted so poorly shocked me and still shocks me, and if you read it, you'll see that much of the press was about the inexplicable inaction by the administration and the Board. That is the fact.

I know what my motives are. You don't. Therefore I'm in a position to state them. You're not. That is also the fact.

[Guest Paul]

I do think the Constitution is important.  It's been around for awhile and it may or may not last into the future.  The point is that Matthew fighting these petty issues has nothing to do with the upholding the Constitution, and alot more to do with making people think his way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The people who spend considerable amounts of their time battling important Constitutional issues disagree with you, as is obvious from the fact that they supported us.

[Guest Paul]

Your boy could have chosen to ignore these teachers that "offended" him.

    "Service to the community" ?  Only in your bizarre radical left world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just as the Germans could have chosen to ignore what Hitler was doing to the Jews. They did ignore it and the result is written in red and black on the pages of history.

Sir or madam, I don't know how you really are, but you don't begin to understand patriotism.