A student of uncommon courage

[Guest Paul]

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

  diatribes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet again 2dim4words makes claims that are not based on facts.

[Guest Paul]

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}>

Yet again, 2dim4words demonstrates his complete disregard for the facts. The story has appeared in many newspapers and magazines, and on various news programs.

--- In the New York Times, the story was about the proselytizing schoolteacher and how the Board of Education failed to act. The two New York Times editorials praised Matthew for his courage, the second editorial being titled "Matthew's vindication." That is how the nation's archival newspaper saw the story.

--- In the Bergen Record, the editorial also commended Matthew and blasted the teacher and the school. As in the Times, the story was about how one brave student stood up to the powers that be, and won.

--- In the Kearny Observer, the same thing.

--- In the Village Voice, the story was about how one courageous student stood up for the Constitution against an abusive teacher, a recalcitrant school system and his peers.

--- In Harper's magazine, the July issue, the story was about how ridiculous the teacher's comments were.

--- In the New York Sun, the story was about how one student stood up for the Constitution, which was under attack.

--- On Anderson Cooper 360, the story was about how far out of line the teacher was.

--- On the numerous newscasts, the story was about how the preacher-teacher got caught in the act.

Keep writing, Dumbo. All you're proving is that you have no regard for the facts, or anything except your own pre-determined opinion. See post # 83.

Beyond that, the US Constitution is not a personal agenda. That is why the ACLU, PFAW, Jews on First and other organizations that care about the Constitution and in particular religious freedom under the First Amendment supported us, why the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has agreed to come to Kearny High for free and address the students, and why the Anti-Defamation League has agreed to come to Kearny, at the request of the Board of Education, to conduct training sessions for the teachers. So once again, this isn't just a disagreement on a personal opinion. You're wrong. There's a bigger issue here, as demonstrated by those who care about that issue. You can agree or disagree with the outcome, but that was and is one issue. Science is the other.

On the other side of the fence are all the right-wing organizations that would like to destroy the US Constitution and establish a theocracy in America. What have they had to say about this? Care to site us a link, Dumbo?

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sure write a lot for someone who has little to say. Mostly I hear blah, blah, blah. It appears you missed your opportunity as an ********* ****** so you resort to this as a way to try to make fame. Shame you are so arrogant, because if you weren't, someone might have just listened to you. You are such a fool.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[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}>

Still sounds like a fat lawyer trying to make a name for himself. And who fought for you? Your merry band of lawyers? You are such a disgrace to this community. You should be embarrassed to be in public.

[Guest Senior Kearny Resident]

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}>

Thanks for saying what I've always believed.

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because they only heard the twisted LaClair version.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Yet again, 2dim4words demonstrates his complete disregard for the facts. The story has appeared in many newspapers and magazines, and on various news programs.

--- In the New York Times, the story was about the proselytizing schoolteacher and how the Board of Education failed to act. The two New York Times editorials praised Matthew for his courage, the second editorial being titled "Matthew's vindication." That is how the nation's archival newspaper saw the story.

--- In the Bergen Record, the editorial also commended Matthew and blasted the teacher and the school. As in the Times, the story was about how one brave student stood up to the powers that be, and won.

--- In the Kearny Observer, the same thing.

--- In the Village Voice, the story was about how one courageous student stood up for the Constitution against an abusive teacher, a recalcitrant school system and his peers.

--- In Harper's magazine, the July issue, the story was about how ridiculous the teacher's comments were.

--- In the New York Sun, the story was about how one student stood up for the Constitution, which was under attack.

--- On Anderson Cooper 360, the story was about how far out of line the teacher was.

--- On the numerous newscasts, the story was about how the preacher-teacher got caught in the act.

Keep writing, Dumbo. All you're proving is that you have no regard for the facts, or anything except your own pre-determined opinion. See post # 83.

Beyond that, the US Constitution is not a personal agenda. That is why the ACLU, PFAW, Jews on First and other organizations that care about the Constitution and in particular religious freedom under the First Amendment supported us, why the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has agreed to come to Kearny High for free and address the students, and why the Anti-Defamation League has agreed to come to Kearny, at the request of the Board of Education, to conduct training sessions for the teachers. So once again, this isn't just a disagreement on a personal opinion. You're wrong. There's a bigger issue here, as demonstrated by those who care about that issue. You can agree or disagree with the outcome, but that was and is one issue. Science is the other.

On the other side of the fence are all the right-wing organizations that would like to destroy the US Constitution and establish a theocracy in America. What have they had to say about this? Care to site us a link, Dumbo?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As everyone knows, including you, the media is rife with left-wing zealots. It's

not surprising they would jump in to defend your son (say anything against

christians, God or apple pie and the N.Y. Slimes will be on your side). Quoting

left-wing wackos to deflect criticism from yourself only works with a left-wing

audience. Most people can see through this smoke screen and recognize your

atheistic agenda.

[Guest Guest]

Yet again, 2dim4words demonstrates his complete disregard for the facts. The story has appeared in many newspapers and magazines, and on various news programs.

--- In the New York Times, the story was about the proselytizing schoolteacher and how the Board of Education failed to act. The two New York Times editorials praised Matthew for his courage, the second editorial being titled "Matthew's vindication." That is how the nation's archival newspaper saw the story.

--- In the Bergen Record, the editorial also commended Matthew and blasted the teacher and the school. As in the Times, the story was about how one brave student stood up to the powers that be, and won.

--- In the Kearny Observer, the same thing.

--- In the Village Voice, the story was about how one courageous student stood up for the Constitution against an abusive teacher, a recalcitrant school system and his peers.

--- In Harper's magazine, the July issue, the story was about how ridiculous the teacher's comments were.

--- In the New York Sun, the story was about how one student stood up for the Constitution, which was under attack.

--- On Anderson Cooper 360, the story was about how far out of line the teacher was.

--- On the numerous newscasts, the story was about how the preacher-teacher got caught in the act.

Keep writing, Dumbo. All you're proving is that you have no regard for the facts, or anything except your own pre-determined opinion. See post # 83.

Beyond that, the US Constitution is not a personal agenda. That is why the ACLU, PFAW, Jews on First

I'm not impressed. You only stayed in your comfort zone.

Every newscasts and organization above is as liberal as the day is long.

You picked only the ones that would run your little story.

The day will come. People will hear the real story.

Hold on tight to your sits!

[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}>

Those are not the facts. Your statements do not support the facts. You are just angry because you do not like the outcome. I have you on my recording device that your statements do not support the facts. I have me on my recording device recording you not stating the facts.

Love,

Paul

KOTW Note: Members and Guests should note that the above post was not written by Paul LaClair .

[billydee4]

I still believe that the total lack of support for Paszkiewicz by any of the extremist right wing media shows that his case was indefensible. If the extremist right is willing to support a girl who got approval for one valedictorian speech and then decided to proselytize instead, they would have jumped on Paszkiewicz's cause in a heartbeat if they thought it had any merit.

[Strife767]

You guys want some cheese with your whine?

[Guest Guest]

"It wasn't about Matthew personally" ??  What a crock. It was ALL about Matthew.

    Matthew came home from school one day and told you how a teacher

  discussed religion in his classroom.  You, being the ambulance chaser that you  are, saw an opportunity to exploit the situation and gain some notoriety for junior.

    So you had him sneak in a tape recorder to record this teacher without his knowledge or consent. There was nothing noble or honorable about it. It was all about Paul living vicariously through his son by commiting a treacherous act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What, exactly was so incredibly honorable about Mr. P's behavior? And you wonder why people want to protect the separation of church and state?

I had this christian crap shoved down my throat all of my life. I couldn't wait until I was old enough to leave the church. Or should I say the cult.

Screw you and your stupid, superstitious "religion".

[Guest 2smart4u]

I still believe that the total lack of support for Paszkiewicz by any of the extremist right wing media shows that his case was indefensible.  If the extremist right is willing to support a girl who got approval for one valedictorian speech and then decided to proselytize  instead, they would have jumped on Paszkiewicz's cause in a heartbeat if they thought it had any merit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I stated in a previous post, what Paszkiewicz did or said is insignificant in

the scheme of things. It was always all about Paul and his Loony Left atheistic

agenda. The right wing media ( the normal people) didn't pay attention to it

because (as I said) it was insignificant. Only the Loony Left thought it was the

event of the century. ( That's why they're called the Loony Left).

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, I think what some people are getting at here (and about which I think that they are focusing on the wrong issue, but we'll let that be for the time being), is that you continually argue that BECAUSE Mr. P lied, and BECAUSE Somma ignored the issues, and BECAUSE the board attorney did this or that ... then Matthew was justified in his course of conduct.

Unfortunately, you may have THOUGHT that all of the parties were going to act as they did (and, knowing the general rules of CYA that apply in government institutions of all sorts, it does not take Nostradamus to conclude as such), but you did not KNOW that all of the parties would act as they did. And there is quite a difference. And no matter how bright you might have been to conclude that - when faced with the elimination of his family's livelihood - an individual might say or do whatever is necessary in the name of self-preservation ... Matthew's actions - taken in a vacuum - may be justified but not excused.

Here's why.

Let's assume for a moment that, as should have been the case, upon being accused of preaching in class (and before the issue of a tape recording was even raised) Mr. P fell on his sword and stated, "Yes I did, I was wrong, I apologize, let the floggings begin" and Mr. Somma, in turn, stated "we are sorry Matthew, a correction and apology will be made in class tomorrow." In your own words you have stated that the issue would have been resolved.

Then would Matthew have been justified in surreptitiously tape recording the teacher? Would it have been an ethical act to engage the teacher in a discussion which Matthew thought to be wrong thereby poisoning the learning environment in the classroom?

Or would it have been more appropriate to leave the tape recorder home? Or to speak up when Matthew felt that the teacher was violating the hallowed Establishment Clause and that such conduct was not appropriate for a teacher - allowing for an immediate correction of the learning environment?

Clearly, no one lives in a vacuum and, as stated, it wasn't hard to predict the conduct that occurred. So, I think that the ends do justify the means in this instance as no innocent parties - save the one Muslim student who had her identity revealed to the world - were harmed. My moment of pause is I feel that it would be lovely for someone fully engaged on the "correct" side of this argument to acknowledge that Matthew wasn't a babe in the woods, and that his actions were calculated and designed to bring about a specific result.

[Guest Guest]

I still believe that the total lack of support for Paszkiewicz by any of the extremist right wing media shows that his case was indefensible.  If the extremist right is willing to support a girl who got approval for one valedictorian speech and then decided to proselytize  instead, they would have jumped on Paszkiewicz's cause in a heartbeat if they thought it had any merit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct - his conduct is indefensible.

[Guest Paul]

I'm not impressed. You only stayed in your comfort zone.

Every newscasts and organization above is as liberal as the day is long.

You picked only the ones that would run your little story.

The day will come. People will hear the real story.

Hold on tight to your sits!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet again a loony right-wing zealot completely invents non-facts out of nowhere. We didn't pick who ran the story. We don't have the power to do that. I sent the first press release to 300 news organizations, right, left and in the middle. So for starters, you're making things up as you go along, and what you're saying is not factual --- again.

There are plenty of right-wing news organizations who could have carried your water for you if they thought they could have. Why didn't they pick the story up?

We're still waiting for you to show us the stories that support your persective. You don't post them because there aren't any. Professional journalists, right and left, know your boy couldn't be defended on this one.

Of course that doesn't matter to you. The facts never do, as we see over and over again.

You got smoked. Get over it.

By the way, "looney" means irrational. That's clearly applicable on your side of the fence, not ours.

[Guest Paul]

As everyone knows, including you, the media is rife with left-wing zealots. It's

  not surprising they would jump in to defend your son (say anything against

  christians, God or apple pie and the N.Y. Slimes will be on your side).  Quoting

  left-wing wackos to deflect criticism from yourself only works with a left-wing

  audience. Most people can see through this smoke screen and recognize your

  atheistic agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bunk. The media are controlled by corporate money. Their bias is to the right, not the left.

To you loony right-wingers, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a left-wing nut. When you're in outer space, everything seems far away.

[Guest Donnie Darko]

So, now its Matthew who was baiting the teacher under the tutelage of his attorney father. The baiting would have been obvious from his recordings. Try listening to them.

Mr. P. has been doing this for years. Who baited Mr. P. in previous years?  Was it some cabal?

Talk about revisionist history. You people would have done so well in Soviet Russia.

Again, its proved you don't want to learn. You just want your beliefs validated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In all fairness Bern, this opinion source was from a loooong time ago - before the recordings became public. So the party quoted would not have had the opportunity to listen to the recordings.

And since everyone keeps throwing around what is a fact and what isn't a fact, it is NOT a fact that Mr. P has been doing this for years. I have my sneaking suspicion that he has been - but there is no factual basis on which to base your assertion.

So really little is proved, and few are looking for their beliefs validated. But keep educating us on Soviet Russia (or was it the Soviet Union?), it's truly fascinating.

[Guest Paul]

Because they only heard the twisted LaClair version.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. That's not true. The rantings in favor of Paszkiewicz were thoroughly covered. In fact, the press kept looking for people to support Mr. P. In fact, the documentary film-maker is looking for people to interview from that side of the story, because practically no one is willing to support Paszkiewicz. Come on, you guys. Put your money where your mouth is. See related topic I'm opening tonight.

2. The story looked one-sided because your boy's position was indefensible. It would be like having a junior-high football team take on an NFL team. You had nothing. You have nothing. That's why you keep saying nothing. The sad part is that you think you're saying something, but where's the content? You don't have any, and every time one of us posts the content again, you guys change the subject, revert to your slogans, etc. You all think the same. That's because you're trained to think that way. You're told that if you believe it, that makes it true. That's exactly what your fundamentalism tells you. You don't even see it.

3. Our so-called "version" isn't a version at all. It's just the facts, and they are recorded for all to hear. All news media who asked, including Fox, were given copies of the recordings. Fox 5 ran the story in mid-November, tried to twist it around, but gave up because it couldn't be twisted, not even by them. That's why they stopped covering it. Who do you think you're kidding?

I apologize to all the people who got all this a long time ago. Maybe trying to discuss anything rationally with these zealots is a hopeless cause. Please forgive me for trying.

[Guest Paul]

Those are not the facts.  Your statements do not support the facts.  You are just angry because you do not like the outcome.  I have you on my recording device that your statements do not support the facts.  I have me on my recording device recording you not stating the facts.

Love,

Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously, I did not post this. Someone very desperate to try to make a point did. It's a pity, but not a surprise, that he or she doesn't know how.

[Guest Guest]

I still believe that the total lack of support for Paszkiewicz by any of the extremist right wing media shows that his case was indefensible.  If the extremist right is willing to support a girl who got approval for one valedictorian speech and then decided to proselytize  instead, they would have jumped on Paszkiewicz's cause in a heartbeat if they thought it had any merit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

About the "extremist" right wing media, I don't really think they matter. What matters most is the opinion of the people that live in Kearny and they overwhelmingly supported the teacher. That must be worth far more to the teacher than the public commendation the BOE was legally bound to give Mathew under the terms of the settlement. The praise Mr. P received from the people of Kearny was genuine. It wasn't part of a legal settlement.

[Bern]

In all fairness Bern, this opinion source was from a loooong time ago - before the recordings became public.  So the party quoted would not have had the opportunity to listen to the recordings.

And since everyone keeps throwing around what is a fact and what isn't a fact, it is NOT a fact that Mr. P has been doing this for years.  I have my sneaking suspicion that he has been - but there is no factual basis on which to base your assertion.

So really little is proved, and few are looking for their beliefs validated.  But keep educating us on Soviet Russia (or was it the Soviet Union?), it's truly fascinating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't look at the dates. Baiting could have been assumed if that posting was before the tape release.

I have to agree with you on the years. Its been posted so often, including if I remember correctly by former students, that to me it seemed like a fact.

Unless there is something irrefutable like a tape, Mr. P. can easily deny was doing this for years. Or deny he ever did it. There would not have been a "well you got me" or "caught me" moment in Somma's office.

Initially, I was against the taping. Looking at the teacher's class performance and the history of this event, its obvious, without taping Matthew would not have gotten anywhere.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bunk. The media are controlled by corporate money. Their bias is to the right, not the left.

To you loony right-wingers, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a left-wing nut. When you're in outer space, everything seems far away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL !! Everyone (apparently except you) knows the media are all left-wing with

few exceptions. CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, N.Y. Times and all the major newspapers are all purveyors of left wing propaganda. FOX is the only source of fair & balanced news coverage (which also draws more viewers than all the Loony

Left sources put together). And by the way, FOX totally ignored the adventures of your little tape-recording son. Like I said before, it was only thought to be a

"heroic" event by the Loony Left (and that's something to be proud of).

[Guest Paul]

In all fairness Bern, this opinion source was from a loooong time ago - before the recordings became public.  So the party quoted would not have had the opportunity to listen to the recordings.

And since everyone keeps throwing around what is a fact and what isn't a fact, it is NOT a fact that Mr. P has been doing this for years.  I have my sneaking suspicion that he has been - but there is no factual basis on which to base your assertion.

So really little is proved, and few are looking for their beliefs validated.  But keep educating us on Soviet Russia (or was it the Soviet Union?), it's truly fascinating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a factual basis. Other students who have had this teacher said he did it before. In court, we call that evidence, and if the fact-finder believes it, it is called a fact.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Yet again a loony right-wing zealot completely invents non-facts out of nowhere. We didn't pick who ran the story. We don't have the power to do that. I sent the first press release to 300 news organizations, right, left and in the middle. So for starters, you're making things up as you go along, and what you're saying is not factual --- again.

There are plenty of right-wing news organizations who could have carried your water for you if they thought they could have. Why didn't they pick the story up?

We're still waiting for you to show us the stories that support your persective. You don't post them because there aren't any. Professional journalists, right and left, know your boy couldn't be defended on this one.

Of course that doesn't matter to you. The facts never do, as we see over and over again.

You got smoked. Get over it.

By the way, "looney" means irrational. That's clearly applicable on your side of the fence, not ours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"I sent the first news release to 300 news organizations" ??? These are the

words of a truly Loony Left wacko. What kind of a father would be so desperate

to promote the actions of his son that he would "market" him. It wasn't good

enough that the local BOE reacted, he wanted the world to know what a heroic

son he had and he was his daddy. Truly pathetic.

promote a son