Jump to content

Paul's soulmate?


Guest 2smart4u

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks even if you don't mean it. I am glad to be here. It doesn't look like Paul really needs my help though. He seems to be able to hold his own. I would like to know why you all have such a negative opinion of him though-just because he doesn;t agree with you.

The most unpopular thing a person can do is tell people what they do not wish to hear - especially when it's the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lincoln Logger
Thanks even if you don't mean it. I am glad to be here. It doesn't look like Paul really needs my help though. He seems to be able to hold his own. I would like to know why you all have such a negative opinion of him though-just because he doesn;t agree with you.

It's when I think of all the things that Paul has put this town through all for the sake of some sort of personal vendetta against the BOE, then that’s why I have such a negative opinion against him. He used his lawyer attitude to inconvenience a large number of people all for the sake of defending his son. He twisted the truth and thinks that his long winded comments make him look smarter than he really is. Look at how he responds to each of the posts that have an opposite view of his own. In all his posts I still wait for him to say his rebuttal is always "I don't understand...". His posts and replys are always one sided and never looks beyond that or dares too. But deep down inside he is just one of us people from Kearny, and he says he wants to do the right thing and have people do the right thing but he never does anything about it excepts blogs. Let's see him on the Board of Education, let’s see him run for Councilman, lets see him run for mayor. There you will find what the people of this town think of him and not what he boasts about himself here. And I am not alone in these feelings as well.

Merry Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's when I think of all the things that Paul has put this town through all for the sake of some sort of personal vendetta against the BOE, then that’s why I have such a negative opinion against him. He used his lawyer attitude to inconvenience a large number of people all for the sake of defending his son. He twisted the truth and thinks that his long winded comments make him look smarter than he really is. Look at how he responds to each of the posts that have an opposite view of his own. In all his posts I still wait for him to say his rebuttal is always "I don't understand...". His posts and replys are always one sided and never looks beyond that or dares too. But deep down inside he is just one of us people from Kearny, and he says he wants to do the right thing and have people do the right thing but he never does anything about it excepts blogs. Let's see him on the Board of Education, let’s see him run for Councilman, lets see him run for mayor. There you will find what the people of this town think of him and not what he boasts about himself here. And I am not alone in these feelings as well.

Merry Christmas.

The facts, which are very obvious, refute all your statements.

Personal vendetta against the BOE? Twisting the truth? Not stating rebuttals? Your statements are ridiculous.

You have serious lack of reality if you really believe the above.

Under those circumstances, debating you makes as much sense as debating an inmate from Bedlam. I don't waste my time on nonsense. From now on I will be ignoring your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's when I think of all the things that Paul has put this town through all for the sake of some sort of personal vendetta against the BOE, then that’s why I have such a negative opinion against him. He used his lawyer attitude to inconvenience a large number of people all for the sake of defending his son. He twisted the truth and thinks that his long winded comments make him look smarter than he really is. Look at how he responds to each of the posts that have an opposite view of his own. In all his posts I still wait for him to say his rebuttal is always "I don't understand...". His posts and replys are always one sided and never looks beyond that or dares too. But deep down inside he is just one of us people from Kearny, and he says he wants to do the right thing and have people do the right thing but he never does anything about it excepts blogs. Let's see him on the Board of Education, let’s see him run for Councilman, lets see him run for mayor. There you will find what the people of this town think of him and not what he boasts about himself here. And I am not alone in these feelings as well.

Merry Christmas.

Excuse me, people like you are the ones who put Kearny through its problems. I've asked many, many people to discuss or explain their beliefs and actions. Some have, but unfortunately some people like you are bright red with anger, which they can't seem to see beyond. I've said it many times: you are welcome to discuss these issues with me personally. I haven't hidden. I'm in the book and I have this week off, which is why I've spent more time here than usual.

I've told you dozens of times what my motives were, and I'm the one who knows, not you. There were and are important Constitutional issues at stake, Matthew defended the Constitution and I was proud to support him.

Two years ago you were blasting me for supposedly trying to build a political career through Matthew. Now you want me to run for office. If I did, would you vote for me? <_<

Happy holidays to all, however you choose to celebrate or otherwise spend this wonderful time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's when I think of all the things that Paul has put this town through all for the sake of some sort of personal vendetta against the BOE, then that’s why I have such a negative opinion against him. He used his lawyer attitude to inconvenience a large number of people all for the sake of defending his son. He twisted the truth and thinks that his long winded comments make him look smarter than he really is. Look at how he responds to each of the posts that have an opposite view of his own. In all his posts I still wait for him to say his rebuttal is always "I don't understand...". His posts and replys are always one sided and never looks beyond that or dares too. But deep down inside he is just one of us people from Kearny, and he says he wants to do the right thing and have people do the right thing but he never does anything about it excepts blogs. Let's see him on the Board of Education, let’s see him run for Councilman, lets see him run for mayor. There you will find what the people of this town think of him and not what he boasts about himself here. And I am not alone in these feelings as well.

Merry Christmas.

Lincoln Logger-thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. Rather than jump to conclusions about what when on in Kearny back in 2006, I did some research of my own and went back into the archives of this website and others trying to make sense out of what you all experienced. I am not a resident of Kearny as I have stated before, and certainly do not know what it was like for any of you during that time period, but as an observer of the facts, I think they rather speak for themselves. It seems to me that the person who committed the wrong here was a teacher using his classroom as a pulpit and then adding insult to injury by trying to deny it until he was confronted with recordings. It seems to me that things only got out of hand when the school principal and the board, and then ultimately the community, refused to act and properly discipline the teacher, and instead tried to blame the young victim just because he was a kid and the teacher was a respected member of the community. I doubt very much that the Laclair's would have carried this any further had the teacher just copped to what he had done, apologized to young Matthew and stopped using his classroom as a church service. I think perhaps because his pride and integrity were questioned, he could not allow himself to do the thing that would have probably made this whole thing go away in a heartbeat. "Pride goeth before a fall" Where have a heard that before? Seems that someone who is a clergymen would understand the importance of honesty and not try to cover up his actions with lying and then resort to sarcasm "you caught the big fish" when his lies were discovered. That was one of the things that made me lose respect for Bill Clinton during the sex scandel time. It isn't what he did so much, but that he could not stop lying about it. Just be accountable for your actions. That's what the church is always teaching. Sounds like he just couldn't bear that he was made a fool of by a 16 year old kid, but the truth is, he made a fool of himself. I do not know that Laclair's personally, but I have met young Matthew, as I said before, and I found him to be a very well mannered, respectful and very knowledgeable about his field of study. That is a very limited perspective, I know, so I am not judging any of you on your feelings of hostility that you seem to feel toward this family. I do welcome you to enlighten me further, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*

...inconvenience a large number of people all for the sake of defending his son.

You obviously are not a father.

Just because you don't understand Paul's posts does not make them meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's when I think of all the things that Paul has put this town through all for the sake of some sort of personal vendetta against the BOE, then that’s why I have such a negative opinion against him. He used his lawyer attitude to inconvenience a large number of people all for the sake of defending his son. He twisted the truth and thinks that his long winded comments make him look smarter than he really is. Look at how he responds to each of the posts that have an opposite view of his own. In all his posts I still wait for him to say his rebuttal is always "I don't understand...". His posts and replys are always one sided and never looks beyond that or dares too. But deep down inside he is just one of us people from Kearny, and he says he wants to do the right thing and have people do the right thing but he never does anything about it excepts blogs. Let's see him on the Board of Education, let’s see him run for Councilman, lets see him run for mayor. There you will find what the people of this town think of him and not what he boasts about himself here. And I am not alone in these feelings as well.

Merry Christmas.

Fantasy-to-Reality Translation:

It's when I think of how Paul and Matthew stopped my favorite teacher from forcing his religious beliefs on his students and I agree with the teacher, then that’s why I have such a negative opinion against him. He used the law to stop improper conduct. He produced recordings that proved everything Matthew had said and won’t back down even though I’m really, really mad. Look at how he responds to each of the posts that have an opposite view of his own. If he doesn’t agree, he actually says why. His posts always say what he believes. But deep down inside he is just one of us people from Kearny, and he says he wants to do the right thing and have people do the right thing but I don’t really know what he does when he’s not writing on this blog. But I wouldn’t vote for him if he ran for dog catcher because like I said, I’m really, really mad, so

Have a Merry Christmas and if you don't like it do it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Guest @ Dec 22 2008, 04:26 PM)

The most unpopular thing a person can do is tell people what they do not wish to hear - especially when it's the truth.

Huh? don't get this. PLease explain

Paul says things people don't want to hear. Like telling people that they aren't necessarily patriotic just because they put their hand over their hearts and recite a pledge. How inconvenient, being told that you might actually have to do something to be a good citizen. How rude. Some Kearnyites who think they are Christians especially didn't like it when his son caught their favorite teacher red-handed, and especially didn't like it when neither of them would let go of his behind. Of course, if the teacher had just had the character to apologize as any decent person with a little humility would have done . . . But it didn't work out that way, so here we are two years later still arguing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
QUOTE (Guest @ Dec 22 2008, 04:26 PM)

The most unpopular thing a person can do is tell people what they do not wish to hear - especially when it's the truth.

Paul says things people don't want to hear. Like telling people that they aren't necessarily patriotic just because they put their hand over their hearts and recite a pledge. How inconvenient, being told that you might actually have to do something to be a good citizen. How rude. Some Kearnyites who think they are Christians especially didn't like it when his son caught their favorite teacher red-handed, and especially didn't like it when neither of them would let go of his behind. Of course, if the teacher had just had the character to apologize as any decent person with a little humility would have done . . . But it didn't work out that way, so here we are two years later still arguing about it.

Thanks, Guest (of the minion brigade).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lincoln Logger-thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. Rather than jump to conclusions about what when on in Kearny back in 2006, I did some research of my own and went back into the archives of this website and others trying to make sense out of what you all experienced. I am not a resident of Kearny as I have stated before, and certainly do not know what it was like for any of you during that time period, but as an observer of the facts, I think they rather speak for themselves. It seems to me that the person who committed the wrong here was a teacher using his classroom as a pulpit and then adding insult to injury by trying to deny it until he was confronted with recordings. It seems to me that things only got out of hand when the school principal and the board, and then ultimately the community, refused to act and properly discipline the teacher, and instead tried to blame the young victim just because he was a kid and the teacher was a respected member of the community. I doubt very much that the Laclair's would have carried this any further had the teacher just copped to what he had done, apologized to young Matthew and stopped using his classroom as a church service. I think perhaps because his pride and integrity were questioned, he could not allow himself to do the thing that would have probably made this whole thing go away in a heartbeat. "Pride goeth before a fall" Where have a heard that before? Seems that someone who is a clergymen would understand the importance of honesty and not try to cover up his actions with lying and then resort to sarcasm "you caught the big fish" when his lies were discovered. That was one of the things that made me lose respect for Bill Clinton during the sex scandel time. It isn't what he did so much, but that he could not stop lying about it. Just be accountable for your actions. That's what the church is always teaching. Sounds like he just couldn't bear that he was made a fool of by a 16 year old kid, but the truth is, he made a fool of himself. I do not know that Laclair's personally, but I have met young Matthew, as I said before, and I found him to be a very well mannered, respectful and very knowledgeable about his field of study. That is a very limited perspective, I know, so I am not judging any of you on your feelings of hostility that you seem to feel toward this family. I do welcome you to enlighten me further, however.

It's really not so black and white. What you view as preaching can just as easily be viewed as a discussion of religion. A discussion which was fuelled mainly by Matthew. A discussion that the teacher said if it made anyone uncomfortable would stop.

You also don't know Matthew's history going back to grammar school. He views himself as an activist, which is fine. However, he doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he proves his point.

This could have all been avoided had Paul met with the Superintendent and HS Principal. Instead he encouraged Matthew to secretly tape the teacher. This is the tactic that most people found sneaky and under-handed and led people to be against the LaClairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not so black and white. What you view as preaching can just as easily be viewed as a discussion of religion. A discussion which was fuelled mainly by Matthew.

False. It was blatant preaching, initiated and led by the teacher in every instance. The facts are clearly spelled out here: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=17885

When are you going to admit the fact that David Paszkiewicz is a religious zealot who thinks Christianity should be promoted in the public schools? He flat out said it. It's on the recordings.

A discussion that the teacher said if it made anyone uncomfortable would stop.

The teacher gets no credit for "volunteering" to stop doing what he had no right to do in the first place. He knew he had no right doing it, but did it anyway. As the Supreme Court has ruled, a student should not have to complain to get the teacher to follow the law.

You also don't know Matthew's history going back to grammar school. He views himself as an activist, which is fine. However, he doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he proves his point.

You can claim that all day long. There is no evidence for it. Who was hurt? No one except the teacher, who brought it on himself.

This could have all been avoided had Paul met with the Superintendent and HS Principal. Instead he encouraged Matthew to secretly tape the teacher. This is the tactic that most people found sneaky and under-handed and led people to be against the LaClairs.

False. Without a recording of the teacher's improper behavior, Paul meeting with them would have been no different than Matthew meeting with them. The teacher would have lied and gotten away with it. With the recording, he lied and got caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not so black and white. What you view as preaching can just as easily be viewed as a discussion of religion. A discussion which was fuelled mainly by Matthew. A discussion that the teacher said if it made anyone uncomfortable would stop.

You also don't know Matthew's history going back to grammar school. He views himself as an activist, which is fine. However, he doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he proves his point.

This could have all been avoided had Paul met with the Superintendent and HS Principal. Instead he encouraged Matthew to secretly tape the teacher. This is the tactic that most people found sneaky and under-handed and led people to be against the LaClairs.

I am a teacher of sorts. I teach theatre in a public school system. Even though I am not an employee of the district, I still have to use common sense when approached by my students about certain topics. We did a show a few years ago called "America Rocks" about the history of our country and had to deal with a student who did not want to wear a red, white and blue sparkly hat because she thought it was unpatriotic. As silly as I thought that was I had to make it work without a lecture about my personal beliefs. We also just did a show called the "Christmas Toy" Even though this show contained nothing about the religious significance of Christmas, we were unable to perform the play during school hours because it contained this word. I also was unable to perform the song Aquarius in another show because of the religious beliefs of parents of some of these students. (I fought that one however) I have a great number of young actors with varied belief systems. They have no idea that I am a Secular Humanist because I do not discuss it. It has nothing to do with me teaching them the art of theatre. This teacher should have known better whether the student egged on the conversation or not. He is the adult with all the years of teaching behind him and should not have been manipulated in this way. But, when you listen to the tape, he does not sound manipulated at all. He sounds more than willing to answer the question and add his own spin to it. As many years as this had been going on, it is hard for me to believe this was the first time he was called on it. Perhaps other students (or their parents) had complained and nothing was ever done about it because the teacher always had "plausible deniability" so to speak. Only when evidence was presented that was undeniable did the teacher fess up in then react in anger. If Matthew thinks of himself as an activist (and this has been known since grade school) then it can only be stupidity that would motivate a teacher to challenge such a student with illegal activity, which only weakens his case further. If Matthew is truly an activist, then it is his job and responsibility to do what he did. That seems to be the only way positive change can be implemented in this world is for a few brave individuals to go against the grain and stand up for what is right. Who was it who said "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
I am a teacher of sorts. I teach theatre in a public school system. Even though I am not an employee of the district, I still have to use common sense when approached by my students about certain topics. We did a show a few years ago called "America Rocks" about the history of our country and had to deal with a student who did not want to wear a red, white and blue sparkly hat because she thought it was unpatriotic. As silly as I thought that was I had to make it work without a lecture about my personal beliefs. We also just did a show called the "Christmas Toy" Even though this show contained nothing about the religious significance of Christmas, we were unable to perform the play during school hours because it contained this word. I also was unable to perform the song Aquarius in another show because of the religious beliefs of parents of some of these students. (I fought that one however) I have a great number of young actors with varied belief systems. They have no idea that I am a Secular Humanist because I do not discuss it. It has nothing to do with me teaching them the art of theatre. This teacher should have known better whether the student egged on the conversation or not. He is the adult with all the years of teaching behind him and should not have been manipulated in this way. But, when you listen to the tape, he does not sound manipulated at all. He sounds more than willing to answer the question and add his own spin to it. As many years as this had been going on, it is hard for me to believe this was the first time he was called on it. Perhaps other students (or their parents) had complained and nothing was ever done about it because the teacher always had "plausible deniability" so to speak. Only when evidence was presented that was undeniable did the teacher fess up in then react in anger. If Matthew thinks of himself as an activist (and this has been known since grade school) then it can only be stupidity that would motivate a teacher to challenge such a student with illegal activity, which only weakens his case further. If Matthew is truly an activist, then it is his job and responsibility to do what he did. That seems to be the only way positive change can be implemented in this world is for a few brave individuals to go against the grain and stand up for what is right. Who was it who said "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing"

Give it up, Paul. What a pathetic attempt to raise a "patriotic display" issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not so black and white. What you view as preaching can just as easily be viewed as a discussion of religion. A discussion which was fuelled mainly by Matthew. A discussion that the teacher said if it made anyone uncomfortable would stop.

You also don't know Matthew's history going back to grammar school. He views himself as an activist, which is fine. However, he doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he proves his point.

This could have all been avoided had Paul met with the Superintendent and HS Principal. Instead he encouraged Matthew to secretly tape the teacher. This is the tactic that most people found sneaky and under-handed and led people to be against the LaClairs.

What could have been avoided is the truth. You're upset because the truth came out and you don't like it. I listened to those recordings. Matthew DID NOT start those discussions. Paszkiewicz did. In fact, Matthew tried to discuss proper subjects like the purpose of public education. Paszkiewicz insisted on bringing it back to religion. Matthew had every right to stand up for his point of view after the teacher made it obvious that he was hell-bent on pushing his religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not so black and white. What you view as preaching can just as easily be viewed as a discussion of religion. A discussion which was fuelled mainly by Matthew. A discussion that the teacher said if it made anyone uncomfortable would stop.

You also don't know Matthew's history going back to grammar school. He views himself as an activist, which is fine. However, he doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he proves his point.

This could have all been avoided had Paul met with the Superintendent and HS Principal. Instead he encouraged Matthew to secretly tape the teacher. This is the tactic that most people found sneaky and under-handed and led people to be against the LaClairs.

No, it is that black-and-white. Even the Rutherford Institute came out publicly against what Paszkiewicz did. You can only make the statement you made if you don't care whether teachers proselytize their religion in the public schools.

Aside from all the other points that have been made, the superintendent you refer to, who will be leaving the Kearny school system at the end of this week, defended Mr. Paszkiewicz with the recordings in hand and the headlines splashed all over the newspapers. It's quite a stretch to criticize me for not submitting the matter to him under any circumstances, let alone without proof to back up what Matthew was saying. Remember Paszkiewicz's own words: there are 26 other students in that class, and if you ask them, they'll agree with me (Paszkiewicz). You're still living in a fantasy world after more than two years of this. If we had done it your way, that would have been the end of it alright, and Matthew would have been branded a liar the remainder of his time at Kearny High. People called him plenty of names anyway because they didn't like the outcome, but even the worst of them had to admit he had told the truth.

Finally, I don't think you understand activism. The purpose of activism is to succeed within proper bounds of conduct. Matthew's conduct was entirely within the law and entirely fair. The conflict arose because Mr. Paszkiewicz's defense of himself did not conform to the facts. By your definition of activism, it's OK to stand for an issue so long as you don't actually try to prevail. It doesn't work that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it up, Paul. What a pathetic attempt to raise a "patriotic display" issue.

You are just not going to give up believing that I am Paul are you? You should change your screen name, seriously. Now, I see how some people make up their minds in Kearny. They make an assumption about something, with no proof, and then just start hurling accusations. Like I said in my post on the other topic-I came here hoping to engage in intelligent conversation and possibly healthy debate regarding the issues but I can see anything I say is going to fall under the scrutiny of closed minded, ignorant and arrogant individuals such as this. You are such a hypocrite-whoever you are. You don't even have the guts to post under your true name but then have the audacity to draw conclusions about the identity of others. Send me a personal message with your email address and I will do the same, then we can straighten this out once and for all. I dare you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is that black-and-white. Even the Rutherford Institute came out publicly against what Paszkiewicz did. You can only make the statement you made if you don't care whether teachers proselytize their religion in the public schools.

Aside from all the other points that have been made, the superintendent you refer to, who will be leaving the Kearny school system at the end of this week, defended Mr. Paszkiewicz with the recordings in hand and the headlines splashed all over the newspapers. It's quite a stretch to criticize me for not submitting the matter to him under any circumstances, let alone without proof to back up what Matthew was saying. Remember Paszkiewicz's own words: there are 26 other students in that class, and if you ask them, they'll agree with me (Paszkiewicz). You're still living in a fantasy world after more than two years of this. If we had done it your way, that would have been the end of it alright, and Matthew would have been branded a liar the remainder of his time at Kearny High. People called him plenty of names anyway because they didn't like the outcome, but even the worst of them had to admit he had told the truth.

Finally, I don't think you understand activism. The purpose of activism is to succeed within proper bounds of conduct. Matthew's conduct was entirely within the law and entirely fair. The conflict arose because Mr. Paszkiewicz's defense of himself did not conform to the facts. By your definition of activism, it's OK to stand for an issue so long as you don't actually try to prevail. It doesn't work that way.

I guess it all depends on how you define the meaning of proselytizing. Sort of like the what the meaning "is" is. I really don't care what happens to Paszkiewicz. I think he should stick to the curriculum because he sounds a little silly when he is talking about religion and evolution.

I don't think that activism is to succeed by any means necessary nor do I think Matthew's conduct was entirely fair. You could have gone through the chain of command first and then if you hadn't gotten the results you sought Matthew still could have recorded Paszkiewicz. You didn't. And then you claimed that the Superintendent and Principal wouldn't allow you to be present in the meetings with Paszkiewicz. I find difficult to believe that they would have kept you from the meetings or that you would have stood for it.

Are you trying to imply that the Superintendent is leaving because of this issue?

What you don't like is that instead of branding Matthew a liar he has been branded a a sneak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it all depends on how you define the meaning of proselytizing. Sort of like the what the meaning "is" is. I really don't care what happens to Paszkiewicz. I think he should stick to the curriculum because he sounds a little silly when he is talking about religion and evolution.

I don't think that activism is to succeed by any means necessary nor do I think Matthew's conduct was entirely fair. You could have gone through the chain of command first and then if you hadn't gotten the results you sought Matthew still could have recorded Paszkiewicz. You didn't. And then you claimed that the Superintendent and Principal wouldn't allow you to be present in the meetings with Paszkiewicz. I find difficult to believe that they would have kept you from the meetings or that you would have stood for it.

Are you trying to imply that the Superintendent is leaving because of this issue?

What you don't like is that instead of branding Matthew a liar he has been branded a a sneak.

Pardon me for being so bold, but that's ridiculous. You don't put a wrongdoer on notice that you're onto him. You get the evidence, then let him either tell the truth or deny it. The point wasn't just to stop Paszkiewicz from preaching in that one class. It was to get him to stop improper behavior in the long term.

And there's nothing unfair about recording a teacher in a public school. He is on our time, supposedly teaching our kids. We have an absolute right to know exactly what he is saying.

I have no idea why the Superintendent is leaving, but this issue didn't help him in my opinion. His handling of it was abysmal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
You are just not going to give up believing that I am Paul are you? You should change your screen name, seriously. Now, I see how some people make up their minds in Kearny. They make an assumption about something, with no proof, and then just start hurling accusations. Like I said in my post on the other topic-I came here hoping to engage in intelligent conversation and possibly healthy debate regarding the issues but I can see anything I say is going to fall under the scrutiny of closed minded, ignorant and arrogant individuals such as this. You are such a hypocrite-whoever you are. You don't even have the guts to post under your true name but then have the audacity to draw conclusions about the identity of others. Send me a personal message with your email address and I will do the same, then we can straighten this out once and for all. I dare you!

Paul, your fingerprints are all over this post. Give it up and stick to "Guest" postings to support your long-winded ramblings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you don't like is that instead of branding Matthew a liar he has been branded a a sneak.

That is your opinion. The opinion of a small minority.

An opinion refuted by the rest of the world. All you have to do is look at the numerous accolades he has received, the many stories and editorials written in his favor, the numerous speaking engagements he has been offered.

The rest of the world has found Matthew to be a courageous individual who has stood up for his rights and the rights of his fellow students against much adversity. He stopped a teacher from proselytizing his personal religious views on the tax payers dime and time. A teacher who lied until confronted by Matthew's tapes.

In the old days, which so many of you conservatives love, a teacher caught lying without union protection would be terminated for moral turpitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it all depends on how you define the meaning of proselytizing. Sort of like the what the meaning "is" is. I really don't care what happens to Paszkiewicz. I think he should stick to the curriculum because he sounds a little silly when he is talking about religion and evolution.

I don't think that activism is to succeed by any means necessary nor do I think Matthew's conduct was entirely fair. You could have gone through the chain of command first and then if you hadn't gotten the results you sought Matthew still could have recorded Paszkiewicz. You didn't. And then you claimed that the Superintendent and Principal wouldn't allow you to be present in the meetings with Paszkiewicz. I find difficult to believe that they would have kept you from the meetings or that you would have stood for it.

Are you trying to imply that the Superintendent is leaving because of this issue?

What you don't like is that instead of branding Matthew a liar he has been branded a a sneak.

You're missing the point that if Matthew hadn't recorded Paszkiewicz, he would have been branded a liar and would have had no way to prove that he was telling the truth. So his only other choice was to do nothing, which is obviously what you would have preferred. Matthew chose a course that worked, and the only course that would work. You're the one who doesn't like the outcome. After more than two years, it's time for you to stop whining about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, your fingerprints are all over this post. Give it up and stick to "Guest" postings to support your long-winded ramblings.

I see you will not accept my challenge. Like so many closed minded individuals, you have decided what is true and you will stick to it regardless of how big a fool you make of yourself and won't listen to any evidence to the contrary. But, it seems like this has been your MO here all along from what I have read in archives. But, you can go on thinking that I am Paul, that's okay. He writes intelligently and tends to stick to the issues which is what I decided to post here in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...