The Muslim student P thinks is bound for hell

[Stixx3969]

How do you draw the assumption that anyone's "worried" ??  The point was  the obsession that some pathethic creatures have with internet message boards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spoken like a true "Pathetic Creature"

[Guest Paul]

How do you draw the assumption that anyone's "worried" ??  The point was  the obsession that some pathethic creatures have with internet message boards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Worry" is an accurate description because it's obvious that Mr. P's apologists do not like the outcome. The "point" you say you made is pointless.

[Guest Paul]

In my country we do not go back to the same area once we know that there was a snake in it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A snake bites and injects venom. In this case, the teacher was bitten and poisoned with his own words. "It's your fault, you shouldn't have told on me." The anology makes no sense.

Mr. Paszkiewicz has said publicly that he hopes the entire world will listen to the recordings. Matthew has made that possible. What's the problem?

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Dave, I appreciate all your comments, and agree with many of them.

I see no point in trying to judge a historical figure so far removed from us in time. So a more relevant question is: how are the teachings being used. Of course, this varies from community to community, culture to culture. In general, though, to those who see Jesus as divine, the answer heads in one direction, to those who see him as a teacher, the answer heads in another. You're making another point, which is valid, but mainly to the extent of trying to judge the person. I'm asking: why do that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When a historical figure's teachings can, and are being used as a springboard for promoting things such as bigotry and divisiveness within our communities, then I feel that it's essential to judge whether the words of that historical figure are on the whole sane and rational, or whether they are predominantly fanatical and cultish.

In this regard, I can't see why Jesus' teachings should be allowed to avoid critical scrutiny, whilst other historical figures are put under the microscope, and their utterances scrupulously examined for their internal consistency and practical utility. If for example a person suggested in one breath that we should respect all of our neighbours, and then in another breath proceeded to denigrate certain individuals simply because they happened to disagree with his theology, then why shouldn't we pass judgement on the overall message which we hear coming from his lips? Who likes a hypocrite?

Why should we refrain from passing judgment on the thought processes of people such as Joseph Smith, or Rev. Sun Myung Moon, or Brigham Young, or L. Ron Hubbard, or Charles Taze Russell, or Mohammed, or Jesus the Nazarene? These men were and are very influential religious leaders, whose opinions and teachings influence the lives of millions.

If we were to suspend all analysis and criticism of their teachings, then surely we would find ourselves in the position of having to accept that ‘anything goes’ with respect to their esoteric theological speculations.

For example, how many Australians and Americans believe that polygamy is either acceptable or desirable in our modern societies? Those of us who don’t see it as being desirable, have therefore cast judgement on one of the fundamental teachings of Joseph Smith. Surely this must influence our overall opinion of the man? Suppose that an influential public figure suggested that human slavery is acceptable, even though he openly supported many other popular social issues of the day? Am I supposed to refrain from passing judgment on his general character, in spite of the fact that he says that it’s OK to own another human being?

My point is that whether we like it or not, we all make judgements about people based on their words and actions. This is normal, healthy behaviour. Those of us who are incapable of judging whether an idea or action is helpful or destructive, will be ruthlessly exploited by unscrupulous charlatans and lunatics.

One thing that is sadly lacking in Australian schools (and I suspect even more so in American schools) is the teaching of basic critical thinking skills. Both you and Matthew have robust, well-developed critical thinking skills. Unfortunately many people haven’t, and seem to have no desire to acquire them. This, as you would be well aware, can be very frustrating for someone like me who has ‘been there, done that’, so to speak.

Sometimes it’s difficult to avoid blunt criticism, especially if one feels that blunt criticism is what is required to drive home an important point. Perhaps I’m just more predisposed to throwing brickbats, rather than roses.

I firmly believe that we can make a fair and accurate assessment of someone’s mental health, based on the entirety of what they say, not just the bits that sound appealing to us. Crazy people say normal things a lot of the time, but if they are in the habit of following a sensible utterance with something which is just plain batshit insane, then I feel that it’s reasonable to conclude that there is something going wrong between their ears. In coming to such a conclusion, I will have unavoidably passed judgment on them.

The admonition that people should start amputating body parts if they happen to lead us into temptation, is just one example of something which I would not expect any sane and rational person to recommend. If that’s being overly judgmental, then I plead ‘guilty as charged Your Honour’.

[Guest Patriot]

When a historical figure's teachings can, and are being used as a springboard for promoting things such as bigotry and divisiveness within our communities, then I feel that it's essential to judge whether the words of that historical figure are on the whole sane and rational, or whether they are predominantly fanatical and cultish.

In this regard, I can't see why Jesus' teachings should be allowed to avoid critical scrutiny, whilst other historical figures are put under the microscope, and their utterances scrupulously examined for their internal consistency and practical utility. If for example a person suggested in one breath that we should respect all of our neighbours, and then in another breath proceeded to denigrate certain individuals simply because they happened to disagree with his theology, then why shouldn't we pass judgement on the overall message which we hear coming from his lips? Who likes a hypocrite?

Why should we refrain from passing judgment on the thought processes of  people such as Joseph Smith, or Rev. Sun Myung Moon, or Brigham Young, or L. Ron Hubbard, or Charles Taze Russell, or Mohammed, or Jesus the Nazarene? These men were and are very influential religious leaders, whose opinions and teachings influence the lives of millions.

If we were to suspend all analysis and criticism of their teachings, then surely we would find ourselves in the position of having to accept that ‘anything goes’ with respect to their esoteric theological speculations.

For example, how many Australians and Americans believe that polygamy is either acceptable or desirable in our modern societies? Those of us who don’t see it as being desirable, have therefore cast judgement on one of the fundamental teachings of Joseph Smith. Surely this must influence our overall opinion of the man? Suppose that an influential public figure suggested that human slavery is acceptable, even though he openly supported many other popular social issues of the day? Am I supposed to refrain from passing judgment on his general character, in spite of the fact that he says that it’s OK to own another human being?

My point is that whether we like it or not, we all make judgements about people based on their words and actions. This is normal, healthy behaviour. Those of us who are incapable of judging whether an idea or action is helpful or destructive, will be ruthlessly exploited by unscrupulous charlatans and lunatics.

One thing that is sadly lacking in Australian schools (and I suspect even more so in American schools) is the teaching of basic critical thinking skills. Both you and Matthew have robust, well-developed critical thinking skills. Unfortunately many people haven’t, and seem to have no desire to acquire them. This, as you would be well aware, can be very frustrating for someone like me who has ‘been there, done that’, so to speak.

Sometimes it’s difficult to avoid blunt criticism, especially if one feels that blunt criticism is what is required to drive home an important point. Perhaps I’m just more predisposed to throwing brickbats, rather than roses.

I firmly believe that we can make a fair and accurate assessment of someone’s mental health, based on the entirety of what they say, not just the bits that sound appealing to us. Crazy people say normal things a lot of the time, but if they are in the habit of following a sensible utterance with something which is just plain batshit insane, then I feel that it’s reasonable to conclude that there is something going wrong between their ears. In coming to such a conclusion, I will have unavoidably passed judgment on them.

The admonition that people should start amputating body parts if they happen to lead us into temptation, is just one example of something which I would not expect any sane and rational person to recommend. If that’s being overly judgmental, then I plead ‘guilty as charged Your Honour’. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NEWS FLASH : In the 2007 "Diarrhea Of The Mouth Award" contest, Dingo Dave has just taken over 2nd place from Strife and is now hot on the heels of last year's winner, Paul. It's still early in the year but Dingo shows no signs of letting up and may give Paul a real challange in his quest to repeat as champion. It looks like we have two strong contenders and it could go down to the wire in December. We will be following this exciting race closely and reporting the standings monthly right here on this thread. Good luck to all contestants !!

[Guest Guest]

You assume it's unpopular. I disagree. From all the evidence I've seen, it is widely popular outside Kearny, in fact the support appears to be nearly uniform. Within Kearny there appears to be a small but highly vocal group of critics who've tried to deflect attention from the teacher's conduct by focusing on the student's conduct and motives, both of which are legally irrelevant.

Instead of getting all twisted around that I've asked a question you can't answer or made a comment you can't resond to with a cogent argument, put the proposition to the test. If this was a kid who held up a grocery store, would it get all this attention, or anywhere near? If not, why not? If you can't answer that question honestly, logically, reasonably and substantively, then you're not looking at this clearly. Oh, and yes, I'm entitled to say that. You don't have to agree, but I invite you to think about the question and see whether you can answer it. If you don't think Matthew was operating from the "right reason," then say why. Don't you think that's your obligation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is unpopular and does draw unjust attention to this town. You have the right to disagree just as much as I have the right to agree.

Keep kidding yourself that the numbers of people that disapprove of your tactics are small. In fact it is EXTREMELY LARGE. Why is it so important that Mr. P has to personally apologize to you? Why is it your obligation?

You just crave the attention and will talk to anyone and probably sell your soul if you haven’t already done that get an apology. The whole town knows it.

I do not believe Matthew was "operating" for the right reason. That is my opinion. As you son has said publicly, he never even approached the teacher to confront him on it prior to the release of the tapes so we would never know what would have been done. Secretly taping just doesn't cut it as being morally correct either?

If I go to the yearbook for the years that Matthew LaClair is in Kearny High, what am I going to find for his accomplishments? Sports? Band? Activities? You ask the students of a school to support him when he has not supported the school. He is suppose to be representing the students of this school standing up for the Constitution. However bringing down the name of the school that he belongs to along with the Board of Education does a great injustice to the community. But he doesn't know these students at all, nor do you know the parents of them either.

[Guest My life in Kearny]

He doesn't know him. He never once went to talk to him.

Thank God for the people that does know Mr. P. and knows that he

is not the kind of person Paul is painting him to be.

And for the ones that does not know him keep in mind that Paul has an agenda.

His goal is to tarnish Mr. P.'s name and destroy his reputation.

Before you buy into what Paul has spread, go talk to Mr. P., he is a great guy and very approachable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I completely agree with this person. The reason Mr. LaClair has to go outside of Kearny is because the people of this town know what kind of person he is and many do admire him.

You can poll any of the prior classes that have had him. There are so many students that have learned from him and completely enjoyed having him as a teacher. Like the upcoming elections, don't judge him because of one or two person's slanted outbursts here. Go talk to him, judge for yourself.

[Guest Paul]

When a historical figure's teachings can, and are being used as a springboard for promoting things such as bigotry and divisiveness within our communities, then I feel that it's essential to judge whether the words of that historical figure are on the whole sane and rational, or whether they are predominantly fanatical and cultish.

In this regard, I can't see why Jesus' teachings should be allowed to avoid critical scrutiny, whilst other historical figures are put under the microscope, and their utterances scrupulously examined for their internal consistency and practical utility. If for example a person suggested in one breath that we should respect all of our neighbours, and then in another breath proceeded to denigrate certain individuals simply because they happened to disagree with his theology, then why shouldn't we pass judgement on the overall message which we hear coming from his lips? Who likes a hypocrite?

Why should we refrain from passing judgment on the thought processes of  people such as Joseph Smith, or Rev. Sun Myung Moon, or Brigham Young, or L. Ron Hubbard, or Charles Taze Russell, or Mohammed, or Jesus the Nazarene? These men were and are very influential religious leaders, whose opinions and teachings influence the lives of millions.

If we were to suspend all analysis and criticism of their teachings, then surely we would find ourselves in the position of having to accept that ‘anything goes’ with respect to their esoteric theological speculations.

For example, how many Australians and Americans believe that polygamy is either acceptable or desirable in our modern societies? Those of us who don’t see it as being desirable, have therefore cast judgement on one of the fundamental teachings of Joseph Smith. Surely this must influence our overall opinion of the man? Suppose that an influential public figure suggested that human slavery is acceptable, even though he openly supported many other popular social issues of the day? Am I supposed to refrain from passing judgment on his general character, in spite of the fact that he says that it’s OK to own another human being?

My point is that whether we like it or not, we all make judgements about people based on their words and actions. This is normal, healthy behaviour. Those of us who are incapable of judging whether an idea or action is helpful or destructive, will be ruthlessly exploited by unscrupulous charlatans and lunatics.

One thing that is sadly lacking in Australian schools (and I suspect even more so in American schools) is the teaching of basic critical thinking skills. Both you and Matthew have robust, well-developed critical thinking skills. Unfortunately many people haven’t, and seem to have no desire to acquire them. This, as you would be well aware, can be very frustrating for someone like me who has ‘been there, done that’, so to speak.

Sometimes it’s difficult to avoid blunt criticism, especially if one feels that blunt criticism is what is required to drive home an important point. Perhaps I’m just more predisposed to throwing brickbats, rather than roses.

I firmly believe that we can make a fair and accurate assessment of someone’s mental health, based on the entirety of what they say, not just the bits that sound appealing to us. Crazy people say normal things a lot of the time, but if they are in the habit of following a sensible utterance with something which is just plain batshit insane, then I feel that it’s reasonable to conclude that there is something going wrong between their ears. In coming to such a conclusion, I will have unavoidably passed judgment on them.

The admonition that people should start amputating body parts if they happen to lead us into temptation, is just one example of something which I would not expect any sane and rational person to recommend. If that’s being overly judgmental, then I plead ‘guilty as charged Your Honour’. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dave, I respect your obvious intellegence too much to sort out the here-and-there fallacies in your arguments. Compare your posts one against another and you'll see yourself shifting ground here and there. Just as one example, look at your first paragraph in the above post, and evaluate it in light of the one from me to which you are responding. You'll see yourself shifting the argument.

You're making good arguments, but you seem to be reacting viscerally against Christianity. That only weakens your argument.

[Strife767]

It is unpopular and does draw unjust attention to this town.  You have the right to disagree just as much as I have the right to agree. 

Keep kidding yourself that the numbers of people that disapprove of your tactics are small.  In fact it is EXTREMELY LARGE. Why is it so important that Mr. P has to personally apologize to you? Why is it your obligation?

Mr. P. has a lot more people to apologize to than Paul.

You just crave the attention and will talk to anyone and probably sell your soul if you haven’t already done that get an apology.  The whole town knows it.

You != Kearny.

I do not believe Matthew was "operating" for the right reason.  That is my opinion. As you son has said publicly, he never even approached the teacher to confront him on it prior to the release of the tapes so we would never know what would have been done.  Secretly taping just doesn't cut it as being morally correct either?

When it's evidence gathering for someone who is doing things they shouldn't be doing at work, what's the problem? You obviously just don't like that he got caught.

If I go to the yearbook for the years that Matthew LaClair is in Kearny High, what am I going to find for his accomplishments?  Sports? Band? Activities?  You ask the students of a school to support him when he has not supported the school.

So a students needs to participate in X curricular activities before the school will support them? Ridiculous.

The school should support him because he did the right thing. End of story.

He is suppose to be representing the students of this school standing up for the Constitution.

That's pretty much what he's doing.

However bringing down the name of the school that he belongs to along with the Board of Education does a great injustice to the community.

You must be confused--the ones who tarnished the school's reputation are Mr. P. and his apologists.

But he doesn't know these students at all, nor do you know the parents of them either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So one should never do anything to protect the rights of people you don't know? How patriotic.

[Strife767]

I completely agree with this person.  The reason Mr. LaClair has to go outside of Kearny is because the people of this town know what kind of person he is and many do admire him.

That is no excuse for looking the other way when he does something wrong. If my best friend does something this reprehensible, they should expect I won't ignore it. That doesn't mean I've betrayed that person or anything.

A true friend is willing to point out flaws.

You can poll any of the prior classes that have had him.  There are so many students that have learned from him and completely enjoyed having him as a teacher.

And then there are the students who reveal additional heinous statements. Whoops.

Like the upcoming elections, don't judge him because of one or two person's slanted outbursts here.  Go talk to him, judge for yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about listening to the recordings? Those are his words. Listen to him and judge for yourself.

[Guest Kearny Kard]

NEWS FLASH :  In the 2007 "Diarrhea Of The Mouth Award" contest, Dingo Dave has just taken over 2nd place from Strife and is now hot on the heels of last year's winner, Paul.  It's still early in the year but Dingo shows  no signs of letting up and may give Paul a real challange in his quest to repeat as champion. It looks like we have two strong contenders and it could go down to the wire in December. We will be following this exciting race closely and reporting the standings monthly right here on this thread. Good luck to all contestants !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent !! LMAO !!

[Guest Paul]

It is unpopular and does draw unjust attention to this town.  You have the right to disagree just as much as I have the right to agree. 

Keep kidding yourself that the numbers of people that disapprove of your tactics are small.  In fact it is EXTREMELY LARGE. Why is it so important that Mr. P has to personally apologize to you? Why is it your obligation?

You just crave the attention and will talk to anyone and probably sell your soul if you haven’t already done that get an apology.  The whole town knows it.

I do not believe Matthew was "operating" for the right reason.  That is my opinion. As you son has said publicly, he never even approached the teacher to confront him on it prior to the release of the tapes so we would never know what would have been done.  Secretly taping just doesn't cut it as being morally correct either? 

If I go to the yearbook for the years that Matthew LaClair is in Kearny High, what am I going to find for his accomplishments?  Sports? Band? Activities?  You ask the students of a school to support him when he has not supported the school. He is suppose to be representing the students of this school standing up for the Constitution. However bringing down the name of the school that he belongs to along with the Board of Education does a great injustice to the community. But he doesn't know these students at all, nor do you know the parents of them either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just have a bug about Matthew. Not everyone achieves within the school. Matthew's theatre experience, for example, is mainly at Studio Players in Montclair, and a lead in an Off-Broadway show. He won an oratorical contest in 8th grade, with a scholarship, and was honored at the BoE for that. He also won second place in a talent competition held at KHS when he was in sixth grade. He has gained tremendous national and international support for his stance on this issue, along with two honorary awards and two cash awards --- so far. That is because people recognize and honor his courage, his integrity and his commitment to the Constitution. He is scheduled for the stage at the New York Ethical Culture Society on July 1. The program is advertised in the New York Times, and I believe it is still broadcast on radio. I believe he will be by far the youngest person ever given that stage, which has been host to many notable people, including Mario Cuomo and many others of a similar stature.

You don't get it. Matthew doesn't take everyone else's path. He takes his own path, and so far he's doing very well with it. You just don't like the fact that he succeeds by doing things differently.

As for an apology from Mr. P, if you don't like the answer, stop asking the question. I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. You people keep asking the same question, as though I'm going to start giving a different answer if you ask the question enough times. When are you going to learn: we don't operate that way.

And as for the students: they're old enough to understand the Constitution and the value of science. They should be standing up for that. It has nothing to do with Matthew.

[Guest Paul]

I completely agree with this person.  The reason Mr. LaClair has to go outside of Kearny is because the people of this town know what kind of person he is and many do admire him.

You can poll any of the prior classes that have had him.  There are so many students that have learned from him and completely enjoyed having him as a teacher.  Like the upcoming elections, don't judge him because of one or two person's slanted outbursts here.  Go talk to him, judge for yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not about "slanted outbursts," and it's not about judging the person. It's about improper conduct, which is on record for all to hear.

[Guest Guest]

If I had it to do over again, I would have deleted her name from the original recordings we distributed. To that extent, you're right. We did delete the multiple mentions of her name from the recording of the October 10 meeting, and her last name has never been made public so I doubt that anyone outside Kearny is likely to find out who she is unless someone from within Kearny deliberately identifies her.

However, the fact is, she was brought up publicly in the classroom, by name, by classmates, not Matthew. That's not a private setting. Mr. Paszkiewicz used her name twice in rendering his judgment. Why is no one upset about this girl being spoken of in class at all in that fashion? It should never have been done in the first place.

Perhaps what's really bothering you is that you cannot defend Mr. Paszkiewicz's conduct. Notice your response: You don't even try. So instead, you try to shift the blame to the people who exposed it. The people who used this girl's name, especially the teacher in saying that she is doomed to hell, should have recognized the possible consequences of that action, and not used her name in that way in the first place. I just admitted that I should have done this differently. When will Mr. Paszkiewicz admit that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everything is "I" "I" "I", and I thought that Matthew had accted on his own. At least that's what you said before...Now all of a sudden is "If I had it..." and "I should have.." where is Matthew in all of these? You did try to give Matthew some credit at first, but eventually you are showing the truth...it is not Matthew or We, it is I!

[Guest Guest]

You just have a bug about Matthew. Not everyone achieves within the school. Matthew's theatre experience, for example, is mainly at Studio Players in Montclair, and a lead in an Off-Broadway show. He won an oratorical contest in 8th grade, with a scholarship, and was honored at the BoE for that. He also won second place in a talent competition held at KHS when he was in sixth grade. He has gained tremendous national and international support for his stance on this issue, along with two honorary awards and two cash awards --- so far. That is because people recognize and honor his courage, his integrity and his commitment to the Constitution. He is scheduled for the stage at the New York Ethical Culture Society on July 1. The program is advertised in the New York Times, and I believe it is still broadcast on radio. I believe he will be by far the youngest person ever given that stage, which has been host to many notable people, including Mario Cuomo and many others of a similar stature.

You don't get it. Matthew doesn't take everyone else's path. He takes his own path, and so far he's doing very well with it. You just don't like the fact that he succeeds by doing things differently.

As for an apology from Mr. P, if you don't like the answer, stop asking the question. I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. You people keep asking the same question, as though I'm going to start giving a different answer if you ask the question enough times. When are you going to learn: we don't operate that way.

And as for the students: they're old enough to understand the Constitution and the value of science. They should be standing up for that. It has nothing to do with Matthew.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to admit, he is an excellent actor!

[Foger]

So one should never do anything to protect the rights of people you don't know? How patriotic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, a harm to one is a harm to all.

[Guest Paul]

Everything is "I" "I" "I", and I thought that Matthew had accted on his own. At least that's what you said before...Now all of a sudden is "If I had it..." and "I should have.." where is Matthew in all of these? You did try to give Matthew some credit at first, but eventually you are showing the truth...it is not Matthew or We, it is I!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matthew did all the investigation on his own, and has been the primary face and voice in the media. I did the preparation work for media release, which included deciding what to release and when, after discussion with Matthew. It matters not whether you like how I phrase it.

You made up your mind long ago, and in your eyes we can do nothing right. You just don't like the outcome.

[Guest Paul]

I have to admit, he is an excellent actor! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes he is. He is also excellent in telling the truth and expressing his views with great conviction and intelligence.

[oneellama]

Everything is "I" "I" "I", and I thought that Matthew had accted on his own. At least that's what you said before...Now all of a sudden is "If I had it..." and "I should have.." where is Matthew in all of these? You did try to give Matthew some credit at first, but eventually you are showing the truth...it is not Matthew or We, it is I!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guest (whichever guest you happen to be this time...) -- Is it really possible you don't see that by saying the above, you are illustrating to a "T" the very point that Mr. LaClair was making in his post? You do not acknowledge the flaws in Mr. P's choices regarding the student in question. Nor has Mr. P. Nor, to my reading on this blog, have any of his supporters (please, someone, I honestly want you to show me otherwise -- it would give me some hope for common ground). At least here, Mr. L. says he would do something differently, were it all to rewind and unfold again.

Instead, you try to parse Mr. L's use of pronouns as some bizarre crystal ball on his intentions versus his son's. No reasonable person, including Mr. LaClair himself or his supporters, would claim that he has not played a substantial role in what has unfolded, including important decisions like if and when to release some of the recordings. No reasonable father would have done otherwise.

The "I" pronoun is entirely appropriate for what he is saying! And he is acknowledging that there are some things he (yes, HE!) would do differently, were that option available. Sounds reflective and thoughtful to me.

I think it is posts like yours that have swung me to the viewpoint that Mr. L. is entirely justified in the time he chooses to invest here, whether it's responding to the thoughtful comments as well as the thoughtless. (Ironically enough, even that choice -- to participate in this blog in a wholehearted way has brought sarcastic and vitriolic hand grenades raining down.) We have too many examples here in the public commons (yes, this is the modern day public commons) of Mr. P's supporters passing off repetition of bizarre statements as truth.

I think it's time more of us who have just been tallying under the "view" category patiently (I hope I can keep my patience) countering comments like the above by "Guest." They do not address the core issues. They do not move the situation towards resolution. They do not answer the question, "What can I do to make this situation better?"

If you are a viewer, not a contributor, just take a good look a what this guest says. Then go search on member = Paul and read even a portion from the compilation of his posts. Ask yourself HONESTLY whether this man has been trying to get Kearny-ites to participate in a reasonable, thoughtful, dialogue. No he's not perfect, but good grief he's done a heckuva lot more to try to get us off our duffs and see what's really going on than one should have to ask of anyone. And if he passed some of that quality on to Matthew, and Matthew acted on it, two thumbs up.

I haven't spent so much time seriously thinking over this stuff in a long while. Time to make some headway.

Not my most articulate post, but it's late, and it's a start. Paul, add me to to your volunteer crap-rebuttal squad.

[Strife767]

Everything is "I" "I" "I", and I thought that Matthew had accted on his own. At least that's what you said before...Now all of a sudden is "If I had it..." and "I should have.." where is Matthew in all of these? You did try to give Matthew some credit at first, but eventually you are showing the truth...it is not Matthew or We, it is I!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul is the one who 'dealt' with the media and distribution of the recordings Matthew made--and that's all he's taking credit for in the post you replied to. Pay attention.

[Guest Senior Kearny Resident]

NEWS FLASH :  In the 2007 "Diarrhea Of The Mouth Award" contest, Dingo Dave has just taken over 2nd place from Strife and is now hot on the heels of last year's winner, Paul.  It's still early in the year but Dingo shows  no signs of letting up and may give Paul a real challange in his quest to repeat as champion. It looks like we have two strong contenders and it could go down to the wire in December. We will be following this exciting race closely and reporting the standings monthly right here on this thread. Good luck to all contestants !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My money's on Paul in this race. No one could possibly overtake this constant barrage of BS.

[Guest Guest]

You just have a bug about Matthew. Not everyone achieves within the school. Matthew's theatre experience, for example, is mainly at Studio Players in Montclair, and a lead in an Off-Broadway show. He won an oratorical contest in 8th grade, with a scholarship, and was honored at the BoE for that. He also won second place in a talent competition held at KHS when he was in sixth grade. He has gained tremendous national and international support for his stance on this issue, along with two honorary awards and two cash awards --- so far. That is because people recognize and honor his courage, his integrity and his commitment to the Constitution. He is scheduled for the stage at the New York Ethical Culture Society on July 1. The program is advertised in the New York Times, and I believe it is still broadcast on radio. I believe he will be by far the youngest person ever given that stage, which has been host to many notable people, including Mario Cuomo and many others of a similar stature.

You don't get it. Matthew doesn't take everyone else's path. He takes his own path, and so far he's doing very well with it. You just don't like the fact that he succeeds by doing things differently.

As for an apology from Mr. P, if you don't like the answer, stop asking the question. I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. You people keep asking the same question, as though I'm going to start giving a different answer if you ask the question enough times. When are you going to learn: we don't operate that way.

And as for the students: they're old enough to understand the Constitution and the value of science. They should be standing up for that. It has nothing to do with Matthew.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The oratorical contest in the 8th Grade was at the United Methodist Church. My child has one too. The only reason his name is still in the news is because you have nothing better to do except use it for your own gain. As I stated he has done nothing for Kearny High School. There is no denying that.

Months ago you started this off saying you were not in it for personal gain. However, since that time you have been selling him to anyone who you can for a gain. I am not going to even use the word that I was going to use there. Please stop the lying that you are not doing this for personal gain. Stop flattering yourself. Again you use the word “we” in “we don’t operate that way”. From the limited time that I have know your son for the first time I agree with you. He is different. But different does not make it always right. He is succeeding because he did things unethically.

It is clear to the people of this town how you do operate.

[Strife767]

My money's on Paul in this race.  No one could possibly overtake this constant barrage of BS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you're just looking in the wrong place. Perhaps directing your attention toward people who think that not only did dinosaurs and humans coexist, but they were all together on a rickety wooden boat for the better part of a year thousands of years ago, for example...

[Curious in VA]

Guest (whichever guest you happen to be this time...) -- Is it really possible you don't see that by saying the above, you are illustrating to a "T" the very point that Mr. LaClair was making in his post?  You do not acknowledge the flaws in Mr. P's choices regarding the student in question.  Nor has Mr. P.  Nor, to my reading on this blog, have any of his supporters (please, someone, I honestly want you to show me otherwise -- it would give me some hope for common ground).  At least here, Mr. L. says he would do something differently, were it all to rewind and unfold again.

Instead, you try to parse Mr. L's use of pronouns as some bizarre crystal ball on his intentions versus his son's.  No reasonable person, including Mr. LaClair himself or his supporters, would claim that he has not played a substantial role in what has unfolded, including important decisions like if and when to release some of the recordings.  No reasonable father would have done otherwise.

The "I" pronoun is entirely appropriate for what he is saying!  And he is acknowledging that there are some things he (yes, HE!) would do differently, were that option available.  Sounds reflective and thoughtful to me.

I think it is posts like yours that have swung me to the viewpoint that Mr. L. is entirely justified in the time he chooses to invest here, whether it's responding to the thoughtful comments as well as the thoughtless.  (Ironically enough, even that choice -- to participate in this blog in a wholehearted way has brought sarcastic and vitriolic hand grenades raining down.)  We have too many examples here in the public commons (yes, this is the modern day public commons) of Mr. P's supporters passing off repetition of bizarre statements as truth.

I think it's time more of us who have just been tallying under the "view" category patiently (I hope I can keep my patience) countering comments like the above by "Guest."  They do not address the core issues.  They do not move the situation towards resolution.  They do not answer the question, "What can I do to make this situation better?"

If you are a viewer, not a contributor, just take a good look a what this guest says.  Then go search on member = Paul and read even a portion from the compilation of his posts.  Ask yourself HONESTLY whether this man has been trying to get Kearny-ites to participate in a reasonable, thoughtful, dialogue.  No he's not perfect, but good grief he's done a heckuva lot more to try to get us off our duffs and see what's really going on than one should have to ask of anyone.  And if he passed some of that quality on to Matthew, and Matthew acted on it, two thumbs up.

I haven't spent so much time seriously thinking over this stuff in a long while.  Time to make some headway.

Not my most articulate post, but it's late, and it's a start.  Paul, add me to to your volunteer crap-rebuttal squad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice post oneellama! I mentioned it on a thread awhile ago. There is a lot of useless banter on this board which has grown over time making it difficult to discuss recent posts or quotes or issues that have stemmed from the original September tapes. I've never publicly posted my view on the situation, but have tried to ask for clarification and guidance from both sides of this issue to understand the processes and thinking used by the respective parties.

From my observations each party involved could, should, may have done things differently as everything unfolded. For example: Perhaps Mr. Somma would have insisted to have the parents involved in the first meeting, perhaps there could have been handshaking and apologies at that meeting, perhaps the BOE could have reacted quicker, perhaps the tapes could have had the students name stripped out, perhaps the teacher could have "buried the hatchet" and asked that the student body stop any retaliation efforts, perhaps the mayor could have not only dictated how the BOE should act, but also mention the actions the BOE took to address the issues with the teacher, perhaps the family could have been less verbal about each of the points and continually posting dialogue from publicly available tapes, perhaps the KOTW admin could force only registered users to post....the list can go on and on depending on your stance on this issue, but it is easy to play this game almost 6 months after its started.

My hope is that this whole situation will be resolved in the near future. I am sure that many of the folks involved would like to have a resolution and begin to focus on how their lives were "pre-September" taking the lessons learned and applying them to their "post" life. I am sure Paul would rather be doing things other than responding to "guest" posts, I'm sure the student would rather be doing homework, reading a book and hanging out (or whatever kids do these days) instead of being alienated or threatened, I am sure that the teacher would like to focus on his family and the current crew season instead of dealing with the constant media pressure and public scrutiny.

I do enjoy reading the debating, but its getting harder and harder to find that on KOTW at the moment with all of the guests chiming in. As I mentioned above, I hope all parties involved can reach a resolution in the future and begin to move forward.

[Guest Paul]

Guest (whichever guest you happen to be this time...) -- Is it really possible you don't see that by saying the above, you are illustrating to a "T" the very point that Mr. LaClair was making in his post?  You do not acknowledge the flaws in Mr. P's choices regarding the student in question.  Nor has Mr. P.  Nor, to my reading on this blog, have any of his supporters (please, someone, I honestly want you to show me otherwise -- it would give me some hope for common ground).  At least here, Mr. L. says he would do something differently, were it all to rewind and unfold again.

Instead, you try to parse Mr. L's use of pronouns as some bizarre crystal ball on his intentions versus his son's.  No reasonable person, including Mr. LaClair himself or his supporters, would claim that he has not played a substantial role in what has unfolded, including important decisions like if and when to release some of the recordings.  No reasonable father would have done otherwise.

The "I" pronoun is entirely appropriate for what he is saying!  And he is acknowledging that there are some things he (yes, HE!) would do differently, were that option available.  Sounds reflective and thoughtful to me.

I think it is posts like yours that have swung me to the viewpoint that Mr. L. is entirely justified in the time he chooses to invest here, whether it's responding to the thoughtful comments as well as the thoughtless.  (Ironically enough, even that choice -- to participate in this blog in a wholehearted way has brought sarcastic and vitriolic hand grenades raining down.)  We have too many examples here in the public commons (yes, this is the modern day public commons) of Mr. P's supporters passing off repetition of bizarre statements as truth.

I think it's time more of us who have just been tallying under the "view" category patiently (I hope I can keep my patience) countering comments like the above by "Guest."  They do not address the core issues.  They do not move the situation towards resolution.  They do not answer the question, "What can I do to make this situation better?"

If you are a viewer, not a contributor, just take a good look a what this guest says.  Then go search on member = Paul and read even a portion from the compilation of his posts.  Ask yourself HONESTLY whether this man has been trying to get Kearny-ites to participate in a reasonable, thoughtful, dialogue.  No he's not perfect, but good grief he's done a heckuva lot more to try to get us off our duffs and see what's really going on than one should have to ask of anyone.  And if he passed some of that quality on to Matthew, and Matthew acted on it, two thumbs up.

I haven't spent so much time seriously thinking over this stuff in a long while.  Time to make some headway.

Not my most articulate post, but it's late, and it's a start.  Paul, add me to to your volunteer crap-rebuttal squad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're all in it together. I think it is important, so thank you and welcome aboard.