Paul's Letter to the Observer

[Guest Kearny resident]

I have to say that each day I read something from the LaClairs I realize how pathetic this man is. His son is not getting media attention lately, so he needs to bring this story up again and again. However, this time, he is talking about Matthew not wearing a dress to school. What an useful and important information for the residents of Kearny! It is amazing to see that when there is nothing else for these people to talk about, they come up with something new. At the board meeting, Matthew said "my sister did not have Paszkiewicz as her teacher," honestly, who cares? If she had Mr. P or not, that's her problem, not ours! Now, I have to say something, Matthew did wear a skirt to school and some of his classmates told me that they were shocked when they saw him. What Mr. Paul LaClair calls "black gothic-looking outfit that extended to the ankles," in Kearny and everywhere else we call it skirt. "In the first few days of freshman year, my son Matthew posted printed messages on his school locker at Kearny High. When he was told the school’s policy prohibited all such postings, he stopped." He did stop but that was after he tried to get the security guard fired. I think that Mr. LaClair needs to get a life and go to work more often because Matthew will not graduate college until he is about 21 and only after that he will be able to finacially support daddy!

[Guest Guest]

Now, I have to say something, Matthew did wear a skirt to school and some of his classmates told me that they were shocked when they saw him. What Mr. Paul LaClair calls "black gothic-looking outfit that extended to the ankles," in Kearny and everywhere else we call it skirt. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess the Leclair's are playing semantics. At the board meeting Matt denied wearing a "dress" to school and Paul repeated that in his letter.

But Paul has already admitted to the skirt-wearing.

This goes to their credibility.

As I recall it, the school would not allow students to wear shorts until after a certain date. Meanwhile, the girls were wearing skirts, which exposed every bit as much leg. One day the weather was unseasonably warm. So, to illustrate the absurdity of the rule, Matthew wore a skirt. Horror of horrors that anyone in administration would get the point, chuckle with bemusement and reconsider the rule --- or maybe some of them did. We have met educators in the Kearny school system who do get it.

In doing that, Matthew wasn't violating any rule or policy. (What if he had worn a kilt?) He was making a point. Did he hurt anyone? Disrupt anything? Step back from your assumptions and think. That's how we trained him, but what you don't get is that training is a method, much like science. When someone is trained to think for himself, he takes it in his own direction.

In the sixties, people understood the importance of challenging rules and assumptions. It was a turbulent time, but it was also the time in which our country began to take the rights of African Americans and other minorities seriously for the first time in our history. It's always more convenient and easier to go along, and people who don't will always be criticized, especially by the narrow-minded. But if we really value the individual, we will understand the importance of using humor on occasion to make a point. I have to admit, I wouldn't have thought of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Paul]

I have to say that each day I read something from the LaClairs I realize how pathetic this man is. His son is not getting media attention lately, so he needs to bring this story up again and again. However, this time, he is talking about Matthew not wearing a dress to school. What an useful and important information for the residents of Kearny! It is amazing to see that when there is nothing else for these people to talk about, they come up with something new. At the board meeting, Matthew said "my sister did not have Paszkiewicz as her teacher," honestly, who cares? If she had Mr. P or not, that's her problem, not ours! Now, I have to say something, Matthew did wear a skirt to school and some of his classmates told me that they were shocked when they saw him. What Mr. Paul LaClair calls "black gothic-looking outfit that extended to the ankles," in Kearny and everywhere else we call it skirt. "In the first few days of freshman year, my son Matthew posted printed messages on his school locker at Kearny High. When he was told the school’s policy prohibited all such postings, he stopped." He did stop but that was after he tried to get the security guard fired. I think that Mr. LaClair needs to get a life and go to work more often because Matthew will not graduate college until he is about 21 and only after that he will be able to finacially support daddy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These issues don't amount to a hill of beans, but they're still false accusations, and therefore they will be answered. If you don't like the truthful answers, then don't make the false accusations. In addition to what I covered in the Observer, Matthew did not attempt to have any security guard fired.

The truth is, Matthew caught a teacher engaging in misconduct, and has undeniable proof of the fact. You can't defend the misconduct, so you are hell-bent to demean the messenger. That's what is pathetic.

If I had a kid who was going to be a problem to me (which I don't), why would that be your concern? I'm focused on an issue that affects my son. What's your stake here? Why is this your concern? Have the character to answer, and while your at it, identify yourself. Then we'll talk about character.

[Strife767]

I have to say that each day I read something from the LaClairs I realize how pathetic this man is. His son is not getting media attention lately, so he needs to bring this story up again and again. However, this time, he is talking about Matthew not wearing a dress to school.

Link to recent (or even not recent) thread and post where Paul is the first person to bring that topic up, as opposed to someone else using it to make fun of Matthew. Can you do it?

What an useful and important information for the residents of Kearny! It is amazing to see that when there is nothing else for these people to talk about, they come up with something new. At the board meeting, Matthew said "my sister did not have Paszkiewicz as her teacher," honestly, who cares?

I would care if people lied about me and/or my family to try and make me look bad. Wouldn't you?

"In the first few days of freshman year, my son Matthew posted printed messages on his school locker at Kearny High. When he was told the school’s policy prohibited all such postings, he stopped." He did stop but that was after he tried to get the security guard fired.

Proof or it goes onto the growing pile of lies accumulated by Mr. P.'s apologists

I think that Mr. LaClair needs to get a life and go to work more often because Matthew will not graduate college until he is about 21 and only after that he will be able to finacially support daddy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you need to stop pretending you know anything about someone before you run your mouth.

I think your comment is better directed at people who apparently have nothing better to do than invent stories in a desperate attempt to smear the LaClairs.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Claudia, do you realize you bring even more attention to it by bringing it up on this board? Could it be because, as usual, all of you Paszkiewicz apologists still don't see the real issue here, that Pastor Davie broke the LAW?

[Guest Guest]

I have to say that each day I read something from the LaClairs I realize how pathetic this man is. His son is not getting media attention lately, so he needs to bring this story up again and again. However, this time, he is talking about Matthew not wearing a dress to school. What an useful and important information for the residents of Kearny! It is amazing to see that when there is nothing else for these people to talk about, they come up with something new. At the board meeting, Matthew said "my sister did not have Paszkiewicz as her teacher," honestly, who cares? If she had Mr. P or not, that's her problem, not ours! Now, I have to say something, Matthew did wear a skirt to school and some of his classmates told me that they were shocked when they saw him. What Mr. Paul LaClair calls "black gothic-looking outfit that extended to the ankles," in Kearny and everywhere else we call it skirt. "In the first few days of freshman year, my son Matthew posted printed messages on his school locker at Kearny High. When he was told the school’s policy prohibited all such postings, he stopped." He did stop but that was after he tried to get the security guard fired. I think that Mr. LaClair needs to get a life and go to work more often because Matthew will not graduate college until he is about 21 and only after that he will be able to finacially support daddy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me, but Paul is not pathetic. From everything I have read, he is an intelligent and thoughtful man who has defended his son with a rare combination of grace and intelligence, qualities that also shine through in his son. The time and energy Paul has devoted to this is no less than I would expect, considering his son's involvement. The quality and tone of his remarks, while not perfect, are far better than most people could muster. Matthew was attacked, and false statements were made. Paul wrote to correct them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is what a father should do.

Unnamed Kearny resident, I do not know you, so I cannot say whether you are pathetic. But I do know that your behavior here is pathetic. You make vicious remarks that have no basis in fact (hiding behind your anonymity to do it), and if Paul responds you essentially tell him that he is supposed to take your abuse and shut up. He doesn't have to do that.

I'll tell you what else is pathetic. The people defending this teacher (I'll call him P) appear to have no sense of what Christian values are. If Matthew hadn't recorded his classes, P and his minions would have called him a liar. They can't do that, because the recordings prove that Matthew spoke the truth, but are they going to admit that P was wrong? Finally, a few of them are starting to see that, and to admit it, but most of them continue to try to defend P --- by attacking Matthew and his dad. A real Christian would know that one person cannot be defended by attacking another. Matthew and Paul have nothing to do with how P behaves in his classroom. That is P's responsibility, no matter what any student may say or ask him. Accusing a 16-year-old student of setting up a teacher (by forcing him to say "you belong in hell"?) is pathetic. But what are P's starry-eyed followers focusing on? Whether Matthew once wore a dress to school to make a point. Whether Matthew is patriotic. (Obviously he is.) Whether Matthew should have let the teacher off easy instead of outing his behavior. The public's rightful concern is not about Matthew. P is the one who has is being paid a salary by the public and is being paid to teach, not preach. The attempt to shift the focus is pathetic.

I've had evangelical Christians approach me, asking me whether I think there will ever be peace in the world. This is not true of all evangelicals, many of whom are fine and peaceful people. But as to some of the evangelicals who are defending P, the world will never be at peace as long as people act they way they are acting. They don't care about what is true, they only care about what they believe. And they will stop at nothing to insulate themselves in the cocoon of ignorance they've spun. In itself, that is up to them, but when these people draw others into that cocoon, by making false accusations for example, it becomes other people's business. Paul is exactly right. You evangelicals do not have a right to make up your own facts. No one does. What is pathetic is doing things like that in the name of God.

To leave no doubt about how one person sees it, Matthew has comported himself in a way that Paul has every reason to be proud of.

[Strife767]

Excuse me, but Paul is not pathetic. From everything I have read, he is an intelligent and thoughtful man who has defended his son with a rare combination of grace and intelligence, qualities that also shine through in his son. The time and energy Paul has devoted to this is no less than I would expect, considering his son's involvement. The quality and tone of his remarks, while not perfect, are far better than most people could muster. Matthew was attacked, and false statements were made. Paul wrote to correct them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is what a father should do.

Unnamed Kearny resident, I do not know you, so I cannot say whether you are pathetic. But I do know that your behavior here is pathetic. You make vicious remarks that have no basis in fact (hiding behind your anonymity to do it), and if Paul responds you essentially tell him that he is supposed to take your abuse and shut up. He doesn't have to do that.

I'll tell you what else is pathetic. The people defending this teacher (I'll call him P) appear to have no sense of what Christian values are. If Matthew hadn't recorded his classes, P and his minions would have called him a liar.  They can't do that, because the recordings prove that Matthew spoke the truth, but are they going to admit that P was wrong? Finally, a few of them are starting to see that, and to admit it, but most of them continue to try to defend P --- by attacking Matthew and his dad.  A real Christian would know that one person cannot be defended by attacking another.  Matthew and Paul have nothing to do with how P behaves in his classroom. That is P's responsibility, no matter what any student may say or ask him. Accusing a 16-year-old student of setting up a teacher (by forcing him to say "you belong in hell"?) is pathetic.  But what are P's starry-eyed followers focusing on? Whether Matthew once wore a dress to school to make a point. Whether Matthew is patriotic. (Obviously he is.) Whether Matthew should have let the teacher off easy instead of outing his behavior.  The public's rightful concern is not about Matthew. P is the one who has is being paid a salary by the public and is being paid to teach, not preach. The attempt to shift the focus is pathetic. 

I've had evangelical Christians approach me, asking me whether I think there will ever be peace in the world. This is not true of all evangelicals, many of whom are fine and peaceful people. But as to some of the evangelicals who are defending P, the world will never be at peace as long as people act they way they are acting. They don't care about what is true, they only care about what they believe. And they will stop at nothing to insulate themselves in the cocoon of ignorance they've spun. In itself, that is up to them, but when these people draw others into that cocoon, by making false accusations for example, it becomes other people's business. Paul is exactly right. You evangelicals do not have a right to make up your own facts.  No one does. What is pathetic is doing things like that in the name of God. 

To leave no doubt about how one person sees it, Matthew has comported himself in a way that Paul has every reason to be proud of. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said.

[Guest Guest]

These issues don't amount to a hill of beans, but they're still false accusations, and therefore they will be answered. If you don't like the truthful answers, then don't make the false accusations. In addition to what I covered in the Observer, Matthew did not attempt to have any security guard fired.

The truth is, Matthew caught a teacher engaging in misconduct, and has undeniable proof of the fact. You can't defend the misconduct, so you are hell-bent to demean the messenger. That's what is pathetic.

If I had a kid who was going to be a problem to me (which I don't), why would that be your concern? I'm focused on an issue that affects my son. What's your stake here? Why is this your concern? Have the character to answer, and while your at it, identify yourself. Then we'll talk about character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul's own words: "So, to illustrate the absurdity of the rule, Matthew wore a skirt" and now is not longer a skirt...Make up your mind, will you?

[Guest Guest]

Dear Claudia, do you realize you bring even more attention to it by bringing it up on this board? Could it be because, as usual, all of you Paszkiewicz apologists still don't see the real issue here, that Pastor Davie broke the LAW?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please cite the law that Mr. Paszkiewicz broke....

[Guest Guest]

These issues don't amount to a hill of beans, but they're still false accusations, and therefore they will be answered. If you don't like the truthful answers, then don't make the false accusations. In addition to what I covered in the Observer, Matthew did not attempt to have any security guard fired.

The truth is, Matthew caught a teacher engaging in misconduct, and has undeniable proof of the fact. You can't defend the misconduct, so you are hell-bent to demean the messenger. That's what is pathetic.

If I had a kid who was going to be a problem to me (which I don't), why would that be your concern? I'm focused on an issue that affects my son. What's your stake here? Why is this your concern? Have the character to answer, and while your at it, identify yourself. Then we'll talk about character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My question is Paul, did Matthew wear a skirt to school?

[Guest Guest]

I guess the Leclair's are playing semantics.  At the board meeting Matt denied wearing a "dress" to school and Paul repeated that in his letter.

But Paul has already admitted to the skirt-wearing.

This goes to their credibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It goes to your credibility, not theirs. This whole piss-on-the-LaClairs business is about one thing only: it's about people who don't like anyone who rocks their boat, or any boat. It doesn't matter how just the cause, they don't like boats being rocked, and will do anything to smear and attack people who rock one. They care about their own comfort, and that's all they care about --- not the world, not their country, not their town or neighborhood, probably not even their family except insofar as their family is a convenience to them. They care about their own comfort, and everything is in service to that. That is the sum and substance of their concern: their own comfort. That, and an attempt to defend the indefensible, is all the attacks are about.

[Guest Paul's wife]

Excuse me, but Paul is not pathetic. From everything I have read, he is an intelligent and thoughtful man who has defended his son with a rare combination of grace and intelligence, qualities that also shine through in his son. The time and energy Paul has devoted to this is no less than I would expect, considering his son's involvement. The quality and tone of his remarks, while not perfect, are far better than most people could muster. Matthew was attacked, and false statements were made. Paul wrote to correct them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is what a father should do.

Unnamed Kearny resident, I do not know you, so I cannot say whether you are pathetic. But I do know that your behavior here is pathetic. You make vicious remarks that have no basis in fact (hiding behind your anonymity to do it), and if Paul responds you essentially tell him that he is supposed to take your abuse and shut up. He doesn't have to do that.

I'll tell you what else is pathetic. The people defending this teacher (I'll call him P) appear to have no sense of what Christian values are. If Matthew hadn't recorded his classes, P and his minions would have called him a liar.  They can't do that, because the recordings prove that Matthew spoke the truth, but are they going to admit that P was wrong? Finally, a few of them are starting to see that, and to admit it, but most of them continue to try to defend P --- by attacking Matthew and his dad.  A real Christian would know that one person cannot be defended by attacking another.  Matthew and Paul have nothing to do with how P behaves in his classroom. That is P's responsibility, no matter what any student may say or ask him. Accusing a 16-year-old student of setting up a teacher (by forcing him to say "you belong in hell"?) is pathetic.  But what are P's starry-eyed followers focusing on? Whether Matthew once wore a dress to school to make a point. Whether Matthew is patriotic. (Obviously he is.) Whether Matthew should have let the teacher off easy instead of outing his behavior.  The public's rightful concern is not about Matthew. P is the one who has is being paid a salary by the public and is being paid to teach, not preach. The attempt to shift the focus is pathetic. 

I've had evangelical Christians approach me, asking me whether I think there will ever be peace in the world. This is not true of all evangelicals, many of whom are fine and peaceful people. But as to some of the evangelicals who are defending P, the world will never be at peace as long as people act they way they are acting. They don't care about what is true, they only care about what they believe. And they will stop at nothing to insulate themselves in the cocoon of ignorance they've spun. In itself, that is up to them, but when these people draw others into that cocoon, by making false accusations for example, it becomes other people's business. Paul is exactly right. You evangelicals do not have a right to make up your own facts.  No one does. What is pathetic is doing things like that in the name of God. 

To leave no doubt about how one person sees it, Matthew has comported himself in a way that Paul has every reason to be proud of. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that is my totally unbiased opinion, so there !!

[Guest Paul]

Paul's own words: "So, to illustrate the absurdity of the rule, Matthew wore a skirt" and now is not longer a skirt...Make up your mind, will you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could call it a skirt, but you it doesn't look like anything most of the girls wear. You couldn't fairly call it a dress.

Good grief, talk about having nothing to do. Someone please tell me what this has to do with anything.

[Guest Paul]

Please cite the law that Mr. Paszkiewicz broke....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We've been over this many times.

1. The US Constitution, First Amendment, the establishment clause.

2. The New Jersey state Constitution, which prohibits favoring or disfavoring any sect or religious group.

[Guest Paul]

And that is my totally unbiased opinion, so there !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously, this is not Debra's post. KOTW, you have an obligation here. I suggest you attend to it.

[Foger]

Please cite the law that Mr. Paszkiewicz broke....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Establishment clause of the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution. Oh sorry, thats not a law.....

[Strife767]

Paul's own words: "So, to illustrate the absurdity of the rule, Matthew wore a skirt" and now is not longer a skirt...Make up your mind, will you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Skirt != dress

Do pay attention.

[Strife767]

Please cite the law that Mr. Paszkiewicz broke....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Or do you seriously think that the Constitution doesn't count as "the law?" It's not only part of "the law," it is THE HIGHEST law of this country.

The ignorance never ceases to astound me...

[Guest Guest]

It goes to your credibility, not theirs. This whole piss-on-the-LaClairs business is about one thing only: it's about people who don't like anyone who rocks their boat, or any boat. It doesn't matter how just the cause, they don't like boats being rocked, and will do anything to smear and attack people who rock one. They care about their own comfort, and that's all they care about --- not the world, not their country, not their town or neighborhood, probably not even their family except insofar as their family is a convenience to them. They care about their own comfort, and everything is in service to that. That is the sum and substance of their concern: their own comfort. That, and an attempt to defend the indefensible, is all the attacks are about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but you are wrong about me. I am more on the Leclair's side than Mr. P's. Just think that Paul needs to be consistent. Dress...Skirt...doesn't matter. In this conversation they are referring to the same situation. By denying that Matt wore a "dress" they are making it seem like they are reversing themselves on something they previously admitted to. That is where they lose a little credibility.

[Guest Guest]

Obviously, this is not Debra's post. KOTW, you have an obligation here. I suggest you attend to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are not the only Paul.

[Calybos]

Establishment clause of the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution. Oh sorry, thats  not a law.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, sorry, yes it is. In fact, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land.

Are we really back to that tired old dodge? "Sure he violated the Constitution, but since when is THAT a big deal? It's not like he broke the law or anything."

The lengths these nuts will go to in defending classroom preachers is just amazing.

[Guest Guest]

You could call it a skirt, but you it doesn't look like anything most of the girls wear. You couldn't fairly call it a dress.

Good grief, talk about having nothing to do. Someone please tell me what this has to do with anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But not too long ago, you also called it a skirt, didn't you? did you change your mind? We do have something to do, this issue became "public" the day the Observer published it...you are the on who started this conversation...

[Guest Guest]

Obviously, this is not Debra's post. KOTW, you have an obligation here. I suggest you attend to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

awwwwwwwwwwww!

[Guest Guest]

These issues don't amount to a hill of beans, but they're still false accusations, and therefore they will be answered. If you don't like the truthful answers, then don't make the false accusations. In addition to what I covered in the Observer, Matthew did not attempt to have any security guard fired.

The truth is, Matthew caught a teacher engaging in misconduct, and has undeniable proof of the fact. You can't defend the misconduct, so you are hell-bent to demean the messenger. That's what is pathetic.

If I had a kid who was going to be a problem to me (which I don't), why would that be your concern? I'm focused on an issue that affects my son. What's your stake here? Why is this your concern? Have the character to answer, and while your at it, identify yourself. Then we'll talk about character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh will the real Paul LaClair stand up? One day it's one story. The next day it's another. Next he is going to want to make a documentary on his life. That should be a joke like his comments here are. What is pathetic is you, Paul, that you won't let this issue come to closure. It's like finishing a case, not that you would know how to do that either. Speak of character, you certainly are one.

[Guest Guest]

Link to recent (or even not recent) thread and post where Paul is the first person to bring that topic up, as opposed to someone else using it to make fun of Matthew. Can you do it?

I would care if people lied about me and/or my family to try and make me look bad. Wouldn't you?

Proof or it goes onto the growing pile of lies accumulated by Mr. P.'s apologists

I think you need to stop pretending you know anything about someone before you run your mouth.

I think your comment is better directed at people who apparently have nothing better to do than invent stories in a desperate attempt to smear the LaClairs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When a father admits to it being so, then I guess its not considered truth. And the students also know it happened and it was to make a point. He is only backtracking to make his son not look like a sissy. This topic has nothing to do with Mr. P so there you go running your mouth off Striffy . Nice try but you keep missing the target. You are so far up Pauls... anyway, that the timing between his posts and yours are almost uncanny, don't you think?