Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Blame Teachers, Blame Parents
Posted:
Sep 7, 2007 11:48 AM
|
|
Pam, saying that someone is playing the role or part of something is
not the same as saying that he IS that thing. What is frustrating
about Dom is that he claims NOT to be anti-technology but
consistently gives evidence that his is.
How would you suggest I address this? Should I ignore it and just
engage with him on the same issues time and time again?
Should I ignore it and not respond at all to what he posts? I don't
believe Dom wishes to be ignored, but he can speak for himself in
that regard.
Should I pretend I don't see that he's consistently decrying and
complaining about and generally dismissing not only technology in
math classrooms, but a host of other things? Doesn't leave much to
say in response to his posts.
So either I lie, or ignore, or what?
And that goes for anyone else who sees what I see. Of course, what I
see may be wrong, but when I THINK I see a spade, I generally don't
call it a rake.
Sorry if that's too "personal" for you. But then, I find Haim and
Wayne and a few others to be "clever insulters." Not that their
insults are clever, but that they've mastered the art of insulting
both individuals and groups of people without doing it in a way that
bothers those who agree with them. SInce you often fit that category
(you often, though not always, agree with them) and you certainly are
no fan of mine, I find it unsurprising that you see ME as a name-
caller and them as above reproach. It's nice for you and them, I'm
sure. And my choice is to, when it seems due, point out what's going
on. You can point out, as you have, what you think is going on. I
just liked it better when we weren't pretending that we were civil,
because in fact we're not.
When someone tells me that "fuzzy" is an affectionate term, I wonder
if the person is laughing, sneering, or deranged. I see no third option.
On Sep 7, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Pam wrote:
> Haim,
>
> You have explained eloquently, both in this and your ealier post,
> but I fear you are wasting your time and energy. The man
> complaining about your use of a word is the same man who wrote this
> about Dom, in the same thread and only a day earlier (as only the
> most blatant example of several personal attacks in this thread
> from the same source):
>
> "But word games aside, you continue to play the part of the
> technophobe and Luddite. Don't waste time telling us that you're not:
> your words make clear that you most assuredly are." (http://
> www.mathforum.com/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5892852&tstart=0)
>
> Either he is unable to understand the difference between a debate
> over ideas and a personal attack on discussion participants, or it
> is part of some master plan. Either way, I find it to be extremely
> disruptive to our math-teach community.
>
> Pam
>
> Posted: Sep 6, 2007 11:03 PM by Haim:
>
>> MPG Posted: Sep 6, 2007 12:01 PM
>>> Be as disingenuous as you like.
>>
>> For your information, Michael, your comment above
>> ove is what an ad hominem attack looks like. Nothing
>> I have written in this thread resembles it. The key
>> distinguishing feature is that my comments are about
>> ideas and arguments while your comment impugns my
>> honesty.
>>
>>> There is nothing flattering or endearing about the
>> term
>>> in the context it's used in the Math Wars. One
>> merely
>>> need see the list of terms on the Mathematically
>>> Correct website which includes "fuzzy math" and see
>> the
>>> context in which it has been applied to math
>> teachers,
>>> math education researchers, math teacher educators,
>>> mathematicians, and others who favor one or more
>> ideas
>>> with which MC and HOLD and others disagree to know
>> that
>>> this is anything by a complimentary word.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that if someone proposes an
>> an idea we do not like, we call it "fuzzy". This is
>> exactly wrong. Rather, there is a set of ideas about
>> math pedagogy that can be justifiably, and with
>> considerable precision, labeled as "fuzzy" ideas. An
>> educator (or educationist) who subscribes to these
>> ideas is a "fuzzy" educator.
>>
>> The people on my side disagree with fuzzy ideas,
>> as, and we say why. Ineluctably, we are disagreeing
>> with the people who profess these ideas. This is all
>> perfectly kosher.
>>
>> The main point I make to you, Michael, is that we
>> we attack fuzzy ideas, not fuzzy people. We are
>> perfectly happy to acknowledge the honesty,
>> sincerity, and good intentions of the Fuzzies, but we
>> shake our heads with dismay as their good intentions
>> take us all to Hell in a hay wain.
>>
>> Haim
>> Je me souviens
>
>
|
|
|
|
