On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Haim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Lou Talman Posted: Oct 14, 2012 11:41 AM > > >> GS Chandy Posted: Oct 13, 2012 10:20 AM > > > >>>If Dr Boaler is correct in her account, then both > >>>Professor Milgram and Professor Bishop have much to > >>>answer for. > >> > >> And what if she is not correct? > > > > >That's an easy one: Then all three of them have much to > >answer for. > > Gosh, Lou, I had to ponder this for a while (about 3/10 of a > nanosecond), but I don't think your answer works for me, at all. If Boaler > is not correct, this must allow for the possibility that Milgram and Bishop > criticized her WORK in a manner that is fair and reasonable by generally > accepted scholarly standards. Why would they have to "answer" for that? > > Rather, if Boaler is not correct, then she is twice damned: once for > shoddy scholarly work, and once for defamation. > > Haim > No representation without taxation. >
Dear me! Did I say that anyone must answer for criticizing Boaler's work? Did I say anything, one way or the other, about her work?
I think you know very well of what I spoke, Haim
Disingenuousness doesn't become you. It's a trick you've tried before, and it discredited you then, too.
--Louis A. Talman Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences Metropolitan State College of Denver