Robert Hansen posted Oct 15, 2012 7:59 PM: > > If this is true, then I bet it wasn't to make a case > for harassment, it was to avoid a case of libel. > > Bob Hansen > 1. I don't need to take or accept a bet, because what you state is not the issue at all (see below).
2. Whatever may have been Dr Boaler's reasons to consult attorneys (whether it was: to "make a case for harassment"; to "avoid a case of libel"; or just for the heck of it or for 'all of the above') - the fact remains that SHE DID DID TAKE LEGAL ADVICE, contrary to your supposition/claim.
This rubbishes your first point in your post commenting on Jo Boaler's plaint against Dr Milgram and Dr Bishop.
In your post of Oct 13, 2012 9:22 - http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7905356) where you had made the false claim: > > First off, Boaler should have had a lawyer draft this > letter. A lawyer would have not drafted a letter using > the same tactics they claim the defendants are using. > The point I'm again making is: Why lie? Why evade issues? Why beat around all these phony bushes? (Why claim that "OPMS is just empty list-making -- and nothing else?)