Responding to Michael Goldenberg's post of Jan 11, 2013 12:39 AM (pasted below my signature for reference):
Before I read your request/suggestion as pasted below my signature, I had already responded to Robert Hansen's of Jan 10, 2013 11:03 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8045478) - and yes, my response did specifically discuss the issues he had raised in his post. (Of course, I don't yet know whether my response will be passed for publication by our Moderator - but that is another matter).
Whatever, as one of the 'principals' you had referred to, I believe I may not be far wrong to feel that it is also a matter of 'principle':
To refute lies and falsehoods (along with the intents behind those lies and falsehoods) as and when they appear.
Which is, I believe, also the real issue underlying Jo Boaler's case against Professors Milgram and Bishop?
And yes, we certainly do need practical means to help us discuss complex issues more effectively than what we generally manage to do (and THAT is what OPMS is all about).
GSC Michael Paul Goldenberg (MPG) posted Jan 11, 2013 12:39 AM: > If this is about to turn into another interminable > and pointless argument about OPMS, could the two > principles please take it to another thread? Because > nothing in the last two posts and little in the one > before that is pertinent to the topic of this thread, > which is Jo Boaler's fight against attacks on her > research and the recent statement of Stanford > University's findings in regard to accusations > against her, found by them to be groundless. > > Fascinating as other topics may be, they deserve > their own thread so as to not be conflated with the > Boaler/Stanford/Milgram-Bishop thread. > > Thanks in advance for the courtesy of not continuing > the OPMS debate here.