Robert Hansen posted Mar 13, 2014 8:58 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9411288) > Mar 13, 2014, at 3:20 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > And how should we describe people like Robert > >Hansen who has tried to promote the falsehood that > >GSC would "solicit funds" for the use of the software > >and/or for providing such guidance?? > > I never said you were soliciting funds for the use of > OPMS. I said your were soliciting funds. And you are > soliciting funds. Essentially, this is a falsehood > you created. > Your final paragraph above is an example of 'lawyerspeak'. I've tried to untangle it below:
2. GSC had suggested possible ways he could look at the issue (Dec 23, 2013 8:37 PM, http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9349387). In my response to 'Nathan', I had also suggested, as follows, that Robert Hansen would probably put in his negative comments: QUOTE [Up-front, I should inform you that Robert Hansen (RH) - along with some of his cohorts and consorts - claims that these practical means are not effective. I claim that RH does not know what he's talking about, and RH makes the same claim about me. You should make up your own mind about who is right. You'll find a sizable amount of the 'disputation' that RH and I have conducted right here at Math-teach]. UNQUOTE
3. And sure enough, Robert Hansen promptly did exactly that, with the following: QUOTE from RH: Yes, do review the past postings here and you will find this this empty to-do list theory has been unanimously rejected. And finally, be aware that he has solicited funds in the past and has stated his intent to do so in the future. If such an occasion arises, before you part with any of your money, demand a full accounting, with verifiable references, of his past failures with regard to his business dealings and this empty to-do list product. I doubt you will have any luck in this regard as we have not had any luck in this regard. UNQUOTE
I'd suggest you examine your 'intentions' in writing that ridiculous paragraph above. It certainly does impute, to Nathan who was seeking 'a route to learning' that I would "solicit funds" from him. It is, however, clever in its 'lawyerly phrasing'.
With regards to the various phrases that have come up in the past, on which you have now made some equally ridiculous comments, do please carefully examine your understanding and ability to use the English language. I have no doubts at all that your ability to understand English is poor - and that your ability to use it is extremely poor - despite any of the 'lawyerly phrasing' that you've used.
Several others at Math-teach apart from GSC have observed/ commented on your high level of incompetence in the use of English (even 'US English' which I believe must be your native tongue). > > (RH)I never said you were soliciting funds for the use > of OPMS. I said your were soliciting funds. And you are > soliciting funds. Essentially, this is a falsehood you > created. > > With regards to these phrases? > > ?Put the education mafia in jail!? > ?Blow up the schools of education!? > ?OPMS is nothing but empty list making.? > > (RH) The reason you do not understand their meaning is > that you do not understand the english language. > (By the way, for your information it is the convention in English to signify proper nouns with an initial capital letter. This is a relatively trivial matter on which I would not have commented but for the several silly claims you've made in this posting of yours - and you have done it a couple of times in this post, which leads me to believe that this is in fact another instance of your lack of ability to use your own native tongue effectively).
In any case, we can easily check out on the claim you've made in your above-quoted final sentence. I'd suggest a 'challenge' of sorts, as below.
We could, for instance, seek the opinions of others at Math-teach (including even your cohorts and consorts) as to who, in their opinion, has a better command of the English language, Robert Hansen (RH) or GSC - based on our respective performances that they've seen thus far right here at Math-teach. (Assuming, of course, that any of them would wish to get involved in such an exercise).
We could even check out as to who has a better grasp of your native tongue, 'US English'. I do genuinely believe that I definitely have rather a better grasp than RH of both 'British English' and 'US English' - along with significantly better ability to use both of these dialects of English than does Robert Hansen.
If you're willing to willing to pay the advance expenses for it out of your US $ 20K income, we could even approach a professional for his/her opinion. (I don't have anything near an income of US $20K per annum, so I'm not offering to pay the advance. If, however, the professional comes out with the real opinion that RH does in fact have a better grasp of either 'British English' or 'US English', I hereby commit to earn, beg, borrow or steal to raise the ENTIRE fee of that professional. If essential, I could even ask one of my sons to sell some property for that purpose [as I personally have expended all that I possessed in pursuit of developing and promoting OPMS]). > > (RH) These are figures of speech. You have a technical > grasp of english but you don?t understand english. > I'm pretty certain that I understand 'figures of speech' (and the uses of such figures of speech) in either US English or British English FAR better than do you. We could perhaps develop an appropriate 'restricted challenge' on just 'figures of speech' alone. > > (RH): I?d even venture to say that you don?t understand > *language*, like Lou, but I would have to witness you > making these same language mistakes in your native > tongue to confirm this. As often and as constantly as > you make these mistakes with english, I suspect that > you make them in any language, even your own. What we > have here is yet another autistic like failure to > communicate, but this time with prose. I work with > many people from India and this is a common issue. My > suggestion to you is the same I make to them, read > more english literature, especially poetry, and > understand it. > I wonder if you've ever heard the phrase "fools rush in where angels fear to tread"??? I didn't believe I'd see a living instance of it till I saw RH's absurd writings at this posting!! Shall we perhaps think in terms of developing a 'challenge' or two specifically for the thoughts and ideas expressed above??
The rest of RH's post follows, for interest (and, perhaps, to provide a few laughs as well. Heaven knows we desperately need laughs in this dire world of ours). I comment mainly to correct this further falsehood from RH to the effect that I have "the notion that people need ps&g to understand what they are saying". That has NEVER been a claim I've made! (Yes, I HAVE suggested that people would be able to communicate with each other more effectively if they were to apply 'prose+structural graphics' (p+sg, NOT "ps&g" which is evidently a further invention of RH's). > > (RH): This last couple of weeks has been nothing short > of fantastic in terms of insights I have gained. First > the breakthrough with Joe. All this time I thought he > just didn?t like me. I still do, but I realized he > didn?t even understand me, and not because I used the > wrong words, but because he doesn?t understand the > context of art. I wasted a lot of time replying to > his snideness, and Lou?s. And now you, and this > absurd notion that people need ps&g to understand > what they are saying. They understand just fine. It > is you that don?t understand. And naturally, because > of you don?t understand, you don?t realize this. > > Bob Hansen > May I suggest that the 'insights' RH claims to have gained are entirely phony, if his claims are examined.
Should we perhaps think of developing 'challenges' for the thoughts and ideas expressed above??? I'm entirely sure (based on what I've seen to date) that both Joe Niederberger AND Lou Talman have a far superior 'understanding of language' than does Robert Hansen - and I'm also willing to put my 'understanding of language Vs. that of RH' to the test of one or more 'challenges', overseen by one or more knowledgeable and reasonably impartial adjudicators.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")