Date: Oct 16, 2012 2:07 AM
Author: Louis Talman
Subject: Re: Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop
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.
> 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