Date: Oct 17, 2012 8:28 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop

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 - 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?)

("Still Shoveling Away!")