Date: Oct 17, 2012 12:05 PM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop
Robert Hansen posted Oct 15, 2012 6:28 AM (GSC's remarks interspersed):
> On Oct 14, 2012, at 5:53 PM, GS Chandy
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Over the years, Haim and Robert Hansen have made
> the patently false allegation that "OPMS is just
> empty list-making and nothing else (and is therefore
> trivial and worthless)" [words of that nature].
> Where did you learn this standard of argument?
Quite evidently, in an intellectual universe very far away from the one you inhabit with such distinction.
> Characterizing OPMS as nothing but empty list making
> is just that, a characterization.
In which dictionary did you find that the word "characterization" means the same as "lie"? Because that is precisely what your 'characterization' is: A BALD-FACED LIE!
(Anyone wishing to check out my description of RH's 'characterization' of OPMS as being a BALD-FACED LIE may find out the truth by even casually examining the attachments herewith, a PowerPoint presentation and a Word document broadly describing OPMS. It can be guaranteed that no one in his/her right mind - whatever may be his/her opinion of the *value* of OPMS - will ever provide a "characterization" such as you have done: "OPMS is nothing but empty list-making"!!
>It is our summary
> of the worth of OPMS in a single sentence.
I'm certain there are better ways to put forth a summary characterization of something you may consider 'worthless' than by coming out with BALD-FACED LIES such as you have done.
As you seem to be unaware of how to do it, here is one way a truthful, scientifically-oriented person might have done it (in one simple sentence): "I have examined OPMS in depth, and it is worthless". (That might have represented YOUR truthful 'perceptions' about OPMS - though any scientific examination - even a shallow examination - would have proven that 'perception' to be totally inaccurate).
>It is no
> different than my characterization of all of the PERT
> charts of the 70's and 80's amounting to nothing but
> a waste of trees.
I recall you had quite recently informed us (with great pride!) that all the walls of the halls and corridors of some office you worked were 'decorated' with your PERT charts! That's what it apparently took you to realize the almost self-evident truth that PERT is of actually rather small value!!!
Well, you have never troubled to use the OPMS on ANY single issue - but you have been able to decide it is worthless?
I must observe that represents VERY high-value 'scientific research', indeed, on your part.
[By the way, I had made just three or four each of PERT and Gantt Charts and was easily able to decide that these modeling tools - though fairly useful (in some small measure) in their place and at the appropriate time in a project - are profoundly lacking in any depth because they are using the wrong relationship ("PRECEDES") to describe very complex system characteristics! This is in fact one of the earliest lessons that OPMS teaches (to anyone who takes the small trouble to construct one: whole walls of halls and corridors decorated with PERT Charts are emphatically NOT required!)]
>Are you suggesting that that your
> critics be limited to describing OPMS only in your
I'm suggesting that OPMS should be looked at using the 'scientific method' (and NOT with the weird methods that you apparently use).
>What kind of universe would that be?
Quite evidently, it's an entirely different intellectual universe from the one you inhabit.
("Still Shoveling Away!" - with the usual apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the observation that all such tedium is EASILY avoided by the simple expedient of ignoring all posts purporting to orginate from GSC)
Message was edited by: GS Chandy