On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Haim <hpipik@netzero.com> 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.

Haim
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

  <http://rowdy.mscd.edu/%7Etalmanl>