>I posted an opinion piece from the NYT which expressed >some interesting views several of which I find >noteworthy, though I didn't stipulate as much. > >Haim offered a personal attack on the author, citing a >story in the NY TIMES as a way to negate the entire >piece (I presume), as well as the person who wrote it. > >I retorted that given Haim's dishonesty... > >I don't know or care anything about the PERSON who wrote >the opinion piece about competition that was supposed to >be what this thread was about...
Carleton, if you wanted to discuss competition in education, and the deleterious effects it may or may not have, there are any number of ways you might have done that. However, *you* chose to approach the subject with an OPINION piece written by Malcolm Harris.
If I had submitted an opinion on the subject written by, say, my brother, you would have immediately, and rightly, asked why should my brother's opinion be interesting to anyone on this, or any other, topic. Just so with Malcolm Harris.
So, YOU chose an opinion piece. Thus, YOU made Harris's credibility central to the discussion.
That Malcolm Harris is a liar is not my personal opinion. I don't even know the man. Malcolm Harris is reported by the Paper of Record to have perjured himself in criminal court. Malcolm Harris is a **documented** liar.