Another call for evidence: Matthew's quote list

[Bryan]

Paul LaClair was good enough to satisfy the public interest by providing the text of Matthew's original letter to the school.

During the meeting, Matthew referred to a list of quotations he had compiled:

"I didn’t obviously put all the, uh, all the things that was said, you know, over the period of time that I’ve been in the class not all in that letter. Um, I printed them up, and I just want to go down the list, and I just want to see what, if any of this, you did say or ..."

As I posted elsewhere, the text of Matthew's list would assist in providing contextual understanding for the Oct. 10 meeting.

I hope that Paul will be as amenable in providing this piece of information as he was with that other.

[Guest Guest]

Paul LaClair was good enough to satisfy the public interest by providing the text of Matthew's original letter to the school.

During the meeting, Matthew referred to a list of quotations he had compiled:

"I didn’t obviously put all the, uh, all the things that was said, you know, over the period of time that I’ve been in the class not all in that letter.  Um, I printed them up, and I just want to go down the list, and I just want to see what, if any of this, you did say or ..."

As I posted elsewhere, the text of Matthew's list would assist in providing contextual understanding for the Oct. 10 meeting.

I hope that Paul will be as amenable in providing this piece of information as he was with that other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ad hominem, fallacy, strawman!

[Guest Paul]

Paul LaClair was good enough to satisfy the public interest by providing the text of Matthew's original letter to the school.

During the meeting, Matthew referred to a list of quotations he had compiled:

"I didn’t obviously put all the, uh, all the things that was said, you know, over the period of time that I’ve been in the class not all in that letter.  Um, I printed them up, and I just want to go down the list, and I just want to see what, if any of this, you did say or ..."

As I posted elsewhere, the text of Matthew's list would assist in providing contextual understanding for the Oct. 10 meeting.

I hope that Paul will be as amenable in providing this piece of information as he was with that other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, Bryan, I won't. Those were his private notes, I don't even know whether he has them anymore, and they're not relevant. The in-class recordings are complete and are the best evidence of what was said in class, which is what Matthew was questioning. If this turns into a court case, those notes won't even be discoverable there.

[Guest Guest]

Paul LaClair was good enough to satisfy the public interest by providing the text of Matthew's original letter to the school.

During the meeting, Matthew referred to a list of quotations he had compiled:

"I didn’t obviously put all the, uh, all the things that was said, you know, over the period of time that I’ve been in the class not all in that letter.  Um, I printed them up, and I just want to go down the list, and I just want to see what, if any of this, you did say or ..."

As I posted elsewhere, the text of Matthew's list would assist in providing contextual understanding for the Oct. 10 meeting.

I hope that Paul will be as amenable in providing this piece of information as he was with that other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently Mr.P's quote "You belong in Hell." isn't enough.

Please enlighten us as to what context that is appropriate for a public school teacher to say to a captive audience of minors.

If you can't answer that, then it is clear this thread is merely a distraction to the heart of the matter.

[Bryan]

No, Bryan, I won't. Those were his private notes, I don't even know whether he has them anymore, and they're not relevant.

Look, if you don't want to post them, then don't. But don't be ridiculous by claiming that they are not relevant. The text of the notes would be very valuable in judging the accuracy of Matthew's complaints (those lodged at the Oct. 10 meeting). As I observed before, it's very difficult to tell where quotation marks are used during an audio exchange.

The notes would clarify the office meeting quite a bit.

The in-class recordings are complete and are the best evidence of what was said in class, which is what Matthew was questioning. If this turns into a court case, those notes won't even be discoverable there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously we're not at trial stage. Whether or not the notes would be discoverable in a legal action is completely beside their value in illuminating the happenings of the Oct. 10 meeting.

And maybe Matthew has something to hide from the adoring public.

Or else there's no clear reason for him not to make the notes available.

[WilliamK]

Ad hominem, fallacy, strawman!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't forget poisoning the well. Bryan's last sentence ("I hope that Paul will be as amenable in providing this piece of information as he was with that other.") is an example of that. Poisoning the well is more usually in the form of setting up a negative expectation to create a prejudice against an opponent's response. But setting up a positive expectation also qualifies. The positive expectation serves to pressure the opponent into providing some concession that he does not wish to provide, or potentially be made to look bad by failing or refusing to do so.

[Strife767]

Ad hominem, fallacy, strawman!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now it's time to learn what those words mean. *hands a dictionary*

www.onelook.com

[Bryan]

Don't forget poisoning the well.

Strife outdid you on that one, William:

"Now it's time to learn what those words mean."

Bryan's last sentence ("I hope that Paul will be as amenable in providing this piece of information as he was with that other.") is an example of that. Poisoning the well is more usually in the form of setting up a negative expectation to create a prejudice against an opponent's response. But setting up a positive expectation also qualifies.

And from where did you draw that creative notion?

The positive expectation serves to pressure the opponent into providing some concession that he does not wish to provide, or potentially be made to look bad by failing or refusing to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would, in fact, look slightly suspicious if Paul gave an outright refusal to publish the list (though obviously it's probably not entirely under his control since it's Matthew's material). The suspicion is reasonable suspicion, however. If there isn't anything embarrassing or inaccurate in the list Matthew used, then there shouldn't be any good reason to hesitate to make it public. None that I can think of, anyway.

"As with genetic fallacies in general, it can be difficult to determine the appropriateness of an attempt at well-poisoning."

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Poisoning_the_Well

Strife seems to be learning. Good for him.

[Guest Paul]

Look, if you don't want to post them, then don't.  But don't be ridiculous by claiming that they are not relevant.  The text of the notes would be very valuable in judging the accuracy of Matthew's complaints (those lodged at the Oct. 10 meeting).  As I observed before, it's very difficult to tell where quotation marks are used during an audio exchange.

The notes would clarify the office meeting quite a bit.

Obviously we're not at trial stage.  Whether or not the notes would be discoverable in a legal action is completely beside their value in illuminating the happenings of the Oct. 10 meeting.

And maybe Matthew has something to hide from the adoring public.

Or else there's no clear reason for him not to make the notes available.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They're not relevant. The facts are in the recordings, not strictly speaking in Matthew's notes. (Which is not to say that Matthew's notes aren't accurate. However, the best evidence is the recordings. In law, it is called the best evidence rule.)

Bryan, your proclivity for drawing lines where you want them is well-known at this forum. Unfortunately for you, it is transparent. How many people do you think actually read the nonsense you write?

[Bryan]

They're not relevant.

I've explained how they are relevant, and you're not answering the argument.

The facts are in the recordings, not strictly speaking in Matthew's notes. (Which is not to say that Matthew's notes aren't accurate. However, the best evidence is the recordings. In law, it is called the best evidence rule.)

The best evidence as to whether Matthew's accusations in the meeting were accurate comes from the materials he used while making the accusations.

Quite simply, Paul, you're trying to dance around the relevance of the notes by making certain that Paszkiewicz remains the issue instead of Matthew.

Unfortunately, you have also tended to misquote the recordings.

Bryan, your proclivity for drawing lines where you want them is well-known at this forum.

Pot, kettle, black?

Unfortunately for you, it is transparent. How many people do you think actually read the nonsense you write?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't concern myself over the size of the audience. I assume (sometimes granting benefit of the doubt where it shouldn't be extended) that those who reply to my posts have read the posts to which they're replying.

Realistically, Paul, if people are tracking conversations, they're seeing you commit logical fallacies fairly routinely in your responses to me. They've also noticed that you have a tendency to misquote Paszkiewicz. Those who are squarely on your side forgive you those sins without a second thought, it seems, but it's going to add up unless you start doing a better job of evasion.

[ElneClare]

Realistically Bryan, if people are tracking conversations, they're seeing you commit logical fallacies fairly routinely in your responses to me.  They've also noticed that you have a tendency to misquote Paszkiewicz.  Those who are squarely on your side forgive you those sins without a second thought, it seems, but it's going to add up unless you start doing a better job of evasion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FTFY

Fixed That For You

Bryan I only read your posts now, for how you make me laugh.