Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
When does someone nonseriously call another person a neo Nazi?

It's almost like you never moderated the off-duty section of DakkaDakka before

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
No, what you've described is how it is presently done in the United States.

Merit based pay would evaluate teacher performance as a separate metric from student performance but would require other types of evaluation like consistent random observations, student and parent feedback, etc.

When the teacher's pay and/or job security is derived at least in part from how much the parent's like teacher, then you've just removed that teacher's ability to give honest, fearless advice to the parents. It's just another variant of 'teaching to the test'.

Completely disagree, which I already explained. But then, you've probably been in a classroom and have worked with parents more than I have, so I'm sure you're right.

Three of my immediate family are teachera and 2 are university lecturers - they all, and their unions, and most other teachers, think you are wrong. Just saying

Of course their unions do. Unions at large have no interest in a meritocracy. Teachers unions are one of the biggest Problems with education.

 cincydooley wrote:
Of course their unions do. Unions at large have no interest in a meritocracy. Teachers unions are one of the biggest Problems with education.

You're kind of missing the point that all the teachers in my family, and most of those they work with are of the exact opposite opinion to yourself... and when the union represents the actual feeling of a majority of the people who make it up, that is a good thing. The kinds of things that they want to tie pay to are things that really are not an accurate reflection of how much a teacher works and puts in to the job, nor how well they teach - that is what most of the opposition to this is, rather than a straight up opposition of performance based pay.

The USA and UK may well be different in terms of how the teachers are being treated, what the plans are and how the unions work but I don't think they are that different...

 Yodhrin wrote:


And Dreadclaw69; if you're Irish, either select Ireland as your location in your profile so the Irish flag shows next to your name, or don't get all huffy when people who don't know you from Adam see an American flag and think you're an American.

The flags are based on your IP's point of origin(something like that, can't remember the technical stuff exactly), not what you set your location as.

It's why we sometimes get threads of "Why's my flag X when I'm in Y?"

In addition just because he's IN America doesn't mean he's FROM America or American.

 Yodhrin wrote:
And Dreadclaw69; if you're Irish, either select Ireland as your location in your profile so the Irish flag shows next to your name, or don't get all huffy when people who don't know you from Adam see an American flag and think you're an American.

Dreadclaw is an immigrant to our great country from Ireland.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

The USA and UK may well be different in terms of how the teachers are being treated, what the plans are and how the unions work but I don't think they are that different...

My gut instinct would tell me that they're leagues apart.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
When does someone nonseriously call another person a neo Nazi?

It's almost like you never moderated the off-duty section of DakkaDakka before

Mmm....good point there. I don't remember modding the OT except for spam bots though.

 SilverMK2 wrote:


You're kind of missing the point that all the teachers in my family, and most of those they work with are of the exact opposite opinion to yourself... and when the union represents the actual feeling of a majority of the people who make it up, that is a good thing. The kinds of things that they want to tie pay to are things that really are not an accurate reflection of how much a teacher works and puts in to the job, nor how well they teach - that is what most of the opposition to this is, rather than a straight up opposition of performance based pay.

The USA and UK may well be different in terms of how the teachers are being treated, what the plans are and how the unions work but I don't think they are that different...

Im getting the impression that they aren't even close. Unions in the US okayed the notion that a single, high stakes standardized test should account for 50% of a teachers' performance over a year, but which matters little to those in power in the unions that have been tenured. The unions do absolutely nothing to protect or serve their younger constituency that isn't on a continuing contract, but rather signs a new contract every year. To top it off, the teachers that don't join the teachers union (most of whom are young teachers that don't see the value for what they pay in) are treated, for the most part, as pariahs or are bullied by those in union leadership positions. Many young teachers feel forced to join unions in the first place to avoid that when entering a new school.

Then there are stories like this:

http://eagnews.org/report-union-rules-forcing-irreplaceable-teachers-to-flee/

The pay structure doesn't reward hard work or positive feedback, only further education (which good teachers are constantly seeking anyway) and longevity. While I think there is some merit in higher pay for longevity (classroom experience IS important for teachers), It doesn't inherently encourage teachers to work harder or perform better, especially for a tenured teacher that may or may not simply be there collecting a pay check.

The reason student and feedback would be important is precisely because it would speak to "how much work a teacher puts into the job." It doesn't have to be a big piece of the pie--IMO the largest piece should be through random, consistent performance observation-- but that input is important because it reflects all the things that aren't shown via standardized testing or in class observations. Again, as parents and students are the primary clients of the school district, shouldn't they be heard too? Obviously you'd have to look at them cumulatively to ensure that overly prejudicial or biased comments aren't weighed too heavily, but it's easy to eliminate those types of comments as outliers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

3. Have you anything to actually counter the evidence put forward, or do you just not like the source?

Did you miss the part where he explained why it's not evidence of anything at all?

For example,

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm evil and I'm going to take over the world!

is not evidence that you're evil and are going to take over the world, despite apparently being a quote by you. The same way I forged this quote, someone could just as easily forge a screenshot of a cellphone. It just isn't evidence of anything on its own.

So you have something to substantiate your claim that the voice mail was faked? Or do we just go and ignore salient points based on unproven, unfounded speculation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
And Dreadclaw69; if you're Irish, either select Ireland as your location in your profile so the Irish flag shows next to your name, or don't get all huffy when people who don't know you from Adam see an American flag and think you're an American. I notice you also failed to address any of the points I raised, other than to vaguely waffle about "generalisations". As for countering the "evidence", I would have thought my repeated use of quotation marks around the word "evidence" made it fairly obvious that I don't think any of what's presented so far constitutes such, and won't until it's verified by a reasonably trustworthy and impartial third party like the police or the school district's own investigation.

So what you're saying is that you don't like the source that reported the news, are unable to counter the evidence, so have to go for some vague attempt to discredit it while offering no evidence, then get on your high horse because no one is playing your 'what-if' game?
What do you want me to refute? The fact that it may have been edited or faked? Provide some evidence to make your point and I may offer a rebuttal. if you want to settle into poorly made theoretical arguments based on your own bias then there isn't much likelihood of a constructive discussion.

Who's getting huffy? I just pointed out your incorrect assumption. So if I'm Irish born (something that has been mentioned on more than one occasion), and living in America which flag would you have me fly?

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:


You're kind of missing the point that all the teachers in my family, and most of those they work with are of the exact opposite opinion to yourself... and when the union represents the actual feeling of a majority of the people who make it up, that is a good thing. The kinds of things that they want to tie pay to are things that really are not an accurate reflection of how much a teacher works and puts in to the job, nor how well they teach - that is what most of the opposition to this is, rather than a straight up opposition of performance based pay.

The USA and UK may well be different in terms of how the teachers are being treated, what the plans are and how the unions work but I don't think they are that different...

Im getting the impression that they aren't even close. Unions in the US okayed the notion that a single, high stakes standardized test should account for 50% of a teachers' performance over a year, but which matters little to those in power in the unions that have been tenured. The unions do absolutely nothing to protect or serve their younger constituency that isn't on a continuing contract, but rather signs a new contract every year. To top it off, the teachers that don't join the teachers union (most of whom are young teachers that don't see the value for what they pay in) are treated, for the most part, as pariahs or are bullied by those in union leadership positions. Many young teachers feel forced to join unions in the first place to avoid that when entering a new school.

Then there are stories like this:

http://eagnews.org/report-union-rules-forcing-irreplaceable-teachers-to-flee/

The pay structure doesn't reward hard work or positive feedback, only further education (which good teachers are constantly seeking anyway) and longevity. While I think there is some merit in higher pay for longevity (classroom experience IS important for teachers), It doesn't inherently encourage teachers to work harder or perform better, especially for a tenured teacher that may or may not simply be there collecting a pay check.

The reason student and feedback would be important is precisely because it would speak to "how much work a teacher puts into the job." It doesn't have to be a big piece of the pie--IMO the largest piece should be through random, consistent performance observation-- but that input is important because it reflects all the things that aren't shown via standardized testing or in class observations. Again, as parents and students are the primary clients of the school district, shouldn't they be heard too? Obviously you'd have to look at them cumulatively to ensure that overly prejudicial or biased comments aren't weighed too heavily, but it's easy to eliminate those types of comments as outliers.

Just for fairness sake's, let's also put up the response from the AFT President.

AFT President Randi Weingarten wrote:The report is “puzzling.”

“On the one hand it makes the point of the importance of keeping good teachers and what's needed to do that,” she said in a release. “On the other, it assumes that someone can magically become a good teacher and that school leadership means simply firing bad teachers. What is missing is the work that needs to be done to create continuous development and support systems to help all teachers become great teachers. This is how we make sure that every student succeeds.”


Weingarten, who was re-elected president on Monday, the final day of the AFT convention in Detroit, pointed out that Bill Gates has said that teacher evaluations must be fused with professional development, and that teachers get little or no feedback.

She said teachers need continuous training, a clear career path with opportunities for leadership, classroom resources, administrative and community cooperation and parental engagement.

"These are things we should be focused on providing all teachers,” she said. “What it comes down to is ensuring that teachers have the time, tools and trust they need to improve teaching and learning. It’s about treating educators like the professionals they are, using their rich knowledge and experience to build up the teaching profession."

Not too sure about what Bill Gates has to do with anything, are you guys south of the border worshipping the man as a messiah now?

 cincydooley wrote:
Completely disagree, which I already explained. But then, you've probably been in a classroom and have worked with parents more than I have, so I'm sure you're right.

I deal with incentive schemes and performance monitoring on a daily basis, so I'm pretty sure I'm right, yeah.

And no, you didn't explain a better system, all your other ideas were equally terrible, I just didn't go through them because it kind of felt like I was being mean. But random observation is both insanely expensive, and seriously harms trust. Your insistence that the sample size is large enough ignore the problem of correlation between units in the sample - hard to teach kids aren't randomly distributed.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Completely disagree, which I already explained. But then, you've probably been in a classroom and have worked with parents more than I have, so I'm sure you're right.

I deal with incentive schemes and performance monitoring on a daily basis, so I'm pretty sure I'm right, yeah.

And no, you didn't explain a better system, all your other ideas were equally terrible, I just didn't go through them because it kind of felt like I was being mean. But random observation is both insanely expensive, and seriously harms trust. Your insistence that the sample size is large enough ignore the problem of correlation between units in the sample - hard to teach kids aren't randomly distributed.

I promise that performance monitoring in the American public school system is far different than anything that exists in the business world, but I'd love to hear why they're "equally terrible" considering what I've said is basically the same as what Gates is saying needs to be done. And that includes parental involvement and feedback. I realize the piece involving student feedback would be hard to incorporate well, but I also think it's important because students, especially at the high school level, can really provide good insight about their teachers and they really do know who their good and bad teachers are, and are able to do divorce that from who they like and dislike.

Random observation is required because on a scheduled observation, any teacher can look brilliant. You orchestrate the lesson and inspcentivize good behavior for the students. But you're right about it being time consuming and expensive. There's nothing getting around that. The Ohio senate just proposed a bill that would address the trust issue, too, with teachers deemed "accomplished" only being subject to observation every three years and those deemed "masters" every 5 years. Believe it or not, but most good teachers welcome observers in the classroom and certainly don't see it as a breach of trust. Getting that feedback, as with any job, is always a good thing.

 cincydooley wrote:
I promise that performance monitoring in the American public school system is far different than anything that exists in the business world, but I'd love to hear why they're "equally terrible" considering what I've said is basically the same as what Gates is saying needs to be done. And that includes parental involvement and feedback. I realize the piece involving student feedback would be hard to incorporate well, but I also think it's important because students, especially at the high school level, can really provide good insight about their teachers and they really do know who their good and bad teachers are, and are able to do divorce that from who they like and dislike.

I have no problem with seeking the feedback of students, it's the act of incorporating it in to pay and incentive programs that's disastrous.

Random observation is required because on a scheduled observation, any teacher can look brilliant.

Assuming direct observation is required at all. it is just bizarre to hire a qualified professional, and tell them you're going to randomly drop in to their workplace just to make sure they're doing their job.

Thing is, who is and who isn't a good teacher is a mystery to no-one. You don't need formal testing and random inspections. The school board and principal knows, and the principal certainly does. Perhaps not to the fine level of who deserves a slightly bigger pay rise, but then remuneration based performance is just a nonsense for teachers anyway.

Just give principals and school boards the ability to hire who they want, and fire non-performing teachers, and just ignore all the rest of that nonsense as stuff that just doesn't work for jobs as subjective as teaching.

 sebster wrote:


Assuming direct observation is required at all. it is just bizarre to hire a qualified professional, and tell them you're going to randomly drop in to their workplace just to make sure they're doing their job.

I truly think it it's because there's no real quantitative way to assess a teachers performance otherwise. Anything that could be quantitative is effectively out of the teachers hands because it's all dependent on student performance. I think a good way would to have partner schools within a district if possible, where admins from one building could observes teachers from a different building. It would remove some of the personal relationship pieces that can color even the most impartial person. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would be a start.

Thing is, who is and who isn't a good teacher is a mystery to no-one. You don't need formal testing and random inspections. The school board and principal knows, and the principal certainly does. Perhaps not to the fine level of who deserves a slightly bigger pay rise, but then remuneration based performance is just a nonsense for teachers anyway.

Just give principals and school boards the ability to hire who they want, and fire non-performing teachers, and just ignore all the rest of that nonsense as stuff that just doesn't work for jobs as subjective as teaching.

Completely agree that the good teaches and bad teachers aren't mysteries, but the problem is that, with tenure, it's very hard to get rid of "non-performing" teachers as they're protected by the union. Sadly those people are usually paid the most because of their longevity, too.

I'm not going to pretend fixing it is an easy solution; it certainly isn't. But it could be a start, say, if those teachers that achieve the "accomplished" level for x many years get a "bonus," and those that achieve a master status get a bonus or salary bump or something like that. It would certainly incentivize being a great teacher in a more positive way that basing it solely on student test scores. Granted, I have no idea where that funding would come from... Hell, my poor wife has been on a pay scale freeze for 5 years now.

I think it's good to bounce these kinds of ideas around though, because anything that moves teachers toward being regarded as the highly qualified, highly educated professionals most are and away from the horrible "those that can't, teach" is a positive step to me.

 cincydooley wrote:
I truly think it it's because there's no real quantitative way to assess a teachers performance otherwise. Anything that could be quantitative is effectively out of the teachers hands because it's all dependent on student performance. I think a good way would to have partner schools within a district if possible, where admins from one building could observes teachers from a different building. It would remove some of the personal relationship pieces that can color even the most impartial person. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would be a start.

Ultimately, when something can't be properly quantified, the answer isn't the least bad method, but to not do it at all. Across my career I've seen incentive and assessment schemes do more harm than good, and probably by some margin. This isn't because good incentive schemes are hard to put in place, but just because for a bunch of reasons they're applied to the wrong areas. The CEO, who's job is extremely hard to quantify, almost always has an incentive scheme, but the guys in machining, who's work can be incentivised very easily, generally don't.

The same applies to the government sector as well. People are mad keen to get incentive schemes put in to teaching despite there being no decent set of metrics that would work... but no-one talks about incentive schemes for road crews or bus drivers or any of the jobs that are really easy to quantify.

Completely agree that the good teaches and bad teachers aren't mysteries, but the problem is that, with tenure, it's very hard to get rid of "non-performing" teachers as they're protected by the union.

And that sounds like the problem worth working on, to me. Don't worry about incentives or any of that, just fix the industrial relations. Move away from the clashes with a defensive, militant union, by offering genuine protection from political and personality based firings through an independant ombudsman, effectively bypassing the union's claim of legitimate need, and thereby removing it's power in all cases where it is protecting a person who does deserve to lose their job.

Hell, my poor wife has been on a pay scale freeze for 5 years now.

That sucks for you and your wife, sorry to hear about that. It would be very hard to get ahead on a flat income.

I think it's good to bounce these kinds of ideas around though, because anything that moves teachers toward being regarded as the highly qualified, highly educated professionals most are and away from the horrible "those that can't, teach" is a positive step to me.

The increasing efforts to think of teaching as a genuine profession is definitely a move in the right direction. A lot more needs to be done, of course, but the same is true of my career

 Frazzled wrote:
When does someone nonseriously call another person a neo Nazi?

When they're Jews?


(Especially in Huntington beach.)

Who's getting huffy? I just pointed out your incorrect assumption. So if I'm Irish born (something that has been mentioned on more than one occasion), and living in America which flag would you have me fly?

American Flag Hurr!
(or alternatively the Disney World flag. Its a Small World after all..)

 Frazzled wrote:
American Flag Hurr!
(or alternatively the Disney World flag. Its a Small World after all..)

If you get that song stuck in my head so help you

Oh crap I just did. karma you are a foul mistress!!!

Try listening to 'Yellow Rose of Texas' instead

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I agree with slavetodorkness... I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how the jump was made from "please present both sides of the argument" to "NEO-NAZI!!!"

Go post something even vaguely Republican-sounding on any leftist site you care to name and see how quickly you get called at the very least a racist.

On some Leftist websites you post anything vaguely Republican-sounding you get the axe. As an example DemocratUnderground.com is notorious for doing this to anyone who does not toe the party line.

If you got all your information from the bbc then things would be much better in america

Hello. Public School Administrator here. Regarding teacher evaluations and merit pay; the former is fairly easy to explain, the latter opens a world of dangerous conversation.

The current practice making its way around the US is for a qualitative and quantitative approach to teacher evaluation. The form that this takes will vary depening upon the laws of a particular state. Here in Oklahoma we have the "Teacher and Leader Effectiveness" law or TLE which guides our processes. Long story short, school districts may choose from one of three state approved frameworks to utilize for teacher qualitative evaluations. These use a combination of formal and informal observations, scales and evidences and a collaborative process of growth between the teacher and administrator. The quantitative component is comprised of a menu from which teachers and adminstatrors choose a few appropriate measures based upon consultation relevant to their subject area (class benchmarks, etc.), this is called "Other Academic Measures"; the other part is an average of several years' worth of standardized test scores. The breakdown on evaluations is 50% qualitative, 35% student growth and 15% "Other Academic Measures".

Personally, I love the qualitative aspect but loathe the quantitative. It's what you get when people with no experience in education write laws that impact an entire profession.

Meanwhile, educators in my state are the lowest paid in the region and districts are struggling to find teachers to fill high-need positions because the same people that like to pass education laws seem to forget how to write when it comes to funding education. So, what happens when you have high expectations and low pay? People move to Texas and teach Frazz. ;-)

It's a Small World after all... It's a small world after all...

*Is Evil*

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

3. Have you anything to actually counter the evidence put forward, or do you just not like the source?

Did you miss the part where he explained why it's not evidence of anything at all?

For example,

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm evil and I'm going to take over the world!

is not evidence that you're evil and are going to take over the world, despite apparently being a quote by you. The same way I forged this quote, someone could just as easily forge a screenshot of a cellphone. It just isn't evidence of anything on its own.

So you have something to substantiate your claim that the voice mail was faked? Or do we just go and ignore salient points based on unproven, unfounded speculation?

Having one screenshot of a phone that doesn't even say which persons the conversation is between is hardly a salient point, which is the entire point we're making. That screensot, on its own, is worth nothing as evidence, because it's a conversation between two unknown people. If you're claiming that someone's said something you need to actually prove that. If someone calls you out on the fact that you didn't the burden of proof isn't on the people pointing out the blatantly obvious, it's on you.

 agnosto wrote:
Hello. Public School Administrator here. Regarding teacher evaluations and merit pay; the former is fairly easy to explain, the latter opens a world of dangerous conversation.

The current practice making its way around the US is for a qualitative and quantitative approach to teacher evaluation. The form that this takes will vary depening upon the laws of a particular state. Here in Oklahoma we have the "Teacher and Leader Effectiveness" law or TLE which guides our processes. Long story short, school districts may choose from one of three state approved frameworks to utilize for teacher qualitative evaluations. These use a combination of formal and informal observations, scales and evidences and a collaborative process of growth between the teacher and administrator. The quantitative component is comprised of a menu from which teachers and adminstatrors choose a few appropriate measures based upon consultation relevant to their subject area (class benchmarks, etc.), this is called "Other Academic Measures"; the other part is an average of several years' worth of standardized test scores. The breakdown on evaluations is 50% qualitative, 35% student growth and 15% "Other Academic Measures".

Personally, I love the qualitative aspect but loathe the quantitative. It's what you get when people with no experience in education write laws that impact an entire profession.

Meanwhile, educators in my state are the lowest paid in the region and districts are struggling to find teachers to fill high-need positions because the same people that like to pass education laws seem to forget how to write when it comes to funding education. So, what happens when you have high expectations and low pay? People move to Texas and teach Frazz. ;-)

Wow that actually sounds so much better than Ohio it's shocking. In Ohio, student "growth", dictated by value added, accounts for 50% of the eval.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Having one screenshot of a phone that doesn't even say which persons the conversation is between is hardly a salient point, which is the entire point we're making. That screensot, on its own, is worth nothing as evidence, because it's a conversation between two unknown people. If you're claiming that someone's said something you need to actually prove that. If someone calls you out on the fact that you didn't the burden of proof isn't on the people pointing out the blatantly obvious, it's on you.

It is only a salient point. Just because you don't like it and can't counter it does not change the fact. It is central to the claims being made. Would you rather that the phone numbers were listed and published so the participants could be harassed? Or should the reporters invite claims of libel for publishing the name of the person using the term "neo-Nazi"? before an investigation has concluded?

I see you're ignoring the video at least

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Having one screenshot of a phone that doesn't even say which persons the conversation is between is hardly a salient point, which is the entire point we're making. That screensot, on its own, is worth nothing as evidence, because it's a conversation between two unknown people. If you're claiming that someone's said something you need to actually prove that. If someone calls you out on the fact that you didn't the burden of proof isn't on the people pointing out the blatantly obvious, it's on you.

It is only a salient point. Just because you don't like it and can't counter it does not change the fact. It is central to the claims being made. Would you rather that the phone numbers were listed and published so the participants could be harassed? Or should the reporters invite claims of libel for publishing the name of the person using the term "neo-Nazi"? before an investigation has concluded?

I see you're ignoring the video at least

You aren't reading what I'm saying, are you? I'll say it again:

We have NO clue if the people in the video are the people they're claimed to be, and we have no clue who the text message conversation is between. The information we have is not proof of anything. I don't have to counter it, because it doesn't prove anything. It's only relevant if there's something that actually proves that the teacher in question has been part of this.

I personally think the teacher DID do this, it doesn't sound too far-fetched and if the parent is lying it'd be discovered pretty quickly, but the "evidence" in this thread really isn't evidence of anything on its own.

I'd also appreciate if you stopped throwing up strawmen. I've never said that I wanted anyone to be harassed or that I want anyone investigated for libel, I've only said that I don't think the evidence is really evidence at all at this stage. Something YOU have yet to counter. If anything, you're the one ignoring things.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You aren't reading what I'm saying, are you? I'll say it again:

We have NO clue if the people in the video are the people they're claimed to be, and we have no clue who the text message conversation is between. The information we have is not proof of anything. I don't have to counter it, because it doesn't prove anything. It's only relevant if there's something that actually proves that the teacher in question has been part of this.

I personally think the teacher DID do this, it doesn't sound too far-fetched and if the parent is lying it'd be discovered pretty quickly, but the "evidence" in this thread really isn't evidence of anything on its own.

I'd also appreciate if you stopped throwing up strawmen. I've never said that I wanted anyone to be harassed or that I want anyone investigated for libel, I've only said that I don't think the evidence is really evidence at all at this stage. Something YOU have yet to counter. If anything, you're the one ignoring things.

And the race to shout strawman continues apace on Dakka
It helps if you realise that I did not misrepresent your position, which is what a straw man is, but that I was giving alternate reasons as to why the phone numbers and names were likely not disclosed


The identity of those in the video, and those responsible for the texts, are very easily established and unlikely to be put in the public domain while this is an ongoing matter. But you're right, evidence provided by more than one person and corroborating accounts are really proof of anything.....

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You aren't reading what I'm saying, are you? I'll say it again:

We have NO clue if the people in the video are the people they're claimed to be, and we have no clue who the text message conversation is between. The information we have is not proof of anything. I don't have to counter it, because it doesn't prove anything. It's only relevant if there's something that actually proves that the teacher in question has been part of this.

I personally think the teacher DID do this, it doesn't sound too far-fetched and if the parent is lying it'd be discovered pretty quickly, but the "evidence" in this thread really isn't evidence of anything on its own.

I'd also appreciate if you stopped throwing up strawmen. I've never said that I wanted anyone to be harassed or that I want anyone investigated for libel, I've only said that I don't think the evidence is really evidence at all at this stage. Something YOU have yet to counter. If anything, you're the one ignoring things.

And the race to shout strawman continues apace on Dakka
It helps if you realise that I did not misrepresent your position, which is what a straw man is, but that I was giving alternate reasons as to why the phone numbers and names were likely not disclosed

Spoiler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It is possible to unintentionally misrepresent an opponent's argument by failing to understand it in the first place and honestly communicating what one (wrongly) thinks is the actual argument. This can lead to opposition believing the creation of a straw man argument to be intended, when it may or may not be.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

The identity of those in the video, and those responsible for the texts, are very easily established and unlikely to be put in the public domain while this is an ongoing matter. But you're right, evidence provided by more than one person and corroborating accounts are really proof of anything.....

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Would you rather that the phone numbers were listed and published so the participants could be harassed? Or should the reporters invite claims of libel for publishing the name of the person using the term "neo-Nazi"? before an investigation has concluded?

If the purpouse of those two questions wasn't to strawman, why are they there? If I'd wanted to say what those questions wondered if I was saying I would have said so. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and as such, to me, can't be interpreted in any other way than to misrepresent my position.