This one was a while coming, but the verdict just came in. I told you that we argued the University's Motion for Summary Judgement back in April. Well, the Master dismissed the motion, and I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that reading through his decision, it was pretty much a slam dunk. So in theory we can now move forward and go to trial.
Except we're not there yet. First of all, just before the motion was filed in January, I was about to proceed with discovery. I had filed a motion asking for the right to examine the defendants separately from each other, so as to make it more difficult for them to harmonize their testimony. That motion was put on hold while we argued the Summary Judgement; now I have to put it back on the table.
And that's not all. In the meantime, the schoolteachers (the Gordon Bell defendants, who didn't participate in the University's motion for Summary) have now announced that they are going to file their own Motion for Summary Judgement. The University, even though they lost the motion, managed to gain six months by their maneuver; I'm guessing that's all they really wanted to accomplish anyhow. And apparently the schoolteachers are now hoping they can do the same. We'll see how that works out.
It's going slowly but it's moving forward. After taking a beating in the kangaroo courts of the university, I've now argued two motions in front of a real court, and I've beaten the University twice. It's a long way from here to ultimate vindication, but I'm working on it.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Bigger is Better
I told you about my geodesic dome a few weeks ago. I just finished a new one, and it's bigger. You can sit inside and smoke a cigarette or do whatever you want. Here is a picture of it:
I've put it up on Kijiji if you're interested in buying one.
I've put it up on Kijiji if you're interested in buying one.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Score: Green 1 - U of W 0
Yesterday I argued another motion before a judge. I told you about how the University filed a motion for Summary Judgement back in January, and we argued the motion last month. We're still waiting for the Master to announce his decision on that one. But yesterday we argued another motion before a different master, and this time he ruled in my favor.
This was my motion to strike out an amendment to their Statement of Defence which I told you about here. Parties are allowed to modify their pleadings but the rules say they have to get the other side's consent. They don't actually need consent for corrections to clerical errors, but they're supposed to get it for substantive changes. I don't know how they got the clerks at the Law Courts to accept their changes without presenting a signed consent form. They usually scrutinize you pretty closely when you come in with documents to file. Somehow they slipped this one in.
On a motion like this, both sides file Affidavits of Evidence, and then they file Briefs where they argue their case, citing relevant authorities. You can read my Brief over here. After both parties file their Briefs, they appear before a Master to set a date for the hearing. That's where we were yesterday. But Master Lee told us he had already read the arguments of both sides, and he didn't see any need to hold a formal hearing before a judge. He was ready to here our arguments and make his decision then and there. He gave us each five minutes to make our case.
Darcy and Deacon tried to make much of the fact that I had said on my blog I "wasn't sure" whether I would have opposed the motion if they'd asked for consent. I said that wasn't the point. They had slipped one past the Court and I had called them on it. It's like Scrabble when someone plays an illegal word. You challenge the word. If your challenge is upheld, your opponent forfeits a turn. If the word turns out to be legal, then you lose a turn. It's simple justice.
After we made our arguments, the Master basically said he agreed with me that they had intentionally tried to slip one past the system, and that there ought to be consequences. So he awarded me $500 in costs against the University. I'm not used to people agreeing with me, especially after making the rounds of the kangaroo courts of the U of W's internal procedures. It's a small victory but for the first time it's one for my side. We'll see what happens when Master Berthaudin rules on the Motion for Summary Judgement. That's a big one.
In the meantime, the University has filed a Motion to Strike on my lawsuit for defamation against Professor Bush. We're scheduled to argue that one on June 24th at 3:00 pm. We'll see how that one goes.
This was my motion to strike out an amendment to their Statement of Defence which I told you about here. Parties are allowed to modify their pleadings but the rules say they have to get the other side's consent. They don't actually need consent for corrections to clerical errors, but they're supposed to get it for substantive changes. I don't know how they got the clerks at the Law Courts to accept their changes without presenting a signed consent form. They usually scrutinize you pretty closely when you come in with documents to file. Somehow they slipped this one in.
On a motion like this, both sides file Affidavits of Evidence, and then they file Briefs where they argue their case, citing relevant authorities. You can read my Brief over here. After both parties file their Briefs, they appear before a Master to set a date for the hearing. That's where we were yesterday. But Master Lee told us he had already read the arguments of both sides, and he didn't see any need to hold a formal hearing before a judge. He was ready to here our arguments and make his decision then and there. He gave us each five minutes to make our case.
Darcy and Deacon tried to make much of the fact that I had said on my blog I "wasn't sure" whether I would have opposed the motion if they'd asked for consent. I said that wasn't the point. They had slipped one past the Court and I had called them on it. It's like Scrabble when someone plays an illegal word. You challenge the word. If your challenge is upheld, your opponent forfeits a turn. If the word turns out to be legal, then you lose a turn. It's simple justice.
After we made our arguments, the Master basically said he agreed with me that they had intentionally tried to slip one past the system, and that there ought to be consequences. So he awarded me $500 in costs against the University. I'm not used to people agreeing with me, especially after making the rounds of the kangaroo courts of the U of W's internal procedures. It's a small victory but for the first time it's one for my side. We'll see what happens when Master Berthaudin rules on the Motion for Summary Judgement. That's a big one.
In the meantime, the University has filed a Motion to Strike on my lawsuit for defamation against Professor Bush. We're scheduled to argue that one on June 24th at 3:00 pm. We'll see how that one goes.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
How to make a geodesic dome
I made this last week. I'm not going to tell you how but their was a fair bit of geometry involved:
If you want to buy one I've listed it on Kijiji.
EDIT: I thought I had it all figured out but here's a guy who's way ahead of me...
EDIT: I thought I had it all figured out but here's a guy who's way ahead of me...
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Trouble in Paradise?
Yesterday was the first round in the actual court arguments of my fight with the University. I've been to court a dozen times already, but those were just formal appearances. Yesterday we argued a motion before a Master. Now we have to wait for the verdict.
This was the University's Motion for Summary Judgement, which they filed in January just days before I was about to begin discovery. A lot has happened since then. On January 11th I went to the home of Professor George Bush to try and serve him with a lawsuit for defamation, and his wife slammed the door on me and called the police. Then the University issued a no-trespassing order which I defied, resulting in them having me thrown in jail. In the meantime Professor Bush had gone to court to try (unsuccessfully) to get a restraining order against me on the basis of the "home invasion" of the 11th. Subsequently, I wrote up a new lawsuit accusing Professor Bush and his wife of defamation against me for claiming I tried to force my way into their home.
That lawsuit has been filed and served, and Brian Meronek of Darcy and Deacon has filed a Statement of Defence. You can read my claim against the Bushes over here; later maybe I will get around to posting the Statement of Defence. It's kind of interesting. Heather Bush denies that she "phoned" the U of W Security office to complain about me, but then goes on to say that whatever she said was justified on the basis that it was the truth. Only she doesn't actually admit that she even said anything. We'll see how that works out.
In the meantime, I was still holding on to the original lawsuit against George Bush...the one that prompted them to slam the door on me back in January. I never did get the chance to serve that one, because I was thrown in jail; and once I was out, the first order of business was to counter the accusation of home invasion. Once that was out of the way, and their Statement of Defence was on record, I then went downtown to Darcy and Deacon and served them with the original George Bush lawsuit, which deals with stuff he said about me in class in front of the other students. You can read that lawsuit over here.
There's one more case I have against the University. I've filed an Application for a Court Order instructing them to give me a grade on Assignment 5 from Professor Metz's course. I've posted the correspondence between myself and the University where Professor Metz claims that I did not complete the assignment, and I prove that I did. The University then said it doesn't matter if I did or I didn't, because they're not responsible for awarding grades to a student after he's been kicked out of school. I'm saying they are, and I'm going to court on that basis. You can read my Application here.
In the meantime, I was also appealing the F that Professor Bush gave me on this assignment. The Departmental Committee "reviewed" the grade and decided it was appropriate. So I appealed to the Senate Committee. After much prodding, I got them to admit that they ratified the F without even reading the paper (!). I was about to stick it to them when suddenly the chair of the Senate Committee, who had provided me with the damaging admission and assured me that I would be allowed to argue my case before his committee, disappeared and was replaced by someone more sympathetic to the needs of the University. I think they call that "being a team player". Professor Moulaison found that there was no need for me to argue my case, as it was "obvious" that the only thing to do would be to have me re-submit the paper for the Departmental Committee. (So they could read the paper first before ratifying the F!). When I attempted to dispute this ruling, my appeal was abruptly terminated.
I haven't figured out exactly how I'm going to take them to court on this one, but I'm working on it. In the meantime, I'm waiting for Master Berthaudin to announce the his ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgement. I felt pretty good walking out of the courtroom, but you never know which way these things can go.
You may be wondering by now why I titled this post "Trouble in Paradise". It's a small point really, and it's something that came up in passing when Lindsay Mulholland was arguing the University's case. If I heard it correctly, she said something about the teachers (the Gordon Bell defendants, who were not participating in the Motion for Summary Judgement) being "ably represented" by another firm and I think she said that they wanted their part in the lawsuit to be separated from the university's defence.
I'm not able to quote any words to back up my feeling on this, but I got the impression that there was perhaps a disagreement in strategy between the two groups of co-defendants as to how they wanted to fight this case. And it would make a lot of sense. The way I see it, the University wanted to kick me out of the program without the need for a lot of messy procedural goings-on. So they found this clause in the Student Teacher contract which said the Principal had the absolute authority to remove a student from the school with no notice. (Ms. Mulholland made much of this clause in arguing her motion for Summary Judgement.) So they got Principal Arlene Skull to concoct a case against me, culminating in the ambush of Nov 21st 2011 when I was frog-marched to the curb and told never to come back to Gordon Bell.
Why would Arlene Skull participate in this scheme? My theory is that it's because she's a "team player", and if the Dean of Education tells here that this is what they want to do, she's going to do her part. And I have little doubt that if she expressed any reservations, the Dean would have told her not to worry, that they know what they're doing, that nothing can go wrong.
And now she's getting sued, and she doesn't like it. I imagine there's been a fair bit of acrimony between the University players and the schoolteachers over this. There's a certain irony in all this. I don't like it when people say "trust me". Even if they're well-meaning people who are on my side. I've come to believe in following my own instincts, even when people say I'm wrong. There are various reasons why this makes sense for me, and it came out once in a discussion with my colleagues at Gordon Bell, when they said I should "trust them" as to how to deal with a certain problem. I said: "I trust no one: I trust myself." This quote was later held up against me as an example of my bad attitude. But it's actually very good advice.
I'm guessing that there were some people who took part in the conspiracy against me who had some doubts about whether they ought to be doing what they were doing. But someone higher up said "trust me, we know what we're doing. Nothing bad can happen." And later on, when things started getting sticky, they said: "Trust me. We'll get the case thrown out on summary judgement". Well,, we'll see how that works out. If you ask me, there are times when people should listen to their own internal voice, and follow my advice: Trust no one....trust yourself.
This was the University's Motion for Summary Judgement, which they filed in January just days before I was about to begin discovery. A lot has happened since then. On January 11th I went to the home of Professor George Bush to try and serve him with a lawsuit for defamation, and his wife slammed the door on me and called the police. Then the University issued a no-trespassing order which I defied, resulting in them having me thrown in jail. In the meantime Professor Bush had gone to court to try (unsuccessfully) to get a restraining order against me on the basis of the "home invasion" of the 11th. Subsequently, I wrote up a new lawsuit accusing Professor Bush and his wife of defamation against me for claiming I tried to force my way into their home.
That lawsuit has been filed and served, and Brian Meronek of Darcy and Deacon has filed a Statement of Defence. You can read my claim against the Bushes over here; later maybe I will get around to posting the Statement of Defence. It's kind of interesting. Heather Bush denies that she "phoned" the U of W Security office to complain about me, but then goes on to say that whatever she said was justified on the basis that it was the truth. Only she doesn't actually admit that she even said anything. We'll see how that works out.
In the meantime, I was still holding on to the original lawsuit against George Bush...the one that prompted them to slam the door on me back in January. I never did get the chance to serve that one, because I was thrown in jail; and once I was out, the first order of business was to counter the accusation of home invasion. Once that was out of the way, and their Statement of Defence was on record, I then went downtown to Darcy and Deacon and served them with the original George Bush lawsuit, which deals with stuff he said about me in class in front of the other students. You can read that lawsuit over here.
There's one more case I have against the University. I've filed an Application for a Court Order instructing them to give me a grade on Assignment 5 from Professor Metz's course. I've posted the correspondence between myself and the University where Professor Metz claims that I did not complete the assignment, and I prove that I did. The University then said it doesn't matter if I did or I didn't, because they're not responsible for awarding grades to a student after he's been kicked out of school. I'm saying they are, and I'm going to court on that basis. You can read my Application here.
In the meantime, I was also appealing the F that Professor Bush gave me on this assignment. The Departmental Committee "reviewed" the grade and decided it was appropriate. So I appealed to the Senate Committee. After much prodding, I got them to admit that they ratified the F without even reading the paper (!). I was about to stick it to them when suddenly the chair of the Senate Committee, who had provided me with the damaging admission and assured me that I would be allowed to argue my case before his committee, disappeared and was replaced by someone more sympathetic to the needs of the University. I think they call that "being a team player". Professor Moulaison found that there was no need for me to argue my case, as it was "obvious" that the only thing to do would be to have me re-submit the paper for the Departmental Committee. (So they could read the paper first before ratifying the F!). When I attempted to dispute this ruling, my appeal was abruptly terminated.
I haven't figured out exactly how I'm going to take them to court on this one, but I'm working on it. In the meantime, I'm waiting for Master Berthaudin to announce the his ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgement. I felt pretty good walking out of the courtroom, but you never know which way these things can go.
You may be wondering by now why I titled this post "Trouble in Paradise". It's a small point really, and it's something that came up in passing when Lindsay Mulholland was arguing the University's case. If I heard it correctly, she said something about the teachers (the Gordon Bell defendants, who were not participating in the Motion for Summary Judgement) being "ably represented" by another firm and I think she said that they wanted their part in the lawsuit to be separated from the university's defence.
I'm not able to quote any words to back up my feeling on this, but I got the impression that there was perhaps a disagreement in strategy between the two groups of co-defendants as to how they wanted to fight this case. And it would make a lot of sense. The way I see it, the University wanted to kick me out of the program without the need for a lot of messy procedural goings-on. So they found this clause in the Student Teacher contract which said the Principal had the absolute authority to remove a student from the school with no notice. (Ms. Mulholland made much of this clause in arguing her motion for Summary Judgement.) So they got Principal Arlene Skull to concoct a case against me, culminating in the ambush of Nov 21st 2011 when I was frog-marched to the curb and told never to come back to Gordon Bell.
Why would Arlene Skull participate in this scheme? My theory is that it's because she's a "team player", and if the Dean of Education tells here that this is what they want to do, she's going to do her part. And I have little doubt that if she expressed any reservations, the Dean would have told her not to worry, that they know what they're doing, that nothing can go wrong.
And now she's getting sued, and she doesn't like it. I imagine there's been a fair bit of acrimony between the University players and the schoolteachers over this. There's a certain irony in all this. I don't like it when people say "trust me". Even if they're well-meaning people who are on my side. I've come to believe in following my own instincts, even when people say I'm wrong. There are various reasons why this makes sense for me, and it came out once in a discussion with my colleagues at Gordon Bell, when they said I should "trust them" as to how to deal with a certain problem. I said: "I trust no one: I trust myself." This quote was later held up against me as an example of my bad attitude. But it's actually very good advice.
I'm guessing that there were some people who took part in the conspiracy against me who had some doubts about whether they ought to be doing what they were doing. But someone higher up said "trust me, we know what we're doing. Nothing bad can happen." And later on, when things started getting sticky, they said: "Trust me. We'll get the case thrown out on summary judgement". Well,, we'll see how that works out. If you ask me, there are times when people should listen to their own internal voice, and follow my advice: Trust no one....trust yourself.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
What Kind of Nut is Marty Green?
There are quite a few amateur psychologists out there who have been trying to diagnose my mental condition based on what I've been posting here and in my physics blog. Some of them have complained that despite having over three hundred posts to pore through, I'm still not giving them enough information to go on. Not that it's stopped any of them from concluding that my condition makes me unfit to be trusted with children.
Anyhow, it turns out that in the last year I've finally gotten around to a personal project that people have been urging me to do for almost twenty years, ever since my community access TV show went off the air. Yes, you can now check out clips from my old Math With Marty shows on YouTube. And it's true I look pretty crazy. If you need any more evidence as to why I don't belong in a classroom teaching kids, you should be able to find it here. It's funny how many of the tendencies noted by my professors and fellow students in their complaint documents are mirrored in the behavior recorded twenty hears ago. I've put up a few samples below.
This one starts partway through the show, but I'm clearly all over the board and not making sense. Here's another one:
Here I display a childish obsession with excrement and my disdain for established climate science. Then I mess up the calculation which was supposedly the whole point of the show, and at the very end I appear to be condoning illegal drug use.
Let's see what else I've got. Here's one where I express my disdain for the educational system and the teachers and professors:
One of the most serious allegations against me at the University was how I humiliated a guest who was invited to the classroom. In this next video clip you can see I've invited a guest, choir director and accompanist Barry Anderson. I think you'll agree that he seems to find the whole experience pretty embarrassing. (He never returned to the show after this episode):
And while we're at it, if you think I'm crazy, then how crazy is was my high school math teacher, Mr. Barsby?
And here's one more just for fun:
Anyhow, it turns out that in the last year I've finally gotten around to a personal project that people have been urging me to do for almost twenty years, ever since my community access TV show went off the air. Yes, you can now check out clips from my old Math With Marty shows on YouTube. And it's true I look pretty crazy. If you need any more evidence as to why I don't belong in a classroom teaching kids, you should be able to find it here. It's funny how many of the tendencies noted by my professors and fellow students in their complaint documents are mirrored in the behavior recorded twenty hears ago. I've put up a few samples below.
This one starts partway through the show, but I'm clearly all over the board and not making sense. Here's another one:
Let's see what else I've got. Here's one where I express my disdain for the educational system and the teachers and professors:
One of the most serious allegations against me at the University was how I humiliated a guest who was invited to the classroom. In this next video clip you can see I've invited a guest, choir director and accompanist Barry Anderson. I think you'll agree that he seems to find the whole experience pretty embarrassing. (He never returned to the show after this episode):
And while we're at it, if you think I'm crazy, then how crazy is was my high school math teacher, Mr. Barsby?
And here's one more just for fun:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
In which I Renege on My Promise
In the course of my last couple of posts, I got into a discussion with some correspondents about how I was presenting only one side of the story. They wanted to know the University's side. In particular, I told Ms. Redboots that I would spend the next few posts disclosing in detail all the accusations the University has made against me.
Since then, I've given it a lot of thought and I've decided maybe I won't do that after all. I'll tell you why not. The first thing I did was to post a link to the short summary of the charges against me which the Registrar provided to me back in December 2011. I pointed out that I had already posted this link last winter, in fact given it great prominence when I hilited in the Free Press talkbacks that went up last September when news of my lawsuit came out...so much so that it has received more hits than anything else I've posted.
So I was pretty surprised when after reposting this link, I got a really hostile response from some Anonymous posters who complained that the information in that letter didn't give enough details as to what I'd actually done. That got me thinking.
I was removed without warning from my Practicum on November 21st. I wrote the Director of Student Teaching three times that week, asking for details of why I had been suspended and what it would take to find me an alternate placement, and she refused to provide any information other than that my removal had been requested by the Principal, that my case had been turned over to the Registrar and that I would be contacted. There was nothing I could do but sit at home and wait helplessly, day after day, as my Practicum slipped away without the chance to seek another school placement and with no reason given. It was over two weeks before the Registrar informed me that I was being charged with non-Academic misconduct, and two more weeks before he finally gave me the summary of complaints which I have shared with you.
It would be four more weeks before he finally handed down his findings on those charges: namely, that I was guilty. In all that time, despite my repeated requests for further disclosure, he refused to give me any further details of the complaints.
So if you're complaining that I haven't told you what I did to get myself kicked out of university...why don't you complain to the Registrar? Because the very sketchy (and very disturbing) allegations contained in his letter are all that I was given to defend myself against.
To be sure, after releasing his findings, the Registrar produced a document which disclosed additional complaints against me, also without details. I then launched my formal appeal to the Student Discipline Appeals Committee. The University scheduled my hearing for forty-five days after my written appeal was acknowledged, the maximum time allowed under the regulations. So it was guaranteed that I would not be able to get back to classes before the term ended, in the unlikely event that I succeeded in my appeal. And even then they refused to disclose the complaints against me, until the very last minute. I described the circumstances as to how that came about in this post. And even then they still refused to provide me with the "complaints" from Gordon Bell.
By the way, I had also tried to get disclosure by applying to the Ombudsman under the Freedom of Information Act. By law, the University is supposed to cough up anything it has on you within thirty days. But they stonewalled for months, while the Ombudsman's office just ignored my complaints. It took six months to get anything out of them, by which time I had long since lost my final appeal. And in any event the bundle of documents they finally gave me was so heavily censored that there was nothing in it that I didn't already have. So much for your FIPPA rights.
So when all is said and done, why won't I tell you now what was in those complaints? Well, to some extent I already have. I went through the letter from Lauralyn Cantor in quite a bit of detail here. But that's not the point. My point is that if you feel I haven't been forthcoming in telling you what I was accused of, how do you think I felt when I was trying to defend myself?
Then there is the question of my fellow classmates. From the hostility against me in the talkbacks, you have to assume that some of the same people who whispered about me behind my back are among my readership. If I'm not being truthful in what I've posted, why don't they come forward with their version? I'm not stopping anyone from posting comments. Let them go to town.
Anyhow, I really wonder why these people say they need to know more details when it's pretty clear that they've already made up their minds? Go back and read the comments to my earlier posts. They're pretty hostile. And the theme that comes through again and again is....they don't need to know the facts. To my critics, it's already obvious just from the way I write my blog that I'm an antisocial reject who has no business working with children.
So who needs the facts?
Since then, I've given it a lot of thought and I've decided maybe I won't do that after all. I'll tell you why not. The first thing I did was to post a link to the short summary of the charges against me which the Registrar provided to me back in December 2011. I pointed out that I had already posted this link last winter, in fact given it great prominence when I hilited in the Free Press talkbacks that went up last September when news of my lawsuit came out...so much so that it has received more hits than anything else I've posted.
So I was pretty surprised when after reposting this link, I got a really hostile response from some Anonymous posters who complained that the information in that letter didn't give enough details as to what I'd actually done. That got me thinking.
I was removed without warning from my Practicum on November 21st. I wrote the Director of Student Teaching three times that week, asking for details of why I had been suspended and what it would take to find me an alternate placement, and she refused to provide any information other than that my removal had been requested by the Principal, that my case had been turned over to the Registrar and that I would be contacted. There was nothing I could do but sit at home and wait helplessly, day after day, as my Practicum slipped away without the chance to seek another school placement and with no reason given. It was over two weeks before the Registrar informed me that I was being charged with non-Academic misconduct, and two more weeks before he finally gave me the summary of complaints which I have shared with you.
It would be four more weeks before he finally handed down his findings on those charges: namely, that I was guilty. In all that time, despite my repeated requests for further disclosure, he refused to give me any further details of the complaints.
So if you're complaining that I haven't told you what I did to get myself kicked out of university...why don't you complain to the Registrar? Because the very sketchy (and very disturbing) allegations contained in his letter are all that I was given to defend myself against.
To be sure, after releasing his findings, the Registrar produced a document which disclosed additional complaints against me, also without details. I then launched my formal appeal to the Student Discipline Appeals Committee. The University scheduled my hearing for forty-five days after my written appeal was acknowledged, the maximum time allowed under the regulations. So it was guaranteed that I would not be able to get back to classes before the term ended, in the unlikely event that I succeeded in my appeal. And even then they refused to disclose the complaints against me, until the very last minute. I described the circumstances as to how that came about in this post. And even then they still refused to provide me with the "complaints" from Gordon Bell.
By the way, I had also tried to get disclosure by applying to the Ombudsman under the Freedom of Information Act. By law, the University is supposed to cough up anything it has on you within thirty days. But they stonewalled for months, while the Ombudsman's office just ignored my complaints. It took six months to get anything out of them, by which time I had long since lost my final appeal. And in any event the bundle of documents they finally gave me was so heavily censored that there was nothing in it that I didn't already have. So much for your FIPPA rights.
So when all is said and done, why won't I tell you now what was in those complaints? Well, to some extent I already have. I went through the letter from Lauralyn Cantor in quite a bit of detail here. But that's not the point. My point is that if you feel I haven't been forthcoming in telling you what I was accused of, how do you think I felt when I was trying to defend myself?
Then there is the question of my fellow classmates. From the hostility against me in the talkbacks, you have to assume that some of the same people who whispered about me behind my back are among my readership. If I'm not being truthful in what I've posted, why don't they come forward with their version? I'm not stopping anyone from posting comments. Let them go to town.
Anyhow, I really wonder why these people say they need to know more details when it's pretty clear that they've already made up their minds? Go back and read the comments to my earlier posts. They're pretty hostile. And the theme that comes through again and again is....they don't need to know the facts. To my critics, it's already obvious just from the way I write my blog that I'm an antisocial reject who has no business working with children.
So who needs the facts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)