Steve Paris wrote:You just don't get it, do you. Let me break it down for you; I wrote: "he tells people that he's a sanctimonious prick". I'm reporting what he's saying. I am not stating that he is one. There's a world of difference, but you either don't see it or choose not to see it.
Oh, I get it all right! Deborah Orr called him a sanctimonious prick
. Andy, presumably to entertain his audience at Bath sitp, referred to it and you repeated it in a tweet but mendaciously presented it as if Andy saying it was a genuine confession. On being challenged you protest that you were just helpfully disseminating what he had said about himself.
I think anyone reading will be able to see through that, so let's leave it there.
As for him being a hypocrite? Well, we've documented him doing things he condemns others for doing.
The point I made is that you have repeatedly whined about my calling you various insulting names and on this very thread you said you found labelling people counter-productive, which implies that you don't do it. But you do
. So it seems you claim the right to insult and label other people but nobody must do it you. If you're gonna defend yourself by claiming you've got evidence that Andy is a hypocrite, then by the same token I can defend myself by saying that the evidence that you are bullies and liars is in the public arena. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. 'Sauce, goose, gander', as Tet said.
But what you wrote next is absolutely priceless yada yada yada
I'm wondering how many times I have to repeat this for it to penetrate: I am not remotely interested in what happened at that school and you have no reason for thinking I am. The letter, which you accuse me of "gleefully grabbing", was provided to me by someone watching this thread and I included it for the benefit of anyone who is interested in your story. I'm sure anyone reading is capable of making up their own mind and I'm surprised at your rather hysterical reaction to the fact that I included it.
How dare I, you write? Try looking in the mirror.
Meaning? Have I at any time in this conversation put words into your mouth or presumed to to know what you are feeling or thinking - which is what provoked that question from me? No. My responses to you have focused entirely on what you/Angel have said in public and not what I imagine you are thinking, so I can ignore your petulant knee-jerk suggestion with a clear conscience.
And as for my "unconscionable behaviour", make sure you read up on what [name removed by admin] did to us. But don't worry, I fully expect you to come back to me and say how fantastic she and her family behaved towards us.
Funny you should say that. I don't know the lady in question outside of twitter and all I know about her family is what you/Angel have written. Let's look at your account, forwarded to me by the guy you wrote it for.
This all started when we had the misfortune of sending our children to a special type of school. It was beautiful and brilliant in Kindie, so we brought in our eldest and that's when the problems started - big problems with bullying.
To cut a long story short, after 4 months of our eldest daughter reporting bullying to her teacher and us, and us trying to work with the school to deal with that bullying, the manager organised a meeting with teachers, trustees and us to try and sort it out. But the day it was due to happen, the school cancelled it and expelled my 3 kids instead.
Through us fighting this injustice, we encountered other people who'd experienced similar things in those same types of schools worldwide.
One of these people, "Jane", was very enthusiastic about how we were dealing with the situation (working with video and comedy, and all the evidence we had gathered), so when we travelled to the UK because my wife's mum was dying of cancer, she was extremely keen for us to meet up, which we did).
She was really keen to help us out, recommended her local school where her son who had been to a similar school to ours had gone to after his own experience. My eldest daughter had been extremely traumatised by her experience and was very reluctant to try a new school, so "Jane" even offered for one of us and my daughter to stay with her for a week while that school did an assessment of her a few months from then.
In the meantime, she encouraged us to allow her son to come and help us out. We were moving a lot at the time, going from a caravan to a family home in France all while home educating our kids and dealing with my wife's mum. "Jane" assured us her son was very reliable and it would be a good opportunity for him to talk our child into this new school, so we accepted her generous offer.
"Jane"'s son was planning on staying with us for at least a month, but less than a week into his visit, he changed his mind and wanted to go home and go to a party with his girlfriend.
This was highly inconvenient at the time and caused a huge amount of stress. In the end of course, he got to go back home when he wanted, and my wife's dying mum changed her own plans in order to make this happen.
And then, we never heard from "Jane" again. When I called a few days later to make sure her son had got home ok, he hung up on me; "Jane" had encouraged my wife to write an article for a prominent blog but then withdrew any help and advice. There was not even any communication about what to do with the mobile phone her son ordered which arrived after his departure.
After my wife's article was published, she blocked us on twitter and some of her friends started being quite aggressive against us on a blog. All this time, we were still dealing with my mother-in-law's illness and the stress of not living in our home, with our three young kids.
So, in a nutshell, someone who was very nice, friendly and supportive to you suddenly stopped being so. Naturally, one's first reaction is to wonder why - what could you have said or done that made her change her mind about you? Because if you've said or done something really nasty to someone, then severing all contact with you is exactly what I would expect that someone to do and certainly isn't 'unconscionable', regardless of how much it stresses and inconveniences you. Without that missing piece of information, however, all I have to go on is Jane's public behaviour and your public behaviour. Guess who comes out best in that particular competition? Hint: I haven't seen "Jane" tweet nasty tweets, post nasty articles on her website or nasty vids on youtube...
After all, you think it's so cool to say that expelling targets of bullying in an elegant solution. And yes, Alicia Hamberg's sentence does refer to them no matter how much you claim it doesn't. It's what happened to them as a direct result of the actions of a principal Alicia so admires. An "elegant solution" damaged children. Get it?
There you go again, lying about what Alicia said and putting words into my mouth. Alicia's comment is in the public domain; why not leave people to make up their own minds about it, and stop having a cathartic tantrum whenever someone comes to a different conclusion from you?
How wonderfully sceptical of you...How very humanist and sceptical of you...It's what I've come to expect from people claiming to be skeptical. You people are anything but.
Thanks for so amply demonstrating your lack of understanding of what the words 'humanism' and 'skepticism' actually mean. If you want to allege that I am somehow failing to apply humanist principles or be suitably skeptical, it behoves you make a coherent argument to that end because, frankly, your snarky little references just make you look a bit thick. TTFN.