Dear Editor,
Gilroy High School mathematics teacher Wayne Scott (Letters –
May 10) is very specific as to what constitutes
”
reasonable discourse.
”
He expects individuals to have:
”
… a logical view of the facts …
”
and to
”
… bring the discourse back to the sphere of ideas …
”
Dear Editor,
Gilroy High School mathematics teacher Wayne Scott (Letters – May 10) is very specific as to what constitutes “reasonable discourse.” He expects individuals to have: ” … a logical view of the facts … ” and to “… bring the discourse back to the sphere of ideas …”
Well and good! How does his letter exemplify these necessary points?
Scott’s opening criticisms claim: “It is unfortunate that there is a segment of the community that is unwilling to hold a reasonable discourse. (These individuals … would rather bully and intimidate than discuss.)
People of this ilk would rather throw childish accusations in the form of personal attacks than sticking to the adult world of logic and ideas … not accountable to anyone or anything, least of all the truth.” That’s reasonable! Scott wrote it and lives it – and surely he is a reasonable man!
Not content lashing those who question/challenge his simplistic views, Scott turns to character assassination. Dispatch columnist Denise Baer-Apuzzo’s comments on the ludicrous conduct of teachers diminishing their responsibilities during the Day of Silence are in ” … the realm of the half-truth …” thus granting Scott the piety to dictate “The rest of Ms. Apuzzo’s diatribe should be discounted in light of this and similar tactics.”
That’s reasonable! Scott wrote it – and surely he is a reasonable man!
Why does Scott talk of reason and discourse, ideas and logic, when his ramblings have none – only a self-serving, self-righteous, rationalization/justification to build himself up by tearing opposing voices down. But Scott would disagree – claiming, surely, he is a reasonable man!
Oh he sacrifices: “I will attempt to bring the discourse back into the sphere of ideas by making my logical points clear …” When? Three points of personal bias show little, if any, logic.
It’s apparent Scott has a deep-rooted infatuation with himself and says so whenever possible. Ending his 649-word love-in, he claims he’ll ” … be happy to carry on a reasoned dialogue with anyone who wishes to take issue with these stands.”
That sounds good until you read how “reasonable” and “open” such “dialogue” would be.
Any personal view must never be: “Additional attacks upon me, other teachers or administrators will be dismissed for the ugly attempt to dominate the conversation through intimidation that they are.”
They’ll receive neither reason nor logic – only Scott’s inability to confront others’ views.
His narrow-minded wish for all: “I hope that the bullies will grow up, stop the personal attacks, stop the temper tantrums and join the adult world of logical discourse.”
That’s reasonable! Scott wrote it and live it – showing clearly he is neither reasonable nor logical!
James Brescoll, Gilroy
