Location, Location, Location!

[PsyGuy]

@Sid

Yes, actually it does.

[sid]

Once again, slowly....
Being found guilty in a court of law does not actually make you guilty or innocent. It merely determines whether the legal system will treat you as guilty or innocent. That is not the same as actually being guilty or innocent.
Plenty of guilty people have been found “not guilty” for various reasons, including the high bar for establishing official guilt. And too many innocent people have been found guilty. It’s a fallible system.
Likewise, many people and their acts never even catch the eye of the legal system. Still, those acts are sometimes still wrong and sometimes even illegal. No court needed.

[PsyGuy]

@Sid

Once again, yes it does. Thats why its called a presumption of innocence. You are PRESUMED to be innocent, not, not guilty, not any other type of qualifier, innocent until and only until PROVEN guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.

[sid]

You’re completely ignoring my message. Honestly, I’m not surprised.

[PsyGuy]

@sid

Im not ignoring your message. I read it, weighed and measured its merits and found it wanting and unpersuasive.

[Thames Pirate]

Badly quoting a teen movie (yes, I know the original quote is Biblical) does not mean you actually understood the point sid was making.

But by deliberately misunderstanding, you can keep saying "you're wrong" and having the last word. That's obviously important to you.

[Walter]

It's appropriate to inform the readers that quite a few school heads have weighed and measured the merits of Dave's teaching and found it wanting and unpersuasive. Sadly for him, his various applications to DODEA have met a similar fate...

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

What do you think I dont understand compared to disagreeing with @Sid about? This isnt a "if only you understood the point, youd agree with it scenario". I disagree with @Sid position, mainly because its lacking in merit and thus generally unpersuasive.

[sid]

Perhaps it would be easier to understand your objection if you voiced one. So far, as is typical for you, you’re just repeating “no, no, no”. You might as well stamp your feet and refuse to eat your dinner.

[PsyGuy]

@Sid

Ive articulated them well enough. We have a difference in systemic paradigms. Yours is that the character of an individual is determined by the quality of their behavior, mine is that the character of an individual is determined by the adjudication of their actions. Yours is an innate understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, mine is that right and wrong, good and evil are societal constructs that evolve, and change over time and are reflected in the judicial adjudication system of a particular time. Adjudication that an individual need concern themselves with in terms of regulating their behavior lies in the competent judicial system of authority, not some argumentum ad populum based on accusations of social media and in the western judicial system of Which Harvey is a member of there is a current sacrosanct concept that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty only in a court of competent jurisdiction, rule of law not the internet mob rules.

[Thames Pirate]

Basically you're arguing that if murder is legal or if one doesn't get caught, killing someone is not a mark of one's character. Who is surprised that PsyGuy thinks internal character and external adjudication are linked?

So if you don't get caught by PsyGuy becoming a less-than-top school, can you still be on the Tier 1 list? According to him, yes.

For the rest of us who care what a school is really like since we might actually and realistically consider and be considered for jobs there, the list might need to evolve.

[sid]

Interesting. Not surprising, considering the source.
Still completely wrong. The uncaught murderer is still a murderer. The uncaught plagiarist is still a cheater.
Not much point left in discussion of this point, I suppose. We’re unlikely to convince people to change sides.

I do wonder though, how this viewpoint aligns with pg’s viewpoint on leadership. Leaders don’t seem to be given the benefit of “innocent until adjudicated”.

[Thames Pirate]

Sid, that's because he feels unjustly treated by leadership--probably because he can't find a decent job for some baffling reason.

[sid]

So true. Still, I am enjoying the vision, imaginary of course, of PG speaking of me and you in the glowing terms he uses for Weinstein and other villains. After all, we’ve not been adjudicated, and unlike Weinstein, aren’t even in the process of adjudication. So if Weinstein is, by PG’s reckoning, a fine fella, surely we must be too? (Whether I wish to be in such “esteemed” company is a different matter.)

[Thames Pirate]

Oh, I think he prefers Weinstein. We can let readers draw their own conclusions about what that says about PsyGuy while we rest easy that we are not punted with the same brush as Weinstein. After all, Weinstein never called his BS.