International Schools Review
Teachers Keeping Each Other Informed

Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about cre

Re: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about

Postby GrumblesMcGee » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:27 am

Heliotrope wrote:
> I agree that doxxing is absolutely not done.
> I do however see where Walter is coming from: PsyGuy has repeatedly been
> misrepresenting himself, and often posts his opinions as facts. Also, he's
> a bit of a bully, albeit in a clumsy way.
> Many of the forum's readership are not forum regulars who know this about
> him, and might base big life decisions on his contributions, that lack any
> foundation in credible and verifiable sources.
> It's the main reason for a lot of my posts: I know that what he's saying in
> certain threads is obvious baloney or merely an opinion disguised as fact,
> and I fear that someone who is not aware of his reputation might take it
> for an actual fact, and will make an unwise decision based on it.
> So I'm not condoning the threat of revealing his identity, nor would I have
> done the same, but I do understand why he thought that it might be the only
> way to get PsyGuy to admit that he was lying (which he obviously was).

I don't disagree with your take here. This is hardly a 90s-era message board for casual discussions; people come here for meaningful conversations that (can) have life-changing implications. It's not low stakes. So I get why people get heated and (questionable) appeals to authority get challenged.

I also can see the reasoning behind throwing a flag and saying, "No, you don't have experience in that and you're lying, because I know who you are." That's really right pushing the envelope, but I wouldn't get hot and bothered if that's what had happened, particularly if someone is (possibly) outright fabricating, as may well be the case with @PsyGuy. On several occasions I'd have bet every peso--even at bad odds--that he's resorting to citing data that either does not exist, or--at minimum--he has no access to.

The problem (and beauty) of the anonymity (or pseudonymity) of the internet it that enables those bold claims and we're forced to sort the wheat from the chaff. I have no qualms with the regulars ganging up on @PsyGuy and outright flooding his nonsensical posts with fact-checking or intertextual references to show how he's a bit of a troll. I have no problem with a chorus of voices demanding that he provide some evidence to back up his experiential claims, when relevant. The "I know who you are" trope raises my eyebrows, as I've already noted...

...But overt threats to doxx? Disclosing information without consent unless someone acquiesces to your demands? Repeatedly calling a pseudonymous online contributor by (ostensibly) their real name? That's the worst type of 4chan stuff, and not behavior befitting any mature person in IE, let alone an administrator.
GrumblesMcGee
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:53 pm

Discussion

Postby PsyGuy » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:51 am

I would be more than happy to acknowledge when @Walter is right, I have done so in the past. He just isnt right, hes a leader with an agenda who has an opinion based on fearmongering and smoke and mirrors to advance that agenda.

@Walter doesnt know anything and chief among those is who i am. Its nothing more than a straw man position. He cant attack my credibility if he cant claim to know who I am, his fear mongering means nothing to me, and certainly hasnt changed my contributions on the forum. His consistent modus operandi is he knows who I am, Im an idiot, and hes right because hes in leadership.

I dont misrepresent anything, I only post from experience, research and reliable and trusted sources.
I never post my opinions as facts, I wrote them I take ownership of them.
What @heliotrope belies is that I owe him something, that i must meet his arbitration standards and I dont have to, nor do I care what he concludes as a result of it.
To be a lie my claims would have to be untrue and they arent.
There has not been some level of fact checking in thee contested instances its always a contributor who has a different experience, or a different opinion, and it doesnt make their claims fact.
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Re: Discussion

Postby Heliotrope » Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:09 am

PsyGuy wrote:
> I would be more than happy to acknowledge when @Walter is right, I have
> done so in the past. He just isnt right, hes a leader with an agenda who
> has an opinion based on fearmongering and smoke and mirrors to advance that
> agenda.

Again with the fearmongering, smoke and mirrors, pfff. Will you be warning us of chemtrails next?
What agenda would he possibly be trying to advance here?


> @Walter doesnt know anything and chief among those is who i am. Its nothing
> more than a straw man position. He cant attack my credibility if he cant
> claim to know who I am

Trust me, amongst those who frequent the forum you have very little credibility already on anything not relating to certification. Knowing your identity would change very little about that.


> His consistent modus
> operandi is he knows who I am, Im an idiot, and hes right because hes in
> leadership.

Being in leadership doesn't add credibility, except on issues concerning leadership.


> I dont misrepresent anything, I only post from experience, research and
> reliable and trusted sources.

Yet still always unwilling to share sources...
We all know what that means.


> I never post my opinions as facts, I wrote them I take ownership of them.

If you write something as though it's a fact you're merely reporting, you can't hide behind "I'm writing it therefore it should be obvious it's merely my opinion". If you have the IQ to form a coherent sentence, you will know that people will think that what you're stating as factual to actually be factual. It's not too hard to add your degree of certainty to a statement, and to make clear it's a personal opinion, or an educated guess.


> What @heliotrope believes is that I owe him something

Nope, I don't. I just hope your intentions are to actually try to help people here.


> To be a lie my claims would have to be untrue and they arent.

Many, many times they were.


> There has not been some level of fact checking in thee contested instances
> its always a contributor who has a different experience, or a different
> opinion, and it doesnt make their claims fact.

The problem is that all, or a large majority other contributors would state that what they are saying is their experience, while you always claim that things are a certain way instead of saying that it is merely your experience.
Heliotrope
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Reply

Postby PsyGuy » Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:25 am

@Heliotrope

The one that leadership and recruiters are all powerful and the world of IE is whatever they say it is, and one that promotes keeping ITs ignorant and uninformed.

I dont trust you, mainly because youre wrong and second because unless something has changed the "those" in the forum amounts to @Heliotrope, unless you know rep some group of members. In which case what @Heliotrope thinks or believes about my credibility is meh.

No it doesnt, having a spinning chair and watching cat videos while being a manager/administrator of one IS means all of nothing outside of that IS.

Yes, it means your not entitled to my sources.

I have no obligation to accent to your interpretation of what a statement is thought, or interpreted by you to mean. I dont have to hide behind anything, this isnt hiding, Im writing it its my statement or position, its mine, I own it. Your conclusion, thoughts, believes, feelings about what you interpret or perceive are yours of which I have zero responsibility for and the same goes for what "people" think, it isnt my responsibility.
I dont have a degree of certainty, I write my position and claims because I consider them sufficiently strong to withstand debate.
I make my positions, statements, claims and opinions absolutely crystal clear, Im writing them. They are my experience, my research, my trusted and reliable sources, how do you unequivocally know that because I wrote it and I didnt indicate it as anything otherwise.

Yes you do.

No they werent untrue.
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Re: Reply

Postby Heliotrope » Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:27 am

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> The one that leadership and recruiters are all powerful and the world of IE
> is whatever they say it is, and one that promotes keeping ITs ignorant and
> uninformed.

That might be your takeaway from @Walter's contributions, but it certainly isn't mine.
Actually, it sounds more like what you usually say about leadership.


> I dont trust you, mainly because youre wrong and second because unless
> something has changed the "those" in the forum amounts to
> @Heliotrope, unless you know rep some group of members. In which case what
> @Heliotrope thinks or believes about my credibility is meh.

I based that statement on the feedback you usually receive from the forum's major contributors in threads that aren't about credentialing. You might say there's a consensus


> No it doesnt, having a spinning chair and watching cat videos while being
> a manager/administrator of one IS means all of nothing outside of that IS.

Of course someone in leadership can give insight in what leadership thinks. They often have been at multiple schools, work with other leadership every day, and talk to other leadership at conferences and other events. So yes, they do have a different perspective to offer than that of an IT.


> Yes, it means your not entitled to my sources.

No, but without sources (and your reputation being what it is) nobody will take your claim seriously and that kind of defeats the purpose of participating on a forum like this, assuming your intention is to help other ITs.


> I have no obligation to accent to your interpretation of what a statement
> is thought, or interpreted by you to mean. I dont have to hide behind
> anything, this isnt hiding, Im writing it its my statement or position, its
> mine, I own it. Your conclusion, thoughts, believes, feelings about what
> you interpret or perceive are yours of which I have zero responsibility for
> and the same goes for what "people" think, it isnt my
> responsibility.
> I dont have a degree of certainty, I write my position and claims because I
> consider them sufficiently strong to withstand debate.
> I make my positions, statements, claims and opinions absolutely crystal
> clear, Im writing them.

*sigh*
You writing statements that are written as though they're facts doesn't make it clear it's merely your position. If they are presented as facts, people will interpret them as facts, and maybe base decisions on those supposed facts.
Haven't you ever written a thesis, or watched a trial?


> Yes you do.

No, I don't. I know better than you what I do and do not believe.


> No they werent untrue.

Hahaha!
Heliotrope
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about

Postby Nexttrip » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:34 am

Heliotrope wrote:
> I agree that doxxing is absolutely not done.
> I do however see where Walter is coming from: PsyGuy has repeatedly been
> misrepresenting himself, and often posts his opinions as facts. Also, he's
> a bit of a bully, albeit in a clumsy way.
> Many of the forum's readership are not forum regulars who know this about
> him, and might base big life decisions on his contributions, that lack any
> foundation in credible and verifiable sources.
> It's the main reason for a lot of my posts: I know that what he's saying in
> certain threads is obvious baloney or merely an opinion disguised as fact,
> and I fear that someone who is not aware of his reputation might take it
> for an actual fact, and will make an unwise decision based on it.
> So I'm not condoning the threat of revealing his identity, nor would I have
> done the same, but I do understand why he thought that it might be the only
> way to get PsyGuy to admit that he was lying (which he obviously was).

Very balanced comment, Helio. Psyguy is a legend in his own mind. He makes me laugh even when he's not trying to be funny.
Nexttrip
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:29 pm

Reply

Postby PsyGuy » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:14 pm

@Heliotrope

That is my takeaway, mainly because its true. Its what I usually claim about leadership, and @Walter is supposedly in leadership. See the connection?

Well the claims of @Heliotrope arent self authenticating, and the conclusions of one wholly @Heliotrope are meh.

Of course someone not in leadership can give insights on leadership having worked with leadership. An expired cat can have accurate insights on leadership.

Im content with the strength of my reputation and credibility on this forum. Again this nobody you claim is limited to @Heliotrope, unless youve been designated as some rep for a group Im unaware of. What @Heliotrope considers serious is meh.

No your interpreting my writing as facts. Im not responsible for @Heliotropes interpretations, perceptions, thoughts, feelings or beliefs.
Yes many.

Yes you do.

Funny, but they were still true.
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Re: Reply

Postby Heliotrope » Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:34 am

PsyGuy wrote:
> That is my takeaway

We have different takeaways then.


> Its what I usually claim about leadership

So you're saying that leadership and recruiters are all powerful and the world of IE is whatever they say it is?
And then you attack Walter for supposedly saying the same.


> Well the claims of @Heliotrope arent self authenticating

No, they aren't. I based that statement on the feedback you usually receive from the forum's major contributors in threads that aren't about credentialing.


> Of course someone not in leadership can give insights on leadership having
> worked with leadership. An expired cat can have accurate insights on
> leadership.

Yes, but usually the insights on leadership by leadership themselves will be more accurate.
Nothing against your amazing cat though, any input is welcomed, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.


> Im content with the strength of my reputation and credibility on this
> forum.

Good for you.
Too bad for everyone else.


> No your interpreting my writing as facts. Im not responsible for
> @Heliotropes interpretations, perceptions, thoughts, feelings or beliefs.

If they are presented as facts, people will interpret them as facts, and maybe base decisions on those supposed facts. Yes, they should double or triple check, but a lot of people don't, and some things are hard to check anyway - it's why they ask them on this forum. If you know this, adding to a statement that it's your opinion is the polite and helpful thing to do.
You don't have to agree of course, but don't pretend you're here to help people then.


> Yes you do.

Indeed, I DO know better than you what I do and do not believe.


> Funny, but they were still true.

Nope.
Heliotrope
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Reply

Postby PsyGuy » Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:46 am

@Heliotrope

We have different takeaways.

No, Im stating that leadership think they are all powerful and the have an agenda to propagate that concept.

Your perceptions and interpretation of feedback. Ad populum feedback means meh.

Why because leadership say so, because leadership dont have bias, because leadership are apparently the only group able to objectively observe and evaluate themselves from the inside without bias and more accurately than any other group? Sure.

Its pretty self explaining you have a leader and an expired cat and its obvious you have a cat killer leader.

If its a 12 hour clock.

Great for everyone else.

They arent presented as facts, I dont declare such claims and statements as facts. You interpret and perceive them as facts because. Im not responsible for yours or anyone elses perceptions and interpretations.

INDEED you do NOT.

Yep
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Re: Reply

Postby Heliotrope » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:31 am

PsyGuy wrote:
> We have different takeaways.

That's what I said.


> No, Im stating that leadership think they are all powerful and the have an
> agenda to propagate that concept.

Ah, you should verbalize your thoughts more precisely next time then - we might mistake you for a sympathiser of those damn tyrants if you don't, and you don't want that with the glorious uprising just around the corner.
But seriously, why oh why would they propagate that? They already have to means to hire and fire (outside WE), and then some. What else is there to be gained by pushing some sort of agenda?


> Your perceptions and interpretation of feedback. Ad populum feedback means
> meh.

When it's about someone's credibility, 'ad populum feedback' is actually kind of relevant.


> Why because leadership say so, because leadership dont have bias, because
> leadership are apparently the only group able to objectively observe and
> evaluate themselves from the inside without bias and more accurately than
> any other group? Sure.


> Its pretty self explaining you have a leader and an expired cat and its
> obvious you have a cat killer leader.

It's explaining very little, but I'll leave it be.
I've seen very few cats at schools though, but you would probably say that's a case in point.


> If its a 12 hour clock.

You mean like almost all clocks?


> Im not responsible
> for yours or anyone elses perceptions and interpretations.

Not responsible, but you could take them into account if you care about helping people.
Heliotrope
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Reply

Postby PsyGuy » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:39 am

@Heliotrope

I agree we have different takeaways, Im agreeing with you.

This is a written forum, verbalizing is immaterial and irrelevant. However, if you were to substitute "express your thoughts", than I would reply; that I did express them clearly. I do sympathize with leadership, you still have a boss and you still have to follow what ownership directs you to do.
Why, it keeps them in power in so much as the wizard of oz isnt a wizard hes just a guy behind a curtain.

No its not.

It explains a great deal, @Heliotrope not understanding it, doesnt make it not understandable.

Case in point.

I could and I do care about helping others and Ive reached the conclusion that further sign posting is not necessary.
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Re: Reply

Postby GrumblesMcGee » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:49 am

PsyGuy wrote:

> They arent presented as facts, I dont declare such claims and statements as
> facts. You interpret and perceive them as facts because. Im not responsible
> for yours or anyone elses perceptions and interpretations.

It's cute how you try to wed "presented as" and "declare [them]...as." Those aren't quite the same thing, friend.

Fine, let's concede, arguendo, that you generally don't "declare" your perceptions as "facts." You also don't declare them as perceptions or opinions. And you make a habit of couching those positions in positivistic language (e.g., "only data matters") as if your positions are empirically accurate while the positions of others are mere speculation or wishful thinking.

So do you "declare" yourself the purveyor of facts? Maybe not. But your positions are annoyingly "presented" as such. Your intentions here (or your claimed intentions, more accurately) are largely irrelevant to the process. The ideas you wish to convey are only one small factor in the communication process. In this thread, you've shown your disdain for the complications receivers have decoding your messages. You shouldn't. No thoughtful conversant should. If you're not mindful of how others may interpret (or even misinterpret, if you must be so arrogant to view yourself as perfect and others as deficient), you're content with being a terrible communicator. And that's only part of your problem. Your encoding is far from ideal. You (knowingly) use jargon (much of it of your own making) that isn't widely understood. You wrap your prose in a bizarre coating of claimed authority and certainty. Even when you hedge on that, you perpetuate it further (e.g., claiming that you're sometimes wrong, but that you can count the number of times on one hand). And then you spew unsupported notions that you have data/sources but refuse to show it.

Overall, you *present* your positions with a bizarre glaze of logos (that you won't share) and ethos (implying that you should be trusted as an authority).

This is precisely what invites others to challenge your ethos. Some people do so responsibly. Others resort to claiming/threatening/trying to strip you of you pseudonymity. I've made my contempt for the latter known, but I completely understand the impulse.

This is a forum in which issues affecting international teachers are discussed and guidance is solicited. When you *present* your positions (and yourself) the way you do, you're inviting people to challenge your refusal to back up your claims. And when you double down, they're going to call for you to be ignored or deemed a troll (or worse).

Then again, you *could* start caring about how your words are interpreted/perceived, or you could present your supporting data when challenged (or refrain from playing the "I have data" card). Just sayin'.
GrumblesMcGee
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:53 pm

Reply

Postby PsyGuy » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:52 am

@GrumblesMcGee

I am very aware that declare and presentation are not the same things, that is why I specifically and deliberately used both terms so as not to imply by absence of one that they were synonyms.

I have never couched a conversation in positivistic language as you characterize it. "Only data matters", because only data matters. Youre characterization of my position as being derived empirically and the position of others as "mere speculation or wishful thinking" doesnt make it so. I have not to my recollection ever done so. I post my claims, statements and positions because I consider them sufficiently strong in merit and able to withstand debate. I have not represented them as facts or anything other than my own.

I do not consider nor have I ever claimed to be the gatekeeper of facts nor do i present them as facts and that like @Heliotrope is here your error lies. Your claim that I present such positions, arguments, opinions, claims and assertions as facts is nothing more that your interpretation and perceptions, your assumption that I do isnt self authenticating and I am not responsible or liable for your feeling, thoughts or beliefs that I do.
Just as your claimed intentions of what I have or have not done are equally irrelevant. Your assumptions mean nothing. I need not adapt them or give them credence because you deem them so.

I have not nor have ever declared myself as perfect.

I use technical language (jarhon) and so does the rest of this field as has been previously discussed and Im not going to modify or amend that convention. As I have previously stated, I find your argument ultimately lacking in merit and unpersuasive. As author I am the sole and exclusive authority of my writing and I require neither your consent or counsel.

I wrap my pose in nothing, I have not to my recollection claimed authority or certainty. I am happy to be shown where and when Im wrong, only data matters after all. What does not make me wrong or in error is the claim of some other contributor that their claims, assertions, research, experience and source should be substituted for mine because they deem it to be.

I claim Im sometimes wrong, because Im sometimes wrong, and i can count them on less than two hands.
I have no obligation to share anything including data with you. Nor, again, have I ever asked or declared that any reader ever "trust me". Again, your perceptions or interpretations that i have are neither my obligation or responsibility.

I dont have an issue with contributors and members challenging my ethos or my logos. This forum is in the very real and literal sense like the forum of ancient Rome,this is where we as scholars and practitioners of our profession fight out the issues and details and its messy sometimes.

My anonymity has no threats. @Walter is a fraud who again, in an effort to discredit me oh so many years claimed he knew who I was because you cant attack the credibility of someone you cant claim to know. @Walter hasnt deterred me then, nor in the years after, no, or the years to come. If @Walter knew anything then I wouldnt be here a decade later.

I present my positions, claims, statements and assertions exactly as how I intend them to be, mine. I can handle challenges by the contributors and members. When I "double down" as you state, its because Ive reassessed it and found it accurate the first time and thus worthy of supporting the second time.

I could not care less about being ignored or called names, its called self esteem. Im all to happy to give any member, or contributor the instructions for adding me to their foes list.

I do care about my communication thats why I write it the way I do. I could supply my supporting data, Im not under any obligation to do so,
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Re: Reply

Postby Heliotrope » Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:49 am

@GrumblesMcGee

Well put, and true from start to finish.
Much more eloquent and much better structured than my contributions on the matter.
Heliotrope
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Has anyone suspected that a boss or colleague lied about

Postby marieh » Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:59 am

I apologize for interrupting this lovely conversation, but I just want to point out that PsyGuy is 99% of why I no longer frequent this forum. It's tiring to see the same long-winded opinions spouted as fact time and time again. Hopefully everyone else on here does their due diligence and fact checks everything he says before making some sort of life changing decision.
marieh
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Forum 1. From Questions About ISS & Search to Anything and Everything About International Teaching

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 11 guests