by Con 

This group seems to constantly treat readers as though we cannot think for ourselves and require an interpreter for the English language. In addition to a point-by-point refutation of their arguments, it’s important to constantly question them and challenge their re-characterization of underlying matters. They state an opinion as though it’s a fact and then build an argument around this ‘false fact’ – this is an essential element of their tactics.

Many articles bear this out and their Sophist technique is easy to spot – they must re-characterize something in order to insert their bias and convey the message only after applying this ‘hard spin’. To re-characterize, they most often use a preface like: “what they really mean is…” or “in other words…” or “what they seem to be…”. In almost every instance when we see these words used it is immediately after something that already speaks for itself (such as a straightforward quote, description of events, reference to a printed article or comment which we can all read).

However, the citizens of Woodstock are NOT stupid and we do not need someone to tell us what a comment means “in other words…”; we do not need a biased comment to explain “what this really means…” or “what they are really saying…” especially when we have just read the comment, quote, referenced article or described event! We can draw our own conclusions without the extra push. Why not TRULY let the comment, article, event, conversation or whatever is the subject – speak for itself? Why must they constantly re-phrase and re-characterize even the simplest of matters?

A current example can be found at woodstocktruth.com under “Powers: The record of the WBOE speaks for itself” – ironically, contrary to the very title of his own article, Mr. Powers still insists on re-characterizing for us dumb citizens the behavior of the BOE when he asserts that “What they as individuals, and this Board, seem most upset about is that the BOE will have to face the voters and defend their records.” This type of ‘I can read minds’ comments appears quite often in these biased articles. Are all readers at wt.com content to accept statements like this as ‘basis’ for critical thinking? In this instance the article does NOT lay out facts or offer an even-handed description of events and behavior which make up ‘The Record’ which ‘speaks for itself’, but (surprise) instead he insists on re-characterizing the behavior of his opponents in his own biased words just to be sure, I guess, that us dumb citizens can draw the same conclusion. Thanks for the help – how about letting us think for ourselves if ‘The record speaks for itself’?

The original Sophists were defeated in argument by Socrates and that example presents a universal lesson: applying the Socratic Method to the writings of the Petitioners will often be successful outright or will expose weaknesses in their assertions and arguments when they dodge those critical questions which focus on their many flawed assumptions. Questions like “On what authority do you rely to support the assertion that “These laws were put in place to allow a town unhappy with their BOE to have a mechanism to have a fresh start.”?” (the answer was that he had NO authority to rely on and, when challenged, he wrote at length about how the law has been used, but admitted no specific knowledge of legislative intent). Questions like “What specific behavior constitutes the inappropriate use of public funds for political activity?” (asked twice) and “Specifically HOW does this Action have the potential to “end the Woodstock civil war”?” were dodged outright – they refused to answer these challenging questions, but seem to expect readers to swallow their biased conclusions. How can we trust the assertions of a writer who would ‘fudge’ important facts or dodge critical questions? How can we trust the judgment of supporters who swallow these dubious assertions and conclusions without question or critical inquiry?

The cinch pin for these arguments seems always to be the implication that they are the ONLY ones who care about students and this town, that they have a monopoly on righteousness and the support of the entire town, while the rest of us spread misinformation and propaganda. In their hubris they imply that they are not biased, but beacons of truth and even-handed rhetoric. They say ‘see for yourself’, but continually they insist that they first re-characterize matters and describe it all in their own biased words. What ‘speaks for itself’ is what they cannot admit: that they are just as biased as the next politician (and supporters) vying for votes, support and power. They are not the only ones who care about this town.