Putting the record straight (Re: Ron Sheen psychoanalyzed)
Ronald Sheen
Matheson (GM). However, I'm sending it to the list to put the record
straight concerning the implications of the negative personal comments made
about me by those two gentlemen. I send it purely to make sure that it is
on record in case of unforeseen eventualities. It is of interest to nobody
but myself, and AL and GM, should they be concerned with the truth and not
their own inventions.
When I read AL's ad hominem attack on me, I decided not to respond to what
he actually said as I put it down to the hysterical reaction of a professor
possibly unused to having his pronouncments questioned and criticised. In
fact, as his attack contained a number of untruthful statements and
implications, I thought he might have the decency to offer an apology. A
vain hope. His attack was followed by the usual lurkers whose
contributions amount to little more than "Here, here" and putting the boot
in, even when it entails supporting untruths. Fortunately, at least Jon
and Charles were prepared to criticise AL's refusal to discuss his
proposals. I decided to respond when I read GM's latest and thought
"enough is enough".
The following are AL's untruthful statements and exaggerations (numbered)
followed by my previous relevant statements and comments.
1. "His previous mails together with his latest mail now slander not only Ania
and myself but an international journal and reputable academics in
Australia and elsewhere".
**Nowhere did I say anything about the Lians, themselves, I commented only
on their article. Of course, it is possible that they regard as slander
the fact that I pointed out that of the 30 or so items in their
bibliography, about a half were authored in part or in whole by themselves.
This should rightly make them cringe with embarrassment but I have never
known telling the truth to be slanderous.
**Nowehere, did I say anything about the quality of an international
journal or reputable academics. What I commented on was the apparent lack
of applied linguists of repute on the editorial board. If, indeed, there
are no such figures and the journal publishes articles such as the Lians'
with marked applied linguistic relevance, then the composition of the
editorial board is vulnerable to criticism.
2. AL maintains that I stated that he "...should now tell (me) WHO
refereed our article in a BLIND process."
**This is simply and absolutely untrue. This is what I wrote.
"The fact that this paper went through a blind review process raises
questions as to the composition of the editorial board. Would Andrew or
Ania tell us how many applied linguists/SLAers are on this board?"
AL was possibly so angry that he did not take the trouble to read what I
actually wrote and that I did not ask who were the blind reviewers. Why
would I, given their essential anonymity.
3. AL asks further:"Peter Robinson, Michael Long (do they
belong in Sheen's list of appropriate references?), Pierre Bourdieu,
Jean-François Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault etc etc. (no... these are
definitely out)."
Once again an overfertile imagination is at work. I have cited Mike Long
on many occasions and Peter Robinson once or twice, I think. As to the
others, I did not even mention their names in my comments so why would AL
arrive at yet one more unjustified conclusion.
4. Finally, AL says:
"As far as I am concerned, the debate is now closed."
Which makes me think I must have missed something as AL took no part in the
debate. He was too busy to do so, he says, but was able to find time to
mount a personal attack on me albeit one characterised by untruthful
statements. exaggerations and flawed conclusions
Let me make clear that though I talk of untruths, I am in no way imputing
dishonest intentions to AL.. He was probably so upset that he was unable to
concentrate on what I actually wrote. However, should he become aware of
these untruths, he might do the decent thing and offer an apology.
Now to GM's offering which reveals more about himself than anyone else.
He characterises his psycho-analysis as "amateur". As it contains
"information" he cannot possibly know combined with untruths which he must
be aware of, charlatanesque might be a more appropriate word. As to the
untruths concerning my personal life, they are so obviously unverifiable by
anyone but myself, I will ignore them except to point out the obvious
internal contradiction in someone supposedly of the radical right rejecting
his own culture and turning his back on his mother country - particularly
as in my case in spite of living largely outside of UK for nearly thirty
years, I am still British, having taken no other nationality.
I will, however, address other comments by GM concerning my professional
life - just for the record.
GM contends that
"Ron Sheen chose language learning as his battleground. In
this, his position has been that of the radical right, the
idea that the old way is best..."
Apart from the the malicious nonsense concerning my reasons for choosing
teaching as a profession, GM is clearly unconcerned with facts. I would
have expected that anyone prepared to put on a public forum a variety of
implcit accusations would have at least have checked on what I have done
professionally and more specifically what I have submitted to FLTEACH. He
has apparently happily chosen to ignore what I have actully written, in
favour of falling prey to his seeming desire to put the most negative slant
on anything I write.
Given GM's portrayal of me, does it not seem odd that I have made many
efforts to do action research on TPRS, the most recent innovation in
foreign language teaching, have gone to the trouble of trying to use it in
local schools here and given a presentation thereon to inform Quebec
teachers of its popularity and success in the States. Is it not also odd
that I would have given a presentation at AAAL proposing an eclectic
approach which considers all options both old and new as candidates for
inclusion in any set of teaching strategies designed for some specific
group or other. Is it not also curious that I would have carried out
published research attempting to evaluate new ideas such as problem
solving, communicative language teaching and semantic clustering. And in
much lighter vein, isn't it odd that a teacher supposedly so convinced of
the superiority of the "old" should have proposed ideas for using songs in
the classroom on FLTEACH
I have no idea what motivated GM's veiled attack other than the obvious
hostility he feels towards me. Nor do I have any idea why he chose to
ignore evidence contrary to the case he wanted to make. Nor do I expect
him to account for having done so.
Ron Sheen U of Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Canada.