He Spies With His Beady Black Eyes: The Times They Are a-Changin’. Part 2.

I have a problem with logical impossibilities and internal inconsistencies, and they just keep piling up in Wardynski’s scramble to maintain deniability and explain his social media voyeurism.

What we know: we are in September 2014. Eighteen months ago we were in April or  March 2013, depending on if you are counting from month to month or calendar pages (explained a few paragraphs down).

What we have been told, as reported by Challen Stephens:

“Huntsville schools Superintendent Casey Wardynski says the system began monitoring social media sites 18 months ago, after the National Security Agency tipped the school district to a student making violent threats on Facebook.”

What we have been told by Auseel Yousefi, as reported by Challen Stephens:

“It was his last day of junior year at Lee High School. Yousefi said he woke up early and decided: ‘How funny would it be if I tweeted last day of school jokes?'”

Yousefi is now a college freshman. The 2013 calendar for the HCS shows May 23, 2013, as the last day of school.

Let’s look at the calendar:May 2013 to June 2013; Je to July; July to Aug; Aug to Sept; Sept to Oct; Oct to Nov; Nov to Dec; Dec to January 2014; Jan to Feb; Feb to Mar; Mar to April; April to May; May to Je; Je to July; July to Aug; Aug to Sept.

I count 16 elements in that series. Even if I were just counting calendar pages, I can only get up to 17.

16 is not 18. 17 is not 18. 

Can we agree that for A to cause B, A has to come before B?

Now, if A = “the National Security Agency tipp[ing] the school district to a student making violent threats on Facebook” and B = “the system began monitoring social media sites” then A would have to precede B temporally, right?

So let’s put a date to these events. We know that A had to have occurred no earlier than May 23, 2013. B could (depending on how you count 18 months back) be either March 2013 or April 2013.

So what we are (were?) asked to believe by W is that in 2013, the month of May preceded the month of March (or April).

I had to add that parenthetical (were?) because on Wednesday Sept. 24, 2014, the SAFe was 18 months old, according to W, but on Sept. 28, 2014, he dropped in another date: W said:

“Since January 2014, tips and link analysis have cued our SAFe program to view social media postings by about three percent of our students.”

Well, January 2014 is subsequent to May 2013, so that tidies things up — oh no!!! It does not! How are we to reconcile        

“Huntsville schools Superintendent Casey Wardynski says the system began monitoring social media sites 18 months ago, after the National Security Agency tipped the school district to a student making violent threats on Facebook.”

and 

Since January 2014, tips and link analysis have cued our SAFe program to view social media postings by about three percent of our students.”

For one thing, January 2014 was a mere 9 months ago (and 9 does not mean 18).

And for another, I thought the May 23, 2013 incident resulted from a tip.

Tail still firmly in the crack, W.

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “He Spies With His Beady Black Eyes: The Times They Are a-Changin’. Part 2.

  1. For clarification, are you against monitoring of social media? if so, why? And for credibility sake, please don’t praise Challen Stephens, (or any reporter for that matter) for the great job they’ve done with investigative reporting. I’ve lived long enough and been involved with enough “stories” to know the media ALWAYS presents a slanted view.

    • I monitor social media all the time. I look at my Facebook newsfeed. I click on the names of friends of friends if they sound interesting. So it follows that if I do it, I’m not against it, right? The differences are that I am not using your money to do it, I am capable of understanding figurative language, I remember being a teen and kids making stupid jokes on the last day of school, I don’t come out with preposterous stories about why I do it, I have a working knowledge of logic, and I give existing, actual, documented problems my attention. For starters.

    • If you look back at my older posts, you can see I have a history of utter frustration at the Huntsville media not pursuing stories in any depth and not asking the hard questions. I’m not a drooling fangirl of al.com. But I am heartened by seeing more depth in this one series of articles. Of course all media is biased: even the simple choice of what to report and what not to is biased. However, in my six decades of experience, I’ve found that people are quick to remind others of media’s bias when they don’t like what they are hearing — and only then.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s