You provided the book excerpt and he said he knew it was a hoax after everyone had left, because "the teacher" interrupted his test taking and told him so...or don't you read the source material you provide?
And no, I don't want Ben Carson - I would like to see his campaign implode (along with Trump's). However, I don't let my political preference taint my honest evaluation of what are some very obvious and reckless smears.
Max, I
get from his book that he thinks
his teacher hoaxed the class
to find out who was honest. And God made her give him $10 for his character. He even seems to think she called him back later, based on the footnote.
But that is not what happened.
It's quite alright to say it:
"Max, upon reflection I realize that I exaggerated. I should never have said "
... he was taken in by a parody - and he never did realize the joke and wrote that into his book!" or " ...
the guy who is the butt of a hoax - who never figures it out EVER..." or "
he was essentially on Candid Camera and thought it was real AND STILL DOES!
After re-reading the biographical passages, I realize that he knew it was a hoax. Nor is there any evidence that the camera-man was a fake or not. He believed the fellow to be who he said he was, and we don't know otherwise. In any event he knows the event (the destroyed papers and pre-text for a fake re-exam) was a hoax...cause he says so."
THEN you can say, "However I do not get..." (see quote below):
I do not get either from his book or from his statements now that he understands that his teacher was not involved, no one thinks he was honest, and it was a prank by the equivalent of candid camera and the ten bucks was not for being the most honest guy on campus, but for being a tool.
Really, this is even more hilarious than I knew. He was pranked by the equivalent of Candid Camera. To this day he is unaware of this and still claims it was his teacher doing an experiment on the class to find out who was honest.
Wrong.
First, it is not clear if this was or was not his teacher or someone he knew as a teacher. Therefore, one cannot say that he claims it was his teacher doing an experiment. He only reports what the teacher said was the motive behind the hoax.
Second, there is nothing in his account that suggests the motives of the hoaxers included, but was not limited to see who fell for the retest, and who had the integrity and guts to actually try to complete it. As the "winner" of the hoax, there is no reason to suppose he was not told he won that distinction.
Third, we have no idea if the fellow was from the Yale Daily News, the Yale Record (the humor magazine that seemed to be behind the hoax), or someone else.
Last, the entire event is presented in the context of an antidote. He reports what he experienced and believed then. He does not elaborate on what he thinks now - he is just reminiscing.
This is deluded. He should be mortified by embarrassment that this is in his book portrayed as a great lesson in honesty, not proud that he was proven to be the only honest kid in class. Also, he lied about there being over a hundred kids in there. The others of the "several" who showed up were not "dishonest," but rather, they probably detected the joke when their teacher didn't show. Unlike Ben, who did not.
Wrong.
First, the Yale Daily News wrote a small notice about the issue parody, parenthetically touching on the hoax. All it says in a two sentence paragraph that "several" students showed up and "the group" took a test very much like their previous real test. There is no discrepancy and, given that errors in article details are not uncommon, it would not matter if their were.
Second, why should any of the victims of the hoax be embarrassed? The faux newspaper was widely believed to be the real thing and many students responded to the notice. The test was crafted to look real. Students slowly filtered out as they gave up on it. There is no evidence that they left for any other reason.
Third, if the WSJ reporter was really interested in being objective and honest he/she would have presented the article he/she claimed could not be found.
Last, this shouldn't be difficult to research. Those who wrote and printed the fake issue should still be alive. The Yale Daily News writer reporting the hoax, Schwartz, is probably alive. Perhaps "the teacher" and "cameraman" is still alive. While I don't expect a Yale alumini of the early 1970s to like or support Carson, but they could step forward. Why hasn't the reporter made an effort to ask them?
I totally think this turn of events demonstrates even LESS qualification for office than being a self-aggrandizing exaggerator. He's a dupe, a tool, and unwilling to admit it when he realizes he's been taken in. NOT NOT NOT what we want in the White House.
main point - he STILL does not even get that the hoax was for a parody newspaper, not a psychological test by a teacher. He STILL doesn't get that.
It's a character flaw to be duped by fraud? I get the snarling contempt of someone who trusts others, what I don't get is the ethical principles that create such contempt for the victims of fraud.
