[email protected]

In a message dated 2/22/2005 7:19:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
No. Precisely is exactly what I mean:
Having one man made tool in relationship to unschooling is precisely
like having another man made tool in relationship to unschooling.
Let's put this back into context.
We're discussing TV as not just another man made tool but a source of
information. Not in comparison to a road grader, but in comparison to a book,
magazine, visit, or conversation.

Elissa
Mystik Hill Farm
Kearneysville, WV


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 2/22/05 6:38:23 AM, Earthmomma67@... writes:

<< We're discussing TV as not just another man made tool but a source of
information. Not in comparison to a road grader, but in comparison to a book,
magazine, visit, or conversation.
>>

Right. And not just one book, magazine, visit or conversation.
The availability of ANY book, magazine, visit or conversation.

Sandra

jimpetersonl

Actually, that's not where this particular thread originated, though
it's an interesting context to discuss.

I began with the premise that not having a television is like not
having any other tool, and that the lack of said tool wasn't
inherently in conflict with unschooling. (It seems, for example, that
we are the only family with a road grader (and perhaps with the space
and need for said road grader--we need it to repair our "driveway"
when it washes out. I say "driveway" because I'm talking about 3
miles of private dirt road. We also occasionally repair or plow the
county's dirt road that our drive connects to.)).

It would be silly to argue that another family (even one whose
children were deliriously interested in heavy equipment) is not
unschooling, ir failing in unschooling, or should be demonified for
not having a road grader.

I am applying that same argument to having (or not having) a television.

What you bring up is an interesting idea, though (and pardon my
ignorance here) I'm a little confused as to how the television
compares to the books, magazines, visits, or conversations. To wit:
if I want information on a specific subject--knitting, let's say--I
could get a book or magazine specific to my subject, or have a visit
from a knitter and therein have a conversation. How do I get this
information from the television? (Or, again, are we lumping DVDs and
recorded video media into "television"?)

~Sue

> No. Precisely is exactly what I mean:
> Having one man made tool in relationship to unschooling is precisely
> like having another man made tool in relationship to unschooling.
> Let's put this back into context.
> We're discussing TV as not just another man made tool but a source
of > information. Not in comparison to a road grader, but in
comparison to a book, > magazine, visit, or conversation.
> Elissa

TreeGoddess

On Feb 22, 2005, at 2:48 PM, jimpetersonl wrote:

-=-What you bring up is an interesting idea, though
(and pardon my ignorance here) I'm a little confused
as to how the television compares to the books,
magazines, visits, or conversations. To wit: if I want
information on a specific subject--knitting, let's say
--I could get a book or magazine specific to my subject,
or have a visit from a knitter and therein have a
conversation. How do I get this information from the
television?-=-

Here in my area there are quite a few "crafty" shows on PBS and I have
learned a new thing or two about knitting from watching the woman on
the program knit. Yes, I have a few books, a collection of patterns,
and my friend showed me how to knit (I watched her and followed along
with my own needles and yarn). However, she didn't show me more than
cast on, knit and purl. I learned casting off from a book AND from
watching the woman on that PBS show do it. I didn't find TV to be a
"better" source of info for knitting, but it was a helpful and valuable
resource for me.

-Tracy-

"Yes, Peace *will* enter your life, but you
need to clear a spot for her to sit down."

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pam Sorooshian

On Feb 22, 2005, at 11:48 AM, jimpetersonl wrote:

> It would be silly to argue that another family (even one whose
> children were deliriously interested in heavy equipment) is not
> unschooling, ir failing in unschooling, or should be demonified for
> not having a road grader.
>
> I am applying that same argument to having (or not having) a
> television.

Your argument starts off faulty, though. What you say is "silly" is
exactly right, imo.

You say that if somebody doesn't support their kids' interest in heavy
equipment, that that is still unschooling. But, if somebody has kids
who are deliriously interested in heavy equipment and they don't do
what they can to support that interest, then I think you're wrong - I
think that's not unschooling.

-pam

Elizabeth Hill

**

To wit:
if I want information on a specific subject--knitting, let's say--I
could get a book or magazine specific to my subject, or have a visit
from a knitter and therein have a conversation. How do I get this
information from the television? (Or, again, are we lumping DVDs and
recorded video media into "television"?) **

I'm not a knitter, but I record and watch a quilting show on HGTV every morning. Techniques for handwork like this are much clearer when the action is shown in realtime close-up like this. Explanations of some quilting techniques, like variations of applique, were baffling to me when I looked at books. (So much of the motion can't be depicted fully in still photos.) Yes, I could have taken a class, but around here a quilting class that meets only twice costs $30. I get to watch 250 episodes of Simply Quilts in a one year period. A year of cable costs me around $500 and this is only part of what I get for my money.)

Betsy

jimpetersonl

I did *not* say that someone who doesn't support their children's
interest is unschooling.

I did say that someone who doesn't have a road grader (even though
their children have an interest) is unschooling.

You're right that someone who doesn't support their children's
interests isn't homeschooling; it just isn't what I said.

~Sue

> > It would be silly to argue that another family (even one whose
> > children were deliriously interested in heavy equipment) is not
> > unschooling, ir failing in unschooling, or should be demonified
for> > not having a road grader.
> >
> > I am applying that same argument to having (or not having) a
> > television.

> You say that if somebody doesn't support their kids' interest in
heavy > equipment, that that is still unschooling. But, if somebody
has kids > who are deliriously interested in heavy equipment and they
don't do > what they can to support that interest, then I think you're
wrong - I > think that's not unschooling.
> -pam

jimpetersonl

How delightful. We don't have any cables of any sort (no phone, no
electric) up here, so if they don't beam it from the heavens or across
the one valley (the ridge to the north is paper land) . . . well,
let's just say I don't take calls (or even get radio) down in the draw.

Do they have just quilting, or is there knitting out there, too?

~Sue (whose last exposure to cable . . . . oh dear . . . was in the
mid 80s when the MTV began).



> To wit:
> if I want information on a specific subject--knitting, let's say--I
> could get a book or magazine specific to my subject, or have a visit
> from a knitter and therein have a conversation. How do I get this
> information from the television? (Or, again, are we lumping DVDs and
> recorded video media into "television"?) **
>
> I'm not a knitter, but I record and watch a quilting show on HGTV
every morning. Techniques for handwork like this are much clearer
when the action is shown in realtime close-up like this. Explanations
of some quilting techniques, like variations of applique, were
baffling to me when I looked at books. (So much of the motion can't
be depicted fully in still photos.) Yes, I could have taken a class,
but around here a quilting class that meets only twice costs $30. I
get to watch 250 episodes of Simply Quilts in a one year period. A
year of cable costs me around $500 and this is only part of what I get
for my money.)
>
> Betsy

nellebelle

>>>>>I'm a little confused as to how the television
compares to the books, magazines, visits, or conversations.>>>>>>

Each of those is a resource - one of many possible ways to get information.

Nobody ever suggests that we not allow "books, magazines, visits, or conversations", but a few feel justified in saying that TV should not be allowed.

Mary Ellen

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pam Sorooshian

On Feb 22, 2005, at 4:13 PM, jimpetersonl wrote:

> I did *not* say that someone who doesn't support their children's
> interest is unschooling.
>
> I did say that someone who doesn't have a road grader (even though
> their children have an interest) is unschooling.

This has got to be the goofiest argument I've been involved with in the
last decade.

Nobody has said that if somebody doesn't have a road grader they aren't
unschooling.
Nobody has even said that if somebody doesn't have a tv they aren't
unschooling.

What they have said is that when parents decide, for their own personal
reasons, not to support a child's interests the best they can, then
that is not unschooling. Not having television is missing out on a
quite wonderful resource that is usually of interest to children and is
easily and readily available very inexpensively to almost everyone.

If you can find somewhere that somebody has said not owning a tv means
you're not unschooling, then we can continue this. Otherwise I am
asking that you please let it drop because I really don't think it is
helping anybody.

-pam

Angela S

<<<<How delightful. We don't have any cables of any sort (no phone, no
electric) up here, so if they don't beam it from the heavens or across
the one valley (the ridge to the north is paper land) . . . well,
let's just say I don't take calls (or even get radio) down in the draw.>>>>

We do get it beamed down from the heavens. :-) <kind of> We couldn't get
cable for at least 7 or 8 years because of where we live. I didn't really
care, but my dh wanted it pretty badly. He loves TV. Eventually, satellite
TV became affordable. We got it. I would miss it terribly now if we didn't
have it. Several years after we'd had satellite TV for a while, cable
finally became available. Dh had been wanting cable high speed internet and
so we switched to cable TV and high speed internet. Cable sucked compared
to Satellite TV. With satellite TV we got twice at many good channels for a
cheaper price. So, we kept the high speed internet but went back to
satellite TV. My favorite channels are the Outdoor Life Channel and RFD TV
which both have a lot of horse shows and horse training shows on them. I
get to watch Monty Roberts in action, the Parelli's, and don't forget
Clinton Anderson complete with his lovely Australian accent, among other
widely known natural horse trainers. Couldn't get that accent from a book.!
<g> My kids still love PBS, but Animal Planet ranks up there pretty high.
Dh and I also love history related channels and dh loves movie channels.



My kids have had free access to TV for several years now with no remarks
from mom as to its value. Because of this list I've been able to get to the
point where I can watch TV without feeling guilty that I should be being
more useful. TV isn't the central part of our lives, but we all enjoy it
now when we do watch it. Watching horse training is great, but turning
around and applying what you learned to your own horse is even better.



Angela

game-enthusiast@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]