the idea of equality
[email protected]
I'm cleaning out my mailbox and found something I had saved (below). I think
it's interesting, but if others here don't that's okay with me. It was from
another list, but it was too hard a question (or just not interesting, maybe)
for that group.
I know that it is central to American mythology that "All men are created
equal." That was central before the abolition of slavery, and before women could
own patents or vote. So what does it mean now for us? What does it affect?
----------------------------
Someone said we're all equal here on this list and I've been thinking about
that.
In what ways are we all equal?
I'm in an early music group. One doesn't read music, the others do. One
can't hold a part alone; others can. One can sing tenor or bass, another
can
only sing tenor. One is the contact point for a possible paying gig. One's
house is used for rehearsals. One is good at finding new music, while most
of
the others wouldn't have the slightest idea how to, and they don't care.
A lot of gaming goes on at my house and has even before we had kids. When a
game comes out, some don't want to or can't play it. Some really understand
the rules, others need a brush-up.
Chess... everyone equals?
Bridge?
Sports? Everyone equals?
So on this list, what creates equality or lack of equality?
Sandra
it's interesting, but if others here don't that's okay with me. It was from
another list, but it was too hard a question (or just not interesting, maybe)
for that group.
I know that it is central to American mythology that "All men are created
equal." That was central before the abolition of slavery, and before women could
own patents or vote. So what does it mean now for us? What does it affect?
----------------------------
Someone said we're all equal here on this list and I've been thinking about
that.
In what ways are we all equal?
I'm in an early music group. One doesn't read music, the others do. One
can't hold a part alone; others can. One can sing tenor or bass, another
can
only sing tenor. One is the contact point for a possible paying gig. One's
house is used for rehearsals. One is good at finding new music, while most
of
the others wouldn't have the slightest idea how to, and they don't care.
A lot of gaming goes on at my house and has even before we had kids. When a
game comes out, some don't want to or can't play it. Some really understand
the rules, others need a brush-up.
Chess... everyone equals?
Bridge?
Sports? Everyone equals?
So on this list, what creates equality or lack of equality?
Sandra
[email protected]
Have you read the short story Harrison Bergeron? It's all about a world
where everyone is "finally equal", and no one is prettier, smarter,
stronger, etc. It's an interesting concept.
I think the "equal" referred to by our founding fathers refers more to
legal rights and opportunities than intrinsic abilities, but even that
isn't really true. Rich white guys have it better than poor black guys,
and so on. I think it's a goal more than anything else... we'd like for
everyone to have the same rights and opportunities, at least those of us
who are somewhat idealistic would, but it's not really gonna happen.
Dar
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:03:31 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
where everyone is "finally equal", and no one is prettier, smarter,
stronger, etc. It's an interesting concept.
I think the "equal" referred to by our founding fathers refers more to
legal rights and opportunities than intrinsic abilities, but even that
isn't really true. Rich white guys have it better than poor black guys,
and so on. I think it's a goal more than anything else... we'd like for
everyone to have the same rights and opportunities, at least those of us
who are somewhat idealistic would, but it's not really gonna happen.
Dar
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:03:31 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
>
> I'm cleaning out my mailbox and found something I had saved (below).
> I think
> it's interesting, but if others here don't that's okay with me. It
> was from
> another list, but it was too hard a question (or just not
> interesting, maybe)
> for that group.
>
> I know that it is central to American mythology that "All men are
> created
> equal." That was central before the abolition of slavery, and
> before women could
> own patents or vote. So what does it mean now for us? What does it
> affect?
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Someone said we're all equal here on this list and I've been
> thinking about
> that.
>
> In what ways are we all equal?
>
> I'm in an early music group. One doesn't read music, the others
> do. One
> can't hold a part alone; others can. One can sing tenor or bass,
> another
> can
> only sing tenor. One is the contact point for a possible paying
> gig. One's
> house is used for rehearsals. One is good at finding new music,
> while most
> of
> the others wouldn't have the slightest idea how to, and they don't
> care.
>
> A lot of gaming goes on at my house and has even before we had kids.
> When a
> game comes out, some don't want to or can't play it. Some really
> understand
> the rules, others need a brush-up.
>
> Chess... everyone equals?
> Bridge?
>
> Sports? Everyone equals?
>
> So on this list, what creates equality or lack of equality?
>
> Sandra
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/fHIqlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/7/04 11:53:09 AM, freeform@... writes:
<< Have you read the short story Harrison Bergeron? >>
Ah yes. Vonnegut.
Here, it's online.
(No one prone to depression should read this. Just don't. It's not cheery.)
I'll quote the first part and then put a link for more.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal
before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter
than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was
stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th,
212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of
agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for
instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy
month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old
son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very
hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't
think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence
was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was
required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter.
Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise
to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel's
cheeks, but she'd forgotten for the moment what they were about.
On the television screen were ballerinas.
A buzzer sounded in George's head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits
from a burglar alarm.
"That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did," said Hazel.
"Huh" said George.
"That dance-it was nice," said Hazel.
"Yup," said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They
weren't really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway.
They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were
masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face,
would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague
notion that maybe dancers shouldn't be handicapped. But he didn't get very far with
it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.
George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.
Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself, she had to ask George
what the latest sound had been.
http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml
<< Have you read the short story Harrison Bergeron? >>
Ah yes. Vonnegut.
Here, it's online.
(No one prone to depression should read this. Just don't. It's not cheery.)
I'll quote the first part and then put a link for more.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal
before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter
than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was
stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th,
212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of
agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for
instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy
month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old
son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very
hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't
think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence
was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was
required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter.
Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise
to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel's
cheeks, but she'd forgotten for the moment what they were about.
On the television screen were ballerinas.
A buzzer sounded in George's head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits
from a burglar alarm.
"That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did," said Hazel.
"Huh" said George.
"That dance-it was nice," said Hazel.
"Yup," said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They
weren't really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway.
They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were
masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face,
would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague
notion that maybe dancers shouldn't be handicapped. But he didn't get very far with
it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.
George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.
Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself, she had to ask George
what the latest sound had been.
http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml
Shelly G
--- SandraDodd@... wrote:
This made me think about my "previous life" as an
administrator at a Health Plan/PPO.
I always despised silly rules like
* everyone needs to be here at 8am and work until 4:30
* everyone gets a 30 minute lunch hour
* vacation must be taken in one week increments
that didn't take into account any differences between
people and their lives.
So when I became a manager, I decided that my goal was
to treat everyone fairly, but not necessarily equally.
One woman wanted to be home after school with her
young children, so she and I agreed that she could
work 7-3.
One man's wife worked most weekends but had Mondays
off, so he worked longer days Tuesday-Friday and a
little on Saturday so he and his wife could be
together on Mondays.
One woman wanted long lunches because she liked to
take a short nap before coming back to work.
One woman liked to take her days off one at a time to
coincide with her kids' days off school.
One woman was such a fantastic and talented member of
the staff, but was maxed out at the top of the
established salary range and I couldn't offer her more
pay, so I'd send her home early on Fridays as a
"bonus" whenever the workload would allow it.
It worked great for our department, which was part of
a larger health network, but I got complaints from
human resources, because other managers got complaints
from their employees because they weren't willing to
be flexible and believed that all of their employees
should be treated "equally".
Shelly
=====
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
>Sandra,
> Someone said we're all equal here on this list and
> I've been thinking about
> that.
>
> In what ways are we all equal?
>
This made me think about my "previous life" as an
administrator at a Health Plan/PPO.
I always despised silly rules like
* everyone needs to be here at 8am and work until 4:30
* everyone gets a 30 minute lunch hour
* vacation must be taken in one week increments
that didn't take into account any differences between
people and their lives.
So when I became a manager, I decided that my goal was
to treat everyone fairly, but not necessarily equally.
One woman wanted to be home after school with her
young children, so she and I agreed that she could
work 7-3.
One man's wife worked most weekends but had Mondays
off, so he worked longer days Tuesday-Friday and a
little on Saturday so he and his wife could be
together on Mondays.
One woman wanted long lunches because she liked to
take a short nap before coming back to work.
One woman liked to take her days off one at a time to
coincide with her kids' days off school.
One woman was such a fantastic and talented member of
the staff, but was maxed out at the top of the
established salary range and I couldn't offer her more
pay, so I'd send her home early on Fridays as a
"bonus" whenever the workload would allow it.
It worked great for our department, which was part of
a larger health network, but I got complaints from
human resources, because other managers got complaints
from their employees because they weren't willing to
be flexible and believed that all of their employees
should be treated "equally".
Shelly
=====
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Robyn Coburn
<< Have you read the short story Harrison Bergeron? >>
Ah yes. Vonnegut.>>>
This has been made into a TV movie of the same title, with Sean Astin (the
young man who played Sam Gangee) as Harrison. He ends up taking over a tv
station for a while and creating what become subversive recordings, in the
movie anyway. The movie has a hopeful ending (naturally).
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004
Ah yes. Vonnegut.>>>
This has been made into a TV movie of the same title, with Sean Astin (the
young man who played Sam Gangee) as Harrison. He ends up taking over a tv
station for a while and creating what become subversive recordings, in the
movie anyway. The movie has a hopeful ending (naturally).
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/7/2004 12:12:50 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
I know that it is central to American mythology that "All men are created
equal." That was central before the abolition of slavery, and before women
could
own patents or vote. So what does it mean now for us? What does it affect?
~~~
We may not all have equal talents or abilities. But we each have an equal
STAKE in the community and the future.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
I know that it is central to American mythology that "All men are created
equal." That was central before the abolition of slavery, and before women
could
own patents or vote. So what does it mean now for us? What does it affect?
~~~
We may not all have equal talents or abilities. But we each have an equal
STAKE in the community and the future.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sylvia Toyama
We may not all have equal talents or abilities. But we each have an equal STAKE in the community and the future.
Karen
*****
But is that really true? After all, those with greater financial wealth can just move out of that community if/when things get bad, even if that worsening is the result of their acts or policies the rich supported. Often, it's only the poor and middle class who have a real stake in the community, in that they can't easily escape or that their lives will be measurably better if the community improves. The rich would still be rich and powerful, and in fact, making their community more enjoyable and better for others might lessen their wealth and power. So, really the stakes aren't equal -- neither is the risk.
In the original myth, it's that all men are 'created equal' -- even that's assuming too much. What about birth defects, or financial opportunities, or even just the fact that some people are smarter than others? Maybe not so much smarter as just one is great at math, another at communication, and another very good with his hands, or some such thing. But equal in abilities and strengths doesn't even hold true for all identical twins, and they have the same dna.
In an ideal world, everyone would have equal opportunities -- really hard to achieve even today -- or be of equal value to the world/community. While that may already be true in the ideal sense, that's not the way it works out day-to-day.
The real problem I see with this myth is that it breeds contempt and jealousy. It also gives the powers that be a platform for programs like public school and other standardized programs. It's appealing to think you are as good as your neighbor, or at least to think he's no better than you. It's a great distraction to keep us from focusing on our own abilities and potential. The average person is too busy being sure his kids get the 'same education' as kids in the better neighborhoods and the like to have any energy left over to question the inherent unfairness of making all things equal.
Personally, I don't care whether or not I'm equal to my neighbor or anyone else. I do want to be treated fairly, and strive to treat others fairly. As someone else posted, there's a difference between fair and equal, as concepts. Fair involves assessing a person's strengths and needs and acting accordingly in a way that blesses as many people as possible. Equal is arbitrary and doesn't take into account the individuality of each person involved.
Did Sandra also ask if we're all euqal here? If so, the answer is no -- everyone has his/her own level of experience, perspective and insights. Sometimes, one person is more adept at a top than someone else, but that's just as likely to change tomorrow as not. I think to the extent that posting here is very much what's described on the front page, it's as fair as it can be.
Sylvia
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Karen
*****
But is that really true? After all, those with greater financial wealth can just move out of that community if/when things get bad, even if that worsening is the result of their acts or policies the rich supported. Often, it's only the poor and middle class who have a real stake in the community, in that they can't easily escape or that their lives will be measurably better if the community improves. The rich would still be rich and powerful, and in fact, making their community more enjoyable and better for others might lessen their wealth and power. So, really the stakes aren't equal -- neither is the risk.
In the original myth, it's that all men are 'created equal' -- even that's assuming too much. What about birth defects, or financial opportunities, or even just the fact that some people are smarter than others? Maybe not so much smarter as just one is great at math, another at communication, and another very good with his hands, or some such thing. But equal in abilities and strengths doesn't even hold true for all identical twins, and they have the same dna.
In an ideal world, everyone would have equal opportunities -- really hard to achieve even today -- or be of equal value to the world/community. While that may already be true in the ideal sense, that's not the way it works out day-to-day.
The real problem I see with this myth is that it breeds contempt and jealousy. It also gives the powers that be a platform for programs like public school and other standardized programs. It's appealing to think you are as good as your neighbor, or at least to think he's no better than you. It's a great distraction to keep us from focusing on our own abilities and potential. The average person is too busy being sure his kids get the 'same education' as kids in the better neighborhoods and the like to have any energy left over to question the inherent unfairness of making all things equal.
Personally, I don't care whether or not I'm equal to my neighbor or anyone else. I do want to be treated fairly, and strive to treat others fairly. As someone else posted, there's a difference between fair and equal, as concepts. Fair involves assessing a person's strengths and needs and acting accordingly in a way that blesses as many people as possible. Equal is arbitrary and doesn't take into account the individuality of each person involved.
Did Sandra also ask if we're all euqal here? If so, the answer is no -- everyone has his/her own level of experience, perspective and insights. Sometimes, one person is more adept at a top than someone else, but that's just as likely to change tomorrow as not. I think to the extent that posting here is very much what's described on the front page, it's as fair as it can be.
Sylvia
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jimpetersonl
If you truly want an answer to your questions, you might want to
consider putting the idea into its original context, the Declaration
of Independence and the forming of the US.
Harrison Bergeron, the George Foremans, and that ditty from Free to Be
You and Me not withstanding, the idea of equality as sameness is the
fallacy of equivocation.
~Sue
and before women could > own patents or vote. So what does it mean
now for us? What does it affect?
or bass, another > can > only sing tenor. One is the contact point
for a possible paying gig. One's > house is used for rehearsals.
One is good at finding new music, while most > of > the others
wouldn't have the slightest idea how to, and they don't care.
really understand > the rules, others need a brush-up.
consider putting the idea into its original context, the Declaration
of Independence and the forming of the US.
Harrison Bergeron, the George Foremans, and that ditty from Free to Be
You and Me not withstanding, the idea of equality as sameness is the
fallacy of equivocation.
~Sue
> I know that it is central to American mythology that "All men arecreated > equal." That was central before the abolition of slavery,
and before women could > own patents or vote. So what does it mean
now for us? What does it affect?
>thinking about > that.
> ----------------------------
>
> Someone said we're all equal here on this list and I've been
> In what ways are we all equal?do. One > can't hold a part alone; others can. One can sing tenor
> I'm in an early music group. One doesn't read music, the others
or bass, another > can > only sing tenor. One is the contact point
for a possible paying gig. One's > house is used for rehearsals.
One is good at finding new music, while most > of > the others
wouldn't have the slightest idea how to, and they don't care.
> A lot of gaming goes on at my house and has even before we had kids.When a > game comes out, some don't want to or can't play it. Some
really understand > the rules, others need a brush-up.
> Chess... everyone equals?
> Bridge?
> Sports? Everyone equals?
> So on this list, what creates equality or lack of equality?
> Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/7/04 8:15:50 PM, jimpetersonl@... writes:
<<
If you truly want an answer to your questions, you might want to
consider putting the idea into its original context, the Declaration
of Independence and the forming of the US. >>
It's not a question with an answer.
It's a philosophical point to ponder.
In any discussion with a purpose, it is unlikely that all voices are equal.
On any topic, it's unlikely that all participants are equally experienced or
helpful.
In any discussion, it's unlikely that all arguments are equally valid.
Sandra
<<
If you truly want an answer to your questions, you might want to
consider putting the idea into its original context, the Declaration
of Independence and the forming of the US. >>
It's not a question with an answer.
It's a philosophical point to ponder.
In any discussion with a purpose, it is unlikely that all voices are equal.
On any topic, it's unlikely that all participants are equally experienced or
helpful.
In any discussion, it's unlikely that all arguments are equally valid.
Sandra
jimpetersonl
It's still equivocation.
~Sue
~Sue
> It's not a question with an answer.equal.
>
> It's a philosophical point to ponder.
>
> In any discussion with a purpose, it is unlikely that all voices are
> On any topic, it's unlikely that all participants are equallyexperienced or
> helpful.
> In any discussion, it's unlikely that all arguments are equally valid.
>
> Sandra
jimpetersonl
Aside from the equivocation issue (we can come back to that),
"equality" in the context of the original post from the other list
meant the equality the list members on that list had to post, even
when their opinions differed from yours.
~Sue
"equality" in the context of the original post from the other list
meant the equality the list members on that list had to post, even
when their opinions differed from yours.
~Sue
> It's not a question with an answer.equal.
>
> It's a philosophical point to ponder.
>
> In any discussion with a purpose, it is unlikely that all voices are
> On any topic, it's unlikely that all participants are equallyexperienced or
> helpful.
> In any discussion, it's unlikely that all arguments are equally valid.
>
> Sandra
Fetteroll
on 10/7/04 9:30 PM, jimpetersonl at jimpetersonl@... wrote:
list?
Sandra didn't originate the pronouncement. It's been said by others many
times over the years.
So what are they using those words to mean?
Why should people assume that we would all agree that we are all "equal"? We
aren't born with that idea! It comes from somewhere that it's assumed we
would all mutually agree is right.
I *do* think people pluck the idea from the Constitution and use it in a
context it wasn't intended to be used in. So the equivocating is when
someone says "We're all equal here" on a list not when Sandra asks what they
mean.
Usually the context is someone will say "Here's my problem." And a second
someone will say "Here's how I handle that." Then a third someone will hold
the practice of the third person up to examination. The second someone will
get upset because they feel personally attacked. They perhaps feel that all
practices should just be thrown out there so others can take what they like
and leave what they don't like. And they say "We're all equal here,"
meaning, I think, "I'm just as good a person as you are. But by criticizing
my idea you're saying I'm a bad mother."
So what do you think people mean when they say "We're all equal" in that
context? Or do you see it used in a different context?
Joyce
> Harrison Bergeron, the George Foremans, and that ditty from Free to BeSo what do you think people mean when they say "We're all equal here" on a
> You and Me not withstanding, the idea of equality as sameness is the
> fallacy of equivocation.
list?
Sandra didn't originate the pronouncement. It's been said by others many
times over the years.
So what are they using those words to mean?
Why should people assume that we would all agree that we are all "equal"? We
aren't born with that idea! It comes from somewhere that it's assumed we
would all mutually agree is right.
I *do* think people pluck the idea from the Constitution and use it in a
context it wasn't intended to be used in. So the equivocating is when
someone says "We're all equal here" on a list not when Sandra asks what they
mean.
Usually the context is someone will say "Here's my problem." And a second
someone will say "Here's how I handle that." Then a third someone will hold
the practice of the third person up to examination. The second someone will
get upset because they feel personally attacked. They perhaps feel that all
practices should just be thrown out there so others can take what they like
and leave what they don't like. And they say "We're all equal here,"
meaning, I think, "I'm just as good a person as you are. But by criticizing
my idea you're saying I'm a bad mother."
So what do you think people mean when they say "We're all equal" in that
context? Or do you see it used in a different context?
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/8/04 5:08:38 AM, jimpetersonl@... writes:
<< Aside from the equivocation issue (we can come back to that),
"equality" in the context of the original post from the other list
meant the equality the list members on that list had to post, even
when their opinions differed from yours. >>
I agree with Joyce that the equivocation comes in using the term "equality"
as a talisman.
A guy named Louie Sanchez was my science teacher in 9th grade, and later I
taught with him. I learned some good human-nature things from him, but he was
an outspoken crank too. He had a teacher's-lounge rant about how wrong it was
for our district to spend so much on basketball and encourage these boys to
hope maybe they could play professionally, when the reality was that the local
gene pool rarely produced a man who was six feet tall, and that "created equal"
didn't take those realities into effect. Soccer, he said, they'd have a
chance. But soccer wasn't the fashion in northern New Mexico in the 70's and
80's.
The boys DID love basketball at that school. And they WERE encouraged. And
Louie was right.
I have more years than not in my adult life run music groups at Christmas, to
do medieval and Renaissance Christmas carols. This year we have only six
participants, and we might not perform more than once. That's okay, because the
singing is just for fun.
Some years there were 20 or 30, and we performed a couple of medieval feasts,
a couple of public things, and wen caroling. Each year some people were
frustrated. There's a philosophical question that can't be avoided in such
cases, and that is which goal is greater: the quality of the music or providing
each participant an opportunity to perform period music in a group. If the
quality is too low, the best singers are frustrated (and the audience). If the
quality consideration is too high, some singers need to be kept in the
background or discouraged altogether. It's tiring to be in that decision-making,
organizational position, because invariably someone whose contribution has been
to show up to half the practices will complain on the side yet audibly at some
point, either that the performances aren't rehearsed enough or that she
doesn't have a solo.
I bought a used Saturn yesterday, from a friend. I have another friend who's
a Saturn owner, and I called her for advice in advance. She's a very frugal
and analytical person, and she gave me exactly the advice I wanted. I trusted
her because I've known her for a long time. I've ridden in various cars of
hers. I picked her up from the scene of a T-bone accident that was not at all
her fault. She is a credible, experienced, thoughtful source.
She's driving a '93 and I was considering a '96. She knew off the top of her
head what engineering improvements had been made, and what problems I might
encounter.
Had I not had that resource, I would have looked online for a Saturn owners
discussion. When I got there, I would have been willing to double check
anything I read, because I didn't have years to hang out and get to know the
people. But in the course of a quick inquiry, it would matter to me whether the
person had owned Saturns or repaired them or been a lawyer in claims, or was just
there considering, as I was, for the first time.
If someone claimed to have owned three Saturns and it turned out it was a
lie, that would be a turd in the lemonade for sure. But even assuming people
were being honest, some opinions are more valuable than others.
Some people consider e-mail discussions to be a social opportunity, or a tea
party. Some are. But a discussion marked to discuss unstopping is not, for
me, an opportunity for everyone who comes by to be equally heard and considered
and promoted. Some people are wonderful at describing what they do with
their children. Some aren't as good with words, and words are all we have here.
Some people have just discovered unstopping and some have been at it for a
while. Some got it easily and can describe clearly how their thinking process
went. Some have struggled for years and are missing some aspect or concept
that might make all the difference. Some are very logical, while others don't
think logic has a value.
But in a discussion which some people will join for a while, get what they
need, and move on, it's important to me as a moderator that they get clear,
useful information and not obfuscation or dishonesty. This shouldn't be anyone's
sole source of information, and it's fine for it to be a specialized subset of
ideas. For me, on this list, clear and useful and positive are more valuable
than muddled and troublesome.
It's okay for basketball teams to prefer tall, athletic people.
It's okay for a music group to be organized to give people a chance to sing
in public, but it's also okay to have groups chosen by audition only.
Sandra
<< Aside from the equivocation issue (we can come back to that),
"equality" in the context of the original post from the other list
meant the equality the list members on that list had to post, even
when their opinions differed from yours. >>
I agree with Joyce that the equivocation comes in using the term "equality"
as a talisman.
A guy named Louie Sanchez was my science teacher in 9th grade, and later I
taught with him. I learned some good human-nature things from him, but he was
an outspoken crank too. He had a teacher's-lounge rant about how wrong it was
for our district to spend so much on basketball and encourage these boys to
hope maybe they could play professionally, when the reality was that the local
gene pool rarely produced a man who was six feet tall, and that "created equal"
didn't take those realities into effect. Soccer, he said, they'd have a
chance. But soccer wasn't the fashion in northern New Mexico in the 70's and
80's.
The boys DID love basketball at that school. And they WERE encouraged. And
Louie was right.
I have more years than not in my adult life run music groups at Christmas, to
do medieval and Renaissance Christmas carols. This year we have only six
participants, and we might not perform more than once. That's okay, because the
singing is just for fun.
Some years there were 20 or 30, and we performed a couple of medieval feasts,
a couple of public things, and wen caroling. Each year some people were
frustrated. There's a philosophical question that can't be avoided in such
cases, and that is which goal is greater: the quality of the music or providing
each participant an opportunity to perform period music in a group. If the
quality is too low, the best singers are frustrated (and the audience). If the
quality consideration is too high, some singers need to be kept in the
background or discouraged altogether. It's tiring to be in that decision-making,
organizational position, because invariably someone whose contribution has been
to show up to half the practices will complain on the side yet audibly at some
point, either that the performances aren't rehearsed enough or that she
doesn't have a solo.
I bought a used Saturn yesterday, from a friend. I have another friend who's
a Saturn owner, and I called her for advice in advance. She's a very frugal
and analytical person, and she gave me exactly the advice I wanted. I trusted
her because I've known her for a long time. I've ridden in various cars of
hers. I picked her up from the scene of a T-bone accident that was not at all
her fault. She is a credible, experienced, thoughtful source.
She's driving a '93 and I was considering a '96. She knew off the top of her
head what engineering improvements had been made, and what problems I might
encounter.
Had I not had that resource, I would have looked online for a Saturn owners
discussion. When I got there, I would have been willing to double check
anything I read, because I didn't have years to hang out and get to know the
people. But in the course of a quick inquiry, it would matter to me whether the
person had owned Saturns or repaired them or been a lawyer in claims, or was just
there considering, as I was, for the first time.
If someone claimed to have owned three Saturns and it turned out it was a
lie, that would be a turd in the lemonade for sure. But even assuming people
were being honest, some opinions are more valuable than others.
Some people consider e-mail discussions to be a social opportunity, or a tea
party. Some are. But a discussion marked to discuss unstopping is not, for
me, an opportunity for everyone who comes by to be equally heard and considered
and promoted. Some people are wonderful at describing what they do with
their children. Some aren't as good with words, and words are all we have here.
Some people have just discovered unstopping and some have been at it for a
while. Some got it easily and can describe clearly how their thinking process
went. Some have struggled for years and are missing some aspect or concept
that might make all the difference. Some are very logical, while others don't
think logic has a value.
But in a discussion which some people will join for a while, get what they
need, and move on, it's important to me as a moderator that they get clear,
useful information and not obfuscation or dishonesty. This shouldn't be anyone's
sole source of information, and it's fine for it to be a specialized subset of
ideas. For me, on this list, clear and useful and positive are more valuable
than muddled and troublesome.
It's okay for basketball teams to prefer tall, athletic people.
It's okay for a music group to be organized to give people a chance to sing
in public, but it's also okay to have groups chosen by audition only.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/7/2004 6:24:13 PM Central Standard Time,
sylgt04@... writes:
But is that really true? After all, those with greater financial wealth can
just move out of that community if/when things get bad, even if that
worsening is the result of their acts or policies the rich supported
~~~
Well, I was thinking in terms of a democracy that the equal stake we all
have (unless we've given it up for some reason) is our vote. But then, children
don't vote, so they don't have an equal stake.
I was thinking in terms of the most basic level at which we are all
equal...citizenship maybe? Life?
I'm on a list where everyone is an owner of the list, so everyone really
does have an equal stake in the list. Equal power, equal participation. It has
nothing to do with whether I can ride a horse or have money or can walk
straight.
I know one thing. I'd rather be in a place where "equal" is at least an
ideal to be strived for, even if it is not the reality.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sylgt04@... writes:
But is that really true? After all, those with greater financial wealth can
just move out of that community if/when things get bad, even if that
worsening is the result of their acts or policies the rich supported
~~~
Well, I was thinking in terms of a democracy that the equal stake we all
have (unless we've given it up for some reason) is our vote. But then, children
don't vote, so they don't have an equal stake.
I was thinking in terms of the most basic level at which we are all
equal...citizenship maybe? Life?
I'm on a list where everyone is an owner of the list, so everyone really
does have an equal stake in the list. Equal power, equal participation. It has
nothing to do with whether I can ride a horse or have money or can walk
straight.
I know one thing. I'd rather be in a place where "equal" is at least an
ideal to be strived for, even if it is not the reality.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/8/04 6:48:41 AM, tuckervill2@... writes:
<< I'm on a list where everyone is an owner of the list, so everyone really
does have an equal stake in the list. Equal power, equal participation. >>
I've never seen a list where everyone posted. Everyone participates equally?
It seems those who participate the most and like it the most would have more
stake than those who ignore it, or wander by once in a while.
-=-I was thinking in terms of the most basic level at which we are all
equal...citizenship maybe? Life?
-=-
Felons lose rights. Those not able to figure out how to register to vote, or
to get to the polls, are disdvantaged. Those with no preference have less
stake in who wins an election than those who stand to lose jobs or status or
contracts or business advantages.
Sandra
Sandra
<< I'm on a list where everyone is an owner of the list, so everyone really
does have an equal stake in the list. Equal power, equal participation. >>
I've never seen a list where everyone posted. Everyone participates equally?
It seems those who participate the most and like it the most would have more
stake than those who ignore it, or wander by once in a while.
-=-I was thinking in terms of the most basic level at which we are all
equal...citizenship maybe? Life?
-=-
Felons lose rights. Those not able to figure out how to register to vote, or
to get to the polls, are disdvantaged. Those with no preference have less
stake in who wins an election than those who stand to lose jobs or status or
contracts or business advantages.
Sandra
Sandra
Elizabeth Hill
**
She's driving a '93 and I was considering a '96. She knew off the top of her
head what engineering improvements had been made, and what problems I might
encounter.**
I have a '94 Saturn that I am grateful is still running after 10 years, but I know NOTHING about what engineering improvements have been made in it from year to year.
I might claim to be knowledgeable about Saturns, based on the fact that I've put in a lot of "seat time" in that car. But I haven't learned much from applying my gluteus maximus to the seat cushion. <g>
Betsy
PS I remember learning the latin phrase "gluteus maximus" from reading Playboy. I read it for the jokes, not for the articles, as a teen.
Now back to your originally scheduled programming.
She's driving a '93 and I was considering a '96. She knew off the top of her
head what engineering improvements had been made, and what problems I might
encounter.**
I have a '94 Saturn that I am grateful is still running after 10 years, but I know NOTHING about what engineering improvements have been made in it from year to year.
I might claim to be knowledgeable about Saturns, based on the fact that I've put in a lot of "seat time" in that car. But I haven't learned much from applying my gluteus maximus to the seat cushion. <g>
Betsy
PS I remember learning the latin phrase "gluteus maximus" from reading Playboy. I read it for the jokes, not for the articles, as a teen.
Now back to your originally scheduled programming.
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/8/2004 8:24:27 AM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< I'm on a list where everyone is an owner of the list, so everyone really
does have an equal stake in the list. Equal power, equal participation.
It seems those who participate the most and like it the most would have more
stake than those who ignore it, or wander by once in a while.
~~~
Small lists can be like that. At some time everyone's posted.
What is the point of an equal stake if you are forced to exercise it?
Doesn't the choice of using or not using your stake in something matter? Do you
forfiet your stake in something if you don't exercise it?
I think there should be a distinction made between equal *rights* and equal
abilities. I don't think they are the same.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< I'm on a list where everyone is an owner of the list, so everyone really
does have an equal stake in the list. Equal power, equal participation.
>>I've never seen a list where everyone posted. Everyone participates equally?
It seems those who participate the most and like it the most would have more
stake than those who ignore it, or wander by once in a while.
~~~
Small lists can be like that. At some time everyone's posted.
What is the point of an equal stake if you are forced to exercise it?
Doesn't the choice of using or not using your stake in something matter? Do you
forfiet your stake in something if you don't exercise it?
I think there should be a distinction made between equal *rights* and equal
abilities. I don't think they are the same.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/8/04 8:08:45 AM, tuckervill2@... writes:
<< Do you forfiet your stake in something if you don't exercise it? >>
Yeah I think so.
People who are in a volunteer organization and don't show up for two years
don't breeze in and take a big role without causing those who have been doing
the work to that point to feel irritation. (Thinking of SCA, and my own
two-year hiatus---everyday things have become quite none of my business.)
When I wasn't voting for a few years (after Holly was born I didn't want to
know or care about local issues and stopped paying attention altogether for
years), it wasn't my business who won, really. If I'd cared I could've cared.
-=-I think there should be a distinction made between equal *rights* and
equal
abilities. I don't think they are the same.-=-
I was thinking of equality of value or validity. Equality of usefulness.
Sandra
<< Do you forfiet your stake in something if you don't exercise it? >>
Yeah I think so.
People who are in a volunteer organization and don't show up for two years
don't breeze in and take a big role without causing those who have been doing
the work to that point to feel irritation. (Thinking of SCA, and my own
two-year hiatus---everyday things have become quite none of my business.)
When I wasn't voting for a few years (after Holly was born I didn't want to
know or care about local issues and stopped paying attention altogether for
years), it wasn't my business who won, really. If I'd cared I could've cared.
-=-I think there should be a distinction made between equal *rights* and
equal
abilities. I don't think they are the same.-=-
I was thinking of equality of value or validity. Equality of usefulness.
Sandra
Sondra Carr
Sandra
I have to say - this is quite a full and interesting response - it really
clarifies (for me) your vision for this list. It's something I've struggled
with - having found myself often in situations where I was a part of the
"chosen" when I was asked to downplay whatever skills had landed me there in
order to allow everyone equal time and also being able to shine but having
many cry "unfair", as well as sometimes not making that cut and having to
watch from the sidelines, I've considered these things too. I think
automatically we (or at least I - and I've noticed others in these groups)
assume that bulletin boards are going to be the more egalitarian of these
models for interaction. I know I have and now this response you've made has
put it into a different perspective. I've had mentors who were well - damned
hard - on those of us chosen for a specific talent or area of inquiry. This
is a very different environment from the usual, some would say, more
empathetic approach. I've often argued that I learned a lot from those
professors who scowled over their glasses at me. I'm still not sure how I
feel about that issue - I vacillate more when I think in terms of its
application to general population as opposed to for myself alone - but this
email has given me a different way to think about the issue within the
context of these discussion group exchanges. I like that you have indicated
that sometimes one approach is applicable and at other times another. I
believe I'm beginning to understand better.
Sondra
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Some people consider e-mail discussions to be a social opportunity, or a
tea
party. Some are. But a discussion marked to discuss unstopping is not, for
me, an opportunity for everyone who comes by to be equally heard and
considered
and promoted. Some people are wonderful at describing what they do with
their children. Some aren't as good with words, and words are all we have
here.
Some people have just discovered unstopping and some have been at it for a
while. Some got it easily and can describe clearly how their thinking
process
went. Some have struggled for years and are missing some aspect or concept
that might make all the difference. Some are very logical, while others
don't
think logic has a value.
But in a discussion which some people will join for a while, get what they
need, and move on, it's important to me as a moderator that they get clear,
useful information and not obfuscation or dishonesty. This shouldn't be
anyone's
sole source of information, and it's fine for it to be a specialized subset
of
ideas. For me, on this list, clear and useful and positive are more
valuable
than muddled and troublesome.
It's okay for basketball teams to prefer tall, athletic people.
It's okay for a music group to be organized to give people a chance to sing
in public, but it's also okay to have groups chosen by audition only.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I have to say - this is quite a full and interesting response - it really
clarifies (for me) your vision for this list. It's something I've struggled
with - having found myself often in situations where I was a part of the
"chosen" when I was asked to downplay whatever skills had landed me there in
order to allow everyone equal time and also being able to shine but having
many cry "unfair", as well as sometimes not making that cut and having to
watch from the sidelines, I've considered these things too. I think
automatically we (or at least I - and I've noticed others in these groups)
assume that bulletin boards are going to be the more egalitarian of these
models for interaction. I know I have and now this response you've made has
put it into a different perspective. I've had mentors who were well - damned
hard - on those of us chosen for a specific talent or area of inquiry. This
is a very different environment from the usual, some would say, more
empathetic approach. I've often argued that I learned a lot from those
professors who scowled over their glasses at me. I'm still not sure how I
feel about that issue - I vacillate more when I think in terms of its
application to general population as opposed to for myself alone - but this
email has given me a different way to think about the issue within the
context of these discussion group exchanges. I like that you have indicated
that sometimes one approach is applicable and at other times another. I
believe I'm beginning to understand better.
Sondra
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Some people consider e-mail discussions to be a social opportunity, or a
tea
party. Some are. But a discussion marked to discuss unstopping is not, for
me, an opportunity for everyone who comes by to be equally heard and
considered
and promoted. Some people are wonderful at describing what they do with
their children. Some aren't as good with words, and words are all we have
here.
Some people have just discovered unstopping and some have been at it for a
while. Some got it easily and can describe clearly how their thinking
process
went. Some have struggled for years and are missing some aspect or concept
that might make all the difference. Some are very logical, while others
don't
think logic has a value.
But in a discussion which some people will join for a while, get what they
need, and move on, it's important to me as a moderator that they get clear,
useful information and not obfuscation or dishonesty. This shouldn't be
anyone's
sole source of information, and it's fine for it to be a specialized subset
of
ideas. For me, on this list, clear and useful and positive are more
valuable
than muddled and troublesome.
It's okay for basketball teams to prefer tall, athletic people.
It's okay for a music group to be organized to give people a chance to sing
in public, but it's also okay to have groups chosen by audition only.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sondra Carr
So I'm clear on this - I've disagreed with Sandra on this and other issues -
but I'm going to try to explain what I feel she is saying here. There are
some lists where you can say and do what you want and so can everyone else
equally. And these serve a great purpose on both sides - hmmm - scratch
that - more like the whole spectrum of ways of seeing and dealing with
subjects. On the other hand, there are others (such as this one - I am just
now understanding) which take a different model - and that is to allow
certain types of thought to have some more sway. Now you might agree or
disagree with the thoughts which are able to come through here (I often find
myself on the other side) but it's a different model. Perhaps the part that
I have not yet understood - although I am understanding more the original
vision ( I think ) is how this way aligns with unschooling. For myself, I'm
looking at this forum now as an exception in the sense that it is intended
for adults who are able to judge for themselves if those in a position to
moderate are giving them what they need or not - as opposed to the
vulnerable position in which children find themselves being not respected by
someone in a position of authority over them. No one here is really in
authority over any of us - if we choose to view them that way - that's
really happening in our heads. We're free to come and go - delete, argue or
just disregard. I find myself stopping in an argument with moderators here
and thinking - ok - I disagree - they know it - moving on. If we were
personally sitting in a room having a cup of coffee together - there would
be no moderation - I might approach it differently. But I'm beginning to
understand the ideas behind how it's being approached. That last letter
actually showed me something I hadn't been looking at before.
-----Original Message-----
From: tuckervill2@... [mailto:tuckervill2@...]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] the idea of equality
In a message dated 10/8/2004 8:24:27 AM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< I'm on a list where everyone is an owner of the list, so everyone really
does have an equal stake in the list. Equal power, equal participation.
equally?
It seems those who participate the most and like it the most would have
more
stake than those who ignore it, or wander by once in a while.
~~~
Small lists can be like that. At some time everyone's posted.
What is the point of an equal stake if you are forced to exercise it?
Doesn't the choice of using or not using your stake in something matter? Do
you
forfiet your stake in something if you don't exercise it?
I think there should be a distinction made between equal *rights* and equal
abilities. I don't think they are the same.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129p3r6d3/M=294150.5475418.6555472.1501134/D=gr
oups/S=1705542111:HM/EXP=1097330857/A=2380024/R=2/id=noscript/SIG=124u69elg/
*http:/www.interest.com/includes/server/icom_campaign.asp?id=10718>
<http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/bo/bon_marketing/300x250_yahoo_100104.g
if>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294150.5475418.6555472.1501134/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2380024/rand=514118933>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
but I'm going to try to explain what I feel she is saying here. There are
some lists where you can say and do what you want and so can everyone else
equally. And these serve a great purpose on both sides - hmmm - scratch
that - more like the whole spectrum of ways of seeing and dealing with
subjects. On the other hand, there are others (such as this one - I am just
now understanding) which take a different model - and that is to allow
certain types of thought to have some more sway. Now you might agree or
disagree with the thoughts which are able to come through here (I often find
myself on the other side) but it's a different model. Perhaps the part that
I have not yet understood - although I am understanding more the original
vision ( I think ) is how this way aligns with unschooling. For myself, I'm
looking at this forum now as an exception in the sense that it is intended
for adults who are able to judge for themselves if those in a position to
moderate are giving them what they need or not - as opposed to the
vulnerable position in which children find themselves being not respected by
someone in a position of authority over them. No one here is really in
authority over any of us - if we choose to view them that way - that's
really happening in our heads. We're free to come and go - delete, argue or
just disregard. I find myself stopping in an argument with moderators here
and thinking - ok - I disagree - they know it - moving on. If we were
personally sitting in a room having a cup of coffee together - there would
be no moderation - I might approach it differently. But I'm beginning to
understand the ideas behind how it's being approached. That last letter
actually showed me something I hadn't been looking at before.
-----Original Message-----
From: tuckervill2@... [mailto:tuckervill2@...]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] the idea of equality
In a message dated 10/8/2004 8:24:27 AM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< I'm on a list where everyone is an owner of the list, so everyone really
does have an equal stake in the list. Equal power, equal participation.
>>I've never seen a list where everyone posted. Everyone participates
equally?
It seems those who participate the most and like it the most would have
more
stake than those who ignore it, or wander by once in a while.
~~~
Small lists can be like that. At some time everyone's posted.
What is the point of an equal stake if you are forced to exercise it?
Doesn't the choice of using or not using your stake in something matter? Do
you
forfiet your stake in something if you don't exercise it?
I think there should be a distinction made between equal *rights* and equal
abilities. I don't think they are the same.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129p3r6d3/M=294150.5475418.6555472.1501134/D=gr
oups/S=1705542111:HM/EXP=1097330857/A=2380024/R=2/id=noscript/SIG=124u69elg/
*http:/www.interest.com/includes/server/icom_campaign.asp?id=10718>
<http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/bo/bon_marketing/300x250_yahoo_100104.g
if>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294150.5475418.6555472.1501134/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2380024/rand=514118933>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jimpetersonl
So . . . some lists are like unschooling (where there's a certain
cacophany that accompanies life), and others (where the moderator
chooses what the participants have the chance to view) are like school.
An interesting and intriguing observation.
~Sue
And these serve a great purpose on both sides - hmmm - scratch> that
- more like the whole spectrum of ways of seeing and dealing with>
subjects. On the other hand, there are others (such as this one - I am
just> now understanding) which take a different model - and that is to
allow> certain types of thought to have some more sway. Now you might
agree or> disagree with the thoughts which are able to come through
here (I often find> myself on the other side) but it's a different
model. Perhaps the part that> I have not yet understood - although I
am understanding more the original> vision ( I think ) is how this way
aligns with unschooling. For myself, I'm> looking at this forum now as
an exception in the sense that it is intended> for adults who are able
to judge for themselves if those in a position to> moderate are giving
them what they need or not - as opposed to the> vulnerable position in
which children find themselves being not respected by> someone in a
position of authority over them. No one here is really in> authority
over any of us - if we choose to view them that way - that's
moderators here> and thinking - ok - I disagree - they know it -
moving on. If we were> personally sitting in a room having a cup of
coffee together - there would> be no moderation - I might approach it
differently. But I'm beginning to> understand the ideas behind how
it's being approached. That last letter> actually showed me something
I hadn't been looking at before.
cacophany that accompanies life), and others (where the moderator
chooses what the participants have the chance to view) are like school.
An interesting and intriguing observation.
~Sue
And these serve a great purpose on both sides - hmmm - scratch> that
- more like the whole spectrum of ways of seeing and dealing with>
subjects. On the other hand, there are others (such as this one - I am
just> now understanding) which take a different model - and that is to
allow> certain types of thought to have some more sway. Now you might
agree or> disagree with the thoughts which are able to come through
here (I often find> myself on the other side) but it's a different
model. Perhaps the part that> I have not yet understood - although I
am understanding more the original> vision ( I think ) is how this way
aligns with unschooling. For myself, I'm> looking at this forum now as
an exception in the sense that it is intended> for adults who are able
to judge for themselves if those in a position to> moderate are giving
them what they need or not - as opposed to the> vulnerable position in
which children find themselves being not respected by> someone in a
position of authority over them. No one here is really in> authority
over any of us - if we choose to view them that way - that's
> really happening in our heads. We're free to come and go - delete,argue or> just disregard. I find myself stopping in an argument with
moderators here> and thinking - ok - I disagree - they know it -
moving on. If we were> personally sitting in a room having a cup of
coffee together - there would> be no moderation - I might approach it
differently. But I'm beginning to> understand the ideas behind how
it's being approached. That last letter> actually showed me something
I hadn't been looking at before.
>Sondra
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/8/04 9:19:52 AM, sondracarr@... writes:
<< I think
automatically we (or at least I - and I've noticed others in these groups)
assume that bulletin boards are going to be the more egalitarian of these
models for interaction. I know I have and now this response you've made has
put it into a different perspective. >>
I think some people want ALL discussion lists or message boards to have the
same aims and policies. Some ARE for chit-chat, bonding purposes. Some
aren't. People get grumpy on both sides. My husband is on two Norse folklore
lists, and one is very chatty, and one is more businesslike and scholarly. Both
get complaints, I hear.
It's not an unschooling phenomenon. <g>
-=-I'm still not sure how I
feel about that issue - I vacillate more when I think in terms of its
application to general population as opposed to for myself alone -=-
This isn't the only portal to unschooling. Good!
(It's not even the only list I'm on, and there are tons I'm not on, and those
where it is nonsensically claimed that all opinions are equally valid are
lists I have no interest whatsoever in being part of.)
-=-I like that you have indicated
that sometimes one approach is applicable and at other times another.-=-
I'm on a couple of teaparty lists too. <g> We talk about our sexlives, our
dogs, and house repairs. I can easily tell the difference between a workparty
and a lounge-about, look-at-the-best-Johnny-Depp-scenes day off. I see this
list as a workparty that occasionally, on a slack day, might have an "Ah,
Alan Rickman... isn't he wonderful?" afternoon.
Sandra
<< I think
automatically we (or at least I - and I've noticed others in these groups)
assume that bulletin boards are going to be the more egalitarian of these
models for interaction. I know I have and now this response you've made has
put it into a different perspective. >>
I think some people want ALL discussion lists or message boards to have the
same aims and policies. Some ARE for chit-chat, bonding purposes. Some
aren't. People get grumpy on both sides. My husband is on two Norse folklore
lists, and one is very chatty, and one is more businesslike and scholarly. Both
get complaints, I hear.
It's not an unschooling phenomenon. <g>
-=-I'm still not sure how I
feel about that issue - I vacillate more when I think in terms of its
application to general population as opposed to for myself alone -=-
This isn't the only portal to unschooling. Good!
(It's not even the only list I'm on, and there are tons I'm not on, and those
where it is nonsensically claimed that all opinions are equally valid are
lists I have no interest whatsoever in being part of.)
-=-I like that you have indicated
that sometimes one approach is applicable and at other times another.-=-
I'm on a couple of teaparty lists too. <g> We talk about our sexlives, our
dogs, and house repairs. I can easily tell the difference between a workparty
and a lounge-about, look-at-the-best-Johnny-Depp-scenes day off. I see this
list as a workparty that occasionally, on a slack day, might have an "Ah,
Alan Rickman... isn't he wonderful?" afternoon.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/8/04 9:51:28 AM, sondracarr@... writes:
<< If we were
personally sitting in a room having a cup of coffee together - there would
be no moderation - I might approach it differently. >>
Depends who's house you're in, don't you think?
-=-Perhaps the part that
I have not yet understood - although I am understanding more the original
vision ( I think ) is how this way aligns with unschooling.-=-
If every book contained all information, would that align better with
unschooling?
If no club had a name and purpose, and all humans were equally welcome to
join any club, would that align better with unschooling?
I think it would make for some pretty worthless books and clubs.
And if every list tries to be everything to everyone, every list will end up
useless.
-=-For myself, I'm looking at this forum now as an exception in the sense
that it is intended for adults who are able to judge for themselves if those in a
position to
moderate are giving them what they need or not - -=-
Every forum in the world, electronic or otherwise, is that way.
Only the slow-witted and insects can fall into a jar and think they can't
possibly get back out again. (Okay, and some small animals, or if the pit is big
enough, maybe lions in Tarzan movies.)
-=-No one here is really in authority over any of us - if we choose to view
them that way - that's really happening in our heads.-=-
It's not happening in most people's heads.
There are some people who aren't as mentally clear and healthy as others.
Should we cater to them? Banish them? Work around them?
-=-I'm looking at this forum now as an exception in the sense that it is
intended
for adults who are able to judge for themselves if those in a position to
moderate are giving them what they need or not - as opposed to the
vulnerable position in which children find themselves being not respected by
someone in a position of authority over them. -=-
Yeah, I'm assuming people who managed to find this are competent adults or
teens who have an interest in the topic and who have read the main page at yahoo.
It has always baffled and embarrassed me that some people will become angry
(or distraught, or crazed) because they feel that unschoolers are advocating
being really gentle with children, but we're not treating every person who comes
by the way we treat our children. The people who come by are not my
children, nor usually ANYone's children. They're adults looking for information. I
want to give them information, I don't want to ask them what they want for
lunch and make their beds and wash their socks. I don't even want to hold their
hands while they take two or three years to get past the basic questions (and
some people do seem to want that, but meanwhile their children are
languishing).
Sandra
<< If we were
personally sitting in a room having a cup of coffee together - there would
be no moderation - I might approach it differently. >>
Depends who's house you're in, don't you think?
-=-Perhaps the part that
I have not yet understood - although I am understanding more the original
vision ( I think ) is how this way aligns with unschooling.-=-
If every book contained all information, would that align better with
unschooling?
If no club had a name and purpose, and all humans were equally welcome to
join any club, would that align better with unschooling?
I think it would make for some pretty worthless books and clubs.
And if every list tries to be everything to everyone, every list will end up
useless.
-=-For myself, I'm looking at this forum now as an exception in the sense
that it is intended for adults who are able to judge for themselves if those in a
position to
moderate are giving them what they need or not - -=-
Every forum in the world, electronic or otherwise, is that way.
Only the slow-witted and insects can fall into a jar and think they can't
possibly get back out again. (Okay, and some small animals, or if the pit is big
enough, maybe lions in Tarzan movies.)
-=-No one here is really in authority over any of us - if we choose to view
them that way - that's really happening in our heads.-=-
It's not happening in most people's heads.
There are some people who aren't as mentally clear and healthy as others.
Should we cater to them? Banish them? Work around them?
-=-I'm looking at this forum now as an exception in the sense that it is
intended
for adults who are able to judge for themselves if those in a position to
moderate are giving them what they need or not - as opposed to the
vulnerable position in which children find themselves being not respected by
someone in a position of authority over them. -=-
Yeah, I'm assuming people who managed to find this are competent adults or
teens who have an interest in the topic and who have read the main page at yahoo.
It has always baffled and embarrassed me that some people will become angry
(or distraught, or crazed) because they feel that unschoolers are advocating
being really gentle with children, but we're not treating every person who comes
by the way we treat our children. The people who come by are not my
children, nor usually ANYone's children. They're adults looking for information. I
want to give them information, I don't want to ask them what they want for
lunch and make their beds and wash their socks. I don't even want to hold their
hands while they take two or three years to get past the basic questions (and
some people do seem to want that, but meanwhile their children are
languishing).
Sandra
Robyn Coburn
<<<<So . . . some lists are like unschooling (where there's a certain
cacophany that accompanies life), and others (where the moderator
chooses what the participants have the chance to view) are like school.>>>>
I like to think of myself as a gatekeeper. Just because we are Unschooling
doesn't mean I'm obliged to invite every blowhard or hateful person or
salesman who knocks on my door into my home. Cacophony might be an
occasional side effect, but it is not a particular goal.
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004
cacophany that accompanies life), and others (where the moderator
chooses what the participants have the chance to view) are like school.>>>>
I like to think of myself as a gatekeeper. Just because we are Unschooling
doesn't mean I'm obliged to invite every blowhard or hateful person or
salesman who knocks on my door into my home. Cacophony might be an
occasional side effect, but it is not a particular goal.
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/8/04 11:11:34 AM, jimpetersonl@... writes:
<< So . . . some lists are like unschooling (where there's a certain
cacophany that accompanies life), and others (where the moderator
chooses what the participants have the chance to view) are like school. >>
No . . . There aren't just two kinds of lists either, but there ARE millions
of lists, and anyone who isn't liking a list she's on should trot on off and
do something she DOES like.
The people who are most valuable on a list like this are those who are
actively helping other people understand unschooling.
The people who are least valuable on a list like this are those who are
divisive and obnoxious without ever having been or having intended to help anyone.
-=-and others (where the moderator
chooses what the participants have the chance to view) -=-
How could a moderator prevent a list participant from viewing all the rest of
the world?
If a person looks into a list like this (with his head in, like Winnie the
Pooh, and the rest of him showing outside) and complains that he can't see the
rest of the world, that is a failing on the part of the Pooh.
There is much cacophony ("o" there, sounds/phon) in the world, and sometimes
people JUST want to hear the Rolling Stones or Handel, or the voice of a
certain child, or they want to read what they've chosen to read about. I know of
no one who wants to be randomly subjected to troublemaking nonsense. And the
description of this group pretty much says what the topic is, and
troublemaking nonsense isn't it.
If you want to make an unschooling list and advertise it here because you're
sure yours would be more helpful to unschoolers, feel free to list the address
here. You might draw more participants if you first spend a lot of time and
energy being really helpful to them in their unschooling.
Sandra
<< So . . . some lists are like unschooling (where there's a certain
cacophany that accompanies life), and others (where the moderator
chooses what the participants have the chance to view) are like school. >>
No . . . There aren't just two kinds of lists either, but there ARE millions
of lists, and anyone who isn't liking a list she's on should trot on off and
do something she DOES like.
The people who are most valuable on a list like this are those who are
actively helping other people understand unschooling.
The people who are least valuable on a list like this are those who are
divisive and obnoxious without ever having been or having intended to help anyone.
-=-and others (where the moderator
chooses what the participants have the chance to view) -=-
How could a moderator prevent a list participant from viewing all the rest of
the world?
If a person looks into a list like this (with his head in, like Winnie the
Pooh, and the rest of him showing outside) and complains that he can't see the
rest of the world, that is a failing on the part of the Pooh.
There is much cacophony ("o" there, sounds/phon) in the world, and sometimes
people JUST want to hear the Rolling Stones or Handel, or the voice of a
certain child, or they want to read what they've chosen to read about. I know of
no one who wants to be randomly subjected to troublemaking nonsense. And the
description of this group pretty much says what the topic is, and
troublemaking nonsense isn't it.
If you want to make an unschooling list and advertise it here because you're
sure yours would be more helpful to unschoolers, feel free to list the address
here. You might draw more participants if you first spend a lot of time and
energy being really helpful to them in their unschooling.
Sandra
Sondra Carr
Well - I'd be respectful regardless - meaning I wouldn't tell anyone else
how to do their life. However, regardless of the house I'm in, I'd say my
piece. If it gets to a point in a discussion where two people really can't
see the other point of view - I usually say "let's agree to disagree" rather
than continuing to beat heads against walls. And if the person, in whose
house I am a guest doesn't accept that and insists on continuing, I think
I'd excuse myself and leave (and probably not return at that point.)
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 12:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] the idea of equality
In a message dated 10/8/04 9:51:28 AM, sondracarr@... writes:
<< If we were
personally sitting in a room having a cup of coffee together - there would
be no moderation - I might approach it differently. >>
Depends who's house you're in, don't you think?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
how to do their life. However, regardless of the house I'm in, I'd say my
piece. If it gets to a point in a discussion where two people really can't
see the other point of view - I usually say "let's agree to disagree" rather
than continuing to beat heads against walls. And if the person, in whose
house I am a guest doesn't accept that and insists on continuing, I think
I'd excuse myself and leave (and probably not return at that point.)
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 12:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] the idea of equality
In a message dated 10/8/04 9:51:28 AM, sondracarr@... writes:
<< If we were
personally sitting in a room having a cup of coffee together - there would
be no moderation - I might approach it differently. >>
Depends who's house you're in, don't you think?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Elizabeth Hill
**I know of no one who wants to be randomly subjected to troublemaking
nonsense.**
I suppose the crux of the problem is we do see differences of opinion about what is nonsense and what is not.
(from another post and poster)
**Aside from the equivocation issue (we can come back to that),**
How does it benefit anyone's unschooling to get down and wrestle about topics like "equivocation"?
Betsy
nonsense.**
I suppose the crux of the problem is we do see differences of opinion about what is nonsense and what is not.
(from another post and poster)
**Aside from the equivocation issue (we can come back to that),**
How does it benefit anyone's unschooling to get down and wrestle about topics like "equivocation"?
Betsy
Robyn Coburn
<<<<How does it benefit anyone's unschooling to get down and wrestle about
topics like "equivocation"?>>>>
From www.dictionary.com
equivocation
n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an
unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn:
prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous
language [syn: tergiversation]
Why would anyone trying to get to Unschooling and trying to help others do
so choose equivocation over honest discussion about how it works in their
home on a daily basis?
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004
topics like "equivocation"?>>>>
From www.dictionary.com
equivocation
n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an
unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn:
prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous
language [syn: tergiversation]
Why would anyone trying to get to Unschooling and trying to help others do
so choose equivocation over honest discussion about how it works in their
home on a daily basis?
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004
Elizabeth Hill
**
n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an
unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn:
prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous
language [syn: tergiversation]
Why would anyone trying to get to Unschooling and trying to help others do
so choose equivocation over honest discussion about how it works in their
home on a daily basis?**
OK, I think I've totally lost the plot. What "unpleasant truth" is at issue here?
Betsy
n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an
unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn:
prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous
language [syn: tergiversation]
Why would anyone trying to get to Unschooling and trying to help others do
so choose equivocation over honest discussion about how it works in their
home on a daily basis?**
OK, I think I've totally lost the plot. What "unpleasant truth" is at issue here?
Betsy
Robyn Coburn
<<<<<**
n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an
unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn:
prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous
language [syn: tergiversation]
Why would anyone trying to get to Unschooling and trying to help others do
so choose equivocation over honest discussion about how it works in their
home on a daily basis?**
OK, I think I've totally lost the plot. What "unpleasant truth" is at issue
here?>>>>
Well Betsy, you asked:
<<<How does it benefit anyone's unschooling to get down and wrestle about
topics like "equivocation"?>>>>
Looking at the dictionary meaning of the word makes me think that it is
something to avoid on this list, and probably in dealing with our children
too.
Not that anyone on this list seemed to be recommending it, even if it is a
practice of ordinary parenting - like saying "maybe later" when you really
mean, have made the decision already, "no".
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004
n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an
unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn:
prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous
language [syn: tergiversation]
Why would anyone trying to get to Unschooling and trying to help others do
so choose equivocation over honest discussion about how it works in their
home on a daily basis?**
OK, I think I've totally lost the plot. What "unpleasant truth" is at issue
here?>>>>
Well Betsy, you asked:
<<<How does it benefit anyone's unschooling to get down and wrestle about
topics like "equivocation"?>>>>
Looking at the dictionary meaning of the word makes me think that it is
something to avoid on this list, and probably in dealing with our children
too.
Not that anyone on this list seemed to be recommending it, even if it is a
practice of ordinary parenting - like saying "maybe later" when you really
mean, have made the decision already, "no".
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004