Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] OHIO- Home Schooling An Akron Beacon Journal Spec...
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/16/2004 7:58:47 AM Central Standard Time,
Genant2@... writes:
For others, known as unschoolers or inclusives
~~~
Are they really defining "inclusive" as "unschooling"? Anybody ever seen
"inclusives" used like that before? As in, "the inclusives"?
I usually scan these articles going, blah blah blah, get to the good stuff.
This part shocked me. A new twist. Whatdyaknow. Just what we need.
~~~
Okay, scratch that about inclusives....I see it was Pam who used the term
first, and I know she doesn't think inclusive means unschooling!
I think they writer did a lot of research (how else could he find a guy who
uses the bible to advocate slavery?), but except for the one shining moment of
Pam's comments and the rejoinder about Girl Scouts, the rest was just more
blah blah blah to me.
The writer was just being provocative, as usual.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Genant2@... writes:
For others, known as unschoolers or inclusives
~~~
Are they really defining "inclusive" as "unschooling"? Anybody ever seen
"inclusives" used like that before? As in, "the inclusives"?
>>Wilson co-authored a book that argues that Civil War abolitionistsignored the teachings of the Bible, which recognizes slavery.<<
I usually scan these articles going, blah blah blah, get to the good stuff.
This part shocked me. A new twist. Whatdyaknow. Just what we need.
~~~
Okay, scratch that about inclusives....I see it was Pam who used the term
first, and I know she doesn't think inclusive means unschooling!
I think they writer did a lot of research (how else could he find a guy who
uses the bible to advocate slavery?), but except for the one shining moment of
Pam's comments and the rejoinder about Girl Scouts, the rest was just more
blah blah blah to me.
The writer was just being provocative, as usual.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/16/2004 7:43:25 AM Mountain Standard Time,
tuckervill2@... writes:
Are they really defining "inclusive" as "unschooling"? Anybody ever seen
"inclusives" used like that before? As in, "the inclusives"?
-----------
I've never heard it.
I think the writer misunderstood "inclusive homeschooling groups."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
tuckervill2@... writes:
Are they really defining "inclusive" as "unschooling"? Anybody ever seen
"inclusives" used like that before? As in, "the inclusives"?
-----------
I've never heard it.
I think the writer misunderstood "inclusive homeschooling groups."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/16/2004 7:43:25 AM Mountain Standard Time,
tuckervill2@... writes:
I think they writer did a lot of research (how else could he find a guy who
uses the bible to advocate slavery?),
---------------------------
The Bible verses pro-slavery are a major part of any civil war discussions,
and a (minor) part of the history of the Southern Baptist Church. I thought
everyone knew those were there. But then I'm a trivia and oddity hound and when
they told me to read the Bible I actually read it, and when they told me to
ask anything I wanted, I actually asked. OOps. <g> They meant ask any
simple, inane, non-probing questions. And they meant read the parts of the Bible
that always get quoted, or just say you read it but don't really read it, or if
you do, don't really think hard, as you're not qualified.
I learned a lot being Southern Baptist. It made me pretty disdainful of
Baptists. If anyone finds something in scripture that seems crazy, they'll
dismiss you by saying unless you can read Hebrew and Greek you'll easily
misinterpret things. Yada yada indeed.
The platform, the bedrock, the basis of much of "Christian Homeschooling"
(not freeform homeschooling by a family that happens to be Christian) contains
some ugly old stuff.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
tuckervill2@... writes:
I think they writer did a lot of research (how else could he find a guy who
uses the bible to advocate slavery?),
---------------------------
The Bible verses pro-slavery are a major part of any civil war discussions,
and a (minor) part of the history of the Southern Baptist Church. I thought
everyone knew those were there. But then I'm a trivia and oddity hound and when
they told me to read the Bible I actually read it, and when they told me to
ask anything I wanted, I actually asked. OOps. <g> They meant ask any
simple, inane, non-probing questions. And they meant read the parts of the Bible
that always get quoted, or just say you read it but don't really read it, or if
you do, don't really think hard, as you're not qualified.
I learned a lot being Southern Baptist. It made me pretty disdainful of
Baptists. If anyone finds something in scripture that seems crazy, they'll
dismiss you by saying unless you can read Hebrew and Greek you'll easily
misinterpret things. Yada yada indeed.
The platform, the bedrock, the basis of much of "Christian Homeschooling"
(not freeform homeschooling by a family that happens to be Christian) contains
some ugly old stuff.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/16/2004 11:49:38 AM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
The Bible verses pro-slavery are a major part of any civil war discussions,
and a (minor) part of the history of the Southern Baptist Church. I thought
everyone knew those were there.
~~~
I did know they were there. I just find it hard to believe anyone would
still come right out and say it in the newspaper.
~~~But then I'm a trivia and oddity hound and when
they told me to read the Bible I actually read it, and when they told me to
ask anything I wanted, I actually asked. OOps. <g> They meant ask any
simple, inane, non-probing questions. And they meant read the parts of the
Bible
that always get quoted, or just say you read it but don't really read it, or
if
you do, don't really think hard, as you're not qualified.
I learned a lot being Southern Baptist. It made me pretty disdainful of
Baptists. If anyone finds something in scripture that seems crazy, they'll
dismiss you by saying unless you can read Hebrew and Greek you'll easily
misinterpret things. Yada yada indeed~~~
Yep, yep, me too.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
The Bible verses pro-slavery are a major part of any civil war discussions,
and a (minor) part of the history of the Southern Baptist Church. I thought
everyone knew those were there.
~~~
I did know they were there. I just find it hard to believe anyone would
still come right out and say it in the newspaper.
~~~But then I'm a trivia and oddity hound and when
they told me to read the Bible I actually read it, and when they told me to
ask anything I wanted, I actually asked. OOps. <g> They meant ask any
simple, inane, non-probing questions. And they meant read the parts of the
Bible
that always get quoted, or just say you read it but don't really read it, or
if
you do, don't really think hard, as you're not qualified.
I learned a lot being Southern Baptist. It made me pretty disdainful of
Baptists. If anyone finds something in scripture that seems crazy, they'll
dismiss you by saying unless you can read Hebrew and Greek you'll easily
misinterpret things. Yada yada indeed~~~
Yep, yep, me too.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
On Nov 16, 2004, at 9:41 AM, SandraDodd@... wrote:
topic - it was all about what Rob Reich and Michael Apple were saying
and my response to that - they believe homeschoolers should be
regulated - that they should have to "sign up" as homeschoolers (so
that they can be counted), follow a curriculum of some kind that makes
sure they are taught beliefs different from those of their parents, and
be tested to make sure they're learning.
I debated Rob Reich last April at the American Educational Research
Association annual meeting in San Diego. The reporter got hold of a
tape of that debate and some of what he quotes me as saying was pulled
off that tape - so it is accurate, but a little awkward, out of the
context of it being a response in a debate to something said by Reich.
Scott Sommerville of HSLDA and Brian Ray of NHERI were also in the
debate.
The audience was composed of people doing research or funding research
in education - who were there because they had an interest in
homeschooling research. I expected a relatively hostile audience, but
was pleasantly surprised to discover that they were not.
Reich made a big point about how "we don't know" so many things about
homeschooling because research is difficult because homeschoolers are
not regulated. "We can't even get an accurate count," he kept saying.
He made it clear he wanted homeschoolers to be regulated because
otherwise it was too hard to do research on homeschooling.
I made the point that it wasn't right to regulate us in order to
research us - that this looked like a solution in search of a problem,
rather than an existing problem needing a solution. I told the
researchers there that we had fundamental rights to privacy and to
raise our children in freedom, but they did NOT have a fundamental
right to research us. There was a lot of head-nodding and a sense of
understanding in the room.
I asked Rob Reich - what is the problem you want to solve by regulating
us? He said, "We can't tell if there is a problem if there is not good
data." I said, "So, just in case there might be a problem, even though
we don't see any indication of one, you want the government to step in
and exert control over our family lives (impose curriculum and
standardized testing), to make it easier for you to analyze us to see
if you can FIND a problem?"
So - that was the gist of the debate.
Rob Reich is so concerned that our kids won't be good citizens because
they're being raised to be "ethically servile" to their parents beliefs
- by which he means that kids come out of homeschooling incapable of
even considering the possibility that others' beliefs, different from
those of their parents, might have some validity.
Brian Ray and Scott Sommerville approached the debate more from a
"these are our rights" point of view. My approach was more from a "I
understand the desire to research us because I think we're interesting,
too, but you can't justify regulating us in order to do your research,
that's not even good research technique (changing and damaging the very
thing you're trying to study); you have to find ways to do the research
without changing the very nature of what we do." That was the only
context in which unschooling came up, because I gave the example of how
requiring standardized testing would so warp the way my kids' learning
happened and explained why requiring a curriculum and standardized
testing would not be a minor inconvenience. I pointed out other options
to the researchers there (Rob Reich is NOT even a researcher, he's a
philosopher) such as in-depth interviews and case study approaches,
that would allow better understanding of all the variety of
homeschooling, rather than statistical approaches which are based on
finding commonalities in a set of data and generalizing from them.
-pam
> I've never heard it.I had quite a few conversations with him and unschooling was not the
>
> I think the writer misunderstood "inclusive homeschooling groups."
topic - it was all about what Rob Reich and Michael Apple were saying
and my response to that - they believe homeschoolers should be
regulated - that they should have to "sign up" as homeschoolers (so
that they can be counted), follow a curriculum of some kind that makes
sure they are taught beliefs different from those of their parents, and
be tested to make sure they're learning.
I debated Rob Reich last April at the American Educational Research
Association annual meeting in San Diego. The reporter got hold of a
tape of that debate and some of what he quotes me as saying was pulled
off that tape - so it is accurate, but a little awkward, out of the
context of it being a response in a debate to something said by Reich.
Scott Sommerville of HSLDA and Brian Ray of NHERI were also in the
debate.
The audience was composed of people doing research or funding research
in education - who were there because they had an interest in
homeschooling research. I expected a relatively hostile audience, but
was pleasantly surprised to discover that they were not.
Reich made a big point about how "we don't know" so many things about
homeschooling because research is difficult because homeschoolers are
not regulated. "We can't even get an accurate count," he kept saying.
He made it clear he wanted homeschoolers to be regulated because
otherwise it was too hard to do research on homeschooling.
I made the point that it wasn't right to regulate us in order to
research us - that this looked like a solution in search of a problem,
rather than an existing problem needing a solution. I told the
researchers there that we had fundamental rights to privacy and to
raise our children in freedom, but they did NOT have a fundamental
right to research us. There was a lot of head-nodding and a sense of
understanding in the room.
I asked Rob Reich - what is the problem you want to solve by regulating
us? He said, "We can't tell if there is a problem if there is not good
data." I said, "So, just in case there might be a problem, even though
we don't see any indication of one, you want the government to step in
and exert control over our family lives (impose curriculum and
standardized testing), to make it easier for you to analyze us to see
if you can FIND a problem?"
So - that was the gist of the debate.
Rob Reich is so concerned that our kids won't be good citizens because
they're being raised to be "ethically servile" to their parents beliefs
- by which he means that kids come out of homeschooling incapable of
even considering the possibility that others' beliefs, different from
those of their parents, might have some validity.
Brian Ray and Scott Sommerville approached the debate more from a
"these are our rights" point of view. My approach was more from a "I
understand the desire to research us because I think we're interesting,
too, but you can't justify regulating us in order to do your research,
that's not even good research technique (changing and damaging the very
thing you're trying to study); you have to find ways to do the research
without changing the very nature of what we do." That was the only
context in which unschooling came up, because I gave the example of how
requiring standardized testing would so warp the way my kids' learning
happened and explained why requiring a curriculum and standardized
testing would not be a minor inconvenience. I pointed out other options
to the researchers there (Rob Reich is NOT even a researcher, he's a
philosopher) such as in-depth interviews and case study approaches,
that would allow better understanding of all the variety of
homeschooling, rather than statistical approaches which are based on
finding commonalities in a set of data and generalizing from them.
-pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/18/2004 10:35:28 AM Mountain Standard Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
Rob Reich is so concerned that our kids won't be good citizens because
they're being raised to be "ethically servile" to their parents beliefs
- by which he means that kids come out of homeschooling incapable of
even considering the possibility that others' beliefs, different from
those of their parents, might have some validity.
---------------
If he's been reading The Home School Digest I can see why he would believe
that.
It's the full intent of those parents to do that.
If their children grow up believing in cultural diversity and the acceptance
of other religions, they will have failed miserably.
-=-My approach was more from a "I
understand the desire to research us because I think we're interesting,
too, but you can't justify regulating us in order to do your research,
that's not even good research technique (changing and damaging the very
thing you're trying to study); you have to find ways to do the research
without changing the very nature of what we do." =-
That's because you're of superior intelligence and virtue!
(Perhaps I'm biased...)
(Nah.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
Rob Reich is so concerned that our kids won't be good citizens because
they're being raised to be "ethically servile" to their parents beliefs
- by which he means that kids come out of homeschooling incapable of
even considering the possibility that others' beliefs, different from
those of their parents, might have some validity.
---------------
If he's been reading The Home School Digest I can see why he would believe
that.
It's the full intent of those parents to do that.
If their children grow up believing in cultural diversity and the acceptance
of other religions, they will have failed miserably.
-=-My approach was more from a "I
understand the desire to research us because I think we're interesting,
too, but you can't justify regulating us in order to do your research,
that's not even good research technique (changing and damaging the very
thing you're trying to study); you have to find ways to do the research
without changing the very nature of what we do." =-
That's because you're of superior intelligence and virtue!
(Perhaps I'm biased...)
(Nah.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: pam sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
they're being raised to be "ethically servile" to their parents beliefs
- by which he means that kids come out of homeschooling incapable of
even considering the possibility that others' beliefs, different from
those of their parents, might have some validity.<
One wonders if he has children of his own. My children are only 6 and almost 3 (and new baby brother who is almost 2 months) and they seem quite clear on the fact that their parents may be wrong once in awhile. ; )
Ack. Just realized I haven't introduced myself. Next post.
Michelle
Momma to George (6yo), Theo (almost 3yo), and Eli (almost 2mos)
From: pam sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
>Rob Reich is so concerned that our kids won't be good citizens because
they're being raised to be "ethically servile" to their parents beliefs
- by which he means that kids come out of homeschooling incapable of
even considering the possibility that others' beliefs, different from
those of their parents, might have some validity.<
One wonders if he has children of his own. My children are only 6 and almost 3 (and new baby brother who is almost 2 months) and they seem quite clear on the fact that their parents may be wrong once in awhile. ; )
Ack. Just realized I haven't introduced myself. Next post.
Michelle
Momma to George (6yo), Theo (almost 3yo), and Eli (almost 2mos)
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/18/2004 11:44:48 AM Mountain Standard Time,
michmag5@... writes:
My children are only 6 and almost 3 (and new baby brother who is almost 2
months) and they seem quite clear on the fact that their parents may be wrong
once in awhile. ; )
=============
If you were teaching them to obey you as you obeyed your husband, you'd be
quite clear that it's not okay for children to question parents.
If you were homeschooling against your own wishes out of obedience to your
husband, you'd be unlikely to entertain any disbedience to you from children,
and that's just the way it would be.
And that's the way it is with hundreds of thousands of Christian
homeschooling families. (Maybe only thousands of the moms were told to homeschool without
it being their idea.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
michmag5@... writes:
My children are only 6 and almost 3 (and new baby brother who is almost 2
months) and they seem quite clear on the fact that their parents may be wrong
once in awhile. ; )
=============
If you were teaching them to obey you as you obeyed your husband, you'd be
quite clear that it's not okay for children to question parents.
If you were homeschooling against your own wishes out of obedience to your
husband, you'd be unlikely to entertain any disbedience to you from children,
and that's just the way it would be.
And that's the way it is with hundreds of thousands of Christian
homeschooling families. (Maybe only thousands of the moms were told to homeschool without
it being their idea.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@...
quite clear that it's not okay for children to question parents.<
You're right. I wonder how much of that not questioning is just external, though. I wonder if the folks who live that way believe that they have the total of their children's minds just because they've been so successfully at molding outward behavior?
Or maybe they do have their children's minds, through scare tactics or threats of hell?
Michelle
From: SandraDodd@...
>If you were teaching them to obey you as you obeyed your husband, you'd be
quite clear that it's not okay for children to question parents.<
You're right. I wonder how much of that not questioning is just external, though. I wonder if the folks who live that way believe that they have the total of their children's minds just because they've been so successfully at molding outward behavior?
Or maybe they do have their children's minds, through scare tactics or threats of hell?
Michelle
Elizabeth Hill
** Reich made a big point about how "we don't know" so many things about
homeschooling because research is difficult because homeschoolers are
not regulated. "We can't even get an accurate count," he kept saying.
He made it clear he wanted homeschoolers to be regulated because
otherwise it was too hard to do research on homeschooling.**
And I don't know what kind of underwear he wears or if he flosses his
teeth or yells at his children. But he has a right to privacy and I
don't get to invade it just because I find him an interesting subject to
study.
I don't even know how his mother potty trained him and whether harsh
potty training is corelated with finding it difficult to relax and trust
others. <eg>
** I made the point that it wasn't right to regulate us in order to
research us - that this looked like a solution in search of a problem,
rather than an existing problem needing a solution. I told the
researchers there that we had fundamental rights to privacy and to
raise our children in freedom, but they did NOT have a fundamental
right to research us. **
Thank you! I'm grateful that you were able to state your point with out
stooping to strange innuendo about his mother. <eg>
**rather than statistical approaches which are based on
finding commonalities in a set of data and generalizing from them.**
Reduce people to a mean number and then expand the "answer" out into a
one-size-fits-all policy. That seems to happen a lot. And it's darned
shallow.
**he just doesn't care
if he makes unschooling impossible and he's willing to use us to get at
the Christian Right homeschoolers because he doesn't approve of the way
they raise their kids. Well, gee, neither do I. But I'm not willing to
sacrifice our lifestyle under the pretense that it would have any
impact on theirs at all. And that's what he's wanting.**
Until I see evidence that "brainwashed" kids STAY brainwashed as adults,
even after discovering the public library and the internet and cable TV,
I think it's a bogeyman, and I won't tell other people how to raise
their kids if they won't tell me how to raise mine. I mean, I might
TELL them, but I won't vote to send government inspectors to their
houses and MAKE them think the way I think people should think.
Betsy
homeschooling because research is difficult because homeschoolers are
not regulated. "We can't even get an accurate count," he kept saying.
He made it clear he wanted homeschoolers to be regulated because
otherwise it was too hard to do research on homeschooling.**
And I don't know what kind of underwear he wears or if he flosses his
teeth or yells at his children. But he has a right to privacy and I
don't get to invade it just because I find him an interesting subject to
study.
I don't even know how his mother potty trained him and whether harsh
potty training is corelated with finding it difficult to relax and trust
others. <eg>
** I made the point that it wasn't right to regulate us in order to
research us - that this looked like a solution in search of a problem,
rather than an existing problem needing a solution. I told the
researchers there that we had fundamental rights to privacy and to
raise our children in freedom, but they did NOT have a fundamental
right to research us. **
Thank you! I'm grateful that you were able to state your point with out
stooping to strange innuendo about his mother. <eg>
**rather than statistical approaches which are based on
finding commonalities in a set of data and generalizing from them.**
Reduce people to a mean number and then expand the "answer" out into a
one-size-fits-all policy. That seems to happen a lot. And it's darned
shallow.
**he just doesn't care
if he makes unschooling impossible and he's willing to use us to get at
the Christian Right homeschoolers because he doesn't approve of the way
they raise their kids. Well, gee, neither do I. But I'm not willing to
sacrifice our lifestyle under the pretense that it would have any
impact on theirs at all. And that's what he's wanting.**
Until I see evidence that "brainwashed" kids STAY brainwashed as adults,
even after discovering the public library and the internet and cable TV,
I think it's a bogeyman, and I won't tell other people how to raise
their kids if they won't tell me how to raise mine. I mean, I might
TELL them, but I won't vote to send government inspectors to their
houses and MAKE them think the way I think people should think.
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/18/2004 11:35:21 AM Central Standard Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
. I pointed out other options
to the researchers there (Rob Reich is NOT even a researcher, he's a
philosopher) such as in-depth interviews and case study approaches,
that would allow better understanding of all the variety of
homeschooling, rather than statistical approaches which are based on
finding commonalities in a set of data and generalizing from them.
~~~
Pam, you ROCK!
That must have been impressive to hear.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
. I pointed out other options
to the researchers there (Rob Reich is NOT even a researcher, he's a
philosopher) such as in-depth interviews and case study approaches,
that would allow better understanding of all the variety of
homeschooling, rather than statistical approaches which are based on
finding commonalities in a set of data and generalizing from them.
~~~
Pam, you ROCK!
That must have been impressive to hear.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
On Nov 19, 2004, at 7:09 AM, tuckervill2@... wrote:
<http://www.softconference.com/240412>
The session was:
710. Educational Choice versus Civic Responsibility. Are Home Schoolers
Embracing their Responsibilities or Fleeing from them?
I just want you to know that I went to the meeting as part of the
audience and was invited to be part of the panel itself as I walked in
the door - so I had ZERO time to prepare. I'd thought about the issues
a LOT and engaged in the same debate online - with Rob Reich himself
and had talked about it with Scott Sommerville, in advance, too. So I
can't say I was unprepared - but I had no notes - of course I had no
chance to be nervous, either! <G>
This year's meeting is in Montreal - I WISH I could have gone back
again, but that was an impossible trip.
I think it was very useful to the people there to hear the perspective
of homeschoolers who are not HSLDA-based and I wish that they were
getting that this year. Maybe next time. Influence educational
researchers is important, I think. Down the road, schools end up being
run in accordance with whatever research happens to be in vogue at the
time. I like to hope that our unschooling experience can make schools
at least a little better experience, since most kids are going to
continue to go to school.
-pam
> That must have been impressive to hear.There are tapes available.
<http://www.softconference.com/240412>
The session was:
710. Educational Choice versus Civic Responsibility. Are Home Schoolers
Embracing their Responsibilities or Fleeing from them?
I just want you to know that I went to the meeting as part of the
audience and was invited to be part of the panel itself as I walked in
the door - so I had ZERO time to prepare. I'd thought about the issues
a LOT and engaged in the same debate online - with Rob Reich himself
and had talked about it with Scott Sommerville, in advance, too. So I
can't say I was unprepared - but I had no notes - of course I had no
chance to be nervous, either! <G>
This year's meeting is in Montreal - I WISH I could have gone back
again, but that was an impossible trip.
I think it was very useful to the people there to hear the perspective
of homeschoolers who are not HSLDA-based and I wish that they were
getting that this year. Maybe next time. Influence educational
researchers is important, I think. Down the road, schools end up being
run in accordance with whatever research happens to be in vogue at the
time. I like to hope that our unschooling experience can make schools
at least a little better experience, since most kids are going to
continue to go to school.
-pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/19/2004 1:07:46 PM Central Standard Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
There are tapes available.
<http://www.softconference.com/240412>
The session was:
710. Educational Choice versus Civic Responsibility. Are Home Schoolers
Embracing their Responsibilities or Fleeing from them?
~~~
Thanks, I'll check that out!
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
There are tapes available.
<http://www.softconference.com/240412>
The session was:
710. Educational Choice versus Civic Responsibility. Are Home Schoolers
Embracing their Responsibilities or Fleeing from them?
~~~
Thanks, I'll check that out!
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]