[email protected]

In a message dated 2/22/2005 6:57:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
jimpetersonl@... writes:

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



----------------------------

Not at all a good definition of unschooling.

It takes a WHOLE lot more than not having a road grader.

Sandra




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

jimpetersonl

I thought *that* was readily apparent and that we were focued on a nuance.

This was *not* offered as a definition of unschooling.

It *was* offered to clarify the argument w/r/t having or not having
something (a television, a road grader, a __[fill in your own
blank]__) and the connection with having or not having that thing
w/r/t unschooling.

It was *not* offered as a definition of unschooling.

~Sue

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

> ----------------------------
>
> Not at all a good definition of unschooling.
>
> It takes a WHOLE lot more than not having a road grader.
>
> Sandra

Fetteroll

on 2/22/05 10:28 PM, jimpetersonl at jimpetersonl@... wrote:

> It *was* offered to clarify the argument

It didn't clarify anything. The statement is nonsense. Maybe your
parentheses are confusing you. Here it is without them:

>> someone who doesn't have a road grader ... is unschooling

And you're offering counterarguments to an argument that doesn't exist.

If someone comes along and says "If you don't have TV then you aren't
unschooling," then you can come back to this.

But right now it's not clarifying anything for anyone because no one's
showing confusion on the point of whether people can unschool without TV.

Joyce

Pam Sorooshian

On Feb 22, 2005, at 7:28 PM, jimpetersonl wrote:

> I thought *that* was readily apparent and that we were focued on a
> nuance.
>
> This was *not* offered as a definition of unschooling.
>
> It *was* offered to clarify the argument w/r/t having or not having
> something (a television, a road grader, a __[fill in your own
> blank]__) and the connection with having or not having that thing
> w/r/t unschooling.
>
> It was *not* offered as a definition of unschooling.

Your "nuance" being that you apparently believe somebody somewhere has
claimed you can't unschool if you don't have a tv? I don't think
anybody has made such a claim, but in any case you are arguing that,
indeed, you can unschool without having a tv just like you can unschool
without having a road grader.

I think we've gone on about this long enough for a discussion that
seems to be going absolutely nowhere and I honestly cannot see how this
is helping anybody understand unschooling.

Please move on.

-pam