[email protected]

> I'm not the one teaching little Kirby the Karate fad. I don't expect
> anything from my kids that isn't reasonable.

The Karate *FAD* has been around since the Ming Dynasty. Poor *little*
Kirby...
living with a mother who believes he has the right and ability to do
whatever HE thinks is reasonable.


Deb L

Bridget

Can someone please explain to me why Sandra can say just about
anything she wants here, including subtly bashing one's entire gender
with something like, "And it is easy for some parents, especially
dads, to expect more of children than they are emotionally and
intellectually ready to understand." and not one of you calls her on
it. Yet when she insults someone to the point where they get nasty
back you are right there to jump in and defend her?

Dan,
I understand your frustration with what has been said and trust me
when I say, they will only keep pushing your buttons and inciting
you, then blast you when you respond.

Bridget



--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., ddzimlew@j... wrote:
>
> > I'm not the one teaching little Kirby the Karate fad. I don't
expect
> > anything from my kids that isn't reasonable.
>
> The Karate *FAD* has been around since the Ming Dynasty. Poor
*little*
> Kirby...
> living with a mother who believes he has the right and ability to do
> whatever HE thinks is reasonable.
>
>
> Deb L

Leslie

<Can someone please explain to me why Sandra can say just about
anything she wants here,>

It's my understanding that we are all allowed to say whatever we want!

<Yet when she insults someone to the point where they get nasty
back you are right there to jump in and defend her?>

I'm not sure who all your talking about but if your uncomfortable with anyone's comments you should just ignore them rather than encourage further discussion by replying. We're discussing ideas here and not particular families. If you don't like, what a person is saying or how they present their ideas, your best to use the delete key to save yourself any aggravation. I find there are quite a few interesting posts on this list but it's boring when the argument gets too personal and the discussion of issues is lost.

<I understand your frustration with what has been said and trust me when I say, they will only keep pushing your buttons and inciting
you, then blast you when you respond.>

Your involved in an exchange of ideas! If your buttons are pushed I think that means your ideas are being challenged and you have an opportunity to reflect and reevaluate that's all.

Leslie, who's looking forward to the continuing discussion about unschooling.


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

Dan Conine

>Kids grow at the rate they grow. I don't think anything or anyone can extend
>their immaturity, but it's easy to blame things and situations for what is
>natural in a child. And it is easy for some parents, especially dads, to
>expect more of children than they are emotionally and intellectually ready to
>understand.

>It's possible to unschool without identifying an enemy.

>Sandra

How much travel on federal roads is done just because it is easy? How much is actually necessary? Did you know that the interstate highway system wouldn't exist if Johnson wasn't convinced it could be used for moving ICBMs around to keep them from being hit by the Soviets? It wasn't built for your 'convenience'. Just like the internet was built for a useful purpose (communications) and then bloated out of proportion by entertainment. Just because something is there, and convenient, it doesn't become mandatory that every generation must continue to expand and increase it (can you say PCB's?).
I was mostly being facetious to make a point about government roads and bridges, and the difference between 'need' and 'want'. If you want to get into specifics of why you are just trying to be an intellectual bully (like Ayn Rand), I will just say "Don't go there."

>>>. And it is easy for some parents, especially dads, to
expect more of children than they are emotionally and intellectually ready to
understand.

I'm not the one teaching little Kirby the Karate fad. I don't expect anything from my kids that isn't reasonable.

I did have a lot of experience with immaturity in the military, where 40 year old almost-retirees spend their time hanging out with 17 year old kids in bars. The view of 'extended puberty' is blatantly obvious. Read more about our grandparents and parents' lives, and imagine if our current crop of ps kids would have the maturity to do the things they did at the ages they did them. My Dad packed up 8 kids and the dog in a station wagon and moved to a frontier farm at the age of 30. (I'm not saying this is the best thing, just that it took wisdom, skills, and maturity that I respect and wish I had.)

It is possible to unschool without identifying an enemy, but then, why would you 'un'school? As a scientific experiment with your children? What makes you think that you know so much that thousands of teachers and administrators couldn't figure out? (You already answered this, then deny it.)

I started the cynicism you see around you today (just call me Al Gore :-) ). It isn't 'stylish'. It is based on a mistrust of established paradigms. "Stop Paving the Cow Paths" is a common saying (and a book, I think). The reasons for mistrusting established paradigms are manyfold, but it begins with the public screw-ups of our most trusted organizations, like the federal government, Exxon, and the U.S. military. As they say on TV, "Trust No One." (yes, there are reasons why the cows choose those paths, but not related to this side of the discussion.) All organizations have someone who can screw up.
This applies in the grand overall picture, but we know we must trust someone, so we bond with and trust the ones we know (local control), and distrust those we don't know. Love can only be had by taking the chance of free and open trust. You can't trust someone you don't know. That's just blind faith ("We from da guvmint, we here to hep"). Generally, I don't trust people who don't have strong opinions or enemies. They probably haven't done anything to warrant them (this rule is modified by an age factor, kids shouldn't have real enemies).

Dan



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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/16/01 7:52:57 AM Mountain Standard Time,
dconine@... writes:


> How much travel on federal roads is done just because it is easy? How much
> is actually necessary?

There's a back road to Santa Fe. Two lanes, through dips, over very small
bridges, as dark as can possibly be with deep arroyos to fall into, not one
filling station or phone (phones if you went up to houses in the three little
former-ghost-towns, now artist-colonies it goes through). It's not half as
safe as the interstate.

Yes, I know the interstates were beefed up for military purposes. The Romans
did that too. People COULD have travelled without Roman bridges, but once
there's a bridge, ferrymen aren't going to make much money. But there was
Rt. 66 before there was I-40, and it wasn't considered a sin for the
government to have make pavement to California.

Albuquerque exists at the intersection of I-25 and I-40. I-10 cuts across
the bottom of the state. We have those, the federal court house, some
natioanal parks and monuments, and that's about it. When I go to Washington
I'm in awe of the federal funding for things everyone can see and do, and how
much easier it is to feel like an American there than it is in a place like
Espanola, where I grew up, where the BIA and BLM are the only federal
presences.

-=-Just because something is there, and convenient, it doesn't become
mandatory that every generation must continue to expand and increase it (can
you say PCB's?).-=-

Some of the side roads were not maintained when the interstate went in. I
don't know how far you are from an interstate, but in New Mexico they are the
only way to travel from some towns to others, and especially in the southern
part of the state towns can be very far apart.


-=-> . If you want to get into specifics of why you are just trying to be an
> intellectual bully (like Ayn Rand), I will just say "Don't go there."-=-


*I'm" the Ayn Rand in this exchange!? I'm the socialist democrat, if
anything! You seem to be proposing privatization.

-=-It is possible to unschool without identifying an enemy, but then, why
would you 'un'school? As a scientific experiment with your children?-=-

In part, yes. The schools don't have a control group. Unless some people
prove that kids can learn to read without being taught, those trained in
colleges won't believe it. I think my kids would learn either way. I think
they're better off at home. But I don't see the schools as an evil empire
that should be destroyed and and salted over. School was good for me,
personally. I could tell good school stories for days on end. But schools
are bad for lots of people, in ways that might could be changed.

-=-What makes you think that you know so much that thousands of teachers and
administrators couldn't figure out? (You already answered this, then deny
it.)-=-

I was one of the millions, not thousands, of teachers and administrators,
many of whom HAD figured out what worked better, but were powerless to
implement it. John Holt was one of them. Many of the readers of this list
have education degrees (I don't) or taught school (I did) or were school
psychologists or counselors. They think they know much that thousands of
teachers and administrators don't WANT to figure out--many (NOT ALL) are
content to continue to take a paycheck until retirement without rocking the
boat. It has much to do with temperament. Lots of people are happy to do
their best within limitations and be content. Others have the inner need to
change the limitations.

-=-Generally, I don't trust people who don't have strong opinions or enemies.
They probably haven't done anything to warrant them (this rule is modified by
an age factor, kids shouldn't have real enemies).-=-

Well I have both.

Why do you think it is impossible to trust someone you don't know but it's
desirable to mistrust those you have never met and never will meet? I don't
see why you can't have some of both.

Sandra










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

Lynda

Ah, Karate has been around but it wasn't a "fad" until the U.S. decided it
was kewl and made a few movies and tv programs about it.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <ddzimlew@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Sandra is always right


>
> > I'm not the one teaching little Kirby the Karate fad. I don't expect
> > anything from my kids that isn't reasonable.
>
> The Karate *FAD* has been around since the Ming Dynasty. Poor *little*
> Kirby...
> living with a mother who believes he has the right and ability to do
> whatever HE thinks is reasonable.
>
>
> Deb L
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[email protected]

Take the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper...

Deb L, also owned and generally pushed around by cats.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:14:42 -0800 "Lynda" <lurine@...> writes:
> Ah, Karate has been around but it wasn't a "fad" until the U.S.
> decided it
> was kewl and made a few movies and tv programs about it.
>
> Lynda

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/16/01 9:02:13 AM Mountain Standard Time,
rumpleteasermom@... writes:


> Can someone please explain to me why Sandra can say just about
> anything she wants here, including subtly bashing one's entire gender
> with something like, "And it is easy for some parents, especially
> dads, to expect more of children than they are emotionally and
>

I can.

Because I'm saying things I have reason to believe are true, I'm not saying
them to be hateful, and my average stays up because I'm helpful here and
other places on the internet.

Bridget, you or anyone can say anything you want to here, and if people feel
the urge to defend you, they absolutely can and will. I've spent a few more
years earning faith and trust than you have.

Lots of parents are blissfully or willfully unaware of child development
realities. They expect three year olds to make promises they keep (about
things they're incapable of understanding or performing) and promise them
then for not keeping their word. They take six year old boys to doctors if
they can't read, instead of just waiting two or three years until they can
(during which time those boys can absolutely learn TONS of stuff from books
read to them, videos, visits to museums and historic sites, hands-on-stuff),
but instead the parents WANT a diagnosis of ADHD or dyslexis or something
scientific, so they feel like they did the right parental thing. Moms, as a
group, seem vastly more in touch with what their kids know and can say and do
and have been doing than dads, in general, do. If a mom had no idea if her
child could tie his shoes or not, it would seem neglect. Dads, though, often
ask the kid or other kids whether the youngest needs help with the bathroom,
or the kids will tell dad who's needing a high chair or help reading
subtitles or whatever. Some dads are totally up to the moment. Others
choose not to be and few fault them; it's not their job, in this society.

-=-Yet when she insults someone to the point where they get nasty
back you are right there to jump in and defend her?-=-

I wasn't trying to be insulting, and if someone gets nasty back to a
discussion about federal highways (which, by the way, nobody did except you),
that's their doing, not mine. I want to discuss issues. You want to discuss
me. I wish you'd stop.


Sandra


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

Lynda

But such nice pushing <g>

Lynda, mom to Gargamel, Azreel and Boo.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ddzimlew@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Sandra is always right


> Take the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper...
>
> Deb L, also owned and generally pushed around by cats.
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:14:42 -0800 "Lynda" <lurine@...> writes:
> > Ah, Karate has been around but it wasn't a "fad" until the U.S.
> > decided it
> > was kewl and made a few movies and tv programs about it.
> >
> > Lynda
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Priss

I first read Sandra's writing nearly four years ago when I first
started considering homeschooling. I would read her posts on AOL and
practically yell at the screen, she made me so mad. I thought she was
rude, abrasive, cocky, not at all a good poster child for
unschooling. But I kept reading her stuff. And it made more and more
sense. It got to where when I was limited for time, Sandra's posts
were nearly all I'd read (Pam and Joyce, you two also were on my must
read list on AOL back then and still hold that position along with
Sandra on this list). Somehow she doesn't strike me as rude and
abrasive any more. Right now, I'm just grateful for these years that
I've been able to read her intelligent, helpful advice. If I could go
back in time to those early days (okay, it was at least months) when
I didn't like her and change either her style to be more warm and
fuzzy or open my eyes to what good stuff I missed back then, I'd pick
opening my eyes without question.

And I didn't get nary a doubloon or piece of chocolate for this!

Priss

Helen Hegener

At 5:39 AM +0000 11/17/01, Priss wrote:
>I first read Sandra's writing nearly four years ago when I first
>started considering homeschooling. I would read her posts on AOL and
>practically yell at the screen, she made me so mad. I thought she was
>rude, abrasive, cocky, not at all a good poster child for
>unschooling. But I kept reading her stuff. And it made more and more
>sense. It got to where when I was limited for time, Sandra's posts
>were nearly all I'd read (Pam and Joyce, you two also were on my must
>read list on AOL back then and still hold that position along with
>Sandra on this list). Somehow she doesn't strike me as rude and
>abrasive any more. Right now, I'm just grateful for these years that
>I've been able to read her intelligent, helpful advice. If I could go
>back in time to those early days (okay, it was at least months) when
>I didn't like her and change either her style to be more warm and
>fuzzy or open my eyes to what good stuff I missed back then, I'd pick
>opening my eyes without question.

And this is precisely why Sandra's an HEM columnist.

She does have a knack for making one think. Heck, she often makes me
think and then rethink, even when I think I've thunk things all the
way through... <g>

Helen

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/16/2001 1:18:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


> > why Sandra can say just about
> > anything she wants here,.... and not one of you calls her on
> > it.
>
> LMAO! Someone is always on Sandra about something! Always. I had to
> keep a box of tissue by me at all times when I first joined this list.
>
> Very funny! Maybe she should run for God, or something. But, we'd have
> to pass a test to vote. Question # 1. Who's always right?
>
> Who would be the AntiSandra? ( on any given day)
>

Of course Sandra is always right. As Sandraites, we believe in the
infallibility of the Goddess Sandra. In our home we used to wear bracelets
that had WWSD? on them, but we have since replaced them with Thinking Sticks
glued about our clothing.

I know, I know, some describe us Sandraites as a cult, but we know it's not
true.

In the Goddess Sandra's Enlightenment,

Kathryn
(who suggests that lightening up up and not taking comments from relative
strangers is a path to a more serene life.)


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

[email protected]

She does have a knack for making one think. Heck, she often makes me
think and then rethink, even when I think I've thunk things all the
way through... <g>
Helen

YA' THINK?
Elissa

[email protected]

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Helen Hegener
<HEM-Editor@h...> wrote:
> And this is precisely why Sandra's an HEM columnist.

Hey, that reminded me that HEM once ran an interview with
Sandra! I went a-hunting, and sure enough, it's online at the HEM
website:

http://www.home-ed-magazine.com/HEM/HEM151.98/151.98_art
_sd.html

Sally