Snarky
Pam Hartley
***The
one who has meant so much to so many, was driven off by snarky me.
Or maybe she got tired of not being in charge, and tired of the
"general topic" nature of this list. That's cool. I can't say she
wasn't hurt, and I can't say that she didn't hurt others. It happens.
It's over. Isn't it?***
Sure, it's over, for now. Sandra was the target, now the people targeting
her can relax and enjoy, unless and until someone else becomes their target.
The bullies in the schoolyard have won, and it will make them happy for
awhile.
Snarky is derived from Lewis Carroll's THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK ("Come
listen my men, while I tell you again, of the five unmistakable marks, by
which you shall know, wheresoever you go, the genuine, warranted snark").
The term "snarky" came into popular use on the old AOL Homeschooling boards
(RIP).
It means to be bitchy for no reason. Almost nobody is snarky all the time,
some only in response to particular topics or to particular people.
Pam
one who has meant so much to so many, was driven off by snarky me.
Or maybe she got tired of not being in charge, and tired of the
"general topic" nature of this list. That's cool. I can't say she
wasn't hurt, and I can't say that she didn't hurt others. It happens.
It's over. Isn't it?***
Sure, it's over, for now. Sandra was the target, now the people targeting
her can relax and enjoy, unless and until someone else becomes their target.
The bullies in the schoolyard have won, and it will make them happy for
awhile.
Snarky is derived from Lewis Carroll's THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK ("Come
listen my men, while I tell you again, of the five unmistakable marks, by
which you shall know, wheresoever you go, the genuine, warranted snark").
The term "snarky" came into popular use on the old AOL Homeschooling boards
(RIP).
It means to be bitchy for no reason. Almost nobody is snarky all the time,
some only in response to particular topics or to particular people.
Pam
Sarah Carothers
Pam wrote:
<Sure, it's over, for now. Sandra was the target, now the people targeting
her can relax and enjoy, unless and until someone else becomes their target.
The bullies in the schoolyard have won, and it will make them happy for
awhile.
There was no "win" or "loss"; only an evolution to another phase that this list will endure.
Sarah (coming out of lurkdom now that the person who was always snarky to her has left)
<Sure, it's over, for now. Sandra was the target, now the people targeting
her can relax and enjoy, unless and until someone else becomes their target.
The bullies in the schoolyard have won, and it will make them happy for
awhile.
>>>>>>>Perhaps it should be considered that Sandra was not a target but part of the bickering (as stated by Lisa, I think.... "it takes two to tango"). It is *possible* that Sandra didn't like the lack of control she had on this list. I'm sure she's not used to people calling her on stuff she says when so many other people treat her as an idol. Right or wrong (and I'm not getting into *that* discussion with anyone), she chose to leave and start her own list with her own guidelines. Nobody's being a bully... nobody's calling her ugly names here... in fact, the only posts I recall are ones begging her not to leave. The people who either didn't have an opinion on that or were glad have remained quiet about it.
There was no "win" or "loss"; only an evolution to another phase that this list will endure.
Sarah (coming out of lurkdom now that the person who was always snarky to her has left)
----- Original Message -----
From: Pam Hartley
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Snarky
***The
one who has meant so much to so many, was driven off by snarky me.
Or maybe she got tired of not being in charge, and tired of the
"general topic" nature of this list. That's cool. I can't say she
wasn't hurt, and I can't say that she didn't hurt others. It happens.
It's over. Isn't it?***
Sure, it's over, for now. Sandra was the target, now the people targeting
her can relax and enjoy, unless and until someone else becomes their target.
The bullies in the schoolyard have won, and it will make them happy for
awhile.
Snarky is derived from Lewis Carroll's THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK ("Come
listen my men, while I tell you again, of the five unmistakable marks, by
which you shall know, wheresoever you go, the genuine, warranted snark").
The term "snarky" came into popular use on the old AOL Homeschooling boards
(RIP).
It means to be bitchy for no reason. Almost nobody is snarky all the time,
some only in response to particular topics or to particular people.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Priss
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Sarah Carothers" <puddles@t...>
wrote:
Maybe you shouldn't be too sure of things. I've been reading Sandra's
writing for almost four years. There are people on here that have
been reading it a lot longer than that. There's never been a time
when people didn't "call her on stuff." When I first started reading
her posts I'd just look for people to jump on her, I was so much in
agreement with them. She got jumped on pretty much constantly. She
never just had a bunch of people all bowing to her and idolizing her
and nobody disagreeing with her. I tried debating her myself a few
times in those early days and found I was not a good debater,
especially (as I realized later) when my points were a lot weaker
than hers. She's put up with this kind of stuff always, this latest
just seems to be nastier and more personal and more longwinded than
any I've witnessed.
Priss
wrote:
>>I'm sure she's not used to people calling her on stuff she sayswhen so many other people treat her as an idol<<
Maybe you shouldn't be too sure of things. I've been reading Sandra's
writing for almost four years. There are people on here that have
been reading it a lot longer than that. There's never been a time
when people didn't "call her on stuff." When I first started reading
her posts I'd just look for people to jump on her, I was so much in
agreement with them. She got jumped on pretty much constantly. She
never just had a bunch of people all bowing to her and idolizing her
and nobody disagreeing with her. I tried debating her myself a few
times in those early days and found I was not a good debater,
especially (as I realized later) when my points were a lot weaker
than hers. She's put up with this kind of stuff always, this latest
just seems to be nastier and more personal and more longwinded than
any I've witnessed.
Priss
Sarah Carothers
Right. I didn't phrase that as I should have. I'll try again.
I think Sandra has a lot of information that she has shared on this list. I also agree that she's been called to task on more than one occasion for what she has written. In the meantime, though, she's developed a following, if you will, of supporters. I'm guessing but I'm pretty sure she feels more comfortable being around those supporting her than around those who call her to task. (why else would she decide to leave?)
imo, if the 'debate' between Sandra and 'the other two' had remained with just them rather than the cheerleaders coming out and taking sides, this might have blown over. But, people felt inclined to take a position and post it to the list *rather* than adding a different perspective to the already heated debate. Rather than taking the debated topic to a different level, fuel was just added to the fire and we witnessed a cyber catfight .
I've been 'around' these boards since the old HEM days... about 9 years or so????... not that I think that matters but since you were pointing out how long you've been reading Sandra's posts, I thought I should do the same. Back in the old days, every single time I posted something, she was lying in wait to ambush my posts. It didn't take long for me to go into silent mode and just watch the fur fly with someone else. She's been bickering for quite a long time. That's not to say she's not had some very informative advice or information... just that the tone has always been this way with Sandra.
Sarah
I think Sandra has a lot of information that she has shared on this list. I also agree that she's been called to task on more than one occasion for what she has written. In the meantime, though, she's developed a following, if you will, of supporters. I'm guessing but I'm pretty sure she feels more comfortable being around those supporting her than around those who call her to task. (why else would she decide to leave?)
imo, if the 'debate' between Sandra and 'the other two' had remained with just them rather than the cheerleaders coming out and taking sides, this might have blown over. But, people felt inclined to take a position and post it to the list *rather* than adding a different perspective to the already heated debate. Rather than taking the debated topic to a different level, fuel was just added to the fire and we witnessed a cyber catfight .
I've been 'around' these boards since the old HEM days... about 9 years or so????... not that I think that matters but since you were pointing out how long you've been reading Sandra's posts, I thought I should do the same. Back in the old days, every single time I posted something, she was lying in wait to ambush my posts. It didn't take long for me to go into silent mode and just watch the fur fly with someone else. She's been bickering for quite a long time. That's not to say she's not had some very informative advice or information... just that the tone has always been this way with Sandra.
Sarah
----- Original Message -----
From: Priss
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:31 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Snarky
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Sarah Carothers" <puddles@t...>
wrote:
>>I'm sure she's not used to people calling her on stuff she says
when so many other people treat her as an idol<<
Maybe you shouldn't be too sure of things. I've been reading Sandra's
writing for almost four years. There are people on here that have
been reading it a lot longer than that. There's never been a time
when people didn't "call her on stuff." When I first started reading
her posts I'd just look for people to jump on her, I was so much in
agreement with them. She got jumped on pretty much constantly. She
never just had a bunch of people all bowing to her and idolizing her
and nobody disagreeing with her. I tried debating her myself a few
times in those early days and found I was not a good debater,
especially (as I realized later) when my points were a lot weaker
than hers. She's put up with this kind of stuff always, this latest
just seems to be nastier and more personal and more longwinded than
any I've witnessed.
Priss
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Helen Hegener
At 3:51 PM -0500 11/27/01, Sarah Carothers wrote:
have had our differences, too. Long-time HEM readers will know this
isn't the first time she's been an HEM columnist...
Just FWIW. Water under the bridge. But perhaps it contributes perspective.
Helen
>I've been 'around' these boards since the old HEM days... about 9I have to support what Sarah writes here. Over the years Sandra and I
>years or so????... not that I think that matters but since you were
>pointing out how long you've been reading Sandra's posts, I thought
>I should do the same. Back in the old days, every single time I
>posted something, she was lying in wait to ambush my posts. It
>didn't take long for me to go into silent mode and just watch the
>fur fly with someone else. She's been bickering for quite a long
>time. That's not to say she's not had some very informative advice
>or information... just that the tone has always been this way with
>Sandra.
have had our differences, too. Long-time HEM readers will know this
isn't the first time she's been an HEM columnist...
Just FWIW. Water under the bridge. But perhaps it contributes perspective.
Helen
[email protected]
Could we all PLEASE stop talking about someone behind her back? This is not
fair to her and it also is getting old. Those members of this list that want
to debate Sandra's personality should form a new list or take it off this
list.
And yes, I know there is a delete key but some people still DO pay by the
email.
Elissa
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Carothers <puddles@...>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Snarky
she has written. In the meantime, though, she's developed a following, if
you will, of supporters. I'm guessing but I'm pretty sure she feels more
comfortable being around those supporting her than around those who call her
to task. (why else would she decide to leave?)
might have blown over. But, people felt inclined to take a position and post
it to the list *rather* than adding a different perspective to the already
heated debate. Rather than taking the debated topic to a different level,
fuel was just added to the fire and we witnessed a cyber catfight .
long you've been reading Sandra's posts, I thought I should do the same.
Back in the old days, every single time I posted something, she was lying in
wait to ambush my posts. It didn't take long for me to go into silent mode
and just watch the fur fly with someone else. She's been bickering for quite
a long time. That's not to say she's not had some very informative advice or
information... just that the tone has always been this way with Sandra.
fair to her and it also is getting old. Those members of this list that want
to debate Sandra's personality should form a new list or take it off this
list.
And yes, I know there is a delete key but some people still DO pay by the
email.
Elissa
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Carothers <puddles@...>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Snarky
>Right. I didn't phrase that as I should have. I'll try again.also agree that she's been called to task on more than one occasion for what
>I think Sandra has a lot of information that she has shared on this list. I
she has written. In the meantime, though, she's developed a following, if
you will, of supporters. I'm guessing but I'm pretty sure she feels more
comfortable being around those supporting her than around those who call her
to task. (why else would she decide to leave?)
>imo, if the 'debate' between Sandra and 'the other two' had remained withjust them rather than the cheerleaders coming out and taking sides, this
might have blown over. But, people felt inclined to take a position and post
it to the list *rather* than adding a different perspective to the already
heated debate. Rather than taking the debated topic to a different level,
fuel was just added to the fire and we witnessed a cyber catfight .
>I've been 'around' these boards since the old HEM days... about 9 years orso????... not that I think that matters but since you were pointing out how
long you've been reading Sandra's posts, I thought I should do the same.
Back in the old days, every single time I posted something, she was lying in
wait to ambush my posts. It didn't take long for me to go into silent mode
and just watch the fur fly with someone else. She's been bickering for quite
a long time. That's not to say she's not had some very informative advice or
information... just that the tone has always been this way with Sandra.
>Sarah
>----- Original Message -----
> From: Priss
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:31 PM
> Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Snarky
>
>
> --- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Sarah Carothers" <puddles@t...>
> wrote:
> >>I'm sure she's not used to people calling her on stuff she says
> when so many other people treat her as an idol<<
>
> Maybe you shouldn't be too sure of things. I've been reading Sandra's
> writing for almost four years. There are people on here that have
> been reading it a lot longer than that. There's never been a time
> when people didn't "call her on stuff." When I first started reading
> her posts I'd just look for people to jump on her, I was so much in
> agreement with them. She got jumped on pretty much constantly. She
> never just had a bunch of people all bowing to her and idolizing her
> and nobody disagreeing with her. I tried debating her myself a few
> times in those early days and found I was not a good debater,
> especially (as I realized later) when my points were a lot weaker
> than hers. She's put up with this kind of stuff always, this latest
> just seems to be nastier and more personal and more longwinded than
> any I've witnessed.
>
> Priss
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>
Sarah Carothers
yes, it's depends on whose site you're looking down. Maybe we've all been targets at one time or another or all been targeting someone else. I didn't imply that Sandra was the only one.. there were *many* posts with various authors attached to them that were in the bickering category.
Hopefully, that's over and Sandra can enjoy her newly formed group! Didn't you say you joined? I hope you are enjoying it as well! We can *all* enjoy a list now!
Sarah
Hopefully, that's over and Sandra can enjoy her newly formed group! Didn't you say you joined? I hope you are enjoying it as well! We can *all* enjoy a list now!
Sarah
----- Original Message -----
From: Cindy
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Snarky
Sarah Carothers wrote:
>
> Perhaps it should be considered that Sandra was not a target but part of the bickering (as stated by Lisa, I think.... "it takes two to tango").
>
Sandra was not the only target.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Helen Hegener
At 4:50 PM -0500 11/27/01, <ElissaJC@...> wrote:
term implies secrecy and subterfuge, whereas what's happening on this
list is entirely open and aboveboard.
her leaving affected many of us, in many different ways. I think
discussing what happened, the decision she made and the effect it has
had, is a normal, healthy reaction.
Helen
>Could we all PLEASE stop talking about someone behind her back?I don't think anyone is talking behind anyone's back, Elissa. That
term implies secrecy and subterfuge, whereas what's happening on this
list is entirely open and aboveboard.
> This is not fair to her and it also is getting old. Those membersI don't think so. Sandra was a part of this list for many years, and
>of this list that want
>to debate Sandra's personality should form a new list or take it off this
>list.
her leaving affected many of us, in many different ways. I think
discussing what happened, the decision she made and the effect it has
had, is a normal, healthy reaction.
Helen
Sarah Carothers
----- Original Message -----
From: Cindy
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Snarky
>
But why did the discussion have to become polarized into sides?
reply: I don't know. I didn't engage in that... I just lurked.
We are all homeschoolers, most of us are unschoolers. Why did this
list even have Sandra and anti-Sandra sides? I didn't agree with
her all the time but I don't expect to agree with anyone all the time.
And I'm sure there are some people with whom I'd never agree!<g>
reply: me, too. I really don't have any answers... just speculation but perhaps it happened because over such a long period of time, whether by her own choosing or not, Sandra became a sort of 'standard' and anyone new to the list who didn't want to make waves would refrain from posting any contradictory posts ....except for a few people who dared to do so. In an offlist conversation, someone said it (the fighting) turned so school-girlish and I'd agree with that assessment.
It seems to me that for those who post and I never agree with, I'd just refrain from responding to those posts unless we're talking about factual information and not just opinions. If it's about facts, I think one **should* post counter-information if they have it. Let the readers decide what to believe. Then, if opinions start to flow back and forth, well, recognize them as such and move on!
> Hopefully, that's over and Sandra can enjoy her newly formed group!
> Didn't you say you joined?
>
No, I didn't say whether or not I joined. I just said I wasn't sure about
staying here.
I think this is an informative list and a needed resource for many folks new and old to homeschooling. I can come here and refuel my jets when I'm feeling weary from the daily doldrums. I can refer newbies I meet at my dd's dance classes here for information or different perspectives that I personally don't hold. It's a list that fills a need. I'm sure Sandra's will as well.
Sarah
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Hartley
> Perhaps it should be considered that Sandra was not a target but part ofYou clearly have not been around on line homeschooling very long, or at
> the bickering (as stated by Lisa, I think.... "it takes two to tango"). It
> is *possible* that Sandra didn't like the lack of control she had on this
> list. I'm sure she's not used to people calling her on stuff
least not in the unschooling circles. Sandra has been called on things, with
great regularity, since before I was around, and that's been 7 1/2 years.
>Nobody's being a bully... nobody'sThe bullying has been over the past year (at least, that I've been reading
> calling her ugly names here... in fact, the only posts I recall are ones
> begging her not to leave.
this list), not since she's left. It's pretty silly to try to bully someone
who isn't there.
You can sit around and say there is no bullying, I can sit around and say
there is. Some will agree with you and some with me, and there's really no
point to saying, "no there isn't" "yes there is" all day.
Pam
Fetteroll
on 11/27/01 3:51 PM, Sarah Carothers at puddles@... wrote:
she would have reacted the same. I would bet some more good money that it
wasn't you she was "lying in wait for" but ideas and ways of expressing them
that she was -- perhaps not "lying in wait for" since it sounds like her
life is pretty busy ;-) -- but interested in dissecting.
If
take anything some people like a lot and say "pahleeze" and "Sorry! *No*
comparison!" to something more broadly regarded as good, you'll get strong
reactions, regardless of whose name it's posted under. For example:
That's twice in two days I've heard TV and fine literature in the same
sentence, equating the two. (pahleeze......)
"Sorry! *No* comparison!
is going to raise the hackles of TV lovers who perceive that as ridicule.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Back in the old days, every single time I posted something, she was lying inI would bet good money that had you posted under a different name each time
> wait to ambush my posts.
she would have reacted the same. I would bet some more good money that it
wasn't you she was "lying in wait for" but ideas and ways of expressing them
that she was -- perhaps not "lying in wait for" since it sounds like her
life is pretty busy ;-) -- but interested in dissecting.
If
> That's twice in two days I've heard Sandra's name and John Holt's in the sameis part of your posting style, it's going to get strong reactions. If you
> sentence, equating the two. (pahleeze......)
> Sorry! *No* comparison!
take anything some people like a lot and say "pahleeze" and "Sorry! *No*
comparison!" to something more broadly regarded as good, you'll get strong
reactions, regardless of whose name it's posted under. For example:
That's twice in two days I've heard TV and fine literature in the same
sentence, equating the two. (pahleeze......)
"Sorry! *No* comparison!
is going to raise the hackles of TV lovers who perceive that as ridicule.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 11/27/01 3:51 PM, Sarah Carothers at puddles@... wrote:
I think it was misunderstanding and differences in communication. Sandra
felt she was attacking ideas and being personally attacked in return. That
others didn't see it that way I think was at the heart of it. (No we don't
need a parade of quotes to prove one side or the other ;-) I'm talking about
perception.)
Quite frankly I have a hard time understanding Sandra on occasion. As a
typical example, a year or so ago there was a TCS (Taking Children
Seriously) brouhaha. It looked like Sandra was beating TCS people up over
the TCS use of the phrase "damaged by coercion". I asked questions and beat
my head against the screen in frustration for a couple of weeks trying to
figure out what she was objecting to. It wasn't until the TCS people used a
different word in a very specialized way that altered its standard meaning
that I finally understood. Once that lightbulb went on, *then* I could go
back and read what she was objecting to and understand. Then what she was
objecting to was crystal clear.
I think too often there's a piece of the puzzle she has that others don't.
Sandra can't percieve the puzzle without that piece so can't conceive that
it might be missing. Others feel their puzzle is complete so don't even look
for a missing piece. So it just gets frustrating as though two sides were
certain they were using the same language but really aren't.
And there's posting style too. Some people find it attacking. Some people
find it whacking up side the head. The fact that Sandra has found a style of
communication that's useful to get her unschooling ideas across to newbies,
makes the fact that others find it attacking irrelevant.
I'm not advocating rudeness by that. But, as an example, if I find a good
place to talk about unschooling with willing listeners and someone gets
upset that I'm not discussing gardening, should I change to please them? If
my intent is to communicate unschooling to newbies and I've found a style
that does that effectively, then anyone who finds that style irritating
should just avoid my posts.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I'm guessing but I'm pretty sure she feels more comfortable being around thoseI don't see it that way at all.
> supporting her than around those who call her to task. (why else would she
> decide to leave?)
I think it was misunderstanding and differences in communication. Sandra
felt she was attacking ideas and being personally attacked in return. That
others didn't see it that way I think was at the heart of it. (No we don't
need a parade of quotes to prove one side or the other ;-) I'm talking about
perception.)
Quite frankly I have a hard time understanding Sandra on occasion. As a
typical example, a year or so ago there was a TCS (Taking Children
Seriously) brouhaha. It looked like Sandra was beating TCS people up over
the TCS use of the phrase "damaged by coercion". I asked questions and beat
my head against the screen in frustration for a couple of weeks trying to
figure out what she was objecting to. It wasn't until the TCS people used a
different word in a very specialized way that altered its standard meaning
that I finally understood. Once that lightbulb went on, *then* I could go
back and read what she was objecting to and understand. Then what she was
objecting to was crystal clear.
I think too often there's a piece of the puzzle she has that others don't.
Sandra can't percieve the puzzle without that piece so can't conceive that
it might be missing. Others feel their puzzle is complete so don't even look
for a missing piece. So it just gets frustrating as though two sides were
certain they were using the same language but really aren't.
And there's posting style too. Some people find it attacking. Some people
find it whacking up side the head. The fact that Sandra has found a style of
communication that's useful to get her unschooling ideas across to newbies,
makes the fact that others find it attacking irrelevant.
I'm not advocating rudeness by that. But, as an example, if I find a good
place to talk about unschooling with willing listeners and someone gets
upset that I'm not discussing gardening, should I change to please them? If
my intent is to communicate unschooling to newbies and I've found a style
that does that effectively, then anyone who finds that style irritating
should just avoid my posts.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joseph Fuerst
> And yes, I know there is a delete key but some people still DO pay by theThat's too bad, Elissa, that you have to pay by the e-mail (what exactly
> email.
> Elissa
does that mean?....and would digets help?...you'd get a lot less # of
e-mails)
There will be plenty of topics here that you will have NO interest in being
part of.......for those who want to discuss this.....it's a free list....and
what's happened is impotrant for many of us unschoolers.
Susan
Vicki A. Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
> I think too often there's a piece of the puzzle she has that others don't.
> Sandra can't percieve the puzzle without that piece so can't conceive that
> it might be missing. Others feel their puzzle is complete so don't even look
> for a missing piece. So it just gets frustrating as though two sides were
> certain they were using the same language but really aren't.
This is one of the more precise explanations of a frequent phenomenon as I have
ever seen.
I hope folks will reread the entire post with care.
Lots of food for thought.
vicki
Kolleen
>I think too often there's a piece of the puzzle she has that others don't.I've read her post on New Yorkers. It was bias, unprovoked, prejudicial
>Sandra can't percieve the puzzle without that piece so can't conceive that
>it might be missing.
and close-minded. People complain and have complained throughout history.
Its not native to a faction of people.
I've read, and re-read the 'Arab' comment. Again, it was prejudicial and
showed a severe lack of knowledge of history of the area.
I've read her unschooling info, it was pretty good.
I highly doubt I would of ever seen, heard or read Holt comment
prejudicially about a faction of people.
If you are an EXPERT (self-proclaimed or otherwise) you have an
obligation to the world not to present bias that can be perceived as fact
over fiction.
k
Fetteroll
on 11/28/01 1:27 PM, Kolleen at Kolleen@... wrote:
on all New Yorkers. It's observation to say Easterners are less polite and
more rushed. It's bias to assume that because someone is from the East that
they will be rude and rushed.
It was also a joke and without vocal inflection and body language perhaps it
could be read as a serious rail against all New Yorkers.
not a prejudiced person. If someone is known not to be prejudiced says
something that comes across as prejudiced isn't it more likely that they
didn't express themselves in a way that accurately reproduced what was in
their head into everyone eles's head?
At this point the discussion is moot. It would only be an argument about
different perceptions since Sandra isn't here to explain what she meant.
make mistakes. We shouldn't accept everything anyone says as accurate,
expert or not. And if someone expresses herself well and gets perceived as
an expert, if someone decides to turn over her thinking to the "perceived
expert" does the fault lie with the perceived expert or with the person who
gives up her responsibility to think for herself?
Joyce
> I've read her post on New Yorkers. It was bias, unprovoked, prejudicialNo, it was an observation of a trend among a certain group, not a commentary
> and close-minded. People complain and have complained throughout history.
> Its not native to a faction of people.
on all New Yorkers. It's observation to say Easterners are less polite and
more rushed. It's bias to assume that because someone is from the East that
they will be rude and rushed.
It was also a joke and without vocal inflection and body language perhaps it
could be read as a serious rail against all New Yorkers.
> I've read, and re-read the 'Arab' comment. Again, it was prejudicial andIt's a matter of perception. Those who know Sandra will testify that she's
> showed a severe lack of knowledge of history of the area.
not a prejudiced person. If someone is known not to be prejudiced says
something that comes across as prejudiced isn't it more likely that they
didn't express themselves in a way that accurately reproduced what was in
their head into everyone eles's head?
At this point the discussion is moot. It would only be an argument about
different perceptions since Sandra isn't here to explain what she meant.
> If you are an EXPERT (self-proclaimed or otherwise) you have anNo, the obligation lies with the reader. Experts are just people and can
> obligation to the world not to present bias that can be perceived as fact
> over fiction.
make mistakes. We shouldn't accept everything anyone says as accurate,
expert or not. And if someone expresses herself well and gets perceived as
an expert, if someone decides to turn over her thinking to the "perceived
expert" does the fault lie with the perceived expert or with the person who
gives up her responsibility to think for herself?
Joyce
Kolleen
>Joyce writes:Exactly. WITHOUT inflection, one needs to be even more careful and one
>
>It was also a joke and without vocal inflection and body language perhaps it
>could be read as a serious rail against all New Yorkers.
must take the time to put in *asides* and other tones to communicate in
this sterile environment properly. Anyone posting for a few months
realizes the need for emoticons and explanations of voice tones.
>If someone is known not to be prejudiced saysIt could be. And when it was in question (as the Arab comment was many
>something that comes across as prejudiced isn't it more likely that they
>didn't express themselves in a way that accurately reproduced what was in
>their head into everyone eles's head?
times) they had ample opportunity to explain themselves.
Or their true colors on prejudice are shining through.
>Yes, the point is moot to discuss. I brought it up ONLY in response to
>At this point the discussion is moot. It would only be an argument about
>different perceptions since Sandra isn't here to explain what she meant.
the correllation between one woman and John Holt. I explained, having
only known them both from their writing, that the correllation does not
exist.
>No, the obligation lies with the reader. Experts are just people and canIn a perfect world, we would all filter out information from so called
>make mistakes. We shouldn't accept everything anyone says as accurate,
>expert or not. And if someone expresses herself well and gets perceived as
>an expert, if someone decides to turn over her thinking to the "perceived
>expert" does the fault lie with the perceived expert or with the person who
>gives up her responsibility to think for herself?
'experts'. But I have come to see the world as having two paradigms.
Those that question authority and those that have only that to regulate
their lives. MOST people fall in the second category (see America and
foreign policy if you dont' beleive it).
Since most people *need* some voice of authority, especially those NEW to
a thought-theology such as 'unschooling', then the authority is obliged
to be kind enough to do the filtering.
IMHO,
Kolleen
Fetteroll
on 11/29/01 12:10 PM, Kolleen at Kolleen@... wrote:
style or whatever. But we don't have the right or the ability to choose it
for someone else. No one is obligated to anyone else but themselves. Because
we are naturally social creatures, most people do choose not to deliberately
create friction. *Not* because they have an obligation to others but because
they *want* to, it serves their own purposes. (Even selfless acts are
ultimately selfish.)
It's a whole lot easier on the blood pressure when we finally realize we
don't have the right or the ability to control what others do (assuming they
aren't harming others). Everyone is entitled to live their life as they feel
they need to live it. No one owes us anything. Not even emoticons. So when
we find someone whose way of living their life annoys us our obligation to
ourselves is to avoid them as much as we can.
Holt are in the eye of the beholder. ;-) There is (arguably but certainly in
this case) no absolute truth that can be agreed on.
self-styled and otherwise, will all police themselves and make sure
everything they say and write is absolute truth and free from bias? You will
impose a moral obligation on them all and somehow get them all to adhere to
it and somehow get them to give up their imperfect humanity so that everyone
can absolute trust every thing they say?
People have been trying to impose morality on humanity since the beginning
of time. We can't even get people to toe the line on big obvious morals like
killing is wrong and somehow you're going to get everyone to agree that as
soon as some people start seeing someone as an expert then they will police
themselves into saying nothing that can't be proved truth? What of people
who are looked on by others as experts who don't want that title? Just
because they have said a few insightful things to a few people they then are
obligated to the world to utter nothing but truth?
As you say, the world is imperfect. Just because something should be a
certain way doesn't mean there is a way to make it so. We can't control what
others do. Whether it's believing in experts that lie or saying things that
aren't true. They only power we have is to control ourselves and that's
where the obligation -- to ourselves -- lies.
The truth is we can only go so far to protect people from their own
stupidity. If we don't question experts for ourselves then we leave
ourselves open to exploitation by those who want us to believe they're
experts. Yes, it would make life a whole lot easier if we could trust
everything everyone says, but if we had the power to control people to make
that so, we could end poverty and hunger and deliberate harm to others.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Exactly. WITHOUT inflection, one needs to be even more careful and oneAnd that is why someone might choose to use emoticons or adjust their *own*
> must take the time to put in *asides* and other tones to communicate in
> this sterile environment properly. Anyone posting for a few months
> realizes the need for emoticons and explanations of voice tones.
style or whatever. But we don't have the right or the ability to choose it
for someone else. No one is obligated to anyone else but themselves. Because
we are naturally social creatures, most people do choose not to deliberately
create friction. *Not* because they have an obligation to others but because
they *want* to, it serves their own purposes. (Even selfless acts are
ultimately selfish.)
It's a whole lot easier on the blood pressure when we finally realize we
don't have the right or the ability to control what others do (assuming they
aren't harming others). Everyone is entitled to live their life as they feel
they need to live it. No one owes us anything. Not even emoticons. So when
we find someone whose way of living their life annoys us our obligation to
ourselves is to avoid them as much as we can.
> I explained, havingBut that correllation does exist for others. Beauty and likenings to John
> only known them both from their writing, that the correllation does not
> exist.
Holt are in the eye of the beholder. ;-) There is (arguably but certainly in
this case) no absolute truth that can be agreed on.
> In a perfect world, we would all filter out information from so calledSo in your imperfect world you will some how make sure all experts,
> 'experts'. But I have come to see the world as having two paradigms.
> Those that question authority and those that have only that to regulate
> their lives. MOST people fall in the second category (see America and
> foreign policy if you dont' beleive it).
> Since most people *need* some voice of authority, especially those NEW to
> a thought-theology such as 'unschooling', then the authority is obliged
> to be kind enough to do the filtering.
self-styled and otherwise, will all police themselves and make sure
everything they say and write is absolute truth and free from bias? You will
impose a moral obligation on them all and somehow get them all to adhere to
it and somehow get them to give up their imperfect humanity so that everyone
can absolute trust every thing they say?
People have been trying to impose morality on humanity since the beginning
of time. We can't even get people to toe the line on big obvious morals like
killing is wrong and somehow you're going to get everyone to agree that as
soon as some people start seeing someone as an expert then they will police
themselves into saying nothing that can't be proved truth? What of people
who are looked on by others as experts who don't want that title? Just
because they have said a few insightful things to a few people they then are
obligated to the world to utter nothing but truth?
As you say, the world is imperfect. Just because something should be a
certain way doesn't mean there is a way to make it so. We can't control what
others do. Whether it's believing in experts that lie or saying things that
aren't true. They only power we have is to control ourselves and that's
where the obligation -- to ourselves -- lies.
The truth is we can only go so far to protect people from their own
stupidity. If we don't question experts for ourselves then we leave
ourselves open to exploitation by those who want us to believe they're
experts. Yes, it would make life a whole lot easier if we could trust
everything everyone says, but if we had the power to control people to make
that so, we could end poverty and hunger and deliberate harm to others.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kathy
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
If we don't question experts for ourselves then we leave
> ourselves open to exploitation by those who want us to believe they're
> experts.
>
> Joyce
I agree. That's why I questioned the resident list "expert" when she
replied to my first post about food allergies with a bunch of nonsense.
She was one who seems to like to say everything
about anything even when she knows nothing. When I broke it down point
by point to see if she had anything really to say about the topic, she
responded with hearsay about liars and
hypocrites, and a complaint about control issues. When I pointed out
the holes in her argument, she got angry and said I didn't know her at
all. I asked why the whole issue was so personal
for someone with no personal experience. She finally understood that
she was not on solid ground with her arguments, and was looking worse
with every round. She left.
That's what I saw. Others complained about her being driven off by
longwinded attackers, maybe that was partly about me. I know that
things were happening before I joined the list, but
maybe my detailed point by point debate was the last straw.
Maybe she was helpful to many people to think about new ways to look at
life in general and unschooling specifically. She also refuses to
accept that her style affects her message, and that
maybe she isn't always right about everything for everybody. People are
different. She might get more people to listen to her theory about not
controlling our kids if she wasn't so fond of
control herself. It is more effective to communicate the value of
freedom in an atmosphere of freedom from personal attack.
People called her style "calling others on their being wrong". The
problem with that adversarial style is that it sets her up as the
expert who is telling you you're wrong, without even knowing
you, your kids, your life or where you are on your journey to freedom.
Those kind of experts are the very kind she's so against.
Learning is a process that takes different people along many paths. Her
way is not the only way, nor is it entirely consistent. I think that's
what bothers her critics. Her own lack of logic or
consistency yet demanding others conform to her views.
Her defense (and that of her followers) was that we don't know her very
well. That's her responsibility to convey herself so that we can know
her. We did know her better than she may have
wanted us to. Her posts revealed inconsistencies that she was
uncomfortable with, and instead of acknowledging them, she left and
blamed us.
John Holt communicated his findings in an observational way, without
making those who hadn't seen all that yet, feel attacked. He said "This
is what I've found and seen. These are
experiences of others and what worked and didn't work for them." He was
not someone I followed, but someone whose experiences and observations
are so useful when I am finding my
own way.
Kathy B.
ps- for those that feel it is unfair to discuss someone behind their
back consider the following.
1- she left and is free to return at any time
2- she has many supporters on this list who have been defending
(talking about) her still also
3- those friends are free to forward anything to her so she can defend
herself
4- I am sure she is pleased by the amount of residual celebrity that
she has carried on this list. A famous wit once observed "The only
thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."
5- She felt strongly about isues of control and so do we. We don't want
anyone to control the list.
6- communication style is an ongoing issue for any list of diverse
viewpoints.
Kolleen
>Joyce writes:I cannot question someone who gets upsets and leaves. After dumping
>If we don't question experts for ourselves then we leave
>ourselves open to exploitation by those who want us to believe they're
>experts.
questionable material in a public forum.
Hence, this point is moot.
I'd like to respond to your other questions. I can't without bringing up
situations and posts of someone not here.
Thank you for the time you took to write such an extended response. I
actually do understand your point of view, albeit, I may not agree with
it all.
Regards,
Kolleen
Sarah Carothers
Exactly, Kathy. You said what I've tried to say.
Sarah
Sarah
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathy
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:22 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] John Holt didn't hit and run (was Re: Snarky)
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
If we don't question experts for ourselves then we leave
> ourselves open to exploitation by those who want us to believe they're
> experts.
>
> Joyce
I agree. That's why I questioned the resident list "expert" when she
replied to my first post about food allergies with a bunch of nonsense.
She was one who seems to like to say everything
about anything even when she knows nothing. When I broke it down point
by point to see if she had anything really to say about the topic, she
responded with hearsay about liars and
hypocrites, and a complaint about control issues. When I pointed out
the holes in her argument, she got angry and said I didn't know her at
all. I asked why the whole issue was so personal
for someone with no personal experience. She finally understood that
she was not on solid ground with her arguments, and was looking worse
with every round. She left.
That's what I saw. Others complained about her being driven off by
longwinded attackers, maybe that was partly about me. I know that
things were happening before I joined the list, but
maybe my detailed point by point debate was the last straw.
Maybe she was helpful to many people to think about new ways to look at
life in general and unschooling specifically. She also refuses to
accept that her style affects her message, and that
maybe she isn't always right about everything for everybody. People are
different. She might get more people to listen to her theory about not
controlling our kids if she wasn't so fond of
control herself. It is more effective to communicate the value of
freedom in an atmosphere of freedom from personal attack.
People called her style "calling others on their being wrong". The
problem with that adversarial style is that it sets her up as the
expert who is telling you you're wrong, without even knowing
you, your kids, your life or where you are on your journey to freedom.
Those kind of experts are the very kind she's so against.
Learning is a process that takes different people along many paths. Her
way is not the only way, nor is it entirely consistent. I think that's
what bothers her critics. Her own lack of logic or
consistency yet demanding others conform to her views.
Her defense (and that of her followers) was that we don't know her very
well. That's her responsibility to convey herself so that we can know
her. We did know her better than she may have
wanted us to. Her posts revealed inconsistencies that she was
uncomfortable with, and instead of acknowledging them, she left and
blamed us.
John Holt communicated his findings in an observational way, without
making those who hadn't seen all that yet, feel attacked. He said "This
is what I've found and seen. These are
experiences of others and what worked and didn't work for them." He was
not someone I followed, but someone whose experiences and observations
are so useful when I am finding my
own way.
Kathy B.
ps- for those that feel it is unfair to discuss someone behind their
back consider the following.
1- she left and is free to return at any time
2- she has many supporters on this list who have been defending
(talking about) her still also
3- those friends are free to forward anything to her so she can defend
herself
4- I am sure she is pleased by the amount of residual celebrity that
she has carried on this list. A famous wit once observed "The only
thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."
5- She felt strongly about isues of control and so do we. We don't want
anyone to control the list.
6- communication style is an ongoing issue for any list of diverse
viewpoints.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Elizabeth Hill
Kathy wrote:
(aside -- I'm reversing your first and last paragraph. Betsy)
**John Holt communicated his findings in an observational way, without
making those who hadn't seen all that yet, feel attacked. He said "This
is what I've found and seen. These are
experiences of others and what worked and didn't work for them." He was
not someone I followed, but someone whose experiences and observations
are so useful when I am finding my
own way.**
Are you suggesting that this list would be better if no one posted attacks?
I could agree with that myself.
**I agree. That's why I questioned the resident list "expert" when she
replied to my first post about food allergies with a bunch of nonsense.
She was one who seems to like to say everything
about anything even when she knows nothing. **
Do you some how believe that what you posted above ISN'T an attack?
Most of the "Sandra is so mean -- make her stop -- I can't tolerate
meanness" posts that I have read in this forum have been darned mean
themselves. Some have been vicious. It's hard for me to believe that the
people posting them are just striving to create a kinder gentler world.
Their methods give lie to that.
Betsy
(aside -- I'm reversing your first and last paragraph. Betsy)
**John Holt communicated his findings in an observational way, without
making those who hadn't seen all that yet, feel attacked. He said "This
is what I've found and seen. These are
experiences of others and what worked and didn't work for them." He was
not someone I followed, but someone whose experiences and observations
are so useful when I am finding my
own way.**
Are you suggesting that this list would be better if no one posted attacks?
I could agree with that myself.
**I agree. That's why I questioned the resident list "expert" when she
replied to my first post about food allergies with a bunch of nonsense.
She was one who seems to like to say everything
about anything even when she knows nothing. **
Do you some how believe that what you posted above ISN'T an attack?
Most of the "Sandra is so mean -- make her stop -- I can't tolerate
meanness" posts that I have read in this forum have been darned mean
themselves. Some have been vicious. It's hard for me to believe that the
people posting them are just striving to create a kinder gentler world.
Their methods give lie to that.
Betsy
Kathy
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Elizabeth Hill <ecsamhill@e...> wrote:
the difference. I never claimed I was above the fray. She did. The list
will be better without the attacks. Myself definitely included.
Disagreements however are a welcome part of growth, as long as they are
based on real experiences and hopes, and the desire to share instead of
reprimand or lecture. Again myself included.
Kathy B.
>I will do again what Sandra never could. I will apologize. Maybe that's
>
> Kathy wrote:
>
> (aside -- I'm reversing your first and last paragraph. Betsy)
>
> **John Holt communicated his findings in an observational way, without
> making those who hadn't seen all that yet, feel attacked. He said "This
> is what I've found and seen. These are
> experiences of others and what worked and didn't work for them." He was
> not someone I followed, but someone whose experiences and observations
> are so useful when I am finding my
> own way.**
>
> Are you suggesting that this list would be better if no one posted attacks?
> I could agree with that myself.
>
> **I agree. That's why I questioned the resident list "expert" when she
> replied to my first post about food allergies with a bunch of nonsense.
> She was one who seems to like to say everything
> about anything even when she knows nothing. **
>
> Do you some how believe that what you posted above ISN'T an attack?
>
> Most of the "Sandra is so mean -- make her stop -- I can't tolerate
> meanness" posts that I have read in this forum have been darned mean
> themselves. Some have been vicious. It's hard for me to believe that the
> people posting them are just striving to create a kinder gentler world.
> Their methods give lie to that.
>
> Betsy
the difference. I never claimed I was above the fray. She did. The list
will be better without the attacks. Myself definitely included.
Disagreements however are a welcome part of growth, as long as they are
based on real experiences and hopes, and the desire to share instead of
reprimand or lecture. Again myself included.
Kathy B.
Vicki A. Dennis
>Do you somehow believe that tacking on "myself included" negates the
>
> I will do again what Sandra never could. I will apologize. Maybe that's
> the difference. I never claimed I was above the fray. She did. The list
> will be better without the attacks. Myself definitely included.
underlying tone of bashing?
> Disagreements however are a welcome part of growth,**(A) as long as they are
> based on real experiences and hopes,and
**(B** the desire to share instead of
> reprimand or lecture.Again myself included.
**= added for emphasis/clarification
By my observation, it appears that more work is needed along the lines of "I"
statements of motive and actions rather than proclamations of personal
perceptions regarding the intent of other posters being infallible.
*I* have no need to validate my beliefs by stomping on others. Nor fear that
listening to a question along the lines of "is your experience truly different
than mine" necessarily a surrender.
vicki----trying hard not to go into "protector" mode. I think that is actually
patronizing rather than "nice".
[email protected]
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:23:19 -0000 "Kathy" <laurawilder82@...>
writes:
Interesting that Sandra was blamed as being just as responsible for the
nastiness on the list as the people who were so nasty to her, and yet
she's been unsubbed for over a week and the nastiness and personal
attacks are still here...
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
writes:
> I will do again what Sandra never could. I will apologize. Maybethat's
> the difference. I never claimed I was above the fray. She did. The listSandra has nothing to apologize for.
> will be better without the attacks. Myself definitely included.
Interesting that Sandra was blamed as being just as responsible for the
nastiness on the list as the people who were so nasty to her, and yet
she's been unsubbed for over a week and the nastiness and personal
attacks are still here...
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Tami Labig-Duquette
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world"
~Ghandi
Networking for Central Indiana unschoolers :)
http://communities.msn.com/ChildLedLearninginIndiana
Children Leading the Way!
http://[email protected]
Fun site for your kids or even you :)
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=angel1bunny
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Kathy" <laurawilder82@...>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] John Holt didn't hit and run (was Re: Snarky)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:23:19 -0000
Thats not true! Sandra has apologized to me personally.(for a
misunderstanding year or so ago) I feel that is a nasty (snarky :)?)
comment!
Indiana Tami
I will do again what Sandra never could. I will apologize. Maybe that's
the difference. I never claimed I was above the fray. She did. The list
will be better without the attacks. Myself definitely included.
Disagreements however are a welcome part of growth, as long as they are
based on real experiences and hopes, and the desire to share instead of
reprimand or lecture. Again myself included.
Kathy B.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
~Ghandi
Networking for Central Indiana unschoolers :)
http://communities.msn.com/ChildLedLearninginIndiana
Children Leading the Way!
http://[email protected]
Fun site for your kids or even you :)
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=angel1bunny
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Kathy" <laurawilder82@...>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] John Holt didn't hit and run (was Re: Snarky)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:23:19 -0000
Thats not true! Sandra has apologized to me personally.(for a
misunderstanding year or so ago) I feel that is a nasty (snarky :)?)
comment!
Indiana Tami
I will do again what Sandra never could. I will apologize. Maybe that's
the difference. I never claimed I was above the fray. She did. The list
will be better without the attacks. Myself definitely included.
Disagreements however are a welcome part of growth, as long as they are
based on real experiences and hopes, and the desire to share instead of
reprimand or lecture. Again myself included.
Kathy B.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
LisaBugg
> > Do you some how believe that what you posted above ISN'T an attack?Sigh. So much for your words below. You negate them before you ever start.
>
>
> I will do again what Sandra never could.
I will apologize. Maybe that's
> the difference. I never claimed I was above the fray. She did. The listFor what it's worth, I've read Sandra for 6-8 years and have seen plenty of
> will be better without the attacks. Myself definitely included.
>
apologies. I've had her send me posts or emai and ask that *I* reply to them
because she woud be afraid of coming across too strongly.
The real difference is in the quality of character, and unfortunately, yours
shows.
Fetteroll
on 11/30/01 7:22 AM, Kathy at laurawilder82@... wrote:
HEM (and other print newsletters) for at least 8 years is *hardly* hit and
run.
puzzle pieces that I mentioned.
She was arguing an entirely different point. It was more along the lines of
she was saying "Breastfeeding is how babies naturally need to eat" and
others were saying "Yes, but what about a cleft palate child who needs a
bottle." (I'm making that up since I can't think of something off the top of
my head that would prevent a child from breastfeeding.) The second doesn't
alter the truth of the first. If her argument had been that all babies need
to breastfeed, then the second *would* be a counterargument. But the second
*isn't* a counterargument against what is natural for babies. Does that make
sense?
It's frustrating for those participating since there were (and not for the
first time) two separate arguments going on at the same time and each was
assuming the other was arguing about the same thing.
Whether you dislike her style or whether you wanted her to argue something
different than she was arguing or whatever, she is who she is and is
entitled to that and doesn't need to change to be more like what others need
from someone.
Second, if someone says she has a certain amount of experience that is
merely a statement of fact. If others interpret that to mean "I'm an expert"
or assume it's inteded as a challenge or something to shame them into
silence then who is at fault, the one speaking facts or the one
interpretting them?
If someone speaks strongly on things she cares deeply about, if others find
it difficult to argue with her (whether because of facts or writing style or
thinking style) does that automatically confer expert status on her?
Since Sandra doesn't call herself an expert calling her a
quote-resident-expert-unquote (implying the so-called title is questionable
when *she* isn't doing the calling) would be a personal attack.
the tail end of the situation.
Just as a point of fact and not to be interpretted as being an expert on
Sandra, I've seen her for 6 years in very heated discussions (in the
point/counterpoint folder on the AOL homeschooling boards set up for that
purpose) and being "called" on her beliefs doesn't make Sandra turn tail and
run. So the timing of her departure had nothing to do with you.
What causes problems is when someone perceives her attacks on ideas as
personal attacks and then personally attacks her in return. That others
perceive the situation differently (and call up quotes to "prove" their
point) doesn't alter Sandra's intent. Nor, unfortunately, does her intent
alter some people's perceptions. Time usually takes care of that. Or makes
it worse. Perhaps some are destined never to "get" her.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> John Holt didn't hit and run (was Re: Snarky)That Sandra has been around homeschooling message boards and email lists and
HEM (and other print newsletters) for at least 8 years is *hardly* hit and
run.
> That's why I questioned the resident list "expert" when sheFirst, this is a really hard point to describe. It's one of those missing
> replied to my first post about food allergies with a bunch of nonsense.
puzzle pieces that I mentioned.
She was arguing an entirely different point. It was more along the lines of
she was saying "Breastfeeding is how babies naturally need to eat" and
others were saying "Yes, but what about a cleft palate child who needs a
bottle." (I'm making that up since I can't think of something off the top of
my head that would prevent a child from breastfeeding.) The second doesn't
alter the truth of the first. If her argument had been that all babies need
to breastfeed, then the second *would* be a counterargument. But the second
*isn't* a counterargument against what is natural for babies. Does that make
sense?
It's frustrating for those participating since there were (and not for the
first time) two separate arguments going on at the same time and each was
assuming the other was arguing about the same thing.
Whether you dislike her style or whether you wanted her to argue something
different than she was arguing or whatever, she is who she is and is
entitled to that and doesn't need to change to be more like what others need
from someone.
Second, if someone says she has a certain amount of experience that is
merely a statement of fact. If others interpret that to mean "I'm an expert"
or assume it's inteded as a challenge or something to shame them into
silence then who is at fault, the one speaking facts or the one
interpretting them?
If someone speaks strongly on things she cares deeply about, if others find
it difficult to argue with her (whether because of facts or writing style or
thinking style) does that automatically confer expert status on her?
Since Sandra doesn't call herself an expert calling her a
quote-resident-expert-unquote (implying the so-called title is questionable
when *she* isn't doing the calling) would be a personal attack.
> She finally understood thatThat might be a natural conclusion to draw if someone's only experience was
> she was not on solid ground with her arguments, and was looking worse
> with every round. She left.
the tail end of the situation.
Just as a point of fact and not to be interpretted as being an expert on
Sandra, I've seen her for 6 years in very heated discussions (in the
point/counterpoint folder on the AOL homeschooling boards set up for that
purpose) and being "called" on her beliefs doesn't make Sandra turn tail and
run. So the timing of her departure had nothing to do with you.
What causes problems is when someone perceives her attacks on ideas as
personal attacks and then personally attacks her in return. That others
perceive the situation differently (and call up quotes to "prove" their
point) doesn't alter Sandra's intent. Nor, unfortunately, does her intent
alter some people's perceptions. Time usually takes care of that. Or makes
it worse. Perhaps some are destined never to "get" her.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bridget
Joyce,
I love the way you conveniently end the arguement by saying, "That
others perceive the situation differently (and call up quotes
to "prove" their point) doesn't alter Sandra's intent."
I PERCEIVED this differently than you.
Bridget
I love the way you conveniently end the arguement by saying, "That
others perceive the situation differently (and call up quotes
to "prove" their point) doesn't alter Sandra's intent."
I PERCEIVED this differently than you.
Bridget
>expert on
> Just as a point of fact and not to be interpretted as being an
> Sandra, I've seen her for 6 years in very heated discussions (in thefor that
> point/counterpoint folder on the AOL homeschooling boards set up
> purpose) and being "called" on her beliefs doesn't make Sandra turntail and
> run. So the timing of her departure had nothing to do with you.as
>
> What causes problems is when someone perceives her attacks on ideas
> personal attacks and then personally attacks her in return. Thatothers
> perceive the situation differently (and call up quotes to "prove"their
> point) doesn't alter Sandra's intent. Nor, unfortunately, does herintent
> alter some people's perceptions. Time usually takes care of that.Or makes
> it worse. Perhaps some are destined never to "get" her.
>
> Joyce
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 12/1/01 10:20 AM, Bridget at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:
something and can't see that they have, and someone else perceives it
differently, does that mean they have done it?
Either they're lying or they are perceiving things in a very different way.
If someone is known for honesty is there another possibility other than a
very different way of perceiving things? Someone is lying about being
honest? Others are mistaken in their perception of that someone's honesty?
Believing that one of those last two must be true in order for truth to
match perception doesn't make it so.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I PERCEIVED this differently than you.Can't argue with that! But if someone honestly did not intend to do
something and can't see that they have, and someone else perceives it
differently, does that mean they have done it?
Either they're lying or they are perceiving things in a very different way.
If someone is known for honesty is there another possibility other than a
very different way of perceiving things? Someone is lying about being
honest? Others are mistaken in their perception of that someone's honesty?
Believing that one of those last two must be true in order for truth to
match perception doesn't make it so.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]