[email protected]

The following administrative message will be posted monthly or as necessary:

The primary purpose of this list is mutual support for unschooling, which can
mean different things to different people. Because there is no one right
definition or approach, the expression and coexistence of diverse viewpoints
is encouraged and expected on this list. Posts which are primarily
argumentative, defensive, and/or focused on past grievances will not be
tolerated. Mary Broussard (lite2yu@...) and Cindy Fergerson
(crma@...) are co-moderators for this list. Feel free to contact
either of them at any time for information or assistance.




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

[email protected]

All your suggestions are appreciated Joyce.

When Helen decided a while back to go to moderated status on this list, she,
Cindy, and I hashed out the detailes of list guidelines, which we post
periodically. It was decided to be a very general guideline, because
moderating and policing people is not something Helen is interested in for
this list, nor do I suspect anyone is. These guidelines will not please
everyone, but will hopefully encourage people to think a bit before posting.
Here are the guidelines.

The following administrative message will be posted monthly or as necessary:

The primary purpose of this list is mutual support for unschooling, which can
mean different things to different people. Because there is no one right
definition or approach, the expression and coexistence of diverse viewpoints
is encouraged and expected on this list. Posts which are primarily
argumentative, defensive, and/or focused on past grievances will not be
tolerated. Mary Broussard (<A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom/post?protectID=034176114056121028130218175024247208098145211">lite2yu@...</A>) and Cindy Fergerson
(<A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom/post?protectID=219212014237146132062082066077249241078152139218183041">crma@...</A>) are co-moderators for this list. Feel free to contact
either of them at any time for information or assistance.








There are no victims in this world. . . only opportunities


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

joanna514

**Because there is no one right
> definition or approach, the expression and coexistence of diverse
viewpoints
> is encouraged and expected on this list. **

This bothers me. It seems to be encouraging us to not, as a group,
come to an agreement of what does and does not define unschooling.
With that as a guideline, it seems to me to encourage people to argue
in circles about what unschooling is.
I think Joyce, trying to find a general consensus from the group as
to what we can all agree comes in the range of unschooling is a good
thing.
If we all know there will be a gentle post coming to someone who is
using a curriculum or sneaking in education, or unschooling after
school and in the summer....then there is less likely a chance we'll
have a bunch of widely ranged, sometimes seemingly insulting, newbie
chasing posts.
If someone disagrees with some of the messages of Joyces posts, lets
hear specifically what they are, and discuss that.
We're not talking rules here. From what I understand, it's coming to
a group consensus.
Joanna



--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., lite2yu@a... wrote:
> All your suggestions are appreciated Joyce.
>
> When Helen decided a while back to go to moderated status on this
list, she,
> Cindy, and I hashed out the detailes of list guidelines, which we
post
> periodically. It was decided to be a very general guideline,
because
> moderating and policing people is not something Helen is interested
in for
> this list, nor do I suspect anyone is. These guidelines will not
please
> everyone, but will hopefully encourage people to think a bit before
posting.
> Here are the guidelines.
>
> The following administrative message will be posted monthly or as
necessary:
>
> The primary purpose of this list is mutual support for unschooling,
which can
> mean different things to different people. Because there is no one
right
> definition or approach, the expression and coexistence of diverse
viewpoints
> is encouraged and expected on this list. Posts which are primarily
> argumentative, defensive, and/or focused on past grievances will
not be
> tolerated. Mary Broussard (<A
HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom/post?
protectID=034176114056121028130218175024247208098145211">lite2yu@a...<
/A>) and Cindy Fergerson
> (<A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom/post?
protectID=219212014237146132062082066077249241078152139218183041">crma
@i...</A>) are co-moderators for this list. Feel free to contact
> either of them at any time for information or assistance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There are no victims in this world. . . only opportunities
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

rumpleteasermom

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

I think part of the problem is that some here are trying to create a
narrow definition of something that is not narrow in nature.

Or perhaps are using a term to mean more than it does. I think
Unschooling and non-coercive parenting overlap alot but they are not
entirely the same thing.

Bridget



--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "joanna514" <Wilkinson6@m...> wrote:
>
> **Because there is no one right
> > definition or approach, the expression and coexistence of diverse
> viewpoints
> > is encouraged and expected on this list. **
>
> This bothers me. It seems to be encouraging us to not, as a group,
> come to an agreement of what does and does not define unschooling.
> With that as a guideline, it seems to me to encourage people to
argue
> in circles about what unschooling is.
> I think Joyce, trying to find a general consensus from the group as
> to what we can all agree comes in the range of unschooling is a
good
> thing.
> If we all know there will be a gentle post coming to someone who is
> using a curriculum or sneaking in education, or unschooling after
> school and in the summer....then there is less likely a chance
we'll
> have a bunch of widely ranged, sometimes seemingly insulting,
newbie
> chasing posts.
> If someone disagrees with some of the messages of Joyces posts,
lets
> hear specifically what they are, and discuss that.
> We're not talking rules here. From what I understand, it's coming
to
> a group consensus.
> Joanna
>
>

Fetteroll

on 2/1/02 4:39 PM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:

> I think part of the problem is that some here are trying to create a
> narrow definition of something that is not narrow in nature.

In *your* opinion. I think some are expressing their opinion on why *they*
believe unschooling is more sharply defined than others do. It is called a
debate.

Why can't there be room for both positions to be expressed so others can
decide for themselves from the points each side makes?

> Or perhaps are using a term to mean more than it does. I think
> Unschooling and non-coercive parenting overlap alot but they are not
> entirely the same thing.

And the point is to *some* people they *are* the same thing. Why should one
argument be silenced because we can't reach agreement? Though I think there
are black and white areas that we'd all agree are or aren't unschooling, why
do "we" need to choose one definition to define the gray area for everyone?
Why can't we continue to present our positions and our reasons for holding
those positions?

Joyce


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

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:

>
> And the point is to *some* people they *are* the same thing. Why
should one
> argument be silenced because we can't reach agreement? Though I
think there
> are black and white areas that we'd all agree are or aren't
unschooling, why
> do "we" need to choose one definition to define the gray area for
everyone?
> Why can't we continue to present our positions and our reasons for
holding
> those positions?
>
> Joyce

I suppose I could ask you the same thing. Why should some voices be
silenced because they don't agree with the extreme definition of
unschooling?
But more than once now, I've seen it 'suggested' that someone leave
rather than discuss their views.

Bridget

Fetteroll

on 2/1/02 5:14 PM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:
>
> I suppose I could ask you the same thing. Why should some voices be
> silenced because they don't agree with the extreme definition of
> unschooling?

Have I ever done that? Then it wouldn't do much good to ask me would it? ;-)

> But more than once now, I've seen it 'suggested' that someone leave
> rather than discuss their views.

I've never seen generalizing past behavior to yeild anything productive in
the way of debate. Debate works much better with specifics.

But I believe there are people from both sides of the argument who are
equally guilty. Some people from *both* sides want there to be a single
voice.

I think well expressed opinions, regardless of what side they're on, will
speak for themselves.

Joyce


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

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:

> I've never seen generalizing past behavior to yeild anything
productive in
> the way of debate. Debate works much better with specifics.


Aahhh, but we aren't allowed to bring up past grievances.

As for the rest, I never said YOU personally did any of those
things. I have seen people told to stop talking about such and such
because it "waters" things down. I've not seen anyone told to stop
discussing their theories of unschooling IF they matched the extreme
views prevelent within certain groups.

Bridget

Lynda

But you are talking rules, whether you dress it up and call it a group
concensus or not, you are still setting down guidelines which translates in
simple English to rules.

Rule: "1. a guide or principle for governing action: regulation."

Lynda
----- Original Message ----- >
> "joanna514" <Wilkinson6@m...> wrote:
>
> **Because there is no one right
> definition or approach, the expression and coexistence of diverse
> viewpoints
> is encouraged and expected on this list. **
>
> This bothers me. It seems to be encouraging us to not, as a group,
> come to an agreement of what does and does not define unschooling.
> With that as a guideline, it seems to me to encourage people to
> argue in circles about what unschooling is.
> I think Joyce, trying to find a general consensus from the group as
> to what we can all agree comes in the range of unschooling is a
> good thing.
> If we all know there will be a gentle post coming to someone who is
> using a curriculum or sneaking in education, or unschooling after
> school and in the summer....then there is less likely a chance we'll
> have a bunch of widely ranged, sometimes seemingly insulting,
> newbie chasing posts.
> If someone disagrees with some of the messages of Joyces posts,
> lets hear specifically what they are, and discuss that.
> We're not talking rules here. From what I understand, it's coming
> to a group consensus.
> Joanna

Fetteroll

on 2/1/02 5:36 PM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:

> I have seen people told to stop talking about such and such
> because it "waters" things down. I've not seen anyone told to stop
> discussing their theories of unschooling IF they matched the extreme
> views prevelent within certain groups.

I'm not sure how pointing out this observation is helpful in finding ways to
keep philosphical disagreements from turning nasty. Are you saying this is a
problem and we should seek solutions for when *any* one group decides
another should be silenced? Are you offering solutions that can be
generalized to *everyone* (not just those out there that one group perceives
as trouble makers.) Seems to me "the expression and coexistence of diverse
viewpoints is encouraged and expected on this list" pretty much covers that.

Joyce


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

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
> on 2/1/02 5:36 PM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@j... wrote:
>
> Seems to me "the expression and coexistence of diverse
> viewpoints is encouraged and expected on this list" pretty much
covers that.
>
> Joyce
>
>

I am merely pointing out that saying this does not make it happen and
it is not what has been happening recently.

You know what I find most humorous about all of this recenp flap?
That it started because I said I thought it was nice that the list
was having good discussions now and that if I still sounded
defensive, I was working on it.

Bridget

Fetteroll

on 2/2/02 7:50 AM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:

> I am merely pointing out that saying this does not make it happen and
> it is not what has been happening recently.

So the problem *isn't* that people suggest silencing a view they disagree
with. You feel the problem is the email reminder is inadequate to stop the
behavior? Do you have a suggestion?

The posts aren't prescreened so there's no way to stop someone from
spontaneously sending out a shushing post. There can be ways of reacting to
what might trigger a shushing post. There can be ways to react to a shushing
post. What suggestions do you have?

> You know what I find most humorous about all of this recenp flap?
> That it started because I said I thought it was nice that the list
> was having good discussions now and that if I still sounded
> defensive, I was working on it.

I saw a number of reasons offered for why it began.

Regardless of the trigger -- unless you're saying that was an example of the
typical type of thing that triggers a blow up -- it's the responses that
followed whatever the trigger was that do follow a pattern and can be dealt
with.

What are your suggestions?

Joyce


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

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:

> What are your suggestions?
>
> Joyce
>

I guess my suggestion is that many people here need to practice what
they preach.

Bridget

[email protected]

>> What are your suggestions?
>> Joyce
>>
>I guess my suggestion is that many people here need to practice what
>they preach.
>Bridget

One can only change oneself. (And Bridget, I am not saying I believe you
need to change anything about yourself) But that is not a suggestion. What
ideas do you have that could help change the problems you see. New or more
rules? ignoring posts? What?
Elissa, who will soon be singing
Yippee - Kai - Yay!

Cindy

rumpleteasermom wrote:
>
> --- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
>
> > What are your suggestions?
> >
> > Joyce
> >
>
> I guess my suggestion is that many people here need to practice what
> they preach.
>

Seriously Bridget, I'd like more specifics too.

One comment you make a lot has to do with not discussing past grievances.
Can you elaborate on why you think that would be a good idea? Or do you
not and I've misunderstood your statements. I don't think it would be
a good idea since I think it will just make the two (three?, four?) groups
of people more polarized and more entrenched in their own "rightness".

--

Cindy Ferguson
crma@...

Lynda

And what has followed could only now be classed as hypocrisy in light of the
current thread.

Two folks post that they like how the list is getting along better and folks
are making attempts at being "nice."

To paraphrase, others then jumped in and said that being "nice" sucks and
waters down the definition of unschooling to the point of ridiculous and
that some folks prefer verbal abuse.

Then the same parties hop to the other side of the fence and start a thread
on rules for being nice.

Am I the only one that sees the irony in all this?

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "rumpleteasermom" <rumpleteasermom@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:50 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Administrative Post


> --- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
> > on 2/1/02 5:36 PM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@j... wrote:
> >
> > Seems to me "the expression and coexistence of diverse
> > viewpoints is encouraged and expected on this list" pretty much
> covers that.
> >
> > Joyce
> >
> >
>
> I am merely pointing out that saying this does not make it happen and
> it is not what has been happening recently.
>
> You know what I find most humorous about all of this recenp flap?
> That it started because I said I thought it was nice that the list
> was having good discussions now and that if I still sounded
> defensive, I was working on it.
>
> Bridget
>
>
>
> 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://groups.yahoo.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/
>
>

Kolleen

>Am I the only one that sees the irony in all this?
>Lynda


Nope, you're not the only one.

and I think we should all laugh at ourselves :-)


kolleen

Fetteroll

on 2/2/02 1:30 PM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:

> Am I the only one that sees the irony in all this?

I'm afraid you lost me with the vague references to who's doing what.

But I think it's best left vague!

Did you have some suggestions on how to handle the sparks while allowing
everyone to coexist peacefully? Do you think the periodic email reminder is
enough?

Joyce


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

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Cindy <crma@i...> wrote:

> Seriously Bridget, I'd like more specifics too.
>
> One comment you make a lot has to do with not discussing past
grievances.
> Can you elaborate on why you think that would be a good idea? Or
do you
> not and I've misunderstood your statements. I don't think it would
be
> a good idea since I think it will just make the two (three?, four?)
groups
> of people more polarized and more entrenched in their
own "rightness".
>
> --

The problem is not wheather we are discussing past greivances or not.

BUT, one of the problems, for me and at least four others that I
know, is that people are saying things like, "a few people were
overly sensitive and that's what has caused all the trouble here."
But we are not allowed to bring up past greivances so we can't
dispute that at all. We are not allowed to point out the posts in
the past that show that to be not quite the way it was.
So, either EVERYONE should stop talking about it or we should be
allowed to refute those statements.

And here is another look at what I think is going on here in general:

I'm beginning to suspect this is like the discussion between
Fundamentalist Christians and Pagans. I actually came across this on
a Druid list a while back but I do see a parallel. The Pagan
says, "My way is good for me and your way is good for you and they
are both religions." The Christian says, "My way is the one true
way, therefore yours CAN'T be religion." Now, we can discuss until
we are blue in the face what characteristics make up a religion, but
when one group is absolutely certain that theirs is the "one true way
for all" then it is a pointless discussion and will just degenerate
into the Christians claiming that the Pagans are watering down the
meaning of religion.

Bridget

rumpleteasermom

Heck Lynda, It's gotten to the point where my dh comes home from work
and asks what's up here to get his daily chuckle! We both see the
irony.

Bridget

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Lynda" <lurine@s...> wrote:

> Am I the only one that sees the irony in all this?
>
> Lynda

Fetteroll

on 2/2/02 10:01 AM, ElissaJC@... at ElissaJC@...
wrote:

> One can only change oneself.

Exactly. We can each individually be the model of how we'd like the list to
be. But we can't expect others to follow our lead. They need to follow their
own lead, guided by their own interpretation of what the Reminder says.

We can't stop an initial post that causes an unintended (or even an
intended!) disruption. But we can try to clarify what exactly is a
disruption and what the reaction should be afterwards. Do you (Bridget) feel
the email reminder isn't enough?

Can we have an unwritten policy that we "be nicer" to each other? Will that
work? But everyone's definition of nice is different. Some will perceive
others' level of nice as "not nice" and therefore breaking the unwritten
policy -- which only those who are here and reading right now, will be aware
of. Should people in the forum jump on them and say "Not nice! We're nice
here! So none of that nastiness allowed!"

on 2/2/02 9:20 AM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:

> I guess my suggestion is that many people here need to practice what
> they preach.

How would you implement that? And what do you mean by "practice what they
preach"? What if someone preaches that hard questioning is the best
approach? No, I'm not being snooty, just trying to point out that a
policy/suggestion to the group needs to apply to everyone not just
you-know-who-you-are and to move people towards a goal. Which the
Administrative post says:

> The primary purpose of this list is mutual support for unschooling, which can
> mean different things to different people. Because there is no one right
> definition or approach, the expression and coexistence of diverse viewpoints
> is encouraged and expected on this list.

If the goal is less hypocricy then that's a good suggestion. But I haven't
seen hypocricy be the spark that sets off an argument or even the fuel that
keeps it going, only a point that people perhaps reach in desperation when
they feel they aren't being heard.

Picture a suggestion as something to be sent out in an email reminder. (It's
the only tool we have besides banning someone.)

Joyce


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

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:

>
> How would you implement that? And what do you mean by "practice
what they
> preach"? What if someone preaches that hard questioning is the best
> approach? No, I'm not being snooty, just trying to point out that a
> policy/suggestion to the group needs to apply to everyone not just
> you-know-who-you-are and to move people towards a goal. Which the
> Administrative post says:
>


Yes, exactly. But the policy of not bring up past grievances needs
to apply to ALL, including those who bring them up by saying that
they were caused by the overly sensitive not responding well to being
questioned. That amount to revisionist history by my reconing. And
in a way that is impossible to refute for those of us who ARE abiding
by the don't bring up past grievances. I'm just asking that that
apply to all.

Bridget

[email protected]

> Yes, exactly. But the policy of not bring up past grievances needs
> to apply to ALL, including those who bring them up by saying that
> they were caused by the overly sensitive not responding well to being
> questioned. That amount to revisionist history by my reconing. And
> in a way that is impossible to refute for those of us who ARE abiding
> by the don't bring up past grievances. I'm just asking that that
> apply to all.


They do apply to all, and not everyone has chosen to adhere to this policy
yet, including you Bridget. And I have no problem with that as we all try and
get clear about this "new list". It is the administrative policy to try and
let these things work themselves out as much as possible, which is why Cindy
and I have tried to stay out of it as much as possible and let things work
themselves out. I think for us to jump in and start warning people every time
they break one of the list guidelines would be a bit hasty. Hopefully, as
everyone becomes aware of them and tries to adhere to them, the problems will
be less and less. I suspect this process of dialoging about the rules is
helping people to get clearer and more focused about how they will "show up"
on this list, at least I hope so.

For myself, I think the suggestion of thinking in terms of someone in my
living room and having a dialog with them goes a long way towards a more
respectful response. All I can do is change my own responses and reactions
and that's what I continually try to bring to the table. . . my own
reflections and feelings without blaming anyone else or seeing fault in
anyone else. Quite a struggle still at times for me, but one well worth the
effort.

living in abundance
lovemary

>
>



There are no victims in this world. . . only opportunities


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

Joseph Fuerst

Can we have an unwritten policy that we "be nicer" to each other? Will that
> work? But everyone's definition of nice is different. Some will perceive
> others' level of nice as "not nice" and therefore breaking the unwritten
> policy -- which only those who are here and reading right now, will be
aware
> of. Should people in the forum jump on them and say "Not nice! We're nice
> here! So none of that nastiness allowed!"
>

Maybe I'm too tired to exzctly get this tonite....but I believe it's best
left to the moderators to try to maintain that boundary. (I must say,
though, I can hardly stand the word "nice"......it just brings up ideas of
timidness, people-pleasing, non-constructive
non-discussion.....shallowness, I guess) This may be a personal bias
against that word.
I rather like to hope that we will be respectful. That we share
experiences and ideas. And, yes, that we sometimes get into thoughtful
and thought-provoking debates.
I do think the e-mail reminder will be enough. Perhaps I need to go
re-read it and check if I have any thoughts on wording or ideas.

I like the idea of people taking personal complaints off-list whenever
possible and trying to work out conflicts on a one-on-one basis. However,
I suppose if one's posts seem to really bother a reader, they may not be
able to resovle their personality conflict off list, either, in which
case, I think thay ought to simply try to ignore or block that person's
posts.
I'm wondering about if/when a complaint or problem should be reported to
a moderator.
Like, if a mamber receives off-list complaints arethey being 'harassed'
off-list?

Gotta go now....crying toddler.....
hope there's some sense in this!
Susan

Lynda

I think the monthly reminder *was* doing just fine. I think the list was
working at being more tuned into "hearing" what people actually said instead
of viewing the e-mails through glasses tinted by the past.

The point about the irony was that the list was doing exactly what you are
now trying to do by drafting another set of rules.

My suggestions would be that folks do some surfing and find out what the
rules of debate are AND, if they don't like the current topic/thread because
it is "too watered down" or "doesn't have substance," that they start a
topic/thread that isn't "too watered down" or does "have substance. If all
they can do is snipe at other folks because they don't like the "tone" or
definitions or whatever, then it would lead one to believe that they are
only here to stir poopy, not to discuss unschooling.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Administrative Post


> on 2/2/02 1:30 PM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one that sees the irony in all this?
>
> I'm afraid you lost me with the vague references to who's doing what.
>
> But I think it's best left vague!
>
> Did you have some suggestions on how to handle the sparks while allowing
> everyone to coexist peacefully? Do you think the periodic email reminder
is
> enough?
>
> Joyce
>
>
> [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://groups.yahoo.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/
>
>

Fetteroll

on 2/2/02 5:07 PM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:

> BUT, one of the problems, for me and at least four others that I
> know, is that people are saying things like, "a few people were
> overly sensitive and that's what has caused all the trouble here."
> But we are not allowed to bring up past greivances so we can't
> dispute that at all. We are not allowed to point out the posts in
> the past that show that to be not quite the way it was.
> So, either EVERYONE should stop talking about it or we should be
> allowed to refute those statements.

Would being able to pin point who started (or didn't start) this fight help
us in stopping future sparks from erupting into wildfires?

I have a different idea of what started it. In fact, there may be a *dozen*
different ideas among those who were here. If we were to hash it out with
everyone trying to prove their theory, what would we acheive at the end? The
truth? At what price? Would people know more about unschooling if we could
figure it out?

We *were* all there. You have to trust that we're all intelligent enough to
be able to assess what we see and know that if we didn't see something our
minds aren't changed just because that's the last or most vocal theory
presented.

I don't think the goal is to figure out who is to blame and who isn't to
blame, but to figure out how to stop the sparks from causing an eruption
*before* it creates something that someone is embarrassed to have been
accused of starting. We shouldn't have to figure out the best way to clean
up after a wildfire if our goal is to prevent the wildfires in the first
place.

Joyce

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., lite2yu@a... wrote:

>
>
> They do apply to all, and not everyone has chosen to adhere to this
policy
> yet, including you Bridget. And I have no problem with that as we
all try and
> get clear about this "new list".

Okay, I have a challenge for you: Show me one place where I brought
up the past after the Guidelines were implimented - - with the one
exception of in the context of this discussion in which I stated that
others were not adhering to the policy which was NOT bring up the
past but commenting on the present.

Bridget

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:

>
> I don't think the goal is to figure out who is to blame and who
isn't to
> blame, but to figure out how to stop the sparks from causing an
eruption
> *before* it creates something that someone is embarrassed to have
been
> accused of starting. We shouldn't have to figure out the best way
to clean
> up after a wildfire if our goal is to prevent the wildfires in the
first
> place.
>
> Joyce

Yes but if you are dropping matches on dry brush while saying that
those campers over there are just not careful . . . where's the
problem?

Bridget

[email protected]

In a message dated 2/3/2002 9:53:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rumpleteasermom@... writes:


> Okay, I have a challenge for you: Show me one place where I brought
> up the past after the Guidelines were implimented - - with the one
> exception of in the context of this discussion in which I stated that
> others were not adhering to the policy which was NOT bring up the
> past but commenting on the present.
>
>

I'm really am not interested in getting into a challenge with you Bridget. I
am not going to spend time going through the archives to point things out to
anyone. We all grow and learn and everyday is a new opportunity. I think you
missed the point of my post which was that we are going through a period of
getting used to rules on a list that has never had them, and it may take some
time before everyone follows the rules most of the time. I think that
continuing the discussion of who said what to who, who implied something,
etc. on the list is futile. It is a dead end road in my opinion. It is
probably safe to say most of us have disregarded the guidelines a time or two
in this period of adjustment. We will continue to post the guidelines so
everyone can have a chance to get more familiar with them.

If anyone has anymore suggestions on list guidelines, please email them to
Cindy or myself and we will take them into consideration with Helen (when she
gets back) on the moderators list. Everyone's valuable input is very much
appreciated.

living in abundance
lovemary

There are no victims in this world. . . only opportunities


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

joanna514

I don't know if the "two camps" can coexist fruitfully.
It seems to me, and I have not been involved in so many groups that I
can claim this as definitive but, it seems that a group is either one
or the other. And when one side is the dominating voice in a group,
the other side feels stifled. I can understand that, having been on
both sides philosophically. The dominating side wants to keep their
voice and ideas, from being overtaken, by what they percieve to
be, "not right", or not the ideal in their eyes.
I'm not referring to one side here, I see it from both.
I checked around on the Yahoo groups and saw groups that are more
relaxed about unschooling and what it is, to those who are pretty
definitive about what unschooling is.
Those groups can exist peacefully, if there is an idea of what the
majority wants; a general consensus of what kinds of discussions that
the group is suited for. And unfortunatley, that seems to come in
one form or the other.
So, what to do with this board?
It seems that each "camp"(and I don't like that ideas, but there it
is...) has found their own places, and are having discussions that
are meeting their needs.
Noone seems to be posting much here, because, it seems to me, there
is no feeling of what it is about anymore. And there are other
places that make it clear, what they are about.
How can that be fixed? Should it be fixed?
Maybe it will all blow over, and rebuild itself naturally.
But, I can pretty much bet, if it does, there will be a dominating
voice, and challenges of that will happen, and the circle will begin
again.
Joanna



--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "rumpleteasermom"
<rumpleteasermom@j...> wrote:
> --- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think the goal is to figure out who is to blame and who
> isn't to
> > blame, but to figure out how to stop the sparks from causing an
> eruption
> > *before* it creates something that someone is embarrassed to have
> been
> > accused of starting. We shouldn't have to figure out the best way
> to clean
> > up after a wildfire if our goal is to prevent the wildfires in
the
> first
> > place.
> >
> > Joyce
>
> Yes but if you are dropping matches on dry brush while saying that
> those campers over there are just not careful . . . where's the
> problem?
>
> Bridget