Kolleen

[Edited for theory and to remove reference to any one in particular]
>Some people are destined to read words as a whack upside the head and
>some are destined to read them as a stab in the gut. Such is life. And those
>who feel the pain in the gut will probably be more comfortable somewhere
>Joyce


Does it need to be so black and white? Can't a person come to a list with
the naivety of a child and get another viewpoint on their beliefs?

Would you whack a child upside the head with words so they *get* the gist
of what you're saying? It would prolly 'stab them in the gut' if a parent
or respected elder did this.

At the same time, you wouldn't talk to your 7 yo in a 'baby' voice. (I
don't beleive in talking to babies in that baby voice, but thats another
story!)

In the past month or two some people have come here and were waivering in
their beleifs. Or they were curious. Or something drove them to this site.

I've seen someone like Pat C, who has asked questions and put herself
'out there', come full circle with the ideas presented to her.

Would a thump on the head have caused her to feel it was a stab in the
gut? Who knows... but a certain amount of diplomacy and patience for
those that take time to pull it all together seems to work better in a
group setting.

I'd be hardpressed to beleive that whacking someone with words is the way
the person doing the whacking was whacked when they made their shift. eh?
*smile*

There is a middle ground. At least in my *insert adjective here* opinion.

regards,
kolleen

Sarah Carothers

On Sat, 26 Jan 02 20:45:35 -0500, Kolleen wrote:
>[Edited for theory and to remove reference to any one in
>particular]
>>Some people are destined to read words as a whack
>upside the head and
>>some are destined to read them as a stab in the gut.
>Such is life. And those
>>who feel the pain in the gut will probably be more
>comfortable somewhere
>>Joyce
>
>Does it need to be so black and white? Can't a person
>come to a list with
>the naivety of a child and get another viewpoint on
>their beliefs?
>
>Would you whack a child upside the head with words so
>they *get* the gist
>of what you're saying? It would prolly 'stab them in the
>gut' if a parent
>or respected elder did this.
>
>At the same time, you wouldn't talk to your 7 yo in a
>'baby' voice. (I
>don't beleive in talking to babies in that baby voice,
>but thats another
>story!)
>
>In the past month or two some people have come here and
>were waivering in
>their beleifs. Or they were curious. Or something drove
>them to this site.
>
>I've seen someone like Pat C, who has asked questions
>and put herself
>'out there', come full circle with the ideas presented
>to her.
>
>Would a thump on the head have caused her to feel it was
>a stab in the
>gut? Who knows... but a certain amount of diplomacy and
>patience for
>those that take time to pull it all together seems to
>work better in a
>group setting.
>
>I'd be hardpressed to beleive that whacking someone with
>words is the way
>the person doing the whacking was whacked when they made
>their shift. eh?
>*smile*
>
>There is a middle ground. At least in my *insert
>adjective here* opinion.
>
>regards,
>kolleen

I'm standing and cheering and applauding you, Kolleen! Very well said. Worth reading again!
--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 01/26/2002


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

Pat Cald...

Kolleen wrote:
+I've seen someone like Pat C, who has asked questions and put herself
+'out there', come full circle with the ideas presented to her.

+Would a thump on the head have caused her to feel it was a stab in the
+gut? Who knows... but a certain amount of diplomacy and patience for
+those that take time to pull it all together seems to work better in a
+group setting.

Hey Kolleen - soooo are you implying I'm SLOW??? lol

Pat


I'd be hardpressed to beleive that whacking someone with words is the way
the person doing the whacking was whacked when they made their shift. eh?
*smile*

There is a middle ground. At least in my *insert adjective here* opinion.

regards,
kolleen


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


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



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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Sarah Carothers

On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:39:26 -0500, Pat Cald... wrote:
>
>Hey Kolleen - soooo are you implying I'm SLOW??? lol
>
>Pat

I'd say you haven't been slow, Pat but you have made us look at ourselves (again) and our beliefs by asking some detailed type questions. Nothing wrong with that, though!
--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 01/26/2002


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

Tia Leschke

>
>
>I'd be hardpressed to beleive that whacking someone with words is the way
>the person doing the whacking was whacked when they made their shift. eh?
>*smile*

But the point that was being made was that it was in the person's
perception as to which it felt like. That one person would feel the same
words one way, and someone else would feel them the other way. I didn't
think anybody was in favour of deliberately whacking with words (or
anything else).
Tia

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island

Leslie Moyer

+ -----Original Message-----
+ From: Kolleen [mailto:Kolleen@...]
+ Would a thump on the head have caused her to feel it was a stab in the
+ gut? Who knows... but a certain amount of diplomacy and patience for
+ those that take time to pull it all together seems to work better in a
+ group setting.
+
+ I'd be hardpressed to beleive that whacking someone with words is the way
+ the person doing the whacking was whacked when they made their shift. eh?
+ *smile*
+
+ There is a middle ground. At least in my *insert adjective here* opinion.

Kolleen,

As I've watched these past couple of days with amazement, I've been thinking
something similar....you put it into words beautifully. Thanks. After the
"thump on the head" vs. "stab in the gut" comment I got to thinking why be
violent in discussions like this at all? I neither want to be "whacked" on
the head (which I think was the original comment?) NOR stabbed in the gut.
I'd just rather talk...share ideas gently. I don't hang out at
Unschooling.com for several reasons, but one of them is that I always see
lots of whacking and stabbing going on there. I'm really saddened by it,
too. I only joined this list a couple weeks ago, so I'm sad to see this all
get out of hand.

In Forrest Gump style, "my mama always said" you can catch more flies with
honey than you can with vinegar. I'm not afraid to share my honest
opinions, but I don't see any reason to shove them down anyone's throat.

Leslie Moyer

Leslie Moyer

+ But the point that was being made was that it was in the person's
+ perception as to which it felt like. That one person would feel the same
+ words one way, and someone else would feel them the other way. I didn't
+ think anybody was in favour of deliberately whacking with words (or
+ anything else).
+ Tia

Tia,

I read that post to mean that we had two choices: Whack on the head or stab
in the gut. I reject both choices.

I do agree overwhelmingly that "perception" is a BIG part of communication,
but I disagree that it is the sum total. A conversation takes at least TWO
people....one to transmit; one to receive. Yes--two people mean the
variations of what will be heard can vary....but what I have objected to is
the idea that the receiver is the ONLY one who is responsible for the
message's understanding.

--Leslie Moyer (trying to catch up)

Leslie Moyer

+ Believe me, when I first got to unschooling.com, I felt whacked
+ and stabbed a few times. I was ready to leave and never come
+ back. But I stuck it out and stayed and I'm so glad I did.

Karin, do you think you could have come to an understanding in any different
way? If people conveyed the exact same ideas, but in a way that validated
you as a human being worthy of respect? Would the same ideas--without the
whacking and stabbing--been the same ideas in the end?

I know the answer for me, because no one whacked or stabbed me for me to
understand unschooling. John Holts books have no "whacks" or "stabs" in
them; Mary Griffith's books don't either; neither does HEM or GWS.

I just don't think it is necessary. Just because you got through it OK
doesn't mean it's a good environment for all people to grow. Most of us
don't think it's a good environment for our *children* to grow...why would
it be any better for adults? I think you are the exception, not the rule.

--Leslie Moyer

Karin

Believe me, when I first got to unschooling.com, I felt whacked and stabbed a few times. I was ready to leave and never come back. But I stuck it out and stayed and I'm so glad I did. It took a few times of painful questioning and reexamination for me to grow in the direction I needed to. I had to swallow my pride or whatever was getting hurt and look at things from a different angle. This is coming from someone who gets hurt feelings very easily and takes things too personally. But unschooling.com got my feet firmly planted in the right direction and there is no turning back now, for me. :o)

Karin



Leslie wrote:

As I've watched these past couple of days with amazement, I've been thinking
something similar....you put it into words beautifully. Thanks. After the
"thump on the head" vs. "stab in the gut" comment I got to thinking why be
violent in discussions like this at all? I neither want to be "whacked" on
the head (which I think was the original comment?) NOR stabbed in the gut.
I'd just rather talk...share ideas gently. I don't hang out at
Unschooling.com for several reasons, but one of them is that I always see
lots of whacking and stabbing going on there. I'm really saddened by it,
too. I only joined this list a couple weeks ago, so I'm sad to see this all
get out of hand.

In Forrest Gump style, "my mama always said" you can catch more flies with
honey than you can with vinegar. I'm not afraid to share my honest
opinions, but I don't see any reason to shove them down anyone's throat.

Leslie Moyer


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

Fetteroll

on 1/26/02 8:45 PM, Kolleen at Kolleen@... wrote:

> Would you whack a child upside the head with words so they *get* the gist
> of what you're saying? It would prolly 'stab them in the gut' if a parent
> or respected elder did this.

That's taking the analogy a bit far! Even adults who say they like a whack
up side the head don't litterally want a whack up side the head ;-) What
they are seeking is what they feel they need.

So the answer to the question is, no, I wouldn't whack a child upside the
head so she gets what I'm saying. I would provide what the *child* felt she
needed, not what *I* felt the child needed.

*But* a group/list/institutuion isn't a child's mother or mentor. It can't
provide what everyone who shows up needs. It can't even provide what people
need in general. If we believe it can, then we can believe public schools
can provide what every child needs. Trying to be what "everyone" needs turns
the offerings into pablum.

We *can't* expect a group to be what we need. The most productive groups are
specialized. (As a mother is specialized to her child.) So our
responsibility isn't to demand that the group change when a group is meeting
it's own internal needs and not ours but to find a group that already meets
our own specialized needs.

If we expect any group to be other than what it is trying to be, who's at
fault, us or the group?

> Does it need to be so black and white? Can't a person come to a list with
> the naivety of a child and get another viewpoint on their beliefs?

If someone's goal is to provide a place where specialized needs are met,
should they compromise meeting those needs for the sake of meeting the needs
of more people *just* because people arrive expecting their own needs to be
met?

I think it's our expectations of everything being for everyone that are at
fault not what one particular list or person provides. Even this list where
parenting and unschooling ideas are examined isn't for everyone. Some people
*are* just looking for support and "good job" pats on the back for how far
they're progressing. They want to share without it being held up to public
scrutiny.

> I've seen someone like Pat C, who has asked questions and put herself
> 'out there', come full circle with the ideas presented to her.

And if someone wanted help questioning herself and wanted to reach a certain
point through examining her ideas, how far would she get on a purely
supportive list that told her she was doing great?

> Would a thump on the head have caused her to feel it was a stab in the
> gut? Who knows... but a certain amount of diplomacy and patience for
> those that take time to pull it all together seems to work better in a
> group setting.

For *some* people that works. Some people need something different. Assuming
there's one best way for a list for all unschoolers to be is supporting the
same certainty that public schools can be everything to everyone.

*Some* people like a whack up side the head. *Some* will feel it's a stab in
the gut. But there's a whole world of other people outside that "some".
Personally I don't like being whacked ;-). Though I do learn by watching
others *voluntarily* getting what they'd describe as whacked up side the
head and then figuring out what pressures and thought processes brought them
to that point where they were trapped by their own thinking and needed the
proverbial whack.

Joyce


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

Karin

>Karin, do you think you could have come to an understanding in any different
>way? If people conveyed the exact same ideas, but in a way that validated
>you as a human being worthy of respect? Would the same ideas--without the
>whacking and stabbing--been the same ideas in the end?

I figure I was ultra sensitive to any online comments because that environment was so new to me. I was never part of any other "groups" or message boards of any kind. I had a lot of learning to do just regarding that aspect of different online communication. About understanding, I think I needed a very strong wake up call kind of message, very blunt and to the point, and that is what you get at unschooling.com a lot of the time. I have since come to really value this bluntness because unschooling was spelled out so clearly for me. I was convinced of what I needed to do and started almost immediately when it became clear to me. BTW, for all the bluntness at unschooling.com, there are many, many people there who all have their own unique styles of posting which come across friendlier, respectful and that treat the poster as a human being. Whenever I post, that is how I try to be. But sometimes a poster comes along and asks the most ridiculous questions relating to unschooling and I don't even have a clue how to answer so I don't even try. Sometimes these people may get a blunt response.


>I know the answer for me, because no one whacked or stabbed me for me to
>understand unschooling. John Holts books have no "whacks" or "stabs" in
>them; Mary Griffith's books don't either; neither does HEM or GWS.

I read John Holt when I first started homeschooling 5 years ago. Although I really agreed with his philosophy I never made the connection to try unschooling, or maybe never had the courage back then. No, his books where not enough to make me realize I should try this in my house. Mabye I was naive and insecure back then. I really appreciate the unschooling support I have found online and I don't know if I could have started unschooling without it. And like I said, unschooling.com was my first real exposure to unschooling and I will always be grateful for the place.


>I just don't think it is necessary. Just because you got through it OK
>doesn't mean it's a good environment for all people to grow. Most of us
>don't think it's a good environment for our *children* to grow...why would
>it be any better for adults? I think you are the exception, not the rule.

>--Leslie Moyer


From what I can tell, there are still many people who run across unschooling.com and *get it* and stay and post regularly and are helped. I really think it is how you perceive posts and how you let them affect you. I have learned they are just words about ideas, not personal attacks. That in itself has been a great "education" for me.

Karin


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

rumpleteasermom

And therein lies the problem IMHO.
There have been times when I was accused of attacking someone who
misinterpreted me because I tried to explain more fully what I meant
and why. And there have been times when someone took something I
said flippantly and ran with it and to this day refuse to believe
they were wrong about what I think and believe.

So who has the problem? The person who was misinterpreted or the
person who refuses to listen to the explanations?
Bridget


--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Leslie Moyer" <LeslieMoyer@g...>
wrote:

>
> I do agree overwhelmingly that "perception" is a BIG part of
communication,
> but I disagree that it is the sum total. A conversation takes at
least TWO
> people....one to transmit; one to receive. Yes--two people mean the
> variations of what will be heard can vary....but what I have
objected to is
> the idea that the receiver is the ONLY one who is responsible for
the
> message's understanding.
>
> --Leslie Moyer (trying to catch up)

Sarah Carothers

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 09:32:19 -0700, Karin wrote:
>>From what I can tell, there are still many people who
>run across unschooling.com and *get it* and stay and
>post regularly and are helped. I really think it is how
>you perceive posts and how you let them affect you. I
>have learned they are just words about ideas, not
>personal attacks. That in itself has been a great
>"education" for me.
>
>Karin

Sorry, but I beg to differ. I think there are lots of times when the pros (for lack of a better, printable term) make fun of the newbies and their 'ridiculous posts'. These questions are ridiculous to *them* so I don't think the response should be flippant. If the questions bug someone, then heck... don't respond! Maybe set up a board for the 'old pros' to swap stories or whatever.
--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 1/27/2002


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

Sarah Carothers

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:29:54 -0500, Fetteroll wrote:
>
>That's taking the analogy a bit far! Even adults who say
>they like a whack
>up side the head don't litterally want a whack up side
>the head ;-) What
>they are seeking is what they feel they need.

And I'll point out the orig. posters' words:
"Would you whack a child upside the head with words..."

So, *would you*?

Joyce wrote:
<I think it's our expectations of everything being for
everyone that are at
fault not what one particular list or person provides.
Even this list where
parenting and unschooling ideas are examined isn't for
everyone.>

No, it's not. But when the obvious division became apparent, one sector of the list opted to start another list (note: they were not made to leave.. they opted to do so). It's my understanding that those on that list are happy and the list is thriving. So why come back to this one and ask (again) for it to change to a more blunt-type list? If this is the list that is being exposed as a connection for newbies to come to for help, advice and so on, it's a given that these people are mostly unsure of what they're undertaking. It's in peoples' nature to gravitate toward the 'nice' and move away from the 'not nice' (maybe that's a wrong choice of words... maybe I should say ...to gravitate toward a warm fuzzy blanket instead of a cold block of ice?). Anyway, you get my point I think.

Joyce wrote:
<Some people
*are* just looking for support and "good job" pats on
the back for how far
they're progressing. They want to share without it being
held up to public
scrutiny.>>>>
But that's assuming that is all one finds now at unschooling-dotcom and imo, it's not! The tv thread is an example of views being scrutinized (oldies as well as newbies).

Joyce wrote:
<And if someone wanted help questioning herself and
wanted to reach a certain
point through examining her ideas, how far would she get
on a purely
supportive list that told her she was doing great?>>>>>.

Maybe a lot further than if she was blasted away the minute she arrived and feeling wounded. Look at the number of people who leave because of that. Granted, not all do, but there are lots that do and lots that go into the lurkdom stage and never come out! I mean, seriously... this is a big list of over 600 people. LOOK at how many post on a regular basis. WHERE are all the other 500 or so??? Do they worry that what they ask or post will be ripped to shreds?

Joyce wrote,Some people need something
different. Assuming
there's one best way for a list for all unschoolers to
be is supporting the
same certainty that public schools can be everything to
everyone.>

Yes, that is true. But again.. when it became obvious that there were two distinct groups with opposing views to this issue, the one group opted to leave and start a list more to their liking. It's free... anyone can join if they like the thump/whacking type list. It's probably even 'advertised' (as in this one is advertised) as a place to get more unschooling information. Same top billing as this list gets!

Sarah


--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 1/27/2002


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

joanna514

I know for me, it was a couple of blunt responses to my questions or
ideas that gave me "ah ha" moments!
And it wasn't immediately. My first response was defensivness or
frustration, then questioning my defensiveness, then the "ah ha!"

I think this is the problem here. There has come along a very loud
voice on this list(no, not one individual) that has decided that the
things that have helped so many of us progress to a place we are
extremely thankful for, are not acceptable.
Joanna



--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Karin" <curtkar@c...> wrote:
>
>
> >Karin, do you think you could have come to an understanding in any
different
> >way? If people conveyed the exact same ideas, but in a way that
validated
> >you as a human being worthy of respect? Would the same ideas--
without the
> >whacking and stabbing--been the same ideas in the end?
>
> I figure I was ultra sensitive to any online comments because that
environment was so new to me. I was never part of any other "groups"
or message boards of any kind. I had a lot of learning to do just
regarding that aspect of different online communication. About
understanding, I think I needed a very strong wake up call kind of
message, very blunt and to the point, and that is what you get at
unschooling.com a lot of the time. I have since come to really value
this bluntness because unschooling was spelled out so clearly for me.
I was convinced of what I needed to do and started almost immediately
when it became clear to me. BTW, for all the bluntness at
unschooling.com, there are many, many people there who all have their
own unique styles of posting which come across friendlier, respectful
and that treat the poster as a human being. Whenever I post, that is
how I try to be. But sometimes a poster comes along and asks the most
ridiculous questions relating to unschooling and I don't even have a
clue how to answer so I don't even try. Sometimes these people may
get a blunt response.

Sarah Carothers

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:43:35 -0500, Sarah Carothers wrote:
>These questions are ridiculous to *them*

shoot... typo
It should have read that the questions are NOT ridiculous to them.
sorry

--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 1/27/2002


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

Leslie Moyer

+ There has come along a very loud
+ voice on this list(no, not one individual) that has decided that the
+ things that have helped so many of us progress to a place we are
+ extremely thankful for, are not acceptable.
+ Joanna

No. Wrong. Just that they're not the ONLY acceptable ways of responding.

--Leslie Moyer

Fetteroll

on 1/26/02 11:26 PM, Leslie Moyer at LeslieMoyer@... wrote:

> After the
> "thump on the head" vs. "stab in the gut" comment I got to thinking why be
> violent in discussions like this at all? I neither want to be "whacked" on
> the head (which I think was the original comment?) NOR stabbed in the gut.

And some people seek that out because that's what they need and like.

Maybe a better analogy would be direct light versus indirect light. Some
plants thrive in direct sunlight. Some thrive in indirect sunlight. If we
provided only one type of light one plant would thrive and the other would
wither. Should we settle on indirect light as the light of choice because
it's better than no light? Or can we find a way to provide both types of
light?

> I'd just rather talk...share ideas gently.

Fortunately the world is big enough that we can have more than one group to
meet the different needs of different people. :-)

> but what I have objected to is
> the idea that the receiver is the ONLY one who is responsible for the
> message's understanding.

It depends what the sender's goals are. If the sender's goals are to
communicate to as many as clearly as possible, then the sender is
responsible *to himself* to speak as clearly as possible. If a sender's goal
is to reach the type of people who have said "Thank you! I needed it put
that way!" then his responsibility *to himself* is to continue doing what he
does best.

If the receiver is listening without choice (like at school) or has paid the
sender to impart some information, then the sender has a responsibility to
meet the receiver's needs. But when the receiver and the sender are both
there voluntarily then the only responsibility is to themselves and their
own goals.

> I'm not afraid to share my honest
> opinions, but I don't see any reason to shove them down anyone's throat.

And you shouldn't. But what if you enjoyed it? And what if people came to
you and enjoyed having it done?

A rather uncomfortable analogy ;-)

There's a difference in a world full of choices between "I don't like it"
and "I don't like it so it shouldn't be done that way". If someone doesn't
like the liver on the menu, they order something else, not tell the
restaurant to stop making it! ;-) If they don't like anything on the menu
they go to another restaurant. Or go home. Or open their own restaurant! :-)

Joyce


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

Leslie Moyer

+ -----Original Message-----
+ From: Fetteroll [mailto:fetteroll@...]
+
+ on 1/26/02 11:26 PM, Leslie Moyer at LeslieMoyer@... wrote:
+
+ > After the
+ > "thump on the head" vs. "stab in the gut" comment I got to
+ thinking why be
+ > violent in discussions like this at all? I neither want to be
+ "whacked" on
+ > the head (which I think was the original comment?) NOR stabbed
+ in the gut.
+
+ And some people seek that out because that's what they need and like.

Yes--and if you go read the archives at the Unschooling.com message boards
you will see that SOME of the people posting right now have similarly
disfunctional, abusive marriages and, quite obviously ENJOY this kind of
abusive behavior. Thye do need and like it. More power to them. That's
not my cup of tea.

--Leslie Moyer

joanna514

> Yes, that is true. But again.. when it became obvious that there
were two distinct groups with opposing views to this issue, the one
group opted to leave and start a list more to their liking. It's
free... anyone can join if they like the thump/whacking type list.
It's probably even 'advertised' (as in this one is advertised) as a
place to get more unschooling information. Same top billing as this
list gets!
>
> Sarah
>
Should we call this list the "ultra sensitive" type list?

There is no thumping and whacking going on, except in the mind of the
learner. I don't think anyone sets out to purposely "whack". They
are just stating strongly held beliefs. If someone gets "whacked",
it is because of the process THEY are going through.
Those who left here were ones willing to challenge and provoke real
thought.
If you can't handle that, unschooling will probably be near
impossible to achieve. Sometimes change isn't comfortable.
Some people obviously don't want to change.
Joanna

Karin

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. My opinion is that I have not seen what you describe as the pros making fun of newbies. Every post and question is treated in a serious manner, especially when the question relates to the specifics of unschooling and how it works best. That is how I have perceived it. I have not seen the old pros swapping stories. And I truly respect those old pros.

Karin



Sarah Carothers wrote:
Sorry, but I beg to differ. I think there are lots of times when the pros (for lack of a better, printable term) make fun of the newbies and their 'ridiculous posts'. These questions are ridiculous to *them* so I don't think the response should be flippant. If the questions bug someone, then heck... don't respond! Maybe set up a board for the 'old pros' to swap stories or whatever.
--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 1/27/2002


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

Sarah Carothers

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:23:51 -0500, Fetteroll wrote:
>
>> I'm not afraid to share my honest
>> opinions, but I don't see any reason to shove them
>down anyone's throat.
>
>And you shouldn't. But what if you enjoyed it? And what
>if people came to
>you and enjoyed having it done?

That's sick.

--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 1/27/2002


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

Bronwen

I was on another moderated list and there was a rule about no META discussions-

you know, no discussions about the discussion- the moment someone posted something of that nature, they would receive either a personal e-mail or a general public reminder would be sent.

It was good- we stuck to helping each other-

I keep subbing to this list hoping to get some unschooling community

WHat do you think?

Bronwen
----- Original Message -----
From: Karin
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Subjects of substance WAS: new and in need of support


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. My opinion is that I have not seen what you describe as the pros making fun of newbies. Every post and question is treated in a serious manner, especially when the question relates to the specifics of unschooling and how it works best. That is how I have perceived it. I have not seen the old pros swapping stories. And I truly respect those old pros.

Karin



Sarah Carothers wrote:
Sorry, but I beg to differ. I think there are lots of times when the pros (for lack of a better, printable term) make fun of the newbies and their 'ridiculous posts'. These questions are ridiculous to *them* so I don't think the response should be flippant. If the questions bug someone, then heck... don't respond! Maybe set up a board for the 'old pros' to swap stories or whatever.
--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 1/27/2002


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


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://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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

joanna514

>
> Yes--and if you go read the archives at the Unschooling.com message
boards
> you will see that SOME of the people posting right now have
similarly
> disfunctional, abusive marriages and, quite obviously ENJOY this
kind of
> abusive behavior. Thye do need and like it. More power to them.
That's
> not my cup of tea.
>
> --Leslie Moyer

Oh, that's easy, isn't it. Let's just chalk it up to disfunction.
I could say the same about the people who seem too sensitive to me.
Many times they come back posting about all the turmoils going on in
their life and they just can't handle this type of interaction.
And again. You see something as abusive, that many do not.
Joanna (who has never been hit in her entire life, and still somehow
enjoys a good debate)

Leslie Moyer

+ Oh, that's easy, isn't it.

Easy--I don't know. True? Yea. It's public knowledge on an international
message board. People can go decide for themselves, I suppose. If those
certain people didn't want it to be public knowledge, perhaps they should
have kept their private marital matters private.

--Leslie

Fetteroll

on 1/27/02 1:36 PM, Leslie Moyer at LeslieMoyer@... wrote:

> Yes--and if you go read the archives at the Unschooling.com message boards
> you will see that SOME of the people posting right now have similarly
> disfunctional, abusive marriages and, quite obviously ENJOY this kind of
> abusive behavior. Thye do need and like it. More power to them. That's
> not my cup of tea.

That's a really sad sad perception and again extending the analogy too far.

I would call the people I formerly referred to as liking a whack up side the
head as loving a good debate. Debates have a way of shaking people's
thinking up. That's *all* it's about.

I suspect if you took an *unbiased* look at relationships and how one likes
to learn you wouldn't see such a strong correlation.

Joyce


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

Fetteroll

on 1/27/02 1:23 PM, Leslie Moyer at LeslieMoyer@... wrote:

> No. Wrong. Just that they're not the ONLY acceptable ways of responding.

Unfortunately, from past experience, it often seems that someone who is
sensitive to being questioned will perceive the whole group as an attacking
one, even if it's just one or two asking probing questions and the others
are supportive. :-/

I think both are necessary for newbies wandering in to a general forum when
the subject is as far from the comfortable mainstream as unschooling is.

Joyce


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

Karin

That is fine with me. This particular discussion relates to whether unschooling.com is a helpful unschooling community. I happen to think it is. Some others here do not agree. I was just offering my opinion.

I think if you just hang on for a while you may get the unschooling community you are looking for. Between these groups and unschooling.com, I am quite satisfied.

Karin



Bronwen wrote:

I was on another moderated list and there was a rule about no META discussions-

you know, no discussions about the discussion- the moment someone posted something of that nature, they would receive either a personal e-mail or a general public reminder would be sent.

It was good- we stuck to helping each other-

I keep subbing to this list hoping to get some unschooling community

WHat do you think?

Bronwen



----- Original Message -----
From: Karin
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Subjects of substance WAS: new and in need of support


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. My opinion is that I have not seen what you describe as the pros making fun of newbies. Every post and question is treated in a serious manner, especially when the question relates to the specifics of unschooling and how it works best. That is how I have perceived it. I have not seen the old pros swapping stories. And I truly respect those old pros.

Karin


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

Fetteroll

on 1/27/02 1:49 PM, Sarah Carothers at puddles@... wrote:

>> And you shouldn't. But what if you enjoyed it? And what
>> if people came to
>> you and enjoyed having it done?
>
> That's sick.

*Please* Sarah. Pretty please. Could you please, please, please read ahead
in my posts or slow down a bit before responding? I said *in the very next
line* (with a winky and everything) that it was a bad extension of your
analogy and then gave a better one.

Joyce


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

Fetteroll

on 1/27/02 1:04 PM, Sarah Carothers at puddles@... wrote:

> And I'll point out the orig. posters' words:
> "Would you whack a child upside the head with words..."
>
> So, *would you*?

And I answered that *right* below the part you quoted. Here it is:

>> So the answer to the question is, no, I wouldn't whack a child upside the
>> head so she gets what I'm saying. I would provide what the *child* felt she
>> needed, not what *I* felt the child needed.

> So why come back to this one and ask (again) for it to change to a more
> blunt-type list?

Then you've mistaken the concerns expressed. The concern was over letting
ideas that were counter to unschooling philosophy pass by unexamined.
Perhaps some can't imagine those ideas being examined without being blunt.
But they can if phrased carefully.

I don't think that the list has felt "kinder and gentler" recently *solely*
because people have been more attentive to how they respond. (Though I think
that's a factor.) I think that there just hasn't been anything posted that
rose above people's comfort level. (Until the past few days of course!)

Some people have a higher comfort level than others. Ren's was at the level
of the concept of being behind. (Whether that was what the poster meant or
not is irrelevant if Ren was certain she understood because if it *was*
true, she would still have asked the question.)

Do you really think -- even banning the "blunt" folk from posting -- that
the newly reformed kinder, gentler folk would have been uniformly kind and
gentle if someone had said she had to spank because she knew her kids would
run wild if she didn't? I don't think so because I think that idea exceeds
the comfort level of most of the posters here. And the more it exceeds it,
the more "not gentle" their response would be.

It's a function of comfort level.

It's *also* a function of the style of people's posts. No one can control
that, though Mary and Cindy can send out reminders and talk to people.

Me:

> Some people *are* just looking for support and "good job" pats on the back
> for how far they're progressing. They want to share without it being held up
> to public scrutiny.

Sarah:

> But that's assuming that is all one finds now at unschooling-dotcom

I made no assumptions. I was describing what *some* people come to
unschooling.com to find. I said in the sentence *right before* the one you
pulled out to quote: "Even this list where parenting and unschooling ideas
are examined isn't for everyone." I said it right there that people here
were questioning.

> Maybe a lot further than if she was blasted away the minute she arrived and
> feeling wounded. Look at the number of people who leave because of that.

And I *do* see people leaving because they felt attacked a problem. I'm sad
every time that happens.

*But* I also suspect it's because unschooling is on the edge of people's
comfort level. For people who aren't there yet, it *does* take
self-examination to get it because society has filled us full of unexamined
"shoulds" and "musts". There isn't anyway to shed those that isn't
uncomfortable. (It doesn't mean it must be painful, but it won't be a
party.)

But a forum where someone can be supported for doing the best they can and
expecting their (nonunschooling) solutions to problems to be received
without comment *can't* be a forum about unschooling. It might be a nice,
gentle, supportive place! But it *wouldn't* be unschooling. People don't
need to be attacked because they suggest Saxon as a good way to do math, but
*if* they expect to be able to suggest it without it being commented on
because "whatever works for your family is best", then they aren't going to
feel comfortable in an *unschooling* forum. They need a "whatever works best
for you family" homeschooling forum! ;-)

> I mean, seriously... this is a big list of over 600 people. LOOK at how many
> post on a regular basis. WHERE are all the other 500 or so???

From what others have said, that isn't unusual. Most lists, even the gentle
lists, have more readers than participants. Maybe it's a school thing
because most people feel more confident in their ability to read than in
their ability to write.

Joyce


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