subjects of substance
gruvystarchild
Interesting how the only people that are taking this to a personal
level in a very mean way are the ones that accuse any debateful types
of meanness!!
Attacking someone's marriage? That's down and dirty imo.
And to attribute abuse in a marriage with personality types that
enjoy deep, thoughtful debate? How do you come up with that? Strong
minded people are usually not the type to tolerate abuse! Sheesh,
that was just rude.
Marriage problems happen to a LOT of people. That doesn't equal abuse.
Now I'm reading that shoving views down a person's throat is the
issue. I believe I questioned the belief that an Unschooling child
could "get behind."
So how was that shoving views down anyone's throat?
Tell me, in this "oh so nice" group, how would one of you point out
the flaw in that line of thinking?
Or do statements like that just get ignored?
Ren
level in a very mean way are the ones that accuse any debateful types
of meanness!!
Attacking someone's marriage? That's down and dirty imo.
And to attribute abuse in a marriage with personality types that
enjoy deep, thoughtful debate? How do you come up with that? Strong
minded people are usually not the type to tolerate abuse! Sheesh,
that was just rude.
Marriage problems happen to a LOT of people. That doesn't equal abuse.
Now I'm reading that shoving views down a person's throat is the
issue. I believe I questioned the belief that an Unschooling child
could "get behind."
So how was that shoving views down anyone's throat?
Tell me, in this "oh so nice" group, how would one of you point out
the flaw in that line of thinking?
Or do statements like that just get ignored?
Ren
Kolleen
>Or do statements like that just get ignored?FYI
>Ren
I think the people involved in that discussion are no longer part of the
group. They chose to leave.
k
Lynda
But isn't that the crux of the whole matter--how each person defines things.
Others defined the argumentative types (I don't think debateful is a word)
as being mean and taking it to a personal level. Obviously, you don't.
Different strokes, etc.
And others certainly don't define in-your-face/stuff-it-down-your throat
styles as deep (I won't touch that with a ten foot pole <g>), thoughtful
debates. Again, you don't agree. And again, different strokes.
Also, you have lumped several posters and various threads all into one lump.
So, unless you were the person who said some people enjoy being whacked up
along side the head verbally, then the post wasn't "all about you."
And this is how I would point out the flaws in your line of thinking, since
you asked. And, no I didn't ignore the post.
Lynda
Others defined the argumentative types (I don't think debateful is a word)
as being mean and taking it to a personal level. Obviously, you don't.
Different strokes, etc.
And others certainly don't define in-your-face/stuff-it-down-your throat
styles as deep (I won't touch that with a ten foot pole <g>), thoughtful
debates. Again, you don't agree. And again, different strokes.
Also, you have lumped several posters and various threads all into one lump.
So, unless you were the person who said some people enjoy being whacked up
along side the head verbally, then the post wasn't "all about you."
And this is how I would point out the flaws in your line of thinking, since
you asked. And, no I didn't ignore the post.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "gruvystarchild" <starsuncloud@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:28 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] subjects of substance
> Interesting how the only people that are taking this to a personal
> level in a very mean way are the ones that accuse any debateful types
> of meanness!!
> Attacking someone's marriage? That's down and dirty imo.
> And to attribute abuse in a marriage with personality types that
> enjoy deep, thoughtful debate? How do you come up with that? Strong
> minded people are usually not the type to tolerate abuse! Sheesh,
> that was just rude.
> Marriage problems happen to a LOT of people. That doesn't equal abuse.
>
> Now I'm reading that shoving views down a person's throat is the
> issue. I believe I questioned the belief that an Unschooling child
> could "get behind."
> So how was that shoving views down anyone's throat?
> Tell me, in this "oh so nice" group, how would one of you point out
> the flaw in that line of thinking?
> Or do statements like that just get ignored?
> Ren
>
>
> 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/
>
>