Lynda

Perhaps the person should be silenced in that particular thread. Why should
the person who has asked a "group" a question stop asking their question
because "one" member of the group refuses to be flexible?

Anyone who has ever done public speaking knows that you can do one of two
things, do it your way regardless of the audience and hope that at least
someone in the audience "gets" what you are saying OR you can gage your
approach so that it fits the immediate situation.

Also, I have noticed that some folks "do" gauge their speeches to fit their
audiences, use a very "inviting" personna, "convert" or "encourage" lots of
folks when they are at conferences, etc. but don't use the same skills when
they are on e-mail lists. I've always wondered why.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Subjects of substance WAS: new andinneed
of support


> on 1/27/02 6:11 PM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
>
> > If a sender continues with an in your face, shove it down your throat
style
> > even when the person asking a question has made it clear that isn't a
style
> > that they like or appreciate, then perhaps the sender needs to look a
little
> > closer to home to see why they feel it is necessary for them to treat
all
> > people asking questions to verbal abuse.
>
> But, objectively speaking, why would a receiver continue asking questions
of
> someone they felt wasn't communicating in the way they felt comfortable
> with? Yes, everyone can point to specific instances and say "What about
> this?" But that's losing sight of what the true nature of the problem is.
> The problem *isn't* that someone chooses to communicate in a way he has
> gotten positive feed back on, but that others decide that he shouldn't
> communicate that way because some don't like it.
>
> I sometimes find it helpful to turn a question around and use it on
> something I agree with to see if it fits.
>
> If someone were asking the Dalai Lama questions about Buddhism and didn't
> like his gentle, seek inside yourself answers (or whatever style he'd
use),
> isn't the Dalai Lama entitled to feel that the method he uses to help
people
> on the path to enlightenment best? If he thought some other way were
better,
> then wouldn't he use it? Or, at least, he employs his skills in the way he
> feels he's best at. If a fair number of people wanted a more direct (or
> whatever) style, does he have an obligation to change to meet their needs?
> Should he compromise the method he feels is best in order to meet the
needs
> of more people or compromise meeting more people's needs so he can meet
the
> needs of those who seek the style he feels he's best at?
>
> Maybe that's hard to see. It's hard to get past the idea that someone
> shouldn't be irritating other people. If someone were *only* irritating
> people, then people certainly have a right to speak up. If someone is
> speaking in a way that *some* find irritating and *some* find helpful --
> *not* helpful because they enjoy being irritated but because they find
> something in the style illuminating -- then the problem *isn't* how to
> silence that person so no one gets irritated, but to create an environment
> where that style *and* other styles can co-exist so that those who come
here
> can have a *choice*.
>
> Perhaps all it will take is an email reminder posted to the list that
> different people have different styles of communicating, or some such
> wording.
>
> 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 1/31/02 2:59 AM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:

> Perhaps the person should be silenced in that particular thread.

And if you grant *a segment* of the population the right to silence someone
for reasons you agree with then you grant *a segment* of the population the
right to silence someone for reasons you *disagree* with. What if a vocal
group of fundamentalists decides Harry Potter and Halloween shouldn't be
discussed here since some fundamentalists left because of such discussions?
(Or pick some other subject that might bother some people that you feel
strongly in favor of.)

If everyone agreed (or no one disagreed) that something should be a certain
way, then it should be changed to be that way. But I think the length and
number of people involved in this particular discussion makes it pretty
clear that not everyone does agree.

> Anyone who has ever done public speaking knows that you can do one of two
> things, do it your way regardless of the audience and hope that at least
> someone in the audience "gets" what you are saying OR you can gage your
> approach so that it fits the immediate situation.

How about the option of *knowing* that a segment of the population that
*won't* be reached another way *is* getting it?

I think the 2nd choice is valuable to someone whose goals are to reach as
many people as possible. What if that isn't someone's goal? What if they're
goal is to reach the type of people that are best helped by their method?

Why should there be just one goal for everyone who speaks in public?

But I think a suggestion should be added to the "potential email reminders"
that people should feel free to delete the posts of anyone whose style
annoys them.

Joyce


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