Mary Broussard

I just wanted to say that I have really appreciated this discussion the last couple of days. Having the opportunity to re-examine beliefs and how they relate in my own life has been a positive experience. I think everyone is working towards making the list better and clearer and this is a good thing. As zenmomma mary said, this list will be what we create, and I can see that as we continue to process our thoughts, etc. we are doing exactly that. Thank you all for your great contributions.

Mary


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

Helen Hegener

At 6:35 PM -0400 4/8/2002, Mary Broussard wrote:
>I just wanted to say that I have really appreciated this discussion
>the last couple of days. Having the opportunity to re-examine
>beliefs and how they relate in my own life has been a positive
>experience. I think everyone is working towards making the list
>better and clearer and this is a good thing. As zenmomma mary said,
>this list will be what we create, and I can see that as we continue
>to process our thoughts, etc. we are doing exactly that. Thank you
>all for your great contributions.

Well said, Mary. And this might be a good place to add my own
comments on this list...

Some of you are aware that I was dragged kicking and screaming into
moderation on this list. I still kick about it once in a while (just
this morning, not on this list). My thinking relates to the wonderful
definitions we've seen here about control and coercion and trusting...

If we're expecting people to trust their children to learn what they
need to, shouldn't we trust the members of this list to learn to get
along? Isn't that where it all really begins? Shouldn't we, as a
group, "walk the talk?"

Now I understand the dynamics involved as well as anyone (I think
I've literally been onlist the longest <g>) and I know why moderation
was initiated, and in retrospect I think it was probably the right
thing to do at the time. But am I the only one seeing some kind of
paradox here?

(Okay, Mary and Joyce, you can kick me now.)

Helen

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/8/2002 4:03:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
HEM-Editor@... writes:


> Now I understand the dynamics involved as well as anyone (I think
> I've literally been onlist the longest <g>) and I know why moderation
> was initiated, and in retrospect I think it was probably the right
> thing to do at the time. But am I the only one seeing some kind of
> paradox here?

If there is no moderation - people will get pissed off and leave.

If there is moderation - people will get pissed off and leave? <G>

Oh - that's not the paradox you meant, is it?

I don't really see the paradox, Helen. Nobody is forced to be here and there
are no tests <BEG>. Now - if Joyce and Mary get it into their heads to have a
weekly quiz and they start giving us letter grades based on how much of the
previous week's posts we are able to regurgitate on the quiz, then, yeah,
that would be paradoxical. And we'd all get pissed off and leave, too!! <BEG>

HOWEVER - that just got me thinking about quizzes -- they can be very useful,
you know. The teens I know are obsessed with taking online quizzes - what
kind of bird would you be if you were a bird, what kind of muffin, what kind
of flower, what character in Lord of the Rings are you? Etc. Even quizzes
that test your knowledge are fun - that's what trivia games are (fun for some
of us, not for everybody, I know). And quizzes are useful for testing our
learning about something too -- what isn't fun is being forced to "learn"
(using the term very loosely) something just FOR a quiz and then getting a
grade on what you managed to spit out on the quiz and then having your future
decided based on those kinds of grades. I can spell S-T-U-P-I-D AND it wasn't
ever on a spelling test, either -- because when I was a kid it was a "bad
word"! <BEG>

--pam


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

Helen Hegener

At 7:14 PM -0400 4/8/2002, PSoroosh@... wrote:
>If there is no moderation - people will get pissed off and leave.
>
>If there is moderation - people will get pissed off and leave? <G>
>
>Oh - that's not the paradox you meant, is it?

LOL! *Really* good to have you back, Pam!

>I don't really see the paradox, Helen. Nobody is forced to be here and there
>are no tests <BEG>.

I dunno about that... Seems like my patience gets tested a lot on
this list. <g>

>HOWEVER - that just got me thinking about quizzes -- they can be very useful,
>you know. The teens I know are obsessed with taking online quizzes

Ours have *always* been obsessive about quizzes. They love them,
especially trivia quizzes - I think we went through every variation
of Trivial Pursuit made when they were younger! When our oldest son
from Alaska was here a couple of weeks ago the quizzes flew like mad:
many, many movie-related Q&A sessions (what was The Duke's favorite
horse's name?); scads of automotive pop quizzes (what are the little
holes on the sides of Buicks called?); all kinds of testing, testing,
testing each others' stores of knowledge. And yeah - plenty of trivia
questions about the currently favorite LOTR movie (they've had the
original animated version for many years). Jody's the resident expert
on that, having read The Hobbit, The Trilogy, The Silmarillion, etc.
many times now. She even has odd books like The Atlas of Middle
Earth, LOTR Mythology of Power, etc. - drives the boys nuts with her
questions to see what they (don't) know!

Helen

Mary Broussard

Now I understand the dynamics involved as well as anyone (I think
I've literally been onlist the longest <g>) and I know why moderation
was initiated, and in retrospect I think it was probably the right
thing to do at the time. But am I the only one seeing some kind of
paradox here?

(Okay, Mary and Joyce, you can kick me now.)

Helen

Hey Joyce,

Is this woman schizophrenic or what???

Mary
running like mad from Helen ;)



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

Camille Bauer

But am I the only one seeing some kind of
paradox here?>>

Nope :) Actually this reminded me.. I'm a message board with a bunch of women, we have been together for sometime now and our "home" has changed twice, once being at an ACLU site... anyway, we never need a moderator to come and "tone us down"... don't get me wrong, we have had some really heated/great debates but we as a group decided it didn't need to be ugly...

Just thought I would mention it,

CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


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

Camille Bauer

If there is no moderation - people will get pissed off and leave.

If there is moderation - people will get pissed off and leave? <G>

Oh - that's not the paradox you meant, is it?

I don't really see the paradox, Helen. >>

The paradox is that we, as unschoolers, give up controlling our children, yet we need it here (well, control is to harsh a word, but hopefully you get my jist)

CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


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

Tia Leschke

>Nope :) Actually this reminded me.. I'm a message board with a bunch of
>women, we have been together for sometime now and our "home" has changed
>twice, once being at an ACLU site... anyway, we never need a moderator to
>come and "tone us down"... don't get me wrong, we have had some really
>heated/great debates but we as a group decided it didn't need to be ugly...

So the same group of women has been together for some time? That might be
the difference. You've had a chance to get to know each other. It's not
as good as knowing people face-to-face, but it helps to know more or less
how people are likely to react to what you say. Here, people come and
go. We can't really say, "we as a group". It's harder to predict how
people will react, and there are always the lurkers. You don't know what
they think at all until\unless they start to post.
Tia

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

Lynda

Welll, it just seemed/seems contrary to the whole unschooling life
style/mind set--allowing folks to make mistakes and learn from them without
a parent/teacher etc., calling the shots and controlling the behavior.

Lynda
An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a
very narrow field.
-- Niels Bohr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helen Hegener" <HEM-Editor@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Unschooling discussion


> At 6:35 PM -0400 4/8/2002, Mary Broussard wrote:
> >I just wanted to say that I have really appreciated this discussion
> >the last couple of days. Having the opportunity to re-examine
> >beliefs and how they relate in my own life has been a positive
> >experience. I think everyone is working towards making the list
> >better and clearer and this is a good thing. As zenmomma mary said,
> >this list will be what we create, and I can see that as we continue
> >to process our thoughts, etc. we are doing exactly that. Thank you
> >all for your great contributions.
>
> Well said, Mary. And this might be a good place to add my own
> comments on this list...
>
> Some of you are aware that I was dragged kicking and screaming into
> moderation on this list. I still kick about it once in a while (just
> this morning, not on this list). My thinking relates to the wonderful
> definitions we've seen here about control and coercion and trusting...
>
> If we're expecting people to trust their children to learn what they
> need to, shouldn't we trust the members of this list to learn to get
> along? Isn't that where it all really begins? Shouldn't we, as a
> group, "walk the talk?"
>
> Now I understand the dynamics involved as well as anyone (I think
> I've literally been onlist the longest <g>) and I know why moderation
> was initiated, and in retrospect I think it was probably the right
> thing to do at the time. But am I the only one seeing some kind of
> paradox here?
>
> (Okay, Mary and Joyce, you can kick me now.)
>
> Helen
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/8/2002 11:38:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
lurine@... writes:


> Welll, it just seemed/seems contrary to the whole unschooling life
> style/mind set--allowing folks to make mistakes and learn from them without
> a parent/teacher etc., calling the shots and controlling the behavior.

Are you talking about the list moderators here?

As an unschooling parent, I give my kids lots of what I think is useful
feedback (they don't always agree, of course <g>). Sometimes I call the shots
and control the behavior, too, without waiting for the child to learn, all on
her own, from her mistakes. One example that comes to mind is that I told one
child today to stop feeding chocolate chip cookies to the dog and when she
didn't move fast enough and the dog was about to gulp down more cookies, I
reached out and took the plate and put it out of the dog's reach. Now, I
didn't do it nastily and I didn't yell and I didn't punish her for feeding
the dog in the first place and I did suggest to her that she could find some
alternative treat to feed the dog. But, although there are undoubtedly
people here who are also followers of the noncoercive parenting philosophy,
most unschoolers are probably going to (respectfully, of course) call the
shots and control behavior sometimes. We just aren't going to coerce kids
into learning according to a school schedule in a schoolish way. Past that -
when we get into parenting issues - I'd imagine that unschoolers tend to be
on the less coercive end of the spectrum - but not to the point that they
could say they are truly noncoercive parents (as in the Taking Children
Seriously/Sarah Lawrence meaning).

--pam


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

Camille Bauer

So the same group of women has been together for some time? That might be
the difference. You've had a chance to get to know each other. It's not
as good as knowing people face-to-face, but it helps to know more or less
how people are likely to react to what you say. Here, people come and
go. We can't really say, "we as a group". >>

The majority of us yes, but new people join all the time :) People come & go on the message board as well...

I think we can say "as a group" here, there are over 600 people on this list, that to me constitues a group :) I think that heated discussions need to be just that, heated. Heated does not equal a personal attack. If one the webpage, it says 'No personal attacks will be permitted', the new person would then know right off that if it happens, the attacker could be removed/put on moderation/etc.

Just throwing out some thoughts,
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


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

Tia Leschke

>
>I think we can say "as a group" here, there are over 600 people on this
>list, that to me constitues a group :) I think that heated discussions
>need to be just that, heated. Heated does not equal a personal attack. If
>one the webpage, it says 'No personal attacks will be permitted', the new
>person would then know right off that if it happens, the attacker could be
>removed/put on moderation/etc.

Sounds pretty close to what we have here. My understanding of the "rules"
is that they are guidelines, that the moderators really don't want to be in
control or bump anyone off unless they have to. They're meant to keep
things from getting ugly, not heated. Heated I like. Ugly I don't. <g>
Tia

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

Lynda

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <PSoroosh@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Unschooling discussion


> In a message dated 4/8/2002 11:38:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> lurine@... writes:
>
>
> > Welll, it just seemed/seems contrary to the whole unschooling life
> > style/mind set--allowing folks to make mistakes and learn from them
without
> > a parent/teacher etc., calling the shots and controlling the behavior.
>
> Are you talking about the list moderators here?
>
> As an unschooling parent, I give my kids lots of what I think is useful
> feedback (they don't always agree, of course <g>). Sometimes I call the
shots
> and control the behavior, too, without waiting for the child to learn, all
on
> her own, from her mistakes. One example that comes to mind is that I told
one
> child today to stop feeding chocolate chip cookies to the dog and when she
> didn't move fast enough and the dog was about to gulp down more cookies, I
> reached out and took the plate and put it out of the dog's reach. Now, I
> didn't do it nastily and I didn't yell and I didn't punish her for feeding
> the dog in the first place and I did suggest to her that she could find
some
> alternative treat to feed the dog. But, although there are undoubtedly
> people here who are also followers of the noncoercive parenting
philosophy,
> most unschoolers are probably going to (respectfully, of course) call the
> shots and control behavior sometimes. We just aren't going to coerce kids
> into learning according to a school schedule in a schoolish way. Past
that -
> when we get into parenting issues - I'd imagine that unschoolers tend to
be
> on the less coercive end of the spectrum - but not to the point that they
> could say they are truly noncoercive parents (as in the Taking Children
> Seriously/Sarah Lawrence meaning).
>
> --pam
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[email protected]

What do we disagree about? Are you saying that no unschooling parents ever
call any shots in their families or control any of their kids' behaviors?

Are you saying, then, that it is not unschooling if I don't let my kid learn
by their own mistake that it isn't safe to feed chocolate to the dog?

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I'm curious to know what I'm agreeing
to disagree with <BEG>.

--pamS

<<> > Welll, it just seemed/seems contrary to the whole unschooling life
> > style/mind set--allowing folks to make mistakes and learn from them
without
> > a parent/teacher etc., calling the shots and controlling the behavior.
>
> Are you talking about the list moderators here?
>
> As an unschooling parent, I give my kids lots of what I think is useful
> feedback (they don't always agree, of course <g>). Sometimes I call the
shots
> and control the behavior, too, without waiting for the child to learn, all
on
> her own, from her mistakes. One example that comes to mind is that I told
one
> child today to stop feeding chocolate chip cookies to the dog and when she
> didn't move fast enough and the dog was about to gulp down more cookies, I
> reached out and took the plate and put it out of the dog's reach. Now, I
> didn't do it nastily and I didn't yell and I didn't punish her for feeding
> the dog in the first place and I did suggest to her that she could find
some
> alternative treat to feed the dog. But, although there are undoubtedly
> people here who are also followers of the noncoercive parenting
philosophy,
> most unschoolers are probably going to (respectfully, of course) call the
> shots and control behavior sometimes. We just aren't going to coerce kids
> into learning according to a school schedule in a schoolish way. Past
that -
> when we get into parenting issues - I'd imagine that unschoolers tend to
be
> on the less coercive end of the spectrum - but not to the point that they
> could say they are truly noncoercive parents (as in the Taking Children
> Seriously/Sarah Lawrence meaning).

Helen Hegener

At 5:16 PM -0400 4/9/2002, PSoroosh@... wrote:
>I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I'm curious to know what I'm agreeing
>to disagree with <BEG>.

Well I'm just glad we're being so goshdarned *agreeable* for a change! <ggg>

Say, Pam - or Lynda - is it really bad to feed a dog chocolate? We
have three dogs and the kids and the grandkids are *always* sharing
their goodies with them. I think one dog scored *THREE* chocolate
bunnies on Easter Sunday... Scarfed 'em right out of the baskets when
the kids weren't looking...

Helen

Lyonness

I most deffinatly control certian behaviors! An all out brawl where
injuries are going to happen, isn't OK and I'm going to stop it. Being
rude to others also isn't a behavior that I tolerate.

Bec,
Camano Island Homeschoolers,
Washington Unschoolers,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Washingtonunschoolers/

----- Original Message -----
From: PSoroosh@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Unschooling discussion


What do we disagree about? Are you saying that no unschooling parents ever
call any shots in their families or control any of their kids' behaviors?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.342 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 3/14/02


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

Fetteroll

on 4/9/02 5:23 PM, Helen Hegener at HEM-Editor@... wrote:

> Say, Pam - or Lynda - is it really bad to feed a dog chocolate? We
> have three dogs and the kids and the grandkids are *always* sharing
> their goodies with them. I think one dog scored *THREE* chocolate
> bunnies on Easter Sunday... Scarfed 'em right out of the baskets when
> the kids weren't looking...

I just got done watching Emergency Vets with Kathryn and the answer is yes.

I forget what the substance is but it is highly poisonous. Apparently milk
chocolate has some. Dark chocolate has more. And baking chocolate can be a
killer. The vet said though he'd seen lots of chocolate eaten by dogs, the
only death had been associated with baking chocolate.

Joyce

Tia Leschke

>
>
>I forget what the substance is but it is highly poisonous. Apparently milk
>chocolate has some. Dark chocolate has more. And baking chocolate can be a
>killer. The vet said though he'd seen lots of chocolate eaten by dogs, the
>only death had been associated with baking chocolate.

Friends of mine have one of those yappy little poodle type dogs. I forget
what it's called. Their dog got into a box of Christmas chocolates and
spent several precarious days at the vet. The smaller the dog, the more
dangerous it is.
Tia

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

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/9/02 3:29:09 PM, Lyonness@... writes:

<< I most deffinatly control certian behaviors! An all out brawl where
injuries are going to happen, isn't OK and I'm going to stop it. Being
rude to others also isn't a behavior that I tolerate. >>

I advise my kids when they're behaving in ways that will be harmful.
They don't want to be harmful, and the reminder causes them to stop.

Is that "control"?

If they said "No, I WANT to keep on being rude," I might ask them to come
into another room to talk to me, effectively giving the victim a moment of
peace while I negotiated.

It's never happened that they weren't willing to consider other actions.

I don't think I control them, puppet-like.

When they were toddlers, I might pick them up and carry them into the other
room to talk about the situation. That gave them time to calm down, or to
express frustration. I might have caused them to be nicer by my words and
persuasion and encouragement to calm down and try again, but I didn't "make"
them.

Possibly it's a matter of terminology.

Sandra

[email protected]

I've had dogs swipe chocolate all my life and eat chicken bones and all my
dogs have died of old age, except one was hit by a car.

Sandra

Lyonness

<<<<It's never happened that they weren't willing to consider other
actions.>>>

I think it is great your kids are so easy to get along with, but my oldest
isn't that way at all, he's got a very dominating personallity.
<<<I don't think I control them, puppet-like.>>>

When you take your child to the other room, that is taking control of the
situation. Also keep in mind all kids are different, some are much harder
headed then others.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.342 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 3/14/02


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/9/2002 8:37:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:


> I've had dogs swipe chocolate all my life and eat chicken bones and all my
> dogs have died of old age, except one was hit by a car.
>
> Sandra
>

'Cuz he ate chocolate?

Kate Davis
Law Office of Kathleen M.P. Davis, Chartered
1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 950
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(v) 561.656.4443
(f) 561.656.4344


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

[email protected]

<<
I think it is great your kids are so easy to get along with, but my oldest
isn't that way at all, he's got a very dominating personallity. >>

Mine would have too if I hadn't discussed interpersonal realities with them
their whole lives.

Controlling individual situations (even if parents can "control") isn't as
useful longterm as coming to understandings where they change their way of
seeing or being.

Sandra

Lyonness

I don't think your taking into account different personalities.

Bec,
Camano Island Homeschoolers,
Washington Unschoolers,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Washingtonunschoolers/

----- Original Message -----
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Unschooling discussion


Mine would have too if I hadn't discussed interpersonal realities with
them
their whole lives.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.342 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 3/14/02


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

[email protected]

<< > I've had dogs swipe chocolate all my life and eat chicken bones and all
my
> dogs have died of old age, except one was hit by a car.
>
> Sandra
>

<<'Cuz he ate chocolate? >>

No.
Those who died of old age didn't die of old age because they ate chocolate,
either.

[Was that really written by a lawyer!? ;-) ]

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/9/2002 9:42:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:


> << > I've had dogs swipe chocolate all my life and eat chicken bones and all
>
> my
> > dogs have died of old age, except one was hit by a car.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
>
> <<'Cuz he ate chocolate? >>
>
> No.
> Those who died of old age didn't die of old age because they ate chocolate,
>
> either.
>
> [Was that really written by a lawyer!? ;-) ]
>
> Sandra
>

Yeah.

Sadly, I'm cursed with a sense of humour that I can't resist.

Most judges don't laugh.

Kate Davis
Law Office of Kathleen M.P. Davis, Chartered
1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 950
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(v) 561.656.4443
(f) 561.656.4344


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

Helen Hegener

At 9:41 PM -0400 4/9/2002, SandraDodd@... wrote:
>[Was that really written by a lawyer!? ;-) ]

My niece in Alaska sent these oldies but goodies to me the other day
(posted with apologies to Kate):

These are from a book called Disorder in the Court, and are
things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and
now published by court reporters - who had the torment of staying
calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

Q: Are you sexually active?
A: No, I just lie there.

Q: What is your date of birth?
A: July fifteenth.
Q: What year?
A: Every year.

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
A: Yes.
Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
A: I forget.
Q: You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've
forgotten?

Q: How old is your son, the one living with you?
A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
Q: How long has he lived with you?
A: Forty-five years.

Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he
woke up that morning?
A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
Q: And why did that upset you?
A: My name is Susan.

Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in
voodoo or the occult?
A: We both do.
Q: Voodoo?
A: We do.
Q: You do?
A: Yes, voodoo.

Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his
sleep, he
doesn't know about it until the next morning?

Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?

Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?

Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were you doing at that time?

Q: She had three children, right?
A: Yes.
Q: How many were boys?
A: None.
Q: Were there any girls?

Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
A: By death.
Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

Q: Can you describe the individual?
A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Q: Was this a male or a female?

Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a
deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

Q: All your responses must be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
A: Oral.

Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr.. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an
autopsy.

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for
a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you
began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and
practising law somewhere.

[end of file]

Bonni Sollars

"...Mine would have too if I hadn't discussed interpersonal realities
with them
their whole lives.
Controlling individual situations (even if parents can "control") isn't
as
useful longterm as coming to understandings where they change their way
of
seeing or being."

I have been learning this one. My children and I have talked about the
fact that though they are not responsible for their parent's happiness,
since we all live together we should all find ways to live at peace with
one another.
My 14y.o. son today asked my husband what he would like for us as a
family to do to help him now that he has a new job. He said dinner,
breakfast, sack lunch sometimes, housecleaning done before 2 pm. then
again around dinner time.
My son told me this, then said, "I learned to ask questions and find
answers by unschooling." In the past, my children would see my husband
complaining over things not done and just think he was an old grump. Now
they are seeking to understand his feelings and to live cooperatively
with him. Aaahhh, what a pleasant change. That makes so much more sense
than trying to coerce them into doing chores. And it was initiated by
the child, not the adult.
Bonni

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

Camille Bauer

Say, Pam - or Lynda - is it really bad to feed a dog chocolate?>>

I'm not either, but they <vets> say it is like poison to them

CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


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

Lynda

Depends on the dog and the chocolate. It can be deadly, quickly for little
dogs. The equivelancy ratios, if I remember correctly is 1 oz baking
chocolate, 3 oz. semisweet and 10 oz milk chocolate. Weights, and I'm doing
this from memory, works out to 1 oz milk chocolate per pound of dogs weight,
3/10 oz semisweet/lb. dog weight and 1/10 oz baking chocolate/lb. dog weight
are the toxic doses.

Chocolate has theobromine in it. Dogs acquire a taste for it once they have
it and they don't have as acute a sense of taste, so they can "smell" the
chocolate but they can't "taste" the difference between the bitter and sweet
chocolates. They have been known to find the family horde of baking
chocolate and gorge on it.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helen Hegener" <HEM-Editor@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Dogs


> At 5:16 PM -0400 4/9/2002, PSoroosh@... wrote:
> >I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I'm curious to know what I'm
agreeing
> >to disagree with <BEG>.
>
> Well I'm just glad we're being so goshdarned *agreeable* for a change!
<ggg>
>
> Say, Pam - or Lynda - is it really bad to feed a dog chocolate? We
> have three dogs and the kids and the grandkids are *always* sharing
> their goodies with them. I think one dog scored *THREE* chocolate
> bunnies on Easter Sunday... Scarfed 'em right out of the baskets when
> the kids weren't looking...
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>