Luz Shosie and Ned Vare

on 8/10/02 10:18 PM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:

>
> Message: 24
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:18:08 -0400
> From: Fetteroll <fetteroll@...>
> Subject: Re: Ned
>
> on 8/10/02 7:17 PM, Francine Sherwood at tsipi@... wrote:
>
>> I happen to enjoy very much Ned's discussions
>> and don't understand why the list would want to silence him or have him go
>> elsewhere. I believe that what he has to say is VERY relevant.

Ned says, thanks Francine, and:
Most will remember the following rant about not wanting to have any
political view (especially if they weren't hers) expressed here. If that's
you, please skip to the end.
>
> Okay, I think I've figured out how to express what bothers me. (I knew if I
> threw enough words at it I'd figure it out ;-) It isn't Ned's *particular*
> political point of view that I'd like to send elsewhere. It's having a
> *single* political point of view being expressed.
>
> I think it's *very* interesting hearing a viewpoint that's so totally
> different from mine. If this were the debate folder in AOL's old
> homeschooling forum I'd *love* to debate this. :-)
>
> But we don't have a debate folder or any way of shuttling off a very large
> specialized discussion. The list is one great big messy it. And people
> signed up to discuss unschooling. Which means that if one person does want
> to express his political point of view if the rest of us go on discussing
> unschooling, that one person's view becomes the defacto political point of
> view of the list. I'm not accusing Ned of doing that or wanting that. It's
> just how groups work. If no one disagrees, it appears everyone agrees.
>
> I don't think it's helpful to unschoolers for Ned's to be the only political
> point of view expressed nor for it to appear he speaks for everyone. I think
> it's far more valuable for there to be a diverse political point of view.
> Which means that since I strongly disagree with Ned that I, and anyone else
> who values more than one viewpoint being heard, need to point out where we
> disagree and why and discuss it.
>
> Political discussions being the way they are, they can't be handled in a few
> short posts. To offer a diverse -- or even just *one* other! -- political
> viewpoint the list would be taken over -- as it has for the past few days --
> by political discussion. And the people who discuss unschooling would be
> spending their energy in the political discussion. The overall quantity of
> emails would go up but the quality and quantity of unschooling discussion --
> which is what people signed up for -- would go down. (It's not a
> speculation. I've seen it happen numerous times when one discussion
> overwhelms the list. People get shorter and fewer answers to their
> unschooling questions.)
>
> So the choices seem to be: 1) to have one political point of view expressed,
> 2) to have the list filled with political discussion or 3) to have no
> political points of view. (Or at least as close as can be achieved.)
>
> Suggesting Ned take the discussion somewhere else is like asking someone to
> take a very loud and overwhelming specialized discussion to another room so
> that those who came to *this* room to discuss unschooling can do so.
>
> I think Pam suggested NHEN's Legislative list.
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/NHEN-Legislative). There are also loads of
> other lists at Yahoo. And Ned could even start his own. (Or someone could
> start one and invite Ned to join :-)
>
> Joyce

Ned responds:
Joyce, in all your "non-political" postings, your own political views have
become clearly visible. Just because you don't say what they are "out loud"
doesn't mean you don't express them. They are at least as loud and
overwhelming as mine, so why not come out of your presumed closet and be
done with it. It's the right thing to do.