[email protected]

Dear Joyce,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you misunderstand me though.
As I said in my post, I wasn't particularly interested in much of Ned's
political rhetoric, I just believe that censorship of different viewpoints is
hypocritical behavior from a forum that chooses to represent all unschoolers
by virtue of the name you chose to represent this forum. By choosing a name
such as unschooling-dotcom you are choosing to represent all discussion that
relates to unschooling in even the most remote or annoying sense. As
evidenced by the fact that almost anything goes here---I've seen discussions
about baby care, personal family problems, neighbor issues, notes about
vacations, and the ever present fundamentalist Christian rhetoric----the list
is endless. I've seen all kinds of things here that I have a hard time
relating to unschooling, I may delete hundreds of posts that I find not
relevant, but I would never presume to suggest banishing someone simply
because their agenda does not fit my own definition of something as all
encompassing as the concept of unschooling. Also, if someone's posts generate
tons of responses, that means that the posts are making people think! If I
owned a list, my dearest wish would be to get people thinking. Often, when we
have been in a very complacent rut, we may need a very uncomfortable nudge to
jolt us into moving forward and growing as individuals.
I think that you should seriously reconsider the move you made by
banishing any individuals based on differences of opinion. If you do not want
to change your policy, then perhaps instead of steering people to more
open-minded sites, you might want to change the name of this forum to
something that reflects a much narrower vision, and leave the unschooling
name open to another list owner who won't allow a few strong-minded
individuals to call the shots.

Thankyou,
Foxglove Studio


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

[email protected]

I don't even know this Ned person or what he had to say. But, I do agree
with Foxglove Studio's post. They echo a lot of things that I feel are
"unjust" on this group. I am just exercising my right to my opinion, and
if others don't agree, then THEY need to take the responsibilty to ignore me.


Teresa


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 9:48:16 AM, FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

<<Dear Joyce,>>

If you meant to write to Joyce privately, her address is at the bottom of
every e-mail.

<< I may delete hundreds of posts that I find not
relevant, but I would never presume to suggest banishing someone simply
because their agenda does not fit my own definition of something as all
encompassing as the concept of unschooling. >>

You're not the moderator, though.

Yahoogroups will let anyone start a group. If you think this one is badly
run, start your own and show people how to do it!!

Good luck. It's not as easy as you think it is.

<<Often, when we
have been in a very complacent rut, we may need a very uncomfortable nudge to
jolt us into moving forward and growing as individuals.>>

The person you're defending has lists you've been directed to.
The person you're defending never got off criticizing anyone who thought
phonics was not always an unnecessary requirement or skill, and ragged on
schools and teachers repeatedly even after being asked directly by the list
owner and moderator to stop doing it. Disruption isn't contribution.

<<If you do not want
to change your policy, then perhaps instead of steering people to more
open-minded sites, you might want to change the name of this forum to
something that reflects a much narrower vision,>>

This list is a function of www.unschooling.com, which is owned and operated
by Home Education Magazine. The name seems appropriate, given that.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 10:34:04 AM, grlynbl@... writes:

<< I don't even know this Ned person or what he had to say. But, I do agree
with Foxglove Studio's post. They echo a lot of things that I feel are
"unjust" on this group. I am just exercising my right to my opinion, and
if others don't agree, then THEY need to take the responsibilty to ignore me.
>>

Do you let just anyone come into your house?
If a homeless guy or a salesman or a missionary comes to your door do you let
them in and let them stay as long as they want to?

How can someone say "censorship and unschooling cannot exist together" and
not remember that having a relative or neighbor tell their kids "If you don't
go to school you will never learn to read and never get a job" is harmful to
their process and their psyches? Do you let your relatives say just ANYTHING
to your children?

This list isn't a federally funded program open to every human.
There aren't even any federally funded programs open to every human, come to
think of it.

Those who assert that no one has the power to limit their expressions are
usually those who know their expressions are likely to be irritating to a lot
of people.

<<I am just exercising my right to my opinion, and
if others don't agree, then THEY need to take the responsibilty to ignore me.
>>

You absolutely have the right to your opinion, but you need to own the forum
in which you're expressing it if you don't want others to have opinions about
it. You can make a website, make your own discussion list, publish a
newspaper or magazine, get a cable-access TV show, go on the radio... but you
cannot force any newsaper, magazine, TV or radio show to include your views
if and when they decide they don't want to anymore.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean each person owns every piece of media. It
means they have the right to create a medium.

And if you draw an audience, great! And if you don't, great!

And if you do create a website, list, magazine, newspaper, public debate
society, or whatever you do NOT have to let just any salesman, missionary or
homeless guy come into your media home and stay there against your will.

Sandra

Helen Hegener

>At 11:44 AM -0500 1/6/03, FoxgloveStudio@... wrote:
> I think that you should seriously reconsider the move you made by
>banishing any individuals based on differences of opinion. If you do not want
>to change your policy, then perhaps instead of steering people to more
>open-minded sites, you might want to change the name of this forum to
>something that reflects a much narrower vision, and leave the unschooling
>name open to another list owner who won't allow a few strong-minded
>individuals to call the shots.

I appreciate your interest in this matter, but have you read the
archives enough to truly understand what happened and why the
decision was made? Your insistence that it was simply a difference of
opinion indicates to me that you have not. The issues ran much
deeper, were thoroughly discussed with everyone at the time, many
potential solutions were offered, and the strong-minded individual
who eventually called the shot was the list owner: me.

Helen

Helen Hegener

At 1:51 PM -0500 1/6/03, Fetteroll wrote:
>I do understand what you're saying. It's a good point. And I'm sure Helen
>still isn't totally comfortable with the decision.

You're right, it has always bugged me, because I still consider Ned a
fine writer and wish this list had the benefit of his experiences and
his savvy perspective. He's on several of our other lists,
contributing regularly and adding greatly to the conversations. But
for some reason he and this list just didn't get along very well.

>Helen's take may be different than that.

Nope. As usual, Joyce explained it all much more patiently and
thoroughly than I did.

Helen

Fetteroll

on 1/6/03 11:44 AM, FoxgloveStudio@... at FoxgloveStudio@... wrote:

> I just believe that censorship of different viewpoints is
> hypocritical behavior from a forum that chooses to represent all unschoolers
> by virtue of the name you chose to represent this forum. By choosing a name
> such as unschooling-dotcom you are choosing to represent all discussion that
> relates to unschooling in even the most remote or annoying sense.

I do understand what you're saying. It's a good point. And I'm sure Helen
still isn't totally comfortable with the decision.

In theory everyone who has anything to say about their definition of
unschooling should be welcome here. In actual practice, too many posts makes
the list unusable. And I mean that literally. The month Ned was here, there
were 4086 posts. That's over 130 posts a day assuming they were all evenly
distributed. Even if I drop the months that were below 1000, the average for
this list is just over 2000 a month. And at that level it's considered a
very busy list.

So far the criteria for making the ban decision isn't based on what ideas
someone has but on whether the list can continue to be what people signed on
for. Yes, of course, the list isn't going to cease functioning because
someone agrees with everyone! It's going to be because of incompatible
ideas. Incompatible ideas are great fodder for debate! Debate is a *good*
thing. It creates an atmosphere for people to work hard at making their
ideas crystal clear so others can understand. But there is good productive
debate and there is disruptive debate.

So where does the line get drawn? Is the purpose of this list a forum for
free debate or a forum to gain ideas from? Hopefully both! But if the
freedom to speak makes the list unusable to gain ideas from, what purpose is
the list serving?

There was some great discussion while Ned was here. His ideas instigated a
phonics debate, something that many people may not have been involved in
before. But the quality of discussion wasn't matching the volume of mail it
was generating. It was just spinning its wheels covering the same territory
over and over with increasing stridency.

> Also, if someone's posts generate
> tons of responses, that means that the posts are making people think! If I
> owned a list, my dearest wish would be to get people thinking. Often, when we
> have been in a very complacent rut, we may need a very uncomfortable nudge to
> jolt us into moving forward and growing as individuals.

Speaking specifically about that incident, and why I felt it was more
disruptive than thought filled, I've been in lots of noisy frustrating
debates where people are clearly not understanding each other. To me that
wasn't the case here. The quality was different. Ned appeared to neither
respond to the opposing ideas nor to the objections to his ideas. He
attacked people personally and basically just repeated what he'd said before
as though others just weren't listening to him. The thinking it prompted at
the beginning was great. But it devolved into repeating those thoughts over
and over and over and was noise filling up people's mail boxes.

Helen's take may be different than that. It's really a judgement call based
on whether what's being gained is worth what's being lost.

> I think that you should seriously reconsider the move you made by
> banishing any individuals based on differences of opinion.

Did I make the position any clearer? Obviously difference of opinion is
going to be a common criterion among those banned from any list. (Well,
except those banned because they were disruptive just to be disruptive.) But
the basis for banning isn't difference of opinion but disruption that isn't
returning more than it's disrupting.

> If you do not want
> to change your policy, then perhaps instead of steering people to more
> open-minded sites, you might want to change the name of this forum to
> something that reflects a much narrower vision, and leave the unschooling
> name open to another list owner who won't allow a few strong-minded
> individuals to call the shots.

It's Helen's list and a part of the Unschooling.com website.

How would you define the vision of unschooling here?

How do you think a more open minded site would define unschooling?

To me, the one unshakable point, is trusting children. From what I see, all
the unschooling and parenting debates turn on that point. The debates about
learning seem to be based on a lack of understanding about natural learning.

Is that the point where you feel this forum is too narrow? (I'd really like
to avoid talking about specific people and avoid how the ideas appear to
stay narrow. Just talk about the ideas that could be expressed and what the
definition of unschooling would look like if those ideas were expressed. How
would the idea of unschooling be different?)

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 1/6/03 12:31 PM, grlynbl@... at grlynbl@... wrote:

> I don't even know this Ned person or what he had to say.

And to make any meaningful judgements on a particular incident it's
imperative that someone have been there and been trying to use the list.

Other people's perception of that period will be entirely different than
Foxglove's.

From my point of view as moderator whose task it is to keep the list useful
for unschooling discussion, it had ceased to be useful.

> They echo a lot of things that I feel are
> "unjust" on this group.

Making blanket statements doesn't resolve anything. All it is is picking at
the wound, making sure it stays open.

> I am just exercising my right to my opinion, and
> if others don't agree, then THEY need to take the responsibilty to ignore me.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. But to be useful opinions need to be
discussable.

Like offering advice to help someone deal with a child's temper tantrums, we
need to discuss the whys behind the behavior not the whats.

We can try to discuss individual incidents as they come up but I've never
seen it do more than fill the list with anger and hurt feelings.

Ultimately it comes down to some people not being able to understand other
people's style and that has, as much as people have tried for the 8 years
I've been around unschooling message boards and lists, been unresolvable.
It's best to just ignore the people you don't "get".

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 12:36:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> The person you're defending has lists you've been directed to.
> The person you're defending never got off criticizing anyone who thought
> phonics was not always an unnecessary requirement or skill, and ragged on
> schools and teachers repeatedly even after being asked directly by the list
>
> owner and moderator to stop doing it. Disruption isn't contribution.
>
>

Once again, I was not defending Ned or anyone in particular. I was defending
the right of people to express unpopular opinions, and I was defending other
people's right to read or not read posts that do or do not interest them.


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 12:43:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> How can someone say "censorship and unschooling cannot exist together" and
> not remember that having a relative or neighbor tell their kids "If you
> don't
> go to school you will never learn to read and never get a job" is harmful
> to
> their process and their psyches? Do you let your relatives say just
> ANYTHING
> to your children?
>
>

Ahh! But I believe the readers are primarily ADULTS and very precocious
children, who don't need You Sandra to close doors for them!


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 5:47:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

> Ahh! But I believe the readers are primarily ADULTS and very precocious
> children, who don't need You Sandra to close doors for them!
>
>

I was thinking the same thing in regards to Sandras response.. I was
thinking.. But, this is an email list, not my HOME.. and the folks here are
adults who subscribed by thier own choice, not children.

Teresa


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 1:51:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fetteroll@... writes:

> How would you define the vision of unschooling here?
>
> How do you think a more open minded site would define unschooling?
>
> To me, the one unshakable point, is trusting children. From what I see, all
> the unschooling and parenting debates turn on that point. The debates about
> learning seem to be based on a lack of understanding about natural
> learning.
>
> Is that the point where you feel this forum is too narrow? (I'd really like
> to avoid talking about specific people and avoid how the ideas appear to
> stay narrow. Just talk about the ideas that could be expressed and what the
> definition of unschooling would look like if those ideas were expressed.
> How
> would the idea of unschooling be different?)
>
>

To me the concept of unschooling means the opposite of traditional schooling.
In traditional schooling we are fed a diet of information chosen by someone
else. That someone else might be wonderful or horrible, it's still someone
else deciding what we'll learn---censorship in a nutshell. If unschooling is
the opposite of traditional schooling, then we and our children get to decide
what, when, and how we'll learn. We must censor ourselves! When individuals
on the list start deciding what we can read, then they are putting themselves
in the position of teacher/censor. This makes no sense on a site named
unschooling-dotcom. I have often seen the idea of trusting children as
integral to the idea of unschooling, but it seems that you trust the children
and not the adults.


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 3:47:08 PM, FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

<< Ahh! But I believe the readers are primarily ADULTS and very precocious
children, who don't need You Sandra to close doors for them! >>

When new unschoolers or people who are not even unschoolers come and
repeatedly dispute common principles of unschooling, THAT will close doors
for new unschoolers. It will give them the message that staying in their
comfort zone is just as good as trying new things. It will tell them (as
several have done here and on the HEM unschooling list) that the idea of
"teaching" cannot POSSIBLY hurt them.

If someone went to La Leche League meetings and kept saying formula was no
problem and letting babies cry was no problem, that would not help any
mother, any baby, nor would it help the person who had oddly made a hobby of
disrupting the purpose for which most people attend La Leche League meetings.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 4:10:39 PM, FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

<< If unschooling is
the opposite of traditional schooling, then we and our children get to decide
what, when, and how we'll learn. >>

Good point! And this list is not the "school" in which all that learning
takes place.

You can decide what, when and how you will learn from everything in the whole
wide world, but it won't include telling all those libraries, stores,
classes, riding stables, and video stores what they should stock and what
their policies will be.

If this list is one of the thousands of sources you use, accept it for what
it is.

Sandra

Helen Hegener

At 5:42 PM -0500 1/6/03, FoxgloveStudio@... wrote:
>Once again, I was not defending Ned or anyone in particular. I was defending
>the right of people to express unpopular opinions, and I was defending other
>people's right to read or not read posts that do or do not interest them.

If you spent much time at all on this list I think you'll find that
right is alive and well on this list. What happened with Ned was
something altogether different.

Helen

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 12:33:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, grlynbl@...
writes:

> I don't even know this Ned person or what he had to say. But, I do agree
> with Foxglove Studio's post.

How could you possibly agree or disagree when you have no idea of WHAT
happened, what Ned said or didn't say?
*~*Elissa Jill*~*
unschooling Momma to 3 beautiful brilliant people
Loving partner for life to Joey
terrible guitarist, fair singer and happy woman.


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