[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 5:27:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ecsamhill@... writes:

> Um... in my case I did eventually figure out how to block him, but
> people replying to him would quote his most incendiary paragraphs

Yep, thats the "fuel to the fire" I spoke of. If everyone ignored him, he
would have no one to response to. So, obviously, folks were still responding
to him.. So, that brings to mind the question..Why weren't the respondents
also banned, since they continued to perpetuate the disruption?

Teresa


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 5:34:41 PM, grlynbl@... writes:

<< Yep, thats the "fuel to the fire" I spoke of. If everyone ignored him, he
would have no one to response to. So, obviously, folks were still responding
to him.. So, that brings to mind the question..Why weren't the respondents
also banned, since they continued to perpetuate the disruption? >>

He's no longer on the list. The fuel AND the fire are being provided by
people arguing about whether it was right for someone to have been taken off
this list MONTHS ago, even though the list owner and moderator have already
come and explained their positions.

This is MASSIVELY unhelpful and not about unschooling.

I had three extra homeschooled kids for 32 hours or so, and they just went
home. It was fun, but now Holly is decompressing. Marty wants to get
online. Kirby's still at work. I'm going to make food.

Sandra

Helen Hegener

At 7:32 PM -0500 1/6/03, grlynbl@... wrote:
>Yep, thats the "fuel to the fire" I spoke of. If everyone ignored him, he
>would have no one to response to. So, obviously, folks were still responding
>to him.. So, that brings to mind the question..Why weren't the respondents
>also banned, since they continued to perpetuate the disruption?

Teresa, I really think you'd have just had to have been there to
understand what happened. This trying to dissect the whole thing
after the fact seems pointless and irrelevant. If you're really
curious, it's all in the archives.

Helen (who's NOT going to comment on this thread any more)

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 7:34:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, grlynbl@...
writes:

> Why weren't the respondents
> also banned, since they continued to perpetuate the disruption?
>
>
Why don't you read the archives so you find out?

*~*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]

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/7/03 5:16:03 AM, HEM-Editor@... writes:

<< So, that brings to mind the question..Why weren't the respondents
>also banned, since they continued to perpetuate the disruption? >>

Do you think the police should pick up accusers or victims when they pick up
perpetrators?

I worked at a Dunkin' Donuts right after I got out of college. Graveyard
shift, in Santa Fe, right next to an ACTUAL old spook graveyard.

When the cops were in there, I became aware that it was not the rapists who
took them away from hot coffee and donuts. It was the victims, reporting the
rapes.

Too often people blame the victim for having "disturbed the peace" because
until the victim squawks "Save me!" nobody was pressing them to do anything,
and they were eating their donuts.

So if people said "Ned please don't," and "Ned, that's off topic," and "Ned
that's irritating," how are THEY guilty of the disruption? They were trying
to end the disruption.

Sandra