[email protected]

In a message dated 1/6/03 10:06:46 PM, superdiva@... writes:

<< I don't view banning as censorhip -- though I guess one could argue that
it is in the strictist sense. >>

But censorship involves keeping a person from having a voice. It is NOT
censorship for the local paper to choose which letters to the editor it
publishes. It would be censorship for the government to tell the paper it
couldn't publish anything.

Ned can say what he wants in his own forum. This isn't Ned's forum.

"Shut up in my house" isn't censorship, it's responsible home ownership
sometimes, if the person is saying things you reall, TRULY do not want said
in your house and you haven't gotten him to shush otherwise.

I have some yahoo groups on different subjects. I get to run them my way.
One's never had anyone else put off, but it's about mentors and students in
the SCA (and is inactive lately anyway). One is the New Mexico homeschooling
list. Nobody's ever been put off. The other is an unschooling discussion
that has people thrown off all the time for trying to sell us stuff. But I
have lovely assistants who kick them off for spamming the list.

That's not censorship. They have the right to try to sell things, but not on
my list.

Ned was vaguely trying to sell something. Maybe he's going to run for office
again. Maybe he's going to publish a book. I have no idea. But it was like
a sales pitch or a campaign, and he was hooked on phonics in a bad way.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/7/03 12:25:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> Ned was vaguely trying to sell something. Maybe he's going to run for
> office
> again. Maybe he's going to publish a book. I have no idea. But it was
> like
> a sales pitch or a campaign, and he was hooked on phonics in a bad way.
>
>

"Vaguely ...maybe...maybe...no idea...was like...was hooked on phonics...."
These sound like such terribly offensive things for a person to have done,
I'm SURE you had no personal animosity or unspoken reason to start a campaign
to get him forcibly removed. And, I'm SURE that everyone else will speak
honestly and from the heart, and never fear the same treatment."


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/7/03 6:25:38 PM, FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

<< I'm SURE you had no personal animosity or unspoken reason to start a
campaign
to get him forcibly removed >>

I didn't start a campaign. There were lots of people wanting him gone. I
didn't do whatever you think was done.

What is YOUR personal animosity? Try to get over it.

And why bring it up so late and so long after it happened?

Sandra

Tia Leschke

> "Vaguely ...maybe...maybe...no idea...was like...was hooked on
phonics...."
> These sound like such terribly offensive things for a person to have done,
> I'm SURE you had no personal animosity or unspoken reason to start a
campaign
> to get him forcibly removed. And, I'm SURE that everyone else will speak
> honestly and from the heart, and never fear the same treatment."

Sherry, are you here to learn about unschooling, or are you here to "save"
us from the "nasty censors"?
Tia

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/7/03 9:18:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, leschke@...
writes:

> Sherry, are you here to learn about unschooling, or are you here to "save"
> us from the "nasty censors"?
>

I believe those two things to be one and the same...

Sherry


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/7/03 8:46:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> I didn't start a campaign. There were lots of people wanting him gone. I
> didn't do whatever you think was done.
>
> What is YOUR personal animosity? Try to get over it.
>
> And why bring it up so late and so long after it happened?
>
>

It's never stopped bothering me. Just because time passes after a bad act,
doesn't mean that it's still not bad, and perhaps should be revisited and
reexamined.


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 8:10:50 AM, FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

<< > Sherry, are you here to learn about unschooling, or are you here to
"save"
> us from the "nasty censors"?
>

<<I believe those two things to be one and the same... >>

I bet just about everyone her is on at least two homeschooling or unschooling
mailing lists, some are on five or ten. All have access to
www.unschooling.com, HEM's website, and the entire internet.

So who's your targed "savee"?

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 8:13:52 AM, FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

<< It's never stopped bothering me. Just because time passes after a bad act,
doesn't mean that it's still not bad, and perhaps should be revisited and
reexamined. >>

The people whose repsponsibility it was felt it was a beneficial act at the
time.
They've said so just this week.

You could start another list and show people how to leave it open to all
comers no matter what.
But you can neither change the past nor the practical realities of other
people's lists.

You can screw up other people's lists by harping on some old thing. Is that
your goal?

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 10:10:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

> I believe those two things to be one and the same...
>
> Sherry
>
>
>

How?
*~*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]

Tia Leschke

>
> It's never stopped bothering me. Just because time passes after a bad act,
> doesn't mean that it's still not bad, and perhaps should be revisited and
> reexamined.

Does that mean you're going to keep bringing it up every few months until we
agree with you?
Tia

Tia Leschke

> > Sherry, are you here to learn about unschooling, or are you here to
"save"
> > us from the "nasty censors"?
> >
>
> I believe those two things to be one and the same...

Thank you for sharing. It seems that most of us disagree with you.
Tia

Fetteroll

on 1/8/03 12:09 PM, Earthmomma67@... at Earthmomma67@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/8/03 10:10:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> FoxgloveStudio@... writes:
>
>> I believe those two things to be one and the same...
>>
>> Sherry
>
> How?

I think it's a point worth being aware of. Undoubtedly Christian debate can
feel like real open debate but it's constrained by the Christian viewpoint.

If someone brings in ideas from a secular viewpoint that are incompatible
with the Christian viewpoint, are the ideas wrong? Or is the Christian list
wrong? Is it wrong to constrain a vision to what you believe is right?

Kind of a scary thought.

The unschooling debate here is constrained by the ideal of treating children
as fellow human beings due the respect that adult humans get. It's what
ideas are judged and weighed against.

Is that ideal necessary for unschooling? Shouldn't someone question whether
that ideal is necessary for unschooling? And if it isn't, shouldn't
unschooling ideas that don't encompass that particular ideal be allowed to
stand side by side with those that do?

If someone's idea of unschooling includes coercive parenting, are they
unschooling wrong?

If someone comes in here with incompatible ideas and they "get shouted down"
is it because their ideas were full of holes or because a few posters with
narrow views are more skilled at debate?

If someone says something doesn't work, is it because the theory doesn't
work in all cases or because someone wasn't doing it right? Does someone
need to be able to articulate unschooling well in order to understand it?

If something truly doesn't work, would anyone be brave enough to come here
and say so?

Lots and lots of debate has at it's foundation goals that differ. Someone
can argue that punishment works while someone argues that punishment
doesn't. If both families have decent children, how can one be wrong?

Well, they can both be right because they have different goals. The first
has a goal of training their kids to do right. The second of helping their
kids make their own decisions.

Does unschooling only encompass the goals of the best debators here? If that
is limiting unschooling, is calling this Unschooling.com misleading?

Just things to think about.

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 2:03:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fetteroll@... writes:

> If something truly doesn't work, would anyone be brave enough to come here
> and say so?
>

I would.. And, I would believe that it was "because the theory doesn't work
in all cases" But, I feel most likely, I would get the response that
"someone wasn't doing it right" ( I put those statments in quotations
because they are Joyces words, not mine)

Teresa


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 12:03:34 PM, fetteroll@... writes:

<< If someone comes in here with incompatible ideas and they "get shouted
down"
is it because their ideas were full of holes or because a few posters with
narrow views are more skilled at debate? >>

Could be both.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 2:03:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fetteroll@... writes:

> I think it's a point worth being aware of. Undoubtedly Christian debate can
> feel like real open debate but it's constrained by the Christian viewpoint.
>
> If someone brings in ideas from a secular viewpoint that are incompatible
> with the Christian viewpoint, are the ideas wrong? Or is the Christian list
> wrong? Is it wrong to constrain a vision to what you believe is right?
>
> Kind of a scary thought.
>
> The unschooling debate here is constrained by the ideal of treating
> children
> as fellow human beings due the respect that adult humans get. It's what
> ideas are judged and weighed against.
>
> Is that ideal necessary for unschooling? Shouldn't someone question whether
> that ideal is necessary for unschooling? And if it isn't, shouldn't
> unschooling ideas that don't encompass that particular ideal be allowed to
> stand side by side with those that do?
>
> If someone's idea of unschooling includes coercive parenting, are they
> unschooling wrong?
>
> If someone comes in here with incompatible ideas and they "get shouted
> down"
> is it because their ideas were full of holes or because a few posters with
> narrow views are more skilled at debate?
>
> If someone says something doesn't work, is it because the theory doesn't
> work in all cases or because someone wasn't doing it right? Does someone
> need to be able to articulate unschooling well in order to understand it?
>
> If something truly doesn't work, would anyone be brave enough to come here
> and say so?
>
> Lots and lots of debate has at it's foundation goals that differ. Someone
> can argue that punishment works while someone argues that punishment
> doesn't. If both families have decent children, how can one be wrong?
>
> Well, they can both be right because they have different goals. The first
> has a goal of training their kids to do right. The second of helping their
> kids make their own decisions.
>
> Does unschooling only encompass the goals of the best debaters here? If
> that
> is limiting unschooling, is calling this Unschooling.com misleading?
>
> Just things to think about.
>
> Joyce
>
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
> the

Dear Joyce:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Now, we're talking about the ideas
behind the action of censorship.

1. Is it wrong to constrain a vision to what you believe is right?
I believe that we cannot truly know what we believe if we constrain our
vision. I think it was Plato(?) in the allegory of the cave who told the
story of some people who were chained to a cave wall and only ever able to
see shadows on the wall opposite. They believed that all reality was shadows,
because that was their only experience. One day, one of the people got loose
from his chains, and went outside. He discovered that true reality was much
more than shadows when seen in the full light of day. When he went back to
his friends whose "vision was constrained," they refused to believe him or
listen.

2. The unschooling debate here is constrained by the ideal of treating
children
as fellow human beings due the respect that adult humans get. It's what
ideas are judged and weighed against.

I agree with this, but would add that we should also treat adults with the
same respect that we would our children.

3. Is that ideal necessary for unschooling? Shouldn't someone question
whether
that ideal is necessary for unschooling? And if it isn't, shouldn't
unschooling ideas that don't encompass that particular ideal be allowed to
stand side by side with those that do?

Yes, we should always question---that is how we learn. There is no definition
for unschooling, other than the broken down word itself---un = not +
schooling. Schooling is many things, so notschooling must be as many opposite
things.

4. If someone's idea of unschooling includes coercive parenting, are they
unschooling wrong?

We all may wish we could parent and relate to others without coercion, but
almost every interaction with others involves some level of coercion. If I
ask my child to scrape his plate into the trash is that coercive ?, and if he
refuses and then I scrape it so that there will be a clean plate later, am I
being manipulated? Is coercion in our daily living O.K. but not O.K.
regarding academics? If I say to my child, I want to teach you how to tie
your shoes because I'm sick of tying them, and you are old enough to learn,
is that wrong? Then if I say I want to teach you how to read because I'm sick
of reading everything for you, you are old enough to learn, and besides I've
got my own book to read, is that wrong? Unschooling is an ideal, something we
work toward with different levels of purity and success.

5. If someone says something doesn't work, is it because the theory doesn't
work in all cases or because someone wasn't doing it right? Does someone
need to be able to articulate unschooling well in order to understand it?

I think that we are all different, and that things that work for some, don't
always work for others. Also some theories are just lousy and don't work in
practice.

I don't think we need to be able to articulate something in order to
understand it, but I think articulating most things helps us to gain deeper
understanding. Some people are incredibly intuitive and spiritual and don't
feel the need to articulate their experiences.

6. If something truly doesn't work, would anyone be brave enough to come here
and say so?

I think many wouldn't, not only because of what happened to Ned, but because
others have been attacked for stating views different from certain very
strong-minded individuals whose personal definitions of what constitutes
unschooling seem rather rigid to me.

7. Lots and lots of debate has at it's foundation goals that differ. Someone
can argue that punishment works while someone argues that punishment
doesn't. If both families have decent children, how can one be wrong?

Well, they can both be right because they have different goals. The first
has a goal of training their kids to do right. The second of helping their
kids make their own decisions.

I agree that both are right. If the children are blooming, growing, and
happy---then they are both right. I've known both types to raise wonderful
children, and I've known both types to raise rotten nasty children. I think
what the successful ones have in common, are their capacity for love,
forgiveness, fairness and a strong sense of right and wrong.

8. Does unschooling only encompass the goals of the best debaters here? If
that
is limiting unschooling, is calling this Unschooling.com misleading?

Your best point. You've said it better than I can. Perhaps since you are one
of the better debaters here, and have a history as such, you will have that
idea seriously considered.

Once again, thank you.

Sherry


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 2:04:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, leschke@...
writes:

> >It's never stopped bothering me. Just because time passes after a bad act,
> >doesn't mean that it's still not bad, and perhaps should be revisited and
> >reexamined.
>
> Does that mean you're going to keep bringing it up every few months until
> we
> agree with you?
> Tia
>
>
>

No, I'll probably unsubscribe. I guess I'm just spoiled by that silly little
so-called right called "Freedom of Speech." I suppose if the site had been
named something like Helen's House Party. Com or Sandra and her pals.com or
OnlyOne Vision of UnSchooling.Com, I would never have tried.


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 5:11:32 PM, FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

<< 1. Is it wrong to constrain a vision to what you believe is right? >>

Nobody is locked in this cave.
That point has been made to you a couple of times, but it's not changing your
stance, it seems.
This is nobody's be-all and end-all, and the whole world is out there, as it
has been and will be.

<<I agree with this, but would add that we should also treat adults with the
same respect that we would our children.
>>

If people asked my children to change the subject they would do it.

If they ask other people to change the subject, I'd expect the other people
to do it too.

The lack of respect seems to be a few people's respect for the rights of this
list to focus on unschooling, and of the owner and moderator to run it as
they have decided to do.

<<Then if I say I want to teach you how to read because I'm sick
of reading everything for you, you are old enough to learn, and besides I've
got my own book to read, is that wrong?>>

Yes. No parent knows if a child is "old enough to learn." Learning doesn't
have to do with age, and a parent who asserts that it does will be
detrimental to other parents coming to natural learning without fears and
arbitrary measures.

Parents who tell their kids they're sick of reading to them might as well put
them in school.

I would say that attitude would not be in keeping with unschooling.

<<If I say to my child, I want to teach you how to tie
your shoes because I'm sick of tying them, and you are old enough to learn,
is that wrong? >>

Same, only unlike reading which eventually will come along if a child isn't
so traumatized he avoids it for life, shoes don't HAVE to be tied. Velcro is
invented! There are slip-ons.
A parent who's unaware of those options might not be open minded enough to be
a good unschooler, but a parent who came here and said, "My kid is old enough
to learn to tie his shoes, how do I teach him?" would be reminded that age
doesn't guarantee "ready" and that velcro has been invented and there are
slip-ons.

<<I think that we are all different, and that things that work for some,
don't
always work for others. Also some theories are just lousy and don't work in
practice.>>

If you think unschooling is lousy and won't work, there's no sense in being
here.
If you think it might work, cool!
If you think other theories are better, I bet there are lists on which they
are being discussed.

<<Some people are incredibly intuitive and spiritual and don't
feel the need to articulate their experiences.>>

How many of them join discussion lists where articulation is the only medium?

<<I think many wouldn't, not only because of what happened to Ned, but
because
others have been attacked for stating views different from certain very
strong-minded individuals whose personal definitions of what constitutes
unschooling seem rather rigid to me.>>

Do you want links to other unschooling discussions and web pages? There are
hundreds. I bet you could find one you like or you could make your own.
Since you're sure this one is flawed, you could make a perfect one!

Sandra

Betsy

**6. If something truly doesn't work, would anyone be brave enough to
come here
and say so?**

**I think many wouldn't, not only because of what happened to Ned, but
because
others have been attacked for stating views different from certain very
strong-minded individuals whose personal definitions of what constitutes
unschooling seem rather rigid to me.**


Are you implying that we should have complete freedom of speech here,
except for "attacks"? That seems logically inconsistent. Would you clarify?

Betsy

[email protected]

I love this list just for this fact...the ones who stay can handle the
different opinions...they keep coming back! Just like me... I may not
totally agree with any thing that is said but I have the intelligence to take
what I can digest and leave the rest and I keep coming back. Why? Because
these people are not afraid to give you something to think about...something
to go back digest and see if it applies to your family, your life, your
world. If it doesn't or it doesn't work for you, your children, your family
take what works and go on...the delete button is a wonderful thing.

coming out of hiding to add my 2 cents...back into lurk mode...
Dorothy


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

Deborah Lewis

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:28:13 EST FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

***No, I'll probably unsubscribe. I guess I'm just spoiled by that silly
little
so-called right called "Freedom of Speech." I suppose if the site had
been
named something like Helen's House Party. Com or Sandra and her pals.com
or
OnlyOne Vision of UnSchooling.Com, I would never have tried.***

Never have tried what?

You've said you're not an unschooler but you've tried to tell us that
because this list is called unschooling-dotcom it should mean what you
want it to.

Did you want this list to be Ned vs. the Evil Government Schools?
What did you want Helen's unschooling list to be?

You've ignored that the list owner, an experienced unschooler with grown
unschooled children saw reasons to keep the list about unschooling and
not about Ned's agenda.

No one hunted him down and cut his tongue out. You can find him all
over the place.
His freedoms are intact. Somewhere out there he is organizing a boycott
of Sesame Street, I'm sure.
As I write he may be trying to silence Big Bird forever.

If you're interested in unschooling this is a good place to find
information.

Deb L

Pam Hartley

----------
>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 2822
>Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2003, 5:25 PM
>

> No, I'll probably unsubscribe. I guess I'm just spoiled by that silly little
> so-called right called "Freedom of Speech."


"Women don't get woolly. Nobody gets woolly. They get WEARY. And she's not
in distress, she's wearing a DRESS. God, I hate it when people get the words
wrong!" -- Crash, Bull Durham

Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to private residences, websites, mailing
lists, vehicles, etc. As a libertarian I am REAL fond of all the amendments,
even the unpopular ones, and it always makes me tear my hair a little when
they get misrepresented.

Pam Hartley

Pam Hartley

----------
>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 2822
>Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2003, 5:25 PM
>

> I love this list just for this fact...the ones who stay can handle the
> different opinions...they keep coming back! Just like me... I may not
> totally agree with any thing that is said but I have the intelligence to take
> what I can digest and leave the rest and I keep coming back.


WHAT?!!!

Dorothy, I'm going to have to insist that you stop thinking for yourself and
making your own decisions as if you were some sort of capable adult, okay?

You see, if the Imaginary List Puppet-Master(s) get just ONE MORE
thoughtless, brainless, yes-woman this month, they win a set of steak
knives!

Pam

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 8:47:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, ddzimlew@...
writes:

> Somewhere out there he is organizing a boycott
> of Sesame Street, I'm sure.
> As I write he may be trying to silence Big Bird forever.
>

OH.. NOT BIG BIRD.. My kids loved (and still love) Sesame St

Teresa


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

Denese Kolb

>
> ***No, I'll probably unsubscribe.

Yippee!

oh sorry, that just kinda jumped out:)
denese




I guess I'm just spoiled by that silly
> little
> so-called right called "Freedom of Speech." I suppose if the site had
> been
> named something like Helen's House Party. Com or Sandra and her pals.com
> or
> OnlyOne Vision of UnSchooling.Com, I would never have tried.***
>
> Never have tried what?
>
> You've said you're not an unschooler but you've tried to tell us that
> because this list is called unschooling-dotcom it should mean what you
> want it to.
>
> Did you want this list to be Ned vs. the Evil Government Schools?
> What did you want Helen's unschooling list to be?
>
> You've ignored that the list owner, an experienced unschooler with grown
> unschooled children saw reasons to keep the list about unschooling and
> not about Ned's agenda.
>
> No one hunted him down and cut his tongue out. You can find him all
> over the place.
> His freedoms are intact. Somewhere out there he is organizing a boycott
> of Sesame Street, I'm sure.
> As I write he may be trying to silence Big Bird forever.
>
> If you're interested in unschooling this is a good place to find
> information.
>
> Deb L
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address 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/
>
>

Tia Leschke

> > Does that mean you're going to keep bringing it up every few months
until
> > we
> > agree with you?
> > Tia
> >
> >
> >
>
> No, I'll probably unsubscribe. I guess I'm just spoiled by that silly
little
> so-called right called "Freedom of Speech." I suppose if the site had been
> named something like Helen's House Party. Com or Sandra and her pals.com
or
> OnlyOne Vision of UnSchooling.Com, I would never have tried.

Freedom of Speech applies to government limitation of speech. The
government is not limiting speech on Unschooling-dotcom. And
*absolute* freedom of speech applies nowhere. Your posts are the first time
I've heard the idea that unschooling should include absolute freedom of
speech. I guess you must believe that it would be perfectly all right for
me to scream abuse and foul language at my kids, just because I felt like
it. I should be able to walk into Congress or the Supreme Court and do the
same. Right?

You've said twice now that you're going to unsubscribe because
Unschooling-dotcom is not being run the way you'd like it to be. You've
made your attempt to convince us that you're right and we're wrong. It
doesn't seem to have been successful.

You keep talking about Ned, but I really think this is much more about
Sandra. Sandra didn't make the decision about Ned.
Tia

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 9:06:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pamhartley@... writes:

> You see, if the Imaginary List Puppet-Master(s) get just ONE MORE
> thoughtless, brainless, yes-woman this month, they win a set of steak
> knives!
>

If they are imaginary, can I have the knives? I need a new set.

Teresa


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/2003 9:06:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pamhartley@... writes:


> You see, if the Imaginary List Puppet-Master(s) get just ONE MORE
> thoughtless, brainless, yes-woman this month, they win a set of steak
> knives!
>
> Pam
>

I REALLY have missed you!

~Kelly


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/03 8:18:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ecsamhill@... writes:

> **I think many wouldn't, not only because of what happened to Ned, but
> because
> others have been attacked for stating views different from certain very
> strong-minded individuals whose personal definitions of what constitutes
> unschooling seem rather rigid to me.**
>
>
> Are you implying that we should have complete freedom of speech here,
> except for "attacks"? That seems logically inconsistent. Would you
> clarify?
>
> Betsy
>
>

You are probably right about the logical inconsistency, I should have have
said attacks, backed up by threats of banishment or pointed suggestions to
leave the site. I suppose attacks could be a very relative term. In a healthy
debate one might attack if one feels the other argument to be weak or
unfounded. I do believe passionately in free speech, especially if one is
not being slanderous or vulgar (but of course those are hard qualities to
judge as well.)

Sherry


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

Betsy

**You are probably right about the logical inconsistency, I should have
have
said attacks, backed up by threats of banishment or pointed suggestions
to
leave the site. I suppose attacks could be a very relative term. In a
healthy
debate one might attack if one feels the other argument to be weak or
unfounded. I do believe passionately in free speech, especially if one
is
not being slanderous or vulgar (but of course those are hard qualities
to
judge as well.)**


Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I also think that if we are going to have all-out free speech on this
list then pointed suggestions to leave the list should also be
considered. Free speech isn't always pleasant.

I'm personally not interested in reading a lot of posts from posters
(several, throughout the history of the list) that address the point of
how much they don't like the list. In my opinion, people who don't like
this list should exercise their freedom not to read it. There is no
reason I can comprehend for people who don't like the list to try and
change it when many people like it the way it is. Thousands of other
homeschooling lists are only a few mouse clicks away. This isn't the
only game in town.

Betsy

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/8/2003 6:31:02 PM Central Standard Time,
FoxgloveStudio@... writes:

> No, I'll probably unsubscribe. I guess I'm just spoiled by that silly little
>
> so-called right called "Freedom of Speech." I suppose if the site had been
> named something like Helen's House Party. Com or Sandra and her pals.com or
>
> OnlyOne Vision of UnSchooling.Com, I would never have tried.
>

See ya!

Tuck


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