Re fw:That's enough/Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/14/2003 1:47:31 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
own computer, Sorry, no go, as I personally write FW: or fw: on the subject
line when I write something, so I don't technically change the subject line,
I shorten it up a bit. I am just Forwarding back to the list when I respond
to something. Another "error" on my part sorry.
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Teresa apparently called for backup, forwarded you the e-mails she wantedActually, no, I get email just like everyone else did and I read them on my
> you
> to respond to, and you responded hard and harshly in her favor, insulting
> people who had defended me.
own computer, Sorry, no go, as I personally write FW: or fw: on the subject
line when I write something, so I don't technically change the subject line,
I shorten it up a bit. I am just Forwarding back to the list when I respond
to something. Another "error" on my part sorry.
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/14/03 6:12:54 PM, encadia@... writes:
<< Sorry, no go, as I personally write FW: or fw: on the subject
line when I write something >>
Starting yesterday, you mean?
That's one of the lamest defenses I've ever read or heard in my whole life.
When e-mail is forwarded, it tends to have that "fw:" thing.
Your other posts to the list haven't had it.
Sandra
<< Sorry, no go, as I personally write FW: or fw: on the subject
line when I write something >>
Starting yesterday, you mean?
That's one of the lamest defenses I've ever read or heard in my whole life.
When e-mail is forwarded, it tends to have that "fw:" thing.
Your other posts to the list haven't had it.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/14/2003 8:02:39 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
Now do you see the problem, of couse I shorten it up
I only leave the fw. and subject.
or if I accidentlly erase the FW, I have to go back in and add it
So it doesn't look like the orgional post.
You do owe an apology for accusing Teresa of forwarding mail to me.
I don't understand what would have been the problem anyway, as I
am a member of this group. And why would any of us waste time
in fowarding email, when a member would already have it.?
Whats your bottom line?
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> In a message dated 2/14/03 6:12:54 PM, encadia@... writes:Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re fw:That's enough/Sandra
>
> <<Sorry, no go, as I personally write FW: or fw: on the subject
> line when I write something >>
>
> Starting yesterday, you mean?
>
> That's one of the lamest defenses I've ever read or heard in my whole life.
>
> When e-mail is forwarded, it tends to have that "fw:" thing.
> Your other posts to the list haven't had it.
> Sandra
Now do you see the problem, of couse I shorten it up
I only leave the fw. and subject.
or if I accidentlly erase the FW, I have to go back in and add it
So it doesn't look like the orgional post.
You do owe an apology for accusing Teresa of forwarding mail to me.
I don't understand what would have been the problem anyway, as I
am a member of this group. And why would any of us waste time
in fowarding email, when a member would already have it.?
Whats your bottom line?
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:28:31 EST encadia@... writes:
forwards the email. If everyone simply replies, you get the "Re:", not
"Fw:".
And the first time you said "I personally write FW: or fw: on the subject
line when I write something, so I don't technically change the subject
line,
I shorten it up a bit. I am just Forwarding back to the list when I
respond to something.", which is a totally different explanation, albeit
one that also makes no sense. I suppose that makes you consistent, in a
way.
Dar
>But the only way the "Fw:" gets in there to begin with is if someone
> Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re fw:That's enough/Sandra
> Now do you see the problem, of couse I shorten it up
> I only leave the fw. and subject.
> or if I accidentlly erase the FW, I have to go back in and add it
> So it doesn't look like the orgional post.
forwards the email. If everyone simply replies, you get the "Re:", not
"Fw:".
And the first time you said "I personally write FW: or fw: on the subject
line when I write something, so I don't technically change the subject
line,
I shorten it up a bit. I am just Forwarding back to the list when I
respond to something.", which is a totally different explanation, albeit
one that also makes no sense. I suppose that makes you consistent, in a
way.
Dar
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/14/2003 8:44:11 PM Central Standard Time,
freeform@... writes:
freeform@... writes:
> one that also makes no sense. I suppose that makes you consistent, in a[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> way.
>
> Dar
>
> Let me explain, when I reply to a post, there are too many FW: or RE:
> so I have to go in and shorten it up a bit,
> So as no one thinks its the orginal post that was written, I have to
> back space .
> Sorry, should have explained that earlier!
>
> Linda
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/14/03 7:29:26 PM, encadia@... writes:
<< if I accidentlly erase the FW, I have to go back in and add it
So it doesn't look like the orgional post. >>
What?
Never mind.
<<Whats your bottom line?>>
I hate bullshit. That's my bottom line.
And I like discussing unschooling and parenting, but I don't like people
making excuses for not being able to unschool. Do it or don't. Try it or
don't. But be honest. That's my bottom line.
Sandra
<< if I accidentlly erase the FW, I have to go back in and add it
So it doesn't look like the orgional post. >>
What?
Never mind.
<<Whats your bottom line?>>
I hate bullshit. That's my bottom line.
And I like discussing unschooling and parenting, but I don't like people
making excuses for not being able to unschool. Do it or don't. Try it or
don't. But be honest. That's my bottom line.
Sandra
Have a Nice Day!
Are you saying that when you reply to a post, you click "forward" instead of "reply"?
Kristen
Kristen
----- Original Message -----
From: encadia@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re fw:That's enough/Sandra
In a message dated 2/14/2003 8:02:39 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
> In a message dated 2/14/03 6:12:54 PM, encadia@... writes:
>
> <<Sorry, no go, as I personally write FW: or fw: on the subject
> line when I write something >>
>
> Starting yesterday, you mean?
>
> That's one of the lamest defenses I've ever read or heard in my whole life.
>
> When e-mail is forwarded, it tends to have that "fw:" thing.
> Your other posts to the list haven't had it.
> Sandra
Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re fw:That's enough/Sandra
Now do you see the problem, of couse I shorten it up
I only leave the fw. and subject.
or if I accidentlly erase the FW, I have to go back in and add it
So it doesn't look like the orgional post.
You do owe an apology for accusing Teresa of forwarding mail to me.
I don't understand what would have been the problem anyway, as I
am a member of this group. And why would any of us waste time
in fowarding email, when a member would already have it.?
Whats your bottom line?
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
~~~~ 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/14/2003 9:56:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
unschooling to the degree that you do?
Maybe I just don't get this all perfect or nothing sense... maybe I'm just
too new at it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> but I don't like peopleSo basically there are no legitimate reasons why someone might have trouble
> making excuses for not being able to unschool.
unschooling to the degree that you do?
Maybe I just don't get this all perfect or nothing sense... maybe I'm just
too new at it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/15/03 9:13:57 AM, rubyprincesstsg@... writes:
<< > but I don't like people
unschooling to the degree that you do? >>
I think the most legitimate reasons would be "I don't want to," or "My
husband doesn't want to," or "My kids don't want to."
If people come here and make excuses which imply that unschooling just isn't
in itself a workable thing since THEY can't get it to work, that seems to me
to be like someone going to a La Leche League meeting and saying "Well MY
baby really LOVES bottles, so I'm not going to nurse all the time," or "It
seems to me that nursing at night only encourages them to wake up at night,
so I'm only going to do it in the daytime."
If people want to do that kind of thing they should say "I want to give my
baby bottles" rather than "blame" or credit the baby, or say "I don't want to
nurse at night" instead of presenting what seems like rational explanation
(training a baby to be awake or not) in a group which exists for the purpose
of trying to help parents know that even at night their babies will be
hungry, and experience fear and other emotions. Even at night they're
growing. Even the memories they have of being ignored at night can harm the
person they're becoming (and maybe MOSTLY night memories are memorable, if
they cry and wait and get scared and feel abandoned – lots of people have a
moment or two of remembered childhood darkness trauma that still affects them
as adults).
So it's not about what any individual family does, it's about what people
claim and recommend in public.
If someone who isn't unschooling posts a ton of advice and experience based
on school or structured homeschooling, I picture half of an hour-long La
Leche League meeting being about how to sterilize bottles and what kind of
latex nipples are most like the breast.
Children learn all the time. They learn at night, they learn while they
look like they're zoned out staring out the window, they learn while they're
watching movies, they learn while they're sticking sticks in the fireplace,
they learn while they're taking a shower. Parents can accept that and move
toward it and use that knowledge to enrich their children's lives and to see
learning, or they can resist that and keep wanting unschooling to look like
school at home, or points in between. Declaring a point-in-between stance
to be as good as unschooling can get does not, in my opinion, benefit either
that family nor others here reading, if there are others who can say "Do you
want to take the next step?" Saying "I'm happy where I am, though I know
there are other steps I could have taken" isn't as harmful as saying "They
won't learn anything from TV," or "Some books are trash."
Sandra
<< > but I don't like people
> making excuses for not being able to unschool.<<So basically there are no legitimate reasons why someone might have trouble
unschooling to the degree that you do? >>
I think the most legitimate reasons would be "I don't want to," or "My
husband doesn't want to," or "My kids don't want to."
If people come here and make excuses which imply that unschooling just isn't
in itself a workable thing since THEY can't get it to work, that seems to me
to be like someone going to a La Leche League meeting and saying "Well MY
baby really LOVES bottles, so I'm not going to nurse all the time," or "It
seems to me that nursing at night only encourages them to wake up at night,
so I'm only going to do it in the daytime."
If people want to do that kind of thing they should say "I want to give my
baby bottles" rather than "blame" or credit the baby, or say "I don't want to
nurse at night" instead of presenting what seems like rational explanation
(training a baby to be awake or not) in a group which exists for the purpose
of trying to help parents know that even at night their babies will be
hungry, and experience fear and other emotions. Even at night they're
growing. Even the memories they have of being ignored at night can harm the
person they're becoming (and maybe MOSTLY night memories are memorable, if
they cry and wait and get scared and feel abandoned – lots of people have a
moment or two of remembered childhood darkness trauma that still affects them
as adults).
So it's not about what any individual family does, it's about what people
claim and recommend in public.
If someone who isn't unschooling posts a ton of advice and experience based
on school or structured homeschooling, I picture half of an hour-long La
Leche League meeting being about how to sterilize bottles and what kind of
latex nipples are most like the breast.
Children learn all the time. They learn at night, they learn while they
look like they're zoned out staring out the window, they learn while they're
watching movies, they learn while they're sticking sticks in the fireplace,
they learn while they're taking a shower. Parents can accept that and move
toward it and use that knowledge to enrich their children's lives and to see
learning, or they can resist that and keep wanting unschooling to look like
school at home, or points in between. Declaring a point-in-between stance
to be as good as unschooling can get does not, in my opinion, benefit either
that family nor others here reading, if there are others who can say "Do you
want to take the next step?" Saying "I'm happy where I am, though I know
there are other steps I could have taken" isn't as harmful as saying "They
won't learn anything from TV," or "Some books are trash."
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 2/15/03 10:57 AM, rubyprincesstsg@... at rubyprincesstsg@...
wrote:
do that unschooling won't help him do?
But, in lieu of specifics, it seems those who are certain they can't
unschool can't.
It seems those who are certain they can unschool can.
If I were doubting about whether unschooling would work, then I guess I'd
read Debbie/Myfunny4's post about her son. I would read AnneO's and
Zenmomma's stuff and others who are successfully unschooling on the message
boards. I would ask them questions.
Just because someone decides they can't make something work doesn't mean
that the philosophy doesn't work. But until someone who deeply and abidingly
trusts their children to the depth that AnneO and others do says that
unschooling won't work for every chld, then my feeling is the door is still
open.
someone's doubts and struggles (to the point where they are saying that'
won't work) won't prevent other people from getting to unschooling.
If there are philosophical ideas (as opposed to specific tips) here that
someone decides to reject for their family, does it help other people
unschool to tell us that philosophy won't work for them? What would be the
point? To expand the definition of unschooling so someone can feel
comfortable here not unschooling?
If someone wants to make unschooling work, there is a great deal of wisdom
here to help them do that. If someone doesn't want to unschool or just wants
to use some of the ideas, what would be the purpose of stating on the list
that radical unschooling won't work for them?
Joyce
wrote:
> So basically there are no legitimate reasons why someone might have troubleIt helps to talk about specifics. What is it that your child would like to
> unschooling to the degree that you do?
do that unschooling won't help him do?
But, in lieu of specifics, it seems those who are certain they can't
unschool can't.
It seems those who are certain they can unschool can.
If I were doubting about whether unschooling would work, then I guess I'd
read Debbie/Myfunny4's post about her son. I would read AnneO's and
Zenmomma's stuff and others who are successfully unschooling on the message
boards. I would ask them questions.
Just because someone decides they can't make something work doesn't mean
that the philosophy doesn't work. But until someone who deeply and abidingly
trusts their children to the depth that AnneO and others do says that
unschooling won't work for every chld, then my feeling is the door is still
open.
> Maybe I just don't get this all perfect or nothing sense... maybe I'm justNo one expects anyone to be perfect. But there is an expectation that
> too new at it.
someone's doubts and struggles (to the point where they are saying that'
won't work) won't prevent other people from getting to unschooling.
If there are philosophical ideas (as opposed to specific tips) here that
someone decides to reject for their family, does it help other people
unschool to tell us that philosophy won't work for them? What would be the
point? To expand the definition of unschooling so someone can feel
comfortable here not unschooling?
If someone wants to make unschooling work, there is a great deal of wisdom
here to help them do that. If someone doesn't want to unschool or just wants
to use some of the ideas, what would be the purpose of stating on the list
that radical unschooling won't work for them?
Joyce
Pam Sorooshian
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 07:57 AM, rubyprincesstsg@...
wrote:
excuses - she is saying that it isn't true that unschooling won't work
for "special needs" kids. And she never mentioned anything about "to
the degree that" she does. SHE isn't making the comparison to herself
in any way - she's talking about unschooling. Do you think unschooling
will not work for special needs kids? Do you think that just because
there are exceptional extreme cases where unschooling is not a good
option that it is a good idea to say that "unschooling won't work for
special needs kids?"
vegetarianism. From the pov of a vegetarian, it is WAY better to eat
meat only once a week than at every meal -- but it still isn't
vegetarianism.
So - being unschoolish is good to whatever degree --- but it isn't
"unschooling" unless it is all the way.
Worth pointing out - not worth feeling "left out" or judged or anything
over. It is perfectly all right to make your own decisions about how
much you want to take from the unschoolers here -- don't say you are a
vegetarian except on Saturdays when you go out for prime rib <G>.
Pam Sorooshian
The National Home Education Network
~The World is Our Classroom~
www.NHEN.org
wrote:
> So basically there are no legitimate reasons why someone might haveShe didn't say that. First, she didn't say there were no legitimate
> trouble
> unschooling to the degree that you do?
>
excuses - she is saying that it isn't true that unschooling won't work
for "special needs" kids. And she never mentioned anything about "to
the degree that" she does. SHE isn't making the comparison to herself
in any way - she's talking about unschooling. Do you think unschooling
will not work for special needs kids? Do you think that just because
there are exceptional extreme cases where unschooling is not a good
option that it is a good idea to say that "unschooling won't work for
special needs kids?"
> Maybe I just don't get this all perfect or nothing sense... maybe I'mYou're reading that into it, I think. It might help to thnk of it like
> just
> too new at it.
vegetarianism. From the pov of a vegetarian, it is WAY better to eat
meat only once a week than at every meal -- but it still isn't
vegetarianism.
So - being unschoolish is good to whatever degree --- but it isn't
"unschooling" unless it is all the way.
Worth pointing out - not worth feeling "left out" or judged or anything
over. It is perfectly all right to make your own decisions about how
much you want to take from the unschoolers here -- don't say you are a
vegetarian except on Saturdays when you go out for prime rib <G>.
Pam Sorooshian
The National Home Education Network
~The World is Our Classroom~
www.NHEN.org
Pam Sorooshian
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 08:43 AM, SandraDodd@... wrote:
because I don't believe it will work to achieve what I want to achieve
with my kids."
I can respect that. I do think there are people/families who just are
not cut out to unschool.
Pam Sorooshian
The National Home Education Network
~The World is Our Classroom~
www.NHEN.org
> <<So basically there are no legitimate reasons why someone might haveI think it is a legitimate reason to just say - "I don't want to
> trouble
> unschooling to the degree that you do? >>
>
> I think the most legitimate reasons would be "I don't want to," or "My
> husband doesn't want to," or "My kids don't want to."
because I don't believe it will work to achieve what I want to achieve
with my kids."
I can respect that. I do think there are people/families who just are
not cut out to unschool.
Pam Sorooshian
The National Home Education Network
~The World is Our Classroom~
www.NHEN.org
nellebelle
Since it is standard in the email world for replies to have re: or Re:, and
it is standard in the email world for a post with fw: or Fw: to have been
forwarded, you can hardly blame someone for thinking that a post with fw:
had been forwarded!
Mary Ellen
it is standard in the email world for a post with fw: or Fw: to have been
forwarded, you can hardly blame someone for thinking that a post with fw:
had been forwarded!
Mary Ellen
----- Original Message ----- > You do owe an apology for accusing Teresa of
forwarding mail to me.
Peggy
Joyce wrote:
based on? Why do people come here and admit they know nothing and yet
waste constant bandwidth on how they are misunderstood and misused
because people don't want to listen to their ill written and ill thought
out posts on subjects they admit they don't know anything about?
People who come to this have three choices, they can:
1). Accept that there is something of unique and of special value going
on here on unschooling-dotcom (after all the old timers say so.)
2). Reject that there is something special of value here and go
somewhere else.
3). Join the group and change the group more to one's own liking. This
is a large group with some well established ideals and ideas that people
seem to be happy with so changing it might involved some special
leadership qualities and charisma. Group loyalty might need to be
subverted too.
Constant whining about why things here aren't like things in other
places might lead others to suppose that the one posting the message:
has a screw loose
has an ax to grind
has an inflated sense of their own self importance
doesn't have the research skills necessary to be a self-directed learner
is a clueless newbie
Not exactly the charismatic qualities of leadership that would inspire
the majority of group members to change their minds and make the group
and its ideals over in a new image.
Peggy
>Exactly! Why come here and try to knock down the ideas this group is
> No one expects anyone to be perfect. But there is an expectation that
> someone's doubts and struggles (to the point where they are saying that'
> won't work) won't prevent other people from getting to unschooling.
>
> If there are philosophical ideas (as opposed to specific tips) here that
> someone decides to reject for their family, does it help other people
> unschool to tell us that philosophy won't work for them? What would be the
> point? To expand the definition of unschooling so someone can feel
> comfortable here not unschooling?
>
> If someone wants to make unschooling work, there is a great deal of wisdom
> here to help them do that. If someone doesn't want to unschool or just wants
> to use some of the ideas, what would be the purpose of stating on the list
> that radical unschooling won't work for them?
>
> Joyce
based on? Why do people come here and admit they know nothing and yet
waste constant bandwidth on how they are misunderstood and misused
because people don't want to listen to their ill written and ill thought
out posts on subjects they admit they don't know anything about?
People who come to this have three choices, they can:
1). Accept that there is something of unique and of special value going
on here on unschooling-dotcom (after all the old timers say so.)
2). Reject that there is something special of value here and go
somewhere else.
3). Join the group and change the group more to one's own liking. This
is a large group with some well established ideals and ideas that people
seem to be happy with so changing it might involved some special
leadership qualities and charisma. Group loyalty might need to be
subverted too.
Constant whining about why things here aren't like things in other
places might lead others to suppose that the one posting the message:
has a screw loose
has an ax to grind
has an inflated sense of their own self importance
doesn't have the research skills necessary to be a self-directed learner
is a clueless newbie
Not exactly the charismatic qualities of leadership that would inspire
the majority of group members to change their minds and make the group
and its ideals over in a new image.
Peggy
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/15/03 3:13:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
nellebelle@... writes:
mail is not a crime, and its already been pointed out that it would be stupid
for me to forward mail to someone who is on a public list.. The much
greater accusation is that if dishonesty. I will not get an apology, but I
will stand by my integrity 100%. I have not lied, or solicted support or
defense in any way from any one. Period. I can't prove that, but no one
can prove otherwise.
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nellebelle@... writes:
> Since it is standard in the email world for replies to have re: or Re:, andI dont expect an apolgy for being accused of forwarding email. Forwarding
> it is standard in the email world for a post with fw: or Fw: to have been
> forwarded, you can hardly blame someone for thinking that a post with fw:
> had been forwarded!
> Mary Ellen
> ----- Original Message ----- >You do owe an apology for accusing Teresa of
> forwarding mail to me.
>
>
mail is not a crime, and its already been pointed out that it would be stupid
for me to forward mail to someone who is on a public list.. The much
greater accusation is that if dishonesty. I will not get an apology, but I
will stand by my integrity 100%. I have not lied, or solicted support or
defense in any way from any one. Period. I can't prove that, but no one
can prove otherwise.
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/15/2003 2:13:33 PM Central Standard Time,
nellebelle@... writes:
Thank you for your understanding on this issue. I have tried to
explain it a fully as I can and happy you understood.
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nellebelle@... writes:
>Mary Ellen,
> Since it is standard in the email world for replies to have re: or Re:, and
> it is standard in the email world for a post with fw: or Fw: to have been
> forwarded, you can hardly blame someone for thinking that a post with fw:
> had been forwarded!
> Mary Ellen
> ----- Original Message ----- >You do owe an apology for accusing Teresa of
> forwarding mail to me.
>
Thank you for your understanding on this issue. I have tried to
explain it a fully as I can and happy you understood.
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
No I am not kidding.
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
joanne comito
> >I agree with this totally. I found much here to
> > If someone wants to make unschooling work, there
> is a great deal of wisdom
> > here to help them do that. If someone doesn't want
> to unschool or just wants
> > to use some of the ideas, what would be the
> purpose of stating on the list
> > that radical unschooling won't work for them?
> >
challenge my ideas about parenting and
homeschooling--a surprise since I had read, discussed
and thought about this so much that I thought I had it
pretty well down. Nice to be challenged, actually.
I've made some changes with my kids--especially in not
limiting computer time (something I used to be
militant about) because after reading many posts here
I finally understood that this was about respecting
and trusting my kids to make the right choices for
them. I see that I can loosen up and watch them
become who they are without constant surveillance. It
has made an incredible difference in
homeschooling--every day unfolds so much more
harmoniously now.
On the other hand, what I find difficult about this
list is how often a power struggle develops that just
seems to go and on and on. Also, as a "newbie" to
unschooling, I find the following comment discouraging
and insulting:
> Constant whining about why things here aren't likeconcerns along the way, they may very well give up
> things in other
> places might lead others to suppose that the one
> posting the message:
>
> has a screw loose
> has an ax to grind
> has an inflated sense of their own self importance
> doesn't have the research skills necessary to be a
> self-directed learner
> is a clueless newbie
>
> > Peggy
>
> If new people don't feel free to express doubts and
prematurely. There is a lot of deconditioning that
has to take place in unschooling, obviously, and it
may take some time to "get it".
Joanne
>__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Pam Sorooshian
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 01:15 PM, encadia@... wrote:
like this.
Linda -- why you hit "reply" -- your mail program automatically adds
"re" to the subject line.
But yours also had "fw" in the subject line. So did you say that you
added the "fw" notation to posts you were sending to this list?
If so, why?
Ignore me if you want to - this is just purely idle curiousity on my
part - not complaining, not attacking, just wondering.
Pam Sorooshian
The National Home Education Network
~The World is Our Classroom~
www.NHEN.org
> Thank you for your understanding on this issue. I have tried toOkay - this is just bugging me because I'm lost and I hate feeling lost
> explain it a fully as I can and happy you understood.
>
> Linda
>
like this.
Linda -- why you hit "reply" -- your mail program automatically adds
"re" to the subject line.
But yours also had "fw" in the subject line. So did you say that you
added the "fw" notation to posts you were sending to this list?
If so, why?
Ignore me if you want to - this is just purely idle curiousity on my
part - not complaining, not attacking, just wondering.
Pam Sorooshian
The National Home Education Network
~The World is Our Classroom~
www.NHEN.org
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/16/2003 12:04:38 AM Central Standard Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
pamsoroosh@... writes:
> Okay - this is just bugging me because I'm lost and I hate feeling lost[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> like this.
>
> Linda -- why you hit "reply" -- your mail program automatically adds
> "re" to the subject line.
> But yours also had "fw" in the subject line. So did you say that you
> added the "fw" notation to posts you were sending to this list?
> If so, why?
>
> Ignore me if you want to - this is just purely idle curiousity on my
> part - not complaining, not attacking, just wondering.
>
> Hi Pam,
>
> Ok, here it is, glad you asked, maybe we can move on.
> Lately, when I have responded to a post,
> I find that the subject line is full ,
> so, I felt the need to shorten in up a bit, but wanted the group to
> see that it wasn't the original post, but mine,
> so, I deleted in the subject line and sometimes kept FW, etc..
> so, the group would know it was a response.
> I am finding that it has caused alot of tribulation, so now, I have
> stopped doing it. And sometimes, I hit the forward key, and not the reply.
> Hope this clarifies for you.
>
> Linda
Fetteroll
on 2/16/03 8:09 PM, encadia@... at encadia@... wrote:
too. Just call me an anal-retentive logic freak! I get that you're
shortening up the subject line. That's not a problem at all and is helpful
in fact when they get long and convoluted.
The question is *how* did the FW get into your subject line? The message
from Teresa that you replied to has a subject of:
Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] OH!.. THATS the answer.. silly me
Your reply has a subject of:
FW: oh! thats the answer...silly me
There aren't any messages from anyone that you could have replied to that
have the FW: in the subject. In that thread your reply is the first one to
have the FW.
In fact your subject line doesn't even match if it came from shortening
Teresa's. Did you perhaps retype the whole subject line and mistakenly put
in FW instead of RE? That's not a problem either! My anal-retentive side is
just seeking an explanation that matches the facts.
Joyce
> Ok, here it is, glad you asked, maybe we can move on.I'm *really* sorry Linda, and it isn't at all important, but it's bugging me
> Lately, when I have responded to a post,
> I find that the subject line is full ,
> so, I felt the need to shorten in up a bit, but wanted the group to
> see that it wasn't the original post, but mine,
> so, I deleted in the subject line and sometimes kept FW, etc..
> so, the group would know it was a response.
> I am finding that it has caused alot of tribulation, so now, I have
> stopped doing it. And sometimes, I hit the forward key, and not the reply.
> Hope this clarifies for you.
too. Just call me an anal-retentive logic freak! I get that you're
shortening up the subject line. That's not a problem at all and is helpful
in fact when they get long and convoluted.
The question is *how* did the FW get into your subject line? The message
from Teresa that you replied to has a subject of:
Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] OH!.. THATS the answer.. silly me
Your reply has a subject of:
FW: oh! thats the answer...silly me
There aren't any messages from anyone that you could have replied to that
have the FW: in the subject. In that thread your reply is the first one to
have the FW.
In fact your subject line doesn't even match if it came from shortening
Teresa's. Did you perhaps retype the whole subject line and mistakenly put
in FW instead of RE? That's not a problem either! My anal-retentive side is
just seeking an explanation that matches the facts.
Joyce
TheDanickes
I'm glad I'm not the only one still trying to figure this one out. LOL!
Liz
Liz
----- Original Message -----
Did you perhaps retype the whole subject line and mistakenly put in FW
instead of RE? That's not a problem either! My anal-retentive side is just
seeking an explanation that matches the facts.
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/17/2003 5:29:18 AM Central Standard Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fetteroll@... writes:
>Yes
> In fact your subject line doesn't even match if it came from shortening
> Teresa's. Did you perhaps retype the whole subject line and mistakenly put
> in FW instead of RE? That's not a problem either! My anal-retentive side is
> just seeking an explanation that matches the facts.
>
> Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]