[email protected]

In a message dated 5/16/03 6:06:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, genant2@...
writes:

> I was famous for saying "in a second" or "in a minute." Both my boys catch
> me on that one. They will say "OK Mom it's been a second

I learned from my confusion as a child to be spefic with times. Mom would
say, "in just a minute" and I, being confused and thinking a minute was a
second, would start chanting.. "itsbeenaminute, itsbeenaminute,
itsbeenaminute" Of course she would say, "It has not!, just give me a
minute" She really DID mean a minute ( or two at the most), but I thought
she was draggin her feet.. lol. She thought I was just being a smartbutt,
and harassing her for not getting in gear to wait on me.. I know this
confusion lasted a while, because I remember when I learned that a minute was
60 seconds, I was like .. OHHHHH!, I didn't know that, and Mom was just as
surprised to find out that I was not clear on how long a minute was. After
my revelaton, when Mom would say " just a minute" I would count to 60 as
fast as I could.. LOL.. Then I later learned that a second lasts longer than
as fast as you can say it.. Anyway, as a result of this childhood confusion
( which is a favorite funny story around here), I learned to be specific
about times with my children and show them on the clock when I could "do the
thing" they requested

DISCLAIMER
Of course, I only "put my kids off" when it it necessary. Not often and not
for immediate needs they have. Say for instance, I am making a sandwich for
one kid, and another asks for drink, I will say,
"I'll get it as soon as I am finished with this sandwich"
"How long is that going to take???"
"About 5 minutes, OK, then i will get your drink"
I dont want any backlash of folks thinking I constantly put my kids off . My
mom didnt do that to me either, her delays were always warranted. And they
were probably a lot more stressful with a kid chanting itsbeenaminute
itsbeenaminute itsbeenaminute.. .

Teresa



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

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/16/2003 6:58:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
grlynbl@... writes:


> I was famous for saying "in a second" or "in a minute." Both my boys catch
>
> > me on that one. They will say "OK Mom it's been a second
>
> I learned from my confusion as a child to be spefic with times. Mom
> would
> say, "in just a minute" and I, being confused and thinking a minute was a
> second, would start chanting.. "itsbeenaminute, itsbeenaminute,
> itsbeenaminute"

My mother's was "right-now-in-a-minute".

What, exactly, does that mean?

You can bet your life MY boys have NEVER heard that come out of MY mouth!

~Kelly


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/16/03 7:14:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kbcdlovejo@... writes:

> My mother's was "right-now-in-a-minute".
>
> What, exactly, does that mean?
>

That is a very good question... Its up there with "why do you drive on the
parkway and park in the driveway?"


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

Fetteroll

on 5/16/03 6:24 PM, grlynbl@... at grlynbl@... wrote:

> DISCLAIMER
> Of course, I only "put my kids off" when it it necessary. Not often and not
> for immediate needs they have. Say for instance, I am making a sandwich for
> one kid, and another asks for drink, I will say,
> "I'll get it as soon as I am finished with this sandwich"
> "How long is that going to take???"
> "About 5 minutes, OK, then i will get your drink"
> I dont want any backlash of folks thinking I constantly put my kids off .

If someone sees the discussion as having been about moms not expressing real
life limitations then there has been some major miscommunication.

There's a big difference between saying "Maybe tomorrow" when someone really
means never and saying "In 10 minutes" when someone means "I need to finish
this first so I can help you."

Joyce

[email protected]

My granny spoke the southern dialect, which has some useful words not in
common useage anymore. One was "directly."

If I asked her for something or for her to do something and she said "I'll
get to that directly," it meant it was on her short list. It didn't mean she
would do it right then, but it meant it WOULD get done, when she had finished
the two or three things which had greater priority.

She never said "directly" unless she meant it, and it didn't mean "right now."

My mom, being of the more modern speech, used to say "in a minute," but "in a
minute" isn't binding, and she would forget.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/17/2003 11:34:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> My granny spoke the southern dialect, which has some useful words not in
> common useage anymore. One was "directly."

Well, then she probably would have said, "dreckly".

~Kelly <g>


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

coyote's corner

Wow...it's been years since I've heard "directly" I like it. I like the feeling it conveys.
Thanks
Janis
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Itsbeenaminute


My granny spoke the southern dialect, which has some useful words not in
common useage anymore. One was "directly."

If I asked her for something or for her to do something and she said "I'll
get to that directly," it meant it was on her short list. It didn't mean she
would do it right then, but it meant it WOULD get done, when she had finished
the two or three things which had greater priority.

She never said "directly" unless she meant it, and it didn't mean "right now."

My mom, being of the more modern speech, used to say "in a minute," but "in a
minute" isn't binding, and she would forget.

Sandra

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



~~~~ 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 5/17/03 10:44:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:

> There's a big difference between saying "Maybe tomorrow" when someone really
> means never and saying "In 10 minutes" when someone means "I need to finish
> this first so I can help you."
>
> Joyce
>
>

Yeah, I know, thats why I wanted to be clear. I didnt want it open for
misinterpretation.

T


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/17/03 9:49:59 AM, kbcdlovejo@... writes:

<< Well, then she probably would have said, "dreckly". >>

It was west Texas, so there was quite an "r": maybe kinda like duhRECKly
then. <bwg>
They have more syllables than most people prefer. My own name had five
syllables when I was little:

Say-an-dra Lee-in (Sandra Lynn, which can be said in three syllables in the
common dialect <g>)

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/17/03 11:34:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> My granny spoke the southern dialect, which has some useful words not in
> common useage anymore. One was "directly."

OH yes, my Grandma and sometimes my moma still use that phrase.. Its sounds
like "dreckly". My Grandma also often answers the question "how are you
doing today?" with "oh, same as common, I reckon" It took me a long time to
figure out that meant basically, "as good as usual" Once my Dh made up a
list of commonly used terms around these parts.. I can recall a few of them

comemightnie. ( come mighty nigh, or close to)
" I comemightnie cutting my finger off"

Comin' uppa cloud ( its going to storm)

It's just cordin to cordin. ( Its just according to according.) I really
don't understand this phrase, but Dh's family uses it often. LIke.. "Are we
going to go to the movies today?' " Well, its just all cordin to cordin"...
Meaning, it depends on what the situation, circumstances, etc.

I know there are a ton more, but I cant think of them right now

Teresa


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

Betsy

I hope you went back and read your original post, which you felt was
misunderstood, before boiling over here. Looking again at the words is
the only way you can understand what other people are seeing. Not
looking at your words and getting defensive is a real time-waster.

[A complete paragraph from message 68846 in the archives.]
**When she asked me if she could smoke, I told her "not today, maybe
tomorrow", when she would ask the next day "is it tomorrow yet? can I
smoke now?" I would just tell her it's today, we'll talk about your
smoking tomorrow. She soon grew tired of that conversation and took to
"smoking" crayons. Of course it was awkward sometimes for her to reach
in her little purse and pull out a crayon and start puffing on it and
tapping off the "ashes". But that got us through.**


It says clearly that on the "next day" you told her "it's today"
(implying it is not tomorrow) and you would talk about her smoking
tomorrow. Well, when 24 more hours pass, it still isn't going to be
"tomorrow", it's going to be "today" again. It's not clear for readers
how many days this took place because the "she soon grew tired" phrasing
isn't specific about how many times she inquired again. You know the
number and we don't.

There's no way to read what you wrote and think that some day you would
tell her "Hey, you know what, it's not today any more. Suddenly
tomorrow has arrived."

Betsy

Have A Nice Day!

*This* is why you need to stop posting and read Glena.

Not only are you *not* reading what others have posted, but you are not even reading your own posts. (Or if you are, you are not reading them for what they actually SAY).

You consistantly say one thing and then "take it back" several posts later.

Put another way, you have a consistant habit of *not* saying what you mean, and *not* meaning what you say while you are forever trying to "save face".

There is no way anyone can have a discussion of any value with someone who never means what they say. And not only does it take up space, but it wastes everyone's time.

How you handled the smoking issue is a good example of this problem. Its just plain dishonest and someday, if they haven't already, your children *will* pick up on that.

Kristen




----- Original Message -----
From: averyschmidt
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Itsbeenaminute


> Maybe THIS says it all, I NEVER said maybe tomorrow means NEVER,
someone
> ELSE'S words. Over and over I've said if she had wanted to do
this, she
> would have. I NEVER EVER MEANT NEVER.
> This is the EXACT thing I've been trying to argue about, SOMEONE
DECIDES that
> I MEANT NEVER, they post it and it gets picked up as a FACT.
> I'm judged as a "friggin idiot" because I said "maybe tomorrow"
but meant
> NEVER, that was NOT the case.

Here's the original quote:
"When she asked me if she could smoke, I told her "not today, maybe
tomorrow",
when she would ask the next day "is it tomorrow yet? can I smoke
now?" I
would just tell her it's today, we'll talk about your smoking
tomorrow. She
soon grew tired of that conversation and took to "smoking" crayons."

You didn't say "mabye tomorrow" and mean it genuinely. You
said "mabye tomorrow" and then fooled with your daugther's mind the
next day by saying "it's today, we'll talk about your smoking
tomorrow." If your definition of "tomorrow" is that it never
actually comes, then yes, you did mean NEVER. You were just hiding
the "never" from your daughter by taking advantage of her not-yet-
firm grasp of time.
And I don't think that the "friggin' idiot" comment had anything to
do with your "mabye tomorrow," I think it had to do with your
implication that unschoolers were sitting fat and sassy and not
helping anyone or something like that.

Patti




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




~~~~ 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 5/18/2003 6:26:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
britcontoo@... writes:

> The more you argue over that sentence, the more this issue cannot be
> laid to rest and the SAME emails will continue. If you are insistent
> that you are correct on this then just agree in your heart to
> disagree and move foward.
>

Seems the thread continued way beyond me for a couple days. But here's the
scoop, I know what I meant and if in my heart I know that I validated my
daughters question and responded to her in a way that satisfied her, then it
really shouldn't be something that is an issue, and so many years later too.

So if 18 years ago I did/say something to my daughter that felt right to me,
is NOT seen as right by those who judge my parenting skills today... well
then I can live with that.

I've examined my motives, I've thought about ways I could have handled the
situation differently, I've read and re-read the posts about it. No one
really said anything about a different or better way that it should/could
have been handled so basically it's a mute point, for me anyway.

My children are grown and almost grown and smoking is something they will
decide for themselves. I've told them all I know about it and they know that
I don't do it, nor does their father. Other family members do, they've seen
the consequences, their uncle was buried less than a month ago because of it.

I think that maybe it's not about smoking or not smoking or saying maybe
tomorrow or in a minute or just a second. It's about someone saying what
THEY would do differently, not just saying you are WRONG, say what YOU would
have done to make the situation BETTER.

I've seen several posts with mothers who've said they've examined their "in a
minute" or "just a second" words to their children and are working to make it
a true statement to their children. I think that is good for them, for their
children and good for those of us who are on the unschooling path and looking
for examples of ways to be the best we can be at this awesome job called
mothering.

I hope it's clear to those who constantly say how much I, personally post and
detract from the group, that discussions go on without me. I might bring up
something that causes one to think or challenge or say how wrong I am, but I
am not the one doing the only "endless posting".

I've been thinking about this for several days. I don't mind people telling
me I'm doing something wrong, I don't even care so much what they think of
me. BUT if they are going to take the time to point out loudly and clearly
that something is WRONG and driving them to the point of insanity as some
have said, then how about offering some advice on how to do it RIGHT.

Say, you are WRONG because ___________ and _______________ and __________ and
maybe you should have tried ________ and __________ and ____________.

I see/hear a lot about something being the WRONG way and not at all helpful
and being hurtful to one's children but the truth is there is not a lot
posted by those who yell wrong or hurtful about an alternative way to do
whatever it was that was wrong.

Threads can go on and on about a wrong way or a personality but they rarely
go on with idea after idea of how one might handle a particular situation the
right way.

glena


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/18/2003 7:40:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
torywalk@... writes:

> DANG!!!! I should have put my cash on the table when the bet was
> called!
>
> I knew it was too good to be true.
>
> Oh well.
>
> Tory
>

I went two whole days without responding but this seems to keeps going on and
on and almost every post refers to ME, so why wouldn't I respond yet again?
I thought it would surely die down but it appears more post were made with me
NOT responding than when I do.

glena


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

Tia Leschke

>
> Maybe THIS says it all, I NEVER said maybe tomorrow means NEVER, someone
> ELSE'S words. Over and over I've said if she had wanted to do this, she
> would have. I NEVER EVER MEANT NEVER.

Shouting isn't going to get your point across. If you don't see what we're
saying by now, you're never going to see it. And we *do* see it.
>
> This is the EXACT thing I've been trying to argue about, SOMEONE DECIDES
that
> I MEANT NEVER, they post it and it gets picked up as a FACT.
>
> I'm judged as a "friggin idiot" because I said "maybe tomorrow" but meant
> NEVER, that was NOT the case.

In another post today, you're trying to argue that the "friggin idiot" was
in relation to another post (which it was). You seem very confused.
>
> I meant, maybe tomorrow if she's still interested, she will ask again and
I
> will again talk to her about the things I think are bad and if she says
she
> doesn't care she wants to smoke anyway, then I will decide whether to give
> her a cigarette and let her try it or say something different.
>
> Maybe tomorrow didn't mean NEVER any more than in a minute to some parents
> means in a minute.

You're just digging yourself into a hole. Please give it up.
Tia

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
saftety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
leschke@...

moonstarshooter

Actually, it seems to me the posts have moved more toward attacking
someone else for what they said to you, not a continuation of posts
about you. Or was it that the fact that it WAS moving away from you
bothered you so you had to jump back in AGAIN and say AGAIN that you
did something other than what several posters have now cut and pasted
back to show you did INDEED say.

Of course, here I am posting to you again. Feeding your apparent
craving for the spotlight. So now I will stop. And I actually mean
what I say.

Tory



--- In [email protected], rubyprincesstsg@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/18/2003 7:40:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> torywalk@t... writes:
>
> > DANG!!!! I should have put my cash on the table when the bet was
> > called!
> >
> > I knew it was too good to be true.
> >
> > Oh well.
> >
> > Tory
> >
>
> I went two whole days without responding but this seems to keeps
going on and
> on and almost every post refers to ME, so why wouldn't I respond
yet again?
> I thought it would surely die down but it appears more post were
made with me
> NOT responding than when I do.
>
> glena
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

jmcseals SEALS

You were WRONG to say "maybe tomorrow" and when tomorrow came lie and tell
her it is today, maybe tomorrow. You could have made the situation BETTER
by either giving her a cigarette when the FIRST tomorrow came OR you could
have had a discussion with her again, as you said you would AND given her
reasons why you wouldn't allow her to smoke. You could have bought her
candy cigarettes to look cool. Suggestions were actually given. Actually,
I have yet to see someone told they were wrong and not be given a better
suggestions of how to handle the situation. Maybe not by the person who
said they were wrong, yes, but someone always speaks up with other choices.

It is too late to change the situation. I understand that. It isn't too
late to see the mistakes made. I believe that.

Jennifer

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


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

jmcseals SEALS

<snip> so why wouldn't I respond yet again?>>>

Simply because you said *again* that you wouldn't. That you were done with
it, if I recall. I can go back for quotes if needed. I recently posted
that as long as someone continues to bring up harmful parenting practices,
those that find them harmful will do their damndest to point the mistakes
out, getting the last word in if necessary, so that there will be little
doubt in anyone's mind that it is something to be avoided. Giving up on and
ignoring harmful parenting choices, in my mind, leaves the door open for
someone to think I agree with it. As I've read, I'm not the only one who
feels this way. Some choose to drop it for lengths sake. Others choose to
continue to follow up when the response is, "it was my child, my choice, if
you don't like it don't listen".

Jennifer

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


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

Tia Leschke

> I've been thinking about this for several days. I don't mind people
telling
> me I'm doing something wrong, I don't even care so much what they think of
> me. BUT if they are going to take the time to point out loudly and
clearly
> that something is WRONG and driving them to the point of insanity as some
> have said, then how about offering some advice on how to do it RIGHT.

Do you really need advice on how to handle something that you say happened
18 years ago?
>
> Say, you are WRONG because ___________ and _______________ and __________
and
> maybe you should have tried ________ and __________ and ____________.
>
> I see/hear a lot about something being the WRONG way and not at all
helpful
> and being hurtful to one's children but the truth is there is not a lot
> posted by those who yell wrong or hurtful about an alternative way to do
> whatever it was that was wrong.

The people here are saying that they would not manipulate their child's
trust by messing with the kid's head about today and tomorrow. Some have
said that they simply wouldn't allow the smoking. Others have said that
they would ask for time to think about it (the person who originally posted
about smoking). Others (I think) have said that they *would* allow the
smoking and hope the child didn't like it. Quite a number of "should have
tried ______ and _____ and _____ but you were so busy defending the
indefensible that you didn't notice.
Tia

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
saftety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
leschke@...

Julie Solich

>
> > I've been thinking about this for several days. I don't mind people
> telling
> > me I'm doing something wrong, I don't even care so much what they think
of
> > me. BUT if they are going to take the time to point out loudly and
> clearly
> > that something is WRONG and driving them to the point of insanity as
some
> > have said, then how about offering some advice on how to do it RIGHT.


It's obvious that you do mind people telling you that you are wrong and that
you do care what people think of you because you spend so much of your time
defending yourself. The fact that you do so in an unclear and long winded
manner makes it very tiresome. This is not the first time that this has
happened and I have a sneaking suspicion it won't be the last.

Read and reflect. Listen harder and post less. Please.

Julie
>
>
> ~~~~ 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/
>
>

Fetteroll

on 5/18/03 7:41 PM, rubyprincesstsg@... at rubyprincesstsg@...
wrote:

> I went two whole days without responding but this seems to keeps going on and
> on and almost every post refers to ME, so why wouldn't I respond yet again?

Glena, I'm really sorry. I'm laughing at all this. But it's tragic too. I
know you're frustrated. The whole list is getting frustrated.

I know many people think I'm too lenient with these arguments. And I'd be
lenient this time too except that the list has gotten so busy since January.
We're averaging 150 emails a day -- and the volume wasn't (until the past
couple of days) even generated by argument. It's mostly been unschooling
discussion. But that's too many emails for the list to serve it's purpose.
The list just can't handle the noise you're adding on top of that.

I'm going to have to put you on moderation. You can post but I'll be
deciding whether they go through to the list or not.

I'm sorry but there's only so many ways I can try explaining to you what it
is you're doing that's causing the disruption to the list and what you can
do to fix it. Either I'm not clear or you just can't see it so I'll have to
do the seeing for you to help the list get back to usefulness.

Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator

zenmomma2kids

>>I hope it's clear to those who constantly say how much I,
personally post and detract from the group, that discussions go on
without me. I might bring up something that causes one to think or
challenge or say how wrong I am, but I am not the one doing the
only "endless posting".>>

Oh Glena. The discussions move on. They evolve. They go deeper and go
off on tangents. They provoke thought and contemplation. That's what
lists do. That's what this discussion was doing. It was moving to a
place of greater understanding of a lot of topics for a lot of people.

Then you came back on and put a dam up in the flow of conversation by
arguing the same points again.

>> Say, you are WRONG because ___________ and _______________ and
__________ and maybe you should have tried ________ and __________
and ____________.>>

You are WRONG because you are arguing the same points repeatedly and
refuse to accept that people DO understand and still disagree with
the idea of "maybe tomorrow." That's it. We disagree with you no
matter how many times you re-explain it. Sorry. You're not a bad mom.
I'm glad your daughter doesn't smoke and you have a good
relationship. I'm still not advocating that particular solution in
this particular forum.

Maybe you should try to listen to the underlying concepts and
principles behind what people are discussing and stop trying to tell
everyone you're not disrupting the flow of thoughts and discussion
when people attempt to explain to you that you are.

>>Threads can go on and on about a wrong way or a personality but
they rarely go on with idea after idea of how one might handle a
particular situation the right way.>>

OMG there were so many suggestions and discussions about handling the
smoking situation. People just didn't agree with yours even though it
worked for you.

Life is good.
~Mary

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/18/2003 7:40:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
torywalk@... writes:

>
> DANG!!!! I should have put my cash on the table when the bet was
> called!
>
> I knew it was too good to be true.
>
> Oh well.
>
> Tory

MY F- ING )))))))) WORD!

The list goes on all weekend about HER and you expect her not to post! YOU
TORY posted MANY times why the hell didn't you stop??????????

Get off your horse, say something other than running behind someone else's
words and get over it for cry-n out loud.

Several posts that I read and some I wrote where NOT just about Glena it was
an overall feeling about more than just her posts. Im glad she is back all
the talking this weekend should have ended while she was gone and it didn't.


Maybe you should go away for a weekend we will all blast you in a hundred or
so emails and you try to zip it!

Clear enough, I dont think this is hard to understand is it!

Laura D


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/18/03 4:21:06 PM, patti.schmidt2@... writes:

<< And I don't think that the "friggin' idiot" comment had anything to

do with your "mabye tomorrow," I think it had to do with your

implication that unschoolers were sitting fat and sassy and not

helping anyone or something like that. >>

Very true.
And the accusation that the story of Jon Tsosie's death (he was my age, and
he died at 35; we both had kids by then) was used as a cover for the
above-mentioned term is NOT sensible; wasn't even the same post.

As stupid as this whole discussion, the worst part is people making stuff up
and acting like it's true.

Some people just honestly seem not to be able to see the difference between
discussing an idea, or a question about how kids learn, or and example
someone has given, and discussing people themselves. It doesn't seem that
difficult to me.

Sandra

Pamela Sorooshian

A long time ago, in another unschooling venue, someone talked about
unplugging their tv and telling the kids it was "broken." That sparked
a LOT of discussion about lying to children. Some people felt like they
were called liars and they got really angry and left. In the meantime,
a whole bunch of people took some time to give some deep thought to how
truthful they really generally were with their kids - we considered
together how sometimes we parents can take advantage of kids' innocence
and let them believe something we know is not true, for our own
convenience or so as not to have to disappoint them or to avoid
difficult conversations. We talked about what the effect of that might
be. It was a great discussion and I know for a fact that it had a major
impact in the lives of a number of people and that includes some who
signed off in a huff, but came back a year or two later saying, "You
were right and I was wrong and it was painful but I'm glad you called
it as you saw it."

We are ALL here to learn - that includes those who give advice and ask
the tough questions. Nobody here has it all nailed down - our kids grow
and change and we face new challenges.

I have a really serious suggestion for you Glyna. PLEASE consider it.
When you feel criticized, try just responding with something like: "Oh
- hmmm - I hadn't looked at it that way, but thanks for giving me a
different perspective." And then just stop. Think about it privately -
get what you can from it - and let it go. Save the arguments and all
the re-explaining for just one or two big huge issues a year - things
that are REALLY important to you.

I KNOW how hard that is - some people are enviably good at taking
criticism, while some of us have to overcome the urge to defend
ourselves. Some of us tend to think that if someone disagrees with us
or sees things differently than we do, that they must not understand
what we really meant. I think you are like this. So am I.

I'm suggesting that you try this. Stop arguing. Stop explaining and
re-explaining. Trust the people on the list to understand you the first
time and let it go when a couple of people criticize or don't seem to
understand what you say.

-pam

On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 04:39 PM, rubyprincesstsg@... wrote:

> In a message dated 5/18/2003 6:26:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> britcontoo@... writes:
>
>> The more you argue over that sentence, the more this issue cannot be
>> laid to rest and the SAME emails will continue. If you are insistent
>> that you are correct on this then just agree in your heart to
>> disagree and move foward.
>>
>
> Seems the thread continued way beyond me for a couple days. But
> here's the
> scoop, I know what I meant and if in my heart I know that I validated
> my
> daughters question and responded to her in a way that satisfied her,
> then it
> really shouldn't be something that is an issue, and so many years
> later too.
>
> So if 18 years ago I did/say something to my daughter that felt right
> to me,
> is NOT seen as right by those who judge my parenting skills today...
> well
> then I can live with that.
>
> I've examined my motives, I've thought about ways I could have handled
> the
> situation differently, I've read and re-read the posts about it. No
> one
> really said anything about a different or better way that it
> should/could
> have been handled so basically it's a mute point, for me anyway.
>
> My children are grown and almost grown and smoking is something they
> will
> decide for themselves. I've told them all I know about it and they
> know that
> I don't do it, nor does their father. Other family members do,
> they've seen
> the consequences, their uncle was buried less than a month ago because
> of it.
>
> I think that maybe it's not about smoking or not smoking or saying
> maybe
> tomorrow or in a minute or just a second. It's about someone saying
> what
> THEY would do differently, not just saying you are WRONG, say what YOU
> would
> have done to make the situation BETTER.
>
> I've seen several posts with mothers who've said they've examined
> their "in a
> minute" or "just a second" words to their children and are working to
> make it
> a true statement to their children. I think that is good for them,
> for their
> children and good for those of us who are on the unschooling path and
> looking
> for examples of ways to be the best we can be at this awesome job
> called
> mothering.
>
> I hope it's clear to those who constantly say how much I, personally
> post and
> detract from the group, that discussions go on without me. I might
> bring up
> something that causes one to think or challenge or say how wrong I am,
> but I
> am not the one doing the only "endless posting".
>
> I've been thinking about this for several days. I don't mind people
> telling
> me I'm doing something wrong, I don't even care so much what they
> think of
> me. BUT if they are going to take the time to point out loudly and
> clearly
> that something is WRONG and driving them to the point of insanity as
> some
> have said, then how about offering some advice on how to do it RIGHT.
>
> Say, you are WRONG because ___________ and _______________ and
> __________ and
> maybe you should have tried ________ and __________ and ____________.
>
> I see/hear a lot about something being the WRONG way and not at all
> helpful
> and being hurtful to one's children but the truth is there is not a lot
> posted by those who yell wrong or hurtful about an alternative way to
> do
> whatever it was that was wrong.
>
> Threads can go on and on about a wrong way or a personality but they
> rarely
> go on with idea after idea of how one might handle a particular
> situation the
> right way.
>
> glena
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
> Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/0xXolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
> ~~~~ 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/
>
>

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/18/03 5:39:49 PM, rubyprincesstsg@... writes:

<< Seems the thread continued way beyond me for a couple days. But here's
the
scoop, I know what I meant and if in my heart I know that I validated my
daughters question and responded to her in a way that satisfied her, then it
really shouldn't be something that is an issue, and so many years later too.
>>

It shouldn't be an issue.
You shouldn't have told us the story.
If it helped YOU, fine. Put it in your journal.

If you have things to share here that will help other unschoolers, share
those things.

Don't share how you feel about how we feel about something you're not sure
about, which was presented full of typos and repeated six times. You're
wasting our time and YOUR time, and you're not helping people unschool by
your actions or responses.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/18/03 9:38:39 PM, HMSL2@... writes:

<< Im glad she is back all
the talking this weekend should have ended while she was gone and it didn't.
>>

It wasn't about her. It was about the content of the posts.
Now you've posted a bunch about Tory. It's not about Tory.

IF you think this is about people, then start a yahoo group to discuss
people. This list should not be about that. It should honestly and truly be
about unschooling.

<<Maybe you should go away for a weekend we will all blast you in a hundred
or
so emails and you try to zip it!>>

Tory wasn't disrupting the list.

When I used the evil friggin-idiot-then line, it was DIRECTLY in defense of
this list's contributions to unschooling and more-aware parenting.

You've used something worse NOT in defense of unschooling, but in defense
of... can't tell what. Of allowing people the latitude to continue to
disrupt the list?

If I were to say this would be my last post (which it will not be) and then
posted again, I'd understand if people commented. If I did that half a dozen
times and they laughed at me about it, it would be because I broke my word
half a dozen times, not because they were mean people.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/19/2003 12:36:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

>
>
>
> >>>>>>It wasn't about her. It was about the content of the posts.
> Now you've posted a bunch about Tory. It's not about Tory.>>>>

No, it's not about Tory. My comments this weekend were not even all about
Glena.

>
>
> >>>>Tory wasn't disrupting the list.
> When I used the evil friggin-idiot-then line, it was DIRECTLY in defense of
>
> this list's contributions to unschooling and more-aware parenting.>>>>>

I never once (that I can recall) wrote about the friggin-idiot line that was
not in my concerns.

>
> >>>You've used something worse NOT in defense of unschooling, but in
> defense
> of... can't tell what. Of allowing people the latitude to continue to
> disrupt the list?>>>>

No defense I just had enough.
I felt it was disrupting an already heated issue with Glena. I will not say
I accept Glena's choices, but I didn't Dam her for it either.
Yes, post after post is disruptive. I would have liked to see her read many
posts before she commented but again.

>
> If I were to say this would be my last post (which it will not be) and then
>
> posted again, I'd understand if people commented. If I did that half a
> dozen
> times and they laughed at me about it, it would be because I broke my word
> half a dozen times, not because they were mean people.



My thoughts are that it takes more than a day or a week to break bad habits
or parenting errors. Do I think she should have cut down on posts, yes. Do I
think that she should not respond to attacks, maybe some. The issue is that
she is one and the group is much bigger and it can be overwhelming. She
received many good responses but then a few did more harm than good.

For Instance
I have a friend who is finally going to take her children out of school. Six
months ago I almost lost this friendship over just Homeschooling
conversations. I have been criticized by her for my choice to Unschool. I
have explained Unschooling more times than I can remember.
I have shown her example questions that one may want to know about
Unschooling. I talk with her every day. She says she is going to Unschool
but still says she will buy math and science books.
Week after week for at least 3 months I have explained it all to her. I have
answered questions. I have printed information for her. I have given her
books on Unschooling and still "math and science" they will need books
because she doesn't know enough about the subjects.
Im not giving up on her and im not going to get mad at her. I will repeat it
until she is ready to hear me.

So it's not always that the person isn't listening or reading right it is
when they are ready to hear and read what is written. But if those words come
out wrong as they do in the case of a child you loose them and have to begin
all over again.

Laura D


>
>



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

Fetteroll

on 5/18/03 11:37 PM, HMSL2@... at HMSL2@... wrote:

> The list goes on all weekend about HER and you expect her not to post!

The list has gone on about the ideas she stirred up and about the effects
she's had on the list.

When it's been personal it's been about Sandra :-/

Glena said she was done. Apparently she wasn't.

And that's not about Glena. It's about the idea of integrity and using words
to mean what they say. It's about the effect our personal philosophies can
have on how well we can get what we want from life.

You've been here a month. Glena's been here 4.

(Hmm. Her joining coincides with the increase in numbers of posts. The past
couple of weeks have been busy with unschooling talk and I was projecting
that back and assuming the massive numbers of posts (nearly double the
normal rate) in January and April were also unschooling. But I'm betting at
least January was Glena too.)

The list has been incredibly patient with Glena's inability to understand
what she writes and her inability to understand what others write. Any anger
towards her claims is understandable to those who've been trying to read
every post since January.

> Get off your horse, say something other than running behind someone else's
> words and get over it for cry-n out loud.

That is personal. Not about ideas. Not about unschooling. Not about helping
the list work better. (Though we really shouldn't be talking about the list,
it does come up. And I think it's helpful to clarify what the purpose of the
list is and how it works.)

> Im glad she is back all
> the talking this weekend should have ended while she was gone and it didn't.

It's because the ideas her posts sparked are important to people.

> Maybe you should go away for a weekend we will all blast you in a hundred or
> so emails and you try to zip it!

Let's not.

But if Tory or anyone promises not to speak further on something then
they'll lose integrity if they don't. And people on the list will be less
likely to trust what they say.

If people use words to mean what they say, the list works a whole lot better
at helping people.

Joyce

Fetteroll

In a message dated 5/18/03 5:39:49 PM, rubyprincesstsg@... writes:
>
> I know what I meant and if in my heart I know that I validated my
> daughters question and responded to her in a way that satisfied her, then it
> really shouldn't be something that is an issue, and so many years later too.

And that's the heart of the whole issue. The issue isn't what was done or
what worked or how well someone is able to read a situation with their
child, but whether it's a principle that others can use. Validating feelings
is good. Responding in ways that satisfy is good. But the list needs
examples so that people can understand how those principles work in
practice. This example created the *opposite* image in people's minds.

Even if Glena was right and she read her daughter's needs and the situation
and did validate feelings and satisfied her, the example didn't help anyone
understand how to do that with their own kids. It, in fact, would have had
the opposite effect if someone else had tried it.

No matter how good someone is at being an unschooler or being a mindful
parent, if they can't convey examples so others can help themselves be
better at unschooling or mindful parenting then they can't be much help on a
list. Maybe they'd be great at a support group where people can see them in
action. Maybe they'd only be great for their kids. (Which is ultimately
what's important.) And it's especially bad if someone gives examples that
create the opposite impression for other people.

Glena is reading the criticism as though it's criticism of her and that
people are thinking bad things about her. But the criticism is about the
idea and whether it has created something that can help people on the list
become better parents. And the answer is no, it didn't. (Though the
resulting discussion about really meaning "in a minute" when you say "in a
minute" did!)

Joyce