Heidi

Hi again. I've been gone for a couple of days and just this afternoon
checked in here. Been busy, have we? If I may be so bold, I'd like to
throw an opinion or two in for your consideration.

Observation one: is there a tendency to want to get in the final word
around here? It's okay for an argument to end by one party saying (to
herself) "No more. This is fruitless. I'm done." and then being
quiet.

Observation two: obnoxiousness goes away if it's ignored. (I've
observed this on other internet discussion groups, not here, because
it seems NOTHING gets ignored. There's always one more comment to be
made.) And now I've made mine.

Observation three: though I do like the idea of changing the subject
line if the internal contents of a post change, for those of us who
follow the discussion all through one thread on the website, as I do,
it would be good if the changed subject could be threaded with the
thread where it originated. Case in point: Joyce addressed Glena
about something, and I wanted to "up thread" to follow the
discussion...and found myself in the middle of a discussion about
smoking. Did Joyce "change the subject line" from something
completely unrelated to what the interior of the post addressed?

blessings, HeidiC

[email protected]

I couldn't agree with you more! Nicely said.

Kim

<< Observation one: is there a tendency to want to get in the final word
around here? It's okay for an argument to end by one party saying (to
herself) "No more. This is fruitless. I'm done." and then being
quiet.

Observation two: obnoxiousness goes away if it's ignored. (I've
observed this on other internet discussion groups, not here, because
it seems NOTHING gets ignored. There's always one more comment to be
made.) And now I've made mine.>>

blessings, HeidiC

Shari

---
This is very well said....That is All
Shari




In [email protected], "Heidi"
<bunsofaluminum60@h...> wrote:
> Hi again. I've been gone for a couple of days and just this
afternoon
> checked in here. Been busy, have we? If I may be so bold, I'd like
to
> throw an opinion or two in for your consideration.
>
> Observation one: is there a tendency to want to get in the final
word
> around here? It's okay for an argument to end by one party saying
(to
> herself) "No more. This is fruitless. I'm done." and then being
> quiet.
>
> Observation two: obnoxiousness goes away if it's ignored. (I've
> observed this on other internet discussion groups, not here,
because
> it seems NOTHING gets ignored. There's always one more comment to
be
> made.) And now I've made mine.
>
> Observation three: though I do like the idea of changing the
subject
> line if the internal contents of a post change, for those of us who
> follow the discussion all through one thread on the website, as I
do,
> it would be good if the changed subject could be threaded with the
> thread where it originated. Case in point: Joyce addressed Glena
> about something, and I wanted to "up thread" to follow the
> discussion...and found myself in the middle of a discussion about
> smoking. Did Joyce "change the subject line" from something
> completely unrelated to what the interior of the post addressed?
>
> blessings, HeidiC

Fetteroll

on 5/16/03 7:02 PM, Heidi at bunsofaluminum60@... wrote:

> Did Joyce "change the subject line" from something
> completely unrelated to what the interior of the post addressed?

Probably!

The way I post to the list is by clicking on a random post and changing the
subject. I've seen hints by the goofy way posts get sorted sometimes that
there's some memory of what the subject line used to be. Maybe it's in all
the garbage that's in the header or something?

Or maybe I'm just confused and am seeing things that aren't really there ;-)

> Observation one: is there a tendency to want to get in the final word
> around here? It's okay for an argument to end by one party saying (to
> herself) "No more. This is fruitless. I'm done." and then being
> quiet.

There's some of that. Maybe a lot of that! But the fact that this list is
*very* important to some people should be taken into account. Many people
read the list casually. (Which would account for the phenomenon of people
still saying "What conference in SC?" ;-) Many people hang on each word. (I
did with the AOL message baords when I was first starting out.)

To the volunteers who devote many hours a day to the list helping people,
they know that clarity is important. And often there is good that grows out
of the noisy clarification discussions. (Though there are less time
consuming ways to get the points across!)

> Observation two: obnoxiousness goes away if it's ignored.

Yeah. But sometimes the obnoxiousness does a lot of damage to people's
understanding in the mean time. Maybe the points that are being argued seem
unimportant to many people, but to long time unschoolers who understand the
misunderstandings that can stop someone from fully getting unschooling, the
"unimportant" points are often profoundly important.

Joyce

Betsy

**(Which would account for the phenomenon of people
still saying "What conference in SC?" ;-)**


In case anyone is really shy, or has had some kind of previous trauma
with a moderator elsewhere <g>, I want to emphasize that it's OKAY to be
new and ask the easy questions. (After a week of reading.) And it is
*definitely* okay to ask about the SC conference, even if you are the
umpty-umpth person asking. In fact, even though it would be tad
repetitive, it would be GREAT to have someone new, or newly "aware" ask
about it every single day between now and August.

Wishing Kelly a very successful event and wishing I were on the East coast,
Betsy

Fetteroll

on 5/17/03 6:02 PM, Betsy at ecsamhill@... wrote:

> In case anyone is really shy, or has had some kind of previous trauma
> with a moderator elsewhere <g>, I want to emphasize that it's OKAY to be
> new and ask the easy questions. (After a week of reading.) And it is
> *definitely* okay to ask about the SC conference, even if you are the
> umpty-umpth person asking

YES! YES! (Thank you Betsy!)

I'm sorry if anyone may have assumed I meant otherwise. I was just observing
a phenomenon not criticizing it.

Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator

Betsy

Hi, Joyce --

I knew you didn't mean to shush anybody. I just wanted to be
double-sure that no bewildered and very shy new person would possibly
hesitate *at all* to ask about the SC conference. I wouldn't want that
person to miss the conf, or the conf to miss that person. The more the
merrier!

(There's a TV show message board that I have read for a full year and
*never* posted on, despite my inate talkativeness, because the
moderators are so strict and they actually chide people for drifting off
topic. I know my abilities, and the ability to stay "on topic" is not
one of them.)

Betsy

**
I'm sorry if anyone may have assumed I meant otherwise. I was just
observing a phenomenon not criticizing it.**