re: manners/ Warning!!! Long post...
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/22/2003 2:35:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:
Joyce writes:
Depends on the subject. It changes.
Rhonda responds:
(In the context of the statement: If rank exist on this list, and one has
been deemed unworthy of being an authority, then...)
=\=You don't post, or you
post only when you openly acknowledge that you remember you are not an
authority?-=-
Sandra writes:
I don't post when I don't know what I'm talking about.
When I'm not sure I say "I'm not sure" or "I could be wrong" or "I think."
Rhonda states:
Several posters have done the same or used "IMO" or "IMHO" also. Regardless
of which adage is used, all of them qualify the post.
Sandra writes:
If I'm citing sources, I name them.
Those aren't things pertaining just to this list but to ANY public
communcations. People who are used to communicating in public get used to
qualifying
their statements and in being prepared to back up what they say somehow.
Rhonda responds:
Those are wonderful skills. But not everyone requires such documentation. If
I feel the need to do so when communicating, I do. If I don't and someone
wants said sources, I would either quote the sources if possible or send them to
where they coud find them.
Rhonda writes:
(Once again in the context that if rank exists on this list, with only
particular members having a voice, then...)
-=-But what if, I mean just what if, someone out there in Unschooling-dotcom
land reads the authority figures stance, and not only disagrees, but is
positive they are in fact far more knowledgable?-=-
Sandra writes:
You show your knowledge by saying sensible things you can back up.
Rhonda responds:
But since "sensible" by definition, requires perception, that could differ
from individual to individual.
Rhonda writes:
-=-Or would that fall under, they
aren't on the ranking list, so they shouldn't bother posting said knowledge,
because there may be dissention in the ranks?-=-
Sandra writes:
If it's knowledge, qualified and backed up, why would there be dissent?
Rhonda responds:
Dissention could only happen if there is in fact rank on this list.
Sandra writes:
It it's just wishful thinking and arguing for the sake of arguing, that's not
about knowledge.
Rhonda responds:
Agreed. Who here is doing that? I'm questioning and arguing for the sake of
gaining knowledge.
Rhonda writes:
-=- Reprimandining anyone on the list for their interpretations and
perspectives seems to be a far greater disservice to the list as a whole,
because it says only certain people are worthy of being heard.-=-
Sandra writes:
It's not about who said what, it's about what was said.
Rhonda responds:
It should be...
Rhonda writes:
(in the context of questioning the statement: "The whole point is rank
exists. Others tried to deny it and then claim it has nothing to do with instinct
or nature." Sorry I don't remember who said it.)
I could name many groups, times and cultures without cell phones.
Rhonda responds:
Huh? Was this humor, because I'm not sure if what I wrote was misunderstood,
or if this was meant to be funny. If I lacked clarity, let me know and I'll
try again.
Sandra writes:
No one successfully brought a single example of a human group without a
hierarchy.
Rhonda responds:
I never stated that I knew of such a group, only that I believe it is
possible. Someone here did post a site regarding the research in anarchy and
libertarianism, I thought, but I could be wrong. Since I often visit those sites
anyway, I didn't need to look them up.
Rhonda writes:
<<Depends on ones perspectives. And just because it may not be easily
understood by some, that the possibility exists that this argument could in
fact be made that my cell phone is natural, by maintaining it's existance thru
natural
means, that lack of understanding does not disqualify that argument.>>
Sandra writes:
If people say your argument isn't a parallel that means they just don't
understand it?
Rhonda responds:
That's not what I said, nor intended. I'm sorry, I'll clarify. If a person
does not understand a concept, that in no way disqualifies the concept itself.
Sandra writes:
Bad examples are as "qualified" as good arguments?
Rhonda responds:
The example was simple, but to be bad it would have to have no foundation.
Otherwise, the questioning party may dislike the example, could possiby even
come up with a better one, but again that falls back under perspective.
Rhonda writes:
(In the context of a response to....Doing a simple personality test is
one model that shows it is indeed natural and instinctual.)
<<So if one does a personality test and finds
their personailty to in fact be that of one who rejects the idea of
authority, then according to this argument, it would in fact be "natural" for
them,
therefore from their POV, it would be valid to reject such an idea. >>
Sandra writes:
Rejecting the idea of authority is kinda like rejecting the idea that the
earth goes around the sun, or rejecting the idea that ice is frozen water.
Rhonda responds:
No it isn't. I honestly do not understand what is so hard to grasp about the
concept that individuals perceive things differently. Again, I never said
authority, rank or heirarchies do not exist. Rather the possibility for humans to
"reject" them as being an acceptable continuim, in which we must live, is a
vaild view. Often humans get so comfortable with the way things are, that they
begin to believe change is not necessary. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It's when they close their eyes to the possibilities that it may be broke and
should be fixed, that narrow-mindedness occurs. So it suprises me very much, that
on a list of free thinkers, there is disreguard for seeing other POV's. It's
not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, right or wrong, but that alternative
thinking does exist (just as rank does). Everyones big picture will be
different. I would be shocked if my big picture mirrored anyone else on this planet.
That doesn't mean I should look at anothers big picture and disquailfy it. It
works for them. Again, take what you need and leave the rest.
Sandra writes:
If a wolf took a personality test and it showed that he "rejects the idea that wolves live in packs," or rejects the idea that there is alpha male behavior (and natural behavior toward an alpha male) would that mean he was a superior kind of wolf? Or just maybe a delusional kind of wolf?
Rhonda responds:
Where does "superiority" come into play? If the wolf rejects the alpha male
idea, it only makes him a different wolf, not superior or delusional, just
different. He can choose to stay with the pack, he can choose to move on,
regardless of what he chooses to do, his rejection of the idea still exists.
Perhaps that was the frame from which Richard Bach wrote Jonathan Livingston
Seagull.
I apologize for the length of my post, but in order to be respond, I wanted
the context of the dialogue to be clear.
Rhonda - who is now going to research Richard Bach, a beautiful soul.
P.S. To anyone I may have quoted and did not refer to by name, please accept
my sincerest apologies, it was not intentional.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RJHill241@... writes:
Joyce writes:
> And whose definition we go by is determined by rank ;-) As in who has theRhonda writes:
> most knowledge of the subject.
>
> -=-And who determines who is the authority (ranking individual) of eachSandra writes:
> subject?
>
Depends on the subject. It changes.
Rhonda responds:
(In the context of the statement: If rank exist on this list, and one has
been deemed unworthy of being an authority, then...)
=\=You don't post, or you
post only when you openly acknowledge that you remember you are not an
authority?-=-
Sandra writes:
I don't post when I don't know what I'm talking about.
When I'm not sure I say "I'm not sure" or "I could be wrong" or "I think."
Rhonda states:
Several posters have done the same or used "IMO" or "IMHO" also. Regardless
of which adage is used, all of them qualify the post.
Sandra writes:
If I'm citing sources, I name them.
Those aren't things pertaining just to this list but to ANY public
communcations. People who are used to communicating in public get used to
qualifying
their statements and in being prepared to back up what they say somehow.
Rhonda responds:
Those are wonderful skills. But not everyone requires such documentation. If
I feel the need to do so when communicating, I do. If I don't and someone
wants said sources, I would either quote the sources if possible or send them to
where they coud find them.
Rhonda writes:
(Once again in the context that if rank exists on this list, with only
particular members having a voice, then...)
-=-But what if, I mean just what if, someone out there in Unschooling-dotcom
land reads the authority figures stance, and not only disagrees, but is
positive they are in fact far more knowledgable?-=-
Sandra writes:
You show your knowledge by saying sensible things you can back up.
Rhonda responds:
But since "sensible" by definition, requires perception, that could differ
from individual to individual.
Rhonda writes:
-=-Or would that fall under, they
aren't on the ranking list, so they shouldn't bother posting said knowledge,
because there may be dissention in the ranks?-=-
Sandra writes:
If it's knowledge, qualified and backed up, why would there be dissent?
Rhonda responds:
Dissention could only happen if there is in fact rank on this list.
Sandra writes:
It it's just wishful thinking and arguing for the sake of arguing, that's not
about knowledge.
Rhonda responds:
Agreed. Who here is doing that? I'm questioning and arguing for the sake of
gaining knowledge.
Rhonda writes:
-=- Reprimandining anyone on the list for their interpretations and
perspectives seems to be a far greater disservice to the list as a whole,
because it says only certain people are worthy of being heard.-=-
Sandra writes:
It's not about who said what, it's about what was said.
Rhonda responds:
It should be...
Rhonda writes:
(in the context of questioning the statement: "The whole point is rank
exists. Others tried to deny it and then claim it has nothing to do with instinct
or nature." Sorry I don't remember who said it.)
> So does all existance automatically qualify as natural or instinctive orSandra writes:
> both? Hence, my cell phone exist, so is it natural? It is composed of
> materials
> created by man utilizing natural matter.
I could name many groups, times and cultures without cell phones.
Rhonda responds:
Huh? Was this humor, because I'm not sure if what I wrote was misunderstood,
or if this was meant to be funny. If I lacked clarity, let me know and I'll
try again.
Sandra writes:
No one successfully brought a single example of a human group without a
hierarchy.
Rhonda responds:
I never stated that I knew of such a group, only that I believe it is
possible. Someone here did post a site regarding the research in anarchy and
libertarianism, I thought, but I could be wrong. Since I often visit those sites
anyway, I didn't need to look them up.
Rhonda writes:
<<Depends on ones perspectives. And just because it may not be easily
understood by some, that the possibility exists that this argument could in
fact be made that my cell phone is natural, by maintaining it's existance thru
natural
means, that lack of understanding does not disqualify that argument.>>
Sandra writes:
If people say your argument isn't a parallel that means they just don't
understand it?
Rhonda responds:
That's not what I said, nor intended. I'm sorry, I'll clarify. If a person
does not understand a concept, that in no way disqualifies the concept itself.
Sandra writes:
Bad examples are as "qualified" as good arguments?
Rhonda responds:
The example was simple, but to be bad it would have to have no foundation.
Otherwise, the questioning party may dislike the example, could possiby even
come up with a better one, but again that falls back under perspective.
Rhonda writes:
(In the context of a response to....Doing a simple personality test is
one model that shows it is indeed natural and instinctual.)
<<So if one does a personality test and finds
their personailty to in fact be that of one who rejects the idea of
authority, then according to this argument, it would in fact be "natural" for
them,
therefore from their POV, it would be valid to reject such an idea. >>
Sandra writes:
Rejecting the idea of authority is kinda like rejecting the idea that the
earth goes around the sun, or rejecting the idea that ice is frozen water.
Rhonda responds:
No it isn't. I honestly do not understand what is so hard to grasp about the
concept that individuals perceive things differently. Again, I never said
authority, rank or heirarchies do not exist. Rather the possibility for humans to
"reject" them as being an acceptable continuim, in which we must live, is a
vaild view. Often humans get so comfortable with the way things are, that they
begin to believe change is not necessary. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It's when they close their eyes to the possibilities that it may be broke and
should be fixed, that narrow-mindedness occurs. So it suprises me very much, that
on a list of free thinkers, there is disreguard for seeing other POV's. It's
not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, right or wrong, but that alternative
thinking does exist (just as rank does). Everyones big picture will be
different. I would be shocked if my big picture mirrored anyone else on this planet.
That doesn't mean I should look at anothers big picture and disquailfy it. It
works for them. Again, take what you need and leave the rest.
Sandra writes:
If a wolf took a personality test and it showed that he "rejects the idea that wolves live in packs," or rejects the idea that there is alpha male behavior (and natural behavior toward an alpha male) would that mean he was a superior kind of wolf? Or just maybe a delusional kind of wolf?
Rhonda responds:
Where does "superiority" come into play? If the wolf rejects the alpha male
idea, it only makes him a different wolf, not superior or delusional, just
different. He can choose to stay with the pack, he can choose to move on,
regardless of what he chooses to do, his rejection of the idea still exists.
Perhaps that was the frame from which Richard Bach wrote Jonathan Livingston
Seagull.
I apologize for the length of my post, but in order to be respond, I wanted
the context of the dialogue to be clear.
Rhonda - who is now going to research Richard Bach, a beautiful soul.
P.S. To anyone I may have quoted and did not refer to by name, please accept
my sincerest apologies, it was not intentional.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/22/03 10:39:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:
Gosh, defining sensible would be more difficult than defining rank. Even within
the confines of an unschooling population, "sensible" will vary widely.
Some of us think it is sensible to style our hair and wear make-up every day,
and some of us think it is sensible to shampoo once a week and never wear
make-up. Both of those extremes are perfectly acceptable, neither is "better" or
"more right". To some folks its sensible to pretend to be Kings and Queens.
To some that is the most ridiculous thing they can imagine to do with thier
spare time. My husband thinks restoring old bicycles is sensible. Landon
thinks collecting bullwhips is sensible. I have no use for either, but I think
it is perfectly sensible to collect cake pans. ( who knows, I MIGHT need to
bake a guitar cake one day). Sensible shoes to me are not Birks, they are
Keds
And as far as "backing something up" you can find research, documentation
and resources to support just about anything. There are far and away many
more resources, studies, documentations, etc, supporting public schools,
spanking, and conventional parenting methods than there are for unschooling. Does
the fact that the supporting evidence exists make it the infallible truth?
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RJHill241@... writes:
> Sandra writes:I thought the same thing when I read the comment about "sensible things"
> You show your knowledge by saying sensible things you can back up.
>
> Rhonda responds:
> But since "sensible" by definition, requires perception, that could differ
> from individual to individual.
>
Gosh, defining sensible would be more difficult than defining rank. Even within
the confines of an unschooling population, "sensible" will vary widely.
Some of us think it is sensible to style our hair and wear make-up every day,
and some of us think it is sensible to shampoo once a week and never wear
make-up. Both of those extremes are perfectly acceptable, neither is "better" or
"more right". To some folks its sensible to pretend to be Kings and Queens.
To some that is the most ridiculous thing they can imagine to do with thier
spare time. My husband thinks restoring old bicycles is sensible. Landon
thinks collecting bullwhips is sensible. I have no use for either, but I think
it is perfectly sensible to collect cake pans. ( who knows, I MIGHT need to
bake a guitar cake one day). Sensible shoes to me are not Birks, they are
Keds
And as far as "backing something up" you can find research, documentation
and resources to support just about anything. There are far and away many
more resources, studies, documentations, etc, supporting public schools,
spanking, and conventional parenting methods than there are for unschooling. Does
the fact that the supporting evidence exists make it the infallible truth?
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
I'm with Katherine - drop it already. I'm sorry I contributed anything
at all to this nonsense.
-pam
at all to this nonsense.
-pam
On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 07:36 PM, RJHill241@... wrote:
>
>
> Rhonda responds:
> I never stated that I knew of such a group, only that I believe it is
> possible.
Pamela Sorooshian
You show your knowledge by saying things, over time, that other people
find to be sensible, logical, convincing, useful, or realistic. This
may be based on reasoning or on evidence.
There isn't really anything remotely controversial in what I just
wrote. It is a truism and too obvious to have to be said out loud <G>.
Yet - there are people who might not like the implications or maybe
just don't like me or maybe just had a bad day and feel like being
contentious or maybe need some excitement in their lives and an email
debate suits them -- who knows what reasons people have - i sure don't
-- but there are people who could stretch what I said in that first
statement to mean that all people on the list would assess each other's
knowledge the same way and that that is wrong, etc.
The list is lot more useful to a lot more people if people wouldn't do
that - wouldn't take extended extreme versions of what people say and
argue those nonpositions. It is a lot nicer more useful more fun more
interesting etc list ---- (sorry got tired of commas) - when people do
the opposite - look for points of AGREEMENT - try to understand how
someone else's post DOES make sense to you, don't reach for how it
doesn't. I'm not saying everyone should pretend to agree all the time -
but sometimes people get into a habit of automatically looking for
points of disagreement and, when that is the kind of thing they mostly
always do, their posts no longer inspire or edify, they annoy and
frustrate. Then the annoyed and frustrated respond with stuff that
further inflames tempers and things go from bad to worse.
I just want to ask that everybody examine their own part in this
process and just stop it if they notice that they are contributing to
it.
And before you start thinking I'm acting "holier than thou," I am
definitely not immune to being at either end of this type of negativity
and I know whereof I speak.
-pam
find to be sensible, logical, convincing, useful, or realistic. This
may be based on reasoning or on evidence.
There isn't really anything remotely controversial in what I just
wrote. It is a truism and too obvious to have to be said out loud <G>.
Yet - there are people who might not like the implications or maybe
just don't like me or maybe just had a bad day and feel like being
contentious or maybe need some excitement in their lives and an email
debate suits them -- who knows what reasons people have - i sure don't
-- but there are people who could stretch what I said in that first
statement to mean that all people on the list would assess each other's
knowledge the same way and that that is wrong, etc.
The list is lot more useful to a lot more people if people wouldn't do
that - wouldn't take extended extreme versions of what people say and
argue those nonpositions. It is a lot nicer more useful more fun more
interesting etc list ---- (sorry got tired of commas) - when people do
the opposite - look for points of AGREEMENT - try to understand how
someone else's post DOES make sense to you, don't reach for how it
doesn't. I'm not saying everyone should pretend to agree all the time -
but sometimes people get into a habit of automatically looking for
points of disagreement and, when that is the kind of thing they mostly
always do, their posts no longer inspire or edify, they annoy and
frustrate. Then the annoyed and frustrated respond with stuff that
further inflames tempers and things go from bad to worse.
I just want to ask that everybody examine their own part in this
process and just stop it if they notice that they are contributing to
it.
And before you start thinking I'm acting "holier than thou," I am
definitely not immune to being at either end of this type of negativity
and I know whereof I speak.
-pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/22/2003 10:38:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:
If he rejects the idea of alpha, he CANNOT choose to stay with the pack; it's
run on a pack level. Rejecting it, he rejects the pack and would be killed.
He wouldn't survive long without the pack---he's a pack animal.
The idea of a wolf rejecting the pack IS delusional. Survival of the fittest.
Different "don't work".
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RJHill241@... writes:
> If the wolf rejects the alpha maleUnderstanding quite a bit of canine behavior, I will address this:
> idea, it only makes him a different wolf, not superior or delusional, just
> different. He can choose to stay with the pack, he can choose to move on,
> regardless of what he chooses to do, his rejection of the idea still exists.
If he rejects the idea of alpha, he CANNOT choose to stay with the pack; it's
run on a pack level. Rejecting it, he rejects the pack and would be killed.
He wouldn't survive long without the pack---he's a pack animal.
The idea of a wolf rejecting the pack IS delusional. Survival of the fittest.
Different "don't work".
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mary
From: "Pamela Sorooshian" <pamsoroosh@...>
<<I'm not saying everyone should pretend to agree all the time -
but sometimes people get into a habit of automatically looking for
points of disagreement and, when that is the kind of thing they mostly
always do, their posts no longer inspire or edify, they annoy and
frustrate. Then the annoyed and frustrated respond with stuff that
further inflames tempers and things go from bad to worse.>>
Here here!! I totally agree with this one. Nit pickers I call them. And the
world is full of them!!! Just out there looking for something to disagree
with.
Mary B
<<I'm not saying everyone should pretend to agree all the time -
but sometimes people get into a habit of automatically looking for
points of disagreement and, when that is the kind of thing they mostly
always do, their posts no longer inspire or edify, they annoy and
frustrate. Then the annoyed and frustrated respond with stuff that
further inflames tempers and things go from bad to worse.>>
Here here!! I totally agree with this one. Nit pickers I call them. And the
world is full of them!!! Just out there looking for something to disagree
with.
Mary B