[email protected]

In a message dated 7/27/03 6:16:56 AM, dcannon@... writes:

<< Socratic method is the "humiliate the student" method of teaching

law, >>

Maybe in Paper Chase it was portrayed that way, but in pure form it is NOT a
"humiliate the student" method.

<<Practitioners of them would say that any other teaching method is

watered down instruction and that if you don't want the degree

badly enough to endure the humiliation, you shouldn't be there in

the first place.>>

Yikes!

Socratic method (the term) came from the drawing out of a student toward a
truth by asking him questions designed to help him come to a certain realization.

More modern useage (more general application) don't necessarily aim for one
single answer, as Socrates himself seemed to be doing, at least according to
what some of his students reported.

If we ask someone a question knowing that their thinking through their answer
will lead to greater understanding for them and in them than they would have
if we just recited an answer to them and expected them to get it, then we're
using "Socratic method."

If someone says "How will my child understand percentages without workbooks?"
someone might say "When did you really understand percentages?" They'll be
hoping, probably, that the answer will involve some real-world application or
need, and they'll probably be right. So rather than say "Many don't understand
it until they have a real-world need," they set up a situation in which they
ask the other to think back to personal experience.

A longer dialog where more questions are asked like "Why would someone want
to do that anyway?" "What WOULD you do if he didn't?" "What's the worst that
can happen?" "What is the purpose for it, ultimately?" can be leading someone
toward a pre-thought goal. In a one-on-one (as Socrates worked often) or in
a voluntary exchange like this, why would there be any risk of humiliation?
We're not calling on anyone to state their answers to those questions. Some
voluntarily do, and some just think it to themselves.

Socratic method isn't an oral exam. It's dialog which draws a person toward
a realization. Not all questions are "Socratic." If the answer is a matter
of simple fact, that's a whole different thing. If the question is designed to
trick a respondent (as interrogations before or in courtroom situations
sometimes are), that has nothing to do with Socratic method.

If the questions have to do with helping a person clarify his ideas and
beliefs, then that's "Socratic," and why is that humiliating?

Sandra

Paradox

----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-Discussion] Socratic method


Sandra

This was interesting.

Thanks.

Chris Swift

HEQT - Home Education Question Time
We discuss the issues other groups don't even like mentioned. (Could be
Socratic !)
To subscribe : HEQT-subscribe@...
Web Page: http://www.topica.com/lists/HEQT/






>
> In a message dated 7/27/03 6:16:56 AM, dcannon@... writes:
>
> << Socratic method is the "humiliate the student" method of teaching
>
> law, >>
>
> Maybe in Paper Chase it was portrayed that way, but in pure form it is NOT
a
> "humiliate the student" method.
>
> <<Practitioners of them would say that any other teaching method is
>
> watered down instruction and that if you don't want the degree
>
> badly enough to endure the humiliation, you shouldn't be there in
>
> the first place.>>
>
> Yikes!
>
> Socratic method (the term) came from the drawing out of a student toward a
> truth by asking him questions designed to help him come to a certain
realization.
>
> More modern useage (more general application) don't necessarily aim for
one
> single answer, as Socrates himself seemed to be doing, at least according
to
> what some of his students reported.
>
> If we ask someone a question knowing that their thinking through their
answer
> will lead to greater understanding for them and in them than they would
have
> if we just recited an answer to them and expected them to get it, then
we're
> using "Socratic method."
>
> If someone says "How will my child understand percentages without
workbooks?"
> someone might say "When did you really understand percentages?" They'll
be
> hoping, probably, that the answer will involve some real-world application
or
> need, and they'll probably be right. So rather than say "Many don't
understand
> it until they have a real-world need," they set up a situation in which
they
> ask the other to think back to personal experience.
>
> A longer dialog where more questions are asked like "Why would someone
want
> to do that anyway?" "What WOULD you do if he didn't?" "What's the worst
that
> can happen?" "What is the purpose for it, ultimately?" can be leading
someone
> toward a pre-thought goal. In a one-on-one (as Socrates worked often) or
in
> a voluntary exchange like this, why would there be any risk of
humiliation?
> We're not calling on anyone to state their answers to those questions.
Some
> voluntarily do, and some just think it to themselves.
>
> Socratic method isn't an oral exam. It's dialog which draws a person
toward
> a realization. Not all questions are "Socratic." If the answer is a
matter
> of simple fact, that's a whole different thing. If the question is
designed to
> trick a respondent (as interrogations before or in courtroom situations
> sometimes are), that has nothing to do with Socratic method.
>
> If the questions have to do with helping a person clarify his ideas and
> beliefs, then that's "Socratic," and why is that humiliating?
>
> Sandra

Nora or Devereaux Cannon

I love the Socratic method in its "pure" form - and find it a
good way to communicate on line - but as I indicated, I was
referring to the "humiliate the student method of teaching law",
with which I have a great deal of familiarity.
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-Discussion] Socratic method


|
| In a message dated 7/27/03 6:16:56 AM, dcannon@... writes:
|
| << Socratic method is the "humiliate the student" method of
teaching
|
| law, >>
|
| Maybe in Paper Chase it was portrayed that way, but in pure
form it is NOT a
| "humiliate the student" method.
|
| <<Practitioners of them would say that any other teaching
method is
|
| watered down instruction and that if you don't want the degree
|
| badly enough to endure the humiliation, you shouldn't be there
in
|
| the first place.>>
|
| Yikes!
|
| Socratic method (the term) came from the drawing out of a
student toward a
| truth by asking him questions designed to help him come to a
certain realization.
|
| More modern useage (more general application) don't necessarily
aim for one
| single answer, as Socrates himself seemed to be doing, at least
according to
| what some of his students reported.
|
| If we ask someone a question knowing that their thinking
through their answer
| will lead to greater understanding for them and in them than
they would have
| if we just recited an answer to them and expected them to get
it, then we're
| using "Socratic method."
|
| If someone says "How will my child understand percentages
without workbooks?"
| someone might say "When did you really understand percentages?"
They'll be
| hoping, probably, that the answer will involve some real-world
application or
| need, and they'll probably be right. So rather than say "Many
don't understand
| it until they have a real-world need," they set up a situation
in which they
| ask the other to think back to personal experience.
|
| A longer dialog where more questions are asked like "Why would
someone want
| to do that anyway?" "What WOULD you do if he didn't?" "What's
the worst that
| can happen?" "What is the purpose for it, ultimately?" can be
leading someone
| toward a pre-thought goal. In a one-on-one (as Socrates
worked often) or in
| a voluntary exchange like this, why would there be any risk of
humiliation?
| We're not calling on anyone to state their answers to those
questions. Some
| voluntarily do, and some just think it to themselves.
|
| Socratic method isn't an oral exam. It's dialog which draws a
person toward
| a realization. Not all questions are "Socratic." If the
answer is a matter
| of simple fact, that's a whole different thing. If the
question is designed to
| trick a respondent (as interrogations before or in courtroom
situations
| sometimes are), that has nothing to do with Socratic method.
|
| If the questions have to do with helping a person clarify his
ideas and
| beliefs, then that's "Socratic," and why is that humiliating?
|
| Sandra
|
|
|
| ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
| Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US
& Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP,
Epson, Lexmark & more.
| http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
| http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/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/
|
|
|

Fetteroll

We're going on a "baseball" trip around New England going to various minor
and major league teams. Well, Carl and Kathryn are doing the baseball, I'm
going along for the other stuff. So far we've got Lipizzan stallions,
Vermont Teddy Bear Factory and Ben and Jerry's factory.

We'll be in Montreal for a couple of days and perhaps Quebec depending on
what there is we'd like to see. They'll be going to an Expos game and we're
going to the Mosaicultures exhibit. Is there anything else unique and kid
interesting people would recommend? Anything you'd suggest for me to do in
Montreal while they're at the baseball game?

Joyce

Fetteroll

For any who are interested, here's something the moderator of RUL did and
posted on RUL. -- Joyce (Unschooling-Discussion moderator)

> Hi, all
>
> There are a lot of lingering issues concerning the discussion dynamics at
> Unschooling.com's Discussion list. These issues have been inappropriately
> taken to RUL (Radical Unschooling List). It is my understanding that
> meta-discussion is not encouraged on the actual Unschooling-Discussion List.
> So, I have created a private, quick-topic message board
> (http://www.quicktopic.com/22/H/jFAwwus29ND) for all interested individuals to
> further discuss the issues.
>
> Joyce, you may want to alert your members of this board. Let me know your
> feelings about the creation of this board. I know you've already stated your
> list's mission, so I don't know if this new board will be anything more than a
> venting platform. Perhaps it's necessary for that purpose?
>
> Anyone can "subscribe" to this board so that you get all new messages sent to
> you via email. This board is not to replace any unschooling email list. It
> serves only to discuss unschooling.com's discussion dynamics. It will be
> deleted when this service is no longer needed.
>
> I am not moderating this new board--no one is. Use this space to come to a
> resolution, a truce, or at least a better understanding of the opposing
> viewpoints.
>
> Nancy

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/29/03 10:10:12 AM, fetteroll@... writes:

<< > I am not moderating this new board--no one is. Use this space to come
to a
> resolution, a truce, or at least a better understanding of the opposing
> viewpoints. >>

Sounds like a Jr. High slam book.

Are there "opposing viewpoints" to unschooling discussions? I could find
lots of people in my own neighborhood or town to say I should put my kids in
school and they won't learn to read on their own. Bummer is, they DID learn to
read on their own, and Kirby's turning 17 today, never having been to school.

I'm not interested in discussing discussions of discussions, and I'm not too
interested in a semi-permanent home for the petty lies being spread about me
by women who should grow up.

Why would one discussion list create a side discussion about a DIFFERENT
discussion list?

I lived through seventh grade once. My kids never have experienced any of
that nonsense. Those who need to live it again might want to consider a
therapist instead of "a venting platform."

Sandra

[email protected]

I don't know who this "R." is but that's okay. It's someone from the RUL
list who apparently responded to Joyce's defense of this list, it seems. One day
last week I read lots of things from the other list, but haven't seen
anything lately. I thught they were through discussing this list. Anyway, this
was interesting like a train wreck:


Joyce wrote (in part):

>It's ridiculous to defend the right of something to exist that serves
>well the niche it's trying to reach. What's unfortunate is that people
>can't know beforehand what niche the Unschooling-Discussion list serves
>and are understandably upset when the list isn't what they expected. I've
>apologized for that.

-=-So, ethically speaking, any list which satisfied its members need not
defend (or justify) itself? If the Nazi party has a list (I'm using an
extreme example to make a point, not to say that you're nazi-like)-
and its members are very happy with it, you don't see a problem with what
it's promoting?

-=-If "your" list thinks it promotes "a", but because of the methods used it
might actually promote "b" (where "b" is in some way quite the opposite
of "a") - isn't that something worth pondering??

-=-R.


Why would someone join a Nazi list?
If someone joined one knowing it was, why would they complain?
If they DID see a problem with what it was promoting, would they drop off or
go to another list and badmouth that list?


And back to the shaky analogy to this list, if what this list promotes is
unschooling, and someone doesn't see a problem with unschooling, then...

-=-If "your" list thinks it promotes "a", but because of the methods used it
might actually promote "b" (where "b" is in some way quite the opposite
of "a") - isn't cal.
It's not worth pondering something that doesn't make sense.

I'm trying not even to ponder why people would bother to focus on a list
they're not on that reminds them (even a little) of Nazis.

It's a pretty nice day here, all my kids are home and happy and busy and it's
not as hot as it's been being, which is great. I hope it will rain. I just
got back from taking a friend home from an urgent care center. Food poisoning
from leftover fajitas. Don't let this happen to you! Refrigerate! He
looked like hell, poor guy, and slept all the way to his house and could hardly get
up the steps. Unscheduled activity, but so it goes.

Sandra

Pamela Sorooshian

On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 12:14 PM, SandraDodd@... wrote:

> Why would one discussion list create a side discussion about a
> DIFFERENT
> discussion list?

Sometimes it takes the discussion about the discussion OFF the lists
where the discussion is supposed to be about SOMETHING other than
discussion itself.

Leaves the discussers who are discussing something other than how
discussers discuss free to discuss it.

-pam

Deborah Lewis

***Leaves the discussers who are discussing something other than how
discussers discuss free to discuss it.***


Disgusting. <g>

Deb L

Fetteroll

on 7/29/03 4:01 PM, Pamela Sorooshian at pamsoroosh@... wrote:

> Sometimes it takes the discussion about the discussion OFF the lists
> where the discussion is supposed to be about SOMETHING other than
> discussion itself.
>
> Leaves the discussers who are discussing something other than how
> discussers discuss free to discuss it.

Yes, but can you say it 3 times fast?

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/29/03 3:15:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> Why would one discussion list create a side discussion about a DIFFERENT
> discussion list?
>

Because they dont want that discussion clogging up thier list either. Folks
don't want it here.. Folks dont want it there.. Evidently some folks DO want
to continue the discussion. Some of the folks hell bent on continuing the
discussion are in support of you, and they post often in your defense. If they
take thier support over to the new "branch off" list, are they also behaving
like Jr High schoolers? It seems to me that neither "side" is willing to give
it up. Maybe they are following the oft given advice to "make your own list"
Who cares as long as things get settled back down on two otherwise helpful
lists.

Teresa


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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 12:25 PM, SandraDodd@... wrote:

> It's a pretty nice day here, all my kids are home and happy and busy
> and it's
> not as hot as it's been being, which is great. I hope it will rain.
> I just
> got back from taking a friend home from an urgent care center. Food
> poisoning
> from leftover fajitas. Don't let this happen to you! Refrigerate! He
> looked like hell, poor guy, and slept all the way to his house and
> could hardly get
> up the steps. Unscheduled activity, but so it goes.

Oooh spooky <G>.

Its a nice day here too in Southern California - kind of near the coast
- cooled off a little. Rained last night and we had an unusual and
beautiful lightening/thunder storm last night. I'm picking up a friend
from the hospital today. We finished eating a breakfast of leftover
fajitas so I don't have to worry about refrigerating that.

Roya (18) is traveling around the country by bus, train, ferry, and
airplane visiting unschooling friends - I miss her but she's having a
great experience and I am so GLAD for cell phones and weblogs - this
kind of thing would have been harder on me if it had been 10 years ago
when long distance phone calls were expensive and so on. Other
daughters are here and we're doing stuff together and happy and life is
good!!

Oh - and I've been doing ChangeOne diet plan and going to Curves - for
3 months and today I got weighed and measured and I've lost 27 pounds
and umpteen inches and I feel better than I have in a long time,
physically. I bought some new clothes at our county fair - and they
were clothes I'd thought about buying at last year's fair but they are
one-size-fits-all and those NEVER fit me before. You'll see them at the
conferences!!! I bought a deep purple dress and I'm told I need a red
hat to go with it - we'll see!

My house is messy and we have ants. Soccer starts next week and it just
seems like we didn't get much break from it at all. My husband is a
coach - in fact he is the "chief coach" for the under-14 yo girls
teams. Rosie has been riding horses for 3 years now and is just as into
it as ever she was, if not more, and that takes a LOT of time. Roxana
just finished a production of Les Miserables which was fantastic and is
going to audition to be in Grease at the local community college -
she's singing "Stand Back, Buenos Aires" as an audition piece so I have
that pretty constantly playing in the back of my head. Rox and Rosie
are both in Midsummer Night Dream in a couple of weeks - I'll be at the
Sacramento and South Carolina conferences when they are performing -
bad timing! Rosie will be with me in Sacramento but not in S. Carolina.

Our homeschooling group is the best it has ever been - I really really
enjoy all the people and we have great diversity and wonderful kids and
adults. I'm feeling really satisfied and lucky.

It is especially good because after my mom died last October I really
went into a bad depression and I'd have never believed that 8 months
later I could feel so good again.

I've been EXTREMELY amazed to see how much my own state of mind
influenced my kids - how much happier they are too, now that I'm okay
again.

So - that was a big dump of a lot of stuff.

-pam

Pamela Sorooshian

On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 01:14 PM, grlynbl@... wrote:

> Who cares as long as things get settled back down on two otherwise
> helpful
> lists.

How about everybody who is over there defending this list and/or Sandra
just stop. You've been heard as much as you're going to be heard - you
really have. You've done a great job. I've read every post and
appreciated many of them a LOT.

But just like Jeva wouldn't stop here, she's not stopping there either
- no matter how many times she says she's going to. So if you keep
responding, she's going to keep posting forever. Nothing new is being
said. Because there are so many of you, it gets to looking like you
went there in a pack to pick on some poor defenseless sweet person.

Leave her to the other list - let them figure out their own way to work
things out.

I mean - instead of having to start another list to talk about this -
which seems pointless OTHER than to move the contentiousness off the
existing lists - how about you all be the ones to let others have the
last word. It is hard to believe at the moment (believe me I KNOW
this), but giving someone the last word doesn't mean people hear them
and not you.

So how about you all say thanks for being given the opportunity to
explain how you see things and that you appreciate that that list was
open to it - and that you realize that they'd like to move on to other
content and you'll honor that? It would be the right thing to do, imo.
Stay and talk about unschooling there - or whatever the topic goes to
(they aren't quite as focused on unschooling as we are here, it seems)
- but how about showing what wonderful insightful generous kind
intelligent women you are by conversing about other subjects and
dropping this one, ignoring any further comments about it no matter how
incendiary - so far the observers on the list don't have any way to
really know the real you.

-pam

Tia Leschke

> > Sometimes it takes the discussion about the discussion OFF the lists
> > where the discussion is supposed to be about SOMETHING other than
> > discussion itself.
> >
> > Leaves the discussers who are discussing something other than how
> > discussers discuss free to discuss it.
>
> Yes, but can you say it 3 times fast?

LOL! And here I thought it was all about some track and field sport.
Tia

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

Tia Leschke

> But just like Jeva wouldn't stop here, she's not stopping there either
> - no matter how many times she says she's going to. So if you keep
> responding, she's going to keep posting forever. Nothing new is being
> said. Because there are so many of you, it gets to looking like you
> went there in a pack to pick on some poor defenseless sweet person.

I've basically stopped, though it's possible someone will say something I
can't ignore. But I can't help wondering what they would do if I didn't
stop. If I kept on and on and on like some folks have here, would they
change their tune about moderating? <BEG>
Tia

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

Tia Leschke

>
> << > I am not moderating this new board--no one is. Use this space to
come
> to a
> > resolution, a truce, or at least a better understanding of the opposing
> > viewpoints. >>
>
> Sounds like a Jr. High slam book.
>
Oh well, they've on about how this list is like junior high. I didn't even
bother to respond to that. Junior high was *so* horrible for me that I
wouldn't stay 5 minutes in a place that made me feel that way.
I joined that new list, but I don't think anyone else did, more to be polite
about taking it off their list than any desire to continue.
Tia

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

Paradox

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pamela Sorooshian" <pamsoroosh@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-Discussion] Message board about this list


> Sometimes it takes the discussion about the discussion OFF the lists
> where the discussion is supposed to be about SOMETHING other than
> discussion itself.
>
> Leaves the discussers who are discussing something other than how
> discussers discuss free to discuss it.
>
> -pam
>

Pam

Thanks.

I was confused before.

Chris

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/29/03 2:20:37 PM, grlynbl@... writes:

<< Some of the folks hell bent on continuing the
discussion are in support of you, and they post often in your defense. >>

Well then they should carry on.

<< If they
take thier support over to the new "branch off" list, are they also behaving
like Jr High schoolers? >>

Are people who defend others acting like kids? Like noble kids, maybe.

<<Maybe they are following the oft given advice to "make your own list" >>

I was kinda thinking "list about unschooling."

<<Who cares as long as things get settled back down on two otherwise helpful
lists.>>

I guess I care because I'm tired of being targetted.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/29/03 2:35:47 PM, pamsoroosh@... writes:

<< How about everybody who is over there defending this list and/or Sandra
just stop. >>

I didn't know it was still going.
It should've stopped already.
I thought they made another list to MAKE it stop, but I don't think there
should be another list.

Unschooling! Let's talk about that.

Kirby's birthday party was bigger than anybody expected. The kids were 12 to
24ish, and they're getting old enough to bring dates, and so I think (haven't
counted a final count) there were 35, and four parentals/food prep. There
are still a dozen up there, and it's nearly 11:00. Some are spending the
night. I think the Los Alamos contingent is leaving at 11:00 because they have a
nearly two hours drive. When it's down to four or so male people they'll
probably head for the new X-Box.

Sorry I posted lightly after Pam had posted asking people to cease and
desist. Pam's right, and my humor probably fell like a rock anyway.

There are still cookies up there, but all the turkey and meatballs and
broccoli and cauliflower are gone, even though we had refills on that.
Cheese--GONE. Chips, still there.

Sandra

Pamela Sorooshian

Wait - and Kirby is how old today? I missed that somewhere - it just
sunk in.

Remembering the old days, on the AOL homeschooling forums, when Sandra
and I both had little kids.

I know you all have heard this a million times but oh-my-goodness just
let everything else go - enjoy those moments with your young children -
because they SURE do fly by.

-pam


On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 09:54 PM, SandraDodd@... wrote:

> The kids were 12 to
> 24ish, and they're getting old enough to bring dates, and so I think
> (haven't
> counted a final count) there were 35, and four parentals/food prep.

moonstarshooter

--- In [email protected], Tia Leschke
<leschke@s...> wrote:
>
>
> I've basically stopped, though it's possible someone will say
something I
> can't ignore. But I can't help wondering what they would do if I
didn't
> stop. If I kept on and on and on like some folks have here, would
they
> change their tune about moderating? <BEG>
> Tia

ACK!! You read my mind. Or I read yours. Either way, it was
interesting to see that I was told on that board to please stop
posting. Then we are told to take it to "another room." Detention
Hall maybe? <beg>

I did post a message to the new "discussion about discussions within
discussion groups" discussion group. It showed 19 members. I am
guessing it will fizzle out. We'll see...

Tory

moonstarshooter

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>

> I didn't know it was still going.
> It should've stopped already.

Actually, the stuff about you and this list has mostly stopped. It
is now more against Joyce and moderation and someone who was
moderated from this group still saying that Joyce does not let the
group know when someone is moderated even though I sent her an email
(I *tried* to take it off list) giving her the EXACT post where Joyce
did in fact post that she was moderated. (I just have such a trouble
with blatant lies. I realize this is my issue. Maybe there is a
group that I can join to help me work on this. <eg>)

But then another ex-this-list-member is complaining that it shouldn't
be made public who is on moderation.

But it is dying down.

Then again, it was also discussed that we shouldn't discuss what is
said on one board to another board. Oops. Either way, it has moved
slightly away from you, so my whole point was to try to ease a little
discomfort here. (I typo-ed that "discomfart" first. I think I like
that one better! Oops, there's that junior high humor.)

Oh my, how I ramble. Now back to unschooling... :)
Tory

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/29/03 11:00:21 PM, pamsoroosh@... writes:

<< Wait - and Kirby is how old today? >>

Seventeen.

Most of the guests were older, talking about college and jobs.
One I'd never met before, with some of the anime guys, was also homeschooled
and we talked about his having taken the GED cold, which is what I'm
recommending to Kirby--just take it and see how you do, and then take it again after
however much time passes. It would be cool to see how well he could do totally
flat footed. I liked the new guy. Gabe. He has an artsy haircut so I made
sure to introduce him to Holly. He did his own hair too. It's not as wild
as Holly's but has two longer points in the front, and has red highlights.

It was a really nice party. Still is, for the eight or ten still stomping
around above me.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/29/03 11:13:54 PM, torywalk@... writes:

<< I just have such a trouble

with blatant lies. I realize this is my issue. Maybe there is a

group that I can join to help me work on this. >>

I don't want a group to help me get over my aversion to lying.
I LIKE seeking out truthful people in my life, and I have lots of them.

<<But then another ex-this-list-member is complaining that it shouldn't

be made public who is on moderation.>>>

No matter what people do, someone is going to complain.

<<Then again, it was also discussed that we shouldn't discuss what is

said on one board to another board. >>

I saw that. I LOVED that. <g> Pretty funny, under the circumstances.

I don't think they should pick on Joyce. How tacky. Joyce works hard to
make the list good, and she's WAY more patient than necessary, and the list is
extremely more accommodating than some other lists are.

Once at the church I attended when I was a teenager a woman stood up to
testify, right in the middle of the sermon, right in the middle of a word. It
wasn't that kind of a church, but more than that, maybe some of the adults there
knew her (I didn't) and she hadn't gotten fifteen words out before a couple of
deacons were politely ushering her out. It's always a judgment call, but if
they had just let her go on with whatever she was saying, some people would
have been unhappy and some people were unhappy that she wasn't allowed to speak
as the spirit moved her.

The spirit moves some people to go on and on at the wrong time, but that
doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to sit back and say amen.

Sandra

moonstarshooter

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/29/03 11:13:54 PM, torywalk@t... writes:
>
> << I just have such a trouble
>
> with blatant lies. I realize this is my issue. Maybe there is a
>
> group that I can join to help me work on this. >>
>
> I don't want a group to help me get over my aversion to lying.
> I LIKE seeking out truthful people in my life, and I have lots of
them.
>
> <<But then another ex-this-list-member is complaining that it
shouldn't
>
> be made public who is on moderation.>>>
>
> No matter what people do, someone is going to complain.
>
> <<Then again, it was also discussed that we shouldn't discuss what
is
>
> said on one board to another board. >>
>
> I saw that. I LOVED that. <g> Pretty funny, under the
circumstances.
>
> I don't think they should pick on Joyce. How tacky. Joyce works
hard to
> make the list good, and she's WAY more patient than necessary, and
the list is
> extremely more accommodating than some other lists are.
>
> Once at the church I attended when I was a teenager a woman stood
up to
> testify, right in the middle of the sermon, right in the middle of
a word. It
> wasn't that kind of a church, but more than that, maybe some of the
adults there
> knew her (I didn't) and she hadn't gotten fifteen words out before
a couple of
> deacons were politely ushering her out. It's always a judgment
call, but if
> they had just let her go on with whatever she was saying, some
people would
> have been unhappy and some people were unhappy that she wasn't
allowed to speak
> as the spirit moved her.
>
> The spirit moves some people to go on and on at the wrong time, but
that
> doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to sit back and say amen.
>
> Sandra

Amen! (To all of the above) (And I say that in the most un-
obligatory way.) :-)

Tory

Deborah Lewis

***Sorry I posted lightly after Pam had posted asking people to cease and

desist. Pam's right, and my humor probably fell like a rock anyway.***

Well I liked it.

***Kirby's birthday party was bigger than anybody expected.***

Happy Birthday to Kirby!

And sweet and happy memories to his mom who loved him every moment along
the way.

Deb L