Joe Jackson (email@example.com)
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:43:09 -0500
Points well taken; thanks, Todd.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Todd
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 8:10 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: DSM: Sudbury Schools in an Urban setting
> You raise a good point (re: attacking and defending). I
> generally find the posts by the staff, founders, and parents from
> SV model schools to be very direct and helpful. These posts
> force others to be consistent, logical, and complete when
> bringing up questions or concerns about the model. You, in
> particular, remind me of a friend of mine -- an excessively
> logical physics grad student -- who will never let me make
> off-hand comments without being able to back them up. Like most
> people, I become emotional about certain issues, and make
> comments about these issues which I intuitively feel to be right
> but which don't necessarily stand up to criticism. I always hate
> it when my friend questions my logic, but I appreciate the
> conversations with him. I don't ever dramatically change my
> beliefs, but he helps me be consistent in my thinking and to shed
> new light on the _implementation_ of my beliefs.
> Having said that, I should note that these conversations are
> between two friends and are normally in person. Discussions over
> a listserve have the potential to turn away good-hearted people
> who might believe in and adopt the SV model eventually, but who
> like to have the opportunity to discuss things more generally
> before they can warm to the specifics. Usually, it's an issue of
> tone or of the inability for an email to convey the non-verbal
> clues of the spoken word. (I am not implying that you personally
> don't do this.)
> The more I read the books from Sudbury Valley Press and the more
> I see emails on this listserve, the more I like the model. I am
> sending this email simply to ask those who have experience with
> the model to be a bit more gentle with others who post to this
> listserve. By all means though, let them know what you think.
> Todd Robinson
> > ------------ Original Message -----------
> > From: Joe Jackson <email@example.com>
> > Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:11:43 -0500
> > I find the concept that there's something wrong with attacking and
> > defending
> > ideas tiresome. If folks are only interested in hearing attacks and
> > defenses that support their own feelings, they should unsubscribe.
> > Joe Jackson
> > > Hear, hear Prohibido!
> > >
> > > I'm not going to add my opinion about the specific issue
> being discussed
> > > (it seems to be closed now)- but as an observer, it seemed that
> > > most of the
> > > responses from other people were immediately defensive. As
> > > Prohibido said,
> > > "Mistakes are a part of life." We tell kids that, we ought to tell
> > > ourselves that as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > >People,
> > > >
> > > >I know this is a private listserve. But cannot we be able to
> > > discuss the
> > > >model without attacks or the need to be right? Cannot we speak
> > > of possible
> > > >weaknesses in the model at times? Only through bringing things
> > > out into the
> > > >open can we learn from our mistakes. Mistakes aren't bad. They're
> > > >necessary, and a part of life.
> > > >I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I invite it. But I see
> > the
> > > >model go much deeper than that.
> > > >
> > > >I've received private emailes from Russia and other foreign
> > > countries after
> > > >some have read the posts on the listserve. Instead of promoting
> > > the model,
> > > >some are fighting and becoming defensive about it. Defense is
> > > not needed.
> > > >You either see it or you don't.The model speaks for itself.
> > > It's about the
> > > >respect and freedom of children. I'd like to see it grow,
> > > whatever it takes.
> > > >If we fight amongst ourselves, how can we promote the model abroad?
> > The
> > > model
> > > >speaks for itself. It's about the respect of children. Let's
> > > keep our eye
> > > >on the ball okay. :)
> > > >
> > > >Prohibido
> > > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:34 EST