I am a list owner myself of a successful Webheads list, successful in that the list I started has taken on a life of its own as this one has. As owner of thisMessage 1 of 32 , Mar 1, 2010View SourceI am a list owner myself of a successful Webheads list, successful in that
the list I started has taken on a life of its own as this one has.
As owner of this list it would be in my power to shut it down but I have to
ask myself why? Why would I do that? If I tired of it I would simply walk
away. There are hundreds of people interacting, and why stop them? They've
found a space, why not let them carry on?
So I don't understand Scott's reasoning exactly. Why not just leave the
list in place? Why force a move?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Bragg" <chalkfacehero@...>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [dogme] Re: 10th anniversary - and close down!
I say go for it, Fiona. You don't have to ask for Scott's approval, or
anybody else's, as ideas belong to us all.
As long as there's some sort of 'critical mass' willing to push the stone up
the hill again, we can keep Sisyphus occupied for another ten years or so!
--- On Sun, 28/2/10, fiotf <fiolima@...> wrote:
From: fiotf <fiolima@...>
Subject: [dogme] Re: 10th anniversary - and close down!
Date: Sunday, 28 February, 2010, 22:05
Cheesecake apart, I'm having an idea. You can probably hear the cogs
from wherever you are.
I can understand Scott's decision/wish perfectly. Like it or not, the dogme
group is as closely associated with his name, as is the whole approach. For
better and for worse. If he feels it is time to move on, I, for one, second
However, reading Sara, Karenne and others, I'm wondering if this is also the
time to bring dogme 2.0 into official being? I'm willing to set up a
separate group and moderate it ie kill spam, post interesting (?) links etc.
and slightly off-the-wall comments, and call it the dogme 2.0 group (or
similar) - maybe Dennis could co-moderate from his lodge or villa in Second
Life ;-) and perhaps it could be the place to migrate to, if you wish. And
keep the original dogme group as an archive, in line with Scott's wishes.
So... well, if you think it's worth it, let me know off-list, please. If I
get around 25 messages (or more, obviously), I'll do it. If Scott agrees.
You have until next Friday 5th March 9pm GMT to let me know (email with
dogme 2.0 on the subject line, please). Ready, get set..... GO!
Cheesecake for the first twenty-five email senders....
--- In dogme@yahoogroups. com, pannazosia@. .. wrote:
> mixed feelings- or, perhaps, no feelings as yet, but shock - definitely.
> amazing, that - for quite a few years I didn't really contributeall that
> much, but now with Scott;s announcement came the sense of loss. so perhaps
> what I feel is not different from grief when someone well known has
> away. bizarre? I don't know... dogme has become part of my life, even when
> some threads infuriated me or left me cold - others profited and it was
> a real community .
> Scott, I guess you are the owner of the list so you can euthanize it, but
> are you sure that killing a community that's alive and kicking is humane?
> whattever happens... oh, one more thing: Karenne speculated (or have you
> some ironclad facts?) that some older members could have left as their
> were unmet - sounds rather unlikely - I remember several postings when
> people felt that the list strayed off-track . Guess that perhaps sometimes
> there is less need to be active on the list, that's all.
> Jane, I do hope that your words come true and I fear a little losing
> with you guys. I have become so attached to the mere fact of dogme list
> "being there" - even if the threads were un-dogme!
> BTW I love lemon cheesecake,Fiona. must visit Spain...
> Bye all
> dogme@yahoogroups. com napisa³(a):
> Sob. Hope the cyber "ink" doesn't run with my tears. Just found out
> about the close down, appropriately from one of the dogme old-timers
> having lunch at my place (even though the news was bad, your lemon
> cheesecake was great, Fiona). Have now reading Scott's message. I'm
> sure he knows what is best and this may even push dogme into new areas.
> Our dogme writing and lurking urges now need to find new outlets.
> But it has been good and will certainly be something we can fondly look
> back on.
> Thanks to Scott and to everyone who has made the site so interesting.
> Jane Arnold
> Seville, Spain
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To Post a message, send it to: dogme@...
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@...!
My hat off to you Karenne. I could not change a word there.You express clearly an elegantly what had been on my mind for quite a time now. I don t write oftenMessage 32 of 32 , Jul 19, 2010View SourceMy hat off to you Karenne. I could not change a word there.You express clearly an elegantly what had been on my mind for quite a time now.
I don't write often on your blog but it does not mean I don't appreciate it.
--- En date de : Mar 2.3.10, Karenne Sylvester <kalinagoenglish@...> a écrit :
De: Karenne Sylvester <kalinagoenglish@...>
Objet: [dogme] Re: Just walk away!
Date: Mardi 2 mars 2010, 0h49
It's you, actually Scott, howling at moons, to be frank.
Dogme won't go away: whether or not the list goes away.
You put a name to something that existed.
Sort of like "Columbus discovered the Caribbean."
Did Columbus invent the Caribbean?
Did people live in the Caribbean before Columbus?
Is Columbus' name indelibly associated with the Caribbean?
Did you "invent" teaching without coursebooks?
No you did not.
Not anyone on this list did that and it's an unsurmountable arrogance to even flickr a whimper in the direction that you did.
What all of you did was put it on the map.
You, in particular, took your name and marked the territory so it's rather churlish of you to "walk away" simply because it barks and bites back.
Are you, Scott or Luke, the owners of dogme?
The name itself was not even a creation of your own minds' imagination but a term borrowed from a movement in film.
Can you decide and dictate where dogme goes next?
Because like the Caribbean it will be taken over by those who wish to raid it for its riches, gold and lush soils. History has someone to point a finger at, whether you skulk with tail between legs, whether you yap or whine or whether you choose instead to stand guard, proudly and loyally.
Well, blah blah... I'm done playing out this particular word play. You get the point. I basically think like a lot of others have said already and Simon Greenall noted: rather a top-down decision for a "dogmeist."
So this is it: as honest as it gets.
And as this is my last post to the dogme group:
- - -
Good bye to all of the rest of you on this list, thank you for so many of your entertaining and interesting ideas, lesson plans, contributions, philosophies and arguments.
I wish you all much luck and happiness and always in class: fruitful, engaging and dynamic conversations.
Until our e-paths cross again, be most well.
blog: http://kalinago. blogspot. com
--- In dogme@yahoogroups. com, "Scott" <scott.thornbury@ ...> wrote:
> --- In dogme@yahoogroups. com, Vance Stevens <vstevens@> wrote:
> > So I don't understand Scott's reasoning exactly. Why not just leave the
> > list in place? Why force a move?
> Good question,Vance. One that gave me pause. Why DOESN'T dogme seem quite the same as, say, Webheads, and harder, therefore, to walk away from? I think one reason is that, for better or worse, dogme is fairly strongly identified with me, and me with it. In the last 10 years, I've given a lot of workshops and written a lot of articles on the subject of dogme, culminating in the book, Teaching Unplugged, that Luke and I wrote last year. Even though I have probably contributed fewer postings, over the years, than say Rob, or Diarmuid, or Fiona - I am, for many people, the public face of dogme, Mr Dogme, even. Because of these indelible associations, I feel a certain responsibility to invigilate the site, to keep an eye on it, and to keep it on track, as it were. At the same time, this proprietorial tendency sits uncomfortably with my conviction that dogme DOESN'T belong to me - that it has long since flown the nest, so to speak, and is being reinvented in
a variety of exciting ways (e.g. by Howard Vickers in his Avatar Languages, by Anthony Gaughan and his Teacher Training Unplugged, by James Knott and his school in Ekatarinaburg, and in many other dogme-influenced innovative projects). Closing the Dogme list acknowledges, symbolically, the self-propagating and diversifying nature of dogme, while at the same time it releases me from the (sometimes stifling) sense of this close identification with dogme.
> I guess I feel that if I tried to walk away, the dogme site would follow me, heaving itself across the sand like a wounded sea-cow, barking plaintively. ..
> (Or is it me who is barking?)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]