waldorf painting rules
- I had an amusing conversation with my granddaughter today about
painting at her waldorf school. She was painting with watercolors (the
kind that comes in little cakes that you wet) which started the
Me: Nice picture. That's different from the way you paint at school,
gd: Yes, but we use water there, too.
Me: Are there rules about how you can paint at school?
gd: Yes (satisfied tone) we have to be quiet.
Me: Is that all the rules?
gd: Yes, that's all.
>Me: Is that all the rules?She suggested to her the answer she wanted to hear asked her to
>gd: Yes, that's all.
>LOL! Slightly leading question doncha think? <G>
confirm what she already thought that's called a leading question.
She might have gotten a different answer if she'd said, "Are there
any other rules?" or "What are the rules?"
Besides, small children haven't necessarily formulated what is
a "rule" and what isn't. Deborah asked her a classic "abstract"
and "intellectual" question (a no-no in Waldorf). Just because she
can't verbalize the rules doesn't mean she doesn't know what the
rules are. "That's all" in this context, as practically anyone who's
been around small children knows, means "I'm done talking about
The way to find out what the "rules" may be is definitely not to ask
her what the rules are, especially in a classroom where they are
probably not articulated. There are other ways to find out, either in
conversation or better, by going in to watch, but that's probably not
allowed. (Unfortunately, simply asking the teacher may not help much
either, `cus she may feel that if you have to ask, well, you're one
of those stupid parents Frank was talking about . . .)
>You need a doctor, Diana.Linda, your replies are really disintegrating. You used to do a lot
better than this. Lately it is mainly "Goody for you" and "nyah nyah"
type stuff, and insults so simple second graders do better. "You need
a doctor"?? and you are cutting and pasting things off Waldorf web
sites rather than bothering to write your own - and without
attribution, I might note. Shame!
>I see. "Is that all the rules?" is leading but "Are there any otherThose are both leading questions. Did you read the rest of my post? I
suggested that this mode of questioning will probably not get you far
with young children.
Thanks for the Perry Mason skit. Obviously, for some people things
gotta be pretty damn clear-cut!
- D, would you stop wasting space on this forum with your first grade antics -
please. I think Linda should have said, you need a good doctor, cause the
one you've got at the moment isn't working.
Yes it is difficult to keep things clear cut for you and Pete. I never knew
morbid sad pathetic human beings like you existed; you are pathetic you
know; wasting everyones time with you psuedo intellectual dribble; it will
Here's laughing at you and Pete; the mutual admiration club of two.
Have a nice day,
> >You need a doctor, Diana.
>Linda, your replies are really disintegrating. You used to do a lot
>better than this. Lately it is mainly "Goody for you" and "nyah nyah"
>type stuff, and insults so simple second graders do better. "You need
>a doctor"?? and you are cutting and pasting things off Waldorf web
>sites rather than bothering to write your own - and without
>attribution, I might note. Shame!
>>Thanks for the Perry Mason skit. Obviously, for some people things
>gotta be pretty damn clear-cut!
Sell your car for $9 on carpoint.com.au
>D, would you stop wasting space on this forum with your first gradeNo, I will not leave per your request. That is up to "Sophia." "Sophia"
makes these decisions. Some people have their reasons for inviting
critics here. Perhaps you didn't know that - some people on this list
obviously don't want critics here, but there are others who do, for
their own reasons. Take it up with them.
>The sheer desperation of your argument, the *that's a leadingPointing out a leading question is not a desperate argument, Linda,
but a very basic one. The question that we were discussing was the
clearest and most simple example of a leading question that I can
think of. It is very easy to elicit particular answers from children,
we do it all the time, as parents, unconsciously. Deborah and her
granddaughter obviously have a close relationship and were having a
pleasant conversation. The conversation was sweet but - sorry - not
terribly interesting in terms of clearing up "Waldorf painting rules."
>the child told you what you wanted to hear, you can't know by askingWhat are you talking about? You think I am crying for help on this
>children anyway, or the teacher, only by watching, which probably
>you won't be allowed to do*, is a cry for help if you ask me.
list? From you perhaps? Er, please, but no thank you. You are
appearing to me lately as a somewhat delusional individual - as I
say, you used to make somewhat more sense in arguing, but lately your
posts are simply in tatters, I sometimes have trouble believing they
come from the old "Linda Clemens." (whoever you are)
>I was present for painting class on several occasions. There wasWas that supposed to be a laugh? (or maybe a cry for help <G>)
>another rule which hasn't been mentioned yet--"when finished, put
>the painting in the rack to dry".
>and you are cutting and pasting things off Waldorf web sites ratherI already asked you to provide the source for the little piece on
>than bothering to write your own - and without attribution, I might
>What are you talking about? Where?
Steiner's supposed educational credentials. It is clear that you did
not write it. Play dumb if you like.
>You mean because Deborah didn't get an answer that validates yourMy "accusations" that in Waldorf classrooms there are many unwritten
>wild and crazy accusations?
rules is not wild and crazy, it is the experience of many in Waldorf.
Many former students can tell you this. It might make more sense to
discuss with the older ones, though - interviewing 4 year olds is a
bit less than reliable.
>One of the techniques that virtually guarantees you won't get aI didn't suggest that. Try to read what is written. I said basically
>truthful answer is the one you use... the technique of automatically
>ruling out all the answers offered which you personally don't like.
for Deborah to interview her granddaughter about it is not very
useful. I wouldn't, personally, go around interviewing 4-year-
olds . .
- Hi D,
I didn't mean it literally, but figuratively. It's the message not the words
No please please stay, you serve a very important role on here; one you
wouldn't even believe. From you and Pete I can 'crawl' deep down into the
recesses of my dark side (step into the mud and walk in your shoes for a
while ) and explore this; in a cyber world where I wouldn't necessarily be
able to do this in the real world of a face to face. In this process I learn
a lot about myself also actually. I'm not really used to putting down otherr
human beings; however if you want to insult Anthroposophy, Steiner, and
MichaEL School wisdom, well rest assured you are standing on shakey ground
which will tear assuder under your feet.
>From: "winters_diana" <diana.winters@...>_________________________________________________________________
>Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: waldorf painting rules
>Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:06:10 -0000
> >D, would you stop wasting space on this forum with your first grade
> >antics -
>No, I will not leave per your request. That is up to "Sophia." "Sophia"
>makes these decisions. Some people have their reasons for inviting
>critics here. Perhaps you didn't know that - some people on this list
>obviously don't want critics here, but there are others who do, for
>their own reasons. Take it up with them.
REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings