Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [dogme] limitless choice and limitless 'teaching'........

Expand Messages
  • zosia grudzinska
    with all respect - anyone sayin children expect and need firm guidance have possibly neglected to observe them playing in a courtyard... children are
    Message 1 of 18 , May 31, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      with all respect - anyone sayin children expect and need firm guidance have
      possibly neglected to observe them playing in a courtyard...
      children are naturally autonomous - until they get sent to the labour camp
      which is called "school" by the enlightened societies. There they are
      taught to expect and need firm guidance of a teacher who tells them what to
      do and when and how to do it. Then we get listless, uninterested teenagers
      and we complain about the passivity of youth.

      Zosia
    • Marianne Dorléac
      zosia grudzinska wrote: with all respect - anyone sayin children expect and need firm guidance have possibly neglected to observe them playing
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 3, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        zosia grudzinska <zosia_g@...> wrote:
        with all respect - anyone sayin children expect and need firm guidance have
        possibly neglected to observe them playing in a courtyard...
        children are naturally autonomous - until they get sent to the labour camp
        which is called "school" by the enlightened societies. There they are
        taught to expect and need firm guidance of a teacher who tells them what to
        do and when and how to do it. Then we get listless, uninterested teenagers
        and we complain about the passivity of youth.



        MD : Schools are not "labour camps" !! I went to a great simple school, I had great teachers who helped me become "autonomous" : of course children are not "naturally" autonomous !! The worst strategy is to force autonomy into a child when he is not ready for it : it takes time and growing up to become autonomous !

        Oh and no I never was a listless uninterested passive teenager !!!

        Marianne







        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
        Créez votre Yahoo! Mail

        Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • HalimaBrewer
        Has anybody here read Steven Pinkers The Blank Slate? so much fell into place for me when I read it. Speaking about development and inherent tendencies and
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 3, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Has anybody here read Steven Pinkers' "The Blank Slate?"

          so much fell into place for me when I read it. Speaking about development and inherent tendencies and personality and social evolution --- a very good read even if you don't agree with all of it.

          Anyway, I think it is a bit romantic to talk about children being naturally autonomous or naturally loving and careing as if the socialisation process takes something away. Much of growing up is learning social skills, like all mammals do in order to adapt to the enviornment and all ranges of behaviour are there, form gentle and cociliatory to violent and aggressive.

          School has a function in socialisation - not all is "good" nor "bad" and teachers, most certainly have a useful function. I have had very good teachers to whom I am eternally grateful, but I have also had atomoton teachers who spouted a lot of incomprehensible nonsense.And quike frankly the existence of listless uniterested teenagers would be a phenomena with, or without any sort of teacher, excellent or otherwise. Teenagers get most of their social skills from a peer group, no matter what an individual teacher does. I think the way to guide socialisation and love of learning is a project for the whole community and for the teachers, the administration, the school board, and the parents to design an enviornment conducive to learning and freedom of thought, and material to think about - teachers work in a microcosm of the society - they hardly make it what it is alone.

          I think children need firm guidlines - I think they need edges to explore and techniques suggested for their minds to grow healthily. Doing that well does not produce listless teenagers, it gives teenagers the material they need to survive boring and listlessness in thier peers.

          Halima
          ----- Original Message ----- From: Marianne Dorléac
          To: dogme@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:47 PM
          Subject: Re: [dogme] limitless choice and limitless 'teaching'........




          zosia grudzinska <zosia_g@...> wrote:
          with all respect - anyone sayin children expect and need firm guidance have
          possibly neglected to observe them playing in a courtyard...
          children are naturally autonomous - until they get sent to the labour camp
          which is called "school" by the enlightened societies. There they are
          taught to expect and need firm guidance of a teacher who tells them what to
          do and when and how to do it. Then we get listless, uninterested teenagers
          and we complain about the passivity of youth.



          MD : Schools are not "labour camps" !! I went to a great simple school, I had great teachers who helped me become "autonomous" : of course children are not "naturally" autonomous !! The worst strategy is to force autonomy into a child when he is not ready for it : it takes time and growing up to become autonomous !

          Oh and no I never was a listless uninterested passive teenager !!!

          Marianne







          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
          Créez votre Yahoo! Mail

          Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !

          [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@...


          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT





          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/

          b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          dogme-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • diarmuid_fogarty
          Some people on this list receive all of their messages in a daily delivery. In other words, they get ONE post with every single message, including the header
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 3, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Some people on this list receive all of their messages in a daily
            delivery. In other words, they get ONE post with every single
            message, including the header line, the name of the person, the
            address of the person, the time of the post, the date of the post
            and, of course, the message itself. These megaposts take much longer
            to download than a single e-mail. On busy days, I would imagine it's
            quite frustrating when you are waiting for another important e-mail.
            Some people, I believe, are even on a weekly digest!

            With this in mind, would it be unreasonable for me to suggest that
            people think before they post. Yesterday, there were 8 posts from one
            individual that ranged from a couple of sentences long to three
            letters long. I can imagine that there were some disgruntled dogme
            people this morning. Similarly, could we follow the request that has
            been made on this list several times before: instead of reposting the
            message we are replying to, it has been requested that we snip the
            part of the message that is relevant. There is probably no need to do
            this with every post.

            All of this helps people who get their messages delivered in digest-
            form. It can be quite frustrating when you get a whole load of
            message to find out that they don't really advance the debate very
            much. Put simply, it is only the spirit in which they were sent that
            stops them from being spam.

            Merci!
            Diarmuid
          • Diarmuid Fogarty
            I don t think it is romantic to talk of children being autonomous. We re not talking about babies here, we re talking about children. To say that they are not
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 3, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I don't think it is romantic to talk of children being autonomous. We're not talking about babies here, we're talking about children. To say that they are not independent or self-governing is to belie the experience that I live every day! Both Sara and Éamonn are quite independent and both are laws unto themselves. For the record, 3 and 2 respectively.

              I would concede the case for not being naturally loving and caring, both of which are social skills that seem to be learnt as time passes by. However, like Mat, I don't really think it matters. It's an adult explanation for a child's behaviour, but it is not meant in a judgemental manner. For the record, I don't think that adults are naturally loving and caring people either. In fact, I don't really go in for the whole idea of "natural love and care" full stop. Like most things, I suspect that they are constructs, very powerful ones, perhaps,but constructs neverthless. They are built on the more plausibly natural need for security and companionship.

              Which beings me back to children's need for firm guidance and/or guidelines. I insist, *adults* need firm guidelines and guidance when they are dealing with children. Children most certainly do not need them. I do believe that children are naturally curious and will find their own edges to explore. Suggesting techniques, to paraphrase Halima, may well be beneficial to children, but then again, "suggested techniques" are not exactly "firm guidelines", are they?

              Children need company and security; food and water; the opportunity to grow and develop. Adults need rules to be laid down to ensure that this naturally anarchic process does not impact on their lives too much. Adults tell themselves that this is better for the children (has anybody tried the opposite or are we just accepting as given that it is bad?). Children's need for company and security is often realised as "love" and "care". These are not necessarily synonomous with firmness and law-making. Halima says that firm guidelines give teenagers the material they need to survive...how does she know? How is it possible to know that "firm guidelines" rather than, say, "knowledge that you are always loved and supported", are the things that contribute to the development of a healthy mind? Can we extrapolate and say that "firm guidelines" are what help people in the classroom rather than an a trusting atmosphere where people feel secure? Is it at all possible to state definitively what leads to successful upbringing and/or education? I don't think so, and this forms part of my understanding of dogme: it's against breaking things down into constituent parts and explaining what does what.

              As for schools, many of them *are* labour camps which are charged with the duty of producing producers and consumers, rather than thinkers. A look at any national curriculum will make this as plain as the nose on your face! In my daughter's nursery a few weeks back, they were playing restaurants. There was the "menu", the food, and the McDonalds (TM) restaurant. On one level, it is easy to understand: countries have to compete and an educated workforce is more productive than a non-educated workforce. IT, for example, is a growing economy, so it makes sense for computers to be herded into schools. But to those of us who believe that education is about something more than preparing fodder for the machine, the union between education and industry or education and economy is distasteful.

              Schools have hidden agendas. On these agendas is instilling an appreciation of the hierarchical nature of our society and of those who are above us in the hierarchy ("Don't question your elders!"; "Because *I* am the teacher!" etc) When people leave school, they are capable of operating smoothly in the workplace and not being too disruptive.

              All thanks to those "firm guidelines".


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • zosia grudzinska
              ... themselves ... Julian s post reminded me of a technique I have learnt from Leni Damm in Denmark. She has incorporated in her English lessons (pretty
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 4, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > I started chatting chance as a way to fill up the time when I wasn't
                > available to stage manage the class. But I now see the value of it in and
                > of itself. It's the one time the students are totally free to be
                themselves
                > in their new language.
                > Julian

                Julian's post reminded me of a technique I have learnt from Leni Damm in
                Denmark. She has incorporated in her English lessons (pretty structured,
                which is supposed to bolster the sense of safety with the kids, to which I
                would not necessarily agree but that's neither here nor there) the element
                called "2 minutes" - it comes after the warm-up and is meant for the kids to
                talk in pairs on whatever subject they like. Unstructured, drawing on all
                kinds of past experiences as English learners, just as Julian noticed. I
                followed suit and can vouch the value of the procedure
                Zosia
              • zosia grudzinska
                so you were the lucky one (unfortunately only one of a very few ones ...). I am happy for you. But please take a good look around and see what is happening.
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 4, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  so you were the lucky one (unfortunately only one of a very few "ones"...).
                  I am happy for you. But please take a good look around and see what is
                  happening. Why do you think the aggression in schools is growing? as the
                  alternative to a passive teenagers we get the violent ones. they at least
                  haven't given up, not that I condone any act of violence
                  Zosia
                • davidhogg_bcn
                  Hi. As usual, I find myself agreeing to some extent or other with everybody. Firstly, Diarmuid s comment about consumerism hits a big nail right on its head:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jun 4, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi.

                    As usual, I find myself agreeing to some extent or other with
                    everybody.

                    Firstly, Diarmuid's comment about consumerism hits a big nail right
                    on its head:

                    "As for schools, many of them *are* labour camps which are charged
                    with the duty of producing producers and consumers, rather than
                    thinkers."

                    One duty of parents, then, is to counter-balance this rampant
                    consumerism-gone-mad by reminding our kids that they don't ever
                    actually need to buy very much in life; and that they certainly don't
                    need to acquire piles of metal, plastic and cardboard every birthday
                    and Christmas, just because "everybody else does it".

                    And Zosia and Diarmuid are right, more generally, about "labour camp"
                    schooling. The system, and many of those working in it, do have a
                    wrong-headed ""Don't question your elders!"; "Because *I* am the
                    teacher!" etc" mentality.

                    But not all parts of the system are bad, and not all teachers are Do-
                    as-I-tell-you-because-I'm-in-charge despots. And, to be fair,
                    although much is wrong-headed in teaching, there are also an awful
                    lot of wrong-headed parents out there, at least in the two countries
                    where I've lived.

                    This seems more and more to be the case now that we parents are lucky
                    enough to have sooo many excuses for not bothering to take an interest
                    in communicating respectfully -forget "firmly"!- with our kids. Mums
                    and Dads are busy working all day, and so it really is just too much
                    effort to bother listening to what our kids have to tell us, or to
                    explain anything that they want explained. You understand, don't you?
                    It's not easy being a parent. We just want to relax in the evening
                    and vegetate in front of the TV, without the kids getting too unruly.
                    And when they do get too unruly, then we can be excused for -out of
                    frustration- giving them either a quick slap, or a candy bar:
                    anything that'll SHUT THEM UP!

                    That seems to be much of the thinking anyhow, from my own
                    observations of the data available to me.

                    Diarmuid is right to point out how loving and caring many adults
                    aren't. Downright abrasive, many of us, especially when we're talking
                    to inferiors such as our annoying kids. But, as I've said: we've got
                    lots of good excuses for our ineptitude, and it's not easy being a
                    parent. (And so on; and so forth).

                    So, I find myself agreeing more with Halima, when he says:

                    "it is a bit romantic to talk about children being naturally
                    autonomous or naturally loving and careing as if the socialisation
                    process takes something away. Much of growing up is learning social
                    skills, like all mammals do in order to adapt to the enviornment and
                    all ranges of behaviour are there, from gentle and cociliatory to
                    violent and aggressive.

                    School has a function in socialisation - not all is "good" nor "bad"
                    and teachers, most certainly have a useful function." unquote.

                    And I absolutely go along with Halima's other comment:

                    "children need firm guidlines - I think they need edges to explore
                    and techniques suggested for their minds to grow healthily."

                    If parents can't bring themselves to give their kids firm guidance,
                    then I wonder just whatonearth they're giving them at all. My younger
                    son, for instance, (3 years old) is currently coming home from
                    nursery every day with the wacky notion that every time his elder
                    brother (6) does something that frustrates him, it's appropriate to
                    bash him over the head with a book / toy car / whatever else comes to
                    hand.

                    My elder son, of course, has long-since learnt that the rule in our
                    house is that everybody must respect everybody at all times, and that
                    nobody should abuse anybody, physically or otherwise.

                    However, my younger son has yet to learn that rule, but he's learning
                    it at the moment, thanks to the firm guidance that the three of us
                    are giving him.

                    Without that firm, clear guidance, then the anarchy would no doubt
                    ensue unabated. And I wonder just what my three-year-old would learn
                    from being "free" to behave violently. It doesn't bare thinking
                    about.

                    So, firm guidance is, in my opinion, the only option for any parent
                    who really gives a stuff what kind of citizens (s)he's sending out
                    into the world. But firm guidance is about much more than telling
                    kids what behaviour isn't acceptable. The way my elder son and I deal
                    with little Oscar's frustration is to (1st) make it plain to him that
                    nobody abuses anybody around here, but (2nd) to quickly show that we
                    understand his frustration, and that we want to help him deal with it
                    by negotiating as to what we're all going to do to accommodate each
                    other's needs.

                    Of course, all this wrangling, negotiation, and communication eats up
                    loads of time. It can't be done effectively during the commercial
                    break; and parents can't do it by remote control while slumped on the
                    sofa.

                    Kids didn't ask to be "born". But they ARE crying out to be "made".

                    That's how I see it, anyhow.

                    La'ers,
                    D.
















                    --- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, "Diarmuid Fogarty" <fogarty.olmos@t...>
                    wrote:
                    > I don't think it is romantic to talk of children being autonomous.
                    We're not talking about babies here, we're talking about children. To
                    say that they are not independent or self-governing is to belie the
                    experience that I live every day! Both Sara and Éamonn are quite
                    independent and both are laws unto themselves. For the record, 3 and
                    2 respectively.
                    >
                    > I would concede the case for not being naturally loving and caring,
                    both of which are social skills that seem to be learnt as time passes
                    by. However, like Mat, I don't really think it matters. It's an adult
                    explanation for a child's behaviour, but it is not meant in a
                    judgemental manner. For the record, I don't think that adults are
                    naturally loving and caring people either. In fact, I don't really go
                    in for the whole idea of "natural love and care" full stop. Like most
                    things, I suspect that they are constructs, very powerful ones,
                    perhaps,but constructs neverthless. They are built on the more
                    plausibly natural need for security and companionship.
                    >
                    > Which beings me back to children's need for firm guidance and/or
                    guidelines. I insist, *adults* need firm guidelines and guidance when
                    they are dealing with children. Children most certainly do not need
                    them. I do believe that children are naturally curious and will find
                    their own edges to explore. Suggesting techniques, to paraphrase
                    Halima, may well be beneficial to children, but then
                    again, "suggested techniques" are not exactly "firm guidelines", are
                    they?
                    >
                    > Children need company and security; food and water; the opportunity
                    to grow and develop. Adults need rules to be laid down to ensure that
                    this naturally anarchic process does not impact on their lives too
                    much. Adults tell themselves that this is better for the children
                    (has anybody tried the opposite or are we just accepting as given
                    that it is bad?). Children's need for company and security is often
                    realised as "love" and "care". These are not necessarily synonomous
                    with firmness and law-making. Halima says that firm guidelines give
                    teenagers the material they need to survive...how does she know? How
                    is it possible to know that "firm guidelines" rather than,
                    say, "knowledge that you are always loved and supported", are the
                    things that contribute to the development of a healthy mind? Can we
                    extrapolate and say that "firm guidelines" are what help people in
                    the classroom rather than an a trusting atmosphere where people feel
                    secure? Is it at all possible to state definitively what leads to
                    successful upbringing and/or education? I don't think so, and this
                    forms part of my understanding of dogme: it's against breaking things
                    down into constituent parts and explaining what does what.
                    >
                    > As for schools, many of them *are* labour camps which are charged
                    with the duty of producing producers and consumers, rather than
                    thinkers. A look at any national curriculum will make this as plain
                    as the nose on your face! In my daughter's nursery a few weeks back,
                    they were playing restaurants. There was the "menu", the food, and
                    the McDonalds (TM) restaurant. On one level, it is easy to
                    understand: countries have to compete and an educated workforce is
                    more productive than a non-educated workforce. IT, for example, is a
                    growing economy, so it makes sense for computers to be herded into
                    schools. But to those of us who believe that education is about
                    something more than preparing fodder for the machine, the union
                    between education and industry or education and economy is
                    distasteful.
                    >
                    > Schools have hidden agendas. On these agendas is instilling an
                    appreciation of the hierarchical nature of our society and of those
                    who are above us in the hierarchy ("Don't question your
                    elders!"; "Because *I* am the teacher!" etc) When people leave
                    school, they are capable of operating smoothly in the workplace and
                    not being too disruptive.
                    >
                    > All thanks to those "firm guidelines".
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Marianne Dorléac
                    Diarmuid Fogarty wrote: As for schools, many of them *are* labour camps which are charged with the duty of producing producers and
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jun 4, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Diarmuid Fogarty <fogarty.olmos@...> wrote:
                      As for schools, many of them *are* labour camps which are charged with the duty of producing producers and consumers, rather than thinkers. A look at any national curriculum will make this as plain as the nose on your face! In my daughter's nursery a few weeks back, they were playing restaurants. There was the "menu", the food, and the McDonalds (TM) restaurant. On one level, it is easy to understand: countries have to compete and an educated workforce is more productive than a non-educated workforce.

                      MD : THis is a shame, really. Schools should not be a place to produce workforce, it should not be the golden aim of schools, and, sadly, it is so in the UK, and begins to be so in France too !

                      To me "firm guidelines" are not meant to force children into becoming good consumers. They just show the way firmly and consistently : no, the right way is not to hit your brother when he does not do what you want him to do, yes, if you have a question you can always ask, but asking a man in the shop whether he wore a wig or not, very loudly, will embarrass him because he does not want everyone to know he is bald.









                      ---------------------------------
                      Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
                      Créez votre Yahoo! Mail

                      Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Marianne Dorléac
                      diarmuid_fogarty wrote: It can be quite frustrating when you get a whole load of message to find out that they don t really advance
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jun 4, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        diarmuid_fogarty <fogarty.olmos@...> wrote:
                        It can be quite frustrating when you get a whole load of
                        message to find out that they don't really advance the debate very
                        much.



                        MD : In other words, YOUR posts really advance the debate, not mine.



                        DF: Put simply, it is only the spirit in which they were sent that
                        stops them from being spam

                        Merci!
                        Diarmuid

                        MD : You can refer to me directly instead of insinuating. I am sorry if you considered my messages as spam that do not advance the debate. Sorry everybody if you think like Diarmuid : I reacted spontaneously, I did not intend to create havoc, won't annoy you anymore.

                        Marianne







                        ---------------------------------
                        Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
                        Créez votre Yahoo! Mail

                        Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • MC Johnstone
                        ... That was my reaction to. I think, Marianne, that it s best to ignore this one. Every list has its regular contributors and some of them do occassionally
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jun 4, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Marianne Dorléac wrote:

                          >MD : In other words, YOUR posts really advance the debate, not mine.
                          >
                          >
                          That was my reaction to.

                          I think, Marianne, that it's best to ignore this one. Every list has its
                          regular contributors and some of them do occassionally wake up under the
                          impression that an email list is their personal and private space. If
                          you've been on lists before, you must have seen this already.

                          This poster writes a lot and some of it I read. I remember someone here
                          recently who started using the list as a kind of blog. I was interested
                          to read it, since I don't read blogs, but I could imagine others being
                          annoyed at someone not entering THE DISCUSSION and simply using the list
                          a a broadcast medium. But no one complained and I think he was open to
                          discussion. The posts were obviously not an invitation to it though.

                          A list is what everyone makes it. Simply because one poster believes
                          that there shoud be nothing but "serious posts advancing THE DISCUSSION"
                          don't make it so. God knows what might happen to a student in such a
                          person's class who dares to say something unexpected.

                          Omar
                        • davidhogg_bcn
                          Hi. As ususal I find myself agreeing with everybody to some extent or other (again!). But, for what it s worth, I personally have never found the -let s say-
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jun 4, 2004
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi.

                            As ususal I find myself agreeing with everybody to some extent or
                            other (again!).

                            But, for what it's worth, I personally have never found the -let's
                            say- "anarchic" nature of Marianne's (or anyone else's) postings in
                            the slightest bit frustrating. Quite the opposite. Very readable and
                            to the point, actually.

                            So, how about if, as Omar suggests, we set this matter aside; and, as
                            Diarmuid suggests, we get on with "advancing the debate"? Eh?

                            La'ers,
                            D.

                            --- In dogme@yahoogroups.com, MC Johnstone <omarjohns@a...> wrote:
                            > Marianne Dorléac wrote:
                            >
                            > >MD : In other words, YOUR posts really advance the debate, not
                            mine.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > That was my reaction to.
                            >
                            > I think, Marianne, that it's best to ignore this one. Every list
                            has its
                            > regular contributors and some of them do occassionally wake up
                            under the
                            > impression that an email list is their personal and private space.
                            If
                            > you've been on lists before, you must have seen this already.
                            >
                            > This poster writes a lot and some of it I read. I remember someone
                            here
                            > recently who started using the list as a kind of blog. I was
                            interested
                            > to read it, since I don't read blogs, but I could imagine others
                            being
                            > annoyed at someone not entering THE DISCUSSION and simply using the
                            list
                            > a a broadcast medium. But no one complained and I think he was open
                            to
                            > discussion. The posts were obviously not an invitation to it though.
                            >
                            > A list is what everyone makes it. Simply because one poster
                            believes
                            > that there shoud be nothing but "serious posts advancing THE
                            DISCUSSION"
                            > don't make it so. God knows what might happen to a student in such
                            a
                            > person's class who dares to say something unexpected.
                            >
                            > Omar
                          • Diarmuid Fogarty
                            One takes a deep breath and begins to write: I m sorry, Marianne, if you felt my post was an attack. It most certainly wasn t meant to be and I didn t mean to
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 5, 2004
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              One takes a deep breath and begins to write:

                              I'm sorry, Marianne, if you felt my post was an attack. It most certainly wasn't meant to be and I didn't mean to suggest that your posts don't advance the argument, simply that posts such as "LOL" don't. I wasn't thinking beyond any more than how annoying it must be to wait for your digest to download and find eight messages from one person, a number of which are no more than things like "LOL". I'm sure you'll know what I mean.

                              As for Omar [bites fingernails and hopes that this is one of the ones that he reads...], I assure you, I am under no illusion that this is my personal or private space! In fact, it was thinking of other people who subscribe to the list in digest form that made me send the message. If you took the time to read some of the archives more carefully, you will see that it is ridiculous to say that I believe 'there should be nothing but "serious posts advancing THE DISCUSSION"' (also, please note that the convention is to use quotation marks when you are actually quoting what somebody has said, as opposed to what you *imagine* they have said. Perhaps if you go back and read my actual words, you will see that at no point did I call only for serious posts advancing the discussion and you will be able to dismount Rocinante).

                              As for the student who dares to speak out unexpectedly in my class, policy is to have them flayed and then pickled. Of course, I rule my classroom with such firm guidance, that not many people dare to do anything that I haven't signed a permission chit for. It was a fair and noble comment from you, drawing attention to my execrable teaching. There are some who would say that you have no right to question the teaching skills of another, particularly when you have no idea what you are talking about. But I say, "Nonsense! Bring on the uninformed opinion!" And as for the whingers who feel inconvenienced by having their mail boxes filled up with brief one-liners, sod'em, eh? After all, the list belongs to everyone and we can do anyfink wot we want. Right on, bro'!

                              Diarmuid


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: MC Johnstone
                              To: dogme@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 2:40 AM
                              Subject: Re: [dogme] NETIQUETTE


                              Marianne Dorléac wrote:

                              >MD : In other words, YOUR posts really advance the debate, not mine.
                              >
                              >
                              That was my reaction to.

                              I think, Marianne, that it's best to ignore this one. Every list has its
                              regular contributors and some of them do occassionally wake up under the
                              impression that an email list is their personal and private space. If
                              you've been on lists before, you must have seen this already.

                              This poster writes a lot and some of it I read. I remember someone here
                              recently who started using the list as a kind of blog. I was interested
                              to read it, since I don't read blogs, but I could imagine others being
                              annoyed at someone not entering THE DISCUSSION and simply using the list
                              a a broadcast medium. But no one complained and I think he was open to
                              discussion. The posts were obviously not an invitation to it though.

                              A list is what everyone makes it. Simply because one poster believes
                              that there shoud be nothing but "serious posts advancing THE DISCUSSION"
                              don't make it so. God knows what might happen to a student in such a
                              person's class who dares to say something unexpected.

                              Omar





                              To Post a message, send it to: dogme@...
                              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dogme-unsubscribe@...


                              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              ADVERTISEMENT





                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Yahoo! Groups Links

                              a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/

                              b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              dogme-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                              c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • MC Johnstone
                              ... What goes around comes around. Perhaps I should have thought three times, rather than twice. This isn t about you or me or anyone else. People write me
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jun 5, 2004
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Diarmuid Fogarty wrote:

                                >As for the student who dares to speak out unexpectedly in my class, policy is to have them flayed and then pickled. Of course, I rule my classroom with such firm guidance, that not many people dare to do anything that I haven't signed a permission chit for.
                                >
                                What goes around comes around. Perhaps I should have thought three
                                times, rather than twice.

                                This isn't about you or me or anyone else. People write "me too"
                                messages on every list know except for the dreaded TESL-L at CUNY. Yes,
                                they can be annoying and sometimes it is best to send such things
                                privately rather than to everyone, but what can we do when people
                                forget, other than take names?

                                Well, yes, I'm generally a lurker here. There are several reasons for
                                that and none of them includes being intimidated by more active members.
                                This is one of the best ESL lists I know of and that is mostly because
                                of people like you, Diarmuid. But there are lurkers who lurk because
                                they do feel intimidated, for whatever reason. They lurk in our classes
                                and they lurk here.

                                If we want to do something about short messages with little content
                                other than LOL, or ROTFL, or Right On Bro'! then the subject might be
                                signaled by something like

                                RE: ADMIN - Amendment to FAQ

                                or something equally inflammatory. There you might winge away about 500
                                k messages containing a one line contribution to a long thread, or
                                little three letter missives buzzing about like mosquitoes.

                                Omar
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.