RE: DSM: dancing

Anne and Theo Julienne (
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:22:55 +1100

Joe, a lot to respond to here!
May I offer a parable to try to convey my own perspective and feelings?
A child approaches a minister of religion and says: "You said in your
sermon that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. How come he lets
people die in earthquakes? How come he lets some people torture others? Why
does he allow genocide? How come my little sister died of leukemia when she
was only 6 years old?" And the minister replies: "Oh, that question has
been asked three trillion times at least. The Lord Jesus came down to earth
to redeem us and all the answers are in the New Testament. I can get you a
copy if you don't have one. Then, when you've read it all, come back to me
and we can discuss it. But mind you, I want you to read it carefully and
thoroughly. I don't want any half-ass representation from you as to what
Jesus' redemption means for mankind. I've got better things to do with my
BTW, when you refer to "name-calling", what do you have in mind?

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Jackson []
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:04 AM
Subject: RE: DSM: dancing


> Those on any listserve should understand that a new member like me might
> want to discuss this issue for the three-trillion-and-oneth time (or, for
> me, the first time).

I don't believe anyone doubts that a new person might post about an issue
that's been discussed many times before - it happens all the time!

> I have read past archives but I wasn't involved in
> those discussions. I want to discuss the issue in my own way, on my own
> terms.

I think you will end up being disappointed in this approach; you will find
that others may not want to discuss the issues you raise (for you, the
time; for others, perhaps the three-trillionth time) on your terms.

> I want to participate, not just read up revelations-set-in-stone.

Once again, please don't go there. Just because people have well-consid
opinions does not mean they are set in stone. This is where I start to
a problem.

> I also felt that I introduced the issue in what may be a new context:
> of considering educational paradigms at a very early planning stage for
> starting up a school.

I hear you, but the idea of offering classes in Sudbury or other schools as
well as discussions regarding the various scale-degrees of offering ->
persuading -> coercing are, believe me, not a new context. There are
literally a half-dozen new folks a month that are interested in starting a
school but not sure of the approach that post to DSM; the problem is that
those of us in the model see half-ass representation (note I am not
you of endeavoring to do this) of the model as benevolent slave owning, and
a lot of folks don't have much sympathy for those who choose not to immerse
themselves in the model before making a decision about it.

Don't get me wrong: I'm quite sure everyone wants to discuss it, but
name-calling when you don't like the responses are not the answer.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:27 EST