Joe Jackson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:11:33 -0500
Anne, I really don't like your analogy!:
- I am not a minister; I am not a spokesman for the model. There is no
litany, only people's experiences and ideas.
- I never said that nobody wants to explain why they think the model works.
- You are not asking anyone questions about why people die; by stating this
as analogous you are catastrophizing the conversation.
- I explicitly told you I was not saying you were in any way presenting a
half-ass representation of the model, but that there is probably a lack of
patience many Sudbury folks (including me) have with half ass implementation
(or perception of such) of the model!
- I wrote you in private email, not on this list!
To answer the *one* part of your post that rates a response, by name calling
I meant remarking that "a closed Sudbury mind is a closed mind" in response
to my and other posts.
> 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 [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:04 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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