Dana Matthew Bennis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 05 Feb 2001 23:16:23 -0500
Thanks Todd. You express my thoughts more elegantly than I have.
At 05:10 PM 2/5/01 -0800, you wrote:
>You raise a good point (re: attacking and defending). I generally find
the posts by the staff, founders, and parents from SV model schools to be
very direct and helpful. These posts force others to be consistent,
logical, and complete when bringing up questions or concerns about the
model. You, in particular, remind me of a friend of mine -- an excessively
logical physics grad student -- who will never let me make off-hand
comments without being able to back them up. Like most people, I become
emotional about certain issues, and make comments about these issues which
I intuitively feel to be right but which don't necessarily stand up to
criticism. I always hate it when my friend questions my logic, but I
appreciate the conversations with him. I don't ever dramatically change my
beliefs, but he helps me be consistent in my thinking and to shed new light
on the _implementation_ of my beliefs.
>Having said that, I should note that these conversations are between two
friends and are normally in person. Discussions over a listserve have the
potential to turn away good-hearted people who might believe in and adopt
the SV model eventually, but who like to have the opportunity to discuss
things more generally before they can warm to the specifics. Usually, it's
an issue of tone or of the inability for an email to convey the non-verbal
clues of the spoken word. (I am not implying that you personally don't do
>The more I read the books from Sudbury Valley Press and the more I see
emails on this listserve, the more I like the model. I am sending this
email simply to ask those who have experience with the model to be a bit
more gentle with others who post to this listserve. By all means though,
let them know what you think.
>> ------------ Original Message -----------
>> From: Joe Jackson <email@example.com>
>> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:11:43 -0500
>> I find the concept that there's something wrong with attacking and
>> ideas tiresome. If folks are only interested in hearing attacks and
>> defenses that support their own feelings, they should unsubscribe.
>> Joe Jackson
>> > Hear, hear Prohibido!
>> > I'm not going to add my opinion about the specific issue being discussed
>> > (it seems to be closed now)- but as an observer, it seemed that
>> > most of the
>> > responses from other people were immediately defensive. As
>> > Prohibido said,
>> > "Mistakes are a part of life." We tell kids that, we ought to tell
>> > ourselves that as well.
>> > >People,
>> > >
>> > >I know this is a private listserve. But cannot we be able to
>> > discuss the
>> > >model without attacks or the need to be right? Cannot we speak
>> > of possible
>> > >weaknesses in the model at times? Only through bringing things
>> > out into the
>> > >open can we learn from our mistakes. Mistakes aren't bad. They're
>> > >necessary, and a part of life.
>> > >I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I invite it. But I see
>> > >model go much deeper than that.
>> > >
>> > >I've received private emailes from Russia and other foreign
>> > countries after
>> > >some have read the posts on the listserve. Instead of promoting
>> > the model,
>> > >some are fighting and becoming defensive about it. Defense is
>> > not needed.
>> > >You either see it or you don't.The model speaks for itself.
>> > It's about the
>> > >respect and freedom of children. I'd like to see it grow,
>> > whatever it takes.
>> > >If we fight amongst ourselves, how can we promote the model abroad?
>> > model
>> > >speaks for itself. It's about the respect of children. Let's
>> > keep our eye
>> > >on the ball okay. :)
>> > >
>> > >Prohibido
>> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:35 EST