Alexander Streater wrote:
>From: "Alexander / Michiru Streater" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:03:18 +0900
>Subject: DSM: RE: convesation wandering Our Trojon Horse digest
>I am more interested in discussing why it is the prevailing view that
>anything that is NOT a Sudbury cannot succeed. Any thoughts? Why so much
>disdain for other alternatives that are at least closer to SVS than
Doesn't Life Require Compromise?
Two definitions of compromise:
1. A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions.
There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept
"just a few controls" is to surrender the principle of inalienable rights and to
substitute for it the principle of the governments unlimited, arbitrary power.
There can be no compromise on basic principles or on fundamental issues. What
would you regard as a "compromise" between life and death? Or between truth and
Or between reason and rationality?
2. Today, however, when people speak of "compromise", what they mean is not a
legitimate concession or trade, but precisely the betrayal of one's principles -- the
unilateral surrender to any groundless, irrational claim.
David Rovner email@example.com
Message to teachers and parents Children learn in spite of us, not because of us!
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
firstname.lastname@example.org with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
subject) of the message:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:29 EST