Somewhere I missed the memo, but how does someone with such skilled (not!) introductions as this:
Home schooling is probably a really good idea for a lot of people, but only for a certain (unknown) percentage of people who actually do it. And, among those who do manage to home school, I would guess that the effectiveness of home schooling varies from pretty good to dismal because homeschoolers are doing it for the wrong reasons, in some cases for just plain bad reasons, and/or they really don’t know what they are doing. Greg Laden’s Blog
end up with so much attention from homeschool blogs? Since he follows up his rambling and unqualified opinion with an analogy I had to read three times to put all its disjointed parts back together, I shall also offer an analogy.
It is just like those little sores that develop in your mouth. No matter how annoying they are, and no matter how useless the endeavor, you just cannot leave them alone. And according to technorati, I am number eight to rub this little irritation. I stopped intentionally paying attention to him when he quoted Katie Criss. That was the point at which it was obvious that his filter for determining the quality of a source was pretty basic.
Anti-homeschooling = credible
Pro-homeschooling = not credible
There isn’t much I can contribute but an occasional jab in a conversation like that so I moved on. Although I will admit that I rather enjoyed taking on Criss’ “essay” in my eulogy to homeschooling. In fact, I think I’ll read it again because Greg’s post is having the same “how else can you respond” effect on me. Hey! I’m not alone in that reaction. Check out Alasandra’s parody. Nice. Now back to this post…the one I’m writing.
I originally picked this up from Marcy’s Musings’ entry which homes in on the irony of homeschoolers’ supposed lack of college preparation in light of just how well public school students are performing on this front. But mostly I got stuck on this part of her comment because I noticed that poor irritated tongue rubbing away at the inflammation.
(and in fact I believe that shows you’re making progress - I remember some months ago your being against almost all homeschooling) Marcy’s Musings
Why on earth do we know what Greg Laden thought about homeschooling some months ago? How do we know he is making positive progress in his developing opinion of homeschooling? He neither presents any new insights into the discussion nor presents any old insights in a particularly powerful way. It is more like finally getting an opportunity to let out everything you have ever wished you could say to strangers who confront you in the check out aisle. Except their questions are generally based in ignorance they have an excuse for. They only started thinking about homeschooling about fifteen seconds before they asked the question. The moment you revealed your family’s educational status was the dawn of a new thought.
It seems She’s Right recognizes this well.
I usually ignore them; I have more important things to do with my time than try to reason with a bunch of ignorant bigots with impenetrable prejudices.
This time, though, I would like to get a few things off my chest. She’s Right
Indeed we do have more important things to do. But like those annoying sores, we just keep going back. We even read the comments. And she covers the main points pretty well while getting those few things off her chest.
I really only wanted to cover one point. Because it made me smile. Greg concludes his post with something which is supposed to be self-explanatory. Which is good since he seems to have such a limited ability to explain things very well.
I’ve culled from about 20 sources to produce a set of commentaries … one could call it quote mining, or one could call it selective editing … to provide a sense of what part of the homeschoolers [sic] discourse looks like. I think this proves my point.
Ah…a sense of what the homeschoolers’ discourse looks like. I do think it proves a point rather well, but perhaps not his point. After all, if I were to seriously take up addressing this post, I would have to conclude with a smattering of quotes from homeschool critics to further illustrate the point. And Greg’s postings would take top honors.
His writing may not be quite as polished as Coombs and Shaffer, two professors emeriti at Cal Poly Pomona, but he obviously uses the same source material (random postings on the internet and his own imagination). He also does not speak with the same sense of misplaced authority as Robert Schiavone, a homeschooling coordinator in Florida, but seems to have the same trust that government knows better than parents how to educate a child. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think his writing is on par with the Daily Titan, being about as well researched and as intentionally inflammatory.
So what was your point again, Greg? That I’m not “doing my job” educating my children because you disagree with my motives? Or my flight plan? Or the way I discuss things on my blog? Or simply because you “would guess that the effectiveness of home schooling varies from pretty good to dismal…?” I’m not sure because you have not actually demonstrated the ability to construct an argument based on anything but your own assumptions and poorly executed analogies.
Frankly, my dear Dana, I don’t give a darn about what’s-his-face. I’m much too busy doing a fantastic job of homeschooling my children to pay attention to the likes of him.
Communicating via internet makes certain interactions more difficult- you can’t see facial expressions or hear tone of voice. So occasionally, as with Stephen Downes, Jack Lessenberry, and the other Steve, I’ll respond a bit to see whether or not they are interested in intelligent conversation and the exchange of ideas, employing logic and backing up statements with supportive data.
Alas, as with Downes and Lessenberry, no viable discourse was forthcoming. They merely wished to state their case unchallenged, and have the masses bow to their infinite wisdom and be thankful that they, The Enlightened Ones, were willing to illuminate our sad, tired lives with their gracious light of knowledge.
Excuse me while I toss my cookies.
The other Steve guy that Dawn from Day by Day challenged a bit, seemed to respond with a desire to know more and think more about home education by considering the evidence and asking more questions. He also, however, was using Ladenblather as the basis for some of his hypotheses. We can only hope that a few courageous souls will leave the cool clique long enough to interact with us geeks and realize that there is a big, wide world out there with variety and diversity and creativity abounding.
The parody was so simple to construct. But you know something dawned on me when I was doing it. Greg has no frame of reference other then the public schools because the majority of his criticisms applied to the public schools so well.
PS: Thanks for the link.
Aaagh - trying not to look at the whole thing - so not worth the time!
selective editing????
Tell’s sooooo…. much of the story.
You’re funny, suburbancorrespondent!
And Alasandra, you did a nice job. Sometimes it is made a little too easy.
Sunniemom, I agree. Actually, if I were to have my choice, I’d just as soon interact with those opposed to homeschooling. What does it gain anyone to only converse with those we already agree with? The reason I find Laden so irritating is that his argumentation remains pretty shallow. I don’t think it is fair to expect that with some evidence is really going to change someone’s opinion. Our own reasoning, faulty or not, is more convincing to us than other people’s. It takes time and experience and a great deal of facts to overcome someone’s previously existing schema.
But he doesn’t really present anything new and like (JJ?) said, it seems like he throws out a homeschooling post after his twenty other posts don’t get any comments. He’s like “troll” but thankfully seems to keep it to his own blog. He seems to just be “baiting.” At least Lessenberry and Downes did not come across to me as posting against homeschooling just to fish for traffic.
No, I’m not baiting. In fact, I was surprised to see the Cabal resurrected! I had thought you had all vowed to ignore me (and that was rather nice while it lasted).
My intention is not baiting. Rather, what I want to do now and then is to draw my readers’ attention to this subculture of home schooling that I’ve discovered that I find both fascinating and questionable. Most anti-home schooling people worry about home schooling because they are offended by christians keeping their kids home to indoctrinate them into fundamentalism, etc. etc. etc. (you know the story). Most people who have not investigated do not realize that a diminishing percentage (but still not small) of homeschoolers are fundies and homeschooling primarily for this reason. There is so much more diversity than that.
As I have said many times before, I’m not at all opposed to home schooling in principle, but I do have questions about it. What I discovered, in asking these questions, is the existence of a staunchly libertarian subset of home schoolers who are homeschooling for entirely different reasons. And the main response to being asked questions by this group is to become defensive. Too defensive. Suspiciously defensive.
Anyway, my readership has gone up by 400 percent in the last 5 months, so I know there are a lot of readers who are new and unaware of this conversation. There are new readers all the time. So every now and then, I like to point and say “Hey, do you guys know what is going on over there? Have a look!”
(When I read that I’m doing this for the links or hits, I laugh. I get more ‘attention’ telling a knock knock joke, believe me!)
My strong preference would be if DOC, Alasandra, COD, etc. would NOT comment on my site and NOT link to my blog. But although they resisted doing so for a while, they’ve decided to stop resisting. I don’t know why. I would just prefer to point now and then, let people look, know that this exists, then move on knowing something they did not know about before.
And our preference would be for you to stick to writing about things you actually have some knowledge of - which, from reading your blog (which only comes to my reader via a google search of the term “homeschool”), seems to be a very small set of topics. Compared to the other really GOOD scienceblogs, yours is nothing but a link farm. Stop baiting us in order to garner hits. A simple check of your comment number on several of your posts indicates that the ONLY time you get “readership” or participation is when you bait the homeschooling “cabal”.
Your analysis of this “subculture” is not very convincing, I’m sorry to say.
We are a diverse group and I am happy to say that America is still a diverse country.
“And the main response to being asked questions by this group is to become defensive. Too defensive. Suspiciously defensive.”
Someone defends their rights as free citizens and that is suspicious? I am infinitely more suspicious of people who wish to control what other people teach their own children based on their own assumptions about what might happen if someone isn’t looking over their shoulder.
“Hey, do you guys know what is going on over there? Have a look!”
Yeah! There are all these people who have taken the responsibility of educating their children on themselves! Why on earth would somebody want to do that? Oh, here is a list of 57 reasons and since I don’t agree with all 57, I’ll focus on the few I don’t agree with. Makes perfect sense.
I doubt you fully understand what it means to homeschool for “religious reasons.” In many ways, I am the stereotype. I do homeschool for religious reasons. Unfortunately, that conjures up images of days spent singing hymns, reading our bible and isolating ourselves off from the world.
But in general, when someone refers to educating “for religious reasons” they are referring to a philosophical foundation for what education is and why it is important. I went into that more some time ago:
http://principleddiscovery.com/2007/11/26/homeschooling-for-more-than-just-religious-reasons/
And I’m so glad you aren’t baiting. But I really do have a hard time taking someone seriously who quotes Katie Criss as if she were someone who knew anything. Her little piece was exceptionally poorly written and poorly researched. I would think that someone who is Harvard educated would at least seek out the critics such as Reich and others who can state their cases clearly and present actual arguments rather than some rambling that has been delivered as free content to be spread around to the various sploggers looking for content.
There is a lot of criticism out there by people who actually have studied the problem. Why do you stick to that level of the issue if you truly want to “inform?”
If you are not going to go beyond the level of argumentation presented thus far I doubt you are presenting your readers with anything they don’t already “know” or haven’t already thought themselves. That is precisely my main criticism. It reads like what the average person thinks before they have had a chance to really think through the issues that much.
His blog post was ridiculous. I almost commented on it and I almost blogged it myself the other day but decided it was not worth my time. The scarier thing he has no basis for those opinions, no facts, yet he feels he can pontificate on them? I found his post insulting.
Well, to be fair, folks don’t have a lot of facts because we homeschoolers are a bit hesitant to give them “data.” We may be a very diverse lot, but thankfully it’s a small enough group at this point that we are able to circle the wagons on that issue.
I’m all for *voluntary* testing and reporting if you feel like doing that. I don’t.
“And the main response to being asked questions by this group is to become defensive. Too defensive. Suspiciously defensive.”
Yeah, seeing your innocent homeschooling friends get C.P.S. called on them by anti-homeschooling family and neighbors with vendettas will do that to you.
Greggie: Rather, what I want to do now and then is to draw my readers’ attention to this subculture of home schooling that I’ve discovered that I find both fascinating and questionable.
*******
So, it’s like a public service? How precious.
Maybe you could find some way to link it to your students’ research. Showing them how some things are easy to find out about and some are not. How some things seem to be one thing but may be another. How writing uninformed comments on a blog and getting responses from the people you attack really doesn’t result in anything close to good science.
That would be a terrific addition to the “public service” you are already providing. Your readers and students might actually learn something.
Nance
I have no idea who Greg Laden is, nor do I care to follow the link to his blog. I’m glad people like you are out there who have the spare brains and time to take him on with both hands tied behind your back, though. You are a bulldog, Dana.
I just got back from a robotics championship out of state with my homeschooled kids and we stopped along the way at a cave for a personal tour by a park ranger who has worked there over 10 years. He told me that my kids were “obviously homeschooled” because they were the smartest and most polite children he had encountered in the entire time he had worked there… and then he gave us crystals from the cave, free postcards, and commented to the lady in the gift shop that my kids knew as much about geology as he did.
How’s that for stupid homeschool kids and off-base homeschool parents?
Who cares about Greg. Reality is so much better. Don’t waste your time reading his self-absorbed trash. Get out and enjoy learning!
I find the defensive comment interesting. I was thinking about this with Lessenberry. I actually think what’s happening is that these people are writing without any expectation of challenge or discussion. They don’t understand that the group they’re writing about is generally well-informed and eager to engage others in discussion.
The funny thing is, isn’t that how people should behave? Shouldn’t they be well-informed? Shouldn’t they challenge assumptions? Shouldn’t they engage in discussions? Of course they should, but not with Lessenberry or Laden because those are educated, experienced men who, darn it all, are RIGHT after all.
For me such reason-deficient public polemic isn’t just about “home education” but education policy for us all. It all connects in our communities and collective culture, in our school codes and social mores, how we treat each other and why. And what we have to live with as a result.
I didn’t think scientists were supposed to “guess,” or “cull” for that matter. Does he cull data for the bits he wants to support his scientific theories? Or does he look at it all and come to a conclusion? I’m not a scientist, and I don’t even play one on my blog, I’m just basing this on what they taught me in govt school.
Very true, Sylvia. As a Harvard-educated anthropologist or whatever, you would think he would have some sense of what constitutes a reasoned argument or supportable conclusion.
Or maybe not. I think that field is relatively used to reconstructing entire civilizations from pottery shards.
Dawn, I think you may be right here:
…writing without any expectation of challenge or discussion.
I’m still pondering how someone who knows their rights and defends them is “suspiciously defensive.”
If I remember right from last year, back when I gave him the benefit of every doubt and before I learned about his blatant self-promotion at the expense of anything or anyone who gets in his way, I think his peculiar sort of anthropology is about animals other than humans. Hence the general cluelessness in human society . . .?
Principled Discovery readers might find this interesting (I surely did!):
This is a little disconcerting, if read in the context of other things I have seen:
“Science will be the primary philosophy that people will use in their lives.”
Science is incapable of answering many kinds of questions which rightly belong in the realm of philosophy, religion and even poetry. Love, for instance. Or consciousness itself. I’m all for science, but we need a healthy recognition of its limitations.
I also think that many in the debate falter on not respecting their opposition. Just because someone believes the earth was created…even if they believe it was created in six literal days…does not mean they reject evolution. It means they reject certain naturalistic explanations for certain events which we have no real way of proving either way.
Greg’s explanation that we are just too stupid/ignorant to understand is typical in what I’ve seen and the heart of the problem.
When I start thinking about the implications of this kind of talk, it does make me nervous. It’s so…oh, I don’t know. Medieval church-like? No opposition allowed? Silence them all? Heretics of the philosophy?
Yes to all of the above — and I was thinking, he takes the same disjointed approach against all homeschooling parents, religious-fundamentalist or not (even if we agree with his views on science education!) just because we don’t agree with his views on education.
Thanks JJ. I’d actually been thinking about going back and reading some of his stuff on framing because I wondered if it might point to some clues about how he thinks about homeschooling.
I don’t get why more folks don’t get, that all education IS framing, for pete’s sake!!!!
Dana said:
“I would think that someone who is Harvard educated would at least seek out the critics such as Reich and others who can state their cases clearly and present actual arguments . . .”
Me too! So it was a big tip-off for me last year, Dana, that this isn’t education conversation or policy debate on his part, just willful, political, serial attacking of his perceived enemies. Thinking homeschool parents get sucked down his rabbit hole when we come new to his “conversation” innocently believing it’s thoughtful education argument meant to address policy concerns in credible, collegial, civil fashion.
In what should have been a thoughtful, respectful thread about the radical act of homeschooling” at Rolfe’s, for example, I (Dr. Ross) recommended to an oddly truculent Dr. Laden, the home education criticisms of political philosophy professor Dr. Rob Reich, as work any serious critic of home education would surely study and be prepared to discuss intelligently.
But thoughtful Dr. Laden fading into Mr. Hide Behind CMF, stupidly assumed I meant Rob Reich the former secretary of labor. (??) When I was able to catch and clear up that identity confusion, giving NHEN links where the scholarly arguments can be studied in some depth a la the American Education Research Association, he implied he would follow up and learn about Reich, Apple et al so he could better debate thinking homeschoolers at that level.
But by his new round of willfully ignorant and inflammatory, decidedly un-academic attacks and personal finger-pointing, Thinking Homeschoolers might hypothesize it was just another convenient untruth. . . .
It isn’t so much that any of us ‘care’ about what kind of blather Laden ladles, but the fact that there are so many out there with brains as empty as soup bowls standing in line waiting for guys like Greg to fill it with Lessenberry stew.
It’s obnoxious because these Downers sometimes put down their keyboards long enough to VOTE and affect the lives of citizens who actually have enough brain cells to rub together and create a spark.
Dana,
You are right to point out, in my parenthetical “compliment” to Greg (if you can call it that) - Why do we even know what Greg thought some months ago? And more importantly, why do we CARE what he thought? The more we read his blogs, and the more we read about him from other sources such as the article referenced by JJ Ross above, the more clear it becomes that Greg’s “science” is questionable. And it’s not the evolution I necessarily disagree with - it’s the science he uses to present his viewpoint on homeschooling. He’s sitting there complaining about the science we teach our kids, but the “science” he’s promoting on his blog is poorly researched and poorly presented. He decides what he believes and then looks for evidence to support those beliefs - the very antithesis of true science. (I wonder how many blog entries he had to read through to find his “samples” of “what part of the homeschoolers discourse looks like.” And do you think his “about 20 sources” is an adequate sample size to prove his point?)
As for whether he’s making progress in his opinion about homeschooling, I was referring to the fact that these days he actually seems to think SOME homeschoolers might do it well. In the past, he generally attacked homeschooling as a concept; now he acknowledges that sometimes (though admittedly “not often”) homeschooling can be positive. I define this as progress.
The question is, what difference does it make that he’s making progress? Why does it matter to me? And I guess I’d have to agree with Sunniemom that it’s because he has an influence on those who read him (though that may not be a lot of people). We care because what he says may sway some, and may provide “evidence” to some who were unsure. (Then again, who reads his blog? Those who already agree with him, and those homeschoolers who vehemently disagree with him and find his reasoning poor. So maybe it’s not worth the trouble.)
Anyway, thanks for the link - and for the great points. In my opinion, no matter where he got his education, your science is a lot better than his - and I for one am glad you’re applying yours to homeschooling!
I agree with you. And discourse is good. But something just struck me as amusing in the way everyone seems to know every time he posts something on homeschooling. It is kind of like Carrie Luce became after awhile if you remember her.
I have Google Alerts set to email me news sites or blogs that use the words “homeschool” or “home education”. Believe me, there is TONS of stuff posted every day by folks supporting and opposing homeschooling. I ignored the Ladenblather and Katiebunk until recently. Now it’s like flyfishing- and kind of addictive…
I am interested in home education, so I do seek out articles and blogs that talk about it. It is weird that anyone (like a few commentors on Lessenberry’s site) would be shocked when the homeschoolers ‘arrive’ to engage in the debate. The problem is that HSers start kickin’ their virtual behinds across the internet with intelligent discussion and reasoned arguments. How dare we not just lay down and allow them to run over us?
Not me. I just wait until Doc sends me the supersecret marching orders on Wednesdays.
It would be safe to assume that much of the bad rap that Greg gets is my fault. I became aware of his blog after taking his course on Human Evolution–he is a brilliant lecturer with a keen insight into human behavior.
I have followed his posts on homeschooling with great interest, because I am writing a novel that includes HS’ers who abuse children–a novel drawn from real life.
I have watched “feminists” hide maternal incest behind “sexual instruction” just like male perps are said to do–her two daughters became ’single mopms’ at 15 and 17–the other had single mom daughters at 15; 18; and still watching number 3;-( Her son? Just got in to college at the late age of 21 and then dropped out last I heard; her youngest son? Breastfed until he was 6!
I have watched hippie stoners get their three year old high( who later became a non-schooled dope dealer); I have watched people who are too lazy (or clinically depressed) to get out of bed in the morning use that as an excuse to not send Johnnie to school, etc…the curse of science is having to remain “objective”, or I woulda’ shoulda’ called the law ;-(
So when Greg says that there is a “subculture of home schooling” that is wackie, and as appallingly disturbed and distorted as the religious fundies, it is partially my fault as well, because I have watched these other so-called homeschoolers for over twenty years. All of this conversation can be found over at Gregs in his archives.
Best of all, I once wrote to him and said “watch how defensive and threatening this particular cabal gets when challenged,” it was the JJ, Confer, DOC crowd, who represent just one more weird and twisted version of the HS set. I have seen them before–they are the ones who abuse their kids, and give the kid a view that outsiders just “wouldn’t understand”, and hide their abuse behind the mantle of “uniqueness”, and anti-religious social cause relationships (feminism)
JJ teaching her daughter how creepy men are when they use religion and “virginity balls” to keep their daughters “pure” is just a little less creepy to me than JJ teaching her daughter to be hyperfocused on the “absence of” her virginity–a kind of polar opposite weirdness to the religious wackoes, but weird nonetheles.
Not June sipping away at her wine bottle during the day is just a little less weird than that.
So Any slamming or blaming of Greg is unwarranted, and unfair in these cases–but feel free to prove me wrong about defensiveness;-)
In the case of those particularly rabid so-called homeschoolers like JJ et al who hide their anti-social tendencies behind almost convincing quasi-academic (but never published or peer reviewed) rhetoric is just a glimpse under the veiled possibilities of *some* so-called homeschoolers.
If you have watched all this happen, I certainly hope you have reported it to authorities. “Science” has nothing to do with enabling child abuse.
Not every teaching that you disagree with is “abuse.” And while I do not follow the members of your so called “cabal” all that closely, I’ve never really cast suspicion on the defensiveness of a mother accused of child abuse with no evidence other than perceived defensiveness or “weirdness.”
There are ’subcultures’ sprinkled throughout society. There are abusers and predators from every walk of life. Criminal behavior is what it is and should be dealt with. It has nothing to do with home education. Home education does not cause abuse or create wackos. I agree with Dana- if you saw abuse and did nothing to stop it, you have nothing to say to anyone about preventing abuse.
Most inmates in our jails and mental institutions were public schooled. What does that prove? That public education makes you crazy? That it causes crime? How about gangs- does public education cause gang violence? I don’t think so.
So what would be the solution? To define ‘normal’ and pass legislation that requires everyone to measure themselves by that standard and make the necessary lifestyle and philosophical changes so that they won’t be penalized? And what would the penalty be? And would it be applied to all citizens equally, or just home educators? Every objection to home education I have seen could be applied to public education.
Laden may be a great lecturer, but he has no insight whatsoever into human behavior. What I have seen so far has nothing to do with science, as there has been no objective, reproducible evidence. Doc and JJ aren’t enough of a sample to create a statistical chart, and neither are a few Fundies. It is a shallow rant with no basis in reality and no logical underpinnings.
The basic philosophical question is “Do parents have the right to guide and direct the lives of their families?” Yes, they do. They forsake that right when they engage in criminal behavior, but if one is going to attempt to create a democratic consensus that defines religious beliefs or feminism or bad hair as criminal, then just wait until that shoe is on the other foot. Either we have freedom for all, or freedom for no one.
Indeed cmf does follow Greg Laden around the internet making him look bad, but Greg ultimately chooses what he posts and how he frames it. Rarely does honest discourse regarding homeschooling happen on his blog.
As for cmf witnessing those things he mentioned, I agree with Dana in hoping that he didn’t just sit back and enable it. That is just frightening.
Ooh, Sunniemom. I just finished reading a bit about the Starkweather murders here in Nebraska after a neighbor said something about it. That guy was crazy. No abuse at home, but bullied incessantly in the public schools. Then he went off on a killing spree.
I think it is just plain weird to send your child away to school. And the subcultures of perpetrator and victim which develop on the playground are scary.
Clearly they are all evil. (And I’m being sarcastic for anyone who didn’t catch that.)
I’m sorry I do not have a lot of respect for the arguments raised by one who has decided I’m a “freak” (who is insulted by Alasandra’s little made up word?) who “makes homeschooling a bad idea. All the time.” And that has decided that I “use my children to express my neurotic expressions.” All from one blog post?
Sorry he doesn’t like the level of discourse. That was the whole point of my “obnoxious” entry. His level of discourse is low and unreasoned.
And I thought of this after I went to bed, but what is up with “the real cmf?” Are we admitting that the other cmf is made up?
Dana,
I think some folks spend too much time trying to find someone or something to blame. Sure- there are all kinds of factors, from environment to health to video games to religious upbringing- that can affect and influence us, and you’d have to be vacationing on Neptune not to know that. But there is NOTHING that forces anyone to make the decisions they make.
What many don’t want to admit is that their lives are a reflection of the sum total of the choices they have made, and it sucks so badly that they feel they must find some element that tipped them over the edge on which to place the responsibility.
So the Ladenhosen want to ‘blame’ home educators, especially religious ones, for all the ills of the world. Their reasoning falls off the logic cliff in about .03 seconds. There is nowhere to go with it. It’s just nonsense. And bigoted nonsense to boot.
Have you watched the “Marines at Berkeley” video on my blog? Those pink people are knitted from the same yarn as the Ladenhosen.
Religious homeschoolers and those pesky libertarians. Since I’m both a religious homeschooler and have libertarian leanings, I must be really bad.
I haven’t watched it, yet, but I will. I’m a tad behind on my blog reading.
Hi Dana:
“If you have watched all this happen, I certainly hope you have reported it to authorities. “Science” has nothing to do with enabling child abuse.”
Notice how quickly, and resoundingly I am asked to do something by the comments after mine? Notice that it is as if I am responsible–more than those who actually know these people, go to church with these people, and swap kids on the weekends,etc?
I am NOT a mandatory reporter.But you are right to wonder.Like Sunniemom said “I think some folks spend too much time trying to find someone or something to blame.”
Let me tell you the first and crucial thing I learned about child abusers, and the cultures they inhabit–the cultures that actually enable abuse ( don’t take this personally, if you can help it–this is not just a critique of homeschoolers at all).
1) there is an operative “crab in the bucket effect” towards people who report abuse. So, if you report, or are suspected of reporting, they will fabricate a report about you, or try to inculcate you in their scheme–which is why objectivity is crucial.
One persons abuse is another persons “family bed” style.
One persons feminist virtue is anothers invasion of a young girls sexuality. And, hey, after all, no one ever died from smoking “G-ds herb”, right? What we now call abuse was once a social “progressive” movement.
2)cultures that harbor and foster child abuse( what we here in the west think of as child abuse) employ a strategy similar to blaming the victim, which is to blame the “non-reporters” some years later, or to “shoot the messenger,” rather than listen to the message and create positive change themselves.
3) amongst the “weirdos” in the non-fundie groups, there are powerful social forces of minimization: so-called feminism and ideas of a “collective woman” is perhaps the easiest place to find these examples.
To illustrate point 3: the rapist of a 13 year old girl in the Vagina Monologues–very very few women commentators are willing to stick their neck out and call it rape, despite a) the girl was raised in a relatively matriarchal environment devoid of men b) the girl in the story was “raped” by a “man”, who of course merely preyed upon the girls vulnerability to boundary issues that were confused because of matriarchal interaction, or other c)the girl was indoctrinated to ‘trust’ the touch of women.
So, in short, the eras where I saw many of these things we now call abuse, there was little or no dialogue that implicated women, as feminism was working hard to define touch as “bad” if it came from men and “good” if it came from women–virtually obfuscating societies view into the households of such women.
It was then too easy to blame the step-dad, or the naughty uncle, rather than to examine the body-boundary issues associated with maternal incest perpetrators that virtually set a child up for more body invasion–but it is called abuse because quasi-strangers, and “less familiars” are the ones invading.
On several occasions I did notify authorities, but then as now, good luck proving maternal incest, because there are definitional problems that proscribe a mother being viewed as a perpetrator( for instance, incest is defined strictly as penis to vagina coitus, rather than innapropriate or invasive digital manipulation, etc.), and there are problems of basic authority: children whose mothers root the fathers out of the household, or who minimize the role of men are likely to have passive aggressive authoritarian styles of parenting that leverage the childs ability to “tell” against losing the only “big person” they really “know”–mommie dearest, who like many abusers, often cleverly manipulates the childs mind to believe that outsiders might take her away if the kid tells, etc.
There is much more, but as an “outsider” I was not able to comment or police these behaviors, and sadly, then as today mechanisms of outside purview are absent–especially with those who are closest to the cases; and sadly amongst HS’ers themselves. Not to mention that it was soooo easy for many of these particular perps to jump in the van and skip town, and go to another place that is “homeschooler friendly.”
I hope that answers your question.
sh!t…right after I wasted a half hour to give you an honest answer, I see this false flag bait:
“And I thought of this after I went to bed, but what is up with “the real cmf?” Are we admitting that the other cmf is made up?”
Ho-kay, y’all. Have a nice life.
Funny how, when you use your real initials as a moniker, it throws off all of the morons…
Uh, ok. I’m not the one going around accusing people I’ve never met of child abuse. But I’m baiting. Great intellectual discussion.
But you are right. The abusers are responsible for their own abuse. Not the “cultures they inhabit.” Nor homeschooling. But when we see a crime being committed, we do not shrug our shoulders and say “I’m not a mandatory reporter.” Neither is the pastor of a church, necessarily (it depends on the state, I think.)
Dana: “I’m not the one going around accusing people I’ve never met of child abuse.”
Show me one accusation.Anywhere.Ever.
Then I can respond. But I don’t see an accusation up there from me–anywhere.
You are responding to a back-channel dialogue from last year where that very passive aggressive group mentioned above made so many accusations and inflammatory statements( before they ever actually asked what I , Laden or any other critic of HS actually thought about HS) that refuting them or even attempting to chronicle their profile any more than I need to is useless(all chronicled on Gregs blog: in fact many of their type of HS’ers routinely suggest that he is a threat to kids, etc). That crew is just kind of shitty and unproductive overall, but very very useful in the personality type data they have given vicariously to the stats and etc. that were talked about.
Of course it is easy to discuss fundies, and hate them–patriarchal donchaknow? But I merely hypothesize that these other few fit certain parameters of known (and evolving) archetypes of left leaning non-religious HS’ers who are every bit as strange as the others, and who give the good ones a bad name.
Again, you seem to fail to note that in the examples given, the definitional bias of what constitutes abuse was, and still is, horribly slanted away from calling it such when this crowd perpetrates it, and you are wrong to suggest that “abusers are responsible for their own abuse,” or that their cultures–the true enabler of that potential abuse, are not responsible. Hence my use of the word “defensive” and also “offensive” to describe them, should I not just jump in with all of the happy cheerleading stereotypes of HS’ers.
Based on my formative experience with the HS folk, I am now an advocate for mandatory reporters, and mandated check-ins of homeschoolers. You can read my comments on Laden’s blog if you are interested in that discussion, or the why of it.
Or not, if this is just another p!ssing contest, designed to waste “outsiders” time, and feel all cheerleader like about HS vs- the world. I hate for my time, or effort to be used as a hit counter by blogs that get 10 hits a day.
Me too! So it was a big tip-off for me last year, Dana, that this isn’t education conversation or policy debate on his part, just willful, political, serial attacking of his perceived enemies
Why would I ever imagine that any of you intelligent, gentle, thoughtful people are my enemies?
Hey, CMF (if you happen to come back). I appreciate the time. You answered a couple of questions I wasn’t sure it was my place to ask.
And I thought of this after I went to bed, but what is up with “the real cmf?” Are we admitting that the other cmf is made up?
The original CMF was a first draft. The “real” CMF is the upgraded version.
But seriously, many of you may not know this: CMF added “real” to his name after getting hassled by various crazy people about him not being real. But I assure you that he is very real, and anyone who claims he is not is not telling the truth.
Strange that the unlinked “Stephanie Z” is another yes-puppet commenter from Greg Laden’s blog, same as “CMF” with his child abuse ranting in the homeschool threads there. So even if she’s not some handy figment of their comment puppeteering, there’s no reason other than putting on a show, for her to be here to talk to either Greg Laden or “DMF” much less to need t-him to answer her homeschooling or parenting questions here.
If he is seriously insulted about the comment, I apologize. It wasn’t meant as an insult, but it really is hard for me to take any of this particularly seriously given the tone of your entries about homeschooling.
To attack a group of people as child abusers and then try claim they get “suspiciously defensive” seems odd to me.
According to you, this post is proof that homeschooling is “always a bad idea” for us. You have consistently proven that you have no intention of discussing any of this in a “friendly manner.”
By the way, Greg, thanks for the joke. It actually was funny.
No, CMF, I am not referring to year old discussions I was not involved in. I have read a few of Greg’s posts from before but never really followed the discussions.
I was perhaps unfairly lumping you in with Greg’s postings I have read, but since you seem to side with him pretty consistently it didn’t seem like that much of a stretch. People get defensive when they are accused of harming their children. And Doc, et al are just like that. I don’t know them personally, and not even that well virtually. But I also tend to not read too much into people’s online identities.
When someone writes a confrontational entry, I assume they want confrontation.
When they write in a more friendly tone, I assume they want a more friendly discussion.
If Greg were as gracious as say Reich or even the senator here who is trying to advance greater homeschool regulation, I would agree that the defensiveness is unwarranted. But I have never seen Greg post an entry on homeschooling that didn’t include what certainly seems like “baiting” to me.
And I still maintain that quoting Katie Criss’ odd little piece was evidence that he will take anyone opposed to homeschooling as a credible source. She has every right to her own opinion, but I would expect a lot more out of a college graduate who is hoping to educate children.
And you accuse me of baiting?
Or not, if this is just another p!ssing contest, designed to waste “outsiders” time, and feel all cheerleader like about HS vs- the world. I hate for my time, or effort to be used as a hit counter by blogs that get 10 hits a day.
If you want to know, I take up these discussions because I like discussion. It is more interesting to me to discuss things with people I do not agree with about everything (or anything for that matter). It is more intellectually stimulating. Not so much when I have to wade through the stereotypes and insults.
I don’t mind a bit of edginess or sarcasm or rudeness so long as the blogger realizes that this will contribute to the tone of the comments and responses they receive. But to engage in such tactics and then turn around and complain that the level of discourse is low seems a bit…hypocritical?
I am glad you tried to report the folks who were hurting their kids. I agree that Child Protective Services has serious issues with how it handles abuse cases. It is interesting to note that foster children- Dana has the numbers- are more likely to be abused than the general population, in spite of the mandatory check-ins. Hmmm…
you are wrong to suggest that “abusers are responsible for their own abuse,” or that their cultures–the true enabler of that potential abuse, are not responsible.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Criminals are responsible for their actions. The victim certainly isn’t responsible, society isn’t responsible, and cultures don’t commit crimes, people do. Cultural and environmental factors can influence and affect us, but we as human beings make that choice to do evil.
It isn’t science to claim Paris Hilton and company are proof that blondes are stupid, or use the multitude of rappers in trouble with the law as proof that blacks are violent, or the populations of mental institutions as proof that public schools make people crazy, nor is it accurate to define an educational method that is thousands of years old as a culture that encourages or enables abuse.
But let’s apply your reasoning to real life. Most abuse takes place before a child enters school. So all parents with children under compulsory age must submit to mandatory check-ins. There have been how many teachers this last year who have molested the children in their care, so how about constant visual and audio monitoring of anyone who works with underage kids? Why ignore the statistical evidence in order to target a group against which there is none?
If ya’ll were just opining, my response would be different- but to present oneself as a legitimate scientist, and yet not be able to produce any data while completely ignoring what data is available isn’t ’science’ on any planet.
I’m here because I asked at Alasandra’s for someone to point to places where Greg was being as objectionable as she was suggesting. Someone, Doc I believe, suggested that I should just be left to do my own research. So I am.
I posted because CMF went out of his way for you folks to explain where he’s coming from, something he hasn’t done in arguments I’ve had with him. I wanted him to know someone’s listening. That’s it.
Stephanie,
I don’t care where anyone ‘is coming from’- and I have no clue as to past online altercations ya’ll have had with Doc or JJ or anyone else. The only things that need to be considered in this debate about the validity of home education are facts and evidence, not anecdotes and opinion. We have listened and listened and listened, and it would be swell if ya’ll would do some of the listening and less congratulatory back slapping and pointless rants.
Witty repartee is enjoyable, but a valid debate it does not make.
No one has to defend themselves for leaving a comment on my blog. All comments are welcome, although I do prefer those which leave behind the accusations. They foster a much better discussion.
I think the real problem with this discussion is that if you agree with the charge, you are not going to understand why people are taking issue with it.
I don’t view any of CMF’s objections as homeschooling issues. They are cultural issues. Some of the things he raises are exactly the same kinds of arguments many homeschoolers use to object to sex ed and other teachings in the public schools. But then they are accused of being overprotective.
I am not going to argue that there is some abuse going on in some homeschooling families. That would be a ridiculous stance to try to maintain. But that abuse isn’t about homeschooling. Most abuse occurs before a child enters school. We don’t advocate bringing everyone under the scrutiny of the state to protect those little ones.
It is an emotionally charged discussion because it is about children and our own ideals, no matter what side of the debate you stand on. We all have an interest in protecting children from abuse. But how do we best go about that?
Not by focusing on homeschooling which has no more to do with abuse than babysitting or any other practice involving children. Those who abuse children should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I used to work in the foster system and I have little patience for real child abuse.
But I also have little patience for those who use “child abuse” in a more rhetorical way, as if differing ideas were “abuse.”
I am not willing to give the state the kind of authority it would need to police every home with children to guarantee that every child were safe from their parents. But even that wouldn’t protect children. As Sunniemom pointed out, abuse is more common in the foster system, where children are surrounded by people charged with their protection from abuse, including agency workers, case workers, pediatricians, monthly visits with a psychiatrist, weekly visits with therapists and the teachers in the school.
Child abuse is horrific and we all have an interest in protecting children. But I think we can have room for a rational discussion without casting aspersions on everyone who homeschools, whether for religious or secular reasons, and regardless of their political ideology.
By the King Solomon rule, it should be easy to tell who are the real moms with real-live children at risk of harm and horror in such “discussions” because we’d never tee up someone else’s child for a political cheap shot — we won’t be attacking anyone else’s parenting or education choices no matter how sorely provoked, because it would violate our most cherished principles. Only contentious pretenders with no beloved children of their own at stake and nothing to lose are willing to do that.
I begin to understand Greg’s frustration.
I have no dog in this fight. I’m reading–informing myself as I’ve been exhorted to do by more than one homeschooler. At Alasandra’s I ask a question. The doors are closed and I’m accused of being someone else. Here I see someone I rather like despite our disagreements do something generous and I tell him so, partly because most people here won’t have seen enough to know how generous he is being. Again I’m accused of being someone else (for what purpose?).
I’m also told I should comment with accusations. Of what? Do you prefer that I be an opponent? You can make me one if you try hard enough. Defensiveness always provokes the question of what is being defended. I have the personal experience to know that the interests of parents and children don’t always match, and I think protecting the helpless is everyone’s responsibility. On the other hand, I’m an independent learner who didn’t exactly enjoy hanging out with my peers in school.
Your choice.
Stephanie and CMF: You two and me should get together for a beer and a session with a notary public. We should get Laurisa in on this because someday she will also be accused of being me, most likely.
It must be horrible for you to be accused of being me. I’m so sorry that is happening. Actually BEING me is bad enough ….
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that CMF and I have different views of home schooling. I don’t see the sexual/physical abuse issue as sharply as he does, I’m more concerned with curriculum and content issues and quality, though I see his point and he probably sees mine as well. I don’t accept that being a parent = being a loving caring being = knows what and how to teach the kids. I wish to problematize and question the philosophical position that this is the case automatically for home schooling parents.
I think there is a degree to which this is almost always partly true, and to varying degrees. But this alone is not sufficient to assume quality education. I think more is needed.
I also don’t see home schooling and traditional schooling as two exhaustive alternatives and I don’t see them as alternatives. I believe that there are many interesting alternatives that have not been explored.
But mostly I am shocked, astounded, amazed, and frankly, really angry that this conversation can’t happen because of the entrenchment problem. And no, don’t blame me for the entrenchment. No excuses. A lot of home schoolers come with the wagons already formed in a circle, for reasons that I think are potentially alarming and disturbing. Cult like, almost. Just read the comments on these various threads and tell me there is not some of that going on.
And it is too bad that anyone, like Stephanie, who comes into this sincerely wanting to have a conversation, is so easily vilified and sent packing. Shame.
The following is a bit unclear: I also don’t see home schooling and traditional schooling as two exhaustive alternatives and I don’t see them as alternatives. I believe that there are many interesting alternatives that have not been explored.
Let me say this better: I don’t think that the full range of possible and viable and excellent approaches is covered by home schooling + unschooling + tradtional. There are things that could be done that are not being done. (the current alternatives are not exhaustive)
I don’t see traditional schooling and homeschooling as mutually exclusive alternatives.
There, I think that is more clear…
Greg: you, me, CMF, Laurisa and alcohol? Sounds like a party, with or without the notary.
It is not unreasonable to learn from experience, at a minimum to ask better questions than one was able to pose the first time around. In this case some homeschoolers learned from experience with Greg Laden’s online attacks and provocations (followed by his general script of turning the whole conversation to HIM and HIS commenters as the poor maligned victims) is quite simply that “Stephanie Z” is likely to be the newest sock puppet of “CMF” –
Evidence to that effect: according to the well-respected science blog Pharyngula, this same I-I-I rambly, highly self-absorbed, supposedly girlish (but not really) gibberish between the sock puppets as the take over the thread, is what gives away the sock drawer. Including the part about how the poor commenter is new to the conversation, just an objective observer minding heur own business and then was called here, challenged by US to render judgment on us. So we bring it all on ourselves!
****************
MISCREANT
cmf
AKA skinfixxix, newKosfan, and austingrrl
CRIME
Stupidity, morphing, sockpuppetry
SENTENCE
Automatically Junked
COMMENTS
Rambling nutcase and misogynist.
Exhibited his incoherence and obnoxiousness on a thread, got disemvoweled, and then invented a few transparent pseudonyms to try and continue; “austingrrrl” even tried to claim that cmf had “sent” her to the thread. It’s funny how even all of his female friends sound like woman-hating schizophrenic dorks.”
******************************
Similar unlinked rambly gibberish has been posted to serious blogs refuting Greg Laden’s attacks on home education as child abuse, under woolly names like Penelope T. Rax and JaniceTwin.
It still isn’t working, no matter how stupid you think we are just because we homeschool. And dog fights, seriously? A couple million or more real families are happily, successfully, independently enjoying their own self-empowered private lives without need of government indoctrination, while supposedly suspicious stalkers trail them around cyberspace and accuse them of dark crimes against humanity.
Actual concern for innocent “helpless” kids being dragged into the pits, rather than only for any pitbulls doing the attacking in the first place (while claiming to be heroic guard dogs, mind you!) wouldn’t look anything like what continues to be shoveled and served up in Laden-inspired “homeschooling” threads.
I wish to problematize and question the philosophical position that this is the case automatically for home schooling parents.
I am still waiting for evidence to the contrary. Every study that has been done with regards to home education has shown that HSed kids perform well above the norm, and are pursued by colleges as usually being exceptional students. Quality education at home is not being assumed- it has been proven.
Of course, there’s the fact that I comment on Pharyngula, ban-free, and that CMF and I have argued in several places on Greg’s blog. He’s gotten pretty upset with me, in fact. But if you’d prefer to dwell on my supposed identity, JJ Ross, rather than what I say, well, I guess I understand that.
Dana, Dana, Dana: Are you going to continue to insist that I have attacked anyone? Then you are neatly sliding into category 2 of enablers.
I have never, ever( as in NEVER EVER) actually SAID that anyone in this discussion is an abuser: I have inferred that the profile matches; i have noted that JJ ROSSDOCCOD et al, all of them *first* accused Greg, and then me of being abusers ( all documented at Gregs blog) and then, I watched as these defensive idiots orchestrated character assaults of both of us.
In any discussion, I look for who threw the first stone: like you, I believe that all comments are welcome, even icky ones. However, those who practice censorship and word twisting,and selectively allowing posts, while editing or deleting others etc, deserve whatever they get, because they are unoriginal propagandists who seek to corrupt open discussions.
And thank you for your comments that are very rational, and focused–BTW, you seem to possess a rationality that few in this discussion have, and I might add that I AM NOT emotionally invested in any way–part of that ‘objectivity’ thing after all.
So, Dana, when you again say “To attack a group of people as child abusers” you are sadly making the mistake of “presuming attack” rather than deftly, or cleanly asserting your difference; whereas others presume attack and then, become offensive. It is this subset that interests me.
You know, I might add that when I jumped into the fray over at Gregs it was precisely because the klavern of Ross, et al was accusing Greg, in an ever so subtle way, of being a threat to their kids–every time you pin one of those bugs down on an issue they say “no fair! You are talking about/inferring/accusing my kids!!!” rather than a rational response of ” I see your point but I disagree”. They use their kids as human shields.
So, Dana, first I want to say that I noted a possibility that you have a “less than defensive knee jerk response” to this discussion and its possibilities, which is why I commented here in the first place, and second, Dana, i ask again that you
“Show me one accusation.Anywhere.Ever.” OK?
)
“I was perhaps unfairly lumping you in with Greg’s postings”
yes Dana, you were–but note that you were influenced by a very mean spirited, unethical group of people, mentioned above.
Dana, because you have a rational mind, as opposed to the irrational above, I want to ask a simple thing:
Just add up the amount of time it would take you, a writer, to actually write the comments that curiously sock drawer obsessed JJ Ross is attributing to me, or Greg, as a bunch of sock puppets of one person.
Then decide for yourself “who the hell has the time for all of that?”
JJ is an ass–no, a real Kant–and isn’t worth the time to talk to her.
Any enlightened person would see in this year+ old discussion that Greg and I have two distinctly different positions: he is as I am distrustful of fundies, but we differ in that I noted last year that the left leaners have their own wackiness, and especially the fem-left. I don’t know gregs current positions there ( but I LOVED that he finally questions the motivations of so-called progressiv feminists!)
Pretty simple really.
As for positions, and other accusations: I am a moderate–a true social progressive, in that I am proud to state that I criticize both left and right punditry.I am anti-censorship, pro-pseudonymous blogging, and a first amendment champion; I am a fan of Ann Coulters babbling as much as a fan of Andrea Dworkins misandrist insanity; I am pro-Israel and anti-Israeli policy( especially as regards their no-talk-nukes)….I voted green and Socialist in the last election, but gleefully watched as Bush kicked faux-progressive asses
(even though I have had some spooks following me around throughout his entire admin;-).
Occasionally I inadvertently get involved with those dogmatic out-of-touch types who like to ad-hom insult me, and occasionally I bring in a friend or two for interesting discussion, and we just have fun–because with dogmatists, all logic, fairness and civility is out the window.
So when idiots, dogmatists, and PC rhetoritians manipulate “my words,” slander or libel me, and/or censor me, I am truly delighted. In fact,and in literature, we know that the only badge of courage for any writer worth reading is to be censored.
But mostly, I use dogmatic ad-hom attack prone blogs to sketch out pieces of my novel, and refine the dialogue later.
Stephanie: you and I have never, ever “argued”. That simple. I merely speculated based on mutual friends, location, and viewpoints, that I happen to know you, and that pissed you off–probably becaue you and I live, um, about half a mile from each other, and we both love words ( love, love, love WORDS)
And StephZ, “He’s gotten pretty upset with me” you seriously miscalculate your potential to get me “upset.” I have the boiling point of Ta4HfC5….Sometimes, i have merely been responding to you for the sake of fun, as in “*snipf…”
But i have *never* been upset at anything you ever said, and was especially delighted in our discussion about “white female privilege” Every dialogue with you on any blog has been punctuated with myself smiling in odd places
SunnieM: your line of thought would require awhole ‘nother page of response, and I am out of time at the minute: so suffice it to say that what is one cultures child abuse is another cultures fertility rite; however, abusers do not act alone, no matter how current social trends would have us believe they do, and I believe in shared responsibilty.
The plain fact of sex offenders is that by the time society has to deal with them, we avoid the discussion of what creates them, and many if not all who deal with them know one simple fact: sex offenders report sexual abuse by women along with other abuse in their childhoods, and their is little or no social mechanism that scrutinizes this “last taboo”; worse, the mere suggestion of discussing it sends left and right leaning folks running for their guns.
Here is a recent example from my area, where social forces conspire together to do harm ( stereotype: girls are to be trusted with children, boys are bad and deviant): http://www.startribune.com/local/north/18028764.html
It’s a lot more common than you might think.
StephZ: “I have the personal experience to know that the interests of parents and children don’t always match, and I think protecting the helpless is everyone’s responsibility”
I second that…
One last thing: I read Greg because he is one of the very very few bloggers I have EVER read who does not 1) lie to get attention
2) admits when he is wrong
3) actually allows unsightly comments to his blog–without altering the substance of the post by re-wording it( as in the case of JJ, DOC et al)!
4) is just plain funny as opposed to mean-spirtited.
Unlike these others discussed above:
JJ Ross is just a liar who has caused her daughter to be quite focused on her sexual anatomy(ahem), and DOC is just unreadable and a liar; Nance Confer is just a gross old crone who *likes kids in the klavern wayyy too much* especially other peoples kids. And they all raise kids who no doubt have assumed similar ethical bases.
Here is a comment left by DOC that is a direct lie: “Odd that Greg’s sock puppets won’t comment here, or on my blog. Probably because Wordpress comments (and viewable IP) can see that all the socks come from the same drawer…”
Note the obsession with their sock drawer? We KNOW what they keep in there, but as for their faulty, inneficient IP location reports? It apparently cannot distinguish one master IP from all of the subsidiary workstation computers on the HUGE system here, and in other places where I and others work/play/post from.
Their locator always says “Minnesota–somewhere”. Maybe wordpress needs to re-tool.
I think they are all so highly focused on “IP” because in their world, it sounds so naughty to say IP out loud.
“You(Stephanie Z) actually said nothing! Nothing with any substance, except that you know nothing to offer on the subject and have no dog in the fight. Going from blog to blog just to reiterate random personal praise of “Greg” and “CMF” for various qualities you indeed “dwell on” despite everything said about education, is pretty odd but maybe that’s just “who you are?”
And staged spats when blogging is slow? — how droll . . .
I don’t have time to go into all of this right now, but I just want to point something out.
To be very clear.
So that there is no misunderstanding.
You asked for a specific reference to an accusation of abuse. My response was that I was unfairly lumping you in with others in the discussion. If you have not made any accusations of abuse, than that is great and I misunderstood you or confused you with other things I have read. I apologize for that and would like to move on to what you are actually saying.
I doubt I have been all that influenced by JJ Ross or Doc given our drastically different philosophies on, well, on a lot. I can make mistakes all by myself.
And for future discussion, I would appreciate everybody read this. It is my new comment policy. With a neat graphic even.
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/how-to-write-strong-arguments/
I am not claiming innocence. The tone of this post was snarky so snarky comments are to be expected. But it has dissolved i