doreen, your potshots in this thread are not welcome. You’re deliberately ignoring the obvious in order to interject nasty comments.
You might also try working on learning how to distinguish an assertion about the existence of a thing from an assertion about that thing being universal. It may amaze you to know that something can be true in most cases without being true in every case. Or that exceptions do not invalidate a principle.
sorry, the link isn’t helping. exactly which comments do you claim are “potshots” that aren’t appreciated?
the ones I saw didn’t fit the bill.
Potshots? I didn’t see any potshots? I simply saw her presenting her side of the case?
However, I did notice this, from YOU, Kelly:
:rolleyes:
Yes, she is being deliberately dense, and annoying. Hence that post.
HOW was she being “dense and annoying?”
Because I do not see it.
I didn’t read all of that thread, but I did read your and doreen’s posts.
With the exception of her disagreeing with you, I fail to see where she was taking “potshots”. However, I did see the following from you:
Perhaps if you could quote some of doreen’s “potshots” to you for those of us too dense ourselves to see them it would help your case.
Kelly to be fair I think you’re using an unreasonable metric to determine if doreen is being dense. Not everyone has the background working with special education(either the children or the programs in public schools) that you have. I don’t understand most of your frustrations myself. It is simply inconcievable to me that such abuses exist and I’ve not had the life experiences to cure me of my naievte. Am I being “deliberately dense” when I don’t feel the same frustration you do? I believe you, and I can emphatize, but I simply don’t have the experience to truly sympathize. Different life experiences lead to differences. Sounds trite, but it’s not really fair to call someone who is naieve or sheltered “deliberately dense”, they’re simply naieve or sheltered.
If she has had extensive experience with the special education system then you may have a valid criticism, but as of now I haven’t seen evidence of such experience. Back off for a little bit and see if you can find common ground, then work towards mutual understanding. Not much is being accomplished by the snipes.
Enjoy,
Steven
That’s pure mullet-and-a-beer-can magic!
LC
I agree with the others here… after reading that thread all the way through, doreen never failed to be reasonable and willing to discuss the issue rationally. She admitted areas in which she had little knowledge, and conceded several points.
You might not agree with everything she was saying, but that doesn’t make her “annoying” or “dense.” From what I can see, she is neither.
It has nothing to do with agreeing. The problem I have with her is that she is responding to my comments only to try to find some lawyeristic inconsistency in what I’ve said, which if it was even there does not detract from my point.
If her comments actually addressed a meaningful point, and were not merely attempts to pretend that the obvious is not obvious, I might feel differently.
Huh. DOREEN is unfailingly polite and cogent. KELLY rolls her eyes at her, accuses her of being “dense,” and starts a whole 'nother thread in the Pit to accuse her of being “nasty” – which she clearly wasn’t – and taking “potshots” – which she clearly didn’t.
Someone’s a wee bit out of line, but it ain’t DOREEN.
OTOH, I don’t believe DOREEN’s been Pitted before, so let’s give her a nice warm Pit welcome –
Everyone: Hi, Doreen!
I’ve always liked doreen. I see nothing in this thread to convince me to change my mind.
<< reading linked thread and taking notes >>
Kelly–quite passionate on the subject of no supervision for homeschooling parents, also on the subject of vaccination
Doreen–mentions how it was when she was a caseworker, and a few of the experiences she had with homeschooled and non-homeschooled kids. She sounds quite civilized. Her experiences are discussed a bit.
Kelly–says local boards of education can’t be trusted.
Doreen–says she doesn’t think local boards of education are evil.
Also asks Kelly how the state of Illinois distinguishes between parents who homeschool their kids and parents who merely keep their kids home from school.
Kelly–says local school board officials are only on the school board 'cause it’s a power trip for them, they would love nothing better than to be evil to homeschooling parents and make them jump through unnecessary hoops. Also expresses the opinion that the local school district only wants to get all those homeschooled kids back IN school so they can show more kids on their attendance lists and so get more state funding. Does not trust Government.
Doreen–asks to have something clarified about “requirements” in Illinois.
Kelly–clarifies it.
Doreen–adds some thoughts about the Waldorf method, which Mgtman had suggested she look up. Says, “Perhaps a Waldorf taught 1st or 2nd grader may not score in the 98th percentile on a standardized test, but it seems to me that scoring around the 50th percentile shouldn’t be a problem.”
Kelly–“Requiring a student to score in the 50th percentile on a standardized test in order to remain in home school is ridiculous.”
Doreen–“First, of all I didn’t even say that scoring in the 50 percentile should be required to remain in homeschool- I’m simply questioning whether that particular type of curriculum in itself makes it difficult to attain such a score. Secondly, I said in an earlier post that of course, in designing a required curriculum, adjustments should be made for the learning disabled. I’m starting to wonder if your presumption is that children should remain in homeschool whether the child is learning or not, without regard for why the child is not learning.”
[*At which point I involuntarily exclaimed, “Rock on, Doreen!” *]
Kelly–Parents should decide where the kid goes to school, not the state. Says, “Given a choice between failing to learn at home and failing to learn at school, I’ll take the home, thank you very much.”
Doreen–“Why do you make two assumptions- first that the only choice is between homeschooling and public school, and second, that a child who fails to learn at home ,regardless of the reason, will also fail to learn in school. Just as a school’s teaching style might fail to mesh with a child’s learning style, so might the parents teaching style. Would you also take failing to learn at home over learning in school?”
Kelly–"You’re responding to the sound bite, not to the post. My comment (about preferring failing at home to failing in school) was specifically made with regard to the context of a child who had been withdrawn from school because he or she was not learning in school. You ignored this context and responded as if it were not there.
Please pay attention to the context of my comments when responding to my posts. You will be far less annoying if you do so. "
[And at this point, I involuntarily exclaimed, “Fuck you, Kelly!”]
Go Doreen.
Doreen–More civilized than I am, confines herself to saying, "I apparently missed the part where you said ‘has been withdrawn from school’. I only saw: ‘Many children with learning disabilities are homeschooled because the public school system is unable (or unwilling) to educate them’, which does not distinguish betwen a child who failed to learn in the public school sytem and one who was never enrolled becasue of the systems inability or unwillingness to educate them. "
Kelly–Says, "doreen, how else are you going to know that the public school system is unable or unwilling to educate a child other than by attempting to enroll said child and having enrollment refused or the child admitted but not educated? " Adds a rolleyes smilie for some reason.
Doreen–talks to Mtgman for a while, as Kelly is getting rather rude, and has gone back to raving about the incompetence of the Government. But relents and answers Kelly’s question, “Off the top of my head, from conversations with therapists or other parents of learning disabled children.”
Kelly–Says she couldn’t possibly know that from a conversation with other parents unless the school district already had a reputation for refusing to school disabled students.
Doreen–Says, “Then I misunderstood- I thought your position was that the problem is persistent.”
Kelly–Bangs her over the head for apologizing, “doreen, it is persistent in many communities. Please stop being deliberately dense; it is an extremely annoying habit.”
Autz, bless her, sez “put a sock in it, Kelly.”
Final score:
Doreen is a civilized person who enjoys debating, and does it well.
Kelly is a rude paranoid who starts peevish Pit threads for people who don’t automatically agree with her.
Doreen, trust me, in this case, it is an honor to be Pitted. 
Jeez, Louise! doreen, pitted. Who’da thunkit?
KellyM, wait till later, reread the thread, and give it another look. Perhaps you’re being a little hypersenstive? Which has made you a little snippy and accusatory? Just a little?
I did read the whole damn thread, and all I see is doreen being perfectly reasonable.
However, as soon as she disagreed with you, KellyM, you got agressive and started insulting her intelegence.
SOMEONE needs to be pitted (or at least switch to decaf), and it ain’t doreen.
Your agenda is interfering with your reading comprehension skills. Her comments did address meaningful points. They were not merely attempts to pretend that the obvious is not obvious, whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean.
I didn’t even see that she disagreed with you that much, you just sound pissed that she didn’t jump on your little Evil School Board conspiracy theory bandwagon:
Uh huh. :rolleyes:
Guess what–we’ve got a “sufficiently increased” student count down here in the Rust Belt, there’s been pressure for school construction, but, I dunno, I guess our school superintendent is just an apprentice Sith or something, 'cause the damn taxpayers keep voting down the tax referendums to fund the new schools so the school board and all their fat cat contractor friends can line their pockets with kickbacks and build themselves new kitchens.
I dunno, I read the thread and I saw nothing that doreen said that indicated that she should have been pitted, but I saw several statements and insulting comments by Kelly that are much more pitworthy then anything doreen posted. Now I am not saying that either one of them deserves a pitting but I do think Kelly is being more then a bit oversensitive here. I think the best course of action is to ask that this thread be closed and hope that it will sink from view and the collective memory of the SDMB rapidly.
Keith
Isn’t the first time, probably won’t be the last.
Well.
I like doreen 
but I have to say that I can really understand where KellyM is coming from. I’m homeschooling a kid with LDs and it hasn’t been the reasonable experience that doreen seems to think is out there. I bowed out of the debate because my truth is a lot closer to KellyM’s than doreen.
However, Kelly, I think you could try being a bit politer in GD. Maud knows I don’t have the energy to debate with someone whose framework with regards to CPS, schools and kids not learning and home education is so far from my experiences.
I am frankly amazed at this coming from KellyM, given her leaps to judgement and other unwarranted assertions about NPavelka in this thread. (Warning – that thread is rather long.) The word ‘hypocrisy’ springs to mind.