ATEG Archives

September 2007

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ronald Sheen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:21:55 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (103 lines)
I'll tell you what, Paul, why don't you reply to Scott Woods's
questions without the benefit of the precisions which I consider essential.
As I have said, it  would be meaningless to respond to his questions as he
has expressed them.   However, as you think I am wrong, go ahead and
demonstrate this by providing answers to his questions.  You will have
noted, I hope, that so far nobody has offered answers to them.

Rather than sending me a tirade of unsupported accusations, at least have
the intellectual integrity to support them by demonstrating why the
precisions I have mentioned are not necessary.

As to your intention of posting your detailed analysis, by all means do
so but once again, at least have the intellectual integrity to support your
accusations by demonstrating why my arguments are without merit.

But then again as you claim that nobody's interested in what I write, why
burden the List with a detailed analsis thereof.  However, should you decide
to post it and it proves to be little more than an extended version of your
tirade, one can but hope that members will see it for what it is.

Herb maintains that this List is seriously interested in discussing issues 
related to the teaching of grammar.  This may have been the case in the past 
but, unfortunately, this has not been  borne out by the quality of the 
debate I have read so far.  In fact, there has been no debate of any note 
and this because though some members have implicitly or explicitly proposed 
topics of debate, precious few members have contributed to them.

Paul objects to the mode of debate I use.  This entails citing something 
another member has written and responding to it.  As is evident in his post, 
he seems to prefer not to support his accusations with any substance but 
perhaps in this case, he could make an exception and explain why he objects 
to this mode of debate.

Ron.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul T. Wilson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Your antics


> Hi Ron,
>
> I've written a considerably longer analysis of your participation in the
> ATEG list, and may yet send it. However, I have a couple of brief comments
> for now.
>
> You come across as a rule setter, score keeper, and grudge holder.
>
> re. posts where it is perfectly clear to me and most other readers
> (otherwise they'd be joining your chorus of one) what the writer is
> intending to say, you take an overly precious, scholastic reading of
> individual words and phrases, and then assert, claiming the authority of
> the rule setter and official group editor, that the writer is not really
> making sense.
>
> When someone replies to you, your tactic in response is to dig deeper into
> what they've said, sentence by sentence, and criticize them in more
> detail; this is score keeping and grudge holding, an "I have to be right
> whatever the human cost," posture. It's gone from quaint and eccentric to
> not even moderately interesting or productive. Herb is perfectly accurate,
> as well as genteel, when he says that people will begin to ignore your
> posts.
>
> I'd like to suggest, in a friendly way, that when you have personal
> experience related to issues (for the research base that you refer to is,
> to be kind about it, thin at best), write about them in continuous prose
> and point out why they're relevant. But leave off with the point by point
> analysis and response.
>
> All the best,
>
> Paul
>
> P.S. In the tradition of list serves and online groups, all caps is
> definitely interpreted as shouting.
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>> Scott Woods writes:
>>
>>      I would like to make it clear that my questions do not constitute
>>     an argument for an approach.  They were presented to find out what
>>     others think about how learning works. (I'M USING CAPITALS TO
>> DIFFERENTIATE WHAT SCOTT AND I SAY).
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2