First of all, Bill McCleary, stated that he might be putting words in my mouth, but he wasn't. About my original (and current) intentions, he said:

"The concerns then became those of how to teach grammar so that
students could actually learn it and how to help them apply whatever
knowledge they managed to acquire. Underlying this was the issue of
developing a version of grammar that was both teachable and
sufficiently faithful to language as it actually exists."

Those concerns are rarely met on this list. In fact, as I will note below, the members of this list are not even beginning to address these questions, in spite of what Brock said. Bill also noted that:

So there, I think, is the crux of Ed's concerns" about ATEG and this
listserv. Insufficient attention is being paid to the original
purposes of the movement that Ed started. It is true that some
progress has been made. For instance, ATEG is now allied with NCTE,
grammar has become a respectable topic within NCTE again, and some
valuable publications have appeared. But if we look for real research
on the original concerns, nothing much has changed. Except for Ed's
KISS system, no one seems to be working on a teachable grammar. In
fact, few of us have even been willing to help Ed develop and test
KISS.
It's enough to make a person grumpy."

I may be grumpy, but I'm also disgusted. Karl(?) Hagen's response to my post was:

"Hmm. A question designed to provide an opportunity for you to bludgeon
list members because they don't share your agenda and to allow you to
shill your web site. That does sound like a trick to me, especially
since the phrasing of your question implied you (i.e., a grammatically
knowledgable person) wanted the sentence analyzed.

To ask a question that way and then condemn us for not answering a
different question (how would you explain this to grammatical novices)
is both deceitful and invidious.

Shame on you.
KHagen"

Shame on me? Or shame on this group? Many of the members of this list have their jobs (teaching grammar to future teachers) because the public expects something to be done about the problem. Karl? talks about my "shilling" my web site, but I haven't seen him address the question of what grammar should be taught, in which grade level, how, and why. That is the essence of the question, but this group ignores it. In the back of my mind I wonder if people like Karl abuse and refuse the acknowledge the purpose of the KISS Approach because, if they did, they would not be able to teach their own hobby-horses? They might actually have to teach something that would help K-12 teachers enable students to identify, and then discuss clauses. (I noted that JoAnna, who gave us "the" explanation of the original sentence, stated that eighth graders can't identify clauses, but the implication seemed to be that that was their problem.) I did, by the way, profit from some of the explanations.

     Paul Doniger noted that "The discussions (yes, sometimes seemingly
endless) on this list do not mirror what is taught in classrooms in public
school, or schools of any kind. They are discussions among linguists,
grammarians, college professors, English/Language Arts teachers, elementary school teachers, and others who might be interested in the subject. " Sorry Paul, but I disagree. The various perspectives reflected in the discussions on this list are mirrored, in a fractured mirror, in the K-12 classrooms. The confusing terminology used on this list is causing major confusion in the classrooms.

     Brock noted that "Hillocks' notorious Research on written composition: New directions for teaching (NCTE 1986) drew some damning 
conclusions about teaching grammar, but the conclusions were based on the very few studies that met his criteria.  Along the way he summarized a large number of studies that did show positive results, often for teaching nontraditional types of grammar (such as generative or transformational)."
Brock, could you give us some of those studies? I have read both Hillocks and the Braddock report. The Braddock report comes to a false conclusion, but the conclusion that can be drawn is that the teaching of confusing, and abundant, grammatical terminology is harmful. (For more on this see:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/KISSMS/Investigation.htm
     What I found particularly interesting in the Hillocks report is that he praises Faigley's work. In fact, if I remember it correctly, he elevates Faigley to one of the five best research projects. But, if you work your way back into what Faigley did, he taught students to identify, and thus be able to discuss, use, and manipulate, parts of sentences ― using very traditional terminology. (One of the reasons for the scorn of KISS, it seems, is that the linguists on this list refuse (for personal reasons?) to acknowlege the explanatory power of much of traditional terminology.)
     As I said previously, this group isn't even beginning to address the problem. The general public has no interest ― and finds grammar "stupid" when the names of things keep changing. They are not going to study grammar if, in one classroom, a main clause includes all the subordinate clauses, and in a different classroom it does not. I have tried to make it clear that KISS is a specific, consistent set of grammatical terms.  Years ago, I also invited, even pleaded, with the members of this group to develop other, competing sets. Instead, we get claims to teaching "grammar," but as several people noted, there are different perspectives and theories on grammar.

Bruce notes that:

"The reason I suspected that your question might be a trick was an inference I had made when looking over your web-site.  It 
seemed to me you had solved the problem of displaying the grammatical analysis of just about any sentence one might come up with.  
 
A couple of years ago I suggested an alternative analysis for a particular sentence you had a question about.  You acknowledged it as a good explanation and said you would incorporate it into your work.  This has not been done.  I assume you are very busy with more important matters.  In other words you have solved all the grammatical problems you have confronted in a way that is sufficiently satisfying to you for teaching kids at home and that it is a diversion to discuss alternatives.  Hence, any question about a particular analysis would be a trick question.  
 
Here is a trick question of my own.  I have my own ideas about the best analysis, but do other teachers care?  Consider the 
following sentences and the four possible positions of the adverb of degree:  
 
1.  Excellent a woman though she is, she will not marry him.
2.  Much poison though the rat ate, he did not die.
3.  Quickly though the pig ran, Tom was able to catch him.
4.  Conflict though his arguments always will, Tom wins.
 
It seems to me that there are problems with showing the relationship of the various parts of such sentences in a system of analysis of the kind that Ed (or Dick Hudson) has worked with.  Is this just a word order variation?  Is there something in the structure that allows this?  Does anyone teach this kind of concession clause as a special case?  Is there value in pointing out this kind of variation? "

First of all, I apologize for losing track of your explanation. If you will send it to me again, I will certainly address it. I teach five sections of comp, not grammar, and the paper load overwhelms me at times. Notes related to the KISS site sometimes get lost, and so I apologize. Second, I thank you for the kind words about the KISS site. I can't answer your question about the value of pointing out your trick question. I would suggest that students who have been taugh in the KISS Approach would have a better understanding of the question. As JoAnna noted, developing a curriculum, including numerous exercises, for K-12 is a BIG task. Fool that I am, I am trying to do so. However much of my time thus far has to have been devoted to the basics. Understanding the question about the four sentences you presented almost certainly requires that the students first have an understanding of subordinate clauses. The format, and purpose,  of the KISS workbooks has changed, however, and I have been thinking of devoting a month, probably in ninth grade, to more advanced questions of clauses. Will you give me permission to post and cite your question there? (Or, if you wish, you can briefly rewrite it and send it to me.) Again, I apologize for losing the previous explanation that you sent me. 

     Bill Spruiell notes that "I'd like to bring up two possible good defenses for wonky theory-wrangling on the ATEG list, and one less-good one (and regular readers will know that this is not a disinterested act on my part!):"  First of all, I have no problem with the theory-wrangling on this list. Indeed, within the KISS Approach itself,  alternative explanations are often presented. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/IM/IM3_Alt_Explain.htm
My problem with the discussion on this list is that most of the contributors explain this or that construction, using this or that grammatical theory, without even acknowledging that their explanations are based on a specific theoretical framework. Nor do they usually, if ever, attempt to explain how, or why, that theoretical framework should be taught to students in K-12. To me, this is simply irresponsible. (Or should we make that last "S" in "KISS" stand for "selfish"?)

Have a nice day,
Ed

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/