Independent School Teacher Pet Peeve Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another poster who has exchanged comments on other threads with the PG-advocate that 6:15 is describing. She is very frustrating because she makes blanket (and inaccurate) assertions about what's supposedly best for all gifted students. If you challenge her claims, she first asserts that no one but her is qualified to comment. Then she will simply shift her position, and never acknowledge that she's changing. And yes, she also routinely plays the victim card, accusing other posters of being biased against gifted students and jealous of their parents. It's very frustrating to try to communicate with her.

I think you might be referring to me (I started the "independent schools are not filled with gifted kids thread").

I have not in any of these threads done any of what you are referring to. You all are perceiving slights that are non-existent or reading far too much into what I've said. Why can't we just share our opinions without getting all worked up? I think some of you (not necessarily the poster that I'm quoting) need to examine why these boards and this issue in particular cause you such a strong emotional reaction.

Here are a few other threads where I've seen the same sort of PG-crusader attitude. Did you contribute to these too? If you did, then I am referring to you.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/30453.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/118293.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/118293.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/60/69197.page

Oh my gosh....I'm not going to humor you by going through these. You really need help.

[Anonymous]

I think that the critical reaction is analytical rather than emotional and that the issue isn't perceived slights but bad advice/misinformation.

That said, I also think that there's been a lot of cross-talk on three different simultaneous threads and people following only this one might well wonder where certain comments/reactions are coming from (when the answer probably is that the people posting such comments probably forgot what got said where). The "why do you hate PG kid"s comment on this thread probably contributed to that, because, looking back, it is kind of a non-sequitor in the context of this thread (but resonates with what's going on in the other threads and has gone on in previous threads on this topic.) Certainly did in my case.

All that said, I agree with the request to disagree without being disagreeable. Which would include not assuming that others are paranoid or that they're jumping all over you for things you didn't say. More generosity of interpretation on both sides (e.g. if an intelligent and well-meaning person made this statement, how would I engage with them? vs. "ugh, her again!") couldn't hurt.

6:15

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here are a few other threads where I've seen the same sort of PG-crusader attitude. Did you contribute to these too? If you did, then I am referring to you.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/30453.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/118293.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/118293.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/60/69197.page

NP here. I just did go through a couple of these, and all I saw were some parents asking some reasonable questions, having a reasonable discussion, on a subject where reasonable minds can differ. The first thread you posted seemed especially even-tempered and normal to me.
I didn't see any "PG-crusader" attitude.
I must agree with the previous posters who said that you've got some sort of emotional beef with this issue. Why does talking about how to meet the needs of kids at different parts of the bell curve make you so uncomfortable?

[Anonymous]

I suddenly understand! 15:45, you are the "precious snowflake" poster! My word, you are one worked-up lady on this topic. "Precious Snowflake". "Pot meet kettle." It all suddenly makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suddenly understand! 15:45, you are the "precious snowflake" poster! My word, you are one worked-up lady on this topic. "Precious Snowflake". "Pot meet kettle." It all suddenly makes sense.

I don't know what those references mean. Other DCUM threads? In any event, I can confirm that's not me.

Finding other examples of the PG-crusader weren't hard; I just searched the archives for "profoundly gifted" and looked for threads where someone extensively quoted from the Hoagies website, since that's something I've seen the PG-crusader do a lot.

Whatever. I like 6:15's suggestion that we should just move forward rather than looking backward. I'm willing to give the current PG poster the benefit of the doubt, and assume she's not the person who's posted on these issues previously.

Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suddenly understand! 15:45, you are the "precious snowflake" poster! My word, you are one worked-up lady on this topic. "Precious Snowflake". "Pot meet kettle." It all suddenly makes sense.

I don't know what those references mean. Other DCUM threads? In any event, I can confirm that's not me.

Finding other examples of the PG-crusader weren't hard; I just searched the archives for "profoundly gifted" and looked for threads where someone extensively quoted from the Hoagies website, since that's something I've seen the PG-crusader do a lot.

Whatever. I like 6:15's suggestion that we should just move forward rather than looking backward. I'm willing to give the current PG poster the benefit of the doubt, and assume she's not the person who's posted on these issues previously.

Carry on.

I never said it would be hard and I'm not denying writing any posts. I'm just not going to feed into this by going through them. I do hope that you decide to not get so worked up in future threads because I do plan to offer up my opinions again. We should all be allowed to do so, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never said it would be hard and I'm not denying writing any posts. I'm just not going to feed into this by going through them. I do hope that you decide to not get so worked up in future threads because I do plan to offer up my opinions again. We should all be allowed to do so, right?

So you are the poster who quotes and copies liberally from Hoagies, the Davidson website, the Templeton study, and the NAGC ... aren't you?

I'm certain you will continue to offer up your opinions, and of course you're allowed to do so. I just wish you'd create a login, so I can give your posts proper respect when I see them.

[Anonymous]

I will cop to using the words "special snowflake" - at least I think I used these words on one of the handful of recent threads we're discussing. But I'm not 15:45 or 16:29.

I would however like to join me voice to the pleas others have made for certain PG parents to change their advocacy style. I second/third/fourth the calls for less playing the victim card, more humility about the nature of our problems, and less assuming that gifted kids are entitled to something other kids don't get (unless your school differentiates for LD kids, kids in the 70th vs. 80th pctile, and kids with stressful homes and all the rest).

This is totally different from the agreement we've reached to be pleasant, give each other the benefit of the doubt, and agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will cop to using the words "special snowflake" - at least I think I used these words on one of the handful of recent threads we're discussing. But I'm not 15:45 or 16:29.

I would however like to join me voice to the pleas others have made for certain PG parents to change their advocacy style. I second/third/fourth the calls for less playing the victim card, more humility about the nature of our problems, and less assuming that gifted kids are entitled to something other kids don't get (unless your school differentiates for LD kids, kids in the 70th vs. 80th pctile, and kids with stressful homes and all the rest).

This is totally different from the agreement we've reached to be pleasant, give each other the benefit of the doubt, and agree to disagree.

?????

None of those things have been mentioned on these threads....

[Anonymous]

These "things" are behavioural, not issues to be "mentioned."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will cop to using the words "special snowflake" - at least I think I used these words on one of the handful of recent threads we're discussing. But I'm not 15:45 or 16:29.

I would however like to join me voice to the pleas others have made for certain PG parents to change their advocacy style. I second/third/fourth the calls for less playing the victim card, more humility about the nature of our problems, and less assuming that gifted kids are entitled to something other kids don't get (unless your school differentiates for LD kids, kids in the 70th vs. 80th pctile, and kids with stressful homes and all the rest).

This is totally different from the agreement we've reached to be pleasant, give each other the benefit of the doubt, and agree to disagree.

?????

None of those things have been mentioned on these threads....

Seriously??????? Then all I can say is:

You can't make a DCUM poster understand what she doesn't want to understand.

That, or, go back and read the last few pages!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will cop to using the words "special snowflake" - at least I think I used these words on one of the handful of recent threads we're discussing. But I'm not 15:45 or 16:29.

I would however like to join me voice to the pleas others have made for certain PG parents to change their advocacy style. I second/third/fourth the calls for less playing the victim card, more humility about the nature of our problems, and less assuming that gifted kids are entitled to something other kids don't get (unless your school differentiates for LD kids, kids in the 70th vs. 80th pctile, and kids with stressful homes and all the rest).

This is totally different from the agreement we've reached to be pleasant, give each other the benefit of the doubt, and agree to disagree.

?????

None of those things have been mentioned on these threads....

OK, go back and re-read 6:15 and 11:39 (neither of which is me). Unless you're one of those people who posts without reading what others have said, in which case you need to read these for the first time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never said it would be hard and I'm not denying writing any posts. I'm just not going to feed into this by going through them. I do hope that you decide to not get so worked up in future threads because I do plan to offer up my opinions again. We should all be allowed to do so, right?

So you are the poster who quotes and copies liberally from Hoagies, the Davidson website, the Templeton study, and the NAGC ... aren't you?

I'm certain you will continue to offer up your opinions, and of course you're allowed to do so. I just wish you'd create a login, so I can give your posts proper respect when I see them.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you threatening to harass me? I really don't get this. I'm just sharing my views and opinions. I'm not being judgmental or attacking anyone.

Please don't lash out at me and bring back drama from old posts anymore. PLEASE!!!!

[Anonymous]

I'm not 22:09 or 16:53 (the poster 22:09 is quoting). But I think I understand 16:53's frustration, because I'm feeling frustration myself with 22:09's post.

As an example of what NOT to do if we're all going to respect each other's views and play fairly, I offer the following:

22:09 is deliberately misinterpreting 16:53, by claiming 16:53 is threatening to harass her (22:09). That's not what 16:53's post says at all. 16:53 is saying "so you are the same poster" as the various posts she linked to, and she's saying she wishes 22:09 would identify herself in future posts, so she, 16:53 can ignore these posts or skim them or something ("give your posts the proper respect"). That seems pretty clear. No need to cry "harassment."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 22:09 or 16:53 (the poster 22:09 is quoting). But I think I understand 16:53's frustration, because I'm feeling frustration myself with 22:09's post.

As an example of what NOT to do if we're all going to respect each other's views and play fairly, I offer the following:

22:09 is deliberately misinterpreting 16:53, by claiming 16:53 is threatening to harass her (22:09). That's not what 16:53's post says at all. 16:53 is saying "so you are the same poster" as the various posts she linked to, and she's saying she wishes 22:09 would identify herself in future posts, so she, 16:53 can ignore these posts or skim them or something ("give your posts the proper respect"). That seems pretty clear. No need to cry "harassment."

You people have seriously lost your damn mind.