Well, if she's Lucy, then you're Charlie Brown. So just stop playing football with her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody else channeling Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football?

Exactly. She's doing here exactly what she did in the other threads. Further discussion is hopeless. I'm convinced she's not going to change.

And what is that?

Anonymous wrote:Anybody else channeling Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football?

Exactly. She's doing here exactly what she did in the other threads. Further discussion is hopeless. I'm convinced she's not going to change.

Uh, I'm pretty sure it is. Especially because keeps calling me the PG Crusader.

Sure....

Anonymous wrote:The hostility is toward a particular poster who claims to be the mother of a PG kid, whose kid apparently never went to a private, and whose MO is to insist that sending a gifted kid to a private school is to doom said kid to a life of intellectual mediocrity. Lots of the hostility she has faced has been from posters who have gifted kids in privates and who point out that their kids are getting excellent educations. At which point her response is some variant on the your gifted kid must not be nearly so gifted as mine. Since the poster herself is belligerent and doesn't seem to be particularly well-educated or knowledgeable, and since a number of other parents of gifted kids are, themselves, former gifted kids and can speak from personal as well as parental experience, she gets a lot of pushback. At which point her spin is, see, pg kids are victimized. When, in fact, the debate is typically over whether there's one right answer (isolation/acceleration on the MoCo magnet model) to the question of how gifted kids should be educated or whether other models (e.g. progressive approach, small class size) work better for some highly gifted kids.

This thread has replayed some of those dynamics (and spun off two more that do almost nothing but). Sometimes other posters (e.g. who just want to know how private school teachers deal with a gifted kid when they encounter one) get caught in the crossfire (or inadvertently start are conversation that jumps the shark once she dives in). And she sock-puppets, IIRC from other threads, which amplifies the BS and drowns out more reasoned discussion.

At any rate, I think most of what we're seeing here isn't about attitudes toward gifted kids or profoundly gifted kids -- or even about parents who advocate for their kids. It's about a particular style of "advocacy" especially online.

See, in this thread you say absolutely terrible and untrue things. I've tried to clarify my points of view many times but you do not care and continue to post things like this.

1) I've never claimed to have a PG kid
2) I never said my kid didn't go to private
3) I never said a gifted kid who goes to a private is doomed to a life of intellectual mediocrity
4) I have never EVER said that anyone's kid is less gifted than mine. That's insane.
5) You called me biligerent and uneducated

JUST DON'T POST THINGS LIKE THAT ABOUT PEOPLE.

The post you're quoting was (a) not about you (because, after all, you didn't claim to have a PG kid, etc.) and (b) not written by the person you've been addressing.

Anybody else channeling Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football?

The hostility is toward a particular poster who claims to be the mother of a PG kid, whose kid apparently never went to a private, and whose MO is to insist that sending a gifted kid to a private school is to doom said kid to a life of intellectual mediocrity. Lots of the hostility she has faced has been from posters who have gifted kids in privates and who point out that their kids are getting excellent educations. At which point her response is some variant on the your gifted kid must not be nearly so gifted as mine. Since the poster herself is belligerent and doesn't seem to be particularly well-educated or knowledgeable, and since a number of other parents of gifted kids are, themselves, former gifted kids and can speak from personal as well as parental experience, she gets a lot of pushback. At which point her spin is, see, pg kids are victimized. When, in fact, the debate is typically over whether there's one right answer (isolation/acceleration on the MoCo magnet model) to the question of how gifted kids should be educated or whether other models (e.g. progressive approach, small class size) work better for some highly gifted kids.

This thread has replayed some of those dynamics (and spun off two more that do almost nothing but). Sometimes other posters (e.g. who just want to know how private school teachers deal with a gifted kid when they encounter one) get caught in the crossfire (or inadvertently start are conversation that jumps the shark once she dives in). And she sock-puppets, IIRC from other threads, which amplifies the BS and drowns out more reasoned discussion.

At any rate, I think most of what we're seeing here isn't about attitudes toward gifted kids or profoundly gifted kids -- or even about parents who advocate for their kids. It's about a particular style of "advocacy" especially online.

See, in this thread you say absolutely terrible and untrue things. I've tried to clarify my points of view many times but you do not care and continue to post things like this.

1) I've never claimed to have a PG kid
2) I never said my kid didn't go to private
3) I never said a gifted kid who goes to a private is doomed to a life of intellectual mediocrity
4) I have never EVER said that anyone's kid is less gifted than mine. That's insane.
5) You called me biligerent and uneducated

JUST DON'T POST THINGS LIKE THAT ABOUT PEOPLE.

Anonymous wrote:
Apparently I do have difficulty identifying you, because this is not the first time we've had one of these exchanges. It's not until we're several posts into the exchange that I begin to suspect it's you. I always find these exchanges frustrating and unhelpful, and I'd like nothing better than to avoid them entirely. You've asked that I ignore your posts, and I'm more than happy to do so. But you're refusing to use any sort of login or other identifying mark, so I'm left without any way to avoid you.

I suppose that next time I begin to suspect it's you, I can just ask "Is this the PG Crusader?," and you can answer "Yes." Maybe that way, we can avoid one another. Will you abide by that deal? If you don't like "PG Crusader," I'll even let you create your own secret name that I'll use when I ask the question. ("Hoagie"? "HGC Helen"? "Gifted Gayle"?)

NP here: You are officially the weirdest person I have encountered on this board so far. And that is quite a prize.

Again, you can have a different point of view without bringing up past drama and making a thread about more than what it is at face value.

Just don't call anyone a PG-Crusader and try to out them and make grand statements directed at everyone to "warn them" about a particular poster. It doesn't matter if it's me or someone else that has similar views. If you can do that there will be no problem.

And for the record ..... I don't make disparaging remarks about other people's choices so if someone posts such a thing don't assume it's me. It's not....I prefer to keep things civil. When I say I get caught up in drama it means that I feel the need to respond to accusations and statements to the group to warn them about me instead of ignoring them (like I'm doing now).

Anonymous wrote:You had no trouble identifying me in any other thread so I would imagine you are pretty adept at distinguishing my posts. Just as you and almost all the other posters on this site I prefer to keep my anonymity. DC is a small town and the DC independent school community is even smaller.

Apparently I do have difficulty identifying you, because this is not the first time we've had one of these exchanges. It's not until we're several posts into the exchange that I begin to suspect it's you. I always find these exchanges frustrating and unhelpful, and I'd like nothing better than to avoid them entirely. You've asked that I ignore your posts, and I'm more than happy to do so. But you're refusing to use any sort of login or other identifying mark, so I'm left without any way to avoid you.

I suppose that next time I begin to suspect it's you, I can just ask "Is this the PG Crusader?," and you can answer "Yes." Maybe that way, we can avoid one another. Will you abide by that deal? If you don't like "PG Crusader," I'll even let you create your own secret name that I'll use when I ask the question. ("Hoagie"? "HGC Helen"? "Gifted Gayle"?)

I have no issue with anyone, including you disagreeing with my opinions in the context of the thread and posting views different from my own in response to my position. I'm not asking anyone to give me an open forum to pronounce my knowledge to the world without question so please don't think that.

But this is precisely the problem. If we could simply have a respectful exchange of opinions, even if we disagree substantially, then I'd be perfectly content. But that's not what happens. Perhaps because you "get caught up in the drama" (your words), you often fall into a pattern strikingly similar to the one 6:15 describes on page 10 of this thread. There's no need for me to describe in detail again your style of discussion, because 6:15 captured it in that earlier post. It's extremely frustrating. And I'm clearly not the only one it bothers, because at least two other posters are commenting on it here. (If you don't understand what we mean, just say that, so I can describe your pattern in detail.) If you could refrain from adopting that nonconstructive style of discussion, we'd probably avoid these exchanges.

So where does this leave us? I'm happy to ignore you if I can identify you. You've refused to use a login. Perhaps you'll accept the call-and-response deal I offered above.

You had no trouble identifying me in any other thread so I would imagine you are pretty adept at distinguishing my posts. Just as you and almost all the other posters on this site I prefer to keep my anonymity. DC is a small town and the DC independent school community is even smaller.

If you avoid calling any poster a pg-crusader, posting threads from months ago to try and out that person, etc. you will be successful in respecting my posts.

I have no issue with anyone, including you disagreeing with my opinions in the context of the thread and posting views different from my own in response to my position. I'm not asking anyone to give me an open forum to pronounce my knowledge to the world without question so please don't think that.

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely hope that the previous poster will stand by her assertion that she will ignore my posts. I want you to respect my right to share my views and not
worry about someone "catching" me and making grand statements that I'm the "PG-crusader" and I'm back again to spread my crazy views to unassuming parents.

Please start using a login. That's the only way I can identify and ignore your posts. I have no desire to get into another one of these exchanges with you.

Okay, okay!

First of all, I am sorry I questioned that you were threatening to harass me. When you said you would give my posts the respect they deserve I responded by saying that I didn't understand what you meant. Why didn't you just say, "No, I didn't mean that I wanted to harass you, I meant that I was going to be respectful and ignore your posts". That would have been the reasonable response rather than continuing this madness.

So, again....I didn't cry harassment. I said I didn't understand what she was implying by "respect". You can see that given the numerous posts of calling me "a self appointed victim" and citing posts from months ago and resposting them here so she can prove her point to the world that I wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that she was aiming to be respectful.

For the record....

1) I'm not a victim at all. I do have a tendency to get caught up in drama and that is my biggest downfall.
2) I don't have any problems with any parent enrolling their gifted kids in a private school. I don't know any of you and don't know your situation. I don't know the caliber of curriculum at the school, nor do I even know what school your kid is going to!
3) I truly believe that a gifted kid (130+) can benefit from a program designed specifically to meet such children's needs. I believe that kids with IQs between 130 - 140 are capable of working 2 to 5 years above grade level. My beliefs are based on extensive research from university based studies that are peer reviewed and published in academic journals. HOWEVER, just because I believe this does NOT mean that I am making a judgement on anyone else's decisions for their kids. All the research in the world does not trump a parent's knowledge of their own child and what is best for that child. I would like to be able to share my views and research on these forums without people jumping down my throat and bringing up drama from the past.
4) My opinions are not a judgement on anyone.
5) When I speak about gifted kids I am not referring to profoundly gifted kids. Those children are so rare that most educators may never have one of these kids in their classes at any point in their career.
6) I think all kids need to be challenged hardily in school and praised for their effort and not their intelligence. A gifted kid should not receive praise for making the honor roll if they put in half the effort of the other kids to get those As. Meeting a challenge, working hard, failing and trying again, knowing that there will always be someone smarter than you and being okay with it, and persistence are all lessons needed for a successful life. If a child isn't challenged there will be no effort to praise and no lessons learned.

I sincerely hope that the previous poster will stand by her assertion that she will ignore my posts. I want you to respect my right to share my views and not worry about someone "catching" me and making grand statements that I'm the "PG-crusader" and I'm back again to spread my crazy views to unassuming parents.

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."

I'm 16:53. This quoted PP interprets correctly. I just want to be able to identify 22:09's posts so I can ignore them.

22:09 is playing the drama queen. It's amazing, because 22:09's playing the victim card is exactly what 6:15 predicted at the top of page 10. 22:09 follows this pattern quite often in several threads.