Job Discussion Forums

[spiral78]

[wangdaning]

What was it about the third sentence you didn't understand? He was saying we are posting out experiences vs theory about what we might do.

[johnslat]

Dear wangdaning,

" . . . they've collaboratively executed and experienced."

You're right - this isn't too obscure. I still can't figure out this one, though:

" Noteworthy...I'm disappointed that baiting forum members from discussions on other threads is an issue neither Spiral or yourself have acknowledged while affirming another's opinions about much other than the issues. Your assertions on decorum are selective.?"

Can you help out there?

Regards,
John

[spiral78]

[AGoodStory]

I think wandaning's interpretation is correct in accurately stating the poster's intended meaning. But the original sentence baffled me, and I had to read it several times to figure out what she/he was trying to say. The language used confuses and obscures meaning as much as it communicates it. After all, as illustrated by wandaning, it's a pretty simple thought.

[johnslat]

Well, looking on the plus side, I had similar difficulties with James Joyce's "Ulysses" and Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason."

Close reading is demanded - which, admittedly, you don't encounter too often on message boards.

But, as I tell my students: What you bring TO a reading greatly affects what you can get FROM it.

So, as a reader, I have to take at least part of the blame for not bringing enough to the reading.

Regards,
John

[spiral78]

Dear John

It's a rare occasion when I disagree with you, but this time I do to some extent. Communication styles vary by language, and I think most of the relevant research lists English as a 'writer/speaker responsible' language. Basically, if I've written something that others find difficult to understand, the problem is on my side as the writer.

I'm currently doing further research in the rhetoric of Economics and I could cite you several authors (from 2015 back into the mists of time) who state that good writing is clear for the reader.

Not so sure that I'm going to feel bad that I can't understand buravirgil's rhetoric. I'm a fairly proficient reader and make a reasonable effort, I think.

Best,
spiral

[johnslat]

Dear spiral,

Ever (try to) read "Ulysses?"

Regards,
John

[spiral78]

Dear John

Ah, but if I were contemporary with the writers, I should have been able to understand it readily:-)

It's a problem of language evolution.

I am assuming that buravirgil and I exist in a relatively contemporary language framework;-)

Best,
spiral

[AGoodStory]

[johnslat]

Dear spiral,

Depends - Joyce isn't too far from being contemporary and neither is Faulkner. But "The Sound and the Fury" really makes the reader work.

To be honest, most of the time I can grasp buravirgil's meaning without much, if any, difficulty (at least I think I can). But there admittedly are times, when I lose my way.

Regards,
John

[Lack]

Stories like this suck to read for me because I have no one to side with. It's all around a sign of the times. Have no dog in the fight: can't side with a pig, can't side with a little dumb*** either. It's even more fun knowing society isn't going to fix any of its real problems. Eat, drink, and be merry...

[gregory999]

[buravirgil]

I've taken a day, or two, to organize my thoughts on this thread:

The first response to the OP's framing of “[would] the officer do the same to a white student?” is Spiral and a preface of “There's a bit more than the article tells...” to relate other reports of the superior officer's dismissal that race has anything to do with the matter because the officer is in a long-term relationship with a black woman.

The opinion is nested in Spiral's own prose by the conjunction “so”, yet Spiral is careful to distinguish the superior officer's assertion as that of the superior officer's. Thus Spiral's first paragraph could be read as sarcasm, or simply flawed. They'll have to choose for themselves. Spiral's framing would confound more than one poster (myself included), forcing Spiral to repeatedly clarify their position, yet eventually address five of eight (62%) posts to the “clarity” of my posts (versus addressing the OP or the clarity of their own) while John similarly proportioned his responses eight out of ten (80%) in regard to tone and “clarity”.

Spiral's second point of that first response to address the student's behavior to argue that, though the officer was appropriately fired, some consequences were in order and solicits other forum members to address “appropriate courses of action”, but not before baiting Steki to make any claim that racism isn't the issue.

Unclearly, Spiral's intent was to direct the thread to an alternative other than the racial hypothetical of the OP, but rather than simply saying so, Spiral poorly asserts the matter is both about race and not. John responds to the OP with condemnation of the officer, teacher, and administration, and relates his own experience as a basis. The third response is my own, followed by wangdaning's dismissal of most of modern education, and the thread went off the rails from there when Steki responds to Spiral's baiting and we contend matters of disciplinary procedure. Despite my citing extensive and intensive experience across decades (oh, yeah, been slapped, punched, and kicked numerous times), such was of little concern to John and Spiral, because, ya' know, their experience is five to ten years more than my own? If that. In terms of score, in terms of generation.

On the second page of the thread, Spiral would again muddle issues by asserting because students had protested the officer's dismissal the issue was not "black and white", qualifying the observation in twee and recursive terms. And it is a trivial idiom to have chosen only to later assert conclusions about “clarity”. I'll further characterize use of the idiom as supercilious yet pedestrian. Maybe it was a joke.

By the third page? Both John and Spiral would cease to comment to the OP at all having asserted tone arguments and content themselves to expound about “clarity”.

I'll assert again the importance of gregory999's post because it can lead to meaningful discussion about what little support staff teachers are granted to cope with recalcitrant students.

On a personal note, stepping back and taking time to reflect resulted in getting a lot of work done. So...thanks! Yet I believe the thread largely failed to substantially address a significant incident and I'll comment no further.

[spiral78]