Post Deleted - poster's request

I don't see anything wrong it, other than the yellow color used for part of it that makes it hard to read .

I am fine with it as well

I don't think it's offensive (I agree that the yellow is hard to read).

FWIW, the thing I don't like here is that someone wants to censor you because s/he doesn't like your tagline. Too bad! You're not advocating illegal actions, you're only expressing an opinion. If no one was allowed to say something that might be offensive to someone somewhere, no one would be allowed to talk.

_______________________________

Just because you put tap shoes on an elephant does not mean it can dance.

Mmm... I guess we need to ask (and it would be good to hear from the person who PMed) whom it might offend, and why. It's not likely to offend us the regulars here, who have dancers, with or without tap shoes ;-) I could imagine that it might, however, offend someone who happened on the post, e.g., by it turning up in a google search. Posts here *do* turn up on google searches, including those that have nothing to do with giftedness, so this is not far-fetched. (We - not you specifically, but this forum - are the second hit for ALEKS problem-solving, which is the first example that came to hand.)

Suppose you are a parent of an ND child who is e.g. considering whether to use ALEKS to help that child learn to do better at problem-solving. (The conclusion would be don't, of course!) Suppose you google this and land here, and suppose you light on that signature. Aren't you going to feel as though someone might be telling you *you* were putting tap shoes on an elephant, by taking a hand in the education of your child? Of course you aren't, and that isn't the intention of the signature - but still.

It's sort of the wrong way round, really; the quote is about the truth of the reaction
tap shoes + elephant -> dancer
but you're more interested in asserting that there are ways to have a dancer other than having put tap shoes on an elephant (regardless or whether or not it is even possible to make a dancer by putting tap shoes on an elephant, which question is not really all that relevant, right?) I don't know how to turn this into a pithy sig, though... [ETA: maybe I do!]

I think that someone could easily read it in a way that puts parents of gifted kids in a bad light. It seems to me to have the flavor of a put down of parents who do work with their kids, and I've seen a lot of parents of ND, bright and gifted kids work with their kids for all the right reasons and in a respectful way.

Just because people accuse you of working with your kid to 'make him how he is' doesn't mean that we have to buy into the implied put down. I would encourge folks to parry with -
"Thanks for noticing, Buffy so enjoys learning" and leave it at that.

Parents seem to get blamed no matter what course they take.

((shrugs))
Grinity

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that you don't have enemies.

I'm not offended by it, but I'm hard to offend. I have been accused of "hot housing" as a reason why my son is so advanced...which for everyone who knows me and has watched him over the past 8 years knows couldn't be farther from the truth...but the quote I think would only offend those who are trying to make someone something they are not....jmo

To me the quotation implies that the speaker of the quotation has assumed the right to judge whether other people have really gifted kids, or are putting tap shoes on elephants. In my reading, it doesn't say "I'm not hothousing"-- it says "stop hothousing YOUR kid, because you're being ridiculous, you'll never make them gifted."

Which may or may not be true. But in my view, judging other people's parenting is pretty much fraught with peril, and the condescension of the quotation is perhaps unnecessarily provocative.

DeeDee

I'm reading all the replies.

Thinking....

I'm not offended. Do you want to talk about hothousing? Everybody teaches their kids something. Ikind ofunderstand that teaching academics �makes your kid differentis the teachers job.

I agree with DeeDee, though I am not especially bothered by it.

Also, your subject-verb agreement is off. It should be "Tap shoes on an elephant don't make it a dancer." Or "Putting tap shoes on an elephant doesn't make it a dancer."

Hmmm, it seems a little unnecessary here, unless you are suggesting there are hothousers among us.

But I'm not offended. I didn't buy the tap shoes, but DS is dancing all over me. LOL!

I think the reader would have to view the statement through the polarized lens of their own insecurities to come to the conclusion that they had been judged with disapproval.

From a gifted education perspective it doesn't offend me. From an animal rights perspective, not so sure.

I think I agree with DeeDee as well, although I'm pretty sure I would have just glossed over your signature and not been too bothered by it.

As you can see, this is my first post. I have spent quite a bit of time lurking because I am really not sure that my child is gifted, or if she is, what level of gifted. As an adult who can identify with what they call "imposter syndrome", it doesn't surprise me that I'm not sure about my daughter - I am very aware of my own insecurities and how they extend to her Combine my insecurities with the lack of an IRL community for support and you get (drum roll please) a mild discomfort with your signature line. That really is my problem though, not yours

I have no idea whether my children are "gifted", but I find this entire thread amusing.

My parents had me tested by the age my children are now. I haven't really felt a need to have my children tested yet.

I also want to agree with everyone who finds the yellow text somewhat offensive. Not because of it's content...but because it's so darn yellow.

It seems a bit weightist or pachydermist, but wotthehey. You can't please everyone. A likely interpretation (by someone who's not overly touchy) is that you are put out when someone suggests that your child's abilities are solely the results of training-- as if hothousing could create an ultrabright! Viscosity's low on this one.

I agree with Val. The standard of acceptable speech here is not whether at least one out of a range of possible interpretations could theoretically offend someone, is it? Your signature's fine.

I'm not offended. But then, I consider myself to be the most anti-flashcard mom I know. ;-)

I find this thread amusing as well, mostly because my DD has no sense of rhythm and the thought of her tap dancing made me spit my coffee on the computer screen.

Two things I really enjoy reading in this forum: user's signatures and reasons for editing ... some of the best laughs of the day!

lol I'm not offended at all. I might be a mom of a ND child and I might even end up hot housing her on accident and thinking she is gifted for the next few years. Presumably, I'm the person who should be most offended. ;D

Yeah, that.

Very interesting comments.

I changed the color of the yellow. It's a superficial change that obviously in no way changes the content of the signature line, but for now, take it as it is.

I'm still ruminating on the comment about the search engines dropping parents off at this site. That is really a concern to me.

I don't want to embarrass Davidson in any way.

If an elephant wants to dance, why not? Go Elephant!

fun picture book:
"Gerald the giraffe doesn't really have delusions of grandeur. He just wants to dance. But his knees are crooked and his legs are thin, and all the other animals mock him when he approaches the dance floor at the annual Jungle Dance. "Hey, look at clumsy Gerald," they sneer. "Oh, Gerald, you're so weird." Poor Gerald slinks away as the chimps cha-cha, rhinos rock 'n' roll, and warthogs waltz. But an encouraging word from an unlikely source shows this glum giraffe that those who are different "just need a different song," and soon he is prancing and sashaying and boogying to moon music (with a cricket accompanist)."

http://www.amazon.com/Giraffes-Cant-Dance-Giles-Andreae/dp/0439287197

_____
Putting a sleight-of-hand artist in a cemetery doesn't make him a necromancer.


Alright, Iucounu! Your "new siggy" is really too much. As the daugher of an undertaker, I'm offended.
*wink*

Well, remember that this forum has two moderators (I think that Julie is new? Hi Julie!). If you had written something that would make the DI look bad, you'd probably have heard about it from one of them by now.

As I mentioned on the Forum Guidelines thread, I think that Mark has done a great job of moderating this forum, and my feeling is that we should leave these decisions to him. I personally don't like the idea of having self-appointed guardians telling the rest of what we can and can't say (YMMV).

Color-ism!!! I love yellow

Uh, but seriously--the grammar is still wrong. The subject is "tap shoes." You wouldn't say "These tap shoes doesn't make me a dancer," right?

(Gee, I wonder where my daughter gets her compulsive desire to correct people.)

How's this?

I appreciate the grammar help.

The problem is with my laptop at work. The yellow hurts my eyes on it, even in it's new orangish form.

When I'm at home, it's fine. I noticed that.

So, the problem is with this Dell Laptop, not the color itself.

My bad.

The thing is, a child of average build and coordination can be trained to become a great dancer. I don't expect that children with greater potential as dancers suddenly, at six months old, just teach themselves the Charleston as if it were an innate pattern in their superior dancer minds. So I think the analogy is weak.

I can't think of a better way to say it. Maybe something like, "You can't teach a sparrow to soar by telling it to flap its wings harder." But then that sounds offensive.

Speaking of offensive, are there any gifted child jokes floating around, like How many gifted children does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Depends on your definition of "great". I know little about dance and don't know what the common definitions of greatness are. For sports, would you assert that the average boy could be trained to be a major league basketball, baseball, or football player? I am certain he cannot be.

My favorite possibly offensive gifted child joke is the Gary Larson cartoon, "Midvale School for the Gifted," with a kid pushing on a door that says "pull." Every time I push on the pull door, I think of this one.

http://petitpoulailler.tumblr.com/post/1674073315/proud-alum

DeeDee

Ooh! I love that cartoon! I used to have a shirt with that cartoon on it and I wore it as a joke. :-P

I was thinking the lightbulb punchline could have something to do with PG kids lost in thought speculating, EG/HG kids overthinking it and being too elaborate then breaking down in perfectionistic fits, then one MG kid who steps over the other kids who are lost in thought or throwing fits, gets a stepladder, and screws in the light bulb.

@Bostonian: I agree, a more specific sports analogy would work, like, "You can give a child a bat and a ball, but you can't make them Babe Ruth."

(Side note: I discovered I can't use the name of a famous basketball star (MJ) on this forum or it marks your entire post SPAM)

I would say the answer is something like this:

"It depends! Is it a lamp or a chandelier or a recessed tracklight or something else?? How high is the fixture? It it inside or outside? How old and tall are the kid(s)? Do you need a ladder to get to it? Will the old lightbulb still be there? Someone might need to take care of the old bulb. Do you need to recycle it or can you just throw it in a bin? Will it be hot? Do we need gloves? Hey, is the new bulb a special halogen bulb that you can't touch with your bare hands? We might need more gloves. Wait. What about...?"

DeeDee,

That cartoon was on posted on the door of my gifted classroom!
We (the kids) thought it was hilarious.

Bostonian,
Of course, I see your point, but there is something beautiful in the striving (as long as it's the child pushing and not being pushed).

It's horribly unfair how IQ and talent is distributed. I don't feel comfortable with comments that "rub it in" because I have empathy for those that are not so fortuitous. It's like talking about your trust fund when you know that others don't have one--a little uncouth.

Of course, in this forum, we can talk freely because we are all dealing with the same thing, and it may be the only place we can say certain things (about dancers and otherwise). I'd hate to see it censored.

That's my favorite Gary Larson cartoon. It fits me as a child all too well.

I thought of that cartoon today when my child waltzed off the bus from her new gifted school without her backpack. ("I forgot. No one told me to take it home!")

I just got back from the library and checked in. I was surprised to see the references to Gary Larson.

Prior to leaving, I was thinking about what I wanted for my new siggy line and Gary Larson's cartoon of the penguin standing in the middle of a crowd of penguins singing, "Oh I gotta be me, I just gotta be me..." came to mind. I thought of that one because online everyone is so anonymous and unless you're allowed some measure of creativity, so "uniform". But, alas, I'm allowed only 100 characters.

Here's the cartoon: Far Side Penguins

Anyway, I've decided to delete the old and ring in the new.

Comments welcome.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering...I don't feel censored. I really do appreciate the feedback.

I admit I sometimes need help with social "niceties" and will likely come off sounding snooty or idiotic more than my fair share.

None. They look at the darn thing once, and the lightbulb just goes on.

LOL us too!

i personally get really annoyed when i see "my kid beat up your honor student" type bumper stickers. it makes me crazy on so many levels!

i propose we make a car ribbon magnet thingy for Gifted Awareness, or at least a retaliation bumper sticker!

You didn't ofend me. Could't read the yellow. My child was the elephant that could tap dance in 98% nationally at 13, and in VMI score at 10 yrs. was in 99% nationally. Creative genuis. Read NAGC new Position Statement on Gifted Children and Education. Twice Exceptional! FYI, read NASP information on Resiliency and how all people who are sucessful in life have this quality. All parents who support and encourage their children deserve praise and admiration as parent involvement is key factor in your childs success! Did enjoy your elephant comment, always made me smile really big. (Question? How do you know the elephant can't tap dance if he never tries?)

Love your new sig line! Glad to hear you aren't feeling censored. To me there is always more to learn about communication.

Smiles,
Grinity

I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think the OP learned anything about communication; she knew the ideas that her signature line was communicating, and desired to communicate them. She has simply bowed to pressure from a vocal minority of users. Regardless of what she says to be polite, she has been censored, and apparently not by a group that represents how most people here use and view this board.

There's an important free speech aspect of discussion boards like this one. Not in the constitutional sense, but in the sense that people need to feel free to speak their minds within reason, or the basic purpose of the forum is thwarted.

The standard simply can't be whether one or a few people are worried that a statement made by another user might offend a third party who hasn't happened along yet. There has to be a limitation of reasonableness.

In addition, I doubt that more than one person in this case originally viewed the OP's signature line as potentially, theoretically offensive. A few people agreed after being directly, publicly asked that the signature might theoretically offend-- but in the context of the forum guidelines thread, I read those people's comments more as votes for a softer, more "considerate" forum.

A goal here is to avoid (needless) offense (by a reasonable person), but the main goal is to discuss. Otherwise this board is worthless.

Lucounu, in what sense is this situation different from your earlier remarks to the person who was putting her links everywhere?

Genuinely asking, not sarcastically,
DeeDee

DeeDee, I could probably sit here for quite some time pointing out differences, but I have to leave for work soon. I'm guessing that you are asking about the speech itself, not so much the context. Some differences that jump out at me:

The other person was engaged in self-promotion in the body of her posts, while the OP was communicating a concept in a pithy way in her signature line. Using the board for self-promotion was seen by me and some others as misuse of the board itself, while communicating an idea, where the idea itself is not offensive, cannot be. I attempted to censor use of the board for self-promotion, which directly offended me and some others; this thread discusses censorship of an idea that didn't actually offend anyone, and which a majority agree shouldn't.

I would like to add that on this board we have a spectrum of ideas about what should be allowed to be discussed here. At one end I would probably place Grinity (as an example, not suggesting that she is alone). I believe that she has a goal of avoiding offense to anyone, and sometimes even avoiding disagreements in discussions, in order to make this as welcoming a place as possible. At the other end are people who err on the side of absolute freedom in speech (I might be seen as an example of this, when I would see myself as someone who is not at the extreme in the context of a discussion board, while still leaning towards free speech, but is perhaps prone to an occasional faux pas).

I'm a person who believes in fairness and rules, but unfortunately, with speech it's hard to draw hard-and-fast rules about what is offensive, so ruling on borderline cases takes judgment. The thing that bothers me about this thread is that, in my opinion, what's happened is that the OP has bowed to pressure to change from one side of the spectrum, even though I really think her statement was quite innocuous.

This sets a bad precedent, in my opinion. This thread is regrettable for multiple reasons: not just that one user morality-policed another, but also the fact that many here then engaged in a thought exercise to search for theoretically offended future people. The whole focus is wrong.

I think that the upcoming rule/guidelines changes will be a great addition to the forum. I also think that everyone's concerns have a place: we need to avoid offense and make this a welcoming place, but we also need to have a reasonable amount of freedom. We need a happy medium so that everyone can use the forum peacefully and productively. In my opinion, this thread isn't close to that happy medium, even though the OP willingly changed her signature after some public pressure. If the climate were a bit different, she would have felt free to leave her signature in place, after double-checking that it wasn't unreasonable.

The rule simply can't be that the soft end of the spectrum (whom I will lovingly call the Softies) can veto the speech of the others (whom I will appeasingly call the Nasties) at will. That means that the Softies can make everyone else into Softies, taking us far away from the happy medium. The Nasties might occasionally say things that make the Softies worry, but the Nasties often say many useful and interesting things in the balance.

I can't speak for Mark or Julie, but I don't think most moderators of discussion boards would have asked the OP to change her signature line. Maybe at mothering.com, but probably not even there.

Iucounu, I disagree completely. If the OP doesn't feel censored, you don't get to say that she has been! That's patronising of you at the least. She had the option, after all, of telling whoever PMed her that she disagreed, and leaving it at that. As you say, it's unlikely the moderators would have taken action, and if they had, we'd have had a different position. She chose instead, as was her right, to ask what people thought. She chose, on hearing a variety of points of view, to change her signature; there too, she could have respectfully disagreed and kept it as it was. You disagree with her choice, but that doesn't make her coerced.

You lay great stress on the idea that we have no evidence that anyone was in fact offended. That's true, but neither do we have evidence that nobody was. We don't know. [Incidentally, you hypothesise that it hadn't occurred to anyone that the signature might be a problem until this thread. That's not true: it had occurred to me on multiple occasions, although I hadn't felt so strongly as to say anything about it until I was directly asked.]

The trouble with a signature, in general, is that it lacks context, and is too short to provide its own context. There's clearly an art in choosing signatures that add value to one's posts.

I strongly want this forum to remain a place where people can say what they think, thoughtfully and politely, even if many others will vehemently disagree. I think discussion about whether what someone says is really what they mean goes along with that, rather than contradicting it. Discussions in which people may change their minds tend to be the interesting ones.

I disagree with your assessment. It doesn't require storm troopers knocking down the door to suppress speech; public opinion will often do the trick well enough, and the weight of opprobrium depends on the status of the public opinion holders. My take: she was contacted by someone who holds a lot of sway here, and so became a bit upset upon receiving the PM, though obviously she felt that she was not in the wrong. She got much validation here that she was not in the wrong. Mid-thread, she responded to my comment in a way that indicated that she still didn't feel in the wrong. After the discussion here wound down, she however remained worried-- not because deep down she feels that her signature was offensive, but worried about how it was perceived here by some. In the end, her speech was suppressed by the opinion of a vocal minority. She was the one who clicked "submit" on her profile page, but the causation is clear to me.

I'm not patronizing the OP; I'm continuing to support her, even if she may be feeling a bit leaned on. She has no need to feel like she did anything wrong, and there was no need to change her signature either. I feel bad for her.

I didn't lay great stress; I mentioned it several times. The proposition that no one was actually insulted is so obviously and highly likely to be true that I don't see value in debating it. In the short time it was up, nobody noticed the OP's particular signature, recognized all the implications of what it might mean, took the worst possible one (in the reader's special circumstances) as the intended meaning, and recoiled in horror.

The main idea on lack of evidence, though, is that it's foolish to scour the possibilities to determine whether someone might be offended, in the lack of any evidence of actual offense (especially when most people agree that a statement is not offensive), and change our behavior on that basis. We shouldn't insist that people stifle their opinions that way, or anyone can veto anyone else's speech. You say that's not what you want, but that's what you're helping to do in this case.

Fair enough. I'm left wondering if all of the people voicing support for suppression of the signature are in the same boat. In any event, I think that your objection to the signature is unreasonable. Can someone not express a viewpoint that hothousing doesn't work, or that it's wrong for some other reason? Why should another poster conform to your views on this topic? (Another possible objection to the signature is that it's elitist, but you've previously expressed your wish that this forum remain for the elite.)

In this case, the OP meant what she said. I don't think she really changed her mind, but rather chose to be polite and bow to the wishes of certain users, apparently worried that she might be offending Davidson in some way. I don't see how she could change her mind on whether the signature was really offensive or not, after receiving such support here.

But hey, I might be in the wrong. Ametrine, do you think your challenged signature line was insultingly offensive to other discussion-board users?

(That's a yes-or-no question. I'm not asking whether it might in someone's opinion offend someone else, etc., or whether it was offensive by virtue of possibly directly offending someone else. Was it directly offensive to reasonable people? Did you really change your mind on that?)

I disagree. In my view it's polite to avoid saying things that would be offensive to members of some group, especially if is possible that a member of that group might be overhearing, even if those being directly addressed are not in that group. [ETA the point is, only members of this board were able to comment, and they are the least likely to be offended. We'd only know that someone who dropped in had been offended if they'd been *so* offended as to register here specifically in order to say so; so absence of evidence of offence is not strong evidence of absence of offence.]

Of course: in fact I would have had no objection to a signature that said "Hothousing doesn't work" or "Hothousing is wrong" (although I'd have thought it pretty pointless). I would rather, however, that people who drop in here don't feel that their children are being compared to elephants or their attempts at supporting their children's learning to putting tapshoes on an elephant. I realise that that isn't what the OP intended to convey, but in a context where the reader of a sig expects it to convey something and has no information other than the actual words, I actually think that might well be what was conveyed, hence the potential for offence.

Iucounu, isn't it possible that Ametrine changed her signature during a discussion about her previous signature for reasons unrelated to anyone's assessment of its offensive nature? Perhaps she just likes the new one better. I like the old (grammar corrected) one better, and I'm an electrical engineer.

Have we considered that the mere discussion or notion that our children are gifted, some even more than others, is offensive to some. The entire Identification and Testing subforum could be offensive.

Sometimes people get offended because of reasons beyond the poster's control. I'm leaning towards Lucounu's thoughts but I would like to add that the reader must also bring honest interpretation and intentions to the conversation. If you go looking for a fight, you're going to find one. If someone came here to argue that giftedness is poppycock and a way for upper middle class rich white folk to claim their kids are superior, we certainly wouldn't change our posts to make room for that person to feel welcome. At least... I wouldn't.

I found the signature funny. Just like when we ask questions like "How can a child so smart, still run into a sliding glass door?" It made me chuckle, since my son is desperate to be a tap dancer, not an idea but a real tap dancer. But he is very clearly an elephant and sounds like such in our garage!

That's very true. I should modify what I said, but I'll do so here rather than by editing: I don't think there is a right not to be offended, and I don't think politeness is a very high virtue (there are many good reasons to be impolite, even offensive, in my view). You've pointed at one set of examples that's relevant here. My views on religion are offensive to many, and theirs to me; I don't think any of us should have to shut up. Maybe it would be better to say: it's good to try to avoid being misinterpreted as saying something offensive, when that isn't what you meant. Give offence only deliberately ;-)

In addition, I doubt that more than one person in this case originally viewed the OP's signature line as potentially, theoretically offensive.

I am not the person who complained originally, and I haven't contributed to this thread so far (although I've been reading it) but I have to say, I am surprised that you seem so bothered by the OP changing her signature line. My take was NOT that she felt coerced, but that she had the opportunity to hear how others viewed or might view her tagline and reevaluated it. I will admit that I'm sensitive, but I did think the signature line was in bad taste from the first time I saw it. It was actually very interesting to me to read the OP's explanation, because I had taken it in an entirely different way. I think it was DeeDee who said that she viewed it as more "don't bother hothousing your kid, you really can't make him/her gifted." That was how I viewed it. It seemed to me the kind of remark I associate with parents who like to pretend that their child was born knowing the periodic table and who staunchly deny that they ever do anything to help their child learn (which I always thought was kind of silly - we're all born with different aptitudes, but I'm sure that just by talking to my children, taking them to museums, reading with them, discussing, etc... I am certainly helping them develop that natural, inborn aptitude).

Anyway, it definitely didn't bother me enough to say anything, but it made me cringe when I read it (although now that I understand it, it doesn't). So, isn't it just possible that in the same way that I came to understand the siggy line in a new light, the OP also had an "aha" moment, and thought, "well, even though I meant this in a totally benign way and never in a million years thought it could be offensive, hmmmmm... maybe it could be read the wrong way, and since I want to come across as open and supportive to other-especially new-parents of gifted, i think I'll change it?"

Theresa

Sure, it's possible. I'm not really that bothered by this thread in itself, and don't think Grinity or anyone else has done anything improper under the current rules-- but we seem to be heading towards more and more policing of users by other users, which is worrisome to me. There needs to be a change in atmosphere; people need to know that they can post freely, within reason. I consider this to be an extension of the "Forum Guidelines" thread. I think I've probably said all I can usefully say on the subject.

Here is my view on it (assumptions and all):

Ametrine has experienced parents judging her as a hothouser and it annoyed her. Some of us truly do have children that teach themselves amazing things with little to no teaching on our part. It can be annoying to be have your reality rejected by others. So she expressed this in her signature, feeling safe on a forum such as this where others share her sentiment (I certainly do).

Her signature was vague enough to be misread from her original intent. Someone else on this forum realized that it might be considered offensive and in an act of kindness--since she herself would want someone to tell her if she accidentally offended--she chose to write Ametrine in private. I highly doubt the person writing meant to censor Ametrine, only to alert her to something she may not have realized. I would appreciate someone doing the same for me and wouldn't find it critical, but some might. We all vary in how defensive we are, and we all have different sensitivities. If you had a grandmother that was always correcting your speech, a PM like this might anger you.

Ametrine was curious how her signature came across to others. I'm often curious about the same thing, and it's very difficult to see outside of your own perspective. Clearly, Ametrine is open-minded and considerate of others around her or she wouldn't have asked. This alone tells me that her signature was not meant to offend.

All of us in this thread found it an interesting question and chose to think about it, post about it, and enter into debates about wonderful things like freedom of speech and politeness and hothousing. Everyone was writing from their own perspective, experiences and even insecurities and they were all so very different.

Ultimately, it's a natural human desire to "be the best" and especially, to want the best for your children. So those with non-gifted children don't want to be reminded that their children are "less" in some way. Other parents don't want to be reminded that their hothoused (gifted or not) children are somehow "less" than those children that teach themselves. Sometimes confronting an uncomfortable truth, we will minimize the gifted kids (like the bumper sticker mentioned above) or we will minimize the non-hothoused kids (those parents are lying).

Personally, I have always found the "My child is an honor student" stickers annoying, and not because of insecurities, as I was an honor student, but solely because I can imagine all the parents sitting in cars behind that one who have non-honors students who are feeling despair, jealousy, anger, insecurities and in general, a feeling that their child is less. I had friends like that with parents like that, and I remember well how they compared us.

Now, for all those with feathers ruffled because you have a sticker just like this. I'm sure most parents place this sticker to show their children how proud they are of them. For some parents, that sticker is something they have been wanting for a long time. I get it.

I guess my point is this--so much of reality is filtered through our unique perspectives, and how lovely to have a thread like this to open our eyes to how different the world looks to others.

I don't think we should censor what people say, anymore than I think that we should censor someone's right to complain about what someone says. Aren't both valuable?

I think that the real issue here is about uncensored speech and the fact that one member has decided to be the morality police for all of us. I don't like that, and I'm concerned that the board is experiencing a crisis that it might not recover from. Sure, the board may continue if this isn't resolved, but in a bowdlerized way that will have destroyed the qualities that have made it so special in the past.

Censorship is insidious. It can creep up on you, and before you know it, the damage is done. In this case, it's being presented with a smiling, loving face. Don't offend anyone is presented so reasonably...but it isn't reasonable. It isn't reasonable to give one person --- who has no official position with the DI --- the rights to tell everyone else what to say and how to say it. The loving face is really just a mask hiding ugly efforts by a bully to control us. Worse, whoever this person is, s/he's hiding behind PMs so that none of us can see the full extent of what s/he's trying to do. Coward!

This person's effort is the real problem here (not someone's tagline). IMO, a good way to end censorship and bullying is to expose the ugliness of both in public. So I'll say it loud to the mystery morality cop: I THINK YOU'RE A BULLY.

LoL You're right. Who's to say an elephant can't have tap shoes if they want? But will he have an audience?

Val,
Freedom of speech includes both people. The one with the signature and the one who expressed concern about it.

We can't know the motives of the one who PM'd Ametrine; they may be as mean-spirited as you suggest, or they may be acting out of sincere kindness. How can we know? Why assume the worst?

I love your stand against bullying (we need more of that in the world!), but let's be slow to label without adequate proof. As much as I love freedom of speech, I abhor name-calling.

I don't think anyone on this thread is in the wrong. We are all just learning about different perspectives (me too!)

�Other parents don't want to be reminded that their hothoused (gifted or not) children are somehow "less" than those children that teach themselves.

I don't think that's true. �

�or we will minimize the non-hothoused kids (those parents are lying).�

I don't think that's true.

I think that is a commonly expressed �set of feelings that you're stating. �I feel like gifted kids can put 2&2 together but they were exposed to it. �They just take it further than other kids. � �They got the original information somewhere and ran with it to reach further conclusions. �JMO.
I'm not offended but I disagree with the presumptions frequently stated that everybody prefers gifted osmosis to guided instruction because I, at least, am not convinced.
I like this quote:
It sums how I'm always pleasantly surprised by the unpredictability of the answers I read here.
Everyone was writing from their own perspective, experiences and even insecurities and they were all so very different.

I've highlighted the most pertinent part of your post, but have included the entire quote because you have done a very good job of explaining my thought process in choosing to change my signature line. It was exactly for the reason that someone may misinterpret the meaning of it that I chose to delete it. It was too vague.

As for bowing to "bullies", I feel one is only "bowing" if they feel bullied. I never did.

Honestly, when I put up the line, I figured it would have offended parents in a typical online parenting forum. Not anyone here...but that was because I interpreted it to mean, "MY child is a tap dancer and not an elephant that I forced shoes upon to make them one.

I have a solution to those who feel it was a perfectly fine line. You have my permission to use it. I like it and know what it is conveying. If someone comes to this site and is offended and leaves, so be it. I can't be held responsible for the perceptions of every visitor, and I know nobody here expects that.

Because I have an IRL history of saying things that I thought were understood, yet were "taken wrong" and offended, I decided the PM was a legitimate concern. I've also, IRL, asked for clarification from my husband/mother on comments made to me by others. I don't know if this is a touch of Asperger's, or what. My dad has many of the signs of being Aspie, so maybe I've inherited his social awkwardness.

Maybe that makes me a "softie" who isn't secure my own voice. But when you've been told many times by those you love and who love you that you have a tendency to accidentally offend when it's not your intent, you can understand why I did what I did in asking for opinions and ultimately realized that it was right for me to delete the line.

I'm of the opinion that a non-gifted child can have the same instruction as a gifted child and the non-gifted child will learn, yet not to the extent and breadth that the gifted child will take that instruction.

It's just not in the non-gifted child's makeup.

That is why hothousing comments made to parents of gifted children is so offensive, imo. It literally means forcing unnatural development on children and the assumption that any child who is not of typical I.Q. or talent must have therefore been hothoused.

I agree that gifted children will carry a conclusion to a further extent and that other kids might not even notice the same lesson. I'm just one who homeschools preschools my little cheetah so I find many of the statements about hothousing and giftedness don't address my frusteration with judginess and I need to keep saying this when it comes up until I can refine it to a more clear way to say it.

Eta: it's not judginess I'm struggling with, it's one size fits all that seems to be getting in the way a little bit. It's in my mind and not so much in this forum.

I was one of those who said in this thread (I did not send the original PM!) that I could see how the signature could potentially be construed as offensive, but I think this thread is blowing the whole thing up totally out of proportion to what has occurred. The OP was genuinely curious, seems to have seen that the sig might usefully be changed, but doesn't appear to feel censored. Can we let it go? I think it's okay to sensitively call people's attention to it when they say something offensive, just as I also think it's not necessary to constantly censor oneself. I have seen some things on this board that were personally offensive to me, and at times I have said something. I feel both the poster of the sentiments and I were within our rights.

P.S. I'm being extra sensitive about hot-housing and modern ideas about appropriate early academics because my late birthday boy (by 1 measly little month) can't go to preschool this year because Texas state law has drawn a hard line at 4 by Sept. for pre-k, even though the local principle looked at his worksheets and said she's happy to let him in if it's do-able. �In my search for info I talked to a regional gt person and explained my son a little bit and she said the public school probably will never do a good job meeting his educational needs. �I said, well I knew that but I know about ALEKS and EPGY and the Davidson Gifted public forum. �I think I can find ways to help his educational growth, just school would be nice too. �This would be a good year for him to do pre-k because he wants to and would like it and would fit. �Not once has the issue or the word hothousing came up but giftedness did and that's what they called it. �I just think the discussions about "early giftedness is by osmosis and not education" is obviously a necessary conversation because that's apparently what some people are going through. �It's also a vocal movement and a counter-productive sentiment to my current situation. �Not that your nerds are less valid than mine. �Lol at the tiny iPhone screen typo. I meant not that your needs are less valid than mine. �LMAO

La Texican..

I think you have a very good topic for a dedicated post.

When you're able, I'd love to comment in that.

I think that it's probably a good idea to let it go for 24 hours and then toss it. It's dirty laundry, imo.

Mark? Julie?

What say you?

Not quite. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to telling other people what they can and can't write ---- this is actually the foundation of free speech. It's perfectly okay to say, "I didn't like what you wrote," or "I disagree with what you wrote." But it's not okay to tell someone, "You have to remove what you wrote because I think you should."


I agree that we can't know someone's motives unless the person explains them to us. This is why I'd still like to hear them from the person him- or herself.

I watched a film about a dystopian future in country X recently. Two characters came from elsewhere. They kept saying, "How could this have happened? How they have let things get this bad?" I kept thinking that the answer was, "One small step at a time."

I see acceptance of speech-policing by people who aren't moderators as a small step toward a distasteful culture on this board. I'd hate to see that and think that the quality of the discussions would suffer as a result.

Val...

Ultramarina is NOT the one who PM'd me. I think you misread that statement of hers. She was saying she was *one* of those early on in this post that said it could be misunderstood.

I deliberately didn't mention who PM'd me because that is neither here-nor-there as far as I am concerned.

I have spoken with her in more PM's and she in no way has made me feel like her intentions were other than to save me some grief!

Just to be clear...the original PM to me was one in good-faith, imo.

Sorry Ultramarina! My bad.

I see how it could have been misread--I edited. No, I did not send the PM. I felt the sig could have been seen as sort of combative or slightly "off," but it would never have risen to the level of sending a PM to someone about it.

Val, I'd appreciate an edit of your post where I am part of the dystopian future.

Revisionist history! The forum is growing more Orwellian by the moment!

K. I did.
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted..../110186/Hothouse_Spinoff.html#Post110186

Sure. I know my language was really strong, but think a strong response is needed in some cases. I really, really don't like censorship, especially when it comes in a sugar-coated form.


:-P

LoL~

I'm glad to see that humor is seen in this quagmire I started.

*raises hand*...George fan, here!

That was said perfectly.

Texican,
We aren't disagreeing! I don't think it's hothousing to teach a child that is demanding to be taught no matter how young they are. I'm all for child-led activities! If a 3-year old has the mind of a 7-year old, why shouldn't he be exposed to similar things? How smart of the child to get the parents to teach him!

Also, I don't mean to imply that a gifted child with spontaneous learning is better than a child that is helped along the way. I don't buy into the belief that children exist in a hierarchy (gifted or not, spontaneous or not).

It's only that I've noticed some comments on this forum that suggest spontaneous learning doesn't happen--because it does. Even neglected children learn to walk. I find that when others discount my reality, it makes me wonder at their motives. I've made the assumption that it must be based on a belief system like I've described. Obviously, I could be wrong, and it may due to an inability to accept experiences outside of their own.

Obviously, that's my issue, but I hate to be misunderstood.

Val,

I'm glad the world has people like you--strong, passionate and sensitive to injustice.

What a great discussion this was. You all gave me lots to think about. Thanks!

I've noticed the spontaneous learning on my son's part. It usually seems to happen overnight. Literally. He will wake up in the morning and it's like he had a "brain infusion" or something.

LoL...my son is reading this as I type and asking if I'm talking about him. "Are you talking about me on there, mom? Are you?" LoL

While I obviously supported my DD in learning letters and sounds and by reading to her, I truly did not instruct her in reading. Other than a few readings of the BOB books at 3ish, I truly did not do any of the kind of explicit teaching that, for instance, is covered in various "How to teach your kid to read" things I've seen here and there. I've had other people ask me "When she learned to read, did she..." and I'm just like, uh, I dunno, man. She couldn't read and then she could. So I believe in the seemingly spontaneous business.

Thanks. I do get quite passionate at times; thanks for putting up with it.

Lucounu these are 2 very different issues. I think you are guilty of creating a false dichotomy.

1) what should be allowed to be discussed:
(basically IQ test items and where to buy them - I can't remember the last time a saw a thread that someone started to discuss any other topics that I though shouldn't be allowed.)

2) what to do when the desire of some for free speech allows speech that is offensive or attacking or perceived as attacking of others.

It's not that my goal is avoiding offense to anyone, it's that my goal is honoring the actual parents who post here. There is very little support of the important work of parenting in general, and even less for parents of gifted kids. So I don't see the need for anyone to attack anyone else here. If I perceive that someone is being attacked, I will speak up and object - one way or the other.

I'm not a moderator. No one has to agree with me. I sent a PM to someone once and let her know that I didn't think she was trying to offend, but that I thought it likely that her words were being perceived as an attack. The poster told me that she disagreed and that was that. Nothing terrible happened to the poster as far as I can tell.

Do I think it's possible to disagree in a way that won't be perceived as an attack? I absolutely do, and I do it fairly often. I don't want to deprive anyone of the support of a variety of opinions and perspectives. I just do it kindly and gently. Even when I don't, people generally get the feeling that I am trying to help and that being helpful is my only motivation. I'm clearly not trying to score points or make my ego feel better. And that's my perception of the difference between me and the 'free speechers.' Do I want everyone else here to do find ways to disagree that are kind and not attack-y? Yes I do. I'm allowed to want that, and to try and see if I can help that happen. There is absolutely no connection between meanness and honesty. Politeness and Independent thought are not contradictory. And having the humility to accept that none of us will ever know the whole story of any poster's life leaves a lot of room for kindness.

Lucounu, I consider you to be a valuable member of this group. I don't think that you would actually disagree with anything I've said just now. You are showing a lot of promise in developing your own funny style of respectful disagreement - I'm proud of you.

I know that I lost a lot of years of practicing my social skills, first by being shunned 4th -6th grade, and then by not often having a safe enough place to share my thoughts without tremendous self-censoring. I've used posting here as a way to get to know 'what I really do think' after all these years. I'll bet I'm not the only person who has had a similar life experience, so yes, I do tend to feel protective toward folks. Sometime overprotective, but I'm trying to really stick to being of service to other gifted parents.

It's not that any of use will never make mistakes, or that something terrible will happen if one of the mods or the members asks someone else to slow down and take a second look. It's that I want us moving in the direction being here to serve.

And afterall, most of us are going to have to negotiate with school folks or community members to get our kid's needs met, doesn't it make sense to practice a strong and respectful way of stating our thoughts? We know as little about the perspectives and past experiences of our school folks as we do about each other, so doesn't it make sense to practice getting our point across without attacking or being offensive?

At the SENG training, they talked about how difficult it is for many school folks to deal with parents of gifted kids. The term was 'unguided missiles.' As a group we talk fast, use vocabulary words that are hard to understand, and care so deeply that we come across as 'Intense' and 'Difficult to please.' We expect folks to respond to logic and research results, and that isn't how most people live. We may be angry with how we were treated, or how our children have been mistreated - and we have every right to that anger. So if we are going to advocate for our children, we need to learn how to interact in a way that is respectful AND communicates disagreement.

And what about out kids? I was 'disciplined' by very sharp tongued, sarcastic, gifted parents. And our spouses? As peace-loving as I may seem to some of you, DH finds me 'too hot to handle' many times. I have that loud and fast and voluminous speech that comes across hard on my DH, particularly when my eyes start flashing. We are going to have to disagree with our kids and spouses at times, and wouldn't we rather do it in a way that looks loving and like we remember who they are at the same time? I guess a few of you probably feel that it's your duty to 'toughen your child up so that they are ready for the real world' and I'm actually working on that over the last year or so, but am I right that mostly we would prefer to disagree without full out decimation when it's our loved ones?

If I haven't complained directly to whoever is reading this, then you can be sure I don't mean you. Believe me, I'm taking every opportunity to develop my own ability to respectfully disagree. So if I haven't PMed you about it, it's not bothering me, ok? Deal?

Love and More Love,
Grinity

That's what it was like for me. You answer their questions about the ABC's and the next thing you know they are reading simple words. Then by the time, you get early reader books, they are reading paragraphs. I finally realized that I couldn't keep up with him.

I did teach him addition though!

But free speech isn't just a nice desire that some people have. It's a fundamental part of our legal system and our society in general. I may not mince words when I post, but I don't attack people or deliberately try to offend them. Yet some people may feel that way, just like I feel that way sometimes (here or anywhere else). It's part of life.


Not speaking for Iucounu here, but you're writing a bit like you're his superior at work or his mom. Do you see me that way too?


I'm not sure that this is your call to make. You can't force others to share your own personal motivations and goals, any more than I can. Do I want to write messages that are helpful? Of course. Should anyone be allowed to dictate that this has to be a major focus of this forum governing "us" as a group? No.

Isn't that true!

When I was a young child, I was nicknamed "Motor Mouth." I hated it! I was convinced there was something wrong with me. I practiced and practiced to slow my speech down.

I still consciously modulate my speech to this day to not annoy the people around me. <<sigh>>

OOoo! Oooo! Or how about this one: "but it didn't say that we had to change our shoes for gym, just that we had to have shorts or sweats and a t-shirt. I didn't know they wanted me to wear tennis shoes instead of boots too."

I haven't read this whole thread carefully, but it would help me out Val if you could show me what this is referring to. I don't perceive that the issue is that anyone told anyone that they had to do anything.

((shrugs and more shrugs))
Grinity

There's no false dichotomy. There are many different issues being discussed, and I have explicitly stated that I am trying to guide things in a direction where there are more shades of gray available here, and that I believe you're against that. I might have written the above-quoted text in haste, but I do think that in service of creating a wecloming, comforting environment, you would like to control not only what is discussed her, but also how it's discussed The latter is probably the bigger issue, but they're both issues. You agree above that you want to avoid discussing at least one issue, and there are others. See, for example, your response to Bostonian in the other forum guidelines thread:

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/110059/6.html
Because of this and a thousand other small things, when you contact people in private to let them know that you disapprove of their posts, I see it as seeking to control the board. You're attempting to control both the medium and the message. If Ametrine had intended, for instance, to say what you didn't like that her signature implied to you, I don't think you would have been okay with it, although of course you would have had to eventually let it go.

Ametrine's signature line wasn't an attack. Bostonian's postings of his views on intelligence-- which are always at least well-thought-out and quite civil, though they may not sit well with you-- are not attacks. The word "attack" is far too strong. You don't like others posting if you feel that it creates a less welcoming environment, in your personal opinion; and that's stifling, in my personal opinion.

Like I mentioned before, nothing prohibits anyone from sending someone a PM. I don't think it's out-and-out wrong under the rules, though as we discussed in the other thread, sending a PM like that might be less than ideal. Whether or not it results in the person contacted feeling offended, though, you are trying to change the way other people are posting.

I do see you as skewing things too far from center. For example, I don't think anything will be served by everyone trying to constantly be loving, etc. This is a discussion forum for grownups. We don't need love; we need interesting ideas, and enough civility to discuss them fruitfully.

And that civility requirement doesn't mean we need to err on the side of construing every meaning of someone's words, looking for someone who might potentially feel offended. It's simply too restrictive.

I consider that to be a back-handed sort of compliment, honestly, and with apologies if you really, truly didn't mean it to be (no apology is necessary). Your compliment asserts, of course, that I still have a ways to go. Well, in my opinion, you could improve somewhat in the area of showing less passive aggression (I will have to think about whether I am recomminding more open aggression or just less aggression, but either would be better IMO; I of course feel like you have a right to be heard like anyone else). It might just be the way you come across.

I do think you have many good intentions, but can come off as a bit controlling at times.

I know you do. But I think of this as a discussion forum, where one of the things that happens by design is that people come to ask questions and get answers, and another major function is general discussion relevant to the areas that are indicated in the subforums.

"Being here to serve" shouldn't restrict the way we discuss things in general; it's too restrictive. To me, I still think it's over-the-top ridiculous that you felt it necessary to contact Ametrine in private about her signature line about elephants and tap-dancing shoes. She wasn't getting in the way of your being here to serve others, or harming the forum.

No, it doesn't make sense to use our posts here to practice speaking in the same way as we do when advocating for our children. I think that's a choice for every person to choose for themselves, not to have it forced on them, "suggested" via PM from an influential person, etc. I would be horrified to learn that a new forum guideline was in the offing, suggesting that people be on their absolute best behavior, and use speech as if they were dealing with school administrators. This is a place for discussion.

Anyway, I don't want to keep squabbling over this. I think I've really said everything I can usefully say now, and so much more...

In case some people haven't noticed, Mark has asked for comments on the new Forum Rules in this thread.

Uh oh! "Pointless verbiage" alert above?

ETA: Like!

ok - I think that describes where I'm at too. ((wink))
((shrugs and more shrugs))
Grinity

I've sent a PM to Mark to delete this post. If it were possible, I would have done it myself yesterday.

Please note: The person who sent me the PM about my signature line was not Grinity and was not ultramarina. Even if someone here were to accuse the person who did send it to me, I would say they didn't. Like I said before...it's neither here-nor-there who it was.

I'd appreciate it if no one else would "point fingers". I feel this kind of subtle fishing for who it was is uncalled-for.

Do you want the entire thread deleted? I object to that. No one, including the OP, owns a thread. Most of the messages in this thread have been reasonable. Individuals should generally be allowed to delete their own messages. The moderator can delete messages that he thinks violate forum rules. If he thinks continuing a thread is no longer useful, he can freeze it.

This thread seems to be going off topic and deviates from the purposes of this forum, so I am closing it.

Mark