> Vana et al. I noticed Richard posted two requests, so perhaps I
> might add an additional one. I, for one, would really really
> appreciate it if people would read more carefully or re-read once or
> twice before responding.
>
> I stated as clearly as possible that I wasn't seriously
> recommending limitations.
>
> Come to think of it...
>
> ..now I'm wondering a) if I wasn't clear, and b) how I could have
> made it clearer. Any suggestions?
Robert, I read your post several times before posting and understood that
you wanted the members of this list to consider your suggestion and
possibly try it for a month. By saying this AND saying that you are not
serious tends to confuse the statement. The negator followed the request,
which is why it got lost in your post.
I think that Richard's requests are excellent ones and I'm grateful that
as "leader" of this discussion group, he made them. Groups such as ours
DO go through and ebb and flow, and depending when you get on the ride, it
may seem a bit slow, confusing, fast, or out of synch with its purpose.
Like others who have posted, I tend to believe that if you stay on the
ride long enough, it will come back right (whatever that is) and the
whole will be much grander than any of the small parts that distract us.
kind regards,
Vana Prewitt
Praxis Learning Systems
Chapel Hill, NC
--Vana Prewitt <vana@PraxisLearning.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>