Heliotrope,
“Again, no 'some'. I just took offense to the 'teachers good, admin bad'”
My apologies. You weren’t offended, but you “took offense.“
“Then we disagree”
Yes, I do disagree with you because you can’t seem to follow logic or properly support your opinions.
I think you owe the OP an apology.
Admin role
-
Illiane_Blues
Re: Admin role
No he does not owe the OP an apology.
I read it the exact same way Heliotrope did and I also took offence.
I read it the exact same way Heliotrope did and I also took offence.
-
Illiane_Blues
Re: Admin role
Let me break down Heliotrope's reply.
First he writes:
"At my school not all teachers have 'stepped up', especially some of the older teachers who are sometimes less tech-savvy took a while to adjust.
And those teachers received plenty of guidance where needed from from principals and assistant principals, whom are definitely not 'clueless' and haven't asked for teachers help to 'figure out technicalities'.
There's no bureaucratic flab here, therefore there is none to cut. I'd say the organisation is about as lean as it should be. Any cuts would mean more work for both teachers and other admins."
What's wrong with this? He is just describing how his schools doesn't fit the description put forward by the OP. Unless you know Heliotrop and know this to be untrue?
Then he writes:
"I've been at schools with too much (middle) management, and at schools where there was not enough.
It seems you're describing your school, not all schools."
From experience I can confirm that this is also true. Not all schools fit the description by the OP. He is not saying the OP is wrong about his own school.
First he writes:
"At my school not all teachers have 'stepped up', especially some of the older teachers who are sometimes less tech-savvy took a while to adjust.
And those teachers received plenty of guidance where needed from from principals and assistant principals, whom are definitely not 'clueless' and haven't asked for teachers help to 'figure out technicalities'.
There's no bureaucratic flab here, therefore there is none to cut. I'd say the organisation is about as lean as it should be. Any cuts would mean more work for both teachers and other admins."
What's wrong with this? He is just describing how his schools doesn't fit the description put forward by the OP. Unless you know Heliotrop and know this to be untrue?
Then he writes:
"I've been at schools with too much (middle) management, and at schools where there was not enough.
It seems you're describing your school, not all schools."
From experience I can confirm that this is also true. Not all schools fit the description by the OP. He is not saying the OP is wrong about his own school.
Last edited by Illiane_Blues on Fri May 15, 2020 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Admin role
IB,
Just because you became emotional after misreading the OP’s comment, it doesn’t mean what he said was wrong or offensive.
I hate to break it to you, but your feelings don’t matter if you misread what the OP said. It is what the OP said is what matters.
You owe yourself an apology for disturbing your self.
Just because you became emotional after misreading the OP’s comment, it doesn’t mean what he said was wrong or offensive.
I hate to break it to you, but your feelings don’t matter if you misread what the OP said. It is what the OP said is what matters.
You owe yourself an apology for disturbing your self.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Admin role
Illiane_Blues wrote:
> I'm still not sure why you think an apology is in order.
Nobody owes anyone an apology. It's a misunderstanding, and @Blinky thinks you and I both misread, while I think the OP phrased it unclearly. No big deal.
Agreeing to disagree shouldn't shatter any egos unless they're very fragile, so let's just all move on.
> I'm still not sure why you think an apology is in order.
Nobody owes anyone an apology. It's a misunderstanding, and @Blinky thinks you and I both misread, while I think the OP phrased it unclearly. No big deal.
Agreeing to disagree shouldn't shatter any egos unless they're very fragile, so let's just all move on.
Re: Admin role
You both owe the OP and apology because you both misread his post to be about all schools - and your schools in particular- and were both (in a very fragile way) offended by your own illiteracies.
You then attempted to shame the OP for asking his very important question that was based on his own experiences and discussions with other people.
When someone called you on your logical fallacies and nonsense, you resorted to red herrings and name calling.
Give the man the apology he deserves.
You then attempted to shame the OP for asking his very important question that was based on his own experiences and discussions with other people.
When someone called you on your logical fallacies and nonsense, you resorted to red herrings and name calling.
Give the man the apology he deserves.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Admin role
Since I think the illiteracy is yours and not mine, I suspect neither of us is going to convince the other, and we're just repeating ourselves.
And name calling? You called me 'keyboard warrior', and said "you have to dive right in like a hero defending your school admin team. You must be one of those teachers who curry favor to your principal like a high school hall monitor" so that's the pot calling the kettle black. Not sure what name I called him though.
If you can agree that we disagree (which is quite obvious) we can let it be and get back on topic.
And name calling? You called me 'keyboard warrior', and said "you have to dive right in like a hero defending your school admin team. You must be one of those teachers who curry favor to your principal like a high school hall monitor" so that's the pot calling the kettle black. Not sure what name I called him though.
If you can agree that we disagree (which is quite obvious) we can let it be and get back on topic.
Re: Admin role
Yes. I did call you names. This was probably the wrong thing to do. But that doesn’t make the statements untrue.
Again, if you can explain how the OP was referring to all admin positions in all schools, please do so. For once, use your logic to explain your position, instead of going back to your “we disagree” parroted response.
Again, if you can explain how the OP was referring to all admin positions in all schools, please do so. For once, use your logic to explain your position, instead of going back to your “we disagree” parroted response.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Admin role
> Again, if you can explain how the OP was referring to all admin positions
> in all schools, please do so. For once, use your logic to explain your
> position, instead of going back to your “we disagree” parroted response.
You're misrepresenting me again. I never said the OP meant all positions in all schools.
The first 'some' is there ("some positions"), the second 'some' isn't there ('schools') and makes it a blanket statement.
We only disagree about whether or not that second 'some' is implied. It's also missing in the last sentence, which makes it very likely it wasn't an oversight.
Your argument about the first 'some' implying the second one is a reach, and even if you want to go that far you're asking more of the reader than can be reasonably expected. And then it would still hinge on which of the many meanings of 'some' (Google it) the OP meant (imo a quantifier) which is certainly not clear from context, which means the second 'some' is necessary if he meant 'some schools'.
But you have your logic and I have mine. That shouldn't be a problem, people disagree all the time and everyone else can think what they want about this. We've both made our cases. Time to get back on topic.
> in all schools, please do so. For once, use your logic to explain your
> position, instead of going back to your “we disagree” parroted response.
You're misrepresenting me again. I never said the OP meant all positions in all schools.
The first 'some' is there ("some positions"), the second 'some' isn't there ('schools') and makes it a blanket statement.
We only disagree about whether or not that second 'some' is implied. It's also missing in the last sentence, which makes it very likely it wasn't an oversight.
Your argument about the first 'some' implying the second one is a reach, and even if you want to go that far you're asking more of the reader than can be reasonably expected. And then it would still hinge on which of the many meanings of 'some' (Google it) the OP meant (imo a quantifier) which is certainly not clear from context, which means the second 'some' is necessary if he meant 'some schools'.
But you have your logic and I have mine. That shouldn't be a problem, people disagree all the time and everyone else can think what they want about this. We've both made our cases. Time to get back on topic.
Re: Admin role
Heliotrope,
You made the claim he was referring to some admin in all schools and you took offense. You can twist and turn all you want to and now claim you want to get back on topic. You never wanted to participate in this topic, nor were you willing to give the OP the benefit of the doubt.
“The first 'some' is there ("some positions"), the second 'some' isn't there ('schools') and makes it a blanket statement.“
As I said, your argument here is nonsense because all schools do not have the same organizational structures. The use of the word ‘some positions’ preceding the plural ‘schools’ cannot mean anything other than some schools, unless you can prove that the OP assumes that all schools are structured the same. If you have read his other posts, you know he is not this dense, or inexperienced. How can any reader on this forum assume that all management structures are the same and will make uniform cuts in the same way? Who is asking for more than reasonably expected?
Here is the point: you became offended by the OPs post because you were emotional and misread it, and then you tried to shame him on the forum. Now, you are trying to BS your way out of it by claiming you wanted to get back on topic.
You owe the OP an apology.
You made the claim he was referring to some admin in all schools and you took offense. You can twist and turn all you want to and now claim you want to get back on topic. You never wanted to participate in this topic, nor were you willing to give the OP the benefit of the doubt.
“The first 'some' is there ("some positions"), the second 'some' isn't there ('schools') and makes it a blanket statement.“
As I said, your argument here is nonsense because all schools do not have the same organizational structures. The use of the word ‘some positions’ preceding the plural ‘schools’ cannot mean anything other than some schools, unless you can prove that the OP assumes that all schools are structured the same. If you have read his other posts, you know he is not this dense, or inexperienced. How can any reader on this forum assume that all management structures are the same and will make uniform cuts in the same way? Who is asking for more than reasonably expected?
Here is the point: you became offended by the OPs post because you were emotional and misread it, and then you tried to shame him on the forum. Now, you are trying to BS your way out of it by claiming you wanted to get back on topic.
You owe the OP an apology.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Admin role
I'm not twisting and turning, I have taken the same position throughout this exchange, perhaps clarifying it here and there.
Your opinion that schools' organizational structures are relevant is not mine, as 'some positions' can mean either a quantity of positions, or specific roles. Your argument relies exclusively on it being the second, where it's nothing more than a guess that this is the case. Actually, the last sentence in the original post makes it likely that it's the first.
And I'm not the only one who read it the way I did.
I'm not BS'ing. It's simply that we've both made our cases and it's unlikely that we'll convince each other, that's why I suggested to move on since that's a more productive use of our time.
Your opinion that schools' organizational structures are relevant is not mine, as 'some positions' can mean either a quantity of positions, or specific roles. Your argument relies exclusively on it being the second, where it's nothing more than a guess that this is the case. Actually, the last sentence in the original post makes it likely that it's the first.
And I'm not the only one who read it the way I did.
I'm not BS'ing. It's simply that we've both made our cases and it's unlikely that we'll convince each other, that's why I suggested to move on since that's a more productive use of our time.
Re: Admin role
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.”
― Ricky Gervais
― Ricky Gervais
Re: Admin role
There are a few frequent posters on this forum whose views I don't take seriously as they neither share the same career trajectory nor have the professional experience to understand the issue at hand.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Admin role
fine dude wrote:
> There are a few frequent posters on this forum whose views I don't take
> seriously as they neither share the same career trajectory nor have the
> professional experience to understand the issue at hand.
That's a pretty good burn actually.
> There are a few frequent posters on this forum whose views I don't take
> seriously as they neither share the same career trajectory nor have the
> professional experience to understand the issue at hand.
That's a pretty good burn actually.