Eton

123457

Comments

  • Kwesi wrote: »
    For what Etonians really believe see Jacob Rees-Mogg re UNICEF assistance to London children.

    What they believe, and what they think people should think they believe for PR purposes may well be at odds -- this is somewhat orthogonal to the question in this thread.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    I think it would be unfair to think Rees-Mogg is representative of all Old Etonians. No doubt many of them.

    But I don't like the implied idea that only an organisation that is completely committed to progressive ideals has the right to discipline people for an offence like this. Greater is the joy in heaven at a sinner who repents or a bastion of privilege that draws the line somewhere, and all that.
  • Isn't JR-M a bit of an outlier? Surely he cannot be taken as representative of anyone except himself?
  • Penny S wrote: »
    Isn't JR-M a bit of an outlier? Surely he cannot be taken as representative of anyone except himself?

    He's fairly representative of tory MPs, albeit more performatively obnoxious than most. It's rare for a week to go by without at least one tory MP making some tone deaf remark about people living in poverty.
  • Penny S wrote: »
    Isn't JR-M a bit of an outlier? Surely he cannot be taken as representative of anyone except himself?

    He's fairly representative of tory MPs, albeit more performatively obnoxious than most. It's rare for a week to go by without at least one tory MP making some tone deaf remark about people living in poverty.

    Often the result of multiplying the cost of cheap porridge oats by the numbers of meals in a day...
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    For what Etonians really believe see Jacob Rees-Mogg re UNICEF assistance to London children.

    You cannot extrapolate how all OEs think or feel from the example of one man who left the place over 30 years ago and who during his time at school stood out as atypical among his peers.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The current Archbishop of Canterbury would take a very different (diametrically opposite) view, and was also at Eton.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Oooooh, sorry I spoke! Such lese-majeste!
  • BroJames wrote: »
    The current Archbishop of Canterbury would take a very different (diametrically opposite) view, and was also at Eton.

    And was as unpopular as JR-M.
  • For entirely different reasons, no doubt. Likely ++Cantuar was thought to be a bleeding heart leftie whereas RMogg was is and always will be a prickus pomposus...
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    The question, ISTM, is how far an employer can reasonably go in restricting the private life of their employees in pursuit of that aim.

    So for clarity you don't think (as you seemed to do in other threads) that an employer has ultimate freedom to set the terms of employment as they feel free and that there should be some regulation around these?

    I've said nothing about regulation. You jump too quickly from something being a bad thing to supposing that the state should ban it.

    I've suggested that employees should have a right to a life outside of their employment. (Which includes freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to join and be an active member of a political party or pressure group or other voluntary body. Etc.)

    But also that they should be able to choose to waive that right in exchange for the sort of high-profile high-paid job where being neutral and being seen to be neutral (on certain issues) is part of the role.

    I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the Monopolies Commission (or equivalent body in other jurisdictions) might investigate an industry in which unreasonable restrictions on employees are universal.

    But before reaching such a conclusion I was hoping that someone might help clarify what sort of restrictions are or are not reasonable.


  • Russ wrote: »
    So for clarity you don't think (as you seemed to do in other threads) that an employer has ultimate freedom to set the terms of employment as they feel free and that there should be some regulation around these?
    I've said nothing about regulation. You jump too quickly from something being a bad thing to supposing that the state should ban it.

    I've suggested that employees should have a right to a life outside of their employment.

    If a right can be violated without recourse or consequence, is it really a "right"?
  • Whether employees have a right to a private life outside their job depends on the profile of their job. Teachers usually sign contracts including clauses that preclude them from using social media to contact students and from bringing the school into disrepute, the latter being a catchall that can be used to prevent any number of activities, e.g. being seen publicly drinking by their students, relationships seen as inappropriate, most newsworthy activities that aren't entirely worthy and allow their institutions to bask in the reflected glory.

    Politicians, journalists and other careers in the public eye usually (the current UK Government excepted) cannot maintain their positions if caught in flagrante in myriad ways - e.g, Kay Burley has just been sidelined from Sky News, at least temporarily, for celebrating her birthday in contravention of Tier 3 guidelines.

    And there are enough stories around of employees at all levels being sacked for social media content - those posting day out pictures when they've phoned in sick and/or abusive content about their company.

    There is nothing exceptional in a teacher being reprimanded for posting inappropriate material on social media that their pupils can access or an employee being sacked for putting their employer into disrepute.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Russ wrote: »
    I've suggested that employees should have a right to a life outside of their employment. (Which includes freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to join and be an active member of a political party or pressure group or other voluntary body. Etc.)

    But also that they should be able to choose to waive that right in exchange for the sort of high-profile high-paid job where being neutral and being seen to be neutral (on certain issues) is part of the role.

    How will this right be enforced, and who will determine whether or not the waiving of a particular right is down to a requirement for neutrality vs raw economic power on the part of the employer?
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Teachers usually sign contracts including clauses that preclude them from using social media to contact students and from bringing the school into disrepute, the latter being a catchall that can be used to prevent any number of activities, e.g. being seen publicly drinking by their students, relationships seen as inappropriate, most newsworthy activities that aren't entirely worthy

    Inappropriate relationships with students is a legitimate concern of the school. As are media comments about the school. Or phoning in sick when not sick. These sort of things are the school's business.

    Conversely, the idea that the employer should decide what political views, what forms of dance, what domestic arrangements (? Living with a woman 20 years younger ? Living with a man ?) are respectable enough for employees to be permitted to engage in is an abuse of power. These are not the employer's business.

    Now it may be that some teachers maintain order in the classroom by projecting a persona that would be undermined by being seen entering a public house. If their effectiveness in the classroom does actually noticeably diminish then that is of course the school's business.

    But that's an "if" which should require evidence for it to be a disciplinary issue.

    Now you may say that no school you've ever worked in has functioned on that basis. But the question I'm putting is what are the principles, how should it work ? Normal isn't necessarily right.

  • As a teacher I was aware that I could not have a political notice in or on my car, which would be parked on the school premises, or intimate anything about my political views in a way which would be apparent to the pupils. (I am told by our local Conservative councillor, once a pupil, that my politics were visible - but not how. Could have been union membership of course, which included the odd strike.)
    Not so happy about the freeholder's clause in the lease banning posters being displayed on the flats where I lived.
  • Penny S wrote: »
    As a teacher I was aware that I could not have a political notice in or on my car, which would be parked on the school premises, or intimate anything about my political views in a way which would be apparent to the pupils. (I am told by our local Conservative councillor, once a pupil, that my politics were visible - but not how. Could have been union membership of course, which included the odd strike.)
    Not so happy about the freeholder's clause in the lease banning posters being displayed on the flats where I lived.

    That reminds me of a joke (well, it used to be funny) from a Michael Flanders monologue: "Our council is strictly non-political. They're all Conservative."
  • 'A fairly decent lot of old burghers', I believe he also said.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Conversely, the idea that the employer should decide what political views, what forms of dance, what domestic arrangements (? Living with a woman 20 years younger ? Living with a man ?) are respectable enough for employees to be permitted to engage in is an abuse of power. These are not the employer's business.

    Now it may be that some teachers maintain order in the classroom by projecting a persona that would be undermined by being seen entering a public house. If their effectiveness in the classroom does actually noticeably diminish then that is of course the school's business.

    There is a difference between being a member of a mainstream political party and being a member of the BNP. There's a difference between having a quiet pint or two in the local pub and getting plastered and throwing up in the town square, or dropping trou with the rugby team.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    There is a difference between being a member of a mainstream political party and being a member of the BNP.
    You may think so. Could you frame such a difference in terms such that a BNP voter would agree with you ?
    There's a difference between having a quiet pint or two in the local pub and getting plastered and throwing up in the town square...
    A difference of degree, with various more or less embarrassing points in between.

    How does this relate to the individual's performance in the classroom ? If a teacher with a drink problem can "leave it at the school gate" and succeed in the classroom, inspiring children with a love of learning and an enthusiasm for their subject, why on earth should they be disciplined when a less-gifted teacher who never inspired anybody to anything is left to carry on ?

    Who really thinks that being a paragon of respectability has anything to do with successful teaching ?
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    There is a difference between being a member of a mainstream political party and being a member of the BNP.
    You may think so. Could you frame such a difference in terms such that a BNP voter would agree with you ?
    Why should he? Why is agreement from a fascist even a consideration?
  • Russ wrote: »
    Who really thinks that being a paragon of respectability has anything to do with successful teaching ?

    We're not asking for paragons - just a minimum standard. In which, for the record, I would include "not being a fascist*" and "not being a habitual public nuisance". Because teachers are supposed to provide some sort of example to the kids...

    *If you're a secret fascist, and you're so secret about it that nobody knows, and you just vote fascist in the privacy of the ballot box, then we'll never know. But I don't think you can reasonably advocate for white power on the weekends, and be entrusted with the education of our children during the week.

    Rather like I wouldn't employ a paedophile in a school on the grounds that "it's OK - he only abused his relatives on the weekend - he's never touched a school pupil".
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Because teachers are supposed to provide some sort of example to the kids...

    Seems to me that parents generally desire to pass on their values to their children. And that includes moral values, religious values, and political values.

    I think you can make a case that in this respect being a teacher is different from being an employee in general.

    So where do you draw the line between a teacher-as-employee's rights and a parent-as-employer's desires that teachers should not only teach such values but should believe them, and live up to them in their private life ?

    For example, if in a particular town the majority of parents are teetotal, they may wish to have teachers who not only teach that alcohol is bad but also actually believe that and also live up to it in practice. If they claim the right to sack:
    - any teacher who expresses in class the view that a literary character who takes a little wine with a meal does not thereby deserve the tragedy that befalls them in the later pages
    - any teacher seen entering an off-licence
    - any teacher with an alcohol problem who whilst firmly believing and proclaiming that drink is bad has occasional lapses
    do the employees have any countervailing rights at all ?

    And is it any different where religious or political values are concerned ?

    If your view is only that the parents are in the right where you agree with their values and the teacher is in the right where you agree with their values, then you're not the right person to discuss this with. Any principle worth its salt will mean sometimes standing up for the rights of people you disagree with.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Any principle worth its salt will mean sometimes standing up for the rights of people you disagree with.

    You first, given your oft-articulated position that simply being black is enough for an employer to sack you if it might harm their business.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    Any principle worth its salt will mean sometimes standing up for the rights of people you disagree with.

    You first...
    Did I not make it clear that I don't think your communist teacher should be sacked for being a communist ? Despite my own lack of any agreement with communism. (And the impact he seems to have had on a young and impressionable Doc Tor).

    Your turn...


  • Yes, so young and impressionable, the first (and so far only) political party I joined was the SDP.

    You are deliberately missing the point of my observation. My principles are egalitarian (something I share with my old metalwork teacher). But, like my old Physics teacher, who killed fascists, I recognise the toleration of intolerance leads to the ultimate and inevitable destruction of tolerance itself.

    You are expecting tolerance of intolerance. You will not get that from me.

    Now, I don't care if my child's teacher is Muslim, or Jewish, or Sikh, or atheist or agnostic, or teetotal, or not, or black, or white, or gay, or trans, or whatever. What I do care is whether they hold every life of every child they teach as equal and precious, and treat them as such. A teacher who is a member of the BNP or other far-right racist organisation cannot and will not do that, and they have no place in the classroom.
  • Russ wrote: »
    If your view is only that the parents are in the right where you agree with their values and the teacher is in the right where you agree with their values, then you're not the right person to discuss this with. Any principle worth its salt will mean sometimes standing up for the rights of people you disagree with.

    I don't need teachers to agree with all my values. I don't need teachers to be Christian, or to share my politics. But I do need teachers to treat all their children fairly, and like Doc Tor, I am going to express deep skepticism that a BNP supporter or an outspoken transphobe, for example, could do that.

    Will our hypothetical teacher use the name and pronouns that each child prefers, or will they insist on addressing them in terms that match their genitals or chromosomes? (Personally, I'd rather teachers weren't thinking about children's genitals at all.) Will they encourage black children to excel in math and science in the same way that they'd encourage white children?

  • RussRuss Shipmate
    I don't need teachers to agree with all my values. I don't need teachers to be Christian, or to share my politics. But I do need teachers to treat all their children fairly...
    That's fair enough Treating all the children in the class as individuals who matter equally because they all matter is part of the job. And if there's evidence that a teacher is not doing that, then that's cause for disciplinary action.
    .. and like Doc Tor, I am going to express deep skepticism that a BNP supporter or an outspoken transphobe, for example, could do that.

    That's just your prejudice.

    A teacher who never reprimands the black pupils in the class, and who deals with any conflict between a black pupil and a white pupil by assuming that the white pupil is in the wrong, is failing to treat all their pupils fairly. But I don't hear you doubting that those who express corresponding political views are fit to be teachers.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    My principles are egalitarian (something I share with my old metalwork teacher). But, like my old Physics teacher, who killed fascists, I recognise the toleration of intolerance leads to the ultimate and inevitable destruction of tolerance itself.

    This is the argument from exceptionalism. You are excusing yourself from the golden rule duty of treating your political opponents as you would have them treat you, by labelling them as "intolerant". It's self-serving nonsense.

    Egalitarianism is not tolerance.

  • This:
    A teacher who never reprimands the black pupils in the class, and who deals with any conflict between a black pupil and a white pupil by assuming that the white pupil is in the wrong, is failing to treat all their pupils fairly. But I don't hear you doubting that those who express corresponding political views are fit to be teachers.

    is the biggest pile of strawmanning, misrepresenting, bullshit I've ever seen on here, to the best of my recollection.
  • Russ wrote: »

    This is the argument from exceptionalism. You are excusing yourself from the golden rule duty of treating your political opponents as you would have them treat you, by labelling them as "intolerant". It's self-serving nonsense.

    Egalitarianism is not tolerance.

    I never said it was. I said it has to be intolerant of intolerance.

    And of course if someone adheres to a political philosophy of white supremacy, they're unfit to be a teacher, even and especially to a class of all white kids. Anything else is an abrogation of the overseeing authority's duty.
  • Addendum: fascists would see me in a furnace, so I'm actually treating them far better than they'd treat me.
  • At 17:20 in Knowland's video, there is a photo of a man, David Brockway of the Good Lad initiative. He has a beard and wears his hair in a manbun. Underneath is a comment by someone else, underlined by Knowland "This is a confused man" The comment (not by Knowland) further says that he needs to be straightened out.

    I suspect that Eton has strict rules about hair length, and so this is irrelevant to his position as an English teacher at Eton. However, as the mother of a son whose hair was shoulder length throughout school and which is now waistlength, I'd be very unhappy if a teacher thought my son was "confused" or in need of "straightening out"

    One wonders about Knowland's view on male writers with long hair? Shakespeare? Milton? Tennyson? Coleridge? Shelley?
  • Russ wrote: »
    .. and like Doc Tor, I am going to express deep skepticism that a BNP supporter or an outspoken transphobe, for example, could do that.

    That's just your prejudice.
    Yes, it is. I can say that, out of the outspoken racists and transphobes that I have met, precisely none of them have been able to deal with black or trans people in the workspace appropriately, so it's a prejudice that is supported by at least anecdotal data.

    And yes, I do have a prejudice that people can't compartmentalize their lives and be a vile racist on the weekend, but a civilized human being during working hours. I don't think people work like that, and I've seen no evidence that people do. You can call my not wanting to employ a weekend child molestor in schools "prejudice" as well, if you like.
    Russ wrote: »
    A teacher who never reprimands the black pupils in the class, and who deals with any conflict between a black pupil and a white pupil by assuming that the white pupil is in the wrong, is failing to treat all their pupils fairly. But I don't hear you doubting that those who express corresponding political views are fit to be teachers.

    This caricature doesn't correspond to any significant political view that I've encountered anywhere. I have encountered a couple of people with black power / black separatist views who I wouldn't employ in a school either, but there are very few of them. But if it will make you happy, I will confirm that I think that a person who "never reprimands the black pupils in the class, and who deals with any conflict between a black pupil and a white pupil by assuming that the white pupil is in the wrong" isn't a suitable person to be employed as a teacher. Should any person answering that description actually exist, of course.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    In one newspaper today appears a quotation from George Orwell, an Old Etonian, himself:

    " Probably the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, but the opening battles of all subsequent wars were lost there."

    ..........and we're discussing the merits of one of the teachers! Give me strength!
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    But if it will make you happy, I will confirm that I think that a person who "never reprimands the black pupils in the class, and who deals with any conflict between a black pupil and a white pupil by assuming that the white pupil is in the wrong" isn't a suitable person to be employed as a teacher.

    Thank you - glad we agree that far.

    But the question goes beyond that. To those whose political views are summarized (or caricatured if you will) by the notion that black people are victims and victims can do no wrong. The sort of person who's totally predictably on the side of the black person in any dispute. Who's really uncomfortable condemning a black person's wrongdoing unless they can affirm in the same sentence that many white people do worse. People who believe that "colourblindness" is part of the problem not part of the solution.

    You may not know anyone like that. But if you can suspend your disbelief far enough to acknowledge that some people like that may exist, the question is whether you would trust them to leave their political convictions at the school gate and run their classroom in a colourblind manner that is totally impartial between black pupils and white pupils.

    Is a person who in their private life is outspoken against the ideal of colourblindness a fit person to be a teacher ?


  • Russ wrote: »

    Is a person who in their private life is outspoken against the ideal of colourblindness a fit person to be a teacher ?


    Your bizarre, non-existent caricature is very different from this question.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    ..and we're discussing the merits of one of the teachers! Give me strength!
    We're discussing a matter of interest. If you would like to discuss some matter of more interest to you then nothing stops you from starting your own thread. There's no obligation on the rest of us not to discuss a topic merely because you'd rather discuss an adjacent topic.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Russ wrote: »

    Is a person who in their private life is outspoken against the ideal of colourblindness a fit person to be a teacher ?


    Your bizarre, non-existent caricature is very different from this question.

    Russ' attempt to raise this caricature as if it represented any actual person's position would be risible were it not disruptive to a thread which is about real people holding actual real positions. It cunningly avoids the charge of bearing false witness by refusing to ascribe the caricatured position to any particular person or group, but it is intellectual dishonesty of the same basic type.

    I see no value in continuing this diversion into the Land Of Invented Political Beliefs.
  • Because we're apparently discussing how some caricature of a teacher might be unfit for the classroom when there are actual examples of racist, sexist homophobes already there.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    At bottom there seems to be a kind of whataboutery about it. You would fire this teacher for belief A, but what about that teacher with belief B?

    Even if the answer is ‘no’, you wouldn’t fire them, it doesn’t inherently imply that you should then keep a teacher with belief A, just that you really ought, for consistency fire a teacher holding belief B. (Always assuming you can find her/him among your herd of unicorns.)
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Dafyd: There's no obligation on the rest of us not to discuss a topic merely because you'd rather discuss an adjacent topic.

    You have a sort of point- but it might be pointed out that the title of this thread is 'Eton' and I doubt we'd be discussing this matter were it not so.

    My only observation on the qualities considered necessary in a teacher is that most of those who taught me would not have met the standards of right social thinking required by most of these posts, but they were more than competent to teach their subjects and even communicate their enthusiasm for them.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Dafyd: There's no obligation on the rest of us not to discuss a topic merely because you'd rather discuss an adjacent topic.

    You have a sort of point- but it might be pointed out that the title of this thread is 'Eton' and I doubt we'd be discussing this matter were it not so.

    My only observation on the qualities considered necessary in a teacher is that most of those who taught me would not have met the standards of right social thinking required by most of these posts, but they were more than competent to teach their subjects and even communicate their enthusiasm for them.

    Your teachers were all racist, homophobic, sexist or transphobic?
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    My only observation on the qualities considered necessary in a teacher is that most of those who taught me would not have met the standards of right social thinking required by most of these posts, but they were more than competent to teach their subjects and even communicate their enthusiasm for them.

    That you were taught by at least some racist, sexist homophobes (if we're of an age) is a given. I spent more time arguing with my A-level physics teacher that the girls in the class were there by right than I did learning A-level physics.

    Two points, however: it was never 'right social thinking' to believe a teacher should treat all their pupils equitably. It was simply right. And secondly, that we're now at a point in educational pedagogy where it's finally realised that putting racist, sexist homophobes in front of a class of children is a bad thing to do, is actually a good thing and certainly not to be mocked or resented, as you seem to be doing.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Dafyd: There's no obligation on the rest of us not to discuss a topic merely because you'd rather discuss an adjacent topic.

    You have a sort of point- but it might be pointed out that the title of this thread is 'Eton' and I doubt we'd be discussing this matter were it not so.

    My only observation on the qualities considered necessary in a teacher is that most of those who taught me would not have met the standards of right social thinking required by most of these posts, but they were more than competent to teach their subjects and even communicate their enthusiasm for them.

    Your teachers were all racist, homophobic, sexist or transphobic?

    A fair few of my teachers were homophobes (as, to be fair, were most of the students including me, to my shame). Racism didn't offer many opportunities to observe in lilly-white west country 25 years ago. There were horror stories about sexism among the older professors when I was at university studying physics. Transphobia didn't come up directly as it pretty much embedded in culture at that time.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Doc Tor That you were taught by at least some racist, sexist homophobes (if we're of an age) is a given. I spent more time arguing with my A-level physics teacher that the girls in the class were there by right than I did learning A-level physics.

    Two points, however: it was never 'right social thinking' to believe a teacher should treat all their pupils equitably. It was simply right. And secondly, that we're now at a point in educational pedagogy where it's finally realised that putting racist, sexist homophobes in front of a class of children is a bad thing to do, is actually a good thing and certainly not to be mocked or resented, as you seem to be doing.

    To be honest, Doc, I am essentially in agreement with your arguments and particularly the reasonable tone in which they are expressed. In any generation there have to be general consensual parameters within which teachers have to work- it's something to do with the rather imprecise but important notion of professionalism. My concern is that there should be as broad a space as possible for different views to be expressed and recognised as respectable differences of opinion. The emergence of culture wars in which ideology and dogmatism takes precedence over the discussion of conceptual problems and the admission of ignorance is an unwelcome development.
  • Sure. I just wouldn't want anyone to convince themselves that the 'unwelcome development' of 'culture wars in which ideology and dogmatism takes precedence over the discussion of conceptual problems and the admission of ignorance' was the same as 'we can ignore the basic human right to an education in an environment conducive to learning'.

    Which, unfortunately, was how a lot of us were taught, especially if we were non-white, non-male, non-masculine, non-hetrosexual, non-Christian (at least nominally), non-binary, and so on. The kids that continued to go to school and sit through lessons where their teachers told them they were pieces of shit showed far more mettle than I ever had to.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    That you were taught by at least some racist, sexist homophobes (if we're of an age) is a given.

    Quite. Homophobia was rampant at my school - everything from the stupid homosexual / homo sapiens "joke" that amused 10 year old boys on up.

    I think I've mentioned before that we did have a staff member who had what was then called "a sex-change operation", and a letter home announced that he would return after the summer holiday as Ms X, rather like the similar letters that announced that Miss X would be returning to school as Mrs Y. I'm not aware that she was on the receiving end of any prejudice at school, and the tone was generally supportive of her as an individual, although I'm sure there was some harrumphing in dark corners.

    Racism? It's hard to say. History lessons were, shall we say, not very critical of Empire, but I think mostly we were rather ignorant of race and racism as topics. In my time, the school had one black boy and a number of Chinese, and to the best of my recollection, they were treated in a way that you'd probably call colourblind.

    Sexism? There was a bit of the usual double standard about girls' bodies being distracting to the poor boys, but I don't think there was any lack of encouragement for the girls to try to excel in the sciences, for example.

    I think if I was to sum up my experience, it would be "traditional but well-meaning". I could have done a lot worse.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Leorning Cniht I think if I was to sum up my experience, it would be "traditional but well-meaning". I could have done a lot worse.

    That says it for me, too. I particularly like the "well-meaning" bit.
  • There's a lot of shade associated with the phrase "He means well..."
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I like the shade, and the idea that one can be mistaken while retaining one's integrity; but I take the point that "he means well" can cover a multitude of sins, a cloak for unexamined prejudice !
Sign In or Register to comment.