Comments on: Familiar story in the Globe (UPDATED) http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/ Can you think of a better name? Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:15:06 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brian http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/comment-page-1/#comment-1370 Brian Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:45:07 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/#comment-1370 If indeed the author "first presented this article at a province-wide workshop for Manitoba English teachers in 1997", perhaps someone could validate that claim? Was the story published then? And on a different tack, how any self-respecting English teacher could give "top marks" for this work when the objective was to build respect for others' opinions is beyond me. Good thing she wasn't teaching logic. If indeed the author "first presented this article at a province-wide workshop for Manitoba English teachers in 1997", perhaps someone could validate that claim? Was the story published then?

And on a different tack, how any self-respecting English teacher could give "top marks" for this work when the objective was to build respect for others' opinions is beyond me. Good thing she wasn't teaching logic.

]]> By: Rick http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/comment-page-1/#comment-1359 Rick Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:07:03 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/#comment-1359 I'm familiar with a version of the story which was circulated about five years ago. Something I immediately noticed when I read the Globe and Mail article was the inclusion of the reference to chai (a reference that wasn't there in the version I was familiar with). Now, as far as I know, chai has only recently become popular, so it seems unlikely that a reference would have appeared in the original version and then been dropped later on. A second problem appears in what looks like a partial 'Canadianizing' of the story. Why would the story begin with a reference to (an obviously American) Congress and then include a reference to the (Canadian) Prime Minister, when the widely circulated version uses the much more consistent reference to the President? I'm familiar with a version of the story which was circulated about five
years ago. Something I immediately noticed when I read the Globe and Mail
article was the inclusion of the reference to chai (a reference that
wasn't there in the version I was familiar with). Now, as far as I know,
chai has only recently become popular, so it seems unlikely that a
reference would have appeared in the original version and then been
dropped later on.

A second problem appears in what looks like a partial 'Canadianizing' of the story. Why
would the story begin with a reference to (an obviously American) Congress
and then include a reference to the (Canadian) Prime Minister, when the
widely circulated version uses the much more consistent reference to the
President?

]]> By: Bryce Traister http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/comment-page-1/#comment-1350 Bryce Traister Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:04:35 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/#comment-1350 I first encountered "Sharon Melnicer's" tandem essay at least 15 years ago when I was a graduate student in California. A group of us used it in a workshop to discuss how to deal with gender stereotyping in the classroom. Given that she knew the thing had been circulating on the internet, at the very least she should have made some sort of ackowledgement of the essay's apocryphal status in the essay she submitted to the _Globe_. That she chose not to indicates, again at the very least, that her relation to the story's origin is disingenuous at best. Bryce Traister London, Ontario I first encountered "Sharon Melnicer's" tandem essay at least 15 years ago when I was a graduate student in California. A group of us used it in a workshop to discuss how to deal with gender stereotyping in the classroom. Given that she knew the thing had been circulating on the internet, at the very least she should have made some sort of ackowledgement of the essay's apocryphal status in the essay she submitted to the _Globe_. That she chose not to indicates, again at the very least, that her relation to the story's origin is disingenuous at best.

Bryce Traister
London, Ontario

]]> By: Fred the Bold http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/comment-page-1/#comment-1346 Fred the Bold Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:01:39 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/#comment-1346 <p>Melnicer claims to have presented this at a conference in 1997, but apparently can't remember the date, or find the original presentation (which presumably would have the date on it.)</p> <p>According to these posts Google Groups:<br /> http://groups.google.ca/group/misc.writing/browse_thread/thread/697836e2a6a3780c/5e6c510209420039<br /> the story had been posted several months before Jul 30th, 1997 and one person claims to have read it ten or fifteen times prior to this date.</p> <p>Now maybe Melnicer presented it in early 1997, or maybe she messed up the year, and meant she presented it in 1996. But given that her version has different names than every other version I've found, and given her window of opportunity for publishing prior to the earliest publication on the Internet isn't very large, and given that she wants us to believe that a)high school students had widespread access to email in 1997 (in fact, all the students in her class had access to email in 1997) and b)high school students were likely to use profanity in emails they knew their teacher would read, I think she's lying.</p> <p>It would be easy for her to prove, of course - just bring out the original presentation with a date in or prior to early 1997.</p> <p>FB</p> Melnicer claims to have presented this at a conference in 1997, but apparently can't remember the date, or find the original presentation (which presumably would have the date on it.)

According to these posts Google Groups:
http://groups.google.ca/group/misc.writing/browse_thread/thread/697836e2a6a3780c/5e6c510209420039
the story had been posted several months before Jul 30th, 1997 and one person claims to have read it ten or fifteen times prior to this date.

Now maybe Melnicer presented it in early 1997, or maybe she messed up the year, and meant she presented it in 1996. But given that her version has different names than every other version I've found, and given her window of opportunity for publishing prior to the earliest publication on the Internet isn't very large, and given that she wants us to believe that a)high school students had widespread access to email in 1997 (in fact, all the students in her class had access to email in 1997) and b)high school students were likely to use profanity in emails they knew their teacher would read, I think she's lying.

It would be easy for her to prove, of course - just bring out the original presentation with a date in or prior to early 1997.

FB

]]> By: french panic http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/comment-page-1/#comment-1321 french panic Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:24:21 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/#comment-1321 I wrote to the editor, and was given the same story. If Melnicer IS the originator, I am surprised that the Globe didn't run some sort of explanation with the story - if you caught it, and I caught it, I'm sure many many more people must have caught it (like the editorial staff at the Globe?) Very strange, indeed. As you've pointed out, email was not widespread in 1997 - must have been an extremely well-funded high school for such an activity. I'll keep quiet about the same old boring battle of the sexes bulls**t - this kind of crap doesn't need to be printed in a respected publication. (Or, used-to-be-respected publication...) I wrote to the editor, and was given the same story. If Melnicer IS the originator, I am surprised that the Globe didn't run some sort of explanation with the story - if you caught it, and I caught it, I'm sure many many more people must have caught it (like the editorial staff at the Globe?)

Very strange, indeed. As you've pointed out, email was not widespread in 1997 - must have been an extremely well-funded high school for such an activity.

I'll keep quiet about the same old boring battle of the sexes bulls**t - this kind of crap doesn't need to be printed in a respected publication. (Or, used-to-be-respected publication...)

]]> By: Tanya http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/comment-page-1/#comment-1307 Tanya Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:49:55 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/09/04/familiar-story-in-the-globe/#comment-1307 I think what I find hard to believe (besides the fact that a colleague found this in a 1996 post) is that every version that circulated used an American teacher and the same names for the students - *except* the version Melnicer wrote. Wouldn't someone who copied her story (assuming that's the way it went around the net" have used a Canadian university, or the same names as she did? I think what I find hard to believe (besides the fact that a colleague found this in a 1996 post) is that every version that circulated used an American teacher and the same names for the students - *except* the version Melnicer wrote. Wouldn't someone who copied her story (assuming that's the way it went around the net" have used a Canadian university, or the same names as she did?

]]>