Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneYoung
If the discussion continues to circle around pure conjecture on the part of those who don't know the full story, then it can cause harm to the team and to the school they were a part of. One example of that was the title of another thread in CD and how it was worded. Sometimes, we judge when we should not and we place value on rumors or bias. To my knowledge, no one from the team leadership has posted. I think the story has moved on and we should stop playing guessing games with the situation.
|
I appreciate your concern Jane. I don't advocate "circling around pure conjecture" or "placing value on rumors or bias" or "playing guessing games" either. So it seems we are on the same page there.
In order for your post to be more helpful, it would be instructive if you could clarify exactly what aspects of the following dialog you are characterizing that way:
12/3 05:51AM
Foster posts Form letter sent out by the school
12/3 06:27AM
Basel A identifies an apparent discrepancy between the letter and the team's website
12/3 07:19PM
GaryVoshol explains that
Quote:
|
"Talking them out of it" and "explaining the commitment required" are two versions of essentially the same explanation. Perhaps there were teachers interested in helping, but when the administration explained the commitment the teachers were no longer that interested.
|
(
note: I personally found the above explanation quite helpful)
12/4 12:35AM
onecoolc suggests that "The official teacher mentor would have been more of a formality"
12/4 09:13AM
Ether points out that if the teacher has to be physically present at the school (for legal/liability/insurance/policy reasons) when the robotics "club" is meeting, then during build season that is a rather large commitment of time. (
see Gary Voshol's earlier post)
12/4 11:14AM
Basel A suggests that since the team has already moved out, it doesn't matter any more.
12/4 01:56PM
Ether suggests that the discussion has provided some insight and could be useful to other teams.