You are here

Newsletter Vol. #13 That's how I see it!

Newsletter Vol. #13 That's how I see it!

Hello and welcome to Vol. # 13

What you'll find in this weeks newsletter: The Rewards of a Loving Relationship; where is your government money being spent-99 Stupid things that your government did with your money; an article about Text Messaging; some humour-Quick Wit; information on a Coffee House; and feedback from our readers.



The Rewards Of A Loving Relationship Are Awesome!

Why do people go for couples/marriage counselling? They come to counselling to change things, to make things better.

Some of the symptoms of a failing relationship includes: lack of sex, financial incompatibility, abuse, and lack of communication. Many feel a lack of connection, a separation that leads to feelings of loneliness, and actually a lack of "spark" between partners.

We are a product of our life experiences, especially the early years. We are imprinted by our early relationships. When you have a relationship where you have been abused, your brain is shaped around the impact of that kind of treatment. Because of this mindset, it is probable that people, who leave their marriage and don't work on changing, will find similar problems in the next relationship (they have to take themselves with them). We traded in one partner only to discover the same issues surfacing with the new partner.

"This is the way I am, knew that when you marry me!" I am so sick and tired of hearing this worn out, irresponsible response to justify poor behaviour that I want to scream. First, when one chooses to be in a relationship it means thinking about another person who probably sees the world very different than they do. Being different from one another is just a starter. Now add in the fact that we change over the years-kids come along, financial problems occur, parents die, jobs get terminated, the house gets flooded, on and on. What begins to happen is we start building up and tallying the small resentment that result when we live together. We get angry at each other, arguments occur, and we stopped talking/communicating with each other.

"If you don't want to talk because 'that's the way you are' or because you feel I am not listening (which can also mean I don't agree with you) then I will simply not my head, agree with you, and give up my need to be heard. Eventually I will just go somewhere else, where someone else will listen to me."

This lack of or poor communication in a relationship may not spell the end of the relationship but in most cases it certainly spells the end to intimacy.

Couples coming for therapy hoping to rekindle the passion that once was in their relationship. I don't discourage them from thinking this way but I do remind them that their present feelings have been affected by their experiences together-kids, finances, deaths, aging, and whatever else life has thrown at them. Perhaps they need to consider starting a new relationship, one based on honest communication and much appreciation and caring.

"I deserve to be happy", "I deserve love-after all I have done for you..." If deserve means you get something for past service or its automatic, then you best get rid of these beliefs if you're interested in receiving respect and love from your partner. Certainly one partner doesn't deserve more than the other. You earn it! Partners have to keep giving respect, caring, and love daily this is the principle of reciprocation (I do for you, you will do for me). Of course this principle doesn't always work but where you have a strong relationship, it does. In closing I would say that if partners are not willing to change, to "Make your partners day better", to learn to be a better communicator (better listener, better speaker-one who understands that "how you say something is more important than what you say). The rewards of being in a loving relationship are awesome, but there is a price to pay in that we must learn to be a master communicator. One doesn't have to be born to or come from a family of good communicators; no communication skills can be learned.

That's how I see it!


99 Stupid things your government did with your money
(Here are just a few) 
 Korpporat welfar: Ikea is a Swedish retailing behemoth rolling in kronor, but when it came to opening its first store in Winnipeg, that didn't stop the city and province from offering a combined $22 million in subsidies. Did we mention Ikea's annual sales of $30 billion are roughly three times what Manitoba brings in each year from all forms of taxes, fees and transfers?

Paper chase: In December 2011, Nova Scotia's provincial government handed $24 million to the owner of the Bowater Mersey paper mill in return for a swath of company land in the hopes of staving off its closure. By June the mill had gone out of business.
 
Something fishy: For more than a decade, Supreme Sturgeon and Caviar of New Brunswick raked in some $3 million in grants and loans from the federal government before falling into receivership in 2010. Resurrected by new owners as Breviro Caviar, It's now back in the subsidy business, winning $200,000 from Ottawa in marketing funds and $50,000 to "hire expertise in caviar production."

Flat battery: The B.C. government said it would spend $2.7 million to build hundreds of electric-car-charging stations across the province in an effort to encourage drivers to buy vehicles such as the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf. That's in addition to a $5,000 rebate to drivers. Yet just 210 electric vehicles have been sold in the province-effectively translating into an $18,000 per vehicle subsidy for he carmakers.
 
Meanwhile: Four' months after getting $3.8 million from New Brunswick to create 300 new jobs, Radian6, a social media monitoring firm, said it would slash 100 jobs globally, a CBC News analysis found $20 million doled out by Newfoundland to attract out-of-province business generated just 58 full-time jobs.


Text Messaging-Grammatically Evil or Not?                                                
NENAGH KEMP

IF you think young people seem to be spending more of their time face-to-screen than face- to-face, you're probably right. And a lot of that screen time seems to involve reading or writing English that duznt look quite Iyk it shld.

It's not surprising many teachers, parents, and young people themselves feel concerned about this constant exposure to non-standard written Eng- lish. It seems quite plausible that frequently seeing to/too written as 2, or people written as ppl, might mean these kinds of spellings could start to creep into students' formal writing.

Fortunately, in recent years, the research has returned a fairly robust conclusion. Rather than spoiling children's spelling, exposure to textisms [the abbreviated spellings of text messages) is actually associated with better literacy skills. For
adults, there seem to be few consistent relationships between usage of textisms and spelling skill.

However, there has been less research on textisms that represent not the re-spelling of individual words but violations of grammatical conventions. Capitals get ignored, there are no apostrophes in sight, and sentences get separated not by standard punctuation marks, but by ironical laughter LoL or expressions of emotion

If it's OK to write im coming Sarah!!! When texting, how will younger children learn, or older children remember, to use the conventions of grammatical English writing?

Together with my colleagues at Coventry University in Britain, Clare Wood and Sam Waldron, I looked at young people's text messaging and grammar over the course of a year. We worked with 243 participants from primary school, high school and university in the Coventry area.

At our first time point, these young people provided us with copies of all the text messages that they'd sent in the last two days. We analysed these messages for their violations of Standard English grammar. The three most common types of violation were:

-omission of capitalization and punctuation (hi how are you)

-omission of words (common in casual speech but not standard writing, as in am going out now. want to come?)
 
-unconventional punctuation (using multiple punctuation marks (??!!!), or emoticons , kisses (xxx) and initialisms (Ioll) in place of normal punctuation)

Less common but also present were word-level grammatical violations, including apparently deliberate violations such as is you and does they, and word reductions such as hafta, for have to, or tryna for trying to.

The participants also completed a set of tasks to assess their formal grammatical and spelling skills. One year later, we asked the same students to complete parallel forms of the same grammatical and spelling tasks.

Overall, we found no evidence the use of grammatical violations in text messages is consistently related to poorer grammatical or spelling skills in school students. Although
omitting capitals and punctuation was associated with poorer later spelling in primary school, the other significant relationships were positive. Primary and high school students' use of ungrammatical word forms (e.g., does you), and high school students' omission of capitals and punctuation, and use of word reductions (e.g., gonna) were all associated with better or faster spelling development.

In the university group, the use of word reductions was related to better spelling 12 months later. We did see one negative link: The tendency to omit capitals and punctuation predicted poorer later performance on tasks of spoken and written grammar. However, this tendency seemed to be mostly explained simply by individual differences in general ability level, rather than anything specific about texting.

These results tie in with most previous work on literacy skills and text messaging. In their school years, students are consolidating their knowledge of written language. "Playing around" with language in the informal setting of texting provides the chance to practise alternative ways of linking sounds and letters ("Hey, I could write thanks as thanx!"), an ability that is well known to underlie strong reading and spelling skills.

Further, trying out unconventional ways of combining words (you is the best), saving space while maintaining meaning (I going now), or adding emotion to a message (yay!!! ) encourages children to engage with the very grammatical conventions they're transgressing.

In short, the evidence suggests grammatical violations in the text messages of children, adolescents and adults do not reflect a decline in grammatical knowledge. Young people seem well aware that different types of communication require different ways of writing. As long as young writers can maintain this awareness, then the violations of grammar common in digital communication need not be perceived as a reduction in writing skill, but rather as the addition of an alternative, casual style to the writer's repertoire.


Quick Wit

A young cowboy from Regina goes off to college in Ontario. Half way through the semester, he has foolishly squandered all his money. He calls home. "Dad," he says, "You won't believe what modern education is developing! They actually have a program here in Waterloo that will teach our dog, Ol' Blue how to talk!" "That's amazing," his Dad says. "How do I get Ol' Blue in that program?" "Just send him down here with $1,000" the young cowboy says. "I'll get him in the course." So, his father sends the dog and $1,000.
 
About two-thirds of the way through the semester, the money again runs out. The boy calls home. "So how's Ol' Blue doing son?" his father asks.
 "Awesome, Dad, he's talking up a storm," he says, "but you just won't believe this - they've had such good results they have started to teach the animals how to read!" "Read!" says his father, "No kidding! How do we get Blue in that program?" "Just send $2,500, I'll get him in the class." The money promptly arrives. But our hero has a problem. At the end of the year, his father will find out the dog can neither talk, nor read. So he shoots Blue.
 
When he arrives home at the end of the year, his father is all excited.
"Where's Ol' Blue? I just can't wait to see him read something and talk!"
"Dad," the boy says, "I have some grim news. Yesterday morning, just before we left to drive home, Ol' Blue was in the living room, kicked back in the recliner, reading Shakespeare, like he usually does. Then he turned to me and asked, "So, is your daddy still messing around with that little blonde who lives down the street?" The father exclaimed, "I hope you shot that SOB before he talks to your mother!" "I sure did, Dad!" "That's my boy!"

The kid went on to law school, and now serves in Ottawa as a Senator.


GRANT & WILTON COFFEE HOUSE
1077 GRANT AVENUE
TEL: 204/488-0207 204/895-1719
Saturday June 27, 7:30

Tim Barlow & Few Who Do including:
Michelle Anderson, Natanielle Felicitas, Jordan Bissonnette, Miles Littman

Also featuring
Karen Soria with Janet Pelletier


Reader Response

RE: Sir Wilfred Laurier: ideas on Immigrants and being a Canadian in 1907.
Willy was right on!
There is nothing wrong with celebrating your heritage but, in my opinion, when push comes to shove, if you have chosen to live in Canada you must be a Canadian first.

The United States may have its problems but they don't seem to have an issue when it comes to being identified as an American and celebrating that fact at practically every event they attend! They call it the "melting pot"!

That's how I see it!
Kenn

-----------------------------------

Great newsletter Dan I sure enjoy your repertoire of stories and advice.
Ed



This past week has been great for me-3 days of golf in Minnesota and southern Manitoba were great. Had a great Fathers Day with the family, and then went to the Esperanza Spalding concert--life is great!

Have a great week!

Newsletter: