Have you heard this phrasing?

[Itsnotasprint]

Hi everyone,

 

I don't post much here, I came to the WTM to read about the experiences others had with Classical Conversations and a thread that was about 10 pages long was so helpful and thought provoking! I'm not sure which board to post my comment/question.

 

I left a licensed community I was in after two years when it became too expensive for my family. I also had some concerns.  When I left, a friend left also and we decided to use our books and do some of the things and skip other things (like the tin whistle) at home together.   Two other families who were not a part of the community asked to join us so it was a total of four families. We didn't call ourselves a CC group and no money was exchanged so it was kept perfectly legal.  To keep it short, the director was very angry and made false allegations against me. I did talk to an area manager as she suggested and the area manager assured me it was fine to use our books at home and gave me suggestions to make sure it didn't look like we were duplicating a CC community. We finished the cycle and then I sold my curriculum and never looked back!

 

Today, a person from that community commented to me that someone who was evacuated during the severe weather last month does CC illegally. At my puzzle expression, she matter of factly explained that the person meets with other families and they use their CC material as a group and don't charge anything. 

 

She is a very sweet person and I don't think that phrase originated with her. Perhaps I am sensitive given the experience I had. I think that used to be called having an unofficial group. Saying "doing CC illegally" sure has a different connotation to me!  What do you think?  Thoughts on why it was it phrased like that? Perhaps scare tactics for anyone thinking of using their books at home with friends? Hearing it phrased like that made me even more glad we decided it wasn't for us.

[Julie of KY]

... usually when phrases like that come up, I try to assume that the person is speaking from ignorance rather than from malice. I try not to read any other meanings into random phrases.

[Itsnotasprint]

I know she wasn't being malicious. I'm irritated (?) that this seems to be a new narrative or way of referring to people who don't pay to join an official campus. Saying people are using their curriculum illegally makes it sound like people are doing something wrong when in fact they aren't. It seems to lead members to think badly of other people when there is no reason to do so. 

 

I don't understand why they even have a disclaimer in the front of the guide saying if you use the book in a group setting to make sure each family has their own book if they attack people who do this. Why even bother selling their products to the general public when they don't want people using them on their own? 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just call her out on it by telling her that having an unofficial group is not illegal. It breaks no laws. She may be sweet and misinformed. Or maybe she's not as sweet as you think she is.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lots of little ducklings]

I think a whole lot of misinformation floats about that doesn't originate with "Corporate" (though Corporate's extreme concern with copyright infringement certainly doesn't help). She may have been ignorant or badly informed, or possibly was just speaking tongue-in-cheek.  Friends of mine refer to their unofficial group as "illegal" too, even though they know it isn't.  :-)