Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TwoCentDonation. Show TwoCentDonation's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    In Response to Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free:
    [QUOTE]Funny I never said anyone here had suggested such a thing. I have encountered the phenomenon.
    Posted by ygren[/QUOTE]

    Your original post came across as if you thought people here were part of the Cuisinart crowd.  Perhaps I read it that way because Marat2012 sniped at Diamond, so I was already on edge for parent/non-parent kvetching.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ygren. Show ygren's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    In Response to Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free:
    [QUOTE]Your original post came across as if you thought people here were part of the Cuisinart crowd. Posted by TwoCentDonation[/QUOTE]

    I'll work on my timing then.

    I know there are people here - maybe not this string - that do not like children. I don't have a problem with that.

    I confess that I get irritated with people who have made it perfectly clear that the don't like children [or country music or red wine or ...] chirp in to remind everyone that they don't when no one is trying to convice them otherwise.

    But it is fleeting and I can't lose sleep over it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bzorn22. Show bzorn22's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    In Response to Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free : Even if he pulls over a defense attorney who successfully argued a case before the Supreme Court?
    Posted by TwoCentDonation[/QUOTE]

    Having worked with one of those I would day it is certain the cop knows more than he does.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Marat2012. Show Marat2012's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    Has the internet blackout affected reading comprehension skills?

    Did I not say that the opinions of the nonparents are not invalid?  There are just some subjects that I will always seek the opinion of another parent for and will value that because of their experience.

    Stringer - "This whole thing about "understanding all the facets of being a parent" just doesn't wash for me. You do learn about what a complex, massive commitment the whole thing is, and you experience a different form of love available in no other context.  But just because you love strongly, feel deep pain and joy, and watch them grow doesn't magically make you any less full of s--- than anyone else."

    I never said that people (me included) were NOT full of ess dash dash dash.  Take everything in the quoted paragraph BEFORE that last sentence and THAT's what I'm saying.  So what part of that "doesn't wash"?

    As for why they called her "Mother" Teresa?  Well first, it's a Catholic honorific bestowed on the head of an Abbey or Nunnery.  But in the context of this discussion, I also DID include those who take on responsibility for a child by adopting them as well and one could make the case for foster parents who take up responsibity for a child.  Mother Teresa stood in loco parentis for the children in her orphanage and become the foster mother for those who she managed to place and a de facto adoptive mother for those who grew up under her care.

    The simple fact is that nobody who has never taken responsibility for what is or could be the life of that child can lay claim to know what the experience is like and their opinion cannot be informed by that experience.  People can argue about that all they want, but - using the analogy I used before - if I were going into combat for the first time ever, I'd want to be led by someone who'd actually been through it before and not someone who has read about it extensively.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatJneenGrrl. Show ThatJneenGrrl's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    >>It's actually not even a parenting issue, it's a selfishness issue. 

    ~~~~

    Agree 100%.

    My kids honed their skills at McD's, then Friendly's before I would even consider taking them to someplace where there was the slightest possibility they would disrupt other diners.

    Why?

    Because for some of those people, they saved up for weeks for a special dinner at that joint, and they don't need precious Aidan and Isabella in their JCrew ensembles running rampant for even 30 seconds.

    No matter how entitled their parents may feel to doing so, it doesn't make it right to bring a child to an adult restaurant until they are 100% ready to act accordingly.

    Same goes for untrained boyfriends who excitedly jump up on restaurant booths and knock over candles in their quest to deliver you a kiss.

    Baby steps. :)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ygren. Show ygren's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    In Response to Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free:
    [QUOTE] I also never bothered to ask for candy in the grocery store - I knew the answer would be, "No."
    Posted by TwoCentDonation[/QUOTE]

    I frequently asked for Cheezits - the catnip of my childhood - at the grocery store. I figured that it didn't hurt to ask. More often than not I got "no" for an answer, and I knew that asking twice or arguing would not end well for me. But occasionally I'd get "yes."
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ygren. Show ygren's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    Interesting. I don't tend to categorise restaurants as 'adult' unless the ambiance is something I wouldn't want to explain to a small child, but I do understand.

    I hold no truck with parents who allow children to run rampant - even at Mickey D's. None.

    But I can also say that I've had more evenings I've saved up for ruined by other adults than by children. The woman who loudly proclaimed to the dining room at La Pavilion that her Hollandaise sauce had the taste and consistency of her boyfriend's semen. The man at Maison Robert who toasted to his wife's nipples. The more mundane ruining on a favorite white silk dress at the Court of the Two Sisters by the woman who threw a pitcher of Sangria at her dinner partner and missed abysmally.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatJneenGrrl. Show ThatJneenGrrl's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    Oh, I hear that.

    They should be taken outside and summarily shot.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ygren. Show ygren's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    hmm, so from Sally-'s clever editing I can infer that Seebell is in Houston, Sean is in Boston and she is in NoLA. The 2nd and 3rd are no real surprise, but the 1st comes a shocker

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Marat2012. Show Marat2012's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    You think?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TwoCentDonation. Show TwoCentDonation's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    In Response to Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free:
    [QUOTE]But I can also say that I've had more evenings I've saved up for ruined by other adults than by children. The woman who loudly proclaimed to the dining room at La Pavilion that her Hollandaise sauce had the taste and consistency of her boyfriend's semen. The man at Maison Robert who toasted to his wife's nipples. The more mundane ruining on a favorite white silk dress at the Court of the Two Sisters by the woman who threw a pitcher of Sangria at her dinner partner and missed abysmally.
    Posted by ygren[/QUOTE]

    *head desk*

    I don't think the first two would have ruined my evening out - I just would've made fun of them with my date.  The last one, however, would have ticked me off.  All in all, though, it's mind-boggling just how tacky people can be.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Trigger11. Show Trigger11's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    What B-Cubed said!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ygren. Show ygren's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    Context is important. I couldn't suppress a laugh, which didn't help at all because the dinner saved up for was taking the in-laws out for a significant anniversary celebration. My father-in-law eventually found it amusing. My mother-in-law still does not.

    Really at the time my first thoughts were Hollandaise should not be so salty, the colour must be off and I wonder if his diet has something to do with it. I, of course, didn't vocalise these thoughts but apparently something of my internal soundtrack reflected in my face and my husband burst out laughing. And it went downhill from there.

    Her remark set off a whole chain of events that left an elegant evening in shambles.  Painfully earnest young thing that I was, I was crushed at the time.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Marat2012. Show Marat2012's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    Maybe I was wrong about the reading comprehension thing.  Some of you seem to get the nuances.
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Marat2012. Show Marat2012's posts

    Re: Facebook question re: exclusion of the child-free

    Sar chasm;

    The gap between those using sarcasm and those who just don't get it.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share