New standard for CF-ness
Frank Apple
aren't childfree." Accompanying that proposal were a metric
buttload of freakishly insulting observations about anyone who
might not agree, plus some bizarre statements about people who
WOULD be CF were it not for the fact that they'd found themselves
infected with sprog back in the old bad times before Roe v. Wade.
Okay, so I've thought it over, and I've come to the conclusion
that these people are right. Why should there be any sort of
middle between two ends?
HOWEVER: this simply does NOT go far enough. I propose a more
reasonable standard: "If you don't immediately attempt to destroy
any child you see in your day-to-day life, you aren't childfree."
Did you suffer through a half-hour of listening to a squalling
baby on the bus today? Well, why the FUCK didn't you grab it out
of its handler's arms and dash its brains out on the nearest
handrail, breeder-pleaser!?
Were your afternoon soap operas ruined by the noise of second-
graders skipping home from school outside your window? What the
fuck, you don't have a shovel? Don't you know that it's BOTH a
murder weapon and a tool for disposing of bodies? What's wrong
with you?
Did some fourteen-year-old oxygen thief sneer at you at the
mall? Why don't you carry a handgun, so you can correct such
situations as they arise? What the hell?
None of us fuckers are childfree, are we?
--
Frank Apple
========================================================================
"Life's too short to be caught up in misery." -Pirate Queen
Pirate Queen
> None of us fuckers are childfree, are we?
HA! -as long as those little fucklets roam the earth, we can NEVER be
free!
But seriously - well, as serious as I can be, that is - I've actually
come to my own metrics to help me sort out the whole More Childfree
Than Thou Wars. These represent my own opinions only; if you don't
like 'em, get your own.
One is childLESS if:
- one has yet to have a child, but is not entirely opposed to the idea
and may consider breeding if the proper circumstances arise
- one may have bred, but said child/ren was given up for adoption
(applies to males and females, btw)
- one may have bred, but child/ren are now adult human beings who may
or may not be living at home with parents
One is childFREE if:
- Never wanted the little bastards, never had any little bastards, got
sterilized as soon as able OR religiously uses any and all means to
prevent conception at any cost
- Females: might have gotten pregnant once, but aborted as soon as
possible. Does NOT use abortion as sole means of birth control,
however. Did you bring a runt to full term? Sorry, sister, you ARE a
breeder. You may be childLESS, but you ain't childFREE.
- Males: might have gotten someone pregnant at some time, but has no
idea of the time, person or circumstance. If or when a moomie appears
on the horizon with positive paternal proof - sorry, buddy, but you
ARE a breeder. If you have nothing whatsoever to do with the sprog,
you may still be childLESS, but you sure as hell ain't childfree.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - there are grey areas. For example: are elementary
school teachers or athletic coaches who have no children of their own
and don't want any of their own still childFREE? Welp, *I* would
argue that since their lifestyle includes the caretaking of children
then they are not exactly childfree, but others may beg to differ.
My pet peeve? Breeders who bleat, "I *used* to be childfree, but then
I met the mate of my dreams, and, well, you know..." Another peeve?
Breeders who bloviate, "Now that the children have grownup, I am now
childfree again."
In the end, my CF Purity Test is: did you cause the birth of another
human being?
It doesn't matter to me if one is an early articulator or not. The
fact is, is that most healthy, heterosexual human beings do breed.
Childfree people do not.
...and the Pirate Queen steps off the soapbox for anyone else to chime
in.
Happy New Year!
T.
Pete
Frank Apple <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> None of us fuckers are childfree, are we?
My my my, someone doesn't like something and all that rage got the best
of him.
What the fuck do you care what anyone else thinks? Are you
so...unconvinced of the strength of your own positions that you need
external validation? Wrong place to find it, man.
But for dog's sake, cowboy up and grow a sack. You love your spouse,
what does it matter what anyone else thinks?...Pete
tmclone
> In article <hi14ei$2d...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > None of us fuckers are childfree, are we?
>
> My my my, someone doesn't like something and all that rage got the best
> of him.
>
> What the fuck do you care what anyone else thinks? Are you
> so...unconvinced of the strength of your own positions that you need
> external validation? Wrong place to find it, man.
>
> But for dog's sake, cowboy up and grow a sack. You love your spouse,
> what does it matter what anyone else thinks?...Pete
Oh good grief. Did my comments twist little Frankie's knickers in a
bunch? Just because I think that you're not CF until snipped/sterile?
Why does he care what I think? Now I remember why I killfiled him
years ago.
elizabeth
Oh, you mean all those people you keep plonking? Why are you
bothering to address this topic when you claim you refuse to read
anyone who doesn't agree with you?
elizabeth
FwankyWanky's knickers are permanently twisted, to make it look like
he has balls and a dick. Put a sock in it, Fwankypoo!
Frank Apple
> On Jan 5, 11:44?pm, Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > None of us fuckers are childfree, are we?
> HA! -as long as those little fucklets roam the earth, we can NEVER be
> free!
> But seriously - well, as serious as I can be, that is - I've actually
> come to my own metrics to help me sort out the whole More Childfree
> Than Thou Wars. These represent my own opinions only; if you don't
> like 'em, get your own.
> One is childLESS if:
[etc.]
> One is childFREE if:
[etc.]
NOPE! If you're not on DEATH ROW awaiting THE NEEDLE for infanticide,
YOU AREN'T CHILDFREE!!!11!!
Okay, okay - you said you were being serious, so I'll get back to
that myself. It all sounds pretty good to me; I have some minor
quibbles with some of the details of your argument, but by and
large it's reasonable and it makes sense.
Here's what it boils down to, at least as far as I'm concerned:
> In the end, my CF Purity Test is: did you cause the birth of another
> human being?
Yep. I'd go a little further, though: if you're involuntarily
unable to sprog, and wish you weren't, you aren't exactly child-
free either. And you CERTAINLY aren't childfree if you adopt one
- but you aren't a breeder, either, so you don't fit into THAT
bin, either.
(If you - the abstract "you" - fit into either category, I
personally don't have much of a problem with you. I'm sure some
others here will, though.)
> Happy New Year!
To you too. Hope you come to Deep Ellum sometime soon.
elizabeth
Just kill yourself, Fwanky, your mother regrets not aborting you.
Bobchai
> Okay, so I've thought it over, and I've come to the conclusion
> that these people are right. Why should there be any sort of
> middle between two ends?
>
> HOWEVER: this simply does NOT go far enough. I propose a more
> reasonable standard: "If you don't immediately attempt to destroy
> any child you see in your day-to-day life, you aren't childfree."
>
Frank: This is a pretty good piece of writing here, sarcasm on the
order of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". Some people took it a
different way, with valid reasons. Above all, the childfree choice is
a personal one. If the principles outlined by Pirate Queen in the
post below yours are subscribed to, it doesn't matter what anyone else
thinks about snipping or child-hating: that's *their* point of view.
As long as you and your spouse are happy with this choice, the rest of
the carnival on this forum serves merely to fortify your own mutual
resolve. I know you have probably killfiled me over politics, but a
belated happy new year to you anyway.
--Bob
Frank Apple
> On Jan 5, 8:44?pm, Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > Okay, so I've thought it over, and I've come to the conclusion
> > that these people are right. Why should there be any sort of
> > middle between two ends?
> >
> > HOWEVER: this simply does NOT go far enough. I propose a more
> > reasonable standard: "If you don't immediately attempt to destroy
> > any child you see in your day-to-day life, you aren't childfree."
> Frank: This is a pretty good piece of writing here, sarcasm on the
> order of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".
Thanks, but I hardly think I'm fit to clean Swift's pen nibs.
> Some people took it a
> different way, with valid reasons.
I wouldn't know.
> I know you have probably killfiled me over politics, but a
> belated happy new year to you anyway.
Bob, I purge my killfile every January 1st. There are several
names in this year's version at the moment, but you aren't (yet)
one of them.
And I never killfile anyone simply over politics.
Terry Lomax
> In the end, my CF Purity Test is: did you cause the birth of another
> human being?
I suppose a miscarriage or stillborn child counts as a birth, albeit a
dead one.
Don't forget breeders by proxy (step-parents) and people who adopt
including foster "parents". While they didn't cause biological
births / overpopulation, they have the parental/breeder lifestyle.
> It doesn't matter to me if one is an early articulator or not. The
An issue with "you must be snipped to be childfree" is the implication
a person wasn't childfree before they got snipped. Early articulators
knew we didn't want kids as long as we can remember (first grade for
me). However, I'm not saying it's bad to have such an attitude, as
it's a pleasant surprise to encounter anyone with an even more radical
stance (the same goes with the environment, anti-war, and other
radical issues, where people often have equivalent arguments to
"You're not CF enough" or "You're not including that group of CF
people").
> fact is, is that most healthy, heterosexual human beings do breed.
Large numbers of non-heterosexual people breed also (lesbians seem to
get pregnant at high rates these days, and many closet gays marry and
have offspring), and many gay couples adopt.
Rush Hann!ty
> Bobchai <Robertsonc...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 8:44?pm, Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > I know you have probably killfiled me over politics, but a
> > belated happy new year to you anyway.
>
> Bob, I purge my killfile every January 1st. There are several
> names in this year's version at the moment, but you aren't (yet)
> one of them.
What's up with this apparant tongue bathing going on between Frankie
and Bobby? Get a room already.
Bobchai
We already have this room reserved. I think Frank is making a
positive contribution to this forum, along the lines of what it once
was, where arguments were heated but civil. He doesn't break under
attack and he makes a lot of sense. Anyway, I thought that once
someone passes the test of childfreedom, it shouldn't matter one's
politics or personal beliefs.
We've had left and right and libertarians and gay and straight
childfree people here here, people from all walks of life.
This was the gist of a Facebook debate earlier this evening. On my
Facebook page, I'm neutral on my own profile "wall", because I have
dozens of contacts who are from business or friends of music or other
topics. It's bad form to talk politics or religion with these people.
But I don't mind getting involved in politics on someone else's page,
if that is the agenda they wish to set.
I have a libertarian atheist politics circle and I have a progressive
left circle. On the progressive group, I'm debating with my FB friend
Cindy Sheehan and several other national figures on the single payer
health care issue (which as a libertarian I favor, against my allies
who call it "commie gummint health care").
To get to the point: someone today proposed a national single payer
political party. She started to say that she wanted to enlist other
activists for the environment, anti-war, etc, and I said "hold it
right there".
We have had many single-issue political parties in the past. As long
as they stay on message, it doesn't matter what other politics the
individuals preach. There are some business people and some
conservative Christians who also favor single payer, if only to get
rid of the insurance company middlemen. A single payer party may
never win elections, but as pressure groups, the temperance parties
and the womens suffragist parties were successful in bringing about
two amendments to the constitution in 1920. Had there been a womens
party in the 1970s, we may have successfully ratified the Equal Rights
Amendment.
To dilute single payer health care with other progressive or
libertarian causes just muddies up the water, creating nebulous, "big
tent" parties like the Libertarians and the Greens, who each have an
ambitious platform, but they wind up as second-string wannabees to the
national parties.
I said, focus only on electing members to the House of
Representatives, and forget state races and US Senate races. Work
with smaller constituencies and if you win, you'll have only two years
to introduce legislation for single payer, so make it count.
This is my feeling about this newsgroup. I have no qualms about
introducing off-topic subjects on politics, music, culture or
whatever, but the only purpose of this group, the only reason why we
are here, is because we are childfree.
As long as we hold on to that thought, it doesn't matter whether we
are atheists or religious, gay or straight, single or in a
relationship (most of us were/are married), left or right wing, child-
hating or not, tech nerds or free spirit poets. This group used to
number in the hundreds and we all got along with our differences,
because childfree was the one topic in which we all intersected.
Our survival depends on that kind of tolerance for any and all
newcomers. And it also depends on just plain fun.
At one time, national counseling groups such as RESOLVE used to
recommend ASCF for couples struggling with their childfree choice, and
all the peer pressure and family issues. Not any more! This used to
be a support group, but not any more.
I find that contributors like Frank, and Lenona (and several others)
are re-building that spirit. I look forward to reading their posts.
I'm hopeful that another generation of childfrees will grab the torch
and make this forum worthwhile.
I'm long past the demographic this group was intended for; many of my
age group are now grandparents. But when I joined ten years ago, I
still harbored resentments against the "breeders", former friends
who had sprogged and left my wife and me ostracized within our own
community. Our 30s were miserable with all of this fixation by our
friends, on having children. I found this community, and it was magic.
--Bob
Rush Hann!ty
> On Jan 10, 7:53 pm, "Rush Hann!ty" <rushn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 6:14 am, Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bob, I purge my killfile every January 1st. There are several
> > > names in this year's version at the moment, but you aren't (yet)
> > > one of them.
>
> > What's up with this apparant tongue bathing going on between Frankie
> > and Bobby? Get a room already.
>
> We already have this room reserved. I think Frank is making a
> positive contribution to this forum, along the lines of what it once
> was, where arguments were heated but civil.
HA! HA! HA! HA! Oh stop Bob, you're killing me! You really consider
the salad days of this group to be those with SWCNBN and Snowlinn in
it? You're nuts.
Bobchai
I don't remember SWCNBN at all. Snowlinn rings a bell. Perhaps you
can remind me.
--Bob
Pete
<1e6a3919-8d41-4444...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Bobchai <Robert...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't remember SWCNBN at all. Snowlinn rings a bell. Perhaps you
> can remind me.
You're a fucking liar, or you have Alzheimer's. You remember that shit.
You said you didn't remember the troll Hunter but you still were proud
to have stabbed your friends in the back by giving him information about
said friends.
Why don't you admit the truth, you're a breeder-pleaser and you always
have been. You enjoy making breeders' lives easier.
You lying hypocrite. I hope you lose your house soon, so you can off
yourself...Pete
Rush Hann!ty
>
> Bobchai <Robertsonc...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I don't remember SWCNBN at all. Snowlinn rings a bell. Perhaps you
> > can remind me.
>
> You're a fucking liar, or you have Alzheimer's. You remember that shit.
> You said you didn't remember the troll Hunter but you still were proud
> to have stabbed your friends in the back by giving him information about
> said friends.
>
> Why don't you admit the truth, you're a breeder-pleaser and you always
> have been. You enjoy making breeders' lives easier.
>
> You lying hypocrite. I hope you lose your house soon, so you can off
> yourself...Pete
This will probably look like gibberish to Boob who claims amnesia but
he did send him emails. Whether he wanted to stab his so-called
friends in the back, or flirt with his latest crush (roger), he
hounded him with emails. Chew on this-------------------- from 03
"RobertsonChai" <robertsonc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> I wish to announce here that from this point forward, if you wish to have
any
> dialogue with me concerning the nature of this childfree newsgroup, you
must do
> it with me by private e-mail.
I thought I'd made my position perfectly clear. Although I admire
your
(belated) honesty - for which you will be roundly thumped by asc - I
must
repeat that I will not communicate with ANYONE about asc via email.
If I
have anything to say, I say it here. If you wish to reply, do so
here.
If you wish to killfile me, now would be a good time.
How many times must I repeat this? I'm not going away. I really,
REALLY,
don't care whether anyone in asc chooses to engage me in conversation
or
whether I languish in your collective killfiles from this day forth.
I
will continue to post, both comments and insults, as I see fit.
As for our previous correspondence, I was heartily sick of your
defence of
asc - and in particular your defence of Swan and Caine, both of whom
adopt a
stance on asc of which I heartily disapprove. I thought you would
have
realised this when I failed to answer your emails.