> Channeling your anger into beating a pillow or ripping a TV out of the > wall can be a good way to vent the energy, but not if you're using this > display of violence as a not-so-subtle threat that the TV could have been > the other person's head.
Like... those that know me also know I have a hard time expressing emotions because I'm lacking a complete understanding of what they are. They also know that I don't hit people unless protecting somebody else. Oh... and I only fly off the handle when I'm alone or with a close friend. So *pthbt* :p
But yeah, I can see where you're coming from. Oh look... there's the door... *boot* ;)
> James T Westbrook <ne...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
> >If this were true, more would be done. As it is, if a child admits to > >being a victim of abuse, more often than not the system fails miserably. > >Then the child is in some serious shit because in such situations, it's > >bad to voice what is happening and the punishment is VERY severe.
> True, and very sad. Very sad.
Utterly pathetic. I say if you're found guilty of such crimes, you should be stuck in a room with adults who had to suffer through such crap. You'd never have any of this repeat offender shit.
> >I think there should be classes for first time parents to take. Anybody > >with half a brain and 1/4 of their basic insticts can have kids. It takes > >a little more common sense and training to insure that they're good paretns.
> Back to institutionalized education. But i suppose if that's all that > will work. There is soooo much information available to people who are > thinking about, expecting, or raising kids. But no one forces them to be > good parents. maybe we should smack them around, hm?
Can't force people to be good parents because of all the opposing views. But a generalized common sense course would be nice. Then we smack around a few "bad" parents. I'd go out and buy myelf a good Louisville if given the chance. Maybe introduce it to a few kneecaps.
> I don't think beating up on inanimate objects is a good thing. It just > goes to show that you can't handle your emotions. First the TV, then when > you get angrier, then what? Hitting your TV for no good reason is as > smart as hitting your kid for no good reason.
Damnit. It vents unneccessary aggression in a productive manner. It's kind of like exercising, except you're breaking stuff as well. Great stress relief. As if my blood pressure isn't high enough, no way in hell I'm going to brood on some emotions as well. Trees make great beating dumbies. Just don't use aluminum bats. *ouch*
On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Sakti wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, James T Westbrook wrote: > > Man... Pisshouse would be a more suitable name. Tasted bad, smelled bad, > > pissed bad.
> Wow...something else posted on this newsgroup that I did not *ever* need > to know...stunning, isn't it? :)
On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, The Gwyllion wrote: > > : True, hitting a TV is better than hitting a person. But not hitting > > : anything at all would seem ideal. I would say it's a good thing to be > > : able to control your emotions to a point where you don't have to go around > > : hitting things when you get upset. > > I agree, but if you do have to hit something ...
> ...then DO NOT do it in front of your kids.
Oh goody. Even better. Show them that not expressing emotions is bad. Hello! Suppressing emotions is not too good. They tend to bleed out later and don't stop when they finally get going. Just be sure and explain why you're upset and breaking things.
On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, miatke kristi anna wrote: > "A few less words"??? And you were the guy who was complaining about the > usage of "to educate"?
Blah blah blah.
> Um, Pete, weren't you the one to start the flame war with that comment? > And then you go and contradict youself by saying that flame wars on > grammer are a waste. Can we say Hypocrite children?
He flames LAS and rhet types for improper use of grammar. Get with the program and get up to date.
> Sorry, I just felt this needed to be pointed out. That and I was bored > and felt like exercising my right to randomly flame people for no reason > whatsoever.
> The Gwyllion <l...@arh0248.urh.uiuc.edu> writes:
> >> : True, hitting a TV is better than hitting a person. But not hitting > >> : anything at all would seem ideal. I would say it's a good thing to be > >> : able to control your emotions to a point where you don't have to go around > >> : hitting things when you get upset. > >> I agree, but if you do have to hit something ...
> >...then DO NOT do it in front of your kids.
> Most of the people who are or at one point were on this newsgroup, > thankfully, will never reproduce anyway.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Pete. If I were to graduate, that damned alma mater would be sitting down. Actually... funk dat... she'd keel over dead.
> It's Peter unless I notify you otherwise, and if I wanted to flame > someone based on grammar I'd do just that by telling you that sentences > don't start with the word "and," that the word "grammar" doesn't have an > 'e' in it, and that the word "hypocrite" above needs to be in > quotation marks.
Hot damn... Pete's on fire.
> That's fine, but don't do it and apologize, wuss.
Woo woo. Good show. Point to Mr. Zurich for excellent form.
> Most of us are casual observers to our own lives. It is unlikely that > any of us knows the full effects, good or ill, of our own upbringing.
I do! I do! I had to go see a counselor, got slapped with some medical terms, and spent a lot of money. I still managed to get tossed out of school and make below the poverty level. Hot damn. Woo woo. Think I'll be a mass genocidist one day.
> In article <pzurich.827716400@void>, > Peter Zurich <pzur...@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote: > >Most of the people who are or at one point were on this newsgroup, > >thankfully, will never reproduce anyway.
> Of course not. I plan on *stealing* a child instead. I shall steal a child, > and regardless of whether it is a boy or a girl, I will name it Robert and > raise it to be just like Robert Reinhart. =)
Like... I'm going to name all my kids Bob, regardless of sex, and raise them to be freaks.
> For example, let's say you're driving behind me. As I approach a traffic > light I come to a stop. You become angry because I'm slowing you down. > However you're completely to blame for your anger because you don't realize > that the light, which happens to be red, requires me by law to stop my car.
Is this situation anything like that Asian dude slowing down to turn left while you were cussing him out because he was driving too slow? That was definately before the mishandling of your liquor, so spilling your amaretto can't be blamed.
> I hope this simple example makes my point well enough -- perhaps the > inability to see the traffic light is a bit silly but it illustrates that > one can be responsible for one's own emotions.
Hmm... did I mention you can't handle your liquor?
> My position is unchanged. I will _complain_ about grammar flames. The > flame above is _not_ a grammar flame. It is an element of a larger > flame which, taken out of context, _appears_ to be a grammar flame. > Moreover, in the flame above I specifically state that I _COULD_ have > made the described grammar flame, but in fact, did not.
So what you're trying to say is that the butt (_(_) is on your stomach ( o )
James T Westbrook (ne...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: : Blah. Pure innocence compared to some of the web surfing me and Eileene : have done in Allen's lab. I won't even mentioned that time we played : Virtual Valerie 2. Moo ha ha.
<giggle> <pure, innocent, virginal look>
Eileene Coscolluela |"All our science, measured against University of Illinois | reality, is primitive and childlike -- ecosc...@students.uiuc.edu | and yet it is the most precious thing http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~ecoscoll/| we have." --Albert Einstein
James T Westbrook (ne...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: : No way... I'm like a ferocious tiger. *meow*
Ehehehehe... There's a oversized t-shirt that I saw (the type that most women wear to beddy bye bye) that said something like "Big cats are dangerous, but a little pussy every once in a while never hurt anyone."
Eileene Coscolluela |"All our science, measured against University of Illinois | reality, is primitive and childlike -- ecosc...@students.uiuc.edu | and yet it is the most precious thing http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~ecoscoll/| we have." --Albert Einstein
crich...@students.uiuc.edu (Chris Richman) writes: >Real quick I just want to point out that this thread really truly scares >me. I mean, maybe it's just because of my major and all or maybe it's >just because my friends that have kids are all pretty good parents, but I >honestly though we had moved beyond the time when intelligent people >thought it was right and just to hit their children. I mean, I know it >happens and all, but I thought it was mostly on the "lower end of >society." Sigh. Us developmental psychs have our work cut out for us, I >guess...
Real quick I just want to point out that I plan on beating my kid and I also plan on being a great parent - better than most of my kid's friends' parents.
>"Wacky left wing liberals." heh heh, you know, I do believe this is the >first time I've ever heard anyone call Chris Richman a "wacky left wing >liberal."
holy shit! I didn't even catch that. Someone called me a "wacky left wing liberal???" I've got to go back and find it and frame it or something.
>>I might also mention once again that commenting on the use of the >>verb "to educate" was not a grammar flame; it was a flame of her >>politically correct word choice. Anyone with half a mind >>could have seen that the issue at hand was politics not grammar. >"her" "politically correct" word choice? Chris? Is there a side to you >that I haven't seen yet?
Yes, but I'm afraid that wasn't it.
chris -- "If I hadn't seen such riches, | Chris Richman | The above opinions I could live with being poor." | crich...@uiuc.edu | are mine, and - James | mail for pgp key | probably only mine.
The Gwyllion <l...@arh0248.urh.uiuc.edu> writes: >> > You're right. Taking away what the child wants is usually effective >> > enough punishment. It teaches the child that actions have consequences - >> > that whole silly "individual responsibility" thing. >> It also teaches the kids not to get caught. >Yep... they learn not to leave a trail.
It may have been because I was too lazy for anything of the sort, but, for whatever reason, I've never bothered with the stuff. I've done my share of wierd things -- but I can justify them all, pretty much, and don't hesitate to do so.
It's that annoying 'morality' thing, you see. I won't lie to anyone if I can possibly avoid it. My parents think of my as a pretty good kid, even though they know pretty much exactly what I've been up to. For whatever reason, my life still isn't boring...
('Sides, if all else fails, you can just confuse people. It's a quick way out of everything.)
miatke kristi anna <mia...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>> I like would have read this if there were some paragraphs or something, >> and maybe a few less words. >"A few less words"??? And you were the guy who was complaining about the >usage of "to educate"?
I don't know where he hangs around any more, but go search for Bill Palmer. He seemed to have a few good ideas, maybe, but he was universally labelled a kook for being unable to put his ideas across in anything less than 150 lines of text.
"Too long" is a valid complaint; it means that you have to self-edit. Not that I'm the best at that, of course...
(Like I should be encouraging this. *sigh* Well, if my machine had been up and running, I would have encouraged it a lot more...)
James T Westbrook (ne...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: : On 23 Mar 1996, Dauna Leigh Bartley wrote:
: > heh heh, you should see my collection of bookmarks...
: Blah. Pure innocence compared to some of the web surfing me and Eileene : have done in Allen's lab. I won't even mentioned that time we played : Virtual Valerie 2. Moo ha ha.
I took care of my bookmarks last night.
I found a cool page comparing American Pie to MicroSoft's domination of the Internet ... scarey stuff, well done too!
I had to leave the lab once coz Dan was next to me looking at boidy piercings and whatnot, and we're not just talking ears and tongues with the occassional pierced nipple, labia or glans .... we're talking filetted penises! Yes, that's right, genitalia that looked like chopped up hot dogs ... split penises, inverted scrotums .... I couldn't handle it after awhile, and have nightmare flashbacks to this day ...
... those "you're" good enough to wait for commercials could just as well be replaced by these pictures, a somber announcement running along saying "Kids, don't ever ever have sex until you're married ..."
-- =====///=================================================================== = ====///=======This message brought to you by djhow...@uiuc.edu============== \\\///=========HOME PAGE! http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/djhoward ============== =\XX/A1200================================================================= = My views are my own, and not those of my employer or UIUC. Happy Jim?
pzur...@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Peter Zurich) writes: >Moreover, in the flame above I specifically state that I _COULD_ have >made the described grammar flame, but in fact, did not.
|
