Baby pictures [non-baby, believe it or not]
Robin
but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
creating the list.
If the non-baby people don't care then it's fine by me (not that I am a
baby person, but I don't mind the baby discussion) but I wanted to bring
it up.
Another thing--I've seen a lot of "finally, a thread I can participate
in!" posts in the "work" thread, at least some of which seem to imply
it's been "all baby, all the time" here recently. Which may be true.
*But*, if there aren't any non-baby threads, then start some!
--
Robin, hoping this is taken in the spirit it's intended.
(Trying out a new email system. This address *does* (well, "should") work.)
Rhiannon M. Adams
"Robin" <MPTGFC...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:jbLb9.37000$082.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
> I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
> but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
> yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
> creating the list.
My concern with that is that I was past pregnant and had a baby by the time
that group was formed. Perhaps we need an offshoot for born babies?
> If the non-baby people don't care then it's fine by me (not that I am a
> baby person, but I don't mind the baby discussion) but I wanted to bring
> it up.
For the above reason, I love seeing the pictures and of course I love
showing Maddie off :-) However, I too have noticed the people that feel a
tad bit alienated by all of the pg stuff so I would understand if we backed
off a bit.
> *But*, if there aren't any non-baby threads, then start some!
Agreed!
> Robin, hoping this is taken in the spirit it's intended.
Maybe...maybe not :)
Rhiannon
Robin
> "Robin" <MPTGFC...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:jbLb9.37000$082.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
>
>>I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
>>but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
>>yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
>>creating the list.
>
> My concern with that is that I was past pregnant and had a baby by the time
> that group was formed. Perhaps we need an offshoot for born babies?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of the list
was more "all things pregnancy and baby"--that's certainly what it seems
to be!
--
Robin
Stephanie Scales
> I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
> but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
> yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
> creating the list.
Quoting from Vicky's announcement of the group's formation on July 1,
2002 (and I hope she doesn't mind -- it is googable):
"I've just set up a new list at Yahoo called "anpreg" for discussions
of TTC, pregnancy and childcare.
This is in response to some discussion on the anweightloss list about
where was an appropriate place to discuss more sensitive issues about
these things that some people prefer not to post publicly."
To me that seems pretty clear that anpreg is meant to be an addition to
rather than a seperate entity from AN. I know that I prefer to post
when I update Cordelia's ofoto album to the general group so anyone
reading AN can have a look if s/he is interested (in a thread labeled
[baby] so those who are not interested can easily skip over it).
> If the non-baby people don't care then it's fine by me (not that I am a
> baby person, but I don't mind the baby discussion) but I wanted to bring
> it up.
Well, I'm a "baby person" and I care -- that is, an edict or informal
"rule" to only post baby photo updates to anpreg would make me feel
uncomfortable and somewhat unwelcome here. Right now, my life is very
baby-focused (and even my volunteer work is kid-focused, so I didn't
contribute to the "work" thread for that reason).
> Another thing--I've seen a lot of "finally, a thread I can participate
> in!" posts in the "work" thread, at least some of which seem to imply
> it's been "all baby, all the time" here recently. Which may be true.
> *But*, if there aren't any non-baby threads, then start some!
Agreed.
> Robin, hoping this is taken in the spirit it's intended.
I'm not sure what you intended, but I hope that this isn't a move
towards making AN anti-baby. :-(
-Stephanie
KathyK
>From: Stephanie Scales S.Sc...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 8/30/02 11:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D6F88D0...@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Robin wrote:
>
>> I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
>> but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
>> yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
>> creating the list.
>
>Quoting from Vicky's announcement of the group's formation on July 1,
>2002 (and I hope she doesn't mind -- it is googable):
>
>"I've just set up a new list at Yahoo called "anpreg" for discussions
>of TTC, pregnancy and childcare.
>
>This is in response to some discussion on the anweightloss list about
>where was an appropriate place to discuss more sensitive issues about
>these things that some people prefer not to post publicly."
>
>To me that seems pretty clear that anpreg is meant to be an addition to
>rather than a seperate entity from AN. I know that I prefer to post
>when I update Cordelia's ofoto album to the general group so anyone
>reading AN can have a look if s/he is interested (in a thread labeled
>[baby] so those who are not interested can easily skip over it).
>
That's why I post photos to the NG rather than the list. Plus, there are some
people who do not participate on the list who I know enjoy looking at baby
pictures (aMAZon, Gloria, Susan to name a few). I also always label such posts
to the NG very clearly, as we have discussed in the past, and as it is
suggested in the FAQ.
--Kathy
who would also feel alienated if properly labeled baby posts were no longer
welcome here
Sarah Hallum
> Robin wrote:
>> Robin, hoping this is taken in the spirit it's intended.
> I'm not sure what you intended, but I hope that this isn't a move
> towards making AN anti-baby. :-(
Goodness! I couldn't imagine that! Babies are sometimes a logical step
in newlywedness.
I think occasionally it seems like the only thing that's discussed to some
people. Now, that is NOT the case - the advise, the help, the
suggestions, and discussion would show that it's not all baby all the
time. On a webboard I read, someone posts a troll message. The next
thing you know, there are 40 messages complaining about the troll and how
the board isn't how it used to be. It's a matter of skipping the posts
you don't want to read...
... in my case, I don't always have something to say. If i do, it's not
always important/interesting, and does get lost in this newsgroup. Oh
well. I don't want to read about babies or look at the pictures all the
time, so I skip.
We are a newlywed group. As long as newlyweds can get their questions
asked and answered (houses, living together, moving, etc), I don't think
there's too much of a problem.
But maybe I'm just overly optomistic.
Sarah
Lynn A.
"Robin" <MPTGFC...@spammotel.com> wrote
> I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
> but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
> yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
> creating the list.
Possibly...but then people like me, who apparently are out of the
anpreg range, would not see them. I'd really miss seeing my AN nieces and
nephews!
Seems like everyone's been labeling the threads so they can just be
skipped if someone's not interested.
Lynn
Robin
> Sorry, I can't glean your intent from your post.
That's probably because I didn't make much sense =)
I was afraid that the non-baby people were feeling alienated because
there've been so many baby talk and baby picture emails recently--just a
vibe I got from the "work" thread.
I also thought part of the purpose of the yahoo group (which I'm a
member of, BTW) was for baby pictures, although I was clearly wrong.
What I *should* have done was to keep my mouth shut, and if anyone *was*
irritated by all the baby posts, let them speak up for themselves.
--
Robin, wishing I'd done just that!
Rhiannon M. Adams
> Rhiannon M. Adams wrote:
> > "Robin" <MPTGFC...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> > news:jbLb9.37000$082.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
> >
> >>I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
> >>but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
> >>yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
> >>creating the list.
I skipped that in Vicky's post apparantly, though now that Stephanie's
kindly reposted it I'll go join.
Rhiannon (who really did see the way Robin meant this post to go, but who
respectfully disagrees)
Sarah
Robin wrote:
> Another thing--I've seen a lot of "finally, a thread I can participate
> in!" posts in the "work" thread, at least some of which seem to imply
> it's been "all baby, all the time" here recently. Which may be true.
> *But*, if there aren't any non-baby threads, then start some!
The problem is that lately, all threads eventually (some more quickly
than others) morph into baby threads!
I've actually not been reading AN much lately, and that's part of the
reason. I'm not about to suggest that people take their baby talk
elsewhere (hey, that's why this is an unmoderated group!) but I'm
feeling very baby-ed out in real life, and I need somewhere to go where
I can be free of babies for a few minutes. Unfortunately for me, this
isn't always the place for that. :-) I've been doing a lot of "mark
thread as read" lately, and I never used to do that.
Sarah
Sarah
Robin wrote:
> What I *should* have done was to keep my mouth shut, and if anyone *was*
> irritated by all the baby posts, let them speak up for themselves.
I am...well, not irritated, but definitely not interested. I just never
said anything because a) it's not MY group, b) it's not explicitly
off-topic, and c) I'm moving tomorrow and haven't had time to start any
new threads except for my pressing cat question. :-)
Sarah, who should be packing!!
Shelly
news:3D6F9CCA...@yahooSPAM.com...
> The problem is that lately, all threads eventually (some more quickly
> than others) morph into baby threads!
>
> I've actually not been reading AN much lately, and that's part of the
> reason. I'm not about to suggest that people take their baby talk
> elsewhere (hey, that's why this is an unmoderated group!) but I'm
> feeling very baby-ed out in real life, and I need somewhere to go where
> I can be free of babies for a few minutes. Unfortunately for me, this
> isn't always the place for that. :-) I've been doing a lot of "mark
> thread as read" lately, and I never used to do that.
Um, yeah. What she said. :-)
I know that people will talk about baby stuff, post baby pix, etc. It's
inevitable, given the newlywed status and age of a lot of the population of
this group. But, 1) there are so many that I couldn't keep up with them if
I wanted to, and 2) as we are having difficulty acquiring one of our own in
the usual manner, it is Not A Happy Topic for me at the moment. As a
result, I mark a lot of threads as "read" and move on. So, when I see a
thread that does actually relate directly to me, it's kind of nice. That's
all - no suggestion the talk go elsewhere, just a reminder to keep noting
the topic in the subject (and changing it when the inevitable
morph-to-baby-related-stuff happens).
--
Shelly
Posting address is rarely read - e-mail swruck at wi dot rr dot com
Mieko
>I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
>but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
>yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
>creating the list.
I think others explained this well, but it did seem to be a good reminder that
the list does exist, and that baby talk can be taken there, if desired. Not
having kids, I enjoy a lot of the threads about them, but I am glad that some
of it can be taken to the list.
>Another thing--I've seen a lot of "finally, a thread I can participate
>in!" posts in the "work" thread, at least some of which seem to imply
>it's been "all baby, all the time" here recently. Which may be true.
>*But*, if there aren't any non-baby threads, then start some!
I think people are mostly just happy that someone has started a thread that
they can particiapte in. :) Some people are less comfortable starting a
thread, but are happy to join in once someone has gotten the ball rolling.
Maybe I'll start thinking about a good thread to talk about. :)
Mieko
Natalie Mayer
> The problem is that lately, all threads eventually (some more quickly
> than others) morph into baby threads!
Ah, kind of like all threads in another newsgroup eventually morph into
threads about bicycles?
nattie
(back now, anyone miss me?)
Leslie Deak
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Robin wrote:
> I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
> but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
> yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
> creating the list.
How could you not enjoy looking at other people's children? What kind of
monster are you? ;)
> Another thing--I've seen a lot of "finally, a thread I can participate
> in!" posts in the "work" thread, at least some of which seem to imply
> it's been "all baby, all the time" here recently. Which may be true.
> *But*, if there aren't any non-baby threads, then start some!
Okay, how about this:
Would you get a pool table for your downstairs room if you
reallyreallyreally wanted one, but the room's about 6 inches too narrow
for a comfortable playing field? We've talked about it, found a table, and
priced it, and done all the measuring, but we're not sure. The room is
long enough (15'), but the width is 10'3" in one portion and 11' in
another (the walls were finished stupidly). We figure this can be our
anniversry gift to each other. Hey, the felt on the table is LIKE cotton,
right?
So, anyone else with a game room? What do you have in it? What color is
the room? Does it get a lot of use?
-Leslie
Hillary Israeli
Stephanie Scales <S.Sc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
*rather than a seperate entity from AN. I know that I prefer to post
*when I update Cordelia's ofoto album to the general group so anyone
*reading AN can have a look if s/he is interested (in a thread labeled
*[baby] so those who are not interested can easily skip over it).
Yeah, I thought as long as a thread was labelled [baby] it was cool to
post that sort of thing here...
*
*I'm not sure what you intended, but I hope that this isn't a move
*towards making AN anti-baby. :-(
Me too. I mean, I certainly respect the childfree nature of some marriages
or long-term-relationships, and wouldn't ever suggest that childfree
couples refrain from posting pictures or updates of themselves... :)
--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net in...@hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)
Robin
> Would you get a pool table for your downstairs room if you
> reallyreallyreally wanted one, but the room's about 6 inches too narrow
> for a comfortable playing field? We've talked about it, found a table, and
Yes.
> priced it, and done all the measuring, but we're not sure. The room is
> long enough (15'), but the width is 10'3" in one portion and 11' in
> another (the walls were finished stupidly). We figure this can be our
> anniversry gift to each other. Hey, the felt on the table is LIKE cotton,
> right?
Very much so. Then again, our third anniversary gift was a playstation
2, and if challenged I could find a way to morph that into whatever the
3rd is supposed to be.
> So, anyone else with a game room? What do you have in it? What color is
> the room? Does it get a lot of use?
My parents have a pool table in a "not quite big enough" room. It's
fine. Not perfect (duh), but fine. Maybe if you were a really serious
pool plater it would make you nuts, but I think it's fine.
Let's see. One wall has wood paneling and a large doorway leading into
a wet bar. Two walls are white, one has french doors leading into the
rec room. It's not decorated. As you now know from having seen my
house, decorating isn't a big priority in my family =)
--
Robin
Mieko
>Okay, how about this:
>
>Would you get a pool table for your downstairs room if you
>reallyreallyreally wanted one, but the room's about 6 inches too narrow
>for a comfortable playing field? We've talked about it, found a table, and
>priced it, and done all the measuring, but we're not sure. The room is
>long enough (15'), but the width is 10'3" in one portion and 11' in
>another (the walls were finished stupidly). We figure this can be our
>anniversry gift to each other. Hey, the felt on the table is LIKE cotton,
>right?
>
>So, anyone else with a game room? What do you have in it? What color is
>the room? Does it get a lot of use?
Well, I just sold my pool table on Wednesday, and am SO glad. It came with
the house, we thought it would be cool, and we played on it a total of 3 times
in 3 years. Mostly we kept a hard cover over it, and used it as a table. (and
not very successfully, either). We did have plenty of room, but what we really
need for a game room is somewhere to play poker, card games and D&D. In other
words, a nice big table that 8 people can sit around.
We're going to be putting up a dart board (soft-tip), and it has a bar, the
big screen, sofa, loveseat, and chair. The Tivo is hooked up to that TV, as
well as all the game systems (N64, Game Cube, PS2). Most of the use comes from
having the TV up there, although once we get a new table, I imagine a lot of
our gaming sessions will move there. We also have a small fridge near the bar,
but no sink.
The game room itself is the upstairs room in our house, and is approx 17x34,
so it's really huge. We remodeled it ourselves, putting in a laminate floor,
and cherry stained wainscotting, with tan walls above. We were aiming for a
slight feel of the Adventure's Club at WDW. Maybe I'll get some pictures.
I think the most important thing would be seating, make sure you still have
room for some bar stools and a table, and if you do, you'll probably be
comfortable enough to use it. A narrow playing field is pretty typical at most
places I've played, and it's never been that much of an issue. 6 inches isn't
much, I don't think it would be that annoying.
Mieko
Mike and Heather Oviatt
>
> So, anyone else with a game room? What do you have in it? What color is
> the room? Does it get a lot of use?
We've recently moved things around to create a game room. It contains
the air hockey table and dart board. We also kept the stereo in there
and bought a new receiver/surround sound system to go with the tv that
we moved into the front living room.
At some point I anticipate purchasing a second television for that room
and hooking up the nintendo and play station to it. Right now those
aren't hooked up at all.
As for decorating, so far I've left it as it was when it served as our
family room. We have wood blinds on the windows with valances and tab
curtains on the sliding glass door that match. The washer and dryer are
also in this room, behind a curtain. I intend to hang a hockey poster
(Avalanche Stanley Cup from '96) in there too (which has lived in the
dining room up to now), and probably get another poster to go with it.
Oh, and Mike saw a scoreboard lamp that I've got to hunt down again and
order to hang over the table. Oh, and we left a couch in there and that
room also contains the cd collection.
As for use, the air hockey table usually gets used when we have people
over. Same with the dart board, although it's not hung up yet as we
just took it off the wall in the other room and haven't gotten around to
hanging it. But at least in this room it will be possible to have both
activities going on at the same time.
My aunt and uncle have a pool table in a not-quite-big-enough room, and
it works okay. They have one of those shorter cue sticks (that we all
call stubby) that we use when necessary, but there aren't too many shots
that are bothered by the space.
Heather (who picked up 4 different quarts of paint today in an attempt
to pick a new kitchen color - I am very indecisive and can't visualize
things well....)
Betsey Reed
wrote:
Good luck in your move, Sarah!
Betsey
Betsey Reed
I did! You married yet? *grin*
Betsey
Jennifer from Colorado
wrote:
>I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
>but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
>yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
>creating the list.
>
>If the non-baby people don't care then it's fine by me (not that I am a
>baby person, but I don't mind the baby discussion) but I wanted to bring
>it up.
Well, I'm not part of the anpreg list since I'm not pg and don't
intend to be for about another year or so. But, I loooove looking at
all the baby pictures. I, for one, would be sad to see the picture
announcements solely posted to an e-mail list.
Jennifer from Colorado
Kris Hildrum
>Pardon me while I get on my soapbox about triangulated communication.
>I really don't think that much good comes from trying to speak for other
>people, whether it's on the basis of vibes or direct communication. I think
>this is true whether it's e-communication or RL communication.
I disagree here; sometimes who the messenger is can affect how the
message is perceived. In general, if your mother-in-law needs to be told
something somewhat unpleasant, it's often best to let one's spouse deal
with it.
And I think it's a great skill when someone can see two people
miscommunicating and clarify to each group what the other is saying. (Of
course, it's dangerous to attempt this unless you have that skill, because
you end up misrepresenting people, which is clearly bad.)
Kris
Jennifer from Colorado
<nats-...@decadentplace.org.uk> wrote:
Hey, Natalie! How's it going?
Jennifer from Colorado
Geri
"Leslie Deak" <ld...@me1.egr.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.020830...@me1.egr.duke.edu...
> Would you get a pool table for your downstairs room if you
> reallyreallyreally wanted one, but the room's about 6 inches too narrow
> for a comfortable playing field?
I would go play pool in a smallish space and see how it feels with 6 inches
less room. If it makes me want to break the cue in half, then no, I wouldn't
get the pool table ;-)
We've talked about it, found a table, and
> priced it, and done all the measuring, but we're not sure. The room is
> long enough (15'), but the width is 10'3" in one portion and 11' in
> another (the walls were finished stupidly). We figure this can be our
> anniversry gift to each other. Hey, the felt on the table is LIKE cotton,
> right?
Absolutely. And perhaps playing in the whacked-out space will just make you
better players ;-)
> So, anyone else with a game room? What do you have in it? What color is
> the room? Does it get a lot of use?
Ha! That would be a no. We don't have a game room. But we're going
house-hunting tomorrow and if we find a house with available space, we're
making one! We'd probably have a pool table and dart board and a foosball
table and we could move DH's XBox there...
KellieGaines
> Would you get a pool table for your downstairs room if you
> reallyreallyreally wanted one, but the room's about 6 inches too narrow
> for a comfortable playing field?
Yeah, I would for sure. Mark's wanted one for ages but all of the
rooms that we had were way too small. In this house, we have two
rooms that could possibly be used as game rooms/pool rooms in the
future (although one will hopefully be a "pool room" in the sense of a
swimming pool room, aka changing area).
> So, anyone else with a game room? What do you have in it? What color is
> the room? Does it get a lot of use?
I don't have one but if I did, I'd go with some really exotic dark
color in the room, to make it more "bar-like". Maybe burgundy?
Sounds like fun!
kellie
KellieGaines
dinner that we had last year in SD (with Mieko, Jennifer A from CO and
Tara in Oceanside - where is she???) but I could *not* remember your
last name. I could rattle off a bunch of other details, though. So
funny that you posted again this week!
So, what's going on?
kellie
Jan A. Cordes
> I've actually not been reading AN much lately, and that's part of the
> reason. I'm not about to suggest that people take their baby talk
> elsewhere (hey, that's why this is an unmoderated group!) but I'm
> feeling very baby-ed out in real life, and I need somewhere to go where
> I can be free of babies for a few minutes. Unfortunately for me, this
> isn't always the place for that. :-) I've been doing a lot of "mark
> thread as read" lately, and I never used to do that.
This is about where I am too (except for the baby-ed out in real life part).
Unfortunately, I'm in such a weird space lately that I can't really start a
ny non-baby threads that would be interesting.
Jan
--
jan(at)panix.com http://www.couchtigers.com
..................................................................
Silicon Valley Friends of Ferals : CAT: A pigmy lion that loves
http://www.svff.org : mice, hates dogs, and
Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc. : patronizes human beings.
http://www.marykay.com/jcordes : --Oliver Herford
..................................:...............................
KathyK
>From: "Geri" clar...@earthlinkNO.SPAMnet
>Date: 8/30/02 10:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <PrVb9.34407$1r.10...@twister.nyc.rr.com>
>
>
>"Leslie Deak" <ld...@me1.egr.duke.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.44.020830...@me1.egr.duke.edu...
>> Would you get a pool table for your downstairs room if you
>> reallyreallyreally wanted one, but the room's about 6 inches too narrow
>> for a comfortable playing field?
>
>I would go play pool in a smallish space and see how it feels with 6 inches
>less room. If it makes me want to break the cue in half, then no, I wouldn't
>get the pool table ;-)
I agree with Geri. I'm not a big pool player, but from what I've heard, having
enough space is very important. If some people don't have enough space, it
drives them batty. Personally, I'd probably be just fine playing with less
than the ideal amount of room, but like I said, I'm not a serious player.
>> So, anyone else with a game room? What do you have in it? What color is
>> the room? Does it get a lot of use?
Not at this time. When we finish the basement, we have plans to put one in.
We're going to divide the space into closets, a craft room, a wine cellar, bar,
game area (probably foosball rather than pool), entertainment area (large-ish
TV, stereo, etc), and a play area for the kids. We have a full basement -
about 1250 sq. ft., so we should have plenty of room for the new rooms and
areas.
We haven't thought about color yet, but I think that we have decided to build a
deck over the concrete, and put in wood-looking laminate flooring throughout
(except in the wine cellar).
--Kathy
Leslie Deak
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Mieko wrote:
> I think the most important thing would be seating, make sure you still have
> room for some bar stools and a table, and if you do, you'll probably be
> comfortable enough to use it. A narrow playing field is pretty typical at most
> places I've played, and it's never been that much of an issue. 6 inches isn't
> much, I don't think it would be that annoying.
____________________________________________
| bar TV/PS2| |
| | |
| |
| |
| | pool |
--| |
futon | |
__ _________________ | table? |
| | | |
|bath | | |
|w/ sink| utility | |
| | | __________|
| | | | |
__________________________________
All right, here's the rough idea of the space. The room with the bar and
TV is too narrow to hold the table (10.5 feet). The "pool room" has that
jut in the wall that's causing the space problem. We can see the
unfinished side of the wall from the laundry room, and can tell it's not a
load-bearing wall, so we have the option of having someone come in and
move the wall 8 inches back, if we really need it. (And we'd move the top
half of the wall, leaving the bottom half pushed out, put on a topper, and
make it a rail bar!)
So we still have plenty of seating in the other room (the playstation
room), and will have room to put up a card table for poker night. We're
trying to decide whether to paint the two rooms different colors. It's a
basement with no real natural light. We picked a red for one of the rooms,
and can't decide whether to do red for both rooms, or to pick another.
Right now the pool room is a guest room, but just has a double bed and a
couple of random pieces of furniture to get rid of. Julie, y'all want a
double bed?
-Leslie
eleanor
of the cue way up in the air..;-)
Jocelyn
>
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Robin wrote:
>
> > I hate to be the voice of dissent, especially since I don't much care,
> > but shouldn't the baby picture announcements be posted to the anpreg
> > yahoo group instead of here? I thought that was part of the purpose of
> > creating the list.
>
> How could you not enjoy looking at other people's children? What kind of
> monster are you? ;)
>
> Would you get a pool table for your downstairs room if you
> reallyreallyreally wanted one, but the room's about 6 inches too narrow
> for a comfortable playing field? We've talked about it, found a table, and
> priced it, and done all the measuring, but we're not sure. The room is
> long enough (15'), but the width is 10'3" in one portion and 11' in
> another (the walls were finished stupidly).
I dunno. I hatehatehate when I can't get the shot I want because the
wall is in the way. Friends of mine used to have a similar situation (a
game room slightly too small for their pool table). It seemed like every
shot I wanted was from a too small spot - bugged the cr*p out of me. At
the very least, get some short cues.
> We figure this can be our
> anniversry gift to each other. Hey, the felt on the table is LIKE cotton,
> right?
Oh, absolutely. ;-)
> So, anyone else with a game room? What do you have in it? What color is
> the room? Does it get a lot of use?
I don't and never have, but if I did it wouldn't have pool, it'd have
foosball. Foosball is clearly the superior game. ;-)
- Jocelyn
Leslie Deak
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Jocelyn wrote:
> I dunno. I hatehatehate when I can't get the shot I want because the
> wall is in the way. Friends of mine used to have a similar situation (a
> game room slightly too small for their pool table). It seemed like every
> shot I wanted was from a too small spot - bugged the cr*p out of me. At
> the very least, get some short cues.
We will get the short cues. But having a cramped shot every now and then
is better, IMO, than paying $50 a night just to shoot some pool with
friends.
We moved the bed out of the room today and laid out a template. I think it
will be good.
-Leslie
Shawn & Joy Pennington
"Cleo" <Cleo_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ako1k...@drn.newsguy.com...> >Robin, hoping this is taken in the spirit it's intended.
>
> Sorry, I can't glean your intent from your post.
>
> Cleo
While I'm certainly all for kids & babies, I think I can understand Robin's
motivation, so to speak. Sometimes it's painfully difficult to read about
everybody's children when I'd give the world for it to be me, and right now,
I can't even get my husband to return my phone calls. I also know that
there are active TTC'ers out there who, despite being happy for other
AN'ers, find it difficult to face that everybody seems to be prego except
them.
On the other hand, I do enjoy looking at photos & even reading everybody's
painfully honest birth stories =) Hopefully I'll have something to look
forward to! And I have to say, I've learned a lot from these threads as
well. Plus, I do think pregnancy is a newlywed and/or oldlywed topic, so it
shouldn't be completely excluded from the group. Think of how many AN
aunties would be out of business!
I think just as long as it's clearly labeled "baby" or "kidment", etc...that
should be fair to everybody. If I'm having a "wish-I-were-dead" day, I know
not to read about people's children & happy marriages. If I'm having an
okay day, I like to celebrate & live through these events with my AN
friends.
There's my 2 cents =)
Joy
Shawn & Joy Pennington
"Jan A. Cordes" <j...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:akpjij$66l$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Sarah <sarie...@yahoospam.com> wrote:
>
> This is about where I am too (except for the baby-ed out in real life
part).
> Unfortunately, I'm in such a weird space lately that I can't really start
a
> ny non-baby threads that would be interesting.
I completely understand & feel your pain Jan.
Hugs,
Joy
KathyK
>Date: 8/31/02 9:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MPG.17da9545d...@news.mindspring.com>
>
>I don't and never have, but if I did it wouldn't have pool, it'd have
>foosball. Foosball is clearly the superior game. ;-)
>
>- Jocelyn
>
Jocelyn, I don't know if you have room in your new digs, but if there is a
Costco near you, they are now carrying a very nice looking Foosball table for
$200. Well, the one by me is carrying it - and the one on LI where my SIL
shops.
Stan and I are thinking about getting one for each other for Christmas.
--Kathy
Jocelyn
>
> Jocelyn, I don't know if you have room in your new digs, but if there is a
> Costco near you, they are now carrying a very nice looking Foosball table for
> $200. Well, the one by me is carrying it - and the one on LI where my SIL
> shops.
there's no Costco within 200 miles, and as I'm currently unemployed we're
not buying anything other than groceries these days. But thanks for the
tip. ;-)
> Stan and I are thinking about getting one for each other for Christmas.
Excellent. We'll be up to play right after Christmas. :-)
- Jocelyn
KathyK
>From: Jocelyn gnir...@earthlink.not
>Message-id: <MPG.17daf82f1...@news.mindspring.com>
>
>
>> Stan and I are thinking about getting one for each other for Christmas.
>
>Excellent. We'll be up to play right after Christmas. :-)
>
>- Jocelyn
>
You're welcome any time. :-)
Gee, I hope that they still have them when we have the money in the budget.
--Kathy
Julie
>Right now the pool room is a guest room, but just has a double bed and a
>couple of random pieces of furniture to get rid of. Julie, y'all want a
>double bed?
We were just talking about buying one for Amanda. As long as we aren't talking
about moving it tomorrow, how about a definite maybe?
Julie (juggling many plates momentarily)
Buzzy Bee
>In article <3D6F9CCA...@yahooSPAM.com>, Sarah wrote:
>
>> The problem is that lately, all threads eventually (some more quickly
>> than others) morph into baby threads!
>
>Ah, kind of like all threads in another newsgroup eventually morph into
>threads about bicycles?
>
>nattie
>(back now, anyone miss me?)
Wow! Long time no see! Welcome back.
Are you over here yet?
Megan
Buzzy Bee
but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
>Would you get a pool table for your downstairs room if you
>reallyreallyreally wanted one, but the room's about 6 inches too narrow
>for a comfortable playing field? We've talked about it, found a table, and
>priced it, and done all the measuring, but we're not sure. The room is
>long enough (15'), but the width is 10'3" in one portion and 11' in
>another (the walls were finished stupidly). We figure this can be our
>anniversry gift to each other. Hey, the felt on the table is LIKE cotton,
>right?
I've played pool in a lot of rooms in pubs smaller than that
(particularly up in Cumbria where the pubs are often *very old*).
Anyways, the solution there is usually to have a few short (kiddie
sized) cues on hand for the trickier shots where the room is too
short. The game isn't quite the same, though in a way it levels
things out - the real experts get completely thrown by the short
cues!
Megan
Jen in South Florida currently in Kentucky
>
I also know that
> there are active TTC'ers out there who, despite being happy for other
> AN'ers, find it difficult to face that everybody seems to be prego except
> them.
I think that's the third group that is being forgotten here. There
are those who have babies, those who don't have babies but also don't
mind seeing, hearing, and reading about babies, and then there are
those who are trying desperately to have one of their own with no
success. From reading the first 30 messages in this thread, it seems
that the AN'ers who got pregnant on the first or second try, some with
twins, are having trouble identifying with this third group and where
they are in life right now.
While I don't think all the baby threads should be banished to a yahoo
group, I also don't think that those who are struggling with
infertility should be banished to the IF newsgroups in order to find a
safe haven. I'd also like to remind everyone of the existance of all
the groups in the misc.kids heirarchy. The way I see it, we can all
get along, but I do agree that vigilant header use is necessary to
protect the sometimes overly sensitive feelings of those who may be
wanting desperately to participate in the baby threads but instead
face disappointment month after month after month.
Jen
Stephanie Scales
>
> From reading the first 30 messages in this thread, it seems
> that the AN'ers who got pregnant on the first or second try, some with
> twins, are having trouble identifying with this third group and where
> they are in life right now.
>
> While I don't think all the baby threads should be banished to a yahoo
> group, I also don't think that those who are struggling with
> infertility should be banished to the IF newsgroups in order to find a
> safe haven. I'd also like to remind everyone of the existance of all
> the groups in the misc.kids heirarchy. The way I see it, we can all
> get along, but I do agree that vigilant header use is necessary to
> protect the sometimes overly sensitive feelings of those who may be
> wanting desperately to participate in the baby threads but instead
> face disappointment month after month after month.
This was very well said, so I left most of it intact.
It is also exactly why I try to always label [baby] the photo updates
and any thread largely centered upon Cordelia. I've been in the painful
position of dealing with infertility and so I try to be sensitive to
others' feelings. Even though I'm not dealing with infertility right
this minute, the sneak announcements sometimes bother me. It sucks to
want something desperately and feel like there's no end in sight.
-Stephanie
Ducky Lawyer
>
> I also know that
>
>>there are active TTC'ers out there who, despite being happy for other
>>AN'ers, find it difficult to face that everybody seems to be prego except
>>them.
>
>
> I think that's the third group that is being forgotten here. There
> are those who have babies, those who don't have babies but also don't
> mind seeing, hearing, and reading about babies, and then there are
> those who are trying desperately to have one of their own with no
> success. From reading the first 30 messages in this thread, it seems
> that the AN'ers who got pregnant on the first or second try, some with
> twins, are having trouble identifying with this third group and where
> they are in life right now.
>
labels on threads, not droning on in AN about preg / baby stuff, and
using the preg / childdecision forum for those issues...but the overall
'gist' is still unfortunately there.
And, well, "some with twins"? Maybe you're referring to other, past
threads, because as far as I know, neither Rose nor I have responded to
this thread to date. This is my first reply/participation in this
thread. (I was shying away from saying anything, as I didn't want to
come off as "anti-baby" but I *am* tired of all the baby/pregnancy
posts...as I describe below). I'm one of those people who started a
non-baby thread precisely because I noticed all threads were morphing
into baby threads and goodness knows I'm getting enough "pregnancy /
baby talk" elsewhere!! I've been very careful as of late to keep
certain discussions in certain places.. partly for my own interests,
'cause I've got other ngs to go to if I want to blather on about
babies....and partly out of respect for others. (And , yes, partly
because I like rules and them's "the rules"; all that ingrained training
in my profession and all... <g>).
> While I don't think all the baby threads should be banished to a yahoo
> group, I also don't think that those who are struggling with
> infertility should be banished to the IF newsgroups in order to find a
> safe haven. I'd also like to remind everyone of the existance of all
> the groups in the misc.kids heirarchy. The way I see it, we can all
> get along, but I do agree that vigilant header use is necessary to
> protect the sometimes overly sensitive feelings of those who may be
> wanting desperately to participate in the baby threads but instead
> face disappointment month after month after month.
Thanks for posting this, Jen. I think that everyone needs to be more
cognizant about labelling threads and thinking about whether to take
that particular part of a discussion elsewhere or not (ie to private
email, one of the AN yahoo groups, to another newsgroup, to a phone
call, whatever).
My proposed "solution" (though I don't tihnk it will be popular):
I for one would prefer to see photo links updated on the AN website
'chart of regulars' and not here -- or even if the sites are posted
here, for people to send their "nice photos, he/she's so cute", etc.,
responses privately. There's a lot of bandwidth being takne up with one
liners, really, for all sorts of subjects. Personally, I like An
because the posts are interesting, well written and generally say more
than "me too"...
Just my 2 cents...
-Barbara
> Jen
Ducky Lawyer
Jen wrote:
>> The way I see it, we can all
>>get along, but I do agree that vigilant header use is necessary to
>>protect the sometimes overly sensitive feelings of those who may be
>>wanting desperately to participate in the baby threads but instead
>>face disappointment month after month after month.
>
>
> There is *no* problem with header use! That wasn't the original issue (it
> was the posting of baby pictures at all!) and it isn't the issue now.
Actually, I'd disagree. For instance, I didn't label my preg
announcement as such (which was an unintended gaffe), and I've seen
other preg nanouncements, baby conversations and the like discussed
without labels. Even Buzzy's announcement today had a subject line
which didn't make it clear what she was talkigna bout -- it said "Lyy,
add me to the list!" and even though i had prior knowledge of the
contents, I thought she was talkigna bout the address list -- not the
list of pregnancies.
Add those unlabelled surprise announcements to the threads which 'morph'
into baby chatter, and there's a lot of traffic here on AN which is
baby-centred but not labelled as such.
From unfortunate experience, I know it's easy not to notice when these
thigns aren't labelled, and although I fall into the VERY LUCKY group of
'quick conceptioners', I also think it must be very very hard to read
them, especially if the subject line and prior line of conversation in
the thread have indicated otherwise.
I do agree with your analysis, Cleo, that the regulars in this group
(and non regulars and lurkers, too, likely) would be very supportive of
and willing to talk about infertility issues. But, talking about
infertility issues doesn't "right" the hurt, though....and, just as us
prospective parents and parents might tire of 'baby talk', Aners dealing
with infertility issues might be exhausted of talkign about and thinking
of *their* side of the equation. It's not the same, but I've got a
chronic health condition that I know Aners are supportive of (and which
can impact on my life/lifestyle/life choices in substantive ways), but I
can't talk about it here 'cause it's too personal for Usenet, and I'd
rather leave it to email. It's actually difficult to discuss in public
sometimes (though on the whole I'm a very open person!), and I want to
shave some place to hang out where my illness or current condition isn't
'an issue'. I'm VERY LUCKY in this respect as well, since my
'condition' is what some would call "an invisible one", so it's easy not
to reveal it in person, and really easy (if I'm not as open/truthful,
etc) to hide in email/newsgropus, etc...
Not sure if this muddled the waters or not, but I hope I made myself
clear(er).
--Barbara (who enjoys nice, tempered discussions like this!)
Ducky Lawyer
> In article <3D7387DF...@spamblock.ncf.ca>, Ducky says...
>
>
>>and, just as us
>>prospective parents and parents might tire of 'baby talk'
>
>
> the start, is that I find it hurtful/insensitive/rude, and the morphed
> collection
> of all those things, for people to say "I'm sick of hearing about 'baby talk.'"
So what if I am, how does that affect the value or nature of the 'baby
talk'? It just means that I personally am not interested. It doesn't
follow, logically, that I'm saying the talk itself isn't worth listening
*to*, just that I'm not listening personally because the topic isn't of
interest to me at present. A statement about my interest or lack
thereof is *not* a statement about the value of the item as a whole;
please don't turn a subjective statement ("I'm tired of hearing XYZ")
into an objective observation (XYZ is 'tiring'). That's *not* what I'm
saying; I think we're just comign at this from different perspectives
and I'm only meaning to make subjective statements about how these items
affect me.
> When you ARE interested in that topic and there ARE issues you want to
> discuss, or end up discussing, and those issues are important and
> topicla to you and you even find them a source of comfort, it is dismissive
> and invalidating for others to come along and complain that they are sick
> of them. I hope you are never in the situation where you are finding a
> sense of e-community about an important sense of your life and a few
> people then come along and tell you that your issues are boring, off topic,
> wasting bandwith, etc.
Ooh, this is not what I meant at all. Not in the least. What I meant is
that from *my* perspective, and it's just mine and my 'problem' if you
want to put it that way -- is that *I* personally think that baby
threads and pregnancy discussions and the like are great threads if
properly labelled for alt.newlywed and that I need to stay away from
those when *I'm* tired of them.
I think these discussions are valid, good discussions, and perfect
topics for AN. It's just that not everyone can or wants to discuss
these subjects or topics, and so seeing them all of the time feels a bit
tiresome.
I don't think anyone has been saying that baby threads or whatever are
boring unto themselves, or that they're a waste of bandwidth (e3xcept
maybe the 'me too posts which say only that and nothing more which are a
waste when you're paying for slow downloads...and that goes for *any*
topic not just preg or babies or whatever); I think people have been
saying that they'd like the threads to be labelled so that they can pass
by them when they're not of interest to *them* personally.
I've felt the same way in American-centric threads, any thread about
pets or animals, etc....and Iv'e never thought that these threads are
valueless on the whole, just not of interest to me. So, when I see
something marked <pet> or <cats> or whatever, I skip them. It *is* a
bit annoying (a minor annoyance in the scheme of things) to be reading a
thread about toothpaste and open it up to find a series of long
responses about cats, for instance; in that case, I think everyone's
interests would be better served if someone had labelled the thread
<cats> WAS re: whatever when the thread changed. And I don't have any
personal issue with cats -- imagine if I had some major problem (like, I
was a die hard lover of cats, but had a dearly loved cat die or had been
advised that I could not have a cat due to medical issues or whatever).
Then I'd *really* want to steer clear of the cat discussions, and I'd
appreciate ANers labelling the threads appropriately.
Honestly, I'm not sure how you picked up on the idea that some ANers
think that baby threads are valueless or meaningless or don't belong
here. From what I've read, some people are expressing the opinion that
they'd like to feel free to discuss other topics (which certainly I'd
say they are already, they dont' need any permission- just start a
thread!), and that they'd appreciate theads to be labelled, so that each
participant can gauge their own willingness to continue reading or
posting as they wish, without "surprises"
Maybe I am the only person who is sensitive about
> this, but I find these kinds of statements extremely alienating and it makes
> me want to do the e-version of taking my toys and leaving the sandbox.
I just don't see how you can take a statement like "I am bored of
threads about pregnancy" and think that it alienates someone who is
interested in threads about kids. The speaker is not saying that
threads are boring in fact or truth, they are making a statement about
themselves and their perspective on the world around them; they are not
making a pronouncement on the world around them per se, nor are they
stating that their perspective is the only 'truth' of the matter. With
all due respect and in all seriousness, I think you are seeing more here
than is being stated or is being implied.
> I had just started to think that maybe a.n. was a different kind of netgroup,
> one where people largely "live and let live", without getting all uptight about
> trivial crap like posting styles and the conversation-killer threads about
> how whatever's being posted is boring and mind-numbing to the masses.
No one is saying that whatever's being posted is boring and mind-numbing
to the masses; they are saying that individually, for *them* they'd
rather not read or participate in those posts. That does not mean that
they think the posts or threads are boring or meaningless for everyone
-- just perhaps for themselves. I don't expect very many people to find
my and Megan's agreements on socialism to be interesting onor my and
Jocelyn's legal-beagle exchanges on the legal system or legalities to be
interesting; and if someone told me that these threads were boring for
them, I'd believe them but I don't think I'd take it to mean they were
saying that those threads were boring for everyone or that they had no
meaning for everyone.
I think, fromtwhat was posted prior to this thread, and what's been
posted *in* this thread, that no one is saying the discussions are
boring and mind-numbing, and certainly not to "masses" of people. In
fact, at present, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the active AN
posters/regulars are either parents already, kid-friendly or on their
way to being parents...it might just be a vocal minority.
I cannot speak for everyone, just myself, but if I had to hazard a
guess, I woudl say that *most* ANers would rather see the
baby/child/pregnancy/breastfeeding threads here than lose valuable and
trusted AN participants. I think we're just trying to have a discussion
about what we've all been doing, seeing and discussing on alt.newlywed,
and what we might like to do as a group to continue.
> IME nothing kills the spirit of a newsgroup as fast as to get into long
> discussions about how the topics being discussed are boring and
> inapplicable to large numbers of people. How do you think that makes
> the people actually having the discussions (as opposed to those
> commenting on them) feel?
Ah, but as long as a post is interesting to atleast one person, that's
all that counts. That one person or handful of people can talk all they
want about whatever subject they feel like discussing, and the fact that
others aren't reading or participating doens't make the thread or
subject any *less* valuable. At some point, a one-on-one conversation
or debate might be best taken to email (regadless of the subject), but
that has to do with the nature of Usenet and not 'wasting' public
bandwidth with private discussions -- not the nature of the subject
being discussed. (Ie it holds true for cabbages and kings...).
> Unwelcome and unvalued, if they're like me (though I freely admit that I
> may be oversensitive to this; I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else).
>
> Or plotting their revenge-- please start new threads that I can mock as
> boring and irrelevant to my life.
Arrghhh! No one is mocking these threads. They are just expressing
their thoughts about labelling and about what's being posted when and at
what frequency. The fact that you and many many others find these
threads interesting doesn't mean the others who don't are mocking you.
--Barbara (who really thinks that this thread and responses were made to
air ideas and create polite discussion, not to mock or hurt anyone)
> Cleo
>
Buzzy Bee
but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
>>prospective parents and parents might tire of 'baby talk'
>
>the start, is that I find it hurtful/insensitive/rude, and the morphed
>collection
>of all those things, for people to say "I'm sick of hearing about 'baby talk.'"
I was actually in tears over this thread last night and I seriously
considered making my announcement to MKP only because of it (and I do
apologise for not spoilering it - but surprise announcements seem to
have traditionally broken that rule).
I felt really really upset (call me hormotional!) that I was
effectively being told that the biggest most important thing in my
life right now was completely irrelevant even though I share it with
nigh on 50% of the people here.
Megan
Tscout
Buzzy Bee wrote:
Nooo! Please don't feel this way! I haven't responded to this thread yet, but i
was worried that someone would say this...
Now, I know I do not have children, but I know exactly how you with children
feel when reading this thread....I hope this doesn't upset anyone, but...
<confession on>
I went on lurking status soon after I de-lurked for many reasons, but one was
because I had applied for & received a new job...this was
right at the same time that quite a few people were getting laid off, or worried
about it...I felt a little guilty, although there
are only a few other library-related people on here, so I wasn't really taking a
job away from anyone I "knew", but still...
as a consequence, 6+ months later, I realize that _all of you_ would have been very
happy for me, regardless of
your circumstances...and I could have been posting about what was going on in my
life & you all could have been
support (which I badly needed) and also have gotten to know me better...instead, I
know y'all through your posts, but you
all don't know me very well...
<confession off>
So, I guess what I am trying to say & what I know has been said before, that this
is a newlywed group that discusses issues that are relevant
to newlyweds (and some of us that just feel like newlyweds!)...I think the headers
are a great solution & would hate to see anyone
not bring up a topic or share news because they that it would not be welcome or of
interest to the group...hey, you all responded
to my hair cut thread....what could be more mundane than that!
Linda
Ducky Lawyer
<snip reaction to baby/preg/child threads>
> So, as a suggestion - could we start up some completely unrelated threads?
Done! I actually just started two food/cooking posts before getting your
message...not as a deliberate diversion from pregnancy/baby threads, but
just because I'd been meaning to post them anyway (I've been thinking of
posting on spinach for a while, and the need for rhubarb suggestions
just came up this afternoon).
--Barbara
Whirligig Witch
k>, Hilary <hil...@spamcop.net> writes
>There have been entire weeks when I haven't read a single post, because
>they all seemed to be about babies or pg, and I just couldn't bear to read
>through them. Combined with the depression, this perpetual TTC is
>draining me emotionally. Every month it gets harder, and I can't see an
>end in sight.
<hug> If you want to talk about it - please do. I realise you may not
want to, or just not be able to, but if you think it would help, I know
people are more than willing to listen.
I've struggled with depression on and off too, and I know what it's
like, and adding the stressful TTC - I do hope things look up for you on
that front soon.
--
Whirligig Witch
Kris Hildrum
>I want to point out, and I think that this is what has been bugging me from
>the start, is that I find it hurtful/insensitive/rude, and the morphed
>collection
>of all those things, for people to say "I'm sick of hearing about 'baby talk.'"
>of them. I hope you are never in the situation where you are finding a
>sense of e-community about an important sense of your life and a few
>people then come along and tell you that your issues are boring, off topic,
>me want to do the e-version of taking my toys and leaving the sandbox.
You know, though, I don't think anyone's said that (except maybe
our good friend Anne N.) Robin, who started this thread, said she
wondered if these things didn't belong in another place. Not that she was
sick of it, not even exactly that others were sick of it. The only people
who have objected to baby talk are those who are TTC but not succeeding.
And this group, far from finding it boring, uninteresting, or unimportant,
simply finds it too painful to read.
Kris
Teej
>In article
><Pine.LNX.4.44.020902...@pachabel.ednet.co.uk>,
>Hilary says...
>>
>>> >So, as a suggestion - could we start up some completely unrelated
>>> threads?
>>>
>>> Is something preventing you from starting such a thread? Or are you
>>> expecting others to do this for you?
>>
>>If you read down one message, you will find that I did exactly this. I
>>started it in a new message so the subject line would be relevant.
>Then *this* message had ZERO purpose, other than to rudely announce
>to the NG that threads related to babies and children are somehow
>unacceptable.
Actually, I think it was an attempt to put this to rest and invite
people to talk about other things. I'm sorry that you are feeling
attacked or defensive, but I really think that was not the intent.
Heck, technically, this is a newlywed group. That means married 1
year, right? So techincally most baby talk wouldn't belong here. The
fact is that it does and so does all sorts of other things that might
not techinally fit in a newlywed newsgroup. The only request really
seems to be that the subject line of the message actually reflect the
content of the message. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
>I don't think that people need to be reminded that they can always start a
>new thread. That goes without saying.
Wow. I don't think anyone really meant to push anyones buttons with
this. I suspect that when this thread was started someone was feeling
excluded by all the baby talk and wanted to make sure that the group
was not excluded anyone. I don't think anyone really wants to exclude
anyone.
Stacey
--
Teej
http://www.panix.com/~teej
Shawn & Joy Pennington
>
> Right now the pool room is a guest room, but just has a double bed and a
> couple of random pieces of furniture to get rid of. Julie, y'all want a
> double bed?
>
> -Leslie
Y'all ship to Nashville??? =)
Joy (not desperately needing another bed, but it would be nice not to have
BIL sleep all day on the couch at x-mas)
Kris Hildrum
Cleo <Cleo_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>And I think your semantic "logical" argument is misplaced, splitting some
>kind of hair between what you "think" and "objective" reality. It reminded
>me of the overused marital counseling theory, where therapists try to get
>people to make statements about what they feel rather than general
>statements: [says wife to husband, "you're a jackass." "No, no, says
>therapist, tell him what you *feel*." "I feel," says wife, "that you are a
>jackass."]
>
>Would you go into someone's house during a party and announce loudly,
>"the decorating style of this couple doesn't appeal to me, it's ugly"?
>
>IMO, statements that "baby talk" are not interesting or offtopic or whatever
>is the functional equivalent of the above.
FWIW, I agree with Cleo here. It's one thing to ignore all the
topic X threads. It's a different thing to say publically that you think
the topic X threads are dull.
That said, it is sorta unfortunate that one cannot say what topics
one finds interesting without the possibility offending, but life sucks and
then you die.
Kris
Kris Hildrum
>Hilary says...
>>
>>> >So, as a suggestion - could we start up some completely unrelated
>>> threads?
>>>
>>> Is something preventing you from starting such a thread? Or are you
>>> expecting others to do this for you?
>>
>>If you read down one message, you will find that I did exactly this. I
>>started it in a new message so the subject line would be relevant.
>
>Then *this* message had ZERO purpose, other than to rudely announce
>to the NG that threads related to babies and children are somehow
>unacceptable.
She did not say they are unacceptable. She said she would like to
read threads on other topics. There is a distinction between those two.
Kris
KellieGaines
with Robin's original post, I understood what she was saying/asking
and didn't feel like I needed to add anything to that.
But I think now it's starting to turn a bit, and is causing hurt to
many people for different reasons (ttc'ers who are having a hard time,
non-preggo/CFers who aren't interested in baby stuff, preggos who feel
intimidated about discussing pg at all here, etc...), and it seems
unnecessary.
I, too, felt kind of hurt to read some of the responses in this thread
(about too many baby/pg posts here), because honestly, I don't work
outside the home now, Mark & I have worked out most of the "newlywed"
issues that we have, I'm not in school, my pets are in good health,
and I'm not having any family issues - so my posts are going to
mention Jenna, because, well, that IS my job and it's a good portion
of who I am and what I do now. Even topics like gardening or cooking
or painting or cars are *probably* going to mention the fact that I
have a small child and/or am ttc. There really isn't any way around
it. I don't post that way to cause hurt to anyone but it's my life
and that's how I post it. If it's a specific Jen topic, I label it as
such, and I hope that any other parents would do the same.
Now, I can also say that I've been, at various times, where a lot of
other ANers have been. I've been at the pre-kid stage, I've had
infertility issues, I've lost a child, and I've had those times during
pg or early infancy where I *crave* non-baby talk that I can usually
find at AN. But I look at things a different way. I know our group.
I know who has kids and who is pg (well, usually!) and who is CF or
not ttc. If I'm having a day where I just can't take any pg talk, I
look at the thread and the posters and I can usually see where it's
going within a post or two. If it's too much for me, I skip it.
Period. It's not the fault of those posters that I'm having an off
day, and I would never tell someone to stop doing it because it's hard
for me.
I think everyone here needs to be tolerant and sensitive to the others
on the group - label your posts as best as you can, and if you want to
see the group talking about issues that you care about, then *start a
thread*!
kellie (who admits to feeling badly about posting things about J, yet
this is my closest group of friends and I would be sad if I couldn't
share a big part of my life with you all)
Gretchen
> Well, this is a hard discussion, and I've stayed out of it because
> with Robin's original post, I understood what she was saying/asking
> and didn't feel like I needed to add anything to that.
>
> But I think now it's starting to turn a bit, and is causing hurt to
> many people for different reasons (ttc'ers who are having a hard time,
> non-preggo/CFers who aren't interested in baby stuff, preggos who feel
> intimidated about discussing pg at all here, etc...), and it seems
> unnecessary.
>
> I, too, felt kind of hurt to read some of the responses in this thread
> (about too many baby/pg posts here), because honestly, I don't work
> outside the home now, Mark & I have worked out most of the "newlywed"
> issues that we have, I'm not in school, my pets are in good health,
> and I'm not having any family issues - so my posts are going to
> mention Jenna, because, well, that IS my job and it's a good portion
> of who I am and what I do now. Even topics like gardening or cooking
> or painting or cars are *probably* going to mention the fact that I
> have a small child and/or am ttc. There really isn't any way around
> it. I don't post that way to cause hurt to anyone but it's my life
> and that's how I post it. If it's a specific Jen topic, I label it as
> such, and I hope that any other parents would do the same.
I really feel where you are coming from here, Kellie. Being 37+ weeks
pregnant, my life is fairly well centered around the baby at this
point. Yeah, I'm still working, but without any real projects (why
give me a project just to let it sit for three months while I'm gone).
So I really didn't have anything of interest to post to the work
thread. After reading this thread, I started to wonder if my
impending birth annoucement would be seen as just "another baby
thread."
Gretchen
Jennifer from Colorado
<bar...@spamblock.ncf.ca> wrote:
>My proposed "solution" (though I don't tihnk it will be popular):
>I for one would prefer to see photo links updated on the AN website
>'chart of regulars' and not here -- or even if the sites are posted
>here, for people to send their "nice photos, he/she's so cute", etc.,
>responses privately. There's a lot of bandwidth being takne up with one
> liners, really, for all sorts of subjects. Personally, I like An
>because the posts are interesting, well written and generally say more
>than "me too"...
I like the idea of going ahead and posting photo updates here, but
having the responses go to e-mail. I know I generally skip the
responses to the photo threads.
Jennifer from Colorado
Michelle
>I am not feeling attacked or defensive.
Your posts don't reflect this.
>I would request that those of you who don't want to read about "baby talk" stop
>trying to make arguments about why it doesn't belong in this newsgroup or why
>it's not interesting or why people should start other threads.
I believe all of these types of threads were done in an attempt to say
"let's stop arguing about this" and go on to the regular AN schedule,
whatever that may be. As far as I can tell, they were not intended to
be insulting.
Michelle
Susan Behr MacDuffee
> I know that people will talk about baby stuff, post baby pix, etc. It's
> inevitable, given the newlywed status and age of a lot of the population of
> this group. But, 1) there are so many that I couldn't keep up with them if
> I wanted to, and 2) as we are having difficulty acquiring one of our own in
> the usual manner, it is Not A Happy Topic for me at the moment.
I try to keep up and I enjoy looking at the baby pictures. I mostly
just get the Jennifers and Sarahs mixed up :) Dave and I also are
having difficulty having/getting a child. I am sorry that it's not a
happy topic for you. It isn't really for me either, but I am still
happy for those that are parents.
--Susan
Susan Behr MacDuffee
> Well, I'm not part of the anpreg list since I'm not pg and don't
> intend to be for about another year or so. But, I loooove looking at
> all the baby pictures. I, for one, would be sad to see the picture
> announcements solely posted to an e-mail list.
I am not part of the group either since I can't get pregnant without
medical technology. I am part of the AN child decision group, only
because we may be childless even though we want a child. I too would
hate to see the picture posts move to the group. I like seeing all my
AN nieces and nephews.
My oldest RL nephew is going to be 18 years old tomorrow--yikes I feel
old.
--Susan
Susan Behr MacDuffee
> I think everyone here needs to be tolerant and sensitive to the others
> on the group - label your posts as best as you can, and if you want to
> see the group talking about issues that you care about, then *start a
> thread*!
Amen to that. I usually skip the cat threads unless it's someone
asking for well kitty vibes. I am not too good at starting threads,
but I like to participate if there is something that I am interested
in. I love to look at everyone's baby pictures and I like to hear
about their adventures. Some of the stories are so cute. I am a
person who has infertility issues. Even after I lost my third
pregnancy and my fallopian tubes, I was happy for people that were
getting pregnant. I guess I am one of the lucky ones. Maybe I can
start posting pictures of Lucy since I don't have a baby :) She's the
closest thing I have.
> kellie (who admits to feeling badly about posting things about J, yet
> this is my closest group of friends and I would be sad if I couldn't
> share a big part of my life with you all)
Please don't feel badly about talking about J. I feel the same way as
you do irt this group of people. Some I have met in real life, and
others just here but I still feel close to most of you.
--Susan
Buzzy Bee
wrote:
but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
>I really feel where you are coming from here, Kellie. Being 37+ weeks
>pregnant, my life is fairly well centered around the baby at this
>point.
I'm having a similar problem too. Being newly pregnant (after so long
of not being able to be and wanting to be) its pretty much an
obsession! Plus the problems of early pregnancy kind of mean it
impinges on *everything*.
It snuck into the music thread already, food threads make me nauseous,
mention of jeans reminds me I know longer fit mine, everything we do
is dictated by 'the baby', even though its the size of a tictac.
Speaking of which I know its going to get worse not better.
Megan
Kris Hildrum
>In article <al15fc$qdt$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>hil...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU says...
>
>> That said, it is sorta unfortunate that one cannot say what topics
>>one finds interesting without the possibility offending, but life sucks and
>>then you die.
>
>really am enjoying the work related threads" or "I have really enjoyed the
>how-often-you-wash-your-towels thread", I wouldn't be having a cow over
>that. That isn't offensive in the slightest.
No, now I'm all worried that I can't say "Gosh, the whole towels
stuff is dull." There. I've said it. I don't like reading about towels.
Now I should be relegated to the eight level of hell because I don't like
reading about towels and I had the gall to say so publically in a
newsgroup. Oops. Oh golly, maybe I should cancel this post. Yup, I
definately should. After all, I said I didn't like reading about how
often to change a towel, and I really don't want to hurt anyone's
feelings. Unfortunately, I won't be able to cancel the post becuase
people will still see it and reply to it anyway even if I cancel within
five minutes, and now people think I'm rude and terrible and won't like me
and will killfile me because I made the mistake of saying I don't like to
hear how often people leave their towels in the bathroom before changing
them......
Okay, so that was meant to be sorta funny in its absurdity, (and I don't
mind posts about towels, actually, and I do find them interesting) but
it's also meant to be sorta true, now I'll be watching my posts to be very
sure I don't say "topic X doesn't interest me," and if I did actually say
that I would ponder cancelling the post. That's what I meant by
unfortunate. But, life sucks and then you die. And having to make sure I
don't say "I'm not interested in X" is an extremeley minor degree of
suckage.
Kris
aMAZon
Susan Behr MacDuffee wrote:
I empathise with those who want a child but don't have one right
now -- only too well.
I can still be happy for the others who do manage to have their kids,
while giving a wistful thought to "what might have been" for me.
<sigh>
If there aren't pix links posted, I would never be able to keep
up with all my AN nieces and nephews! I like to see the kids.
--
aMAZon
zesz...@worldnet.att.net
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Teej
>In article <al0tr6$b97$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Teej says...
>>Actually, I think it was an attempt to put this to rest and invite
>>people to talk about other things. I'm sorry that you are feeling
>>attacked or defensive, but I really think that was not the intent.
>I am not feeling attacked or defensive.
Then perhaps I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts
are coming across rather hostile, I was assuming that was not your
intent.
>>Heck, technically, this is a newlywed group. That means married 1
>>year, right? So techincally most baby talk wouldn't belong here.
>Exactly what's the point of saying this, given that you go on to say that "baby
>talk" does belong here? The group charter or whatever states that ONLY talk
>about weddings is off-topic. So, as a *technical" matter,"baby talk" does
>belong here. Even if you want to do the "newlywed" argument, there are
>"newlyweds" here who:
The point is that this newsgroup has always been open to everything
and never limited itself to "newlywed" issues. Heck, I would suspect
more then 1/2 of the people on this list are not actually newly-wed!
So technically, most of what goes on here is probably off topic :-)
>I would request that those of you who don't want to read about "baby talk" stop
>trying to make arguments about why it doesn't belong in this newsgroup or why
>it's not interesting or why people should start other threads. It's insulting
>to those who write about "baby talk". Just skip the threads and start your own,
>or join the other threads (which do exist, despite your claims to the contrary)
>that don't involve "baby talk."
What is actually being said is that 1- baby talk threads should be
labled as such so that those that are not interested (and yes, some
people are not actually interested in things that interest other
people) don't have to read about it and 2- that the group still
maintain some diversity. Not all the people on this group are in the
same place in their lives and the group should reflect that.
To sum up, I don't think it is really the baby talk that is the issue.
The real issue is that posts should be labled to reflect the content
of the message and balance is a good thing and it is nice to see posts
about all sorts of things.
Whirligig Witch
<bu...@farr-nospam-montgomery.com> writes
>On 3 Sep 2002 06:00:20 -0700, gretch...@yahoo.com (Gretchen)
>wrote:
> but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
>
>>I really feel where you are coming from here, Kellie. Being 37+ weeks
>>pregnant, my life is fairly well centered around the baby at this
>>point.
>
>I'm having a similar problem too. Being newly pregnant (after so long
>of not being able to be and wanting to be) its pretty much an
>obsession! Plus the problems of early pregnancy kind of mean it
>impinges on *everything*.
That makes sense to me.
>
>It snuck into the music thread already, food threads make me nauseous,
>mention of jeans reminds me I know longer fit mine, everything we do
>is dictated by 'the baby', even though its the size of a tictac.
It's a big part of your life, and obviously you're going to run a whole
gamut of emotions, and experiences and you might want to talk about
them. I have always liked that this is the kind of group when anything
can be discussed and there is always someone else wanting to take part,
or responding if they can. RL friends can fall into groups, and there
are times when you want to talk to someone else and it's great that
there is AN to fill all sort of gaps, as well as being a great group in
general.
--
Whirligig Witch
Whirligig Witch
<gretch...@yahoo.com> writes
>gain...@juno.com (KellieGaines) wrote in message news:<b5a34900.0209022036.6aa
>1c...@posting.google.com>...
No. Well, definitely not to me and I'm the only person I can speak for.
I love hearing about new AN nieces and nephews. It's one of the reasons
I like this group - I get vicarious pleasure fromn reading about the
things that others like, are happy about - and I think it's great to
hear about others. I've addressed this reply to you , but it goes for
everyone - I like to listen/read to anythign that is important to anyone
on this group.
--
Whirligig Witch
lissi
Witch" <whirlig...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <73feb38b.0209...@posting.google.com>, Gretchen
> <gretch...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> <snip> After reading this thread, I started to wonder if my
>> impending birth annoucement would be seen as just "another baby
>> thread."
>
> No. Well, definitely not to me and I'm the only person I can speak for.
> I love hearing about new AN nieces and nephews. It's one of the reasons
> I like this group - I get vicarious pleasure fromn reading about the
> things that others like, are happy about - and I think it's great to
> hear about others. I've addressed this reply to you , but it goes for
> everyone - I like to listen/read to anythign that is important to anyone
> on this group.
I agree. I like reading the announcements, I usually look at the pictures
when links are posted, and even though I do like kids, I don't have any of
my own.
The only think I might complain about with the kids threads (and I think
this was brought up in an earlier post, but not in the same way) is when the
kids/photos/baby threads morph into something else. I don't read all the
replies to photo and baby threads (even work or vibe threads sometimes)
because its usually just to say congratulations or how cute the child is.
But then the threads will morph into something else which I would like to
read, but I've missed most of it because the thread subject didn't get
changed and I thought it was more chit chat about the kids. There's probably
nothing we can do about the "Thread Morphing" problem, except to just ask
that people change the subject lines.
Lissi
..
HollyLewis
>to pick a new kitchen color - I am very indecisive and can't visualize
>things well....)
Oooh, what fun! I love picking colors. Do you have 4 different shades of the
same general color, or are you choosing between blue, yellow, tan and orange?
:-)
Buying quarts is definitely the smart thing to do, so don't apologize! You'll
be much happier in the end if you buy as many different quarts as you need.
Plus, you'll have all that paint left over for fun little projects like
painting furniture. (As if you'll ever get around to that.) Or you can do a
sponge or rag technique with the not-quite-right shade over the base color you
ultimately choose.
Holly
donna
to Joy:
>> I also know that
>> there are active TTC'ers out there who, despite being happy for other
>> AN'ers, find it difficult to face that everybody seems to be prego except
>> them.
>
> I think that's the third group that is being forgotten here. There
> are those who have babies, those who don't have babies but also don't
> mind seeing, hearing, and reading about babies, and then there are
> those who are trying desperately to have one of their own with no
> success.
Okay, back from wherever it is I've been, and foolishly leaping in here
BUT having been in the suspected-infertility (and thus very appreciative
of adoption threads) group - I personally don't forget the third group. It
is in fact the only reason I don't really mind the "rule" of labeling
kid/preg/
baby threads (in all other cases, with the occasional exception of pets,
people are expected to figure out whether they're interested or not simply
from the subject line.) Because otherwise I'd have to just assume the "some
people may not be interested in reading about kids" lines really translate
into "some people really don't care about your life, donna, now that your
social life/job/family life is pretty much centered around your kid(s)." In
which case my response would be to say "in that case, please killfile me."
Humph. Probably harsher than I mean to be (putting the house back in
order post-vacation often makes me cranky and desirous of yet another
vacation ;) but it is the case that I self-sensor myself a fair amount on
this
group because of this issue. So in summary a) I don't think I forget those
TTCing, b) I agree with Cleo that "I'm bored of baby talk" statements hurt.
I don't mind if you don't read my posts - honest - but please, don't *tell*
me. ;)
donna
(not that I've had any posts for anyone to read - or not - for a while now.
;)
Rose Bingham
@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, donna says...
> Okay, back from wherever it is I've been, and foolishly leaping in here
Hey, Donna - was wondering about you recently. Nice to "see"
you again.
--
Rose
Teej
>No, you refuse to hear the issue that I (and even others) have talked about,
>which is that you (and others) have hurt some feelings by making statements that
>have given the impression that you don't want to hear about "baby talk."
>Those hurt feelings have been unacknowledged and mocked while you go on and on
>about "the real point."
>I'm ending this discussion on my part because there is no reason to continue a
>conversation where people refuse to listen, but you may feel free to have the
>last word.
>Cleo
I'm sorry, but I have to respond.
Where on earth have I given you the impression that I am anti-baby talk.
I have posted twice on this issue and below has been what I have said,
if you can show me how that supports your above statement, please let
me know and I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
So ifi asking people to label their threads to reflect the content of
their posts is hurtful, then people really need to have slightly
thicker skin!
(from the first post)
The fact is that it (baby talk) does and so does all sorts of other
things that might not techinally fit in a newlywed newsgroup. The
only request really seems to be that the subject line of the message
actually reflect the content of the message. That seems pretty
reasonable to me.
(from the second)
What is actually being said is that 1- baby talk threads should be
labled as such so that those that are not interested (and yes, some
people are not actually interested in things that interest other
people) don't have to read about it and 2- that the group still
maintain some diversity. Not all the people on this group are in the
same place in their lives and the group should reflect that.
To sum up, I don't think it is really the baby talk that is the issue.
The real issue is that posts should be labled to reflect the content
of the message and balance is a good thing and it is nice to see posts
about all sorts of things. --
Teej
http://www.panix.com/~teej
Jen in South Florida
The only people
> who have objected to baby talk are those who are TTC but not succeeding.
> And this group, far from finding it boring, uninteresting, or unimportant,
> simply finds it too painful to read.
>
> Kris
I guess this was all I was trying to say... In my own way, I was
trying to respond to Robin (the OP) commenting on all the
"finally, a thread I can participate in!" posts in the "work"
thread, and explain from another point of view why some AN'ers
would make a statement like that. Sorry to have caused such an
uproar by presenting different perspective. Now back to your
regularly scheduled AN.
Jen
Leslie Deak
On 2 Sep 2002, Cleo wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.44.020902...@pachabel.ednet.co.uk>,
> Hilary says...
> >
> >> >So, as a suggestion - could we start up some completely unrelated
> >> threads?
> >>
> >> Is something preventing you from starting such a thread? Or are you
> >> expecting others to do this for you?
> >
> >If you read down one message, you will find that I did exactly this. I
> >started it in a new message so the subject line would be relevant.
>
> Then *this* message had ZERO purpose, other than to rudely announce
> to the NG that threads related to babies and children are somehow
> unacceptable.
No, your message had zero purpose, other than to be obnoxious. Are you
aware that what you say publicly may be hurtful and rude? You might try to
practice what you preach. You'd be a lot more credible then.
-Leslie
Leslie Deak
On 2 Sep 2002, Cleo wrote:
> I had just started to think that maybe a.n. was a different kind of netgroup,
> one where people largely "live and let live", without getting all uptight about
> trivial crap like posting styles and the conversation-killer threads about
> how whatever's being posted is boring and mind-numbing to the masses.
Good lord, Cleo. Get off your high horse and realize that there are people
who disagree. Just because something is important to you, everyone should
listen with undivided attention?
> Or plotting their revenge-- please start new threads that I can mock as
> boring and irrelevant to my life.
Oh, yeah, that's a great way to go on.
-Leslie
Leslie Deak
On 2 Sep 2002, Cleo wrote:
> I said that I found what you said hurtful and rude. That is how your words
> affected me. I did not claim that you were intending to be hurtful and rude,
> or that there was some larger plan to make those of us with babies feel
> bad about talking about them here. I was merely trying to point out that
> your statement made me feel bad.
And as such, no one should say anything that makes anyone else feel bad?
I'm using a reasonable person standard here. That means that I try not to
say things that a reasonable person would find objectionable or hurtful
(not so sure how I'm doing). I can't be expected to watch my words to
protect the most sensitive of citizens, and will not do so. If you're so
easily hurt, maybe you should find some way to insulate yourself from
everyday conversation.
-Leslie
Leslie Deak
On 3 Sep 2002, Cleo wrote:
> >As far as I can tell, they were not intended to
> >be insulting.
>
> Screw intent, effect is the issue.
And as such, you are effectively coming across as a conceited jerk.
To me.
It doesn't matter what you *meant* to say.
-Leslie
Leslie Deak
On 3 Sep 2002, Cleo wrote:
> Well, given that I've somehow managed to get a Ph.D. and a law degree
> (while serving as a law review editor), functioned as a faculty member at
> two major universities for over 10 years, and have a number of other
> professional accomplishments, I think I'm doing pretty well without any
> insulation, thanks a lot.
Your argumentative insults belie your level of education.
-Leslie
ANCraziness
over in real life.
<<All those things are hurtful to me because they imply that people don't want
to hear about the most important thing in my life (not the only thing) and the
best experience of my life. The thread-labeling issue is an entirely different
one.>>
And you're the only one who counts. Your baby is the most important thing in
your life, so it has to be the most important thing in everyone else's life
too. It doesn't matter that there are others of us who find the baby threads
hurtful because we've been TTCing for nearly 4 years now with all the invasive
and emotional and physical trauma that involves. It doesn't matter that some
of us don't post here much anymore because 4 out of every 5 threads is baby
this and baby that and even when they're not labelled they morph into baby
threads. But of course OUR pain doesn't count. Only yours. It doesn't even
matter than no one anywhere has said that your baby isn't important to your
life or that we don't want to hear about it, just that we'd like to hear about
other things as well. Anyone who doesn't want to hear about your baby is a
jerk.
<<Are you familiar with the concept that your words (spoken publicly) affect
other people?>>
<<Screw intent, effect is the issue.>>
Ya, it sure is, isn't it?
Stop being such a self involved bitch, Cleo. There are others who participate
on this newsgroup too.
An AN Regular
Kris Hildrum
ANCraziness <ancra...@aol.com> wrote:
>too. It doesn't matter that there are others of us who find the baby threads
>hurtful because we've been TTCing for nearly 4 years now with all the invasive
>and emotional and physical trauma that involves. It doesn't matter that some
>of us don't post here much anymore because 4 out of every 5 threads is baby
>this and baby that and even when they're not labelled they morph into baby
>threads. But of course OUR pain doesn't count. Only yours. It doesn't even
I believe that every time Cleo has said what bothers her, the
first topic on her list is that someone said (or implied) that baby
threads are boring. (Which is not your case.) She then goes on to list
the "let's start other threads" as hurtful, and given that it's always
second, I suspect she only objects to the "let's start other threads"
because it makes her feel unwelcome to post baby stuff. Nothing Cleo has
said that I've read has been dismissive of your pain.
Second, since no one has done it yet, someone needs to flame me. (My
internal thesauras isn't working, so I can't find the right word for why I
should be flamed, so you'll all have to guess.)
I'll start:
Kris, you're a total *****. You act like such a total know-it-all,
and you're really annoying. I've so totally kill-filled your sorry little
explaining ass, and you should be relegated to the ninth level
of hell (or maybe it's the seventh--which is worth than eighth?) for your
smarmy annoying attitude.
Anything to add? A few insults to my appearance? My spelling/grammer
(which, I guess, constitutes my appearance on Usenet)?
Third:
I like pencils. I've gone through various phases of pencil fondness in my
life. (Wow, that sounds relaxual.)
For a while, I was into wooden ones. The problem is that it's mighty hard
to find a pencil sharpener around here, and my electric pencil sharpener
gives them really sharp tips that break off at the slightest use. Plus, I
always run out of eraser.
For a while, I really liked those twist-erase ones because they had a
2inch eraser. I like big erasers, since I erase a lot.
Then I discovered these big thick ones. The Stanford PhD ones and the
Sakura (Sumos?). Anyway, they are nice think mechanical pencils, so they
are always sharp, and they have big happy erasers. The problems are that
they are rather expensive, and as far as I know, you can't get replacement
erasers. :(
The other problem is that I always lose them. These days, I mostly use
whatever writing instrument comes to hand, whether that's a nice happy
pencil or a really annoying mechanical pencil, or gasp, a pen.
What about you? Any pencil preferences?
Kris
Rhiannon M. Adams
"ANCraziness" <ancra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020903210209...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> Yes I'm posting from an anonymous AOL account. I don't want to
get jumped all
> over in real life.
>
be able to post here without feeling that others will jump all
over them.
> And you're the only one who counts. Your baby is the most
important thing in
> your life, so it has to be the most important thing in everyone
else's life
> too. It doesn't matter that there are others of us who find
the baby threads
> hurtful because we've been TTCing for nearly 4 years now with
all the invasive
> and emotional and physical trauma that involves. It doesn't
matter that some
> of us don't post here much anymore because 4 out of every 5
threads is baby
> this and baby that and even when they're not labelled they
morph into baby
> threads. But of course OUR pain doesn't count. Only yours.
It doesn't even
> matter than no one anywhere has said that your baby isn't
important to your
> life or that we don't want to hear about it, just that we'd
like to hear about
> other things as well. Anyone who doesn't want to hear about
your baby is a
> jerk.
The pain of those dealing with IF absolutely counts. I don't
believe that Cleo said anywhere that it doesn't. I'm not
speaking for her, but I believe that she knows all to well what
the possibility and the reality of IF feels like. However, her
point is all to valid to those of us with children. Statements
such as "I'm bored with the baby talk", "Every thread is about
babies / morphs into babies" and "There is nothing here for
people without babies to talk about" do hurt. They do make us
reticent to share things about our little ones, or our lives in
general. When does "kid / baby ment" have to be put in a header.
Julie posted a weekend update a bit ago. I never would have put
"kid ment" in the header because it was about her weekend which
obviously included Amanda but it wasn't about Amanda. Is it
wrong for her to do so? No. Is it overly cautious? Perhaps.
Would it be wrong for me to write the same post but not put the
disclaimer in? I don't know, but I hope not. What I've
struggled with is how to stop the hurt from spreading.
There is definitely that third group and I am trying to be
particularly sensitive about their feelings. I can't imagine how
it would feel to be in their shoes. I've had conversations with
a few of them and know how actions that others have taken have
hurt them, even when the acting party never meant to. What I
fear is that I will choose not to post about Maddie anymore, and
Cleo will choose not to post about Noah, Holly about Camden,
Kellie about Jenna etc. etc. Then we'll have no one posting
about anything. And everyone will be hurt and will feel like AN
is not worth our time or effort. If ever there were an online
community that is worth our collective time and effort I think
this is it.
So, how do we make everyone happy? I think the obvious solution
has been stated over and over. Label threads that are about
specific subjects. If a thread morphs (and doesn't every thread
that doesn't die right away morph?) be a good neighbor and friend
and change the header. If you notice that a header hasn't
changed when it should have, change it. Even if you aren't
involved in the thread. I can only imagine that if Hilary (I
choose her only because she has posted in this thread
specifically about her trouble TTC) posts in a thread with a
title change and the only reason that she posts in that thread is
to change the title it will only take the rest of us a minute or
two to realize that we should have done so and a time or two to
remember to do so in the future. The general threads will have
to be sorted through by individual people and felt out for
content that each reader may be sensitive to/care about/not give
a rat's a** about.
>
> Stop being such a self involved bitch, Cleo. There are others
who participate
> on this newsgroup too.
There are. A lot of us feel the same way Cleo does, and a lot of
us feel the same way you do. I suspect an awful lot of us wish
this thread would go away and we could all just be friends
again...
Rhiannon
Teej
>"Heck, technically, this is a newlywed group. That means married 1
>year, right? So techincally most baby talk wouldn't belong here."
I was being facetious.
>>So ifi asking people to label their threads to reflect the content of
>>their posts is hurtful, then people really need to have slightly
>>thicker skin!
>I have not said that it is hurtful to ask people to label their threads. I have
>said, over and over again, that it is hurtful to say "I'm sick of babytalk" or
>these baby threads are boring or (as you did above) babytalk doesn't
>belong here. Or "let's start some non baby threads". All those things are
>hurtful to me because they imply that people don't want to hear about the
>most important thing in my life (not the only thing) and the best experience
>of my life. The thread-labeling issue is an entirely different one.
Actually, it has been the biggest issue and this is the first time
that I think you have acknowledged it as a valid issue.
>Yes, you continue to say that but that doesn't make it the case. That is
>*one* issue, but I am not talking about that. And the issue that I'm
>addressing DOES exist here, whether you have chosen to see it or not.
>Maybe you understand better now, and if you can't, I'm sorry that I can't
>make it any clearer than this: Imagine that you have discussed the most
>important thing in your life or the best experience of your life here, and
>were enjoying the discussions and finding a sense of community, when
>someone came along and said they were sick of what you are
>discussing, that stuff doesn't belong here, it's boring, let's start some
>threads about anything but that, etc etc.
Let's imagine this newsgroup as a party. Lets say I'm talking to 2
friends. They both have children. They start talking about baby
stuff. I excuse myself and go get a snack and let them continue
talking while I catch up with someone else. Was I rude to them? Did
I some how stop caring about them or their life? No. I just wasn't
interested in their conversation and I went off to find one that I
could participate in or enjoy more.
Isn't this group sort of like that? I'm happy for the moms, but
honestly, I don't feel like I have a point of reference for much of
the baby related issues. I can't understand the effort being put into
breast feeding. I don't know what it feels like to go back to work,
or be a SAHM. I have more time to read posts on my days off, and on
those day I tend to read everything, but when I'm working, I tend to
skim and look at the headers and read the posts that I think will be
relevant to me. If that hurts your feelings then I think you are
being a little unrealistic in your expectations of people.
I also think that this issue is not really one of baby threads. I
think any single subject dominating the newsgroup will make some
people feel like they don't fit. I'm sure some people would not be
happy if a great majority of the posts started off as or morphed into
pet threads or home cleaning threads or even work threads. I suspect
you wouldn't find it hurtful if someone said they were going to start
a non-pet thread. The baby thing pressed some button for you, and I
think you should realize that you are reading more into it then anyone
intended.
>All I wanted someone to do was acknowledge that this was hurtful,
>whether they intended it or not (and I thank you for your apology above).
I think that you should also acknowledge how hurtful many of your
posts were.
Sarah J
hear/read so many people talking right past each other, so here's my humble
submission:
> From: Cleo <Cleo_...@newsguy.com>
>
> No, you refuse to hear the issue that I (and even others) have talked about,
> which is that you (and others) have hurt some feelings by making statements
> that
> have given the impression that you don't want to hear about "baby talk."
> Those hurt feelings have been unacknowledged and mocked while you go on and on
> about "the real point."
Cleo, I really truly hear that you feel insulted by people saying that
they're tired of baby talk. If some topic was the central issue in my life
(like, say, being a parent) I'd want to talk about it a lot, and would
appreciate having other people to talk to about it. That's how I feel about
the whole grad student experience. When I get together with people who are
also students, we spend a lot of time talking about our field of study, our
department, doing homework, writing theses and dissertations... To me,
that's the main focus of my life, and has been for (way too many) years. At
the same time, I can totally see how many other people might find psychology
interesting in general but don't want to talk about it as often as I do.
There are other people, like me, for whom parenting seems like a pretty cool
thing, but it's just not so central. I do enjoy seeing baby pictures and
hearing kid updates, but lately it sometimes seems like AN is 75% baby/preg
talk (I'm sure that's not accurate, but it seems that way sometimes). That
means that 75% of threads are ones where I could comment about the kid's
cuteness but not add a whole lot more. So it's refreshing when new non-kid
posts spring up, because those are ones I can participate in more easily.
That *does not* mean that I think you (or other parents) are boring for
talking about what you're interested in. It means that *I* am bored because
I don't share that level of interest in babies.
It seems like you're saying that people should not be allowed to say what
things they're interested in. When you responded angrily because people
have said they want to read things other than baby threads, I actually felt
attacked. Why am I a bad person for wanting to talk about things other than
babies? What I like about AN is the tolerance for diversity, that we can
talk about grad school and babies along with cats and swiffers and
towel-laundering habits. So let's keep doing that, and make sure that we
label the threads accordingly.
Yes, I am also totally aware that I could start threads of my own, but I'm
shy and more of a reader than a poster, so I'm not very good at doing that.
Sarah
--
Sarah J in Milwaukee
Ducky Lawyer
> In article <al3o7n$d2u$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Teej says...
>
>
>>I think that you should also acknowledge how hurtful many of your
>>posts were.
>
>
>
> Cleo
>
Jumping in to help clarify -- on my newsserver, Teej's post quoted above
came first, then followed later by Cleo's responses and apology.
So, it might just be a matter of people's newsreaders picking up
messages at different times.
By the way and for the record, I'm sorry for any hurt I have caused (or
may have caused) to *anyone* by my comments. I thought that was clear
earlier, but a clear apology can't hurt, right?
--Barbara
Teej
>In article <al3o7n$d2u$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Teej says...
>>I think that you should also acknowledge how hurtful many of your
>>posts were.
>Um, I already did this.
Not when I posted this, and I appreciate you doing it.
Sarah J
> Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
> Newsgroups: alt.newlywed
> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 01:24:07 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: Baby pictures response LONG [non-baby, believe it or not]
> Third:
> I like pencils. I've gone through various phases of pencil fondness in my
> life. (Wow, that sounds relaxual.)
Hi, my name is Sarah (J. for those of you who can't tell us apart), I'm a
geek, and I like pencils too. :-)
> For a while, I was into wooden ones. The problem is that it's mighty hard
> to find a pencil sharpener around here, and my electric pencil sharpener
> gives them really sharp tips that break off at the slightest use. Plus, I
> always run out of eraser.
>
> For a while, I really liked those twist-erase ones because they had a
> 2inch eraser. I like big erasers, since I erase a lot.
These are my favorites. Those white erasers are so much better than the
gritty pink ones on wood pencils. I used to be able to buy a multi pack of
black Bic "Great Erase" pencils at office max, but they don't have them any
more. After looking all over the place, I found a few brightly colored
translucent ones overpriced at the university bookstore. I also bought
another that I think is a Sanford "titanium," which I've been using for the
past week. It also has the big twist-out eraser, and a slightly rubberized
grip area that's not too wide.
I have two absolute requirements for my mechanical pencils. First, I want
.7mm lead. The .5 breaks too easily and makes an unpleasant scratchy
feeling on the paper. Second, it has to have the fully retractable point,
so I don't end up with pencil lead embedded in my thigh from carrying my
pencil in my pants pocket. I hate the ones where just the lead retracts but
it's still really pointy.
> Then I discovered these big thick ones. The Stanford PhD ones and the
> Sakura (Sumos?). Anyway, they are nice think mechanical pencils, so they
> are always sharp, and they have big happy erasers. The problems are that
> they are rather expensive, and as far as I know, you can't get replacement
> erasers. :(
I have one Sanford PhD ballpoint/pencil/pda stylus combo, but the problem is
that I can never find those with .7 lead.
> The other problem is that I always lose them. These days, I mostly use
> whatever writing instrument comes to hand, whether that's a nice happy
> pencil or a really annoying mechanical pencil, or gasp, a pen.
Lovely thread, Kris! I appreciate your calmness and humor.
Ducky Lawyer
> Kris wrote
>>The other problem is that I always lose them. These days, I mostly use
>>whatever writing instrument comes to hand, whether that's a nice happy
>>pencil or a really annoying mechanical pencil, or gasp, a pen.
>
>
> Lovely thread, Kris! I appreciate your calmness and humor.
>
I can't help but add here: I don't really like pencils. I use them only
when needed (ie to 'pencil in' my tax return before finalising it), and
even then, I prefer 'regular' / traditional HB pencils, not mechanical
ones. I thin this relates back to my childhood, when a certain teacher
insisted that I M8ust* use pencil all the time, until my handwriting
improved dramatically, enough to earn "pen status" <shudder!>.
I guess I should be ignoring this thread, then, rather than getting
pissed off about others talking about pencils? <g,d,r!>
--Barbara (all in good fun, though I'm serious about prefering pens!)
Jennifer from Colorado
<bar...@spamblock.ncf.ca> wrote:
>Sarah J wrote:
>
>> Kris wrote
>>>The other problem is that I always lose them. These days, I mostly use
>>>whatever writing instrument comes to hand, whether that's a nice happy
>>>pencil or a really annoying mechanical pencil, or gasp, a pen.
>>
>>
>> Lovely thread, Kris! I appreciate your calmness and humor.
>>
>
>I can't help but add here: I don't really like pencils. I use them only
>when needed (ie to 'pencil in' my tax return before finalising it), and
>even then, I prefer 'regular' / traditional HB pencils, not mechanical
>ones.
See, I'm not a big pencil fan either, but when I have to use one, I
*really* prefer mechanical. Of course, most of the time I need a
pencil I'm at work and mechanical pencils (or "lead pencils" as my
kids call them) disappear within nanoseconds.
Jennifer from Colorado
Puester
>
>
> See, I'm not a big pencil fan either, but when I have to use one, I
> *really* prefer mechanical. Of course, most of the time I need a
> pencil I'm at work and mechanical pencils (or "lead pencils" as my
> kids call them) disappear within nanoseconds.
>
> Jennifer from Colorado
One year when I worked at the high school, my daughter and SIL
presented me, for a Christmas gag gift, a large "bouquet" of
20 pencils, each with an artificial flower sticking out just above
the eraser with the stem wound around the pencil, tightly wrapped
with tape.
These became borrow-able pencils in a vase on my desk.
Eventually the last one disappeared (Yes, some of the guys felt
a little funny using a pencil with a daisy sticking out of it
to do an advanced physics test.) but they did last almost three
years before the last one walked away. The kids were amused
for the most part.
gloria p
ANCraziness
concerned with only my own pain that I required others to conform to my
demands about what I spoke about and how I spoke about it and held
others hostage to my oh-so-great pain, >>
Apparently you do and you are, since asking people to talk about something else
in addition to talking about babies all the time causes you to insist others
conform to your demands about what they say and how they feel about babies. Or
don't you think that your demands that others not say that they find incessant
talk about babies to be frustrating isn't holding others hostages to your
oh-so-great pain?
Your apology comes too little too late after hte name calling and selfishness
you've displayed in this thread, IMO.
Sherry
Cleo wrote:
>
>
>
> Screw intent, effect is the issue.
It sounds a lot like you are blaming the abused for the abuse. Your
belittling, reactionary remarks throughout this thread are a form of
emotional abuse. Should everyone walk on eggshells around you afraid of
what is going to set you off next?
Sherry
Buzzy Bee
<bar...@spamblock.ncf.ca> wrote:
but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
>By the way and for the record, I'm sorry for any hurt I have caused (or
>may have caused) to *anyone* by my comments. I thought that was clear
>earlier, but a clear apology can't hurt, right?
>
While we're at it I'll apologise for being upset about the thread in
the first place, because that seems to offended some people as well.
Megan
Buzzy Bee
<jentifre...@spamcop.net> wrote:
but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
>See, I'm not a big pencil fan either, but when I have to use one, I
>*really* prefer mechanical. Of course, most of the time I need a
>pencil I'm at work and mechanical pencils (or "lead pencils" as my
>kids call them) disappear within nanoseconds.
I'll stick my hand up for mechanical pencils. I have a particularly
nice Dr Grip one that I bought in Japan (along with a matching
ballpoint pen, but I prefer fibre tips on pens). My problem is not so
much kids walking off them but Councillors. I keep it in my desk
drawer :-)
Megan
donna
> Hey, Donna - was wondering about you recently. Nice to "see"
> you again.
Thanks. :) And it's especially nice to be "seen" in a way that doesn't
require me brushing my hair (I cut it again recently, back to my mop)
and showing off my panty lines* as I try to fit my much too large body
into my old maternity clothes. I know I'm carrying less passengers
than some (congratulations!) but I'm already seeing that appalled
look in some passerby's faces where they fear I'm going to explode
right in front of them. :P
donna
(*) Sorry to tease based on an old thread, but the first time I noticed
I couldn't help laughing knowing that I'd hit a pet peeve of several a.n.
friends. I _did_ miss my a.n. fix while away. :)
Kris Hildrum
Ducky Lawyer <bar...@spamblock.ncf.ca> wrote:
>> Kris wrote
>>>The other problem is that I always lose them. These days, I mostly use
>>>whatever writing instrument comes to hand, whether that's a nice happy
>>>pencil or a really annoying mechanical pencil, or gasp, a pen.
>>
>
>when needed (ie to 'pencil in' my tax return before finalising it), and
>even then, I prefer 'regular' / traditional HB pencils, not mechanical
>ones. I thin this relates back to my childhood, when a certain teacher
>insisted that I M8ust* use pencil all the time, until my handwriting
>improved dramatically, enough to earn "pen status" <shudder!>.
I never really understood the argument that "Your handwriting must
be good for you to use a pen."
Still, though, I like the ability to erase with a pencil. And I
think the pencil is less...bold. More subtle, more like whispering than
shouting. And doodling is more fun with a pencil, since you can control
the depth of color. You can have very light shading, medium shading, or
very dark shading. Pens you have to just try for those effects by using
differing densities of crosshatching. (All I generally doodle is
geometric shapes, so no one should be imagining any artwork here.)
Kris
Michelle
<jentifre...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>However, I have noticed that lately a.n. has been largely about baby
>stuff. I normally don't mind at all, and generally read the threads
>anyway as DH and I would like to try for one of our own before too
>long. Lately, though, I haven't seen much to respond to and the few
>posts I have made largely do not get responded to themselves. It's not
>so much that I feel unwelcome, more that it causes me to wonder some
>if it's time for me to move on. Yes, I know I could start some threads
>of my own, but for some reason they don't go real far (if anyone can
>tell me why, I'd appreciate it--I really am pretty socially dense).
I know what you mean. For me, it's just that my current interests
don't match the ones of the people here, so even if I started a thread
on motorcycle riding, I won't get much of a response. Like you, I
don't feel unwelcome, I just feel that I don't relate to what's going
on as much as I did before. I still check in because I like the people
here, but I rarely start threads of my own anymore. There's nothing
really wrong about that. It's just a natural thing. One cannot force
conversation to be about something else when no one wants to talk
about that.
I don't usually pay much attention to who posts about what, so I can't
tell why your posts might not get responded to. Just wanted to let you
know I sometimes feel the same way you do about what's going on.
Michelle
Rose Bingham
> >I can't help but add here: I don't really like pencils. I use them only
> >when needed (ie to 'pencil in' my tax return before finalising it)
I hate using pen / paper at all. If there's anyway to do it on
the computer I'll do that first. And I *never* use a pencil.
Ever. Hate them. (Sorry, Kris. ;-) Even when doing taxes, I
use pen and just print more than a few copies of the forms. I
also don't like having to use a red pen to sign something (or
whatever). It just seems wrong to write in red. And it really
bugs me to fill out deposit slips or anything else monetary in
red. It must be a throwback to my accountant days (and no, I
didn't even use pencils when I was in accounting). Just don't
want to associate red ink with numbers. <g>
--
Rose
Rose Bingham
Michelle says...
> I know what you mean. For me, it's just that my current interests
> don't match the ones of the people here, so even if I started a thread
> on motorcycle riding, I won't get much of a response.
>
Well, for the record, I'm jealous. <g>
--
Rose - who used to be that adventurous...
Kris Hildrum
Rose Bingham <rg...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I hate using pen / paper at all. If there's anyway to do it on
>the computer I'll do that first. And I *never* use a pencil.
So, actually, I prefer to type stuff myself, in general. But when
I'm doing research stuff, I end up either doing math, or drawing pictures,
which I can't do very well with a computer. (Though once I understand
something fairly well, I've taking to typing it up rather quickly.) And
if I really want to think, I sometimes get a temptation to use a white
board.
And it's actually only when taking a written test that I get
really picky about my writing instruments.
Kris
And now I'll hate you forever because you don't like pencil.