Delurk and disappointment
non...@my-deja.com
chuckles out of your posts for the most part, I am disappointed that a
*few* of you seem to delight in being disruptive in other groups, and
on some people's message boards :(
For the record, I am childfree by choice, and very content with my
decision. However, I don't view the world as a place solely for
chilllldrennnn, of which I or anyone else must fight against.
I lurked here, hoping that this would be a good place to find
support, and to vent when family and friends seem clueless to my
decision to remain childfree. However, the tactics of *some* of you
leaves much to be desired. *Going back to lurk mode, hoping it gets
better :)*
Thanks for listening,
Lynn
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lizzie
> I've lurked in here for a little while, and although I have gotten some
> chuckles out of your posts for the most part, I am disappointed that a
> *few* of you seem to delight in being disruptive in other groups, and
> on some people's message boards :(
I'm not comfortable with posting in other people's groups, either. We don't
appreciate trolls here, so I am not at ease with the trolling in other
people's groups (even if they *are* wrong <grin>). I think it ends up
inviting trolls to come in here and fire back.
As one of the unchilded, I also have to fight the stereotype of "evil
child-hating bitch" on a near-daily basis. Some of the stuff that happens
here just seems to promote the stereotype, and as is the norm with any
minority group the more extreme behavior gets noticed while the more
moderate views fall by the wayside.
It's just my opinion, and many will not agree, but I feel that if the
childfree life is to ever be regarded as a valid and accepted life choice
we need to do a better job of working from within the current system to
bridge the gap between us and the childed, not scare them off with vitriol.
Just my $.02
Liz
Cat O'Blivion
> It's just my opinion, and many will not agree, but I feel that if the
> childfree life is to ever be regarded as a valid and accepted life choice
> we need to do a better job of working from within the current system to
> bridge the gap between us and the childed, not scare them off with vitriol.
I agree that activism within the current system is necessary if we're
going to take back some kind of self-determined adult power in this
society. I'm not necessarily sure that the "gap" can be bridged, but
perhaps mutually agreed upon terms can be hammered out, or
something.
However, I think it's important to recognize that living in a world
which does not validate one's life choices can be a bitter and
unpleasant experience at times. Some people have higher tolerances
than others for this, but in many cases, anger and resentment does
build up. IMHO, it's vital to have a safe place to vent these negative
emotions and a support group where others at least understand
where you're coming from, because out in the real world it's not
safe to express certain feelings (particularly about children) and of
those few who understand the bitterness, fewer still will publically
demonstrate empathy for it.
This group serves an absolutely necessary function as one of the
few places in a sometimes-aggressively pronatalist culture where
it is acceptable to vent about parental "entitlement", atrociously-
behaved children and the childproofing of society, among other
things. I think a lot of what gets perceived as "child hating" in
here is merely accumulated pressure being released all at once.
This pressure release, as scary and upsetting as it may be to
parents, breeders and more moderate childfrees alike, is
absolutely necessary to preserving the venter's mental health
sometimes.
There is a time and a place to worry about scaring the childed
away with our "vitriol", but IMHO, this newsgroup should not
be it. Especially since the childed have no business being here
in the first place. :-) My opinion of trolling parental groups is
the same as when they troll us; it's annoying and unacceptable,
but I do grant style points on the rare occasion when it's done
well.
Perhaps, as others have suggested, there should be a group
specifically for bridge-building between the childed and the
childfree. I suspect, though, that the majority of parents are
more interested in changing our minds than bridging any gaps,
but that could just be because I'm a cynic and few of the
parents that I've met have any interest in changing a system
that's set up to benefit them. You're welcome to try, though.
Cat
--
"The horror did me good, the magic was on my side" (Tones on Tail)
Cat O'Blivion http://www.vineyard.net/~sgorton/cat
- to reply, remove the attic from the madwoman -
IleneB
Hi, and welcome!
I'll speak for myself (although I think others might agree) but I
cannot stand it when someone from this group goes to other groups or
boards just to mouth off. We don't like it here, and there's just no
point. There's certainly no shortage of people on the Internet I don't
agree with/don't respect/don't like their lives/etc. but do not feel
compelled (or even politely allowed) to jump and and sound off. There
are, like in any group, people whose posts I ignore here. It's like the
crazy aunt you keep chained up in the attic.
My personal goal in this group, besides the *delightful* connections
and exchanges, is to make more space in the world for CF-ers and
would-be CF-ers to have a vocabulary, a place in the world, and even a
home. Since there are so few such places for CF-ers, I dearly wish
people with negative agendas would just go away and stop bothering
other groups and people.
However, lurking elsewhere for private email humor is a sacrament!
Ilene B
david hayes
we should respect theirs.
--dph.
Mallory O'Brien
Sorry, but I don't consider sage advice to teenage girls trolling.
Normally, I stay off of parenting boards, but these girls needed some
wisdom.
Next time, read my posts before you judge.
Mallory
On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 14:07:20 GMT, non...@my-deja.com wrote:
>I've lurked in here for a little while, and although I have gotten some
>chuckles out of your posts for the most part, I am disappointed that a
>*few* of you seem to delight in being disruptive in other groups, and
>on some people's message boards :(
Lizzie
<389C6ED9...@attic.mindspring.com>...
>
> There is a time and a place to worry about scaring the childed
> away with our "vitriol", but IMHO, this newsgroup should not
> be it. Especially since the childed have no business being here
> in the first place. :-) My opinion of trolling parental groups is
> the same as when they troll us; it's annoying and unacceptable,
> but I do grant style points on the rare occasion when it's done
> well.
>
Sorry, Cat - I wasn't referring to the vitriol here as being a problem, I
was thinking more along the lines of when it spills over into other
people's newsgroups, web sites, and the Real World(tm) at large.
I realize that people need a safe space to vent and that safe space is
here, although sometimes the posts make me cringe (and laugh at the same
time <grin>). And I'm really starting to enjoy bashing the trolls, though
I don't do nearly as good a job of it as Swan does.
Sorry for the confusion in my original post - I wasn't as clear as I
could've been.
I guess what I'm worried about is that the validity of the message - that
the sprogs have taken over the planet and there is something seriously
wrong with our culture - is going to get lost in the hullalabaloo that
occurs when parents and the unchilded start flaming (or whatever flaming
comes out to be in non-cyber-space) each other.
I think that they're more likely to ignore what we're really trying to say
and write us off as a bunch of freaks the more vehement we get about it.
Not that I'm suggesting we all roll over and just take it, I just wonder if
there is an optimum decibel level that will get us heard AND get us taken
seriously......
Liz
argentine penguin
My sympathy on being disappointed ....
A *rare* few seem to have all the vitriol of breeder-moomies.
The overall advice has been great, and most of the vents
have been appropriately on-target; hopefully that will win out.
-Mb
Musketaquid
IleneB <ile...@shore.net> wrote:
(excerpt)
> I'll speak for myself (although I think others might agree) but I
> cannot stand it when someone from this group goes to other groups or
> boards just to mouth off. We don't like it here, and there's just no
> point. There's certainly no shortage of people on the Internet I
don't
> agree with/don't respect/don't like their lives/etc. but do not feel
> compelled (or even politely allowed) to jump and and sound off. There
> are, like in any group, people whose posts I ignore here. It's like
the
> crazy aunt you keep chained up in the attic.
>
> My personal goal in this group, besides the *delightful* connections
> and exchanges, is to make more space in the world for CF-ers and
> would-be CF-ers to have a vocabulary, a place in the world, and even a
> home. Since there are so few such places for CF-ers, I dearly wish
> people with negative agendas would just go away and stop bothering
> other groups and people.
>
Well said, Ilene (especially the aunt part; I have a BIL whose well on
the way to that status....). It angers me when people troll,
regardless of whether or not I normally agree with their views. It's
just plain disrespectful; I look to this ng as a means of GAINING
respect and support, not seeing a lack thereof displayed towards other
groups. Bad netiquette such as this only reinforces the stigma that
we're all bitter, malicious child-haters with an agenda. Definitely not
the way to cultivate CF acceptance!
Having said that, this IS one of the few (if not the only) places to
vent frustrations over the prevalence of bad parenting/hellish children
and the negativity surrounding those who choose to be CF. So, I
embrace those exchanges which serve that purpose.
-Musketaquid (who wants CFers to be seen as normal, well-adjusted
individuals who simply decided, for various reasons, not to have
children. Period.)
NotEasy2BGreen
>Hi, and welcome!
>I'll speak for myself (although I think others might agree) but I
>cannot stand it when someone from this group goes to other groups or
>boards just to mouth off.
I agree with you. Stirring up trouble in other newsgroups is in bad taste.
su...@webtv.net
I want to apologize for my behavior,from a week ago or so.
I was the one that came in and jumped on everyone for what I perceived
as "childhaters".
I guess I was shocked at some of the posts.
I have been reading many posts from all of you since then, and have a
much better understanding of where many of you are coming from..
I am a parent of one child(our choice)he is almost 13 yrs.He is
kind,compassionate,and most of all very respectful. Hubby and I have
worked very hard at this..(our choice..).
I came to realize that I actually have much more in common with this
group than I thought..!!
I also hate misbehaved, whiny, out of control children..it is not
okay..I hate it when people have children for stupid reasons(this makes
them stupid..!!)there is far to much bad parenting going on in this
world. I hate when people bring their kids to places where kids do not
belong and they are disruptive..!!! I could go
on and on...I guess what I am trying to say is, I truly respect your
choice, and if there is anything I can to do to help you in your beliefs
, I would be happy to do so..
Thanks for listening
Susan
Noelle Gresham
su...@webtv.net wrote in message
<1669-389...@storefull-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>I want to apologize for my behavior,from a week ago or so.
>snip<
>I have been reading many posts from all of you since then, and have a
>much better understanding of where many of you are coming from..
>snip<
>on and on...I guess what I am trying to say is, I truly respect your
>choice, and if there is anything I can to do to help you in your beliefs
Well...I hope you don't get toasted too crisply in response to this. Apology
accepted, but perhaps you might have lurked a little longer and not jumped
in so hastily to judge us. Things make a little more sense when you let the
logic and reason kick in and ramp down the knee-jerk emotional response.
Lizzie
<1669-389...@storefull-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> Hello,
> I want to apologize for my behavior,from a week ago or so.
> as "childhaters".
I think you are the first troll to apologize on this board - it's a step in
the right direction.
Apology accepted on my part, but there are many others here who probably
won't.
In addition, you are a declared parent, which for some is enough to chase
you off the newsgroup.
If you would really like to "help the cause", please realize that there are
as many different reasons for being childfree as there are people, and as
with any other group judging them without understanding them is not an
optimal way to deal with people.
Liz
Cranky
<1669-389...@storefull-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
su...@webtv.net wrote:
>Hello,
>I want to apologize for my behavior,from a week ago or so.
>I was the one that came in and jumped on everyone for what I
perceived
>as "childhaters".
Wow, I guess WebTV spanked you pretty good, then. But seriously,
apology accepted. At least you offer one, which is an extremely
unusual thing for a troll to do.
Now go and troll no more.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jacqueline
I think you have already shown your true colours, haven't you?
Remaining childfree is not simply a "belief" any more than having a child is
a "belief". What do you think this word means?
If you want to help us you can stop talking about us on the *other*
newsgroup.
Oh, and by the way, leave your alcoholic husband so you and your child can
get along with your own lives unfettered by that burden. Do that last one
for yourself.
Jacqueline
Sometimes there needs to be more chlorine thrown into the gene pool.
<su...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1669-389...@storefull-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> I guess what I am trying to say is, I truly respect your
> choice, and if there is anything I can to do to help you in your beliefs
su...@webtv.net
Thank you for your response and input.
I do realize that I am not overwhelmingly accepted in this newsgroup,
but as I said I came to a much clearer understanding of how many of you
feel in this world.I am a woman of integrity and fully admit when I have
been wrong.
Susan
Taptotap
>group than I thought..!!
>I also hate misbehaved, whiny, out of control children..it is not
>okay..I hate it when people have children for stupid reasons(this makes
>them stupid..!!)there is far to much bad parenting going on in this
>world. I hate when people bring their kids to places where kids do not
>belong and they are disruptive..!!! I could go
>choice, and if there is anything I can to do to help you in your beliefs
>, I would be happy to do so..
>Susan
>
I agree with you, Susan. I have been lurking here for about a year. I have
read the FAQ's and try very hard to abide by the "no parent" rule. It's too
bad though, because I would like to let these folks know that I agree with a
lot of what they post. You don't have to be childfree to detest the behavior
of children or stupid parents.
Also, reading this board helps me to keep my kids in check even more. I now
realise that there are people who do not want to be bothered with or by kids
and I may have been a little lax in that area at one time. My eyes have been
opened, so to speak, and I respect your decisions to not have or want children.
Being here does not mean I regret my choice because I don't, but I learn more
about being a good parent here than I do at parenting boards. Over there, kids
do no wrong and are always cute and loveable, etc. I also get links to many
interesting sites here!
If you would be more open to certain types of people, you may find that you can
have some very interesting discussions.
Okay, back to lurkdome! :)
Robin
IleneB
Don't think so. BZTTTT Thank you for playing.
In article <20000207120708...@ng-cl1.aol.com>, Taptotap
Mark Langsdorf
Mallory O'Brien wrote in message <389ca1cb...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>Sorry, but I don't consider sage advice to teenage girls trolling.
>Normally, I stay off of parenting boards, but these girls needed some
>wisdom.
From where I sat, it didn't look like wisdom. It looked like
bragging. If you had posted a similar thing to a "potential teen
parenting" board, that would have looked like advice.
>Next time, read my posts before you judge.
I read your post. I thought it was unnecessary trolling.
-Mark Langsdorf
(apparently a hypocritical yabbutter)
Cranky
wrote:
>I've lurked in here for a little while, and although I have
gotten some
>chuckles out of your posts for the most part, I am disappointed
that a
>*few* of you seem to delight in being disruptive in other
groups, and
>on some people's message boards :(
Well, FWIW, the people who choose to do that sort of thing are in
the minority.
> For the record, I am childfree by choice, and very content
with my
>decision. However, I don't view the world as a place solely for
>chilllldrennnn, of which I or anyone else must fight against.
But it's nice to have a place to vent about kids without being
looked upon as some sort of deviant or yabutted to death. I can
speak only for myself, but I'm easily annoyed. Not just by kids,
but by a lot of things. I'm glad to know I have a place to go and
bend a few ears after listening to that shrieking child for the
duration of my stay in the grocery store/mall/etc. and its parent
is doing nothing to assuage the situation. Fortunately that
doesn't happen to me often, but when it does, I come here to
bitch about it. I could say something to the child's parent(s),
but I'd just get a dirty look at best or a sound verbal
dismembering (I've had this happen). So I have to hold it in.
> I lurked here, hoping that this would be a good place to find
>support, and to vent when family and friends seem clueless to my
>decision to remain childfree.
It is. How long have you lurked? Long enough to be following the
threads started by El Kabong? That's only one example, but most
of us are more than happy to lend an ear and to demonstrate the
"support" part of the newsgroup's name. If you would like to see
a particular topic discussed, start a thread on it. Most
people here would be glad to jaw about it. Sure, it's easier to
complain about the fact that the topics aren't up to snuff in
your opinion, but that doesn't solve much, does it?
However, the tactics of *some* of
you
>leaves much to be desired.
Sorry you feel that way.
*Going back to lurk mode, hoping it
gets
>better :)*
>Thanks for listening,
>Lynn
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Taptotap
My post was for all of you, I was just agreeing with Susan.
>You could have posted this in a newsgroup the two of you frequent, or
>some other parenting group she posts in.
I don't know her and I don't belong to any parenting groups. Like I said, it
was for this group.
>And they wonder why we don't want them here
Not really. I just didn't think one post (okay, two now, would upset you that
much). I'm not going to post anymore.
Robin
Larisa Migachyov
> In article <20000207120708...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
> > I agree with you, Susan. I have been lurking here for about a year. I
> > have read the FAQ's and try very hard to abide by the "no parent" rule.
> And yet you felt it was ok to break it now.
> You could have emailed this to her privately.
> No, that would have been following the rules.
> You could have posted this in a newsgroup the two of you frequent, or
> some other parenting group she posts in.
> No, that would have been following the rules.
> Feh.
> And they wonder why we don't want them here
I think that rude responses will drive away potential supporters - what do
you think this woman's reaction will be now to encountering a childfree
person in the workplace? If this group is to act as a catalyst for social
change, being rude to potential supporters- whatever their parental status
- is going to guarantee that pronatalism will stay alive and well.
--
Larisa Migachyov
Quaternion Press Publishing House
Have a math question? Ask the Quaternion at
http://www.quaternionpress.com/mathhelp.html
IleneB
Amen. Every time I've seen a new poster come in with a reasonable CF
question (not a parent-type) people have enthusiastically and
thoughtfully answered in spades.
llene B
In article <1bdc5a39...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>, Cranky
Heather Murphy
Apology accepted, Susan, and I'm glad you're seeing some of our point of
view.
Come on, folks, let's give this woman a break. She's probably never heard
of childfreedom before, and she didn't express herself in the way we might
like... but I think she's trying to make good.
Of course, that's just my opinion. Feel free to ignore it. Most people do.
Heather
su...@webtv.net
Thank You.
I really had, never heard of childfree.I never gave it much thought.
Everyone I know, has children, or at least going to have children
I honestly have been very enlightened by this past 8 days.
I will not post any more, but at least I can say I am a better person
because of what I learned from this group.I know some people could care
less ,and the feeling is mutual.
We are perfectly content with our life the way we wanted it and god
intended it to be for me and my family.
Susan
George Dau
]
]Apology accepted, Susan, and I'm glad you're seeing some of our point of
There was nothing in Robin's post that I didn't like. It wasn't like a
troll post which we have been getting too many of. It was just a
comment. Jumping on someone for that is too hard. We need to get on
with others, at least to some extents. Esp when the others are giving
us a pat, which Robin was.
Ok, the charter warns parents not to post here, and they get flamed as
the FAQ warns them. We childfree folk do need to be a bit social as
well though.
apf
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Taptotap wrote:
>
>> I agree with you, Susan. I have been lurking here for about a year. I have
>> read the FAQ's and try very hard to abide by the "no parent" rule.
>
>Well, many of us lurk in the parenting groups and even though it's haaarrd to not
>troll there, most of us do manage to restrain ourselves. Why can't you offer us
>the same courtesy?
Susan has admitted she was wrong and apologized. I don't think a parent
posting an apology and respect for our choice is trolling, but from the
reactions I'm reading something must have happened during my 1 1/2 years'
absence from this ng to crank up the hostility levels even further! (I stopped
all usenet activity some time before SWSNBN departed).
>> Also, reading this board helps me to keep my kids in check even more.
>
>I'm glad you're getting something out of it, but please go back to lurking. This
>is a childfree group, and you are not welcome here.
>
>>I respect your decisions to not have or want children.
>
>Gee how patronizing. Thanks!
I thought what we all wanted was for our decisions to be respected.
>> If you would be more open to certain types of people, you may find that you can
>> have some very interesting discussions.
>
>Out in the real world, yes. Here, no.
>
>Buh bye.
I didn't see what Susan said in the first place as I haven't got time to read
the threads whose titles don't intrigue me. It is also fair enough not to want
any parents participating in this group (when was that decided btw? I remember
more than one who seemed to me to fit in fine and I don't mean Frank of
Blessed Bridget!) But it seems terribly graceless to throw back an apology in
someone's face :-( Just my opinion.
Stephie
apf
>> Feh.
>
>> And they wonder why we don't want them here
>
>I think that rude responses will drive away potential supporters - what do
>you think this woman's reaction will be now to encountering a childfree
>person in the workplace? If this group is to act as a catalyst for social
>change, being rude to potential supporters- whatever their parental status
>- is going to guarantee that pronatalism will stay alive and well.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Stephie
Voris Tracy Van
> I agree with you, Susan. I have been lurking here for about a year. I have
> bad though, because I would like to let these folks know that I agree with a
> lot of what they post. You don't have to be childfree to detest the behavior
> of children or stupid parents.
Take it to private e-mail, then. We aren't all ogres. I have had plenty
of private e-conversations with parents; sometimes these are wonderful
interactions, sometimes they are not. Communication: that's what global
networking is all about, right?
> Also, reading this board helps me to keep my kids in check even more. I now
> realise that there are people who do not want to be bothered with or by kids
> and I may have been a little lax in that area at one time. My eyes have been
> opened, so to speak, and I respect your decisions to not have or want
> children.
I appreciate the sentiment, but bear in mind that we do what we do and say
what we say because WE choose to - NOT because others have deigned to give
us their permission or respect or blessing.
> Being here does not mean I regret my choice because I don't, but I learn
> more about being a good parent here than I do at parenting boards. Over
> there, kids do no wrong and are always cute and loveable, etc. I also
> get links to many interesting sites here!
Well, we aren't here to provide you with entertainment, nor are
we here to educate you, nor are we here to be role models,
nor are we asking for anyone's blessings for our personal choices; but if
you find value in lurking, that's super for you. If you lurk for any
length of time, you will also know which regulars would be willing to talk
with you and which regulars will have nothing but contempt for you.
That's the way the cookie crumbles.
T.
Charleen Bunjiovianna
>I've lurked in here for a little while, and although I have gotten some
>chuckles out of your posts for the most part, I am disappointed that a
>*few* of you seem to delight in being disruptive in other groups, and
>on some people's message boards :(
>decision. However, I don't view the world as a place solely for
>chilllldrennnn, of which I or anyone else must fight against.
>support, and to vent when family and friends seem clueless to my
>leaves much to be desired. *Going back to lurk mode, hoping it gets
>better :)*
I'd be sympathetic if I hadn't seen messages like this on newsgroups
that have nothing to do with CFness. I'm getting more than a little tired
of "Some of you people aren't the way *I* want you to be" messages.
Too frickin bad, I say. The childfree aren't any more homogenous than
any other self-selected group of people.
There's no free ride, Lynn. We're not here to entertain you. Lurkers are
entitled to no special approve-or-condemn privileges, something that many
of them fail to realize. If you want to shape the character of a newsgroup,
you participate. You contribute. If you don't care for disruption of other
message boards, don't disrupt them. If you don't care for someone's postings,
don't read them. There are always going to be people here you don't agree
with.
Charleen
apf
wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Being here does not mean I regret my choice because I don't, but I learn
>> more about being a good parent here than I do at parenting boards. Over
>> there, kids do no wrong and are always cute and loveable, etc. I also
>> get links to many interesting sites here!
>
>Well, we aren't here to provide you with entertainment, nor are
>we here to educate you, nor are we here to be role models,
>nor are we asking for anyone's blessings for our personal choices;
Although people aren't here to ask for anyone's blessings for their personal
choices, it seems to me that many of us are here because of a distinct lack of
said blessings (aka support) from our families and friends. So it is
reasonable to assume that we would appreciate it when there is an exception to
that, and a stranger is actually supportive of our choice.
Stephie
hereti...@my-deja.com
"Lizzie" <Green...@worldnet.spamless.att.net> wrote:
> Cat O'Blivion <chemic...@attic.mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <389C6ED9...@attic.mindspring.com>...
snip
> Sorry, Cat - I wasn't referring to the vitriol here as being a
problem, I
> was thinking more along the lines of when it spills over into other
> people's newsgroups,
So what? Vitriol from other ngs ends up here often. Ignore it
as much as possible.
> web sites, and the Real World(tm) at large.
well, vitriol in the Real World doesn't need us as a vector or
a catalyst.
> I realize that people need a safe space to vent and that safe space is
> here, although sometimes the posts make me cringe (and laugh at the
same
> time <grin>).
Ah, yes. Just as Sigmund noted.
> And I'm really starting to enjoy bashing the trolls,
though
> I don't do nearly as good a job of it as Swan does.
Swan rules flames. She is the cyberPele.
> Sorry for the confusion in my original post - I wasn't as clear as I
> could've been.
>
> I guess what I'm worried about is that the validity of the message -
that
> the sprogs have taken over the planet and there is something seriously
> wrong with our culture - is going to get lost in the hullalabaloo that
> occurs when parents and the unchilded start flaming (or whatever
flaming
> comes out to be in non-cyber-space) each other.
But don't you see, they REFUSE to acknowledge that they are the
ones fouling the nest. See 'the tragedy of the commons' for an
excellent analysis. Overpopulation was warned about when I was
a child, fergawdsake. But everyone thinks that THEY are so
SPECIAL that everyone else has to DIE to make room for THEM<
and the fucktrophy is an attempt to make sure that you can be
a greedy resourcepig after you DIE! Note who is the loudest about
"It's for the CHILLLDDDRUNNN" the yuppies who get an SUV, demand that
they get more tax breaks, time off work, and anything else for
contributing to overpopulation. They KNOW this, but suppress
it, which accounts for the almost psychotic yapping that they
do about THE CHILLLDRRRUNN. OK, folks, remember the difference
between a definite and an indefinite article? It's not for THE
children, it;s for THEIR children only. Point out that overusing
resources and polluting is HURTING the children, and the cognitive
dissonance turns them into pit bulls on crack.
It's like how that cunt Senator DiFi and her steppinfetchit boy who is
now mayor yap about how people can just take mass transit.
THEY, of course, are far too IMPORTANT and BUSY to use mass
transit. So think most other people. That's why we have
gridlock. DiFi also makes a big stink about gun control,
but what she WON'T tell you is that SHE has a concealed carry
permit, and SHE has 24 hour police protection, and private
security.
> I think that they're more likely to ignore what we're really trying to
say
> and write us off as a bunch of freaks the more vehement we get about
it.
No matter what you say or how you say it, they simply CANNOT
accept reality. And they WON'T. As far as they are concerned,
unless you are one of Them, you are a freak. Of course, they
like having CFers around to do their work and pay their share
of taxes. But THAT'S DIFFERENT. Say it in Norwegian, sing it
to the tune of God Save the Queen, wrap it in a knuckle sandwich
(paraphrasing G. Keillor there) and they WON'T GET IT.
> Not that I'm suggesting we all roll over and just take it, I just
wonder if
> there is an optimum decibel level that will get us heard AND get us
taken
> seriously......
that would be like expecting a rtler to care about the woman and
the child that only THEY want born. Ain't gonna happen.
Lizzie
>
> But don't you see, they REFUSE to acknowledge that they are the
> ones fouling the nest. See 'the tragedy of the commons' for an
> excellent analysis. Overpopulation was warned about when I was
> a child, fergawdsake. But everyone thinks that THEY are so
> SPECIAL that everyone else has to DIE to make room for THEM<
> and the fucktrophy is an attempt to make sure that you can be
> a greedy resourcepig after you DIE! Note who is the loudest about
> "It's for the CHILLLDDDRUNNN" the yuppies who get an SUV, demand that
> they get more tax breaks, time off work, and anything else for
> contributing to overpopulation. They KNOW this, but suppress
> it, which accounts for the almost psychotic yapping that they
> do about THE CHILLLDRRRUNN. OK, folks, remember the difference
> between a definite and an indefinite article? It's not for THE
> children, it;s for THEIR children only. Point out that overusing
> resources and polluting is HURTING the children, and the cognitive
> dissonance turns them into pit bulls on crack.
>
day (where I seem to do most of my thinking lately ::sigh::).
I've noticed that the CF people are often much more concerned about the
environment than those with children, which is exactly opposite of the way
you would expect it to be. After all, we'll be dead with no descendants, so
we or our DNA won't have to be living in the smoking stinking hellhole
world that is rapidly coming about. So why should we care? (but we do).
If people love their kids so damn much, why aren't they more worried about
the world the offspring will inherit? I know some that do worry and try to
do something about it, but many more don't and don't seem to care.
Cognitive dissonance is exactly it. Overpopulation, pollution,
environmental destruction, etc. is all caused by SOMEONE ELSE and should be
stopped by making that SOMEONE ELSE knock it off. It's always the other
people that are having too many kids (most often the brown ones), too.
Contrary to the view that the thumpers hold, the end isn't going to come
with a big ole Jesus landing from space in a blaze of glory. It's going to
come one gallon of gasoline, one candy wrapper, one discarded "Lunchables"
box, one aseptic juice container at a time.
Liz
MRFeathers
>with a big ole Jesus landing from space in a blaze of glory. It's going to
>come one gallon of gasoline, one candy wrapper, one discarded "Lunchables"
>box, one aseptic juice container at a time.
>
>Liz
Oh, agreed, definitely.
But what this made me think of is a commercial I saw on TV today--some brand of
those juice containers mentioned above being marketed to older kids--it showed
the sprog sucking on the straw and as he drank he started going up like a
rocket--they even showed the support tower for the space shuttle next to him as
we went into orbit.
I thought, Hey, now! Great way to get rid of unwanted teenagers.
Mary
Voris Tracy Van
> >Well, we aren't here to provide you with entertainment, nor are
> >we here to educate you, nor are we here to be role models,
> >nor are we asking for anyone's blessings for our personal choices;
>
> Although people aren't here to ask for anyone's blessings for their personal
> choices, it seems to me that many of us are here because of a distinct
> lack of said blessings (aka support) from our families and friends. So
> it is reasonable to assume that we would appreciate it when there is an
> exception to that, and a stranger is actually supportive of our choice.
Good point. I hadn't thought of it this way.
...but is it *really* supportive of a stranger to come up to you and say,
"Well, I AM a parent, but I DO agree with you on many points."?
I think that it depends. On a newsgroup devoted to the childfree with a
FAQ that clearly defines the charter and explains why some *may* flame
at those kinds of posts....well, I still find such support a bit
condescending; but I DO believe that they certainly have a right to post
whatever they want to in an unmoderated forum.
On the other hand, I might not take any offense at all in Real Life,
especially since I would have the benefit of face to face communication.
I just don't understand their need to post here. Why do they feel that
they must continue to post? What are they trying to prove? What is their
motivation for getting offended when they are informed that they don't
find their kind of support supportive?
T.
Kent
: ...but is it *really* supportive of a stranger to come up to you and say,
: "Well, I AM a parent, but I DO agree with you on many points."?
Well, I guess this is not unlike a white person saying something similar
to a black person, a Gentile to a Jew, a straight person to a gay person,
etc. The intentions are usually good, but the tone in which it's delivered
can come across as patronizing, especially by those hypersensitive to the
issue.
: I think that it depends. On a newsgroup devoted to the childfree with a
: FAQ that clearly defines the charter and explains why some *may* flame
: at those kinds of posts....well, I still find such support a bit
: condescending; but I DO believe that they certainly have a right to post
: whatever they want to in an unmoderated forum.
: On the other hand, I might not take any offense at all in Real Life,
: especially since I would have the benefit of face to face communication.
This is true--I do believe in minority groups' having Their Own Space
sometimes, and in such Space, even the best-intentioned "majority" visitor
can ruffle feathers.
Kent
redballpeppy
>I feel no "need to be rude." I do get tired of anyone (parents or CF)
>saying that this group needs to be some sort of model of decorum so
>non-CF-ers will think well of us. This group is one of the only places
>in the world where *we* are predominant! It is not a public relations
>press release. Your posts felt, to me, like saying we had to be "a
>credit to our race." And I don't mind replying to the group when I
>want to reply, rude or otherwise, to a statement *made to the group*.
Fair enough. You are right on all counts. Just don't expect the "CF
movement" to be taken seriously after you exhibit this behavior. And don't
be surprised that a group that scorns the "outside" receives so much scorn
in return.
RBP
Veronique
Redballpeppy (you don't happen to own a quarter horse, do you?) I think
you mistake the purpose of this newsgroup. Some of your posts read as if
you think it is encumbant upon you to argue and refute the feelings that
some of our group here have about children.
There are a lot of diverse opinions here. Some of us teach children,
have beloved friends and relatives with children, encounter children
everyday. Some of us feel there are more than enough children in the
world already. Some of us had miserable childhoods that we don't want to
risk inflicting on the rest of the world. Some of us find that children
make us uncomfortable. And some of us simply don't like children. A.s.c
is one of the few "public" spaces where it is ok to say, "I don't like
children. They disgust me. They irritate me. They interrupt my life. I
don't want to be around them."
Now I personally may not agree with invading child-oriented message
boards and posting "advice." But I will defend utterly any CF poster's
right to have space in this group to wish that they lived in a childfree
world. To vent about the hardships imposed on them because of someone
else's decision to have children. To ask and be allowed the freedom to
say what they think. I may argue their point, but I hope I will not
censure it.
I do tend towards diplomacy, and hope that I catch more flies with honey
than vinegar. But given that I also see a major trend towards doing away
with spaces for adults only, I also value those who stand up and say
straight out that there is more to life than having children, being with
children, and reshaping the entire world to accomodate children.
La belle Veronique
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Love will get you like a
case of anthrax
Gutterboy
>This group is one of the only places
>>in the world where *we* are predominant! It is not a public relations
>>press release. Your posts felt, to me, like saying we had to be "a
>>credit to our race." And I don't mind replying to the group when I
>>want to reply, rude or otherwise, to a statement *made to the group*.
>
>Fair enough. You are right on all counts. Just don't expect the "CF
>movement" to be taken seriously after you exhibit this behavior.
Yeah. Ilene, you've ruined it for all of us. And we were so close to repealing
the sprog deduction. Curse you.
Gutterboy
-----------------
"Don't you care about CHILDREN?" -- Dr. L@ura Sch!essinger
IleneB
You seem to forget that this group isn't *about* delivering a message
to the "outside world." If that world wants to read and lurk, fine. But
the group isn't aimed at them. They can do or think whatever they want.
It's not relevant.
Now, when going *into* that "outside world," I fully agree with you.
That's when the aim might be to make a connection, or convince someone,
or, at least, be listened to. But this group isn't about that, or for
that. *Somewhere* in the world has to be uncensored, and for many of
us, this group is it.
Not that I favor "fuck you asshole" as a standard response anywhere,
but I've said that before.
Ilene B
In article <0k%r4.3467$Py3....@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, redballpeppy
<redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote:
.
>
> Not at all...I'm just saying that many people here deliver their "message"
> in such a way that they're not going to be taken seriously by the "outside"
> world. You can feel and say whatever you like, but if you're going to be
> consistently rude, no one is going to listen, except maybe for kicks. (I'm
> referring to a "general you" here, not you personally).
>
redballpeppy
>you mistake the purpose of this newsgroup. Some of your posts read as if
>you think it is encumbant upon you to argue and refute the feelings that
>some of our group here have about children.
Not at all...I'm just saying that many people here deliver their "message"
in such a way that they're not going to be taken seriously by the "outside"
world. You can feel and say whatever you like, but if you're going to be
consistently rude, no one is going to listen, except maybe for kicks. (I'm
referring to a "general you" here, not you personally).
>Now I personally may not agree with invading child-oriented message
>boards and posting "advice." But I will defend utterly any CF poster's
>right to have space in this group to wish that they lived in a childfree
>world. To vent about the hardships imposed on them because of someone
Absolutely. I said that in my very first post. Fully agreed.
>I do tend towards diplomacy, and hope that I catch more flies with honey
>than vinegar. But given that I also see a major trend towards doing away
That gives you a much better chance of having people listen to you.
>with spaces for adults only, I also value those who stand up and say
>straight out that there is more to life than having children, being with
>children, and reshaping the entire world to accomodate children.
Sure...and hopefully, they'll figure out what you already have. Like I keep
saying...say what you like, and remember that it reflects much more on
yourself than whomever you're responding to.
RBP
redballpeppy
>
>You seem to forget that this group isn't *about* delivering a message
>to the "outside world."
Maybe I do. It often seems like it is.
> If that world wants to read and lurk, fine. But
>the group isn't aimed at them. They can do or think whatever they want.
>It's not relevant.
>Now, when going *into* that "outside world," I fully agree with you.
>That's when the aim might be to make a connection, or convince someone,
>or, at least, be listened to. But this group isn't about that, or for
>that. *Somewhere* in the world has to be uncensored, and for many of
>us, this group is it.
Sure. That makes sense. But...this *is* a public forum. "That world"
*will* read and lurk...and those people will see how rude some of the
regulars are, and decide that the group isn't worth listening to. Some of
those people will be CF. Some of them might be sitting on the fence. But a
lot of them who might have stayed and participated may choose not to. It's
unfortunate, because there are some people here who are quite pleasant, and
the immature-yet-vocal faction are dragging them down. Quite a few of them
have already voiced their displeasure with it.
RBP
Scott Eiler
"redballpeppy" <redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote:
> But...this *is* a public forum. "That world"
> *will* read and lurk...and those people will see how rude some of the
> regulars are, and decide that the group isn't worth listening to.
Some of
> those people will be CF. Some of them might be sitting on the fence.
But a
> lot of them who might have stayed and participated may choose not to.
It's
> unfortunate, because there are some people here who are quite
pleasant, and
> the immature-yet-vocal faction are dragging them down. Quite a few of
them
> have already voiced their displeasure with it.
Sure it's unfortunate. But anyone who jumps to conclusions about all
childfree people, based on a vocal-yet-immature subset, is not
necessarily the kind of recruit the rest of us want anyway.
Or, to provide a counterexample, I'm tempted to conclude that all people
who post to alt.tasteless are genetic throwbacks who don't know enough
to keep from crapping in other people's beds, just because *some* of
them don't. Are you really disappointed that I don't post to
alt.tasteless myself?
--
---- Scott Eiler B{D> ---- http://www.ultranet.com/~seiler/ ----
Veronique
"redballpeppy" <redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >You seem to forget that this group isn't *about* delivering a message
> >to the "outside world."
>
> Maybe I do. It often seems like it is.
If you read carefully, you will discover that the voice in which posters
speak is usually one reserved for the frankness of the newsgroup. Yes,
there are the louder posters, but if you read carefully, you will see
when an individual posts that they were actually able to summon the
courage to speak up to a particularly egregious child-related offense--
this tells me that most of our company usually do NOT speak as loudly in
reality as on this group.
And frankly, the outside world may discover a thing or two about how
their behaviour really affects others. Not a bad thing, IMHO.
>
> > If that world wants to read and lurk, fine. But
> >the group isn't aimed at them. They can do or think whatever they want.
> >It's not relevant.
> >Now, when going *into* that "outside world," I fully agree with you.
> >That's when the aim might be to make a connection, or convince someone,
> >or, at least, be listened to. But this group isn't about that, or for
> >that. *Somewhere* in the world has to be uncensored, and for many of
> >us, this group is it.
>
> Sure. That makes sense. But...this *is* a public forum. "That world"
> *will* read and lurk...and those people will see how rude some of the
> regulars are, and decide that the group isn't worth listening to.
No more, I suspect, than any other newsgroup. A really dedicated lurker
will read more than a day's worth of posts, and more than one or two
posters. And discover (as I did) that for every loud, in-your-face
invective-filled rant, there are plenty of other voices that are
thoughtful and entertaining.
For myself, I lurked on rec.horses for awhile but the cliquishness and
in-fighting there was a real turn-off. Far worse than this group. And I
still like horses.
> Some of
> those people will be CF. Some of them might be sitting on the fence. But a
> lot of them who might have stayed and participated may choose not to.
Really, you are describing most lurkers. On any newsgroup. Really. It
takes a certain amount of hubris, or thick skin, or attitude to post in
a public forum, and someone WILL take you on if you say anything
controversial at all. Or *anything* at all, actually. I don't believe
that anyone on this forum should feel they have to "make nice" in order
to avoid offending someone who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to
argue the point anyway.
And in fact I've received emails from people who privately agree with me
but simply don't want to enter into the fray of the newsgroup. It's all
part of the Usenet experience.
> It's
> unfortunate, because there are some people here who are quite pleasant, and
> the immature-yet-vocal faction are dragging them down. Quite a few of them
> have already voiced their displeasure with it.
>
> RBP
Well sure, and I was a focus for some of it, simply because I dared to
point out there might be another way of looking at things. But I also
choose to turn on my computer and read the stuff. If I wanted to protect
my own delicate sensibilities, I wouldn't dare to make a statement.
La belle Veronique
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Love will get you like a
case of anthrax
Gutterboy
>As a general rule, we DON'T go out to
>Squall Mart and tell people to rein in their kids. We AREN'T
>this rude in public. We grin and bear it and grin and bear it
>some more. And I'm beginning to think that telling us we're
>being rude in our very own ng is a lot like telling me I'm being
>rude when you walk by my house and hear me belch. My space. I
>don't belch in public. I do at home. This ng is home.
>
Well thought out, well phrased, well done.
Gutterboy
-----------------
"Nothing to see here, folks. Just headin' to the dump with these Children's
Letters to God."
redballpeppy
>some more. And I'm beginning to think that telling us we're
>being rude in our very own ng is a lot like telling me I'm being
>rude when you walk by my house and hear me belch. My space. I
>don't belch in public. I do at home. This ng is home.
Don't get me wrong...you can say whatever you like. My initial post to the
group was rather rude. I received some justifiably rude responses and
apologized for my actions. I then received several rude responses to my
apology. Attempts to be humorous and to ride out the flames have been met
with further vitriol.
*That* is the behavior to which I'm referring when I say that this group, as
a whole, will not be taken seriously by others. If the group does not wish
to be taken seriously, then, hey...it's all set.
RBP
redballpeppy
>Sure it's unfortunate. But anyone who jumps to conclusions about all
>childfree people, based on a vocal-yet-immature subset, is not
>necessarily the kind of recruit the rest of us want anyway.
Cool. I guess you're all set, then.
>them don't. Are you really disappointed that I don't post to
>alt.tasteless myself?
I wouldn't know...never read it, except the crossposts that wandered through
here.
RBP
david hayes
and showing disdain. If only you had more self-esteem, you could have
shrugged-off your spanking and gone on with your life.
This group is not here to be what _you_ want it to be, it is what its
contributors make it. So far, you are nothing but a 'chew toy.'
--dph
Barracuda Grrl
Don't you just love it when newbies stomp in and try to tell us how to
run the group?
I, for one, fail to give a flying fuck about whether the group is "taken
seriously" or not. We're here to support each-other and to have a safe
place to rant and vent... not to be "taken seriously" by anyone else, or to
meet up with your expectations. Move right along if you don't like it.
Susan
"redballpeppy" <redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Zles4.5729$Py3....@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
david hayes
chooses a goal for the group, states that the group is failing to achieve
this goal and then expects the group to care.
<yawn>
--dph
redballpeppy
>Exactly. It happens in every newsgroup: newbie enters, arbitrarily
>chooses a goal for the group, states that the group is failing to achieve
>this goal and then expects the group to care.
Heh...speaking of "coming back for more." Why don't you post again and
contradict yourself a third time?
RBP
NotEasy2BGreen
>>Exactly. It happens in every newsgroup: newbie enters, arbitrarily
>>chooses a goal for the group, states that the group is failing to achieve
>>this goal and then expects the group to care.
As a relative newbie (have only been posting for a few months), I would not
dare to dictate to veterans how they should or should not post. I, too, see
this place as a sanctuary where we can all come and vent. And, hey, I don't
even take offense if I get an occasional "go fuck yourself" post. People have
the right to post as they wish and if the heat gets too much that's what
killfiles are there for.
redballpeppy
<20000221133622...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
>As a relative newbie (have only been posting for a few months), I would not
>dare to dictate to veterans how they should or should not post. I, too,
see
I won't dictate to *anyone* how to post. I notice that some "veterans" get
very huffy when they think that someone is doing so...and of course, by
doing so, end up doing the exact same thing.
>this place as a sanctuary where we can all come and vent. And, hey, I don't
>even take offense if I get an occasional "go fuck yourself" post. People
have
>the right to post as they wish and if the heat gets too much that's what
>killfiles are there for.
Precisely. That's why it's so humorous to see some of these folks get so
riled up, but they just keep coming back. They like to say that I'm "not
worth it," but apparently I am. I don't think Pete's worth it, and I
killfiled him spot off. 'Twas easy, too.
RBP
redballpeppy
>In article <dnl2bski7cgpo18m0...@4ax.com>,
>cmcondr...@mindspring.com wrote:
>And probably why I get _more_ annoyed at those who whine to the rest
>about "why aren't you polite here".
You're cyoot when you're angry. How do you look when you're chill?
RBP
Voris Tracy Van
> Don't get me wrong...you can say whatever you like.
Gee, thanks.
> My initial post to the group was rather rude.
Yes, it was. Your incessant harping on the matter is getting tiresome,
too.
> Attempts to be humorous and to ride out the flames have been met
> with further vitriol.
How's about talking about something other than this topic? You're CF,
right? There must be several things on your mind that would be more
interesting than hearing about your bruised ego and nattering about
whether or not this group accepts you and your right to make an ass of
yourself.
> *That* is the behavior to which I'm referring when I say that this group, as
> a whole, will not be taken seriously by others.
Uh huh. Got it. Thanks.
Tell me, do you wear a special brace to keep that big head of yours
attached to your body? You DO realize that which each post YOU are losing
what little credibility YOU might have had with being a well-regarded
poster to this group?
I am just asking if you are aware of this, because credibility seems to
matter A Whole Lot to you.
> If the group does not wish to be taken seriously, then, hey...it's all
> set.
Gawd, RBP, you are being such a Colossal Twit. Put another CD in the
player and let's move on to the next dance. Surely, you've got better
things to talk about, don't you?
Here, try any of these: Have you read the Burkett book yet? Are your
family members accepting of your CF lifestyle? Have any of your
co-workers dumped on you and taken advantage of your CF status? Any evil
sprog encounters lately?
See, it's not so hard.
T.
redballpeppy
>Yes, it was. Your incessant harping on the matter is getting tiresome,
>too.
Well, then, thank you for keeping the thread alive.
>right? There must be several things on your mind that would be more
>interesting than hearing about your bruised ego and nattering about
>whether or not this group accepts you and your right to make an ass of
>yourself.
I don't remember asking for acceptance. I just think the rudeness is rather
extreme. I acknowledged my own rudeness. Yes, it would be nice if others
would do the same. That's up to each individual, including yourself.
>what little credibility YOU might have had with being a well-regarded
>poster to this group?
I, but I *can* be a well-regarded poster to this group. Watch.
<whine>
Some famblee's sprog looked at me funny...so I told him to fuck off and the
mooooomiieee just gasped! I've never felt such a rush!
</whine>
<sigh> Alright, I admit it. That felt kinda good.
RBP
Voris Tracy Van
spite of the initial nattering...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, redballpeppy wrote:
> >Your incessant harping on the matter is getting tiresome,
> >too.
>
> Well, then, thank you for keeping the thread alive.
The thread is now changed, you're welcome.
> >There must be several things on your mind that would be more
> >interesting than hearing about your bruised ego and nattering about
> >whether or not this group accepts you and your right to make an ass of
> >yourself.
>
> I don't remember asking for acceptance.
It's implicit in your need to keep judging the group without contributing
anything interesting on topic or off topic.
Of course, I could be wrong; I am not a mind reader, but I only have your
posts to go by. Today I am also hopeful that *maybe* you have something
of worth to say - I like to give my Childfree Comrades at least a benefit
of the doubt.
So, RBP: are you up for the challenge today? Let me try to get this
rolling a second time for you:
Yesterday, my husband and I were counting all of our formerly close
friends who have sprogged. We came up with three couples that we really
miss, and a small number of others that we know spawned but we were not
too close to them.
The last time I heard from one of these couples was on New Year's.
Unfortunately, I wasn't really feeling too well to talk on the
phone....not that it mattered any way because the baby was alternately
shrieking and cooing in the background. I miss these people very much,
and I still love them very much, too. I wish them the best with their
lives, but I don't understand why they've chosen the path that they have.
So - RPB and others: anyone dealing with Friendloss lately? Do you resent
the loss or do you feel happy about your friends' happiness?
> I, but I *can* be a well-regarded poster to this group. Watch.
>
> <whine>
> Some famblee's sprog looked at me funny...so I told him to fuck off and the
> mooooomiieee just gasped! I've never felt such a rush!
> </whine>
>
> <sigh> Alright, I admit it. That felt kinda good.
You needn't be such a BigAss Dork, RBP. Credibility and social acceptance
take time to earn, don't they? How's about turning over a new leaf?
There's no time like the present.
T.
dph...@my-deja.com
Voris Tracy Van <alu...@panther.Gsu.EDU> wrote:
<snip>
> So - RPB and others: anyone dealing with Friendloss lately? Do you
resent
> the loss or do you feel happy about your friends' happiness?
>
Oh yes, on two separate fronts. I have 'lost' my nearest (one street
away) and my dearest (20+ years) friends to sprog.
'Dearest' had their 3rd last fall, I tolerated the first two
including overnight visits that meant large-scale changes to
my child-unfriendly abode and carelessly discarded diapers.
The third, probably an attempt at a male-heir (no luck), has
completely removed an non-sprog related interests from their lives.
At the same time, their oldest has gone off to first-grade where
she has happily picked up all the bad habits of her peers.
(I must admit that her parents were doing a great job of raising
her).
'Nearest' has only one but he is truly the center of the universe.
Family-bed until 2.5yo, never been put to bed by anyone but his
mother, unable to entertain himself etc. etc. Cute kid, I enjoy
him for about 30 minutes.
GF and I had dinner with them on Friday, kid was relatively
well-behaved but it was impossible to have a conversation
because he can't go two minutes without needing attention.
--
--dph.
(preferred email: dhayes AT iname DOT com)
Chris Henderson
(snippety-do-dah)
>
> Yesterday, my husband and I were counting all of our formerly close
> friends who have sprogged. We came up with three couples that we really
> miss, and a small number of others that we know spawned but we were not
> too close to them.
>
> The last time I heard from one of these couples was on New Year's.
> Unfortunately, I wasn't really feeling too well to talk on the
> phone....not that it mattered any way because the baby was alternately
> shrieking and cooing in the background. I miss these people very much,
> and I still love them very much, too. I wish them the best with their
> lives, but I don't understand why they've chosen the path that they have.
>
> So - RPB and others: anyone dealing with Friendloss lately? Do you resent
> the loss or do you feel happy about your friends' happiness?
Well, I know that my feelings on this topic are probably contrary
to what many posters believe, but I believe that you *can* maintain
friendships when sprogs are in the picture. It just takes some
negotiation and cooperation between the parties involved.
DH and I have two couples who we socialize with. Both couples
have kids - the one couple has one son who is 11 and the other
have three boys, ages 3, 4 and 7. The couple with the one son
are definite BNPs and are doing a really good job of raising
their kid. Usually when we get together with them, the kid is
there until he gets sent off to bed, usually around 9:00pm. He
can be a brat but the parents don't let him pull any crap with
them. There are moments when we're with them that I actually
find myself *liking* this sprog!
The other couple are more PNBs. They had one kid too many and
basically let their sprogs run all over them. With them, we
have a simple rule: we don't show up at their house until 8:00pm.
That way, we only have to endure their kids for maybe half an
hour, then they go to bed and we spend the rest of the evening
playing cards and just yakking with the parents (who *don't*
spend the whole time talking about their kids). A lot of
parents *enjoy* spending time with other adults and having
*adult* conversations that don't revolve around their kids.
I think that we've remained friends with these people *because*
we are CF. They don't look down on us because we've chosen to
not sprog, and, if we also had sprogs, one of us would always
have to be hiring a babysitter whenever we wanted to get together.
Because we don't have sprogs, DH and I have more freedom to
accommodate their schedules. It seems to work out well.
So, the moral of my story, Tracy, is that if you really love and
miss your friends who have sprogged, maybe you can work something
out so that you can remain friends. It *will* take some patience
and understanding on your part, but if you really want to maintain
the friendship, it *can* be done.
Chris Henderson
(Keep in mind also, that the kids won't be little forever,
so someday, the parents will have more time to do "adult"
activities again.)
Veronique
> rolling a second time for you:
>
> Yesterday, my husband and I were counting all of our formerly close
> friends who have sprogged. We came up with three couples that we really
> miss, and a small number of others that we know spawned but we were not
> too close to them.
>
> The last time I heard from one of these couples was on New Year's.
> Unfortunately, I wasn't really feeling too well to talk on the
> phone....not that it mattered any way because the baby was alternately
> shrieking and cooing in the background. I miss these people very much,
> and I still love them very much, too. I wish them the best with their
> lives, but I don't understand why they've chosen the path that they have.
>
> So - RPB and others: anyone dealing with Friendloss lately? Do you resent
> the loss or do you feel happy about your friends' happiness?
Through trial and error I've found that it is best to keep interactions
fairly short (30 minutes or less) during the first two years of baybee-
bliss. I've found that even some of the worst BNPs will be desperate for
adult interaction after two years of spoiling their child, to the extent
that they are willing to hire a babysitter or make serious arrangements
to have spoglets occupied. The 30 minute limit also means that damage to
my child-unfriendly house (sharp breakable stainable delicate expensive
objects place on precariously tilting surfaces!) is limited as well.
I enjoy some children between the ages of 4 and 9, so I have an easier
time accomodating myself to those ages. And after age 10 or so they
would rather not be around adults anyway...
La belle Veronique
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Love will get you like a
case of anthrax
Voris Tracy Van
> > Yesterday, my husband and I were counting all of our formerly close
> > friends who have sprogged. We came up with three couples that we really
> > miss, and a small number of others that we know spawned but we were not
> > too close to them.
<some snippy here>
> Well, I know that my feelings on this topic are probably contrary
> to what many posters believe, but I believe that you *can* maintain
> friendships when sprogs are in the picture. It just takes some
> negotiation and cooperation between the parties involved.
I think that anything is possible. One sad thing about this situation,
though, is that they'd already bought a house and moved to the boondocks.
We didn't get to see them as much as we wanted to once they moved before
the boy...so, in a way, it kinda prepared us. We all used to get together
every weekend to play amateur (WAY amateur!) soccer and haunt
cafes and bookstores and wile away the hours in heated but very fun
discussions about religion and politics.
> So, the moral of my story, Tracy, is that if you really love and
> miss your friends who have sprogged, maybe you can work something
> out so that you can remain friends. It *will* take some patience
> and understanding on your part, but if you really want to maintain
> the friendship, it *can* be done.
Thanks! I'm thinking that phoning and e-mailing are going to be the
standard for a while. The truth is, is that I really AM happy for them.
They have always known that Rich and I aren't interested in kids, and
they've been cool with that. I really don't know what kind of parents they
are, but I do know that in our last conversation my friend said that they
wouldn't do any traveling into town until they knew that the boy could be
managable with a sitter. He's only a couple of months old, too, so that
will be a while probably.
T.
redballpeppy
>take time to earn, don't they? How's about turning over a new leaf?
>There's no time like the present.
Oy. Okay, I'll try again.
<blubber>
Anyone should be able to post whatever they waaaaaaant. But if they don't
agree with me, they're a sprogulatin', fambleeeee-makin', procreatin'
troooollllll...and *they* should leave! Otherwise, I'll have to keep
posting to tell them I'm ignoring them, because that's what everyone *else*
is doing.
</blubber>
Right again, T. This is considerably more enjoyable than riding out the
flames and waiting for people to settle down.
I applaud your actually starting a new thread though, even if it was in the
midst of the usual ASCFA.
RBP
Chris Henderson
>
> > So, the moral of my story, Tracy, is that if you really love and
> > miss your friends who have sprogged, maybe you can work something
> > out so that you can remain friends. It *will* take some patience
> > and understanding on your part, but if you really want to maintain
> > the friendship, it *can* be done.
>
> Thanks! I'm thinking that phoning and e-mailing are going to be the
> standard for a while. The truth is, is that I really AM happy for them.
> They have always known that Rich and I aren't interested in kids, and
> they've been cool with that. I really don't know what kind of parents they
> are, but I do know that in our last conversation my friend said that they
> wouldn't do any traveling into town until they knew that the boy could be
> managable with a sitter. He's only a couple of months old, too, so that
> will be a while probably.
>
> T.
If they don't live too far away from you, why don't you go to their
place? If their kid is an infant, he probably sleeps a lot anyway.
Mostly when we get together with our friends who have kids, we go
in the evenings, just to talk and play cards. Sometimes, they'll
get a sitter and we'll go out for dinner, then back to their place.
We *never* have them come to our place because I just don't want
their kids in my house - they get into everything and they scare my
cats.
Chris H.
John & Mari Morgan
Henderson) wrote:
> The couple with the one son
>are definite BNPs and are doing a really good job of raising
>their kid.
*snip*
>The other couple are more PNBs. They had one kid too many and
>basically let their sprogs run all over them.
Uh, Chris? You're reversing your acronyms. The folks with one son and
doing a decent job with him would probably not be real happy to be
called breeders. :-( (Even if that's what many posters here would
call them because they reproduced at all.)
> A lot of
>parents *enjoy* spending time with other adults and having
>*adult* conversations that don't revolve around their kids.
Depressingly, I've never seen this happen. Probably because all of our
friends who've spawned have turned into obsessively BFing APing freaks
whose entire lives are consumed with baaaybeee. (Predictably, one of
them is now pregnant again, since brat #1 has reached toddler stage
and will be headed off to preschool right around the time brat #2 is
born. You think she timed this? I do. And she had the nerve to email
me scans of the ultrasound pictures over the weekend - btw, she didn't
send 'em to me personally, she added my name to a mailing list for
this sort of crap _knowing_ I'm intensely uninterested. Placenta
brain, definitely.)
>So, the moral of my story, Tracy, is that if you really love and
>miss your friends who have sprogged, maybe you can work something
>out so that you can remain friends. It *will* take some patience
>and understanding on your part, but if you really want to maintain
>the friendship, it *can* be done.
I'm not necessarily sure it's fair to put the entire onus on Tracy (or
any other CFs) for maintaining these relationships. AFAIC, if these
besprogged "friends" aren't willing to meet her halfway and put some
effort into the matter, that's a very good indication of just how
important her friendship was to them. Why should WE always be the ones
to be patient and understanding? I do indeed admit I'm a little bitter
on the subject because I spent entirely too long being patient and
understanding to BNPs who sucked the life out of our friendships the
same way their sprog sucked moosquirt from a tit and then gave me
grief for not giving them more than I did. And yeah, you're right when
you say it "just takes some negotiation and cooperation between the
parties involved" but that needs to mean BOTH parties, not just the
CFs bending over backward to indulge and accomodate the childed. I
don't expect the besprogged to act exactly as they did pre-kid, but
they need to make some overtures and some sacrifices too.
Mari
-
Trying to win an argument with an irrational person is like
trying to teach a cat to snorkel by providing written instructions.
--Scott Adams
virginia
>
> So - anyone dealing with Friendloss lately? Do you resent the loss or do you
> feel happy about your friends' happiness?
>
dh and i watched all our carolina friends have kids -- and learned! the first of
the group had a real little sh*t, which was not surprising -- he was as
bullheaded and stubborn as his mom and her mom. now that's he's about 7 years
old, i can tolerate him for short periods. the rest of the group had more or
less average kids, a couple of which were actually quite cute and likeable.
but what i'm really worried about is my very bestest friend :) is having a baby
in three or four weeks. i'm going up to visit her in about 10 days. i have high
hopes she will be a PNB, and expect to get into a lot of baby shopping (which i
actually enjoy) and possibly some of the pregnancy/delivery conversations,
although to her credit, she has kept the details to a minimum because she knows
i'm not interested in having kids. i'm happy for her because she is happy about
it (although a bit freaked by the incredible responsibility), but i wonder if i
will wind up resenting this little interloper who's going to eat up a lot of her
free time. hey, it took me a while to adjust to the hubby, and he's an adult!
yikes!
wish me strength!
va :)
Chris Henderson
> On 22 Feb 2000 14:54:37 GMT, chen...@mc1adm.uwaterloo.ca (Chris
> Henderson) wrote:
>
> > The couple with the one son
> >are definite BNPs and are doing a really good job of raising
> >their kid.
> *snip*
> >The other couple are more PNBs. They had one kid too many and
> >basically let their sprogs run all over them.
>
> Uh, Chris? You're reversing your acronyms. The folks with one son and
> doing a decent job with him would probably not be real happy to be
> called breeders. :-( (Even if that's what many posters here would
> call them because they reproduced at all.)
Oops! Yes, I did screw that up, didn't I? Sorry for the confusion.
Must've been a brain fart :)
> > A lot of
> >parents *enjoy* spending time with other adults and having
> >*adult* conversations that don't revolve around their kids.
>
> Depressingly, I've never seen this happen. Probably because all of our
> friends who've spawned have turned into obsessively BFing APing freaks
> whose entire lives are consumed with baaaybeee.
That's gotta suck! I guess that DH and I are lucky to have friends
who don't eat, breathe and live "Sprog" 24/7. Admittedly, my very
best friend from my teen years is a SAH-mommy with two little daughters.
Her day revolves around getting the kids fed and off to school, baking,
sewing, etc. Needless to say, we have absolutely *nothing* in common
anymore. We've tried to maintain the relationship, but it's been really
difficult (she also lives a 2-1/2 hour drive away from me, so going to
visit her is an event that has to be planned for). When we *do* get
together, we have nothing to talk about really.
(snip)
> >So, the moral of my story, Tracy, is that if you really love and
> >miss your friends who have sprogged, maybe you can work something
> >out so that you can remain friends. It *will* take some patience
> >and understanding on your part, but if you really want to maintain
> >the friendship, it *can* be done.
>
> I'm not necessarily sure it's fair to put the entire onus on Tracy (or
> any other CFs) for maintaining these relationships. AFAIC, if these
> besprogged "friends" aren't willing to meet her halfway and put some
> effort into the matter, that's a very good indication of just how
> important her friendship was to them.
Oh, I agree! Our friends with the kids usually phone us when they
want to get together with us. DH and I are both pretty introverted.
I think that we'd both be happy living in a cabin waaaay up in the
boonies with *no* human interaction, but we've decided that having
*no* friends isn't really a great idea (who knows when you might
need someone's help?), so we've maintained these friendships
knowing that someday, their kids will be all grown up and out of
the house. We only go out with friends once every couple months.
They don't pressure us to get together with them if we don't feel
like it. I guess that if they didn't like the way the friendship
was going, they'd stop phoning us. DH and I don't do *all* the
compromising - it has to be a two-way street.
> Why should WE always be the ones
> to be patient and understanding? I do indeed admit I'm a little bitter
> on the subject because I spent entirely too long being patient and
> understanding to BNPs who sucked the life out of our friendships the
> same way their sprog sucked moosquirt from a tit and then gave me
> grief for not giving them more than I did. And yeah, you're right when
> you say it "just takes some negotiation and cooperation between the
> parties involved" but that needs to mean BOTH parties, not just the
> CFs bending over backward to indulge and accomodate the childed. I
> don't expect the besprogged to act exactly as they did pre-kid, but
> they need to make some overtures and some sacrifices too.
Yes, if I thought that I was giving more to a relationship than the
other party(ies), I'd drop the relationship. Our relationships with
our besprogged friends are very casual and non-committal - we know
that we can all rely on each other when/if we need each other, but
there is no pressure to conform to each other's beliefs/lifestyles.
Chris H.
HCF
John & Mari Morgan wrote:
>
> parties involved" but that needs to mean BOTH parties, not just the
> CFs bending over backward to indulge and accomodate the childed. I
> don't expect the besprogged to act exactly as they did pre-kid, but
> they need to make some overtures and some sacrifices too.
Sing it Mari!!!! I couldn't agree more. DH and I made all the sacrifices
when it came to spending time with his childed friends. His friends
couldn't even be bothered to come to special events we invited them to.
They came to our wedding only. We invited them to one other event, but
they didn't show. We tried to invite them out to the movies every once in
a while but they could never be bothered to get a sitter and come. So
that was out. My husband would invite his friend over to play games, but
no...he never had the time (or inclination - who knows). Finally I
realized that these two were never going to be equal friends to us so I
slacked off in going to their home when they invited us for games, TV,
etc. I went every once in a while but I mostly let DH go. He enjoyed it
much more and I got to be home alone taking a nice hot bath and just
relaxing.
I resent the fact that CFers are suppossed to make all the sacrifices
because we don't have the burden of children. Well, I don't think it is
too much to ask that childed friends get a sitter once or twice a year to
come out and have dinner and a movie with friends.
redballpeppy
>I'm still betting on closet breeder. <grin>
Ignorance is most becoming on tibbi, I must say. Woof!
RBP
Woof Ridge
>Ignorance is most becoming on tibbi, I must say. Woof!
What?
Woof
--
"We want better reasons for having children than not knowing how to prevent
them."
- Dora Russell 1894-1986: Hypatia (1925)
redballpeppy
<20000222192446...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
>RBP wrote:
>
>>Ignorance is most becoming on tibbi, I must say. Woof!
>
>What?
Hello, dammit!
RBP
redballpeppy
>redballpeppy <redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote in article
><XbAs4.6411$Py3....@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>...
>>
>> <blubber>
>> Anyone should be able to post whatever they waaaaaaant. But if they
>> don't agree with me, they're a sprogulatin', fambleeeee-makin',
procreatin'
>> troooollllll...and *they* should leave! Otherwise, I'll have to keep
>> posting to tell them I'm ignoring them, because that's what everyone
>> *else* is doing.
>> </blubber>
>
>look like it's in the cards. As it is right now your posts aren't worth
>wasting the electrons on.
Way to prove my point, Liz.
All too easy.
RBP
Lizzie
<XbAs4.6411$Py3....@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>...
>
> <blubber>
> Anyone should be able to post whatever they waaaaaaant. But if they
don't
> agree with me, they're a sprogulatin', fambleeeee-makin', procreatin'
> troooollllll...and *they* should leave! Otherwise, I'll have to keep
> posting to tell them I'm ignoring them, because that's what everyone
*else*
> is doing.
> </blubber>
>
> flames and waiting for people to settle down.
>
> I applaud your actually starting a new thread though, even if it was in
the
> midst of the usual ASCFA.
>
> RBP
Y'know, although I haven't responded until now I have been reading your
posts, and I have yet to figure out what your point actually IS. What I've
seen so far is mostly tiresome circular drivel.
I had hopes that you'd turn into a real poster at some point but it doesn't
look like it's in the cards. As it is right now your posts aren't worth
wasting the electrons on.
Liz
redballpeppy
>It is amazing. I'll still betting it's a breeder.
I'll still betting tibbi am not able to string together a coherent sentence.
RBP
Hilary
here, trolly-poo.
--
A woman without a child is like a fish without a bicycle.
redballpeppy
>Yes, it IS time for you to move, and you certainly have no friends
>here, trolly-poo.
Sorry, boo-boo...that was T's subject line, not mine. If you want to talk
about losing friends, talk to him/her/it.
RBP
Voris Tracy Van
him/her/it = Mid 30-something, childfree, married, libertarian, atheistic
woman
T. - for anyone who was interested but afraid to ask
Hilary
"redballpeppy" <redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hilary wrote in message <8911uv$183$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Yes, it IS time for you to move, and you certainly have no friends
> >here, trolly-poo.
>
> Sorry, boo-boo...that was T's subject line, not mine. If you want to
talk
> about losing friends, talk to him/her/it.
>
>
>
Look dufus, you were the first post on the thread with that title, and
it's certainly true. If you took the title from another post, perhaps
it was a freudian slip. Plus, you can't lose (friends) what you don't
have. Now beat it, 'k? Plonk!
redballpeppy
>In article <e1Ws4.6874$Py3.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> "redballpeppy" <redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hilary wrote in message <8911uv$183$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >Yes, it IS time for you to move, and you certainly have no friends
>> >here, trolly-poo.
>>
>> Sorry, boo-boo...that was T's subject line, not mine. If you want to
>talk
>> about losing friends, talk to him/her/it.
>>
>> RBP
>>
>>
>Look dufus, you were the first post on the thread with that title, and
>it's certainly true.
Frickin' moron. T. created that title. Saying otherwise doesn't make it
so.
RBP
redballpeppy
>I've been on the internet long enough to know the stink of a troll, as
>opposed to a ignorant newbie. And a closet breeder troll.
Classic tibbi...seldom right, and wrong again.
RBP
Lizzie
doesn't
> >look like it's in the cards. As it is right now your posts aren't worth
> >wasting the electrons on.
>
>
> All too easy.
>
> RBP
The question still remains, what point? You've cycled from critical to
chummy to apologetic to critical to whining and back again, all without
really saying anything of substance.
If you want to spend your hard-earned time and bandwidth posting circular
blather, go for it. Just don't be surprised when after awhile no one reads
it.
Liz
redballpeppy
>redballpeppy <redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote in article
><zEHs4.6732$Py3.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>...
>> Lizzie wrote in message
><01bf7d9d$7afb72e0$1eb3...@liznet.bcgroup.com>...
>> >I had hopes that you'd turn into a real poster at some point but it
>doesn't
>> >look like it's in the cards. As it is right now your posts aren't worth
>> >wasting the electrons on.
>>
>> Way to prove my point, Liz.
>>
>> All too easy.
>>
>> RBP
>
>The question still remains, what point? You've cycled from critical to
>chummy to apologetic to critical to whining and back again, all without
>really saying anything of substance.
The point that quite a few people here seem to like to reply to me...just to
let me know that they don't think I'm worth replying to. I just find it
interesting. I found it even more interesting (but not terribly surprising)
that someone responded to that by saying I wasn't worth responding to.
Allow me to clear up the cycle you alluded to:
1. I made an initial post that shot off at the mouth.
2. I defended it.
3. I realized I was wrong, apologized, and tried to be friendly.
4. I got flamed even more than when I was at step 2.
5. I decided that the flamers had a point, and it was actually more fun to
point out their hypocrisies than to try to take the high ground and wait for
the tempers to die down a bit. My favorite one is, "Hey, anyone can post
whatever they want, and no one has to please *anybody,* so learn to deal
with it...now will you stop posting, I don't like it!"
I tried to make up for my error and be nice. Ye reaps what ye sows.
Besides, the flaming elite might as well admit that they get off on this.
Makes'em feel big. Otherwise, they would just hang in the mod group, no?
At any rate, I'm still more than happy to be friendly with people without
the Major Attitude issue.
RBP
Chuck
Lizzie <Green...@worldnet.spamless.att.net> wrote in message
news:01bf7e68$58e0f6a0$d2b4...@liznet.bcgroup.com...
> > >look like it's in the cards. As it is right now your posts aren't
worth
> > >wasting the electrons on.
> >
> > Way to prove my point, Liz.
> >
> > All too easy.
> >
> > RBP
>
> The question still remains, what point? You've cycled from critical to
> chummy to apologetic to critical to whining and back again, all without
> really saying anything of substance.
Its called sarcasm.
He was commenting on the fact that you "wasted electrons on" him for the
sake of telling him he wasn't worth "wasting electrons on".
And you even replied again!
personally I think he made his point quite clearly a long time ago.
..belial..
Chuck
redballpeppy <redbal...@saturn.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RL0t4.7458$Py3.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> At any rate, I'm still more than happy to be friendly with people without
> the Major Attitude issue.
Good explanation.
pleased to have you around :-)
..belial..
Barracuda Grrl
Do you serve any purpose in this list otherwise then to "me too" the
trolls and losers?
Susan
"Chuck" <cwa...@symantec.com> wrote in message
news:892aua$pr9$1...@news2.symantec.com...
Hilary
view this troll blather anymore...PLONK!
redballpeppy
>ooh look...zippy the pin head is still here. At least I won't have to
>view this troll blather anymore...PLONK!
That's the *second* time Hilary supposedly killfiled me...in one day! Wanna
go for the hat-trick, boo-boo?
RBP
redballpeppy
<to Chuck>
>
> Do you serve any purpose in this list otherwise then to "me too" the
>trolls and losers?
Hey, another graduate from the tibbi school of Good-Speakin'-English! :D
Remember the ASCF mantra, Barry G. People can post whatever they want, and
you can either learn to deal with it...or leave. Doorknob, ass, way out.
Thanks for playing!
RBP
Voris Tracy Van
> so.
I'm interested in knowing what brought you here to asc. Have you
always known that you wanted to be childfree, or was that something that
came to you later on in life?
T. - known from the get-go
Voris Tracy Van
Are you childfree, or would you consider yourself to be a fence-sitter?
Do you come from a big family? Did you have to take care of your
siblings? Do you think that your experience with your nuclear family had
any impact on your choice not to breed?
T. - Childfree, no, no, and no are my answers
Voris Tracy Van
> The point that quite a few people here seem to like to reply to me...just to
> let me know that they don't think I'm worth replying to. I just find it
> interesting. I found it even more interesting (but not terribly surprising)
> that someone responded to that by saying I wasn't worth responding to.
Okay. I DO get your point. I got it a long time ago.
MY point? I am interested in knowing why you are posting to asc? Do you
find that you are discriminated in the workplace because your supervisors
expect you to cover for the parents who take extra time off for
sprog-related activities? Do you resent having to take on extra work
responsiblities without being justly compensated for your time?
> I tried to make up for my error and be nice. Ye reaps what ye sows.
I've been throwing tons of seeds your way. Are you interested in
answering *any* of them? I know I've been learning from others'
responses, care to join in?
> Besides, the flaming elite might as well admit that they get off on this.
> Makes'em feel big. Otherwise, they would just hang in the mod group, no?
There are some folks I LOVE to flame. You are not one of them. You keep
wanting to hang around, so I just thought that I'd try to engage you in
some cf-related conversation. I mean, that IS why you are here, isn't it?
> At any rate, I'm still more than happy to be friendly with people without
> the Major Attitude issue.
Do you think that I have a Major Attitude issue? Do you think that CF
people have more attitude problems in general or do you think that it may
be because they are a marginalized segment of the population?
T.
Wendy
about how she "misses adult conversation, etc.," but then drags the
kids everywhere (she's the Queen of dropping in), whines because my
place isn't childproofed, etc. She's a SAHM, entitled to some kid-free
time, but nooooooooo - hiring a sitter even for a couple of hours
would make her a baaaaaaad mombie (no, it's not attachment parenting,
it's guilt for the 1st & 3rd being "accidents" rather than planned, or
some such nonsense). But of course it's "all worth it," and she just
can't understand why any "normal" woman wouldn't subject herself to it.
I finally told her after numerous items got broken, the dogs were ready
for therapy and she jumped me for asking her brat to kindly NOT dance
on my coffee table that the kids (who've not been taught any respect
for others or others' stuff) are not welcome in my home til they learn
to behave better than wild animals.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
virginia
Voris Tracy Van wrote:
> Are you childfree, or would you consider yourself to be a fence-sitter?
> Do you come from a big family? Did you have to take care of your
> siblings? Do you think that your experience with your nuclear family had
> any impact on your choice not to breed?
>
> T. - Childfree, no, no, and no are my answers
i'll jump in on this one! CF, although when we got married i did tell the
priest that if a kid came along we supposed that would be fine (can't tell a
priest "hell, no, don't want 'em!!"). one of four siblings, and i'm the
"baby" of the family, with all the privileges and nuisances that entails. my
older sibs took care of me, since mom took the celestial dirt nap (sorry,
that's insensitive) when i was 7. maybe if she hadn't had four kids with an
already bad heart, she'd be alive today. bitter? weeeeellll, maybe just a
bit
--insert breeder comment here "but if she hadn't had four kids, you wouldn't
be here!!" yeah, what of it? --
i think, though, that her dying when i was that young had a most definite
impact on my reasons not to have kids. plus, i love my dad's comment "you
were all surprises." great, that's sooooo nice to know we were all so
lovingly planned and sought after.
va :)
John & Mari Morgan
<cmlNO...@ris.net.invalid> wrote, in the midst of a lot of other
stuff:
> I'm sure she will be a PNB,
Y'know, this just got me thinking. Has anyone else ever noticed how we
are just about always sure it's OUR friends who are going to be the
PNBs, it's the OTHER clueless gits who are going to be the BNPs? I'm
not casting asparagus on anyone in particular, and certainly not on
Christine (all she did was hit the "on" switch for this particular
O-gauge electric train of thought *grin*) but it does kind of remind
me of the "MY kid isn't going to be like that" parunt-knee-jerk. I
wonder if there's something there where we don't want to admit that we
had the bad judgement to be friends with a potential breederfreak?
Mari
who took a while to admit that her cat is an evil little shit :-)
-
Trying to win an argument with an irrational person is like
trying to teach a cat to snorkel by providing written instructions.
--Scott Adams
Kent
: Y'know, this just got me thinking. Has anyone else ever noticed how we
: are just about always sure it's OUR friends who are going to be the
: PNBs, it's the OTHER clueless gits who are going to be the BNPs? I'm
: not casting asparagus on anyone in particular, and certainly not on
: Christine (all she did was hit the "on" switch for this particular
: O-gauge electric train of thought *grin*) but it does kind of remind
: me of the "MY kid isn't going to be like that" parunt-knee-jerk. I
: wonder if there's something there where we don't want to admit that we
: had the bad judgement to be friends with a potential breederfreak?
I've noticed this, too, even as I've said the same thing. Then again, most
of us have stories about (former) friends who were smart & cool, only to
turn into Breeders Of The Damned once they popped. I bet those who were
friends with them would've expected PNBism of them, too.
You just can't ever tell, until the Precious Goldensproggen arrive.
Kent
John & Mari Morgan
<wendyshipps...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>I finally told her after numerous items got broken, the dogs were ready
>for therapy and she jumped me for asking her brat to kindly NOT dance
>on my coffee table that the kids (who've not been taught any respect
>for others or others' stuff) are not welcome in my home til they learn
>to behave better than wild animals.
Wait, wait, let me guess - she got mad at YOU for saying this, right?
Mari
who has lived this scenario entirely too many times :-(
Beth Cole
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:57:10 -0800, hugacat
> <cmlNO...@ris.net.invalid> wrote, in the midst of a lot of other
> stuff:
>
> > I'm sure she will be a PNB,
>
> Y'know, this just got me thinking. Has anyone else ever noticed how we
> are just about always sure it's OUR friends who are going to be the
> PNBs, it's the OTHER clueless gits who are going to be the BNPs? I'm
> not casting asparagus on anyone in particular, and certainly not on
> Christine (all she did was hit the "on" switch for this particular
> O-gauge electric train of thought *grin*) but it does kind of remind
> me of the "MY kid isn't going to be like that" parunt-knee-jerk. I
> wonder if there's something there where we don't want to admit that we
> had the bad judgement to be friends with a potential breederfreak?
I know one of our friends (and I almost hate to use the term friend, since
the couple are mostly just acquaintances who happen to have mutual friends
of ours) is going to be a BNP when the kid arrives in May. They raised an
otherwise beautiful Basset Hound to give off the "wrong" signals when it
is upset vs playing (when it plays tug of war, it growls; when it is
getting ready to nip/bite, it wags its tail and yelps) so that no one else
knows what to expect from it. They expect that the dog (neutered when he
was 4, now 7) will "have to go" when the kid arrives. If they hadn't
screwed with the animal's mind so badly, I might have considered offering
to take him.
I also expected my own mother (who was a borderline BNP with us, with the
exception of good manners being pounded into our heads) to be a real BNP
grandma with my niece, who came along last May, and so far she hasn't
failed to disappoint. My brother & his wife, thank goodness, are fairly
relaxed but still understand the concept that it is possible to discipline
a baby, it just requires some creativity (like letting their dog do the
"discipline" of the "puppy" when baby decided she needed to pull the dog's
tail. I was impressed. Most of the people I know would have been
terrified that the dog had snapped at the pwecious chyld. They let Dolly
get her own message across to the junior member of the pack!). I'm
reserving judgement on BNP/PNB status for them, though, until da kid is
mobile and talking. I have high hopes, but I'm also rather realistic....
I have no illusions about most of the childed friends I have from college,
too. Most of them are BNP's of the first rank. Fortunately, most of the
friends I see with any regularity are actually childfree or at least
childless! (One couple, the male half of whom was a good friend, got
married last year at Memorial Day. She has two kids, both teenage boys,
and had her tubes tied after the second one. She asked him if he wanted
to have children together. His response was that they already had two to
raise and that was enough. Also, in five years, they'll both be out of
the house and gee, he'll have her all to himself!)
Beth
--
Definition of a Wench: We make our own rules on our own lives. We decide
who. We decide when. We decide how. We decide why.
ICQ#: 34747033
AOL Instant Messenger ID: eacole72
dph...@my-deja.com
more slack than the breeders that we don't know.
My earlier post in this thread details the loss of two
different friends due to parenthood -- I correctly predicted
the 'BNP-ness' of both of them (one BNP, one PNB).
--
--dph.
(preferred email: dhayes AT iname DOT com)
In article <38b66865....@news.newsguy.com>,
john...@gis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:57:10 -0800, hugacat
> <cmlNO...@ris.net.invalid> wrote, in the midst of a lot of other
> stuff:
>
> > I'm sure she will be a PNB,
>
> Y'know, this just got me thinking. Has anyone else ever noticed how we
> are just about always sure it's OUR friends who are going to be the
> PNBs, it's the OTHER clueless gits who are going to be the BNPs? I'm
> not casting asparagus on anyone in particular, and certainly not on
> Christine (all she did was hit the "on" switch for this particular
> O-gauge electric train of thought *grin*) but it does kind of remind
> me of the "MY kid isn't going to be like that" parunt-knee-jerk. I
> wonder if there's something there where we don't want to admit that we
> had the bad judgement to be friends with a potential breederfreak?
>
> Mari
> who took a while to admit that her cat is an evil little shit :-)
> -
> Trying to win an argument with an irrational person is like
> trying to teach a cat to snorkel by providing written instructions.
> --Scott Adams
>
hugacat
>
>Y'know, this just got me thinking. Has anyone else ever noticed
how we
>are just about always sure it's OUR friends who are going to be
the
>PNBs, it's the OTHER clueless gits who are going to be the BNPs?
I'm
>not casting asparagus on anyone in particular, and certainly not
on
>Christine (all she did was hit the "on" switch for this
particular
>O-gauge electric train of thought *grin*) but it does kind of
remind
>me of the "MY kid isn't going to be like that" parunt-knee-jerk.
I
>wonder if there's something there where we don't want to admit
that we
>had the bad judgement to be friends with a potential
breederfreak?
Y'know, Mari, you are so right. I did sort of contradict myself
in my earlier post, saying my friend has trashed her career and
become incapable of coherent conversation since whelping, yet
maintaining that she'll be a PNB.
I probably am in denial, because of all my friends, this
particular womban is the one I would LEAST have expected to turn
into a "breederfreak." But by all indications, that's what has
happened. It's hard to admit that a wonderful 14-year friendship
has been irrevocably changed by an 8-pound poop factory.
I think what I've found hardest about maintaining friendships
with the childridden is their attitude that "you don't have kids;
you couldn't possibly understand the joooooy we've discovered!"
I love the life I've made for myself; I don't need some crotchlet
to make it complete. And every communication I've had with this
friend since she downloaded has had an air of "I've discovered
this great jooooy and you just don't get it, you poor thing."
If there is a way to know which ones will go to The Other Side, I
sure haven't found it yet!
Christine
John & Mari Morgan
wrote:
> (can't tell a priest "hell, no, don't want 'em!!")
Yes, you can. We did exactly that, and presented the priest with
multiple coherent, thoughtful reasons why we didn't wanna and didn't
think we oughta. There simply wasn't anything he could argue with, and
he applauded us for having thought it through so carefully before
marriage was even a possibility. According to our priest, one of the
reasons for the mandatory premarital counseling is to _force_ couples
to think about and communicate about these things _before_ they go
through the legalities, because most of them don't. Our priest
actually made the comment that it's a lot better to find out you're
not compatible when the biggest problem is splitting up the record
collection than when you have to involve lawyers and courts and all
that other foolishness. Yes, he did encourage couples - unofficially -
to cohabit for a year or two before marriage to see if they could
stand each other 24/7 and not "on their best behavior" like they are
on dates. Progressive priest. Good person.
Mari