Mt. Juliet High School Senior Prank
Andy & Lisa Alderidge
Writing on the walls with shoe polish and letting a chicken run wild
through the hallways. Now the pranksters and their parents are upset
because the punishment is to not let these kids participate in
graduation. What do you guys think? I agree with the principal. The
pranks are becoming a little more daring each year and maybe this
punishment might deter the next graduating class from trying to top the
previous year's prank. Did I mention last year's prank was setting the
football field on fire and causing $8000 in damages. I hope the school
board doesn't back down from the pressure of the parents.
K. D.
"Roger Collins" <vert...@dtccom.net> wrote in message
news:39258F05...@dtccom.net...
> Come on guys, this is a 60 year old tradition. Oh don't get me wrong, I
> think the kids should be punished, but I think they should still be
allowed
> to graduate. What happened last year was totally different. What these
kids
> did didn't cost anyone anything.
Would you feel the same way if someone broke into your house and spread
shaving cream and shoe polish all over? Last I knew, most shoe polish is
not water-soluble -- otherwise, it would wash and rub off your shoes (duh).
There is a hell of a difference. Did you
> graduate? Well, what did your class do?
The pranks I remember from high school involved:
1) Filling the principal's office with halloween pumpkins. This didn't
involve breaking into the building or his office after hours.
2) Releasing a bunch of helium balloons into the library
3) Throwing paint onto the fountain in the high school courtyard. That
act was NOT received well by the administration and the students, but I
don't know if the perpetrators were punished. I think they should have been
punished, even though the fountain was pretty ugly, and it was torn down not
many years later.
> punishment enough. Can you imagine the hell those kids will have to live
> through after their parents have to spend 50 hours picking up trash on the
> side of the road?
Nope -- no big deal. Missing graduation will sting a lot harder and leave a
more lasting impression.
The reaction of the parents speaks volumes -- no wonder the kids are such
irresponsible *ssholes! If MY kids were involved in such a prank (I have
four kids, three of them teenagers, and one of them graduating HS this
year), I would fully support the punishment that was given (missing
graduation and cleaning up). I'd tell my kids they should be thankful it's
not worse, and I would be all over them for doing something so foolish as to
be risking criminal penalties. Believe me, missing graduation would be a
walk in the park, compared to what they had in store from me!
-KD
David L. Morel
some damage...shoe polish on walls? sounds like new paint would be
needed...
I get pissed off by whining parents...if i had done that...my father would
have pulled me from the graduation to teach me a lesson...by the way...i did
a prank senior year in high school and i didn't get caught...but if i
did...i would have had to do alot more than 50 hours community service!
--
David L. Morel
Digital Photo Portfolio: http://www.digitalstars.net/dstars_portfolio.htm
Brentwood Camera Club: www.digitalstars.net/bcc/
Roger Collins <vert...@dtccom.net> wrote in message
news:39258F05...@dtccom.net...
> Come on guys, this is a 60 year old tradition. Oh don't get me wrong, I
> think the kids should be punished, but I think they should still be
allowed
> to graduate. What happened last year was totally different. What these
kids
> did didn't cost anyone anything. There is a hell of a difference. Did you
> graduate? Well, what did your class do? I don't know if you listen to 99.7
> talk radio or not. But during Darryl Ankarlo's show this morning, one
> caller suggested that the kids and their parents be made to do 50 hours
> community service. I think that's a damn good idea. And I think it would
be
> punishment enough. Can you imagine the hell those kids will have to live
> through after their parents have to spend 50 hours picking up trash on the
> side of the road? I wouldn't want to be in their place!
David L. Morel
example of a parent parenting as opposed to parents who try to be a kids
friend...too much of the latter these days...
There will be plenty of time to be your childs friend once they become
adults, until then, parents must parent.
--
David L. Morel
Digital Photo Portfolio: http://www.digitalstars.net/dstars_portfolio.htm
Brentwood Camera Club: www.digitalstars.net/bcc/
K. D. <kaye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8g43la$4tga$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> "Roger Collins" <vert...@dtccom.net> wrote in message
> news:39258F05...@dtccom.net...
> > Come on guys, this is a 60 year old tradition. Oh don't get me wrong, I
> > think the kids should be punished, but I think they should still be
> allowed
> > to graduate. What happened last year was totally different. What these
> kids
> > did didn't cost anyone anything.
>
> Would you feel the same way if someone broke into your house and spread
> shaving cream and shoe polish all over? Last I knew, most shoe polish is
> not water-soluble -- otherwise, it would wash and rub off your shoes
(duh).
>
>
> There is a hell of a difference. Did you
> > graduate? Well, what did your class do?
>
> The pranks I remember from high school involved:
>
> 1) Filling the principal's office with halloween pumpkins. This didn't
> involve breaking into the building or his office after hours.
>
> 2) Releasing a bunch of helium balloons into the library
>
> 3) Throwing paint onto the fountain in the high school courtyard. That
> act was NOT received well by the administration and the students, but I
> don't know if the perpetrators were punished. I think they should have
been
> punished, even though the fountain was pretty ugly, and it was torn down
not
> many years later.
>
> > punishment enough. Can you imagine the hell those kids will have to live
> > through after their parents have to spend 50 hours picking up trash on
the
> > side of the road?
>
Brian Steele
their own actions? These "kids" are 17 and 18 years old,
and I'm sure most of them consider themselves more as
adults than children. They need to learn now that there
are CONSEQUENCES for their actions.
Offer the kids a plea bargain: they plead guilty and agree to 480
hours (that's 12 weeks - no summer vacation this year!) of community
service and they can join in the graduation ceremony. If they choose
not to take that route, then it shows that their desire to "walk the
line" is not as important as they'd like everyone to believe.
Oh, and that needs to be MEANINGFUL community service,
not the "work in your defense attorney's yard" community service
that Ankarlo's son was sentenced to.
Cheers.....B
Roger Collins <vert...@dtccom.net> wrote:
>Come on guys, this is a 60 year old tradition. Oh don't get me wrong, I
>think the kids should be punished, but I think they should still be allowed
>to graduate. What happened last year was totally different. What these kids
>did didn't cost anyone anything. There is a hell of a difference. Did you
>graduate? Well, what did your class do? I don't know if you listen to 99.7
>talk radio or not. But during Darryl Ankarlo's show this morning, one
>caller suggested that the kids and their parents be made to do 50 hours
>community service. I think that's a damn good idea. And I think it would be
>punishment enough. Can you imagine the hell those kids will have to live
>through after their parents have to spend 50 hours picking up trash on the
Andy & Lisa Alderidge
> graduate is due to a statement one of the kids made on the news last
> night. "I would even miss prom but not graduation." This is an example of
> the parents letting these kids choose their own punishments (if they were
> ever punished). I do agree with the community service in which the
> parents serve right along with their kids.
To answer an earlier question, I was involved in pranks in high school, but
back then it was called "skip day". Didn't cause any property damage and
was actually an expected tradition.
Sincerely,
Lisa Alderidge
K. D.
"Andy & Lisa Alderidge" <scrapha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3925D14B...@earthlink.net...
> > I guess the reason I am so supportive of these kids not getting to
> > graduate is due to a statement one of the kids made on the news last
> > night. "I would even miss prom but not graduation." This is an example
of
> > the parents letting these kids choose their own punishments (if they
were
> > ever punished). I do agree with the community service in which the
> > parents serve right along with their kids.
Sorry to piggyback, but I missed the original.
"I would even miss prom but not graduation."
Uh, who cares what the culprit would "rather" miss -- it isn't his choice.
When the convicted felon is sentenced, he doesn't usually get to pick the
lesser of two punishments. Punishment, kinda by definition, means that the
person will suffer some pain or loss. Otherwise, well, what would be the
point?
<sigh> This is one of the best lessons in living these kids could learn, on
the threshold of adulthood. I predict that some day, they'll be telling the
younger generation, in trying to teach them a lesson, "When I was your age,
I did ..... and had to pay the price." In other words, maybe they'll
actually learn their lesson.
-KD
Olin Murrell
From: "David L. Morel" <dlm...@home.net>
Newsgroups: nashville.general
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Mt. Juliet High School Senior Prank
> i agree that they should be kept out of graduation...i bet they did cause
> some damage...shoe polish on walls? sounds like new paint would be
> needed...
>
Well supposedly, they did clean up the shoe polish, and I seriously doubt new
paint will be required.
> I get pissed off by whining parents...if i had done that...my father would
> have pulled me from the graduation to teach me a lesson...by the way...i did
> a prank senior year in high school and i didn't get caught...but if i
> did...i would have had to do alot more than 50 hours community service!
>
Ah, one "adult" who actually does remember that WE all did some of the same
mindless crap when we were teenagers.
Whining parents tick me off too, but people who figure every one of society's
ills can be cured by "getting tough" on teenagers make me just about as ill.
Shootings in Columbine, and frayed blue jeans are outlawed in Tennessee.
As an aside to that, I read an interesting stat in some article the other day.
Since 1993, 88 kids have been killed in school shootings. In that same time
frame, 99 have been killed by automobile air bags.
Zero tolerance is now the big rage. When a kid threatens violence, or carries it
out, they're immediately suspended. Now, let me see if I have this straight.
Threaten a teacher, and you don't go to school any more that year. Oh yeah! THAT
is serious punishment.
Might even explain the recent rash of "threats."
Here's a better idea. When the little monster screws up bad enough, rather than
kick him/her out of school, put 'em in a real "boot-camp" school, where they
have to show up at 7, and stay until 4. No recess. No play periods. No "rights"
either. They do what they're told, when they are told, and for as long as they
are told to do it. Failure to abide results in more time in camp.
When sixteen local preachers can get together and write a letter condemning
another religious denomination IN PRINT, methinks our teenagers may be better
off than many of the "adults" of Middle Tennessee.
Fred Chateau
> When sixteen local preachers can get together and write a letter condemning
> another religious denomination IN PRINT, methinks our teenagers may be
better
> off than many of the "adults" of Middle Tennessee.
This sounds interesting. To what, exactly, are you referring?
Remember, I'm the guy who watches "The Simpsons" and "Judge Judy" instead of
the local news on Channel 5. :)
--
Regards,
Fred Chateau
http://members.home.net/fchateau/
Olin Murrell
"Fred Chateau" <fcha...@NOSPAM.home.com> wrote in message
news:0bpV4.11063$45.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Far as I know, this one has not made the television news. This particular
reference is made to a recent Tim Chavez column about some tracts delivered to
the media by several "area preachers."
Here's the URL.
http://www.tennessean.com/sii/columns/chavez/00/05/chavez16.shtml
One can say what one wishes about Chavez. Personally, I think he's doing a
pretty good job of presenting his own view of the world, and after all it's a
column he writes... not a "news" article.
I have no problem at all believing what he writes in his article, because I've
seen some of the backbiting and infighting that goes on within, and even inside,
various protestant denominations up close and personal.
And I still think, with this little tract, I think sixteen "area preachers" need
to ask themselves, "If we are intolerant of others' religious views, how should
we expect tolerance of ours?"
While those kids in Mt. Juliet DID, in point of fact, step beyond the bounds of
normal prankstering, and DO deserve some punishment (maybe even severe), I just
have to wonder if THIS is the kind of example we "adults" really want to set for
them...
Fred Chateau
> While those kids in Mt. Juliet DID, in point of fact, step beyond the bounds
of
> normal prankstering, and DO deserve some punishment (maybe even severe), I
just
> have to wonder if THIS is the kind of example we "adults" really want to set
for
> them...
If they had just released the chicken, it would have been hilarious, and the
perfect punishment for them would be making them clean up all the chicken shit
. . . :)
BTW, do any of you know what the white stuff is in chicken shit?
JamesKB
> think the kids should be punished, but I think they should still be
allowed
> to graduate.
They are being allowed to **graduate**...... just not allowed to be in the
graduation ***ceremony***
Fred Chateau
> Far as I know, this one has not made the television news. This particular
> reference is made to a recent Tim Chavez column about some tracts delivered
to
> the media by several "area preachers."
>
> Here's the URL.
>
> http://www.tennessean.com/sii/columns/chavez/00/05/chavez16.shtml
>
> One can say what one wishes about Chavez. Personally, I think he's doing a
> pretty good job of presenting his own view of the world, and after all it's
a
> column he writes... not a "news" article.
>
> I have no problem at all believing what he writes in his article, because
I've
> seen some of the backbiting and infighting that goes on within, and even
inside,
> various protestant denominations up close and personal.
>
> And I still think, with this little tract, I think sixteen "area preachers"
need
> to ask themselves, "If we are intolerant of others' religious views, how
should
> we expect tolerance of ours?"
Let's see what people think about this . . .
I am a Roman Catholic. I believe in live and let live. I hold no malice
towards any religious faith or denomination, and I have personally found
myself on the short end of anti-Catholic prejudice in this area of the
country. I believe in interfaith alliance practices, communal religious
celebrations, etc. (although I don't believe in one world religion).
The Mormon church is entitled to practice their religious beliefs and
practices, without judgment or condemnation from anyone, as are we all.
In light of these statements, everything I know about Joseph Smith leads me to
believe that he was a con man, and a womanizer of the worst sort, and because
of his behavior, I find it very hard to accept that he had any kind of true
and special relationship with God, as claimed by his followers.
--
Respectfully,
Fred Chateau
http://members.home.net/fchateau/
Dennis McGee
ste...@dickson.nichtspam.net (Brian Steele) wrote:
>Oh, and that needs to be MEANINGFUL community service, not the
>"work in your defense attorney's yard" community service that
>Ankarlo's son was sentenced to.
<Laugh> Is Darryl-Anne jumping on his moral high horse about this? Wouldn't
surprise me a bit. Nor the fact that his son got off on a public nudity
charge by "working" in his own defense attorney's yard.
Another thing I find interesting is I've yet to see any of the Nashville TV
stations mention the fact that senior pranksters caused $8,000 worth of
damage to the very same high school last year, as someone else in this
thread mentioned. I had almost forgotten about that. I think public opinion
would be 63/37 *for* this kind of punishment instead of vice versa if an
unscientific Internet poll conducted by Channel 2 is to be believed (and it
probably shouldn't).
Kent Finnell
Andy & Lisa Alderidge <scrapha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3925D14B...@earthlink.net...
> > I guess the reason I am so supportive of these kids not getting to
> > graduate is due to a statement one of the kids made on the news last
> > night. "I would even miss prom but not graduation." This is an example
of
> > the parents letting these kids choose their own punishments (if they
were
> > ever punished). I do agree with the community service in which the
> > parents serve right along with their kids.
>
but
> back then it was called "skip day". Didn't cause any property damage and
> was actually an expected tradition.
>
> Sincerely,
> Lisa Alderidge
>
Geeez, and I'm supposed to be one of the hard asses around here. The
principal is making an example of the wrong set of seniors. Last year's
bunch that caused $8,000 worth of property damage, and to the best of my
knowledge, were not punished in an appropriate manner. The Class of 2000 is
paying for the sins of the Class of 1999. The shoe polish, btw, was water
solubile.
Real community service, maybe 50 hours each (x 30) is a lot of free labor
for the community. Punish the kids in a reasonable way, but not the parents
and family who may have gathered from across the country to see Junior and
Mary Beth graduate.
Kent ... who never pulled any pranks (that's my story and I sticking to it)
David L. Morel
parents that are whining to the scholl have probably already screwed up...it
will take a lot of reality to fix the kids, if they ever do learn...
the punishment will be for the next years kids...that is where the effect
will be strongest...some kids will see that even if their parents are
weenies some people are not and maybe they will learn some restraint...
--
David L. Morel
Digital Photo Portfolio: http://www.digitalstars.net/dstars_portfolio.htm
Brentwood Camera Club: www.digitalstars.net/bcc/
Olin Murrell <olinm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:8qoV4.11053$45.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
DarkAñGeL
PLAYING PRANKS, YET I THINK THERE ARE REASONABLE LIMITS. KEEPING THEM FROM
GRADUATION IS JUST A LITTLE MUCH FOR A PUNISHMENT. DIDN'T YOU EVER PLAY
PRANKS WHEN YOU WERE A SENIOR?!?
David L. Morel
christians, muslims, buddists, whatever, are good people and will do fine
down the line...i too have been told i was going to hell because i wasn't a
true 'christian'...
Whatever the origins of the Mormon Church, they are doing something right
with the statistics of dramaticly less divorces and the like...i appluad
them and respect them and definitely don't fear them...
Now i guess divorce would be less since they can have five wives...just
kidding! what would i want more wives for, i can't keep one of them
satisfied!
--
David L. Morel
Digital Photo Portfolio: http://www.digitalstars.net/dstars_portfolio.htm
Brentwood Camera Club: www.digitalstars.net/bcc/
Fred Chateau <fcha...@NOSPAM.home.com> wrote in message
news:8gqV4.11077$45.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
K. D.
"Kent Finnell" <Kent.F...@nashville.com>
> Geeez, and I'm supposed to be one of the hard asses around here. The
> principal is making an example of the wrong set of seniors. Last year's
> bunch that caused $8,000 worth of property damage, and to the best of my
> knowledge, were not punished in an appropriate manner. The Class of 2000
is
> paying for the sins of the Class of 1999.
That is certainly possible, that they are paying for the sins of those who
went before. However, just because the former students weren't punished
does not mean that these students should not be punished. Two wrongs don't
make a right and all that.
Isn't it possible that the administration, seeing that a pattern was
emerging, felt that they made a mistake in not punishing the former students
severely enough? That if they didn't get serious and punish these students,
things would only get worse?
> The shoe polish, btw, was water
> solubile.
Do you mean water soluble? And how do you know this? What brand was it?
Just curious -- the concept of water-soluble shoe polish intrigues me.
> Real community service, maybe 50 hours each (x 30) is a lot of free labor
> for the community. Punish the kids in a reasonable way, but not the
parents
> and family who may have gathered from across the country to see Junior and
> Mary Beth graduate.
Too damn bad -- part of one's punishment is the inconvenience and
humiliation it causes within one's family and community. That's one of the
lessons that these kids have to learn -- that when you go out and do stupid
things, the repercussions spread out and impact other people as well.
Welcome to life!
-KD
K. D.
"DarkAñGeL" <Cha...@home.com> wrote in message
news:JXvV4.11245$45.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Do you know how to disable the "cap lock" feature on your keyboard?
I already answered your question in another post. I, personally, didn't
play pranks, but the ones that my schoolmates played were not this serious.
When does a prank cross the line and become a criminal act?
Putting a foul tasting, but harmless, substance in someone's food is
arguably a prank -- no harm done other than the very short-lived displeasure
of the victim. Putting a potentially harmful substance (laxative, sedative,
hallucinogenic) in someone's food is a whole different story.
-KD
Fred Chateau
"jak" wrote ...
> > BTW, do any of you know what the white stuff is in chicken shit?
> When I heard that one, it referred to pigeon crap--of course the answer is
"more
> chicken shit."
Damn . . . You stole my punchline. :)
You know, and argument could me made, that after the previous years
devastation, the staff and principle had a responsibility to make clear to all
students that any kind of prank behavior would not be tolerated, before the
fact. It seems they now want to deflect the responsibility for their
shortsightness.
This may seem like a stretch to some, but I don't think so. A big part of the
problem in our current society is that we insist on treating children as
adults. Whether it's punishment for crimes, or apathy towards gun crime
prevention and the gratuitous sex and violence on television, advertising and
movies, our society has sacrificed our children in the name of constitutional
freedom.
And when a child responds in an anticipated way to this sick culture, we say
that he should know better. But children are not little adults, and do not
reason as adults. They more often than not react to their environment, through
peer pressure, etc., than form a more rational plan of behavior.
That's enough ranting about this. I really don't want to argue about it
either. It's too obvious to me to argue about. All you have to do is open your
eyes and look.
K. D.
"Fred Chateau" <fcha...@NOSPAM.home.com> wrote in message
> That's enough ranting about this. I really don't want to argue about it
> either. It's too obvious to me to argue about. All you have to do is open
your
> eyes and look.
Well, aren't we self-important? Gee, I'm glad I have you here to open my
eyes for me.
-KD
GadTheSeer
religions of the world are made up of 2 principle components... Theology
and Mythology.
The theologies of all the religions (Eastern and Western) are remarkably
similiar. They are a blueprint for civilized society... don't lie, don't
kill, respect your parents/children, etc. If it were just theologies that
people fought over, then we would not have any religious-based wars.
The other component to all major religions is mythology. The way in which
the beliefs of the religion are passed along to the minions in a
easy-to-remember, self-perpetuating way. This was often done because when
most religions were founded there were few people who could read and
write. Therefore, the story form of teaching became essential. Being a
Catholic, you should know all about mythology, pomp and circumstance, the
religion is crammed full of it.
Religious wars are not about theology, they are about mythology. The
Jews, Christians and Muslims all come from the old testament (only
testament if you're not Christian) of the Bible. All three religions
share the same roots, yet because their "traditions" (e.g. mythologies)
differ, and their "scriptures" claim that the Holy Land belongs to them
exclusively, they fight each other.
Is it necessary to have one "universal" religion to worship the one and
only God? No. The Buddists believe that we are all on our own personal
journey to spirtual enlightenment. I do to. It does not matter to a
Buddist how you get to heaven, as long as you are trying... that's what
matters.
David: Like Fred, I too hold no malice to the Mormons, but to claim that
low Morman divorce rates and the such mean that the Mormans are doing
"something right" is to overlook the fact that Jim Jones followers, David
Koresh followers and Moonies were/are also doing something right for the
same reason. Judging what people do and not "why" they do it is a
dangerous thing.
GadTheSeer... (What's so funny 'bout) Peace, Love and Understanding?
In article <8gqV4.11077$45.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>, "Fred Chateau"
Fred Chateau
> Well, aren't we self-important?
Yes, we are . . .
> Gee, I'm glad I have you here to open my eyes for me.
You should be thanking me . . . ;)
Olin Murrell
"~ Windsong ~" <fish...@hotcom.net> wrote in message
news:_UmX4.62946$681.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> David L. Morel <dlm...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:8LvV4.11243$45.2...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> :
> : Now i guess divorce would be less since they can have five wives...just
> : kidding! what would i want more wives for, i can't keep one of them
> : satisfied!
> That well known Mormon with all those young girls as wives is in deep doodoo
> now from what I saw on TV. Aside from that he didn't work or support any of
> them or all the children he fathered. A few worked but most were on WELFARE
> and *we* were supporting his little harem out there in Utah. All he did was
> bedhop and make baby after baby at the taxpayers expense. Looks like
> that's going to end soon.....
>
> PS I know this is a small Mormon sect, that most don't have a group of
> wives.
Polygamy officially ended in the Mormon Church several years ago. Oddly enough,
I ran into a treatise written by some religious missionary outfit somewhere on
the web several years ago that tried to make the point that ending polygamy by
law (and therefore somewhat abruptly) might actually run counterproductive.
They also made the point that polygamy "could" be a viable family situation,
obviously provided that all who entered such an agreement bought fully into the
concept in the first place.
I can see this part of the concept working, in that children would have a number
of "parents," increasing the odds of supervision, but I just cannot possibly
imagine even existing in a house with five or six wives. One's more than I can
handle. ;^)
K. D.
"Olin Murrell" <olinm...@home.com>
> They also made the point that polygamy "could" be a viable family
situation,
> obviously provided that all who entered such an agreement bought fully
into the
> concept in the first place.
Yes, there is evidence that polygamy has, historically, been more the norm
than the exception, until fairly recently. It can actually work very well
(especially for the females, and arguably for the children), in that it
gives more women access to the most successful and desirable males -- these
desirable males make good candidates for fathering children. Many woman
would gladly share an alpha or beta male with several other ladies, rather
than to have a lambda, pi, or omega all to herself. That's how it works in
the animal kingdom, no?
Monogramy hurts females (as a group) and benefits males (as a group). Think
about it -- in polygamy, in which the most powerful males can get more than
their fair share of the females, many of the less desirable males will be
cut out of access to females. Thus, they are deprived of the carnal
pleasure of sex, as well as the ability to procreate -- which usually
further diminishes their social standing and denies them the opportunity to
leave their estate to any of their own offspring. The situation of lots of
young, horny, disgruntled males, can lead to social unrest, big time.
Legally marrying more than one woman is currently illegal, even though the
institution of marriage confers on the husband strict obligations regarding
the wife, children, inheritance, etc. Yet, a man can legally father as many
different children (at the same time) with as many women as he can get his
"hands" on, without marrying one of them. Likewise, a single woman can have
several children from several different men. In neither situation, will the
parties be arrested for what amounts to polygamy.
At least in polygyny, the husband keeps his former wives, as he adds new
ones. It has been suggested that what we have today, at least in the US, is
"serial polygamy". Both men and women divorce, and then a new spouse is
added. Sometimes multiple times.
I know two men who have had five wives. Not all at once, of course.
Olin Murrell
>
>
> "Olin Murrell" <olinm...@home.com>
>
> > They also made the point that polygamy "could" be a viable family
> situation,
> > obviously provided that all who entered such an agreement bought fully
> into the
> > concept in the first place.
>
> Yes, there is evidence that polygamy has, historically, been more the norm
> than the exception, until fairly recently. It can actually work very well
> (especially for the females, and arguably for the children), in that it
> gives more women access to the most successful and desirable males -- these
> desirable males make good candidates for fathering children. Many woman
> would gladly share an alpha or beta male with several other ladies, rather
> than to have a lambda, pi, or omega all to herself. That's how it works in
> the animal kingdom, no?
>
Makes sense to me.
> Monogramy hurts females (as a group) and benefits males (as a group). Think
> about it -- in polygamy, in which the most powerful males can get more than
> their fair share of the females, many of the less desirable males will be
> cut out of access to females. Thus, they are deprived of the carnal
> pleasure of sex, as well as the ability to procreate -- which usually
> further diminishes their social standing and denies them the opportunity to
> leave their estate to any of their own offspring. The situation of lots of
> young, horny, disgruntled males, can lead to social unrest, big time.
>
And that would be significantly different from our current situation, exactly
how? ;^)
> Legally marrying more than one woman is currently illegal, even though the
> institution of marriage confers on the husband strict obligations regarding
> the wife, children, inheritance, etc. Yet, a man can legally father as many
> different children (at the same time) with as many women as he can get his
> "hands" on, without marrying one of them. Likewise, a single woman can have
> several children from several different men. In neither situation, will the
> parties be arrested for what amounts to polygamy.
>
> At least in polygyny, the husband keeps his former wives, as he adds new
> ones. It has been suggested that what we have today, at least in the US, is
> "serial polygamy". Both men and women divorce, and then a new spouse is
> added. Sometimes multiple times.
>
Again, from a purely semantics POV, this makes some sense. But, as we both know,
nothing's likely to change.
> I know two men who have had five wives. Not all at once, of course.
>
When but a mere child, I knew (or at least knew of) this guy who'd been married
something like 24 times! If that's not strange enough, at least three of his
exes married him multiple times.
I sure don't want to swim in THAT gene pool. I know there have been successful
re-marriages to an ex spouse, but the odds have to be against it.
K. D.
"Olin Murrell" <olinm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:YguX4.17892$45.3...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>>The situation of lots of
> > young, horny, disgruntled males, can lead to social unrest, big time.
> >
> And that would be significantly different from our current situation,
exactly
> how? ;^)
Well, that thought *did* cross my mind. OK, let's just say that there would
be even more young, horny, disgruntled males...........
> Again, from a purely semantics POV, this makes some sense. But, as we both
know,
> nothing's likely to change.
Of course nothing is gonna change. As per the Mormons, I think they should
simply live in common-law polygamous marriages. They could, I suppose, have
a religious marriage ceremony, but never apply for a license. Eh -- the
Mormon clergy would probably get in trouble for that.....
> When but a mere child, I knew (or at least knew of) this guy who'd been
married
> something like 24 times! If that's not strange enough, at least three of
his
> exes married him multiple times.
>
> I sure don't want to swim in THAT gene pool. I know there have been
successful
> re-marriages to an ex spouse, but the odds have to be against it.
Love is a strange and powerful force... I don't get it, either. Some
people just don't learn from their own mistakes,
-KD
Doug Smith
> Of course nothing is gonna change. As per the Mormons, I think they should
> simply live in common-law polygamous marriages. They could, I suppose, have
> a religious marriage ceremony, but never apply for a license. Eh -- the
> Mormon clergy would probably get in trouble for that.....
What's wrong with polygamy?
Seriously, if all parties know in advance what's going on & consent, I
don't know why the state has to get involved. Seems to me it should be
between the spouses and their God.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~w9wi
zzn.com has been killfiled for excessive spam.
If you're on zzn, change ISPs if you want to send me email.
Jeff
wrote:
>
>When but a mere child, I knew (or at least knew of) this guy who'd been married
>something like 24 times! If that's not strange enough, at least three of his
>exes married him multiple times.
>
>I sure don't want to swim in THAT gene pool. I know there have been successful
>re-marriages to an ex spouse, but the odds have to be against it.
>
My grandfather knew a guy who had been married 5 times; to 2 women. I
can see remarrying an ex, but remarrying someone you've divorced twice?
Didn't they learn anything the second time?
--
His world is under anaesthetic
Subdivided and synthetic
His reliance on the giants
In the science of the day
-- "Digital Man" - Rush
Fred Chateau
> My grandfather knew a guy who had been married 5 times; to 2 women. I
> can see remarrying an ex, but remarrying someone you've divorced twice?
> Didn't they learn anything the second time?
It depends on your perception . . . Someone might see it as very romantic.
Kinda' like the ebb and flow of the tide . . . :)
Olin Murrell
>
>
> "Olin Murrell" <olinm...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:YguX4.17892$45.3...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
> >>The situation of lots of
> > > young, horny, disgruntled males, can lead to social unrest, big time.
> > >
> > And that would be significantly different from our current situation,
> exactly
> > how? ;^)
>
> Well, that thought *did* cross my mind. OK, let's just say that there would
> be even more young, horny, disgruntled males...........
>
Which, of course, may well be THE main reason we currently have laws against
polygamy. ;^)
> > Again, from a purely semantics POV, this makes some sense. But, as we both
> know,
> > nothing's likely to change.
>
> Of course nothing is gonna change. As per the Mormons, I think they should
> simply live in common-law polygamous marriages. They could, I suppose, have
> a religious marriage ceremony, but never apply for a license. Eh -- the
> Mormon clergy would probably get in trouble for that.....
>
Wouldn't surprise me if that's not already being done in some circles.
> > When but a mere child, I knew (or at least knew of) this guy who'd been
> married
> > something like 24 times! If that's not strange enough, at least three of
> his
> > exes married him multiple times.
> >
> > I sure don't want to swim in THAT gene pool. I know there have been
> successful
> > re-marriages to an ex spouse, but the odds have to be against it.
>
> Love is a strange and powerful force... I don't get it, either. Some
> people just don't learn from their own mistakes,
>
He sure didn't, and apparently, neither did a few of his ex/future/ex,
etc-wives.
Olin Murrell
"Jeff" <jeffre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:392ede4e...@10.5.144.16...
married
> >something like 24 times! If that's not strange enough, at least three of his
> >exes married him multiple times.
> >
> >I sure don't want to swim in THAT gene pool. I know there have been
successful
> >re-marriages to an ex spouse, but the odds have to be against it.
> >
>
> can see remarrying an ex, but remarrying someone you've divorced twice?
> Didn't they learn anything the second time?
>
Makes no sense at all to me. One wedding/one divorce per customer. I can't see
myself going back for seconds. And, to be honest, my ex-wife and I are probably
better friends now than at any time during our marriage. Only thing we ever did
that turned out right was our son. He's living his life and not costing either
of us any money, and he talks to us on a fairly regular basis.
K. D.
"Doug Smith" <w9...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:392EAF38...@bellsouth.net...
> "K. D." wrote:
> > Of course nothing is gonna change. As per the Mormons, I think they
should
> > simply live in common-law polygamous marriages. They could, I suppose,
have
> > a religious marriage ceremony, but never apply for a license. Eh -- the
> > Mormon clergy would probably get in trouble for that.....
>
> What's wrong with polygamy?
I don't have any problem with it. I did suggest, earlier, that polygamy
tends to eliminate a broader spectrum of the "lower end" of males from the
sex and procreating game -- if the powerful males can get a lock on an even
greater number of the females. But, hey, life's not fair.
Thus, polygamy further marginalizes these less-desirable males, the same
group that is already responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and
general mayhem. Marriage not only provides regular sex (well, sometimes),
but also children, which tends to "settle down" and civilize these angry
young men. Or, so the theory goes.
Feminists rail about the sexism of polygyny, and how it demeans women. As I
suggested earlier, just the opposite is true. Polygyny gives women the
choice of legally sharing a desirable male with other women, over having
Bubba all to herself. Women have historically chosen this option, as
evidenced by the countless mistresses who are willingly kept by a desirable,
married male, outside of marriage, for years. Sanctioned polygyny would, at
least, give them and their children a legal leg to stand on.
-KD
Olin Murrell
"~ Windsong ~" <fish...@heartoftn.net> wrote in message
news:vyIY4.119350$681.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes> news:qynX4.17753$45.3...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> :
> : > PS I know this is a small Mormon sect, that most don't have a group of
> : > wives. Carol (Windsong)
> :
> : Polygamy officially ended in the Mormon Church several years ago. Oddly
> enough,
> : I ran into a treatise written by some religious missionary outfit
> somewhere on
> : the web several years ago that tried to make the point that ending
> polygamy by
> : law (and therefore somewhat abruptly) might actually run
> counterproductive.
>
> children. From what I saw on TV these families are heavily subsidized by
> the US taxpayers.
>
According to this particular treatise, and it was written by missionaries,
emotional turmoil from ripping out a long-standing tradition, was one factor...
in that these extended families actually loved one another as much as any
monogamous family would. They also noted that, in much the same way large
families worked in a mostly agrarian society, the larger group, including
multiple wives and sometimes multiple husbands, worked to lessen the load on any
given individual.
:
> : They also made the point that polygamy "could" be a viable family
> situation,
> : obviously provided that all who entered such an agreement bought fully
> into the
> : concept in the first place.
>
> * And that all WORKED to support the hordes of children they bring forth.
>
Well yeah. In this treatise, they were talking about mostly undeveloped tribal
socities, where if you don't work, you don't eat.
And, they viewed, with more than a little intellectual honesty, the notion that
monogamy may actually run counter to nature, in that in much of the animal
kingdom, multiple adults is the norm. Being pretty much at the top of the food
chain, and arguably more "sentient" than other animals, humans sort of have a
choice in these matters.
:
> : I can see this part of the concept working, in that children would have a
> number
> : of "parents," increasing the odds of supervision, but I just cannot
> possibly
> : imagine even existing in a house with five or six wives. One's more than I
> can
> : handle. ;^)
>
> * I don't think I'd enjoying sharing my husband with other women. And a
> houseful of young children would be a bit much,... what happens when they
> become teens?
>
I don't think I could SURVIVE multiple wives, but as for the children, palm 'em
off on another wife for a while. ;^)
At least, the babysitting bill would drop like a rock!
In seriousness, the societies where polygamy works, they're hardly the Pokemon
Generation. They're usually a lot more self-contained than are we.
Blake Bowers
~ Windsong ~ wrote:
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> K. D. <kaye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8glo82$30tm$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> :
> : Yes, there is evidence that polygamy has, historically, been more the norm
> : than the exception, until fairly recently. It can actually work very well
> : (especially for the females, and arguably for the children), in that it
> : gives more women access to the most successful and desirable males
>
> * It does? Not anymore as most of these families now depend a great deal
> on welfare. Few men make enough (out in rural Utah) to support a group of
> wives and a large number of children.
>
Source please?
In reality, most of those large families in rural Utah are MORE
than able to support themselfs, and do so without government
assistance. They tend to shun dealing with the government.
Secondly, How do you figure that a situation with 6 wifes, children,
and one male is much different from 6 wifes with different husbands,
and their families?
Can you just see the welfare form that asks for the number of wifes you
have?
~ Windsong ~
Blake Bowers <bbo...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:8h0bqo$hrb$0...@63.162.247.249...
: >
: > * It does? Not anymore as most of these families now depend a great
deal
: > on welfare. Few men make enough (out in rural Utah) to support a group
of
: > wives and a large number of children.
: > : :
: Source please?
* I believe they had it on channel 2 here in Nashville.
:
: In reality, most of those large families in rural Utah are MORE
: than able to support themselfs, and do so without government
: assistance. They tend to shun dealing with the government.
* That's not what I saw.
:
: Secondly, How do you figure that a situation with 6 wifes, children,
: and one male is much different from 6 wifes with different husbands,
: and their families?
* 6 men make a lot more income than one man. And most families don't have
as many children as these religious Mormons.
: :
: Can you just see the welfare form that asks for the number of wifes you
: have?
* You missed the show. The women apply for welfare NOT the harem keeper
(husband). No one is going to ask them if they're married and how many
wives their husband has.
--
Carol...
New State Mottos:
Alaska: 11,623 Eskimos Can't Be Wrong!"
---<---<---{@ ---<---<---{@ ---<---<---{@ ---<---<---{@ ---<---<---{
@
Olin Murrell
"~ Windsong ~" <fish...@heartoftn.com> wrote in message
news:nijZ4.155074$681.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com...> news:1mOY4.24264$45.4...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> :
> : According to this particular treatise, and it was written by missionaries,
> : emotional turmoil from ripping out a long-standing tradition, was one
> factor...
> : in that these extended families actually loved one another as much as any
> : monogamous family would.
>
> these families (harems). There are women fighting these marriages out in
> Utah who've left these "harems", - they're not as great for women as it
> appears. The women end up bringing in almost all the money needed, one way
> or another. They either get public assistance or work some lowly job as
> none are educated beyond grade school.
>
I'm sure there are. There are petty jealousies in families with just one wife
and one husband, but several children. That is the very nature of jealousy...
petty.
> They also noted that, in much the same way large
> : families worked in a mostly agrarian society, the larger group, including
> : multiple wives and sometimes multiple husbands, worked to lessen the load
> on any
> : given individual.
>
> * That's the ideal.
>
No argument. That's exactly what it is.
: >
> : > * And that all WORKED to support the hordes of children they bring
> forth.
> : >
> : : Well yeah. In this treatise, they were talking about mostly undeveloped
> tribal
> : socities, where if you don't work, you don't eat.
>
> * That don't apply HERE in a Welfare country. Here if you don't or can't
> work you get all kinds of assistance.
>
Depends on where, and who, you are. In Texas there's virtually no public
assistance beyond what the Salvation Army and various charities provide for
males. And, the assistance for females is not that much better. Food stamps can
be a joke. I had a friend some years back who "qualified." I put it in quotes,
because she was trying to raise two children on less than $1,000 a month (before
tax). Her "benefit" amounted to a whopping ten percent. In other words, she paid
$90 for $100 worth of food stamps.
She could, and did, beat that with coupons. ;^)
> : And, they viewed, with more than a little intellectual honesty, the notion
> that
> : monogamy may actually run counter to nature, in that in much of the animal
> : kingdom, multiple adults is the norm. Being pretty much at the top of the
> food
> : chain, and arguably more "sentient" than other animals, humans sort of
> have a
> : choice in these matters.
>
> * As far as it goes, I couldn't care less how many wives these men had as
> long as we, the taxpayer don't have to subsidize them with food stamps and
> welfare. :o) Another thing... let them pick ADULT women! The men into
> this that I've seen on TV are all in their 30's and 40's and picking on
> girls no more than 15 years old.
>
Well, that's long been an argument. It's not been until fairly recently that the
"age of consent" has been agreed upon by any given two states. In some, it's as
low as 14. In some others, it's all the way up to 18, and in most cases the onus
has been placed on the male in the situation. It is not that difficult to find a
case where an 18 year-old male is charged with statutory rape for going to bed
with his 17 year-old girlfriend.
That said, I really have no clue what a 40 year-old man is doing, lusting after
a fifteen year-old girl. First, they have to "talk" sometime, and if that
doesn't get him, trying to keep up with HER will put him in his grave toot
sweet! ;^)
Blake Bowers
~ Windsong ~ wrote:
> : Source please?
>
> * I believe they had it on channel 2 here in Nashville.
Well that makes sense. Nothing on TV could ever be wrong...
> :
> : In reality, most of those large families in rural Utah are MORE
> : than able to support themselfs, and do so without government
> : assistance. They tend to shun dealing with the government.
>
> * That's not what I saw.
I have seen it in person. Not what you saw, most certainly.
I guess it may be like the "expose" where they do stories on
bad cops, where they try to paint the entire profession based
on a few bad apples.
You think?
> :
> : Secondly, How do you figure that a situation with 6 wifes, children,
> : and one male is much different from 6 wifes with different husbands,
> : and their families?
>
> * 6 men make a lot more income than one man. And most families don't have
> as many children as these religious Mormons.
Maybe we should ban religious Mormons?
> : :
> : Can you just see the welfare form that asks for the number of wifes you
> : have?
>
> * You missed the show. The women apply for welfare NOT the harem keeper
> (husband). No one is going to ask them if they're married and how many
> wives their husband has.
> --
?????????????????????????
You think that when someone applies for welfare (AFDC) that they do
not ask who the husband is? In reality, they ask who the husband
is, verify his income, they want to know who the father of each
child is, so that they can pursue him, and if there is a divorce
or abandonement, they go for child support.
Please, the TV show was only what the producers wanted you to see.
check the facts.
Blake Bowers
~ Windsong ~ wrote:
> * I find it hard to believe there aren't petty jealousies and favoritism in
> these families (harems). There are women fighting these marriages out in
> Utah who've left these "harems", - they're not as great for women as it
> appears. The women end up bringing in almost all the money needed, one way
> or another. They either get public assistance or work some lowly job as
> none are educated beyond grade school.
>
Chuckle. Hell, ROFL!!!!!!
Sounds like a lot of conventional marriages!
D I V O R C E.......