I have no need to. I stated that your copy and paste jobs were off-topic. I said they were idiotic and motivated by your irrational hatred of Bush. If that insults your intelligence, my advice is not to let your irrational hatred overcome you to the point that you copy and paste long anti-Bush screeds which have no bearing on the topic of the thread--because they constitute idiotic posts in such a context.
Can you ladies take it outside, please.
Advocate
Seasoned Member
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 2286
Posted: July 13th 2007, 11:59 Post: 2756297 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setanta wrote:
Well, this thread is completely trashed--thanks folks.
But you are always telling us what trash our posts are.
Setanta
Guru in Training
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 40188
Location: On a rocket to the fourth dimension
Posted: July 13th 2007, 12:02 Post: 2756301 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a lie, and you, therefore, are a liar.
Take you Vitter and sexual titilation, and your stupid strawmen, and go trash someone else's thread.
Ofcoarse, there's no thrashing done by Set on this thread.
Set wrote on July 13: Basically, with C.I., Aunt Bee and Advocate, you've got three obsessive Bush haters who can't shut up, and don't give a rat's ass if their posts are pertinent to the topic. Dog knows there are any number of places for them to puke up their hatred without trashing this thread.
"Dog knows" is an insult - except to Set. Besides, Set never thrashes a thread - like this one with his hatred.
"Trash," C.I., the verb i used was "trash"--not "thrash." Advocate did peddle a lie about me, so i told him that it was a lie, and that therefore he was a liar. That's simply a description of him based on his having retailed a lie. As for telling him to take his Vitter obsession elsewhere, that was completely reasonable, too. I had repeatedly asked in that thread that people stay on topic. Advocate's introduction of Vitter into the thread was even more inexcusable that the idiotic, long copy and paste anti-Bush screeds you were posting, because he already had a thread specifically about Vitter, and didn't need to introduce his bizarre fascination with Vitter's sex life into that thread.
If you can't stand the heat, C.I. . . .
"Dog knows" is an insult ? ! ? ! ?
Jesus Christ, C.I., is English your first language? Are you a native of the same planet as the rest of us?
It is truly bizarre how you nurse a grievance.
By the way, C.I., you flatter yourself if you think you are sufficiently important to me that i would hate you.
I think we need a time out
Set, I didn't say you hated me; you reflect hate by your words.
So, now, you're my spell-check. Good!
Set: Jesus Christ, C.I., is English your first language? Are you a native of the same planet as the rest of us?
OK. This is what I've been reacting to (with one exception - I was fine with Free Duck's post, which is included).
In the interest of brevity, I've taken out spaces between paragraphs
p2 Calamity Jane, after Joe quoted an article, sans comment
You don't have children, do you, Joe?
p3 CJ Not invalid, but understandable.
p4 CJ What's your point Joe? You don't like kids, good, we can read that in your statement. This is not a courthouse where people are on a witness stand.
p9 Linkat If you had children you would completely understand.
p10 Linkat What I meant at that you can not fully understand unless you are a parent is how children act. In other words you cannot fully appreciate how much attention a child requires and how and why they act in certain situations.
I know because I have been both childless as an adult and with children as an adult. When I did not have children, I did not comprehend everything involved with a child and there is no way to fully comprehend how to raise and handle children until you have one of your own - period.
Can I fully understand how it is to be a man simply by living with one and being around them and observing them? No. You need to be in the situation yourself to fully experience it.
I am not talking about being impartial - I am talking simply experiencing caring for a child. And I don't think your opinion is any less - just simply lacking in not experiencing a portion of it.
p12 Linkat A parent's job is 24/7 - a child especially at that age vies for your attention every waking hour. You can't fully understand it if you don't experience it yourself.
p13 Linkat Sorry if I misled you - however, I think it was obvious - my intention was not to belittle your opinion - as I was focusing on the fact that the child was acting normally and that unless you are a parent you cannot fully understand or appreciate how to handle a toddler.
p13 Linkat Thank you nimh - that is what I was trying to say - not that a non-parent has any less opinion and their opinion is not valid simply you cannot fully understand unless you have experienced the situation yourself.
p15 Free Duck The implication isn't that only parents understand, it's that if you clearly don't understand (as in, if you expect a 19 month old to do anything other than scream his f-ing head off and/or be annoying and squirmy after spending 11 hours in an airport presumable strapped into a stroller and up way past his bedtime, or think that the parent of said child can flip a switch on him and make him completely quiet) then you probably don't have small children or don't spend a lot of time with them.
p 15 Linkat Yes some one that cares for young children can understand. But to be honest - I still did not fully understand all aspects until I was responsible 24/7 for raising my children.
p15 Linkat Jeepers crimity - all I wanted to do was point out that the kid crawling all over on the video is normal behavior and that parents would understand it. Not that he is a brat or anything - just acting as a normal toddler. And it turned into name calling and accusations that parents think they know more than anything in the world and no one else's opinion matters.
p20 Boomerang
I'll go way out on a limb here in support of those that say "you don't know till you've been there".
I was 42 years old when a nearly 2 year old was left here.
I thought I knew this kid, having spent a minimum of 48 hours each week with him over the previous 2 years. (And this was not the first ever child I had been exposed too for longish durations.)
And I didn't know ****.
You DON'T know until you've done it. Honest to god you don't know.
You might think you have an informed opinion. I thought I did. I really thought I did.
Until you've done it, you don't know.
On my own last posts about being tired of hearing how only parents can understand, I brought up my cousin's view because it did expose an underlying basic view on that cousin's part. I probably shouldh't have interjected it here, as I don't know that is anyone's underlying view here, and didn't intend to intimate that. It was an example of how some people feel. Same with the martyr comment. I do see that in some parents' views of themselves, in real life.
I don't remember - and I just did reread through the thread quickly to snag these quotes - that anyone, parent or non-parent, at any point, said the child's behavior was abnormal or that we couldn't understand it.
This has all been irrelevant to the question about the mother and child being evicted from the plane, in my opinion.
Montana wrote:I think we need a time out
Its a regular barroom brawl in here.
Yeah, somehow I feel like I should be holding a beer and maybe belching every now and again
Osso has adequately outlined the posts that lead me to comment--i got tired of the all too common whine which suggests that those who are not parents don't know.
Montana wrote:Yeah, somehow I feel like I should be holding a beer and maybe belching every now and again
I feel like I should be holding a bottle over my head waiting for the opportunity to crown someone.
Thanks, osso, for that summary.
I could throw a few chairs around
