"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:54:08 -0700, "Steve B"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:19:34 -0700, "Steve B"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Probably some Shaken Baby Syndrome at work there, too. What you have
>> >> described is abuse. If you did nothing when that was taking place,
>> >> then
>> >> you
>> >> are also guilty of abuse.
>> >
>> > I see you're just as judgmental about this one as you are about the`
>> > Michel, situation. When there is no physical evidence, it's a waste
>> > of time for anyone to call CPS. We did not witness physical abuse,
>> > only mental abuse and a certain amount of neglect. That's why she
>> > isn't part of the family anymore and doesn't have custody of her
>> > child.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
>>
>> Let's see ........... your exact words:
>>
>> > Looking "inside" yourself can be taken too far. There are people like
>> > my ex-DIL who didn't have a nurturing bone in her body. The way she
>> > dealt with a crying *infant* was to hold him in front of her with arms
>> > straight out yelling at him to stop crying. He wasn't allowed to feel
>> > or express emotion and he is still scarred by that.
>>
>> You say nothing of intervening. You obviously don't think much of the
>> child
>> to let it be treated that way. But if you did that, it might cause
>> "problems" with the mom, right? You witnessed "only mental abuse and a
>> certain amount of neglect"? Too bad your lack of spinal column prevented
>> you from helping the child.
>>
> I said mom is an ex and her son stayed with his dad. Too bad you
> can't read between the lines - but it figures because you refer to
> dead people as "ex" wives.

I don't read you any longer. Do I call you an "ex"?

Steve, no need to reply