Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> Feral beast who live in dens nurse their young in dens because that is
> where the young are. It is a safe and protected area. *meanwhile lots of
> other feral animals feed their babies in the open. Horses, cows, pigs,

Horses, cows, and pigs do not live in dens. duh

The horses, cows, pigs, dogs, cats, etc. that nurse in the open are
domesticated and/or captive, not feral. Idiot!

There can be a herd of ten thousand zebra on an African plain and not
one will be seen nursing their young, that would be a fatal error.

Sheldon

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > ravenlynne > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I never got why it's so socially acceptable to feed an infant a lab
> >> created mix of chemicals over breastmilk. I wonder what Pete would do
> >> if he went to the restaraunt in question and got a beaker of chemicals
> >> instead of real food?
> >
> > It is socially acceptable because it is medically acceptable. Formula
> > (as I remember from several decades ago) is cow's milk with stuff added,
> > as cow's milk is for calves, not human babies. My wife had to go back
> > to work after six weeks, and she worked far enough away that daytime
> > feedings were not feasible. Home breast pumps weren't available then.
> > Despite the fact that she spent 45 minutes every lunch expressing breast
> > milk (which I fed to the baby for lunch the next day), she lost her milk
> > after nine months. We bought formula by the case (at Costco).
>
> When was this? Breast pumps were available on the open market when I
> needed them, in the 1980s. And as far as I know, they were available
> before that, if not in a local pharmacy then through the La Leche League.

Not all women can successfully pump. One of my friends couldn't, and it
wasn't through lack of trying.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

"Nancy Young" > wrote in
:

> Seems to me everyone else in this discussion must be looking around
> and noticing, according to you. Me, I don't look, and happily, don't
> see anything. I see children sometimes, usually well behaved, and
> *very* rarely I will hear an infant. This translates to breastfeeding
> in public not being a
> problem for me.
>
> nancy
>
>
>

I see breast feeding as a normal thing. I see eating food with a knife
and fork a normal thing. I rarely notice people passing a fork to their
mouths in a restaurant. So I rarely notice breast feeding.

Now if I was in a steak house and somebody was eating with a axe I'd
notice and probably stare. Maners or not.

It's all in what you perceive as normal activity. I see breast feeding as
normal. I see eating with a axe as unnormal. I'd much rather notice a
person using a axe to eat with; than to notice a woman breast feeding a
baby. Isn't the only reason woman have larger than men's breasts, to feed
babies? Isn't the function of a axe to chop trees?

I notice food delivered to the tables around me. And I may decide next
time I'll try what he ordered or not. But if I was in a restaurant where
at one table a woman was breast feeding and if at another table somebody
was eating using a axe; the next day I probably wouldn't even remember
the breast feeding. But I'd never forget the guy eating with a axe.



--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

It'll be a sunny day in August, when the Moon will shine that night-
Elbonian Folklore

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:


> Others (like me) just consider it low class
> behavior to breast feed at a table in a decent restaurant, the same way
> we'd view someone eating at that restaurant without using proper
> utensils.


It's the old "improper utensils" argument. I had a very strange dinner
a couple of weeks ago, but I think my father and I were the strange
ones. It wasn't a public place, but a private home. My first mistake
was in forgetting to take my shoes off at the door. I got a few feet in
before I noticed. Either nobody noticed or they were just polite. I
suspected the latter. Most people tried to speak English, since several
of us only spoke that. Two of the people there spoke no English,
though. My niece (age nine) set the table. There were no forks, no
spoons and no knives. There were no plates. Each person got a tiny
bowl. Nine of the ten dishes were served in large bowls. There were no
serving implements in the large bowls. I suggested to my niece that
*some* people might want forks. She went and got two forks, one for me
and one for my dad. The small bowls were partially filled with rice
when it was time to eat. There were ten people eating in all, counting
the cook. The other people at the table grabbed food out of the large
bowls with their chopsticks and put it on the rice. I wasn't quite sure
what to do. After a couple of minutes, somebody brought out large
serving spoons for the large bowls. I ate a lot of food, but didn't try
everything. My niece complained about the shrimp. She liked them, but
by the time she peeled the shell off, it seemed hardly worth the trouble
for one or two bites. Her uncle, to my left, had a simple solution. He
put the shrimp, shell and all, in his mouth. He ate the meat out, and
spit out the shells in a pile on the table. Same thing with the clams,
served in the shell. The shells got added to the same pile. There was
pork stew, served on the bone (very large bones). The bones got added
to the same pile.

So what was strange about this dinner? The person who invited us, and
owns the house, never showed up. We were there for three hours, until
10pm, and neither she nor her grown children ever came. Now, her
brother lives there, and her parents were staying there for a month.
Her parents (the in-laws of my brother) were the ones who speak no
English. They have an apartment in Taiwan, where they live. They come
to the US about twice a year, and stay with their daughters. They
generally stay about six months each visit.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I think that a reasonable place to draw the line in social mores is where
> > > it affects other people.
> >
> > So detracting from someone's dining experience isn't an effect?
>
> It is not her fault that you have weird hang-ups. If you had a foot fetish
> would you object to people wearing shoes that expose their toes?

What detracts from my dining experience is people who stare at and get
all in a tizzy over women breastfeeding. It's inappropriate and affects
others so they should not be allowed in restaurants until they learn to
stop bitching and cope with the normal human experience.

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> Pennyaline > wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> ravenlynne > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I never got why it's so socially acceptable to feed an infant a lab
>>>> created mix of chemicals over breastmilk. I wonder what Pete would do
>>>> if he went to the restaraunt in question and got a beaker of chemicals
>>>> instead of real food?
>>> It is socially acceptable because it is medically acceptable. Formula
>>> (as I remember from several decades ago) is cow's milk with stuff added,
>>> as cow's milk is for calves, not human babies. My wife had to go back
>>> to work after six weeks, and she worked far enough away that daytime
>>> feedings were not feasible. Home breast pumps weren't available then.
>>> Despite the fact that she spent 45 minutes every lunch expressing breast
>>> milk (which I fed to the baby for lunch the next day), she lost her milk
>>> after nine months. We bought formula by the case (at Costco).
>> When was this? Breast pumps were available on the open market when I
>> needed them, in the 1980s. And as far as I know, they were available
>> before that, if not in a local pharmacy then through the La Leche League.
>
> Late seventies. Breast pumps were available, but I got the idea that
> they weren't for the home market. I looked at Google, and two of the
> major makers came out with pumps for home use in 1996.

What, don't believe me? What is this? I bought breast pumps, designed
for home use, in the 80s! I doubt it was just a Manhattan thing. Sheeesh!

<sorry, getting defensive there, don't mean to, it's just that you're
essentially telling me I don't know what I'm talking about>

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
news:dabel-B51DAE.18022101062007@cor8-
> Late seventies. Breast pumps were available, but I got the idea that
> they weren't for the home market. I looked at Google, and two of the
> major makers came out with pumps for home use in 1996.

When I fed my daughter in the early 70's I had never heard of pumps. I am
not sure why ( I had fed two sons earlier for nearly 2 years each with no
problems,) but she seemed to suck all the skin off my nipples. I expressed
for months and the doctor was mostly dismissive muttering about *body
fluids*.
I managed for around six months and was then given a plastic guard which
allowed her to feed through it. It was very important to me that she had
the same advantages as the boys. Now she has had her own son and has fed
him for nearly two years When that wee boy was weaned he wouldn't touch
cows milk and still won't. He is clever, full of energy, healthy and not an
ounce of spare fat on him. His doctor is delighted with him.

I never breastfed in those days because (most) people were not so free
thinking then, but I would never object to anyone breast feeding near me.

"Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
news:emma-F18CAC.00400602062007@news-> What detracts from my dining
experience is people who stare at and get
> all in a tizzy over women breastfeeding. It's inappropriate and affects
> others so they should not be allowed in restaurants until they learn to
> stop bitching and cope with the normal human experience.

))

Sheldon wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:28�pm, ravenlynne > wrote:
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>> And in case any of yoose imbeciles are unaware, even feral beasts are
>>> wise enough to feed their young in as private a place as they can
>>> find, which is how they are protected while they are most vulnerable.
>>> Any of yoose sickos nurse in a public place should be dealt with the
>>> same as any unfit mother.
>>> Sheldon
>> But then we've always known that you're a ****ed up individual. �Your
>> continued insane rhetoric only makes it more obvious.
>
> At least I got what to be insane, but you, you *brainless* ****... you
> LAZY totally useless LOSER. And you're definitely a ****, in fact
> that's all you're good for, a receptical for semen.
>
> Sheldon
>

Blah blah blah...

--
-Gina in Italy

Sig Not Found.

If found, return to me promptly.

Sheldon wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > >
> > Feral beast who live in dens nurse their young in dens because that is
> > where the young are. It is a safe and protected area. meanwhile lots of
> > other feral animals feed their babies in the open. Horses, cows, pigs,
>
> Horses, cows, and pigs do not live in dens. duh
>
> The horses, cows, pigs, dogs, cats, etc. that nurse in the open are
> domesticated and/or captive, not feral. Idiot!


Your lame example applied only to the small number of species who live in
dens, mostly rodents. You conveniently omitted the vast number of animals
who live... and nurse.. in wide open spaces.
Twit.


>
> There can be a herd of ten thousand zebra on an African plain and not
> one will be seen nursing their young, that would be a fatal error.


There could also be a few thousand all doing it at once.

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:

> > Late seventies. Breast pumps were available, but I got the idea that
> > they weren't for the home market. I looked at Google, and two of the
> > major makers came out with pumps for home use in 1996.
>
> What, don't believe me? What is this? I bought breast pumps, designed
> for home use, in the 80s! I doubt it was just a Manhattan thing. Sheeesh!
>
> <sorry, getting defensive there, don't mean to, it's just that you're
> essentially telling me I don't know what I'm talking about>

It's been thirty years. More likely a memory failure on my part. My
wife was the breastfeeder, not me. I know that she talked about breast
pumps, but didn't use one. There was a hospital next door, and she
worked for an arm of the hospital. There was one there, but not
portable.

She solved her problem. I went to work and she stayed home with the
kids.

She was on a search committee. The interviews were each two days long.
I offered to watch the baby, but my wife refused. She said that she
would lose her milk, so she took the baby to the interviews.

On May 29, 10:03 am, Chatty Cathy > wrote:
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/
>
> Vote now!
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy

nah, it could give way to single dads wearing strap on feeding breasts

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>
> It's the old "improper utensils" argument. I had a very strange dinner
> a couple of weeks ago, but I think my father and I were the strange
> ones. It wasn't a public place, but a private home.

> So what was strange about this dinner? The person who invited us, and
> owns the house, never showed up. We were there for three hours, until
> 10pm, and neither she nor her grown children ever came. Now, her
> brother lives there, and her parents were staying there for a month.
> Her parents (the in-laws of my brother) were the ones who speak no
> English. They have an apartment in Taiwan, where they live. They come
> to the US about twice a year, and stay with their daughters. They
> generally stay about six months each visit.

Strange indeed. The eating implements is something that is just different
than our usual procedure, but I've never been invited to dinner where the
host did not show up. Ever get an explanation?

Many of the Orientals at work eat rice with their hands. Seems quite normal
the way they do it.

Dan Abel wrote:
> She was on a search committee. The interviews were each two days
> long. I offered to watch the baby, but my wife refused. She said
> that she would lose her milk, so she took the baby to the interviews.

Good for her

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message

> > So what was strange about this dinner? The person who invited us, and
> > owns the house, never showed up.
>
> Strange indeed. The eating implements is something that is just different
> than our usual procedure, but I've never been invited to dinner where the
> host did not show up. Ever get an explanation?


Only, "that's just how she is". She has her own business, and tends to
be the last out. Then she goes here and there, for various reasons. I
was the only person who seemed surprised that she never showed up.

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>
>>> So what was strange about this dinner? The person who invited us,
>>> and owns the house, never showed up.
>>
>> Strange indeed. The eating implements is something that is just
>> different than our usual procedure, but I've never been invited to
>> dinner where the host did not show up. Ever get an explanation?
>
>
> Only, "that's just how she is". She has her own business, and tends
> to be the last out. Then she goes here and there, for various
> reasons. I was the only person who seemed surprised that she never
> showed up.

<G> I hope you thanked her nicely, when you caught up with her of course)

In article >,
"Ophelia" > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> >
> >>> So what was strange about this dinner? The person who invited us,
> >>> and owns the house, never showed up.
> >>
> >> Strange indeed. The eating implements is something that is just
> >> different than our usual procedure, but I've never been invited to
> >> dinner where the host did not show up. Ever get an explanation?
> >
> >
> > Only, "that's just how she is". She has her own business, and tends
> > to be the last out. Then she goes here and there, for various
> > reasons. I was the only person who seemed surprised that she never
> > showed up.
>
> <G> I hope you thanked her nicely, when you caught up with her of course)

Never really caught up with her. I saw her at her shop (where we spend
inordinate amounts of time) but never had time for more than a nod. I
did thank the cook and the grandma (who also cooked). They smiled, so I
guess they understood. Neither speaks English.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
news:dabel-F58CDB.09450102062007@cor8->> <G> I hope you thanked her nicely,
when you caught up with her of course)
>
> Never really caught up with her. I saw her at her shop (where we spend
> inordinate amounts of time) but never had time for more than a nod. I
> did thank the cook and the grandma (who also cooked). They smiled, so I
> guess they understood. Neither speaks English.

Oh my!!! How odd)))) Maybe you could get her a few flowers of
appreciation?

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:29:30 +0200, ravenlynne >
wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 1:28?pm, ravenlynne > wrote:
>>> Sheldon wrote:
>>>> And in case any of yoose imbeciles are unaware, even feral beasts are
>>>> wise enough to feed their young in as private a place as they can
>>>> find, which is how they are protected while they are most vulnerable.
>>>> Any of yoose sickos nurse in a public place should be dealt with the
>>>> same as any unfit mother.
>>>> Sheldon
>>> But then we've always known that you're a ****ed up individual. ?Your
>>> continued insane rhetoric only makes it more obvious.
>>
>> At least I got what to be insane, but you, you *brainless* ****... you
>> LAZY totally useless LOSER. And you're definitely a ****, in fact
>> that's all you're good for, a receptical for semen.
>>
>> Sheldon
>>
>
>Blah blah blah...

odd comment from sheldon. i thing the usual receptacle for his semen
is a sock.

your pal,
blake

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
> I managed for around six months and was then given a plastic guard which
> allowed her to feed through it. It was very important to me that she had
> the same advantages as the boys. Now she has had her own son and has fed
> him for nearly two years When that wee boy was weaned he wouldn't
> touch
> cows milk and still won't. He is clever, full of energy, healthy and not
> an
> ounce of spare fat on him. His doctor is delighted with him.

My oldest daughter totally weaned just after her third birthday (she'd been
down to one nursing session a day for the final six months, so even though
she technically was still nursing from age 2.5 to 3, she was barely doing so
during that time). She's always refused to drink cow's milk (eats lots of
cheese and other dairy products, though), preferring to drink soy milk
instead. And, like your grandson, she's very healthy and of a perfect
weight.

Mary

MareCat wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I managed for around six months and was then given a plastic guard
>> which allowed her to feed through it. It was very important to me
>> that she had the same advantages as the boys. Now she has had her
>> own son and has fed him for nearly two years When that wee boy
>> was weaned he wouldn't touch
>> cows milk and still won't. He is clever, full of energy, healthy
>> and not an
>> ounce of spare fat on him. His doctor is delighted with him.
>
> My oldest daughter totally weaned just after her third birthday
> (she'd been down to one nursing session a day for the final six
> months, so even though she technically was still nursing from age 2.5
> to 3, she was barely doing so during that time). She's always refused
> to drink cow's milk (eats lots of cheese and other dairy products,
> though), preferring to drink soy milk instead. And, like your
> grandson, she's very healthy and of a perfect weight.

Well! I think that is indicative of something)))))

As I said before, cows mild is for baby cows))

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
> As I said before, cows mild is for baby cows))

Yep. I got my oldest daughter a bib that says "Human Milk for Human Babies".


Mary

"MareCat" > wrote in message
news
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> As I said before, cows mild is for baby cows))
>
> Yep. I got my oldest daughter a bib that says "Human Milk for Human
> Babies".

)))

On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:33:44 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
> wrote:

>Even with 2 incomes I don't see how people do it these days. Raising a
>child, one child even, from scratch or adoption etc. (in our circles
>"scratch" indicates making a baby at home, not adopting) in this day and
>age must be really difficult financially. Everything is expensive. I stand
>in awe of multiple children households.

I have to step in here...it does depend on where you live. We have 3
children and many,many pets. We live in a rural area. Only my husband
works, I homeschool my 3 kids. We are doing very well on just one
income. We all have health insurance, the kids have various
classes/lessons each week, camps in the summer, we have 2 cars.
There has also been a time we lived off $20,000 a year, right after my
third baby was born. That lasted about a year. I think people just
don't know how to do it. I personally know someone, they are all the
time eating fast food and the kids all have name-brand (not cheap!)
clothes, and they are always somehow broke!
Marie

"Marie" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:33:44 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
> > wrote:
>
>>Even with 2 incomes I don't see how people do it these days. Raising a
>>child, one child even, from scratch or adoption etc. (in our circles
>>"scratch" indicates making a baby at home, not adopting) in this day and
>>age must be really difficult financially. Everything is expensive. I
>>stand
>>in awe of multiple children households.
>
> I have to step in here...it does depend on where you live. We have 3
> children and many,many pets. We live in a rural area. Only my husband
> works, I homeschool my 3 kids. We are doing very well on just one
> income. We all have health insurance, the kids have various
> classes/lessons each week, camps in the summer, we have 2 cars.
> There has also been a time we lived off $20,000 a year, right after my
> third baby was born. That lasted about a year. I think people just
> don't know how to do it. I personally know someone, they are all the
> time eating fast food and the kids all have name-brand (not cheap!)
> clothes, and they are always somehow broke!
> Marie


What your household income? I wonder if that number somehow factors into
this, as crazy as that sounds.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>
>
> What your household income? I wonder if that number somehow factors into
> this, as crazy as that sounds.

Of course, income is a factor, but chosen lifestyle is important also. My
wife has only worked for brief periods so we pretty much only had my income.
There were many a night of overtime and doing side jobs too back then. I
do OK, but I'm not wealthy. We made raising our children with a parent at
home a priority over taking a cruise, having two fancy cars, eating at the
best of restaurants every week.

Some two income families struggle to maintain the basics of food and
shelter. They are generally on the bottom half of the median income.
Education level, chosen career, and a lot of other factors come into play.
Others with dual six figure incomes complain what a struggle it is to
survive. Do you realize what it cost for the 10,000 mile service on the
Beemer? And the pool service raised their rates.

Then there are some that choose to work outside the house rather than stay
home with their kids. They pay a lot of money for day care, transportation,
(work related) clothing, etc. and are truly working for a buck or two an
hour when all expenses are tallied up. They'd rather have that career than
their kids, it seems.

Location can be a factor too, when it comes to the cost of housing. I've
been in my house for 26 years this month. Over those 26 years, my income
has risen above the cost of living, but the price of my house has gone up
even more. I'm not so sure I could afford to buy my house today. The house
I sold to buy this has easily doubled in value, my income is at least
triple, but this house is now valued over four times what I paid.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:52:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:
>What your household income? I wonder if that number somehow factors into
>this, as crazy as that sounds.

Nowdays it's around $50,000. We used to live off $20,000 when I had
just two kids and a baby and no pets. That was pretty damned hard, and
depressing, but we did it, with no governmental assistance(not that it
is wrong to do so, just making a point that it can be done). It has
taken years to get to this point, where we are not spending every last
dollar on bills and groceries, and now the kids get to have their
classes and lessons and sports, and we get to have pets, and I have my
glorious mini-van into which all the kids and dogs fit!!!
Marie

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:29:15 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:
>
>"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> What your household income? I wonder if that number somehow factors into
>> this, as crazy as that sounds.
>
>Of course, income is a factor, but chosen lifestyle is important also. My
>wife has only worked for brief periods so we pretty much only had my income.
>There were many a night of overtime and doing side jobs too back then. I
>do OK, but I'm not wealthy. We made raising our children with a parent at
>home a priority over taking a cruise, having two fancy cars, eating at the
>best of restaurants every week.
>
We did it on one income too. Hubby had a decent job with the state.
It was steady work with great health insurance and you got paid once a
month.

>Some two income families struggle to maintain the basics of food and
>shelter. They are generally on the bottom half of the median income.
>Education level, chosen career, and a lot of other factors come into play.
>Others with dual six figure incomes complain what a struggle it is to
>survive. Do you realize what it cost for the 10,000 mile service on the
>Beemer? And the pool service raised their rates.
>
The more you make, the more you spend. BTDT

>Then there are some that choose to work outside the house rather than stay
>home with their kids. They pay a lot of money for day care, transportation,
>(work related) clothing, etc. and are truly working for a buck or two an
>hour when all expenses are tallied up. They'd rather have that career than
>their kids, it seems.
>
We did the math - we would have barely broken even (not come out
ahead) if I worked when the kids were little. So I chose to stay home
and enjoy them.

>Location can be a factor too, when it comes to the cost of housing. I've
>been in my house for 26 years this month. Over those 26 years, my income
>has risen above the cost of living, but the price of my house has gone up
>even more. I'm not so sure I could afford to buy my house today. The house
>I sold to buy this has easily doubled in value, my income is at least
>triple, but this house is now valued over four times what I paid.
>
Amazing isn't it?


--
See return address to reply by email

On Jun 10, 10:29?am, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>
> > What your household income? I wonder if that number somehow factors into
> > this, as crazy as that sounds.
>
> Of course, income is a factor, but chosen lifestyle is important also. My
> wife has only worked for brief periods so we pretty much only had my income.
> There were many a night of overtime and doing side jobs too back then. I
> do OK, but I'm not wealthy. We made raising our children with a parent at
> home a priority over taking a cruise, having two fancy cars, eating at the
> best of restaurants every week.
>
> Some two income families struggle to maintain the basics of food and
> shelter. They are generally on the bottom half of the median income.
> Education level, chosen career, and a lot of other factors come into play.
> Others with dual six figure incomes complain what a struggle it is to
> survive. Do you realize what it cost for the 10,000 mile service on the
> Beemer? And the pool service raised their rates.
>
> Then there are some that choose to work outside the house rather than stay
> home with their kids. They pay a lot of money for day care, transportation,
> (work related) clothing, etc. and are truly working for a buck or two an
> hour when all expenses are tallied up. They'd rather have that career than
> their kids, it seems.
>
> Location can be a factor too, when it comes to the cost of housing. I've
> been in my house for 26 years this month. Over those 26 years, my income
> has risen above the cost of living, but the price of my house has gone up
> even more. I'm not so sure I could afford to buy my house today. The house
> I sold to buy this has easily doubled in value, my income is at least
> triple, but this house is now valued over four times what I paid.

And after 26 years it's probably all yours... rent is forever with
nothing to show other than rent receipts, those have the value of TP,
used.

Sheldon

On May 31, 9:41?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" > wrote in messagenews:Xns9941549D1B915zjlzzjkvjzklzjkljxkl@6 9.28.186.121...
>
> > Emma Thackery > was forced to post this in:
> > rec.food.cooking
>
> >> As I said above, all too often these days, it takes two incomes to
> >> meet the most fundamental needs.
>
> > Even with 2 incomes I don't see how people do it these days. Raising a
> > child, one child even, from scratch or adoption etc. (in our circles
> > "scratch" indicates making a baby at home, not adopting) in this day and
> > age must be really difficult financially. Everything is expensive. I
> > stand
> > in awe of multiple children households.
>
> > Michael
>
> This past weekend, my son said he needed some clothing. I told him there was
> plenty of newspaper in the recycling bin, and packing tape in the kitchen
> everything drawer. "Go make yourself some pants".
>
> That's how I'm dealing with it.

I don't blame you... he shouldn't be living off daddy at nearly 40
years old... I wonder how he got like that...

Sheldon

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:29:15 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:
>Then there are some that choose to work outside the house rather than stay
>home with their kids. They pay a lot of money for day care, transportation,
>(work related) clothing, etc. and are truly working for a buck or two an
>hour when all expenses are tallied up. They'd rather have that career than
>their kids, it seems.

And of course the fact that a woman can love her job and also choose
not to be entirely dependant on a man is totally irrelevant I suppose.

Did you "rather have that career than your kids"? Meaning, do you
really honestly think that you did not raise your kids because you
were out working? No, I didn't think so. Well, I work (part time,
80%), my SO works (full-time), and we both raise our kids.

Nathalie in Switzerland, thinking this thread is in a time-warp,
around 1950 I'd say

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 31, 9:41?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" > wrote in
>> messagenews:Xns9941549D1B915zjlzzjkvjzklzjkljxkl@6 9.28.186.121...
>>
>> > Emma Thackery > was forced to post this in:
>> > rec.food.cooking
>>
>> >> As I said above, all too often these days, it takes two incomes to
>> >> meet the most fundamental needs.
>>
>> > Even with 2 incomes I don't see how people do it these days. Raising a
>> > child, one child even, from scratch or adoption etc. (in our circles
>> > "scratch" indicates making a baby at home, not adopting) in this day
>> > and
>> > age must be really difficult financially. Everything is expensive. I
>> > stand
>> > in awe of multiple children households.
>>
>> > Michael
>>
>> This past weekend, my son said he needed some clothing. I told him there
>> was
>> plenty of newspaper in the recycling bin, and packing tape in the kitchen
>> everything drawer. "Go make yourself some pants".
>>
>> That's how I'm dealing with it.
>
> I don't blame you... he shouldn't be living off daddy at nearly 40
> years old... I wonder how he got like that...
>
> Sheldon
>

Uh...he's 18.

"Nathalie Chiva" > wrote in message
>> They'd rather have that career than
>>their kids, it seems.
>
> And of course the fact that a woman can love her job and also choose
> not to be entirely dependant on a man is totally irrelevant I suppose.
>
> Did you "rather have that career than your kids"? Meaning, do you
> really honestly think that you did not raise your kids because you
> were out working? No, I didn't think so. Well, I work (part time,
> 80%), my SO works (full-time), and we both raise our kids.
>
> Nathalie in Switzerland, thinking this thread is in a time-warp,
> around 1950 I'd say
>

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

There are some working parents that work rather that stay home with their
children. Sorry, but that is fact. There are non-employed parents that
don't want to be home raising their kids. Sorry, but that is another fact of
life. Not everyone that has kids wanted them, still wants them, will ever
want them. That is a reality. There are plenty of neglected children in
the world. Some parents use their career as an excuse to be away from them.
It is not just poor or uneducated parent, but across all socio-economic
planes. Daycare, dropping the kids at sports practice, music lessons,
summer camp, are ways that some parents avoid having to actually deal with
their kids. Just because most parents do those things to make the child's
life better, others use it as an excuse to avoid them. No time warp, this
is 2007. It is all around you, in places you'd never expect it.

On Jun 10, 5:05?pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Nathalie Chiva" > wrote in message
> >> They'd rather have that career than
> >>their kids, it seems.
>
> > And of course the fact that a woman can love her job and also choose
> > not to be entirely dependant on a man is totally irrelevant I suppose.
>
> > Did you "rather have that career than your kids"? Meaning, do you
> > really honestly think that you did not raise your kids because you
> > were out working? No, I didn't think so. Well, I work (part time,
> > 80%), my SO works (full-time), and we both raise our kids.
>
> > Nathalie in Switzerland, thinking this thread is in a time-warp,
> > around 1950 I'd say
>
> I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
>
> There are some working parents that work rather that stay home with their
> children. Sorry, but that is fact. There are non-employed parents that
> don't want to be home raising their kids. Sorry, but that is another fact of
> life. Not everyone that has kids wanted them, still wants them, will ever
> want them. That is a reality. There are plenty of neglected children in
> the world. Some parents use their career as an excuse to be away from them.
> It is not just poor or uneducated parent, but across all socio-economic
> planes. Daycare, dropping the kids at sports practice, music lessons,
> summer camp, are ways that some parents avoid having to actually deal with
> their kids. Just because most parents do those things to make the child's
> life better, others use it as an excuse to avoid them. No time warp, this
> is 2007. It is all around you, in places you'd never expect it.

The economics is not a big issue with me... your children remember you
for how many hours you spend with them, not how many dollars you spend
on them. But what really irks me is that so many these days are so
wrapped up in so-called fercocktah careers that they only begin to
think about having children in their 40s, with the same headset as
investing in an IRA... when I was born my grandparents were in their
forties. Imagine how children of such elderly parents are cheated.
At sixty I wouldn't want to be dealling with a precocious teenager,
and they wouldn't want to deal with me. After forty you're supposed
to have a cat or a dog or a parakeet, not just beginning to raise a
newborn child... and not that they raise those poor kids, day care
raises those children. Those children will never think of their birth
parents as their parents. I know a few people in their sixties with
teenagers, I know a couple in their mid fifites with a six year old..
the poor kid is in day care practically 24/7... that little girl ain't
right I tell you... she reminds me of a potted plant.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>
> The economics is not a big issue with me... your children remember you
> for how many hours you spend with them.....


Get this: I briefly dated a woman back in April who got bent out of shape
because, as she put it, "You spend way too much time with your son. At 18,
he should be independent."

She was quickly fired. Fortunately, she wasn't vested in the profit sharing
plan yet.

In article >,
"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> >
> > The economics is not a big issue with me... your children remember you
> > for how many hours you spend with them.....
>
>
> Get this: I briefly dated a woman back in April who got bent out of shape
> because, as she put it, "You spend way too much time with your son. At 18,
> he should be independent."
>
> She was quickly fired. Fortunately, she wasn't vested in the profit sharing
> plan yet.

Huh. Serious Loser.
Glad you had the brains to dump her...

I would _never_ attempt to come between family members. That's just
ignorant.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
> The economics is not a big issue with me... your children remember you
> for how many hours you spend with them, not how many dollars you spend
> on them. But what really irks me is that so many these days are so
> wrapped up in so-called fercocktah careers that they only begin to
> think about having children in their 40s, with the same headset as
> investing in an IRA... when I was born my grandparents were in their
> forties.


I have six grandkids. They don't get treated the way we treated our
children. There are, in my old fashioned 1950's thinking, a place for
parent and a place for grandparents in the lives of children. They should
have both. What we did with our kids when we were younger cannot be
(physically) done now, thus cheating them of some wonderful (hopefully) life
experiences. Our parents did the job we now do, exposing them to another
side of life.

My kids take their kids on the roller coaster/amusement park of life, we
take them to the theater/cultural part of life.

At 61, I have no desire to start another family.