Pete C. wrote:

>> It is a shame for all the women and children in your life that you hold
>> such nasty beliefs.
>
> What women and children? I don't have the patience for women's
> irrational nonsense and in case you haven't noticed, only stupid people
> are breeding these days.

How sad for you. Sadder for your parents.
I don't imagine many men like you either, eh?

Goomba38 wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> It is a shame for all the women and children in your life that you hold
> >> such nasty beliefs.
> >
> > What women and children? I don't have the patience for women's
> > irrational nonsense and in case you haven't noticed, only stupid people
> > are breeding these days.
>
> How sad for you. Sadder for your parents.
> I don't imagine many men like you either, eh?

Rather pathetic how those caught in the trap think that those of us
smart enough to avoid that trap are somehow sad. You've convinced
yourselves or simply been brainwashed into believing that having a
spouse and children is the only way to have a fulfilling life, which is
pure bull shit.

Pete C.

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "jmcquown" > wrote:
> >
> >> Emma Thackery wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "MareCat" > wrote:
> >>>
> >> Some people *have* to go back to work after 6 weeks or they don't
> >> get paid. It's simply not feasible for everyone to stay at home with
> >> a baby for 6 months until (as you say) it's time to start adding
> >> supplemental food to their diet. That's one reason I suggested the
> >> breast pump in one of my replies.
> >
> > Yes, that is certainly true. It's a shame that women can't at least
> > have those first 5 years with the baby. It seems like it used to be
> > much easier financially for women to do that. OTOH, sometimes it is
> > simply a matter of priorities where that 60" TV is a higher priority
> > than taking care of the little ones. All too often these days,
> > however, it takes two incomes to meet the most fundamental needs.
>
> I don't know about a 60" TV but I do agree some peoples' priorities are
> totally skewed! I was referring to those households that require two
> incomes just to pay the bills and *maybe* have a little extra to set aside
> for themselves. Not a 60" Plasma Screen TV, just maybe a little jaunt for
> the family or perhaps a night out. And of course, with children, a college
> fund. Times are hard

As I said above, all too often these days, it takes two incomes to meet
the most fundamental needs.

Goomba38 wrote:
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>>
>> Some people don't know that blood in your poop shows up as black, not
>> red.
> Only if originating in the upper GI system where the gastric acids
> affect the blood. Lower GI bleeds can certainly be bright red!
> Oh the stories about GI bleeds any nurse can share.. ugh ugh ugh.

Oh lord yes! "Ugh" is putting it mildly.

On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:57:02 -0600, Pennyaline
> wrote:

>Goomba38 wrote:
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Some people don't know that blood in your poop shows up as black, not
>>> red.
>> Only if originating in the upper GI system where the gastric acids
>> affect the blood. Lower GI bleeds can certainly be bright red!
>> Oh the stories about GI bleeds any nurse can share.. ugh ugh ugh.
>
>Oh lord yes! "Ugh" is putting it mildly.

That's one reason I went to neonatal nursing.... Talk about something
foul smelling...

Christine

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> Pete C. wrote:
> C. pfffffffffffft.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with experience, it has to do with acceptable
> > behavior in a restaurant. There is absolutely no medical situation
> > related to breast feeding a baby that forces a mother to do so at a
> > restaurant table - none whatsoever. In every single case there is the
> > option to seek a more appropriate location, be it a sitting area, in a
> > car, etc. There is always an option to respect your fellow patrons.
> >
> > Pete C.
>
> And again I insist it is perfectly acceptable to breastfeed a baby
> wherever it happens to be. If we had the power to get rid of everyone we
> found unacceptable I'd not have to look at lip smackers or those who
> talk with their mouth full or dribblers. We have to tolerate them so a
> lovely baby breastfeeding is hardly anything offensive.
> You are not the authority on what "everyone" else finds offensive. Just
> you.
> It is a shame for all the women and children in your life that you hold
> such nasty beliefs.

The day ol' Pete gains the ability to give birth, then he can decide
where and what he wants to feed the baby. Until then, he can just keep
his wandering, prurient eyes on his own plate. What anyone is eating at
the next table isn't any of his business.

In article . com>,
rosie > wrote:

> On May 30, 12:46?pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> >
> > ?rosie > wrote:
> > > I don't really care to see it.
> >
> > Then don't farking look. ?It's just that easy.
>
> Hey, this was a survey!! Supposed to be fun..You don't have to get
> mad. Every one has opinions, not necessarily right or wrong here. You
> seem to get upset if some do not approve of nursing a baby in a
> restaurant..

Yes, it's a survey. And, whether you like it or not, it's *my* opinion
that if you don't care to "see it" then don't look. You act as if
someone was invading your personal space when that is most certainly not
the case at all. What nonsense.

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Pennyaline > wrote:
> >
> >>> How odd. My wife's were just as pretty when nursing as before.
> >> Mine weren't, honey, and most aren't. And there's nothin' odd or unusual
> >> about it.
> >
> > Total balderdash. Your constant use of pejorative terms in reference to
> > female breasts and the act of nursing is very peculiar, very OCD-esque.
> > I quote you:
> >
> > "...engorged discolored breasts festooned with hard twisted veins..."
> > "...hauled out in the name of "doing it naturally"..."
> > "My sister in law once yanked one out..."
> > "...popped it out for the waiting birdie..."
> > "...she just did it right there..."
> > "We offered her the use of the family room,..... where she
> > would be out of our way..."
> > "...and the breast went behind closed doors."
> > "Keep your boobs inside your blouse..."
> >
> > Hauled out, yanked out, popped out? You clearly have a nasty little
> > problem. Normal people simply don't talk (or think) that way about the
> > female anatomy with such frequency or in such relentlessly disparaging
> > terms. It's not hard to guess who it is leveling the complaints in the
> > vignettes you cite. No doubt there are many mental health professionals
> > who could help with your problem. It's pretty spectacular.... good
> > grief girl, get some help!
>
> <shrug> Whatever. If you're telling me that the grandfathers at the
> table and the sundry staff and visitors at the nurses station did not in
> fact complain....

You're reaching. This is about your aberration, not grandfathers'.
[...]

> Not everything that is normal and natural is automatically defensible.

Irrelevant. No one said it was.
[...]
>
> And not every vehement criticism of a subject indicate a mental health
> problem.

Again, no one said any such thing. We're talking about your specific
aberration, not any other thing. You want to think my response was
"automatic" because that would let you off the hook for all that
incredibly noxious drivel you wrote. Breast phobia and breast hatred
are treatable conditions AFAIK. Get help.
[...]

blake murphy wrote:
> On 30 May 2007 07:47:31 GMT, Blinky the Shark >
> wrote:
>
>>Peter A wrote:
>>
>>> So many people are so uptight about anything having to do with the body,
>>> with sex, with the vaguest hint of the smell of sweat, with elimination.
>>
>>Right on! I'll be thinking of you next time I pee in my empty water
>>glass at a restaurant. Thanks for the support.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>
> as long as you hold the glass and your wing-wang under the table, no
> problem. just don't get confused after you put the glass back on the
> table.

Avoid the lemonade.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

"Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> rosie > wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 12:46?pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
>> > In article .com>,
>> >
>> > ?rosie > wrote:
>> > > I don't really care to see it.
>> >
>> > Then don't farking look. ?It's just that easy.
>>
>> Hey, this was a survey!! Supposed to be fun..You don't have to get
>> mad. Every one has opinions, not necessarily right or wrong here. You
>> seem to get upset if some do not approve of nursing a baby in a
>> restaurant..
>
> Yes, it's a survey. And, whether you like it or not, it's *my* opinion
> that if you don't care to "see it" then don't look. You act as if
> someone was invading your personal space when that is most certainly not
> the case at all. What nonsense.


Maybe Middle Eastern cultures have it right - keep everyone covered in long
flowing fabric. Then, I wouldn't have to see legs that look like olive loaf
before the wrapper's been cut away.

Pete C." wrote:
>
>
> What women and children? I don't have the patience for women's
> irrational nonsense and in case you haven't noticed, only stupid people
> are breeding these days.


Tell us your age so we can determine when that trend started.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
> Goomba38 wrote:
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> > Some people *have* to go back to work after 6 weeks or they don't get
>> > paid.
>> > It's simply not feasible for everyone to stay at home with a baby for 6
>> > months until (as you say) it's time to start adding supplemental food
>> > to
>> > their diet. That's one reason I suggested the breast pump in one of my
>> > replies.
>> >
>> > Jill
>> >
>> Supplemental food is not appropriate or needed at six weeks of age.
>> Some women choose to use the breast pump to provide breast milk feeds at
>> times they're not around, but it isn't always feasible either.
>> I think unless you've actually breastfed or had a baby you can't speak
>> with any authority on this subjec. Go to the back of the line with Pete
>> C. pfffffffffffft.
>
> It has nothing to do with experience, it has to do with acceptable
> behavior in a restaurant. There is absolutely no medical situation
> related to breast feeding a baby that forces a mother to do so at a
> restaurant table - none whatsoever. In every single case there is the
> option to seek a more appropriate location, be it a sitting area, in a
> car, etc. There is always an option to respect your fellow patrons.
>
> Pete C.


Yeah, a sitting area that doesn't exist in many restaurants, or would be
just as exposed as the table. Or, a car, in Rochester NY, when it's 6
degrees F. outside.

I feel respected when a woman does it wherever she wants. I won't explain.
You wouldn't get it.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

<snippety do dah>
>
> I feel respected when a woman does it wherever she wants. I won't explain.
> You wouldn't get it.

You know what I find odd about this whole thing?

57 (44%) voters said that they (or their spouse/SO) had actually
breastfed their babies at the table in restaurants, and yet only 51
(39%) voters said that they found breastfeeding 'acceptable' behavior in
that situation. Hmmmm, so does that mean that 6 of the people that
actually "did the deed" at the table didn't approve of what they were
doing themselves? Or am I missing something here?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"Chatty Cathy" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> <snippety do dah>
>>
>> I feel respected when a woman does it wherever she wants. I won't
>> explain. You wouldn't get it.
>
> You know what I find odd about this whole thing?
>
> 57 (44%) voters said that they (or their spouse/SO) had actually breastfed
> their babies at the table in restaurants, and yet only 51 (39%) voters
> said that they found breastfeeding 'acceptable' behavior in that
> situation. Hmmmm, so does that mean that 6 of the people that actually
> "did the deed" at the table didn't approve of what they were doing
> themselves? Or am I missing something here?
>
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy

Who knows....

Watching some people eat or listening to them chew can be annoying.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Pete C." wrote:
>>
>>
>> What women and children? I don't have the patience for women's
>> irrational nonsense and in case you haven't noticed, only stupid people
>> are breeding these days.
>
>
> Tell us your age so we can determine when that trend started.

i believe Pete CO said he was in his mid 30's. Must be an immature mid 30's i
think though. His conjectures are more like what i would expect to come from a
17 year old boy who thinks he know everything and has not yet learned that he
knows nothing, like the rest of us.... At least concerning kids. LOL I have a
13 year old, another species of child..

--

Laura

-Sautéed poo is still poo!

Come join us at The Dirty Old Ladies and The Dirty Old Men!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheDirtyOldLadies/

In article >, says...
> > What an exceptionally sad and pitiful position. Sounds like a major case
> > of sour grapes to me.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Aitken
>
> No, it's a case of objective assessment. It's only sad and pitiful from
> the perspective of those who have fallen into the trap and are trying to
> convince themselves they're ok.
>
>
>

So anyone who enjoys the company and companionship of women has "fallen
into a trap?" Any man, such as myself, who has a long-term marriage that
is very happy, active, and fulfilling has "convinced themselves that
they are OK?"

It sounds like you had some really bad experiences in the past that have
really warped your judgement. Fooling yourself that you are now
"objective" is the height of stupidity.


--
Peter Aitken

In article >, says...
> Rather pathetic how those caught in the trap think that those of us
> smart enough to avoid that trap are somehow sad. You've convinced
> yourselves or simply been brainwashed into believing that having a
> spouse and children is the only way to have a fulfilling life, which is
> pure bull shit.
>

No one in this thread ever said that having a spouse and children is the
only way to lead a fulfilling life, of course it's not. Why do you even
mention this - can't you read? Or do have have a case of "straw man"
disease?


--
Peter Aitken

Laura wrote:
>
> i believe Pete CO said he was in his mid 30's. Must be an immature mid 30's i
> think though. His conjectures are more like what i would expect to come from a
> 17 year old boy who thinks he know everything and has not yet learned that he
> knows nothing, like the rest of us.... At least concerning kids. LOL I have a
> 13 year old, another species of child..

I just thought that perhaps his birth date might give us some indication of
when only the stupid people reproduced,
I have a son who is almost 30, and he is a pretty smart guy.

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" > wrote in message
6.121...
> 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.

Peter A wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
> > > What an exceptionally sad and pitiful position. Sounds like a major case
> > > of sour grapes to me.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Aitken
> >
> > No, it's a case of objective assessment. It's only sad and pitiful from
> > the perspective of those who have fallen into the trap and are trying to
> > convince themselves they're ok.
> >
> >
> >
>
> So anyone who enjoys the company and companionship of women has "fallen
> into a trap?" Any man, such as myself, who has a long-term marriage that
> is very happy, active, and fulfilling has "convinced themselves that
> they are OK?"

Not the 20% at best who actually have successful relationships. The
other 80% however...

>
> It sounds like you had some really bad experiences in the past that have
> really warped your judgement. Fooling yourself that you are now
> "objective" is the height of stupidity.

Nope, not at all. No bad experiences, generally pretty neutral
experiences. My objective assessment is that women simply have nothing
to offer that I need and as a result the risk:benefit ration is very
lopsided.

I objectively look and see a very large number of people falling for the
idea that the only worthy goal in life is to have a spouse and children,
take hasty actions and end up regretting them for the rest of their
lives.

Take a 50% divorce rate, factor in the people in bad marriages staying
together only "for the children", those who are on their third or forth
spouse and still haven't learned their lesson, those cheating on their
spouses, etc. and it's pretty clear the odds of a successful
relationship are quite low. Granted the odds are a lot better than the
lottery which I occasionally play, but the risks are far greater than
the $1 lottery ticket.

Add in the very real risk of becoming a victim of false accusations from
an irrational and unstable woman and the risks are simply too high for
no benefit.

Pete C.

Peter A wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
> > Rather pathetic how those caught in the trap think that those of us
> > smart enough to avoid that trap are somehow sad. You've convinced
> > yourselves or simply been brainwashed into believing that having a
> > spouse and children is the only way to have a fulfilling life, which is
> > pure bull shit.
> >
>
> No one in this thread ever said that having a spouse and children is the
> only way to lead a fulfilling life, of course it's not. Why do you even
> mention this - can't you read? Or do have have a case of "straw man"
> disease?
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Several people clearly implied it.

Pete C.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Laura wrote:
> >
> > i believe Pete CO said he was in his mid 30's. Must be an immature mid 30's i
> > think though. His conjectures are more like what i would expect to come from a
> > 17 year old boy who thinks he know everything and has not yet learned that he
> > knows nothing, like the rest of us.... At least concerning kids. LOL I have a
> > 13 year old, another species of child..
>
> I just thought that perhaps his birth date might give us some indication of
> when only the stupid people reproduced,
> I have a son who is almost 30, and he is a pretty smart guy.

As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm 37.

Based on the recent media reports on the median income for men in their
30s now being less than their fathers I'm presumably pretty smart since
I'm making vastly more than my father did and a multiple of that median
income. I got an 8% raise this year too so I must be doing something
right.

Pete C.

In article >, says...
> > In article >, says...
> > > Rather pathetic how those caught in the trap think that those of us
> > > smart enough to avoid that trap are somehow sad. You've convinced
> > > yourselves or simply been brainwashed into believing that having a
> > > spouse and children is the only way to have a fulfilling life, which is
> > > pure bull shit.
> > >
> >
> > No one in this thread ever said that having a spouse and children is the
> > only way to lead a fulfilling life, of course it's not. Why do you even
> > mention this - can't you read? Or do have have a case of "straw man"
> > disease?
> >
> > --
> > Peter Aitken
>
> Several people clearly implied it.
>
> Pete C.
>

No, you inferred it. Sheesh, pay attention!

--
Peter Aitken

"Pete C." wrote:

> > It sounds like you had some really bad experiences in the past that have
> > really warped your judgement. Fooling yourself that you are now
> > "objective" is the height of stupidity.
>
> Nope, not at all. No bad experiences, generally pretty neutral
> experiences. My objective assessment is that women simply have nothing
> to offer that I need and as a result the risk:benefit ration is very
> lopsided.

I guess you are all set as long as you can cook clean and have a right
hand.

>
> I objectively look and see a very large number of people falling for the
> idea that the only worthy goal in life is to have a spouse and children,
> take hasty actions and end up regretting them for the rest of their
> lives.

Someone needs to have children. I suppose you could leave your care in
your senior years to immigrants, but they probably won't give a damn about
you.


> Take a 50% divorce rate, factor in the people in bad marriages staying
> together only "for the children", those who are on their third or forth
> spouse and still haven't learned their lesson, those cheating on their
> spouses, etc. and it's pretty clear the odds of a successful
> relationship are quite low. Granted the odds are a lot better than the
> lottery which I occasionally play, but the risks are far greater than
> the $1 lottery ticket.

More than 50% of drivers have an accident some time in their lives but most
of us are daring enough to get a driver licence and get around by car.
People who smoke are pretty well guaranteed to suffer a tobacco related
illness, but that doesn't stop them from enjoying <?> their smoking.




> Add in the very real risk of becoming a victim of false accusations from
> an irrational and unstable woman and the risks are simply too high for
> no benefit.


Holy care. You do suffer from some serious issues. Perhaps you need
therapy..... seriously. If you are afraid to develop a relationship because
you are worried about accusations you have problems.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
>
> > > It sounds like you had some really bad experiences in the past that have
> > > really warped your judgement. Fooling yourself that you are now
> > > "objective" is the height of stupidity.
> >
> > Nope, not at all. No bad experiences, generally pretty neutral
> > experiences. My objective assessment is that women simply have nothing
> > to offer that I need and as a result the risk:benefit ration is very
> > lopsided.
>
> I guess you are all set as long as you can cook clean and have a right
> hand.

Pretty much.

>
> >
> > I objectively look and see a very large number of people falling for the
> > idea that the only worthy goal in life is to have a spouse and children,
> > take hasty actions and end up regretting them for the rest of their
> > lives.
>
> Someone needs to have children. I suppose you could leave your care in
> your senior years to immigrants, but they probably won't give a damn about
> you.

I have no expectation of living to the point where I am reliant on
someone else for care. The standard models predict I should drop dead
~65-70. My medical directive is "do not treat". Simply not an issue for
me.

>
> > Take a 50% divorce rate, factor in the people in bad marriages staying
> > together only "for the children", those who are on their third or forth
> > spouse and still haven't learned their lesson, those cheating on their
> > spouses, etc. and it's pretty clear the odds of a successful
> > relationship are quite low. Granted the odds are a lot better than the
> > lottery which I occasionally play, but the risks are far greater than
> > the $1 lottery ticket.
>
> More than 50% of drivers have an accident some time in their lives but most
> of us are daring enough to get a driver licence and get around by car.
> People who smoke are pretty well guaranteed to suffer a tobacco related
> illness, but that doesn't stop them from enjoying <?> their smoking.

Most accidents are not significant and do not screw you for the rest of
your life. The smoking issue is very over hyped, if smokers were "pretty
well guaranteed to suffer a tobacco related illness" you would see a
much much larger problem given the hundreds of millions of smokers vs.
the hundreds of thousands with related illnesses.

>
> > Add in the very real risk of becoming a victim of false accusations from
> > an irrational and unstable woman and the risks are simply too high for
> > no benefit.
>
> Holy care. You do suffer from some serious issues. Perhaps you need
> therapy..... seriously. If you are afraid to develop a relationship because
> you are worried about accusations you have problems.

I've seen too much of it second hand, the risk is real. That coupled
with the lack of benefit to me results in my very reasonable
determination that women are of no value to me. I suffer from nothing
but a lack of susceptibility to societal pressure.

Pete C.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...


> I've seen too much of it second hand, the risk is real.

I love numbers. How many is "too much"? How many have you "seen", and what
exactly do you mean by "seen"? Conversations with friends, where you get
actual details?

On May 30, 11:09�pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> *rosie > wrote:
> > On May 30, 12:46?pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> > > In article .com>,
>
> > > ?rosie > wrote:
> > > > I don't really care to see it.
>
> > > Then don't farking look. ?It's just that easy.
>
> > Hey, this was a survey!! Supposed to be fun..You don't have to get
> > mad. Every one has opinions, not necessarily right or wrong here. You
> > seem to get upset if some do not approve of nursing a baby in a
> > restaurant..
>
> Yes, it's a survey. *And, whether you like it or not, it's *my* opinion
> that if you don't care to "see it" then don't look. *You act as if
> someone was invading your personal space when that is most certainly not
> the case at all. *What nonsense.

No no , not personal space on a newsgroup that has probably 10s of
thousands of people checking in from time to time. I just do not see
any reason to get so upset.
Rosie

Michael "Dog3" Lonergan wrote:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > was forced to post this in:
> rec.food.cooking
>
>> Yeah, a sitting area that doesn't exist in many restaurants, or would
>> be just as exposed as the table. Or, a car, in Rochester NY, when
>> it's 6 degrees F. outside.
>>
>> I feel respected when a woman does it wherever she wants. I won't
>> explain. You wouldn't get it.

*smile*

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> Michael "Dog3" Lonergan wrote:
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" > was forced to post this in:
>> rec.food.cooking
>>
>>> Yeah, a sitting area that doesn't exist in many restaurants, or would
>>> be just as exposed as the table. Or, a car, in Rochester NY, when
>>> it's 6 degrees F. outside.
>>>
>>> I feel respected when a woman does it wherever she wants. I won't
>>> explain. You wouldn't get it.
>
> *smile*
>

Smart lady, you are.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I've seen too much of it second hand, the risk is real.
>
> I love numbers. How many is "too much"? How many have you "seen", and what
> exactly do you mean by "seen"? Conversations with friends, where you get
> actual details?

Several significantly bad cases among people I know or their
acquaintances.

In one case a friend has a "daughter" that isn't his. Another case I
know of the woman in question specifically told the guy at some point
after they had children that she was going to divorce him when the
children were old enough and actually did, at least in this case there
was no report of any other issues during the time before the divorce. In
another case I know of though with a bit less history the victim in this
case is in jail still on a murder conviction which from what detail I
have is highly suspect, appearing to be a case where the girlfriend
abused the kid and then managed to dump it is his care before the
injuries became apparent.

These cases, coupled with the lack of benefit (to me) makes the best
choice pretty clear - avoid women.

Pete C.

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" > wrote in message
6.121...
>
> We see boobs every day on TV. I just don't see the big deal.

It ain't seeing or not seeing the boobs that's the problem with these
people, Michael; it's the THOUGHT of a child sucking on his/her mama's tit
while in their presence that they take issue with. Like they're unable to
just ignore it or something.

Mary

On 2007-05-31, Michael "Dog3" Lonergan > wrote:

> breast feeding than the table being full of rowdy, noisy kids and/or
> someone talking loudly on their cell phone.

Any day and twice on Sundays.

nb

Chatty Cathy wrote:
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> <snippety do dah>
>>
>> I feel respected when a woman does it wherever she wants. I won't
>> explain. You wouldn't get it.
>
> You know what I find odd about this whole thing?
>
> 57 (44%) voters said that they (or their spouse/SO) had actually
> breastfed their babies at the table in restaurants, and yet only 51
> (39%) voters said that they found breastfeeding 'acceptable' behavior in
> that situation. Hmmmm, so does that mean that 6 of the people that
> actually "did the deed" at the table didn't approve of what they were
> doing themselves? Or am I missing something here?
>
Where was this vote? I never go to the website to vote but if it was
there please add my vote FOR doing it wherever babies are allowed. I did
it and encourage others to do it too.
Creepy attitudes as we've read expressed here by a few (without children
for the most part, I might add) need to see MORE of it to get
desensitized to it.

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
...
> Chatty Cathy wrote:
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>> <snippety do dah>
>>>
>>> I feel respected when a woman does it wherever she wants. I won't
>>> explain. You wouldn't get it.
>>
>> You know what I find odd about this whole thing?
>>
>> 57 (44%) voters said that they (or their spouse/SO) had actually
>> breastfed their babies at the table in restaurants, and yet only 51 (39%)
>> voters said that they found breastfeeding 'acceptable' behavior in that
>> situation. Hmmmm, so does that mean that 6 of the people that actually
>> "did the deed" at the table didn't approve of what they were doing
>> themselves? Or am I missing something here?
>>
> Where was this vote? I never go to the website to vote but if it was there
> please add my vote FOR doing it wherever babies are allowed. I did it and
> encourage others to do it too.
> Creepy attitudes as we've read expressed here by a few (without children
> for the most part, I might add) need to see MORE of it to get desensitized
> to it.


DEsensitized??? That's like spotting a scenic overlook parking area on a
highway and saying "I have to get desensitized to this - it's too pretty".

Goomba38 wrote:
>
> Chatty Cathy wrote:
> > JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> >
> > <snippety do dah>
> >>
> >> I feel respected when a woman does it wherever she wants. I won't
> >> explain. You wouldn't get it.
> >
> > You know what I find odd about this whole thing?
> >
> > 57 (44%) voters said that they (or their spouse/SO) had actually
> > breastfed their babies at the table in restaurants, and yet only 51
> > (39%) voters said that they found breastfeeding 'acceptable' behavior in
> > that situation. Hmmmm, so does that mean that 6 of the people that
> > actually "did the deed" at the table didn't approve of what they were
> > doing themselves? Or am I missing something here?
> >
> Where was this vote? I never go to the website to vote but if it was
> there please add my vote FOR doing it wherever babies are allowed. I did
> it and encourage others to do it too.
> Creepy attitudes as we've read expressed here by a few (without children
> for the most part, I might add) need to see MORE of it to get
> desensitized to it.

Desensitized isn't always a good thing. Consider the folks in the middle
east who are exposed to constant violence and are desensitized to it...

Pete C.

Pete C. wrote:
> Goomba38 wrote:

> Desensitized isn't always a good thing. Consider the folks in the middle
> east who are exposed to constant violence and are desensitized to it...
>
> Pete C.

Yet have the common sense to know that breastfeeding is natural and
acceptable....

In article . com>,
rosie > wrote:

> On May 30, 11:09?pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> > ?rosie > wrote:
> > > On May 30, 12:46?pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> > > > In article .com>,
> >
> > > > ?rosie > wrote:
> > > > > I don't really care to see it.
> >
> > > > Then don't farking look. ?It's just that easy.
> >
> > > Hey, this was a survey!! Supposed to be fun..You don't have to get
> > > mad. Every one has opinions, not necessarily right or wrong here. You
> > > seem to get upset if some do not approve of nursing a baby in a
> > > restaurant..
> >
> > Yes, it's a survey. ?And, whether you like it or not, it's *my* opinion
> > that if you don't care to "see it" then don't look. ?You act as if
> > someone was invading your personal space when that is most certainly not
> > the case at all. ?What nonsense.
>
> No no , not personal space on a newsgroup....

Personal space at the restaurant..... not the NG. LOL

> ...that has probably 10s of thousands of people checking in from time
> to time. I just do not see any reason to get so upset.

Seems like you're the one who is upset.

Goomba38 wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > Goomba38 wrote:
>
> > Desensitized isn't always a good thing. Consider the folks in the middle
> > east who are exposed to constant violence and are desensitized to it...
> >
> > Pete C.
>
> Yet have the common sense to know that breastfeeding is natural and
> acceptable....

More a function of lack of options.

Pete C.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
> Goomba38 wrote:
>>
>> Pete C. wrote:
>> > Goomba38 wrote:
>>
>> > Desensitized isn't always a good thing. Consider the folks in the
>> > middle
>> > east who are exposed to constant violence and are desensitized to it...
>> >
>> > Pete C.
>>
>> Yet have the common sense to know that breastfeeding is natural and
>> acceptable....
>
> More a function of lack of options.
>
> Pete C.

Why should other options exist? The chemistry of mother's milk is perfect
for the baby. There are no other considerations.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Goomba38 wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete C. wrote:
> >> > Goomba38 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Desensitized isn't always a good thing. Consider the folks in the
> >> > middle
> >> > east who are exposed to constant violence and are desensitized to it...
> >> >
> >> > Pete C.
> >>
> >> Yet have the common sense to know that breastfeeding is natural and
> >> acceptable....
> >
> > More a function of lack of options.
> >
> > Pete C.
>
> Why should other options exist? The chemistry of mother's milk is perfect
> for the baby. There are no other considerations.

First off, the chemistry is not always perfect so there is indeed a need
for other options. Second off this thread is not about what you feed the
baby, it's about how and where you do the feeding.

Pete C.