Food Snob® wrote:

> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
> officer night. We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."

Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman yourself? I
don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see this more as a
neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations concerning what happened to
your child. I would also believe that from and adult point of view, this
neighbor may not have recognized coersion in the same manner that you feel
occured. Again, that is why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I
would approach it. Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far
more polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches of
the law.

Just sayin'.
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Food Snob® wrote:
>
>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
>> officer night. We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
>> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."
>
> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman yourself? I
> don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see this more as a
> neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations concerning what happened to
> your child. I would also believe that from and adult point of view, this
> neighbor may not have recognized coersion in the same manner that you feel
> occured. Again, that is why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I
> would approach it. Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far
> more polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches of
> the law.
>
> Just sayin'.


It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or want
to save others the hassle of her efforts. If she is a "true believer"
she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into stopping by some
authority figure.

Her motivation is a bit stronger than your local Amway, Tupperware, or
Avon lady. Trust me, I've been harassed by all four classes of folk.

gloria p

On Jul 8, 5:45*pm, Gloria P > wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
> > Food Snob® wrote:
>
> >> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
> >> officer night. *We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
> >> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."
>
> > Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman yourself? I
> > don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see this more as a
> > neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations concerning what happened to
> > your child. I would also believe that from and adult point of view, this
> > neighbor may not have recognized coersion in the same manner that you feel
> > occured. Again, that is why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I
> > would approach it. Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far
> > more polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches of
> > the law.
>
> > Just sayin'.
>
> It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or want
> to save others the hassle of her efforts. *If she is a "true believer"
> she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into stopping by some
> authority figure.

I want her to not intimidate any neighborhood children. When a child
says, "I want to go home," an adult should never say, "No, stay here."
>
> Her motivation is a bit stronger than your local Amway, Tupperware, or
> Avon lady. *Trust me, I've been harassed by all four classes of folk.

They think that they are doing God's work.
>
> gloria p

--Bryan

Gloria P wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Food Snob® wrote:
>>
>>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
>>> officer night. We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
>>> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."
>>
>> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman
>> yourself? I don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see
>> this more as a neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations
>> concerning what happened to your child. I would also believe that
>> from and adult point of view, this neighbor may not have recognized
>> coersion in the same manner that you feel occured. Again, that is
>> why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I would approach it.
>> Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far more
>> polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches
>> of the law. Just sayin'.
>
>
> It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or
> want to save others the hassle of her efforts. If she is a "true
> believer" she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into
> stopping by some authority figure.

Proselytizing is not against the law. It is up to each parent to decide what
they wish to do for their own child. Each parent can talk to this person
should they wish. There is no reason to drag government authority into a
neigbor-to-neighbor dispute.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Gloria P wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> Food Snob® wrote:
>>>
>>>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
>>>> officer night. We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
>>>> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."
>>>
>>> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman
>>> yourself? I don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see
>>> this more as a neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations
>>> concerning what happened to your child. I would also believe that
>>> from and adult point of view, this neighbor may not have recognized
>>> coersion in the same manner that you feel occured. Again, that is
>>> why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I would approach it.
>>> Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far more
>>> polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches
>>> of the law. Just sayin'.
>>
>>
>> It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or
>> want to save others the hassle of her efforts. If she is a "true
>> believer" she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into
>> stopping by some authority figure.
>
> Proselytizing is not against the law. It is up to each parent to decide
> what they wish to do for their own child. Each parent can talk to this
> person should they wish. There is no reason to drag government authority
> into a neigbor-to-neighbor dispute.
>
> --
> Dave


Who is to say this is an innocent woman who is simply proselytizing? She's
a "new neighbor" according to the OP. If so, who knows but that she may be
trying to induct children into a cult. Then again, probably not. The whole
tale is suspect if you ask me.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gloria P wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>> Food Snob® wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
>>>>> officer night. We are going to ask the police to talk to the
>>>>> woman and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No
>>>>> means no."
>>>>
>>>> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman
>>>> yourself? I don't see the need to have the police do anything; I
>>>> see this more as a neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations
>>>> concerning what happened to your child. I would also believe that
>>>> from and adult point of view, this neighbor may not have recognized
>>>> coersion in the same manner that you feel occured. Again, that is
>>>> why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I would approach
>>>> it. Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far more
>>>> polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches
>>>> of the law. Just sayin'.
>>>
>>>
>>> It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or
>>> want to save others the hassle of her efforts. If she is a "true
>>> believer" she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into
>>> stopping by some authority figure.
>>
>> Proselytizing is not against the law. It is up to each parent to
>> decide what they wish to do for their own child. Each parent can
>> talk to this person should they wish. There is no reason to drag
>> government authority into a neigbor-to-neighbor dispute.
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>
>
> Who is to say this is an innocent woman who is simply proselytizing?

I suppose we could imagine and suppose all sorts of scenarios, but much
would be settled by talking to the woman, including what she is teaching. If
problems persist, then there is plenty of time to look at other options.
People are just too quick to have government solve problems that are easily
solved by themselves. Now if she had pitbulls, or neighborhood cats are
mysteriously going missing.....

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On Jul 8, 7:18*pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> Gloria P wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >> Food Snob® wrote:
>
> >>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
> >>> officer night. *We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
> >>> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."
>
> >> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman
> >> yourself? I don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see
> >> this more as a neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations
> >> concerning what happened to your child. I would also believe that
> >> from and adult point of view, this neighbor may not have recognized
> >> coersion in the same manner that you feel occured. Again, that is
> >> why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I would approach it.
> >> Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far more
> >> polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches
> >> of the law. Just sayin'.
>
> > It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or
> > want to save others the hassle of her efforts. *If she is a "true
> > believer" she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into
> > stopping by some authority figure.
>
> Proselytizing is not against the law. It is up to each parent to decide what
> they wish to do for their own child. Each parent can talk to this person
> should they wish. There is no reason to drag government authority into a
> neigbor-to-neighbor dispute.

I have no problem with the proselytizing. My issue was letting a
child leave when he asks to leave. The police officer agreed on that
point.

7 year old: Um, I'm going to go home.

adult: We're not done yet. We haven't even had our popsicles.

7 year old: Please, can I go?

adult: It's supposed to last until 5:00. It's not 5 yet.

7 year old: Can I please go home now?

adult: There's not much left. We're just about done.

If you think that that's in any way acceptable, for the adult to act
like the child didn't have their OK to leave, then I don't know what I
can say to convince you.

True, she didn't explicitly say, "You can't leave yet," but she
implied that he was not supposed to leave. State laws differ, and in
Missouri that would not be sufficient to charge her with false
imprisonment. That's fine. I don't want her prosecuted, nor sued.
They had in no way been led to believe that they were authorized to
act *in loco parentis*. I had never even met any of these folks.
>
> --
> Dave

--Bryan

On Jul 8, 7:37*pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
> > "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> Gloria P wrote:
> >>> Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>>> Food Snob® wrote:
>
> >>>>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
> >>>>> officer night. *We are going to ask the police to talk to the
> >>>>> woman and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No
> >>>>> means no."
>
> >>>> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman
> >>>> yourself? I don't see the need to have the police do anything; I
> >>>> see this more as a neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations
> >>>> concerning what happened to your child. I would also believe that
> >>>> from and adult point of view, this neighbor may not have recognized
> >>>> coersion in the same manner that you feel occured. Again, that is
> >>>> why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I would approach
> >>>> it. Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far more
> >>>> polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches
> >>>> of the law. Just sayin'.
>
> >>> It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or
> >>> want to save others the hassle of her efforts. *If she is a "true
> >>> believer" she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into
> >>> stopping by some authority figure.
>
> >> Proselytizing is not against the law. It is up to each parent to
> >> decide what they wish to do for their own child. Each parent can
> >> talk to this person should they wish. There is no reason to drag
> >> government authority into a neigbor-to-neighbor dispute.
>
> >> --
> >> Dave
>
> > Who is to say this is an innocent woman who is simply proselytizing?
>
> I suppose we could imagine and suppose all sorts of scenarios, but much
> would be settled by talking to the woman, including what she is teaching.

The problem was not the content of her teaching. It was pressuring a
child to stay and listen when he had voiced a desire to leave.

> If problems persist, then there is plenty of time to look at other options.
> People are just too quick to have government solve problems that are easily
> solved by themselves.

Now that I've told the policewoman, and our councilman who was
accompanying her, I can talk to the neighbor tomorrow. The neighbor
was not the one pressuring him to stay, but she stood idly by while
the religious facilitators that she brought into our neighborhood did
so.

My son got to meet our neighborhood officer who will soon be riding
her beat on her new bicycle. I love community policing, and think
that the police should know about the little details of conflicts
between citizens. They have the responsibility for enforcing laws
only when laws are broken, but they also are there to preempt
escalations by talking to people.

> Now if she had pitbulls, or neighborhood cats are
> mysteriously going missing.....

The pitbulls are whole nother thing
>
> --
> Dave
> What is best in life? * *"To crush your enemies, see them driven before
> you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Do you really ascribe to that?

--Bryan

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> People are just too quick to have government solve problems that are
> easily solved by themselves.

I just came back from listening to Senator DeMent speak. That was basically
his message. He was selling his book "Finding Freedom"

mk5000

"is life gonna get the best of you
kill the lights
take em off turn em off break em down
don't be scared make a move see me now"--britney spears

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:37:56 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Who is to say this is an innocent woman who is simply proselytizing?
>
> I suppose we could imagine and suppose all sorts of scenarios, but much
> would be settled by talking to the woman, including what she is teaching. If
> problems persist, then there is plenty of time to look at other options.
> People are just too quick to have government solve problems that are easily
> solved by themselves. Now if she had pitbulls, or neighborhood cats are
> mysteriously going missing.....

or both...

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:37:56 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> Who is to say this is an innocent woman who is simply proselytizing?
>>
>> I suppose we could imagine and suppose all sorts of scenarios, but much
>> would be settled by talking to the woman, including what she is
>> teaching. If problems persist, then there is plenty of time to look at
>> other options. People are just too quick to have government solve
>> problems that are easily solved by themselves. Now if she had pitbulls,
>> or neighborhood cats are mysteriously going missing.....
>
> or both...
>
What if she has cats and neighbourhood pitbulls are mysteriously
going missing ?

Cheers,

Michael "my cat is harmlaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgggghh" Kuettner

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Gloria P wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> Food Snob® wrote:
>>>
>>>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
>>>> officer night. We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
>>>> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."
>>>
>>> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman
>>> yourself? I don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see
>>> this more as a neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations
>>> concerning what happened to your child. I would also believe that
>>> from and adult point of view, this neighbor may not have recognized
>>> coersion in the same manner that you feel occured. Again, that is
>>> why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I would approach it.
>>> Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far more
>>> polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches
>>> of the law. Just sayin'.
>>
>>
>> It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or
>> want to save others the hassle of her efforts. If she is a "true
>> believer" she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into
>> stopping by some authority figure.
>
> Proselytizing is not against the law.

Pity!!!

"graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gloria P wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>> Food Snob® wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
>>>>> officer night. We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
>>>>> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."
>>>>
>>>> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman
>>>> yourself? I don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see
>>>> this more as a neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations
>>>> concerning what happened to your child. I would also believe that
>>>> from and adult point of view, this neighbor may not have recognized
>>>> coersion in the same manner that you feel occured. Again, that is
>>>> why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I would approach it.
>>>> Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far more
>>>> polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches
>>>> of the law. Just sayin'.
>>>
>>>
>>> It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or
>>> want to save others the hassle of her efforts. If she is a "true
>>> believer" she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into
>>> stopping by some authority figure.
>>
>> Proselytizing is not against the law.
>
> Pity!!!

Pussy.

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:46:36 +0200, Michael Kuettner wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:37:56 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who is to say this is an innocent woman who is simply proselytizing?
>>>
>>> I suppose we could imagine and suppose all sorts of scenarios, but much
>>> would be settled by talking to the woman, including what she is
>>> teaching. If problems persist, then there is plenty of time to look at
>>> other options. People are just too quick to have government solve
>>> problems that are easily solved by themselves. Now if she had pitbulls,
>>> or neighborhood cats are mysteriously going missing.....
>>
>> or both...
>>
> What if she has cats and neighbourhood pitbulls are mysteriously
> going missing ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael "my cat is harmlaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgggghh" Kuettner

it would make a nice change.

your pal,
blake