"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Kalmia > wrote in news:f53feb03-1a5d-4f95-8f8d-
> :
>
>> That'd be fine by me. Parents, step and bio, need to refuse to bail
>> out offspring when things get uncomfortable.
>
> Based on what rule of the universe?
>

Just a guess ................... common sense? Accountability?
Responsibility for one's own actions?

What do I win?

Steve

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message >
> from Omelet > contains these words:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Janet" > wrote:
>
>> > Michel Boucher wrote:
>> > > Omelet > wrote in
>> > > newsmpomelet-7103F0.13573721032010 @news-wc.giganews.com:
>> > >
>> > >> I have a feeling that many of us have tales to tell...
>> > >
>> > > Not Janet, it seems.
>> >
>> > No, I simply would not reveal family disagreements in an internet
>> > newsgroup
>> > available to millions of random strangers.
>
>> Just consider it to be a giant support group. :-)
>
> Support groups usually include a privacy/confidentiality clause.
> The internet could hardly be more public or less discreet.
>
>> It's not much different than what I posted about dad earlier tonight. I
>> did that in hopes I could help others with elderly parents etc.
>
> It is different, in that you aren't using your real life ID so your
> family's privacy is protected. . Maybe Michel is also using a false
> ID;
> but if he's not then what he's written about his family, is archived in
> public for her, her child , his neighbours, the BF and ex.. etc...
> to find and read; which could have consequences for his family
> relationships.
>
> put "Michel Boucher step daughter" into google, to see how easy that
> is.
>
>
> Janet

Sure. Much better to keep everything secret and under cover, like a dead
cat under the throw rug. You smell anything? No.

Can yew say denial? I knew yew could.

Steve

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message n

I'm thinking Gigot de sept
> heures with various vegetables.
>
I made that a couple of weeks ago with a small gigot, and therefore probably
from a very young animal. As superb as it was, I can't help but think that
a leg from an older animal would have been more appropriate.
Graham

"Steve B" > wrote in news:qgak77-jdc1.ln1
@news.infowest.com:

>> Based on what rule of the universe?
>>
>
> Just a guess ................... common sense? Accountability?
> Responsibility for one's own actions?

You forgot "right-wing bible-based twaddle".

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

"graham" > wrote in
:

> I made that a couple of weeks ago with a small gigot, and therefore
> probably from a very young animal. As superb as it was, I can't help
> but think that a leg from an older animal would have been more
> appropriate.

I get a 3-3.5kg leg.

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve B" > wrote in news:qgak77-jdc1.ln1
> @news.infowest.com:
>
>>> Based on what rule of the universe?
>>>
>>
>> Just a guess ................... common sense? Accountability?
>> Responsibility for one's own actions?
>
> You forgot "right-wing bible-based twaddle".
>

Thank you. The real problem has come into focus very clearly.

Steve

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "graham" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I made that a couple of weeks ago with a small gigot, and therefore
>> probably from a very young animal. As superb as it was, I can't help
>> but think that a leg from an older animal would have been more
>> appropriate.
>
> I get a 3-3.5kg leg.
>
I looked for something that size but could only find a ~2.5kg leg of Alberta
lamb.
Maybe we should move this discussion.
Graham

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Janet Wilder > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Maybe because there's a grandchild to protect?
>>>
>>> Janet
>>
>> I thought I read that the father of the grandchild had custody and the
>> mother a/k/a step-daughter had visitation. Something about having to
>> make sunday dinner at a specific hour so that the child could be
>> returned??
>
> You didn't read anything about custody because I never mentioned anything
> about custody. You are extrapolating from non-existent information.
>

Well, there's that ..............

"graham" > wrote in
:

>> I get a 3-3.5kg leg.
>>
> I looked for something that size but could only find a ~2.5kg leg of
> Alberta lamb. Maybe we should move this discussion.

Out of rec.food.cooking? :-)

We have an organic butcher in Ottawa who usually has a 3 kg leg or
thereabouts most of the year.

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

"Steve B" > wrote in news:rqbk77-tjf1.ln1
@news.infowest.com:

>> You forgot "right-wing bible-based twaddle".
>
> Thank you. The real problem has come into focus very clearly.

It was in focus for me a long time go.

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

On 23/03/2010 12:23 AM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> > wrote in -
> september.org:
>
>> What will happen to them after the older generation dies? How will they
>> ever learn to make their own kids self-sufficient? It sounds as though
>> they will end up in the gutter anyway because there will be no one left
>> to bail them out and they never learned to live on their own, within
>> their means.
>
> So we should ignore their need and let them die early out of compassion?
>
Ignore them, no. Cosset them, also no.

Children need to strike out on their own. It is all too easy for them to
"remain in the nest". Your children, whether your own or adopted, need
to take responsibility for their own lives. The earlier they do this,
the better it will be for them. Far too many children these days know
all about their "rights" but nothing of their obligations.

My kids always knew I was here as a fallback but they were taught not to
make use of me for that purpose unless they were in absolute dire
straights. They are teaching their own children, my grandchildren, those
same responsibilities.

Krypsis

Steve B wrote

> I left home two days before I turned sixteen. I agree with most of what you
> said except for the tough love part. I think that should start from day
> one. Why is it that parents will let their child go splat face first into
> the kitchen floor when learning to walk? "Get up, you're okay." Then when
> they're 25, they won't let them so much as stumble?
>
> I have three kids. One is a police officer. One is an industrial HR
> psychologist. The other is an interpreter for the court system in a state
> government. Only one daughter lived at home during two years of her
> college, and paid rent. During that time, she was basically a maid for the
> household as her job. Cooking, cleaning, ironing, washing the dog, the car,
> whatever. I have six grandkids, and they all love to come to Papa's house.
> Because I treat them as young adults. No baby talking. No back talking.
> No down talking. None of them gets to run roughshod and do what they want.
> And if they get a booboo, they get some sympathy, a band aid, and diverted
> to the next thing. That included shiners, cuts, stitches, and one broken
> finger. I think they will all do good, too. They all learned at a young
> age that all they needed to do was look inside themselves instead of to
> Mommy and Daddy.

I don't think that parents do their kids any great favours by allowing
or encouraging them to mooch off them.

My brothers and I were all out of our parents homes by our early 20s. I
lived at home for my first two years of university. My younger brother
stayed at home until he graduated and for another year when he started
working, but as soon as he finished his education he started paying
board and bought his own car.

My son went to work in Africa for almost a year when he finished high
school, then returned and stayed for two years working full time and
taking part time classes. He moved to Montreal and we helped him with
his rent and travel expenses until he finished his degree. He worked to
pay the rest. As soon as he graduated he was on his own. He may not be
rich, but he is self sufficient.

There are a few people in the family who have been allowed to mooch off
their parents. I suppose that they parents each thought that it was
short term assistance and that they would get out and support
themselves. So far, that has not been the case, The mooches are still
mooching.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:46:34 -0700, "Steve B"
> wrote:

>I have six grandkids, and they all love to come to Papa's house.
>Because I treat them as young adults. No baby talking. No back talking.
>No down talking. None of them gets to run roughshod and do what they want.
>And if they get a booboo, they get some sympathy, a band aid, and diverted
>to the next thing. That included shiners, cuts, stitches, and one broken
>finger. I think they will all do good, too. They all learned at a young
>age that all they needed to do was look inside themselves instead of to
>Mommy and Daddy.

Looking "inside" yourself can be taken too far. There are people like
my ex-DIL who didn't have a nurturing bone in her body. The way she
dealt with a crying *infant* was to hold him in front of her with arms
straight out yelling at him to stop crying. He wasn't allowed to feel
or express emotion and he is still scarred by that.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Krypsis wrote:

> Ignore them, no. Cosset them, also no.
>
> Children need to strike out on their own. It is all too easy for them
> to "remain in the nest". Your children, whether your own or adopted,
> need to take responsibility for their own lives. The earlier they do
> this, the better it will be for them. Far too many children these
> days know all about their "rights" but nothing of their obligations.

I guess it's good to help out your grown children if you can,
depending on the circumstances. There's something to be said
for making it uncomfortable for them to be depending on the
parents for a handout so they would rather move on. What I
can't see is taking that help and being a total jerk about it,
disrupting the house and being completely disrespectful of the
parents possessions and 'space', for lack of a better word.
That's the problem I had with the whole scenario.

nancy

Krypsis > wrote in news:4ba7861a$0$1785$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

> Children need to strike out on their own.

Where is that written in stone?

Some family models work by never actually losing members but just gaining
new ones. Other family models, at the other end of the spectrum, posit
exclusion from the parents as early as 3 years old. Even within the
"W.A.S.P." domain, there are many varieties: urban, rural, nomadic,
conservative, progressive...

I daresay your statement quoted above is hardly universal, or even
uniformly applied even within your immediate vicinity. Perhaps it would be
better for you to preface it with: I believe that... Then you would know
that it is not a universal constant but a personal preference.

Because it is after all a question of belief (and faith) that treating
people harshly will benefit them in the end. Rod...child...see a pattern
here? Only those obnubilated by their irrational belief in the non-
existence of a deity could take that model as a serious one. Mark Twain
pointed out that if a father did to his children what "God" is said to have
inflicted upon humanity, he would be jailed as a heinous criminal.

But I can see where belief in the validity of this model would be the case
if all the people in the world were normal, but unfortunately for your
weltanschauung, not everyone is like you. Some people are in need of
greater support than others.

That doesn't mean it's easy on those giving that support.

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

"Nancy Young" > wrote in news:qaMpn.19900$DF1.4483
@newsfe20.ams2:

> That's the problem I had with the whole scenario.

I have addressed these issues as often as tempers would allow and as I said
before, it was like talking to a cat.

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in
> news:qaMpn.19900$DF1.4483 @newsfe20.ams2:
>
>> That's the problem I had with the whole scenario.
>
> I have addressed these issues as often as tempers would allow and as
> I said before, it was like talking to a cat.

I didn't say anything about how you handled it or didn't.

nancy

On 3/22/2010 10:29 AM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Steve > wrote in news:qgak77-jdc1.ln1
> @news.infowest.com:
>
>>> Based on what rule of the universe?
>>>
>>
>> Just a guess ................... common sense? Accountability?
>> Responsibility for one's own actions?
>
> You forgot "right-wing bible-based twaddle".
>

Actually Steve speaks the truth. If you never want to hurt anyone's
feelings and self esteem and all that crap by not having rules then you
get the situation you posted. Just like starting a dish on the stove and
not following through and letting whatever happens happen. You get a
mess and it is only your fault for making the decision to just let it
happen.

On 3/22/2010 10:35 AM, Steve B wrote:
> "Michel > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Steve > wrote in news:qgak77-jdc1.ln1
>> @news.infowest.com:
>>
>>>> Based on what rule of the universe?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just a guess ................... common sense? Accountability?
>>> Responsibility for one's own actions?
>>
>> You forgot "right-wing bible-based twaddle".
>>
>
> Thank you. The real problem has come into focus very clearly.
>
> Steve
>
>
Nope, he doesn't have a clue. He just knows he had absolutely nothing to
do with it so it wasn't his fault.

In article >,
"graham" > wrote:

> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "graham" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> I made that a couple of weeks ago with a small gigot, and therefore
> >> probably from a very young animal. As superb as it was, I can't help
> >> but think that a leg from an older animal would have been more
> >> appropriate.
> >
> > I get a 3-3.5kg leg.
> >
> I looked for something that size but could only find a ~2.5kg leg of Alberta
> lamb.
> Maybe we should move this discussion.

Depends whether it was a right wing leg, or a left leaning left wing leg.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:03:14 -0400, George >
wrote:

>On 3/21/2010 7:47 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
>> > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>>> Sorry, I was thinking of the other "Michel Boucher" who constantly
>>>>> expresses very left leaning opinions.
>>>>
>>>> Left-leaning is insulting to those of us who are truly on the left
>>>> and not just leaning.
>>>
>>> OK, what should we called you? Failed example of liberal ideas?
>>
>> Obviously you have a very narrow definition of failure. And as far as your
>> opinion goes, it obviously fails to grasp the human implication.
>>
>
>Actually I am surprised you don't and of course you don't recognize the
>major flaw with being a total extremist with any ideology. It is neat to
>think that we could all be cutesy putsey and sing songs together but
>human nature doesn't work that way.
>
>As far as your stepdaughter is concerned she obviously sees you as
>totally weak and ineffective. Most people need rules (especially younger
>ones) and respond to deadlines. You used the cutesy putsey I am your
>friend method and it got you nowhere. I'll bet if you set a deadline and
>enforced it you would have noticed a substantial difference.

He's not going to hear you, boucher has an agenda.

It's way too late now, she would never trust him to uphold any rules.
And anyway these one sided threads are pretty lame, we are only
hearing Boucher's side of this tale of woe, I'd bet my bippee the step
daughter's version would be totally different in every respect. From
reading Boucher's posts for more years than I want to think about I
know with absolute certainty that he's a totalitarian ridgid gestapo
prick... anyone would rebel against his fercocktah rulz... he was
never capable of parenting. Boucher is an opportunist who took
advantage of a young female who was born into hard times and fell on
hard financial times by waving some lucre as bait, otherwise why else
would she in his abode.. someone saw to it that she'd always be very
needy. Boucher is exactly the kind of twisted manipulating dirty old
man who'd have liked to molest his step daughter from day one... now
he's too old so he crying a river... for himself, not for her... don't
yoose see it... this is classic! A normal brained man never would
have posted what is obviously his sinful fantasy to a public forum of
virtual strangers.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in news:qaMpn.19900$DF1.4483
> @newsfe20.ams2:
>
>> That's the problem I had with the whole scenario.
>
> I have addressed these issues as often as tempers would allow and as I
> said
> before, it was like talking to a cat.
>
I can really picture this. What a great description.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Krypsis > wrote in news:4ba7861a$0$1785$afc38c87
> @news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>> Children need to strike out on their own.
>
> Where is that written in stone?
>
>
It isn't but I would highly recommend it. People I grew up with who never
really did are like .... stick people. Paperdolls. Flimsy.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:06:30 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Steve B" > wrote:
>
>> > I have a feeling that many of us have tales to tell...
>>
>> Only the ones with imperfect children, if you haven't noticed it already.
>>
>> Steve
>
>More to it than that. There are more family members than dysfunctional
>offspring.
>
>I could tell you tales of my cousins...
>
>But none of them will be allowed to move in with me. Especially the
>youngest, most dysfunctional of the 9. I have enough responsibility.
>
>But, sometimes it's a matter of love. :-)

Love is a two way street, otherwise you're doing all the loving and
they're doing all the abusing.

>Nobody can "use" you unless you allow it.
>And I feel that it's better to be used than useless.

Then you're not only allowing, you're promoting... that's sad... no
self esteem. And what when you're all used up, permanent
uselessness/discarded like garbage.

On 23/03/2010 2:51 AM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> > wrote in news:4ba7861a$0$1785$afc38c87
> @news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>> Children need to strike out on their own.
>
> Where is that written in stone?
>
> Some family models work by never actually losing members but just gaining
> new ones. Other family models, at the other end of the spectrum, posit
> exclusion from the parents as early as 3 years old. Even within the
> "W.A.S.P." domain, there are many varieties: urban, rural, nomadic,
> conservative, progressive...
>
> I daresay your statement quoted above is hardly universal, or even
> uniformly applied even within your immediate vicinity. Perhaps it would be
> better for you to preface it with: I believe that... Then you would know
> that it is not a universal constant but a personal preference.
>
> Because it is after all a question of belief (and faith) that treating
> people harshly will benefit them in the end. Rod...child...see a pattern

I have never treated my children harshly. I do however expect them to
become independent of me. I don't expect them to live forever on
handouts from me as all that creates is dependency. I sent them to the
best schools that I could afford and instilled into them a set of values
and attitudes that has done them proud. At the end of the day, all you
should need to do is prepare them for their future because it is
unlikely that you will be there for them all of their lives.

> here? Only those obnubilated by their irrational belief in the non-
> existence of a deity could take that model as a serious one. Mark Twain
> pointed out that if a father did to his children what "God" is said to have
> inflicted upon humanity, he would be jailed as a heinous criminal.
>
> But I can see where belief in the validity of this model would be the case
> if all the people in the world were normal, but unfortunately for your
> weltanschauung, not everyone is like you. Some people are in need of
> greater support than others.
>
> That doesn't mean it's easy on those giving that support.
>
If you're giving children a "hand up", that's ok. If you are giving them
a "handout", you are creating for them many future problems.

Krypsis

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:46:34 -0700, "Steve B"
> > wrote:
>
>>I have six grandkids, and they all love to come to Papa's house.
>>Because I treat them as young adults. No baby talking. No back talking.
>>No down talking. None of them gets to run roughshod and do what they
>>want.
>>And if they get a booboo, they get some sympathy, a band aid, and diverted
>>to the next thing. That included shiners, cuts, stitches, and one broken
>>finger. I think they will all do good, too. They all learned at a young
>>age that all they needed to do was look inside themselves instead of to
>>Mommy and Daddy.
>
> Looking "inside" yourself can be taken too far. There are people like
> my ex-DIL who didn't have a nurturing bone in her body. The way she
> dealt with a crying *infant* was to hold him in front of her with arms
> straight out yelling at him to stop crying. He wasn't allowed to feel
> or express emotion and he is still scarred by that.
>

Probably some Shaken Baby Syndrome at work there, too. What you have
described is abuse. If you did nothing when that was taking place, then you
are also guilty of abuse.

Steve

On 23/03/2010 3:50 AM, George wrote:
> On 3/22/2010 10:46 AM, Steve B wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> I left home two days before I turned sixteen. I agree with most of
>> what you
>> said except for the tough love part. I think that should start from day
>> one. Why is it that parents will let their child go splat face first into
>> the kitchen floor when learning to walk? "Get up, you're okay." Then when
>> they're 25, they won't let them so much as stumble?
>>
>> I have three kids. One is a police officer. One is an industrial HR
>> psychologist. The other is an interpreter for the court system in a state
>> government. Only one daughter lived at home during two years of her
>> college, and paid rent. During that time, she was basically a maid for
>> the
>> household as her job. Cooking, cleaning, ironing, washing the dog, the
>> car,
>> whatever. I have six grandkids, and they all love to come to Papa's
>> house.
>> Because I treat them as young adults. No baby talking. No back talking.
>> No down talking. None of them gets to run roughshod and do what they
>> want.
>> And if they get a booboo, they get some sympathy, a band aid, and
>> diverted
>> to the next thing. That included shiners, cuts, stitches, and one broken
>> finger. I think they will all do good, too. They all learned at a young
>> age that all they needed to do was look inside themselves instead of to
>> Mommy and Daddy.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
> But that is really mean enforcing rules and stuff..
>
> What about their self esteem? I'll bet they don't like you... I'll bet
> they will turn out as clueless and demanding kids...oh wait...

Life is full of rules, both written and tacit. Get used to it!

Krypsis

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in news:qaMpn.19900$DF1.4483
> @newsfe20.ams2:
>
>> That's the problem I had with the whole scenario.
>
> I have addressed these issues as often as tempers would allow and as I
> said
> before, it was like talking to a cat.
>

Cats are like mules. You CAN talk to them, all you have to do is get their
attention first.

Steve

Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-315FDF.10061522032010@c-61-
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> Depends whether it was a right wing leg, or a left leaning left wing leg.

Or a right-leaning leg for that matter.

Reminds me of the time William Buckley was asked to appear on Laugh-In. He
did not fly anywhere (IIRC) but said that he would consider it if they
could find him a plane with two right wings :-)

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

Krypsis > wrote in news:4ba7d146$0$18229$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

> Life is full of rules, both written and tacit. Get used to it!

Where is that written in stone?

Obviously people make up these rules as they go along. And some don't.
One thing that is required between a parent and child is flexibility.
Having "rules" is what causes teenage pregnancies and drug abuse among
young people.

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:50:46 -0400, George >
wrote:

> What about their self esteem?

Yeah, what about it? You're as clueless as the parents who are to
lenient.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Krypsis > wrote in news:4ba7861a$0$1785$afc38c87
> @news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>> Children need to strike out on their own.
>
> Where is that written in stone?

buncha stuff snipped.........

My third ex wife was a paralegal to a lawyer who handled mostly family law,
and that included estates. At that time, he had lots and lots of clients,
being a farm boy from the country around the city he practiced law in, and
known to lots of country folk.

Time after time, he would have an estate formed by depression babies who
homesteaded land, lived in a wood clapboard house most of their lives, were
in their teens or twenties before they had their first pair of shoes or ate
in a restaurant. Over the years, the homestead made money, then with the
modern boom, either oil was found on it, or rice or soybeans were planted.
Or cattle were raised. The parents became millionaires.

Some of the kids were good kids, and followed along on the farm, or had the
sense to accept mom and pop put them through college, or did it themselves,
or went off to the military. Some returned after college or military and
helped their parent's operation prosper either by hard work or their
improved business skills.

The lazy ones stayed at home, enjoyed family money, and lived in their
parent's house until their parents died. Didn't work at a job. Didn't work
on the farm or ranch. Drove daddy's vehicles, and ate at the family table.
Mom washed their clothes.

Alas, Mom and Dad died.

In comes the children and relatives like a flock of vultures, arguing about
who would get the silverware and who would get the paintings and who would
get the antique chest of drawers.

Upon completion of the executorships of the will, and the disbursal of
funds, the neer'do'wells followed a very predictable pattern. The first
thing they did was buy an expensive car or truck. Then spent thousands of
dollars blinging it out. Then partied until the hogs came home. Spent
money like there was no end.

And then the end came. Within a few years, they had a dented dirty beat up
vehicle that wasn't worth 24% new because it was trashed completely, and in
some cases never even washed. They had no money in the bank or investments.
They had no chance at a good job because they had no education. Some died
of drug overdoses. Some disappeared. Some drank themselves into the
gutter. Some chewed off the end of a gun barrel.

The ones who had gone to school, worked at the family empire, or just had
their values in place were in much better shape.

So, yes, they can stay at home until Mommy and Daddy dies. Then they will
have to go out and find their own way. Trouble is, they have no clue as how
to do that.

The ones who had been taught how to fly earlier in life did better than the
chicks that never learned.

Steve

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:19:34 -0700, "Steve B"
> wrote:

> Probably some Shaken Baby Syndrome at work there, too. What you have
> described is abuse. If you did nothing when that was taking place, then you
> are also guilty of abuse.

I see you're just as judgmental about this one as you are about the`
Michel, situation. When there is no physical evidence, it's a waste
of time for anyone to call CPS. We did not witness physical abuse,
only mental abuse and a certain amount of neglect. That's why she
isn't part of the family anymore and doesn't have custody of her
child.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:31:44 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 9:37*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:02:47 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> >
> > > wrote:

> > > I may be the only one who thinks this way, but.....someone should've
> > > taken the bull by the horns before 18 months went by.
> >
> > It's his wife's child.
>
> Yeah - I figured that from his use of the word stepchild. Still
> doesn't excuse the spineless approach.

Are you married with children? Have you been in a successful second
married that involves your spouse's children? Get back to us when you
have.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:51:26 -0700, "Steve B"
> wrote:

> My third ex wife

Which supposedly makes you an expert on child rearing and how to stay
married when disagreeing about "tough love" with your spouse's child?

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:19:34 -0700, "Steve B"
> > wrote:
>
>> Probably some Shaken Baby Syndrome at work there, too. What you have
>> described is abuse. If you did nothing when that was taking place, then you
>> are also guilty of abuse.
>
> I see you're just as judgmental about this one as you are about the`
> Michel, situation.


So far we have strict authoritarians, people who confuse permissive
child rearing with being politically liberal and family advice from
someone who mentions his third ex-wife. Then there are the "nurturers"
and the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" people... vying for
attention with the "tough love" crowd.

And **I** was the one who never had kids because I didn't think I would
have made a good parent. Huh.

You have to take a test and get a license to cut someone's hair, drive a
car, go fishing, go hunting, be a plumber or electrician..... but any
two idiots can breed and raise a kid.

And with 40% of babies born in the US to unwed mothers, there are still
people who don't want to teach children birth control. 86% of those
babies are born to women under 20 years old.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayof...l#cnnSTCOther1


George L

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "gloria.p" > wrote in -
> september.org:
>
>> What will happen to them after the older generation dies? How will they
>> ever learn to make their own kids self-sufficient? It sounds as though
>> they will end up in the gutter anyway because there will be no one left
>> to bail them out and they never learned to live on their own, within
>> their means.
>
> So we should ignore their need and let them die early out of compassion?
>

Michel, I'm not criticizing you nearly as much as you think, but I know
you have heard the old adage: "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day,
teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." (Or as long as there
are fish....) I would help my kids in an instant if they were truly
desperate but I can't imagine either of them in that situation without
trying to fish for themselves.

gloria p

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:29:53 -0500, George Leppla
> wrote:

> And with 40% of babies born in the US to unwed mothers, there are still
> people who don't want to teach children birth control. 86% of those
> babies are born to women under 20 years old.

Start by looking a pregnancy statistics between red and blue states...
basically authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian homes. Then you have
all the girls for whom being pregnant isn't shameful anymore and want
to produce someone who loves them unconditionally. The problem is,
they find out quickly a baby is more work than they wanted so mommy or
more likely grandma is stuck with raising the child. Mother's and
sometimes grandmothers are often addicted, so then you'll see
great-grandmas raising a pack of kids. It's a real mess.

I don't understand this need to have babies without being married.
For me, it was a huge decision and I'd been married for years.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

In article >,
"Steve B" > wrote:

> "George" > wrote in message
> ...

> > But that is really mean enforcing rules and stuff..
> >
> > What about their self esteem? I'll bet they don't like you... I'll bet
> > they will turn out as clueless and demanding kids...oh wait...
>
> Parents who put self esteem ahead of everything else are clueless.

As with everything else in parenting, there needs to be a balance. Kids
who routinely have their self esteem destroyed don't turn out well as
adults. Kids who don't learn that other people need to have a self
esteem also don't turn out well.

But speaking of clueless, George has been playing Mr. Hard Line this
whole thread. It's obvious that his lines above are sarcasm.

> It
> teaches kids there's no other place than first place

No

>, and that they don't
> have to do as much work as a greater achiever,

No

>and they will be rewarded the
> same as the real achiever.

Another No.

> Our grandkids pull all sorts of crap with Mom and Dad.

Why is that?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> Krypsis > wrote in news:4ba7d146$0$18229$afc38c87
> @news.optusnet.com.au:
>
> > Life is full of rules, both written and tacit. Get used to it!
>
> Where is that written in stone?
>
> Obviously people make up these rules as they go along. And some don't.
> One thing that is required between a parent and child is flexibility.
> Having "rules" is what causes teenage pregnancies and drug abuse among
> young people.

I am a firm believer in rules. However, my most important rule is:

"Rules are made to be broken."

I don't understand why people laugh. It's not funny, and I'm serious.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA