On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 04:19:14 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> And usually if the kid is really brilliant in some sense, nobody
> has to brag about it. It will be obvious.

Exactly.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:54:48 -0300, wrote:

snip
>
>Back on the origins of this thread, the Hobby Lobby - I read this
>today in the Guardian
>
snip article
thanks, good article
Janet US

On 08/07/2014 9:58 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:50:11 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:54:48 -0300, wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>> Back on the origins of this thread, the Hobby Lobby - I read this
>>> today in the Guardian
>>>
>> snip article
>> thanks, good article
>> Janet US
>
> It's a point I have made to my daughters who take a "Oh mother! The
> days of Womens Lib are gone, we're okay" - watch yourself, it can
> disappear if you don't defend it They are only in their fifties
> and at the top of their trees and have never known what it was like to
> work with a bum pincher, crude jokster (who claimed there was nothing
> meant by it) or worse yet, be paid less than the man in the next
> office with not as much responsibility as you. Worse than that, the
> corps contribution to his pension was greater than that which they
> contributed for women, merely because as they all knew, women all had
> husbands with pensions. - - - me getting off soapbox :-®
>
And I also knew of a public utility company where girls lost their jobs
when they got married. That was less than 40 years ago!
Graham

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:58:50 -0300, wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:50:11 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:54:48 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>>
>>>Back on the origins of this thread, the Hobby Lobby - I read this
>>>today in the Guardian
>>>
>>snip article
>>thanks, good article
>>Janet US
>
>It's a point I have made to my daughters who take a "Oh mother! The
>days of Womens Lib are gone, we're okay" - watch yourself, it can
>disappear if you don't defend it They are only in their fifties
>and at the top of their trees and have never known what it was like to
>work with a bum pincher, crude jokster (who claimed there was nothing
>meant by it) or worse yet, be paid less than the man in the next
>office with not as much responsibility as you. Worse than that, the
>corps contribution to his pension was greater than that which they
>contributed for women, merely because as they all knew, women all had
>husbands with pensions. - - - me getting off soapbox :-®

I limited my comment on the article because my soapbox is exhausting
me. In the last several years I have found out way too much about the
thinking of conservatives -- men and women. I had no idea how
uneducated they are.
Janet US

On 2014-07-08 12:59 PM, wrote:

> Yes, one of my starter jobs they didn't fire you, they simply expected
> you to 'do the decent thing' and quit the minute you were pregnant lol
> Nothing for a super to call in a woman and ask if she was pregnant
> because she became more chubby, imagine if they tried that now


A number of years ago we had a presentation for a native fellow who
miraculously worked his way up in our branch of the government,
considering that he had previously been a school librarian. He told us
that his mother had been the first native woman teacher in the country
but that she had been fired when she got pregnant with him. He believed
that she was fired because she was native. Given his age at the time,
this would have happened in the 1930s, and at that time, pregnant women
were not allowed to teach.... even if they were married.

On 08/07/2014 1:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-07-08 12:59 PM, wrote:
>
>> Yes, one of my starter jobs they didn't fire you, they simply expected
>> you to 'do the decent thing' and quit the minute you were pregnant lol
>> Nothing for a super to call in a woman and ask if she was pregnant
>> because she became more chubby, imagine if they tried that now
>
>
> A number of years ago we had a presentation for a native fellow who
> miraculously worked his way up in our branch of the government,
> considering that he had previously been a school librarian. He told us
> that his mother had been the first native woman teacher in the country
> but that she had been fired when she got pregnant with him. He believed
> that she was fired because she was native. Given his age at the time,
> this would have happened in the 1930s, and at that time, pregnant women
> were not allowed to teach.... even if they were married.
>
That happened to the wife of a friend in Australia ~40 years ago. She
was hired on arrival in WA because there was a shortage of qualified
staff. She had conceived on the journey there (a good Catholic couple)
and when she told the principal, he *had* to fire her on the spot!
Graham

On 7/8/2014 12:50 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>
> They sure as heck didn't do anything about it! When I was in Jr. High,
> kids smoked pot in one class too. And cigarettes. This was back in the
> 70's. Lots of things happened that probably shouldn't have happened.

People won't believe what was happening in high school and colleges back
then. That shit would never fly these days. Then again, we didn't have
to contend with semi and fully automatic weapons showing up on campuses.

On 7/8/2014 1:06 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> I've never had to deal with a kid with ADHD although I have had dealings
> with adults that probably have it. They sure do keep you on your toes. I
> think you have to change their environment to suit them. I also think a
> lot of kids labled hyperactive might be misdiagnosed and are just acting
> up to get some attention. Well that's my guess anyway. The positive side
> is that a lot of these kids grow up and become shapers of the world.
>
> ---
>
> The school thought that my kid had it. Nope. Was the food
> intolerances. When you have been sick to your stomach since birth, you
> don't know any different. I was the same. It didn't seem to cause
> concentration issues for me but it sure did for her. Two weeks after
> changing her diet, I had a new kid!

The skools will always go for the easiest and simplest analysis. Finding
the lowest common denominator is their specialty.

Our daughter's boyfriend and father of our grandchild has ADHD. This guy
will work himself to exhaustion and then drop. He got a job as a
dishwasher at a local restaurant and then worked up to a prep and then a
line chef. He was working two jobs and recently got promoted to banquet
chef so he quit the other job. His dream is to own a restaurant. I
suspect that he might do that one day. He's certainly paying his dues.

In article >,
dsi1 > wrote:

> On 7/8/2014 12:50 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >
> >
> > They sure as heck didn't do anything about it! When I was in Jr. High,
> > kids smoked pot in one class too. And cigarettes. This was back in the
> > 70's. Lots of things happened that probably shouldn't have happened.
>
> People won't believe what was happening in high school and colleges back
> then. That shit would never fly these days. Then again, we didn't have
> to contend with semi and fully automatic weapons showing up on campuses.

In what country have fully automatic weapons shown up on campuses?
Unless you're referring to Kent State in 1970, but then that was the
government who had the weapons, and the citizens who could not defend
themselves.

On Monday, July 7, 2014 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
> On Monday, July 7, 2014 3:02:43 AM UTC-10, Nellie wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 7, 2014 1:16:22 AM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On 7/6/2014 9:47 PM, Nellie wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:32:57 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> On 7/6/2014 6:29 PM, Nellie wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>> While it may not be a personality defect in a child, it is an inability to make the best of a bad situation or alter their situation that causes difficulty for the child.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>> The brighter the child, the better able he/she is able to do that.. The others blame everyone/thing else, the other kids are dumb, the teacher is stupid/incompetent, and of course, the very popular," I am so smart and know everything so I am so bored and that is why I am not getting good grades"
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>> Nellie
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> You're talking about kids here. The reality is that they have very
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> little say in their education. Somebody has to stand up for them and
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> that's what I did for my son. I removed him from that stressful
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> environment and allowed him to follow his interests.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> These days, he's going to college and should graduate next year. He then
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> plans to enter law school. Currently, he's taking honors classes and is
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> now in an accelerated French class. He wants to finish two years of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> language in a summer. That might have been a tactical error because he
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> received 6 credits of a B grade and needs to ace the second part of the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> class to stay in the honors program.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> Our family went through hell to get my oldest son to fit in with the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> educational system but in the end, he dropped out and never went back to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> school again. I was not about to repeat history with my second son and I
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> wonder what would have happened had I not allowed the oldest to be put
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> through the educational wringer.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> As far as these personality shortcomings you guys so fervently want to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> see in my kids, there are none. My question to you is what the heck kind
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> of personality defects do you have to hope for such a thing?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I didn't say personality defect, in fact I said it was not. Even with that misunderstanding cleared up, where did you get that I (or we) hoped for it? I have worked with kids for many years and I would never wish or hope for any suffering for them.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Personality shortcomings that 'we' want to see in your kids? Are you talking to more than one person here?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I should have been more clear in my comment. I was speaking of academics and not about stress or any emotional issues. Go back and read the most common excuses that I listed in my last post, they are all regarding schoolwork and not personality defects.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > We pulled our son out of a stressful situation once because he was not able to. The thing is, he told us about it and your son told you about it and that is exactly what I mean about being able to alter their situation. Changing classes, schools, GEDing out, taking classes at Community College, these are all bonafide ways of changing your circumstances.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I am glad your son is doing well.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Nellie
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I reread your post with your points in mind - thanks for the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > clarification. I hope your son is doing well.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for doing so, I was feeling badly about it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > He is thanks, it was in middle school, long ago.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Nellie
>
>
>
> Aren't you glad that's all over with? :-)


As a parent I am, but the kids did ok. No complaints except the one blip and that was a teacher issue.

Nellie

On 08/07/2014 2:03 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:20:23 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> I limited my comment on the article because my soapbox is exhausting
>> me. In the last several years I have found out way too much about the
>> thinking of conservatives -- men and women. I had no idea how
>> uneducated they are.
>> Janet US
>
> I find it kind of selfish. I remember even here in Canada back in the
> 60s and 70s the wealthy could vacation in Japan or Sweden if there was
> an accidental pregnancy and they were so against the revision of
> abortion laws. Why ? Lives were saved.
>
Summed up in the following, I think:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...eds-narcissism

Graham

On 2014-07-08 4:46 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:

>> People won't believe what was happening in high school and colleges back
>> then. That shit would never fly these days. Then again, we didn't have
>> to contend with semi and fully automatic weapons showing up on campuses.
>
> In what country have fully automatic weapons shown up on campuses?
> Unless you're referring to Kent State in 1970, but then that was the
> government who had the weapons, and the citizens who could not defend
> themselves.
>


I have to admit that I am not away of any cases where fully automatic
weapons were involved in shootings, but isn't it bad enough that
semiautomatics do. Personally I don't see them as a bigger problem than
revolvers and other types of repeating firearms. They have no place on
school property.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 15:46:37 -0500, Mark Storkamp
> wrote:

> In article >,
> dsi1 > wrote:
>
> > On 7/8/2014 12:50 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > They sure as heck didn't do anything about it! When I was in Jr. High,
> > > kids smoked pot in one class too. And cigarettes. This was back in the
> > > 70's. Lots of things happened that probably shouldn't have happened.
> >
> > People won't believe what was happening in high school and colleges back
> > then. That shit would never fly these days. Then again, we didn't have
> > to contend with semi and fully automatic weapons showing up on campuses.
>
> In what country have fully automatic weapons shown up on campuses?
> Unless you're referring to Kent State in 1970, but then that was the
> government who had the weapons, and the citizens who could not defend
> themselves.

So he used a bit of hyperbole. Are you denying the existence of gun
violence on school campuses? Do Columbine and Sandy Hook mean
nothing to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...school_attacks

I'm only going back 20 years on that list and only posting
semi-automatic - there were plenty of other weapons used to hurt or
kill people, mainly hand guns and rifles.

December 17, 1993 Chelsea, Michigan
January 12, 1995 Seattle, Washington
September 29, 1995 Tavares, Florida
May 26, 2000 Lake Worth, Florida
January 15, 2002 New York City
May 9, 2003 Cleveland, Ohio
February 23, 2006 Roseburg, Oregon
May 18, 2009 Larose, Louisiana
September 28, 2010 Austin, Texas
February 27, 2012 Chardon, Ohio
October 21, 2013 Sparks, Nevada

Incidentally, there have been about 30 incidents of violence on school
campuses where people were seriously wounded or killed just since *Jan
1, 2014*. God Bless America.


--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 7/8/2014 10:46 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article >,
> dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/2014 12:50 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> They sure as heck didn't do anything about it! When I was in Jr. High,
>>> kids smoked pot in one class too. And cigarettes. This was back in the
>>> 70's. Lots of things happened that probably shouldn't have happened.
>>
>> People won't believe what was happening in high school and colleges back
>> then. That shit would never fly these days. Then again, we didn't have
>> to contend with semi and fully automatic weapons showing up on campuses.
>
> In what country have fully automatic weapons shown up on campuses?
> Unless you're referring to Kent State in 1970, but then that was the
> government who had the weapons, and the citizens who could not defend
> themselves.
>

My guess is that this would be a home conversions. If you like, we can
just delete that part cause I don't have any proof that has ever
happened. It just makes a lot of sense to me that if a guy wanted to
kill as many folks as possible, he'd want to make one of these babies
for his very own. Kent State is ancient history. Don't try to suck me
into this discussion.

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/8/2014 12:50 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>
>> They sure as heck didn't do anything about it! When I was in Jr. High,
>> kids smoked pot in one class too. And cigarettes. This was back in the
>> 70's. Lots of things happened that probably shouldn't have happened.
>
> People won't believe what was happening in high school and colleges back
> then. That shit would never fly these days. Then again, we didn't have to
> contend with semi and fully automatic weapons showing up on campuses.

We had the occasional knife fight but mostly it was some sort of explosives.
Fireworks were easily had at the Indian Reservation and many of the boys
knew how to make a Sterno bomb.

On 7/8/2014 10:57 AM, Nellie wrote:
> On Monday, July 7, 2014 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
>> On Monday, July 7, 2014 3:02:43 AM UTC-10, Nellie wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, July 7, 2014 1:16:22 AM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On 7/6/2014 9:47 PM, Nellie wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:32:57 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> On 7/6/2014 6:29 PM, Nellie wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> While it may not be a personality defect in a child, it is an inability to make the best of a bad situation or alter their situation that causes difficulty for the child.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> The brighter the child, the better able he/she is able to do that. The others blame everyone/thing else, the other kids are dumb, the teacher is stupid/incompetent, and of course, the very popular," I am so smart and know everything so I am so bored and that is why I am not getting good grades"
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Nellie
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> You're talking about kids here. The reality is that they have very
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> little say in their education. Somebody has to stand up for them and
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> that's what I did for my son. I removed him from that stressful
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> environment and allowed him to follow his interests.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> These days, he's going to college and should graduate next year. He then
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> plans to enter law school. Currently, he's taking honors classes and is
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> now in an accelerated French class. He wants to finish two years of
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> language in a summer. That might have been a tactical error because he
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> received 6 credits of a B grade and needs to ace the second part of the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> class to stay in the honors program.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> Our family went through hell to get my oldest son to fit in with the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> educational system but in the end, he dropped out and never went back to
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> school again. I was not about to repeat history with my second son and I
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> wonder what would have happened had I not allowed the oldest to be put
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> through the educational wringer.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> As far as these personality shortcomings you guys so fervently want to
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> see in my kids, there are none. My question to you is what the heck kind
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> of personality defects do you have to hope for such a thing?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> I didn't say personality defect, in fact I said it was not. Even with that misunderstanding cleared up, where did you get that I (or we) hoped for it? I have worked with kids for many years and I would never wish or hope for any suffering for them.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Personality shortcomings that 'we' want to see in your kids? Are you talking to more than one person here?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> I should have been more clear in my comment. I was speaking of academics and not about stress or any emotional issues. Go back and read the most common excuses that I listed in my last post, they are all regarding schoolwork and not personality defects.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> We pulled our son out of a stressful situation once because he was not able to. The thing is, he told us about it and your son told you about it and that is exactly what I mean about being able to alter their situation. Changing classes, schools, GEDing out, taking classes at Community College, these are all bonafide ways of changing your circumstances.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> I am glad your son is doing well.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Nellie
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> I reread your post with your points in mind - thanks for the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> clarification. I hope your son is doing well.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Thanks for doing so, I was feeling badly about it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> He is thanks, it was in middle school, long ago.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Nellie
>>
>>
>>
>> Aren't you glad that's all over with? :-)
>
>
> As a parent I am, but the kids did ok. No complaints except the one blip and that was a teacher issue.
>
> Nellie
>

I am glad to hear that.

On 7/8/2014 11:52 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7/8/2014 12:50 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> They sure as heck didn't do anything about it! When I was in Jr. High,
>>> kids smoked pot in one class too. And cigarettes. This was back in the
>>> 70's. Lots of things happened that probably shouldn't have happened.
>>
>> People won't believe what was happening in high school and colleges
>> back then. That shit would never fly these days. Then again, we didn't
>> have to contend with semi and fully automatic weapons showing up on
>> campuses.
>
> We had the occasional knife fight but mostly it was some sort of
> explosives. Fireworks were easily had at the Indian Reservation and many
> of the boys knew how to make a Sterno bomb.

I must have missed out on the Sterno bomb lessons while in high school.
We didn't have very many explosions in my school. It must be some kind
of cultural thing.

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > >
> >>"Ema Nymton" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >>> On 7/4/2014 7:38 PM, sf wrote:
> >>> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 16:44:59 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>>>>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> >>> > > ...
> >>> > > > On 7/4/2014 2:00 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > At the time, I was OK with it. I spent my time doing
> stupid >>> > > > > high school things and laughed and joked with mt
> buddies. >>> > > > > When I look back on it with adult eyes however,
> I see it as >>> > > > > a giant waste of time.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > If HS was a waste of time, what you you replace it with? I
> >>> > > > was able to advance my education and mature a bit more to
> >>> > > > start my life as an adult.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Some find it easier to get their GED and these days if you get
> >>> > > good grades you can do community college and high school all
> >>> > > at the same time. At least you can in this area.
> >>> >
> >>> > I know kids who took college level classes while in HS. They
> were >>> > very, very bright people and all are at the top of their
> field's >>> > now.
> > > >
> >>> In the last few weeks of school, during my junior year, my
> >>> counselor told me that I qualified to take summer school in
> >>> college, if I chose to go. I did and I loved it, the structure
> was >>> so different from high school, where I had to wear a dress
> every >>> day, girls were not allowed to wear shorts or slacks to
> school, >>> and nobody could chew gum or eat in class. When my
> senior year >>> began, I really missed college.
> > > >
> >>> Moving forward, my firstborn took college credit courses in high
> >>> school, during his junior and senior year, which helped him
> along.
> > > >
> >>> Becca
> > >
> > > By the time I was in Jr. High, the dress thing had relaxed. My
> > > mom still felt it was inappropriate for me to wear pants but by
> > > some arbitrary rule, she allowed me to wear them twice a week.
> > > Jeans, of her choosing. One was white with red paisley and the
> > > other was a hideous orange and avocado green stripe.
> > >
> > > By Spring, she had given up on this notion after having picked me
> > > up from school a few times. She then saw that girls rarely wore
> > > dresses. Once in a while we would wear a really short skirt or
> > > dress with matching shorts underneath but these were usually only
> > > worn on hot days. By then I could pretty much choose my own
> > > clothes.
> > >
> > > My high school was really lax. We could eat and drink in class.
> > > And by drink, there was often alcohol. We mixed red wine with
> > > Coke or Tab. Someone had determined that the natural, slightly
> > > red color of the drinks would cover the red wine. I don't think
> > > anyone ever got caught drinking it.
> >
> > Bullshit call. No schools allow students drinking alcohol in class
>
> They sure as heck didn't do anything about it! When I was in Jr.
> High, kids smoked pot in one class too. And cigarettes. This was
> back in the 70's. Lots of things happened that probably shouldn't
> have happened.

It was legal to smoke in school with parental permission though it had
to be outdoors. Depends on state. SC 1975-1978.

Carol

--

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>
> > Bull shit Julie
>
> How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they were
> odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
>
> What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!


Because I've been there and I'm not making it up as I post.

I am nice but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything you say
when it's outragious cow patties of untruth.


While there can be issues with some home scoolers, most are normal
people and not overtly religious.

My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists a
religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but instead
over developmental and learning disabilities with state supported
assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.

I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong. You
just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents by
calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call me unkind
all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.

Carol
--

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:12:07 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Bull shit Julie
>>
>> How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they were
>> odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
>>
>> What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!
>
>
>Because I've been there and I'm not making it up as I post.
>
>I am nice but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything you say
>when it's outragious cow patties of untruth.
>
>
>While there can be issues with some home scoolers, most are normal
>people and not overtly religious.
>
>My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists a
>religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but instead
>over developmental and learning disabilities with state supported
>assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.
>
>I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
>anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong. You
>just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents by
>calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call me unkind
>all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.

That was my objection with all the other idiots on here too.

On 2014-07-08 16:03, wrote:

>
> I find it kind of selfish. I remember even here in Canada back in the
> 60s and 70s the wealthy could vacation in Japan or Sweden if there was
> an accidental pregnancy and they were so against the revision of
> abortion laws. Why ? Lives were saved.
>
I am not sure it was the rich and famous who led the fight against
abortion. The Catholic church had a lot to do with it.

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2014-07-08 7:12 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > > > So those two not only did the home schooling because of
> > > > religion but they were odd as well.
> > >
> > > Bull shit Julie
> >
> > How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they
> > were odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
> >
> > What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!
>
>
> She still is nice. Maybe,like many others here, she just got fed up
> with you lies and bullshit.

Thank you. I got upset when she abused a generation of home schoolers
as if they were nutsoidal religious fanatics. Thats just patently
untrue.

I'm not a Julie basher but bull shit is bull shit.
Carol

--

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:12:07 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

> My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists a
> religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but instead
> over developmental and learning disabilities with state supported
> assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.

You should be arguing with me, not Julie.
>
> I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
> anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong. You
> just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents by
> calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call me unkind
> all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.

I thought you were calling BS about hiding child abuse, but that's a
possibility.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:24:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> I am not sure it was the rich and famous who led the fight against
> abortion. The Catholic church had a lot to do with it.

I think the religious right influenced it much more in Northern
America. Our Catholics are so much different from the rest of the
world that they have seriously considered breaking off more than once.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:24:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> I am not sure it was the rich and famous who led the fight against
>> abortion. The Catholic church had a lot to do with it.
>
> I think the religious right influenced it much more in Northern
> America. Our Catholics are so much different from the rest of the
> world that they have seriously considered breaking off more than once.
>
I grew up around Catholics in WA. They are far different than the ones in
PA. Like night and day.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Bull shit Julie
>>
>> How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they were
>> odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
>>
>> What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!
>
>
> Because I've been there and I'm not making it up as I post.
>
You went to my school? I doubt it.

> I am nice but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything you say
> when it's outragious cow patties of untruth.

I didn't say that you had to agree but I sure as hell am not making things
up. I don't know what era you went to school in or where. And I can only
speak for *my* school. I know what went on there.

I worked in the couselor's office in Jr. High. My school was a particularly
rough one as it was new to Jr. High students the first year that I went
there. It had been used for something else the year before. Not sure what.
So every kid who had been kicked out of every other school in the district
went there. Thankfully things had calmed down by the time my bro went
there, three years later.

But some time during my first year there, they had to close the locker bays
(eclosed buildings just for lockers) except before and after school and at
lunch time. Why? Too much bad stuff went on. Like people throwing
firecrackers at other people or people just hanging out in there and not
going to class.

But lots of kids were putting stuff in their lockers that they shouldn't
have been. Pills, pot, liqour and cigarettes. The police were called for
the pills and pot. They came and picked them up. But the liquor and
cigarettes? Locked away in a cabinet that was near where our desks were in
the counselor's office. I worked with an older girl in there. We had
access to the key and were usually left to our own devices. There was a
seceretary in there but she was rarely there. And nobody kept an inventory
of what was in that cabinet. So it was a pretty much help yourself thing
and you'd better believe that we did!

I worked in all of the different offices in high school. If they did do
locker checks then, I wasn't aware of it and we didn't have any such
cabinet.
>
>
> While there can be issues with some home scoolers, most are normal
> people and not overtly religious.
>
> My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists a
> religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but instead
> over developmental and learning disabilities with state supported
> assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.
>
> I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
> anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong. You
> just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents by
> calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call me unkind
> all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.

What? Where did I have an anti home schooling rant? I didn't. I'm not
against home schooling at all. I just said that it isn't right for *my*
daughter. And I never called a large group of people religious nuts.

What I said was specifically that I knew of two religious families in NY who
home schooled and one religious family here, of whom the mother and daughter
were odd. I never said nut. I never met the dad or any siblings if there
were any. But those two were for sure odd.

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:12:07 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>> My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists a
>> religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but instead
>> over developmental and learning disabilities with state supported
>> assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.
>
> You should be arguing with me, not Julie.
>>
>> I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
>> anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong. You
>> just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents by
>> calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call me unkind
>> all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.
>
> I thought you were calling BS about hiding child abuse, but that's a
> possibility.

I don't know if there was child abuse because we didn't see it. We only
know what we heard through the door. I am still in touch with that family.
They moved to Missouri for some sort of religious reasons.

I thought she was calling BS on us drinking wine in school. I can tell you
that for sure it wasn't BS. We drank MD 2020 because the bottles were flat
and it was easily stolen. I did not steal. I won't rat out who it was but
I know who it was. When you're a teen that's pretty much the only way you
can get liquor. Sure sometimes an older person will buy it for you. Note
that I am not promoting the doing of either thing. Just saying that we did
it and there were quite a few of us who did.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On 2014-07-08 7:12 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> > > > So those two not only did the home schooling because of
>> > > > religion but they were odd as well.
>> > >
>> > > Bull shit Julie
>> >
>> > How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they
>> > were odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
>> >
>> > What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!
>>
>>
>> She still is nice. Maybe,like many others here, she just got fed up
>> with you lies and bullshit.
>
> Thank you. I got upset when she abused a generation of home schoolers
> as if they were nutsoidal religious fanatics. Thats just patently
> untrue.

Now *you're* the liar! I never did any such thing. I pointed out three
examples of people that I know personally. I knew nothing of homeschooling
with the exception of kids who were sick or injured until we moved to NY.

I was friends with the one woman and am still in contact with her. Angela
was friends with her two daughters and their younger son developed food
allergies shortly after we moved here. We used to talk on the phone but now
we are down to just Christmas letters and cards. People do grow apart.

We didn't have a lot in common except that neither of us worked and we both
liked to cook. She did literally everything from scratch including grinding
her own grain for bread. Almost everything she made was sugar free. She
allowed an exception for birthdays but she made a cake of her own recipe
that wasn't very sweet, was very small and had only a tiny bit of icing.
The kids were allowed a very tiny piece.

She did allow her kids to eat my food because she knew that I tried to buy
and serve healthy foods and I didn't normally have a lot of sugary things at
my house. As I said, the jelly beans were not ours but belonged to the boy
I was babysitting.

I am not making any of this stuff up and I have posted these stories here
before.

In no way does this have to do with anyone other than the people I
mentioned. I mentioned the family that lived across the street for that
woman and her family as they too were homeschooling for religous reasons. I
never met that mother at all and only saw her sometimes going to and coming
from church. I don't know what church that was. Only know that my friend
said she tried to attend and it was too strict for her. Those kids were not
allowed many kinds of toys for reasons that they claimed to be relgious.

The mother did let her kids play with us so long as we were playing jumprope
or something similar. We were constantly outside there, weather permitting.
We had hula hoops, hop balls and a large assortment of professional jump
ropes in various sizes. Most days we did the ropes. The kids could take
turns either turning or jumping and those who were waiting could use the
other equipment. But the mother forbade the kids from eating our food. I
don't know why and I didn't ask

I also mentioned the mother and daughter at the dance studio. So that is
three differet families. Not a whole slew of people. I didn't even mention
a specific religion as I don't know what religions they were and they were
likely not even the same ones. I just know that the two who lived across
from each other were not the same religion.
>
> I'm not a Julie basher but bull shit is bull shit.

And you didn't see any from me. You are claiming that I said things that I
did not.

On 7/8/2014 2:54 AM, wrote:
>
> Back on the origins of this thread, the Hobby Lobby - I read this
> today in the Guardian
>
>
> Punching Gloria Steinem: inside the bizarre world of anti-feminist
> women by Jessica Valenti
>
> How do you make sense of women who think the Hobby Lobby decision is
> 'great', college rape is 'inflated' and pay gaps don't exist? Just
> don't let 'em stop you
>
> To conservatives, contraception is not about health – it's about sex,
> their fear of sex, and a panic over women having sex that doesn't lead
> to babies.
>
> Women like to have sex. Some women who like to have sex don't want to
> get pregnant, so they use birth control. I understand that these are
> not particularly revelatory statements, but for some incredibly
> irritating reason, the punditocracy is still dwelling on the fairly
> mundane facts that sex happens and contraception is often a part of
> it.
>
> Conservatives won't admit their deep-seated fear of non-reproductive
> sex, so Washington media's machine is propping it up for them. But if
> this is our mid-summer debate, well, let's at least try to find a
> reason for the stupidity, shall we?
>
> When Sandra Fluke gave her now infamous testimony before the US House
> of Representatives about insurance coverage for contraception, the
> bulk of her opening statement focused on a friend who needed to take
> birth control to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome. In the wake of
> last week's supreme court decision on Hobby Lobby, Elle magazine ran a
> piece on "10 Medical Reasons Why a Woman Might Be Prescribed Birth
> Control". And then the National Journal published a widely shared
> article declaring that what "everyone is missing" in the ongoing Hobby
> Lobby debate is all the women who need to take birth control for
> medical reasons. "Even if these women never have sex once in their
> lives, they need to be on birth control," wrote reporter Lucia Graves.
> She continued:
>
> These women depend on the pill to regulate their hormones and do
> everything from ease pain to reduce the risk of cancer. These medical
> benefits have nothing to do with sex or the prevention of pregnancy.
>
> I agree with Graves that the link between contraception and women's
> health should not be ignored – and it's important that the national
> conversation, post-Hobby Lobby, is looking beyond the court's shameful
> ruling on behalf of sex-fearing "freedom-seekers".
>
> But it's awfully depressing that, in the summer of 2014, when 99% of
> American women use birth control, we can't just come out and say that
> most women use birth control for sex. And that we like said sex – a
> lot.
>
> I can promise you this, too: focusing on the non-orgasmic reasons
> women use contraception will not magically change conservatives' minds
> about the issue. No matter how many articles come out imploring the
> public to think about the very real health problems women have,
> conservative organizations have had their minds in the gutter for
> years, and they like it there.
>
> The organizations that supported Hobby Lobby with amicus briefs, for
> example, tell a pretty clear story about what conservatives care about
> – and it ain't health:
>
> The Independent Women's Forum filed a brief arguing that women
> already have plentiful access to contraception through Planned
> Parenthood (which, ironically enough, IWF thinks should be defunded) –
> and that's just the latest in the group's long line of arguments that
> sex is somehow ruining women.
> The Catholic Medical Association wrote a brief arguing
> (inaccurately) that contraception causes abortion, but a 2011 memo
> from the organization sheds more light, stating that "widespread use
> of contraceptives contributes to sexual promiscuity". (As Bill Maher
> once joked, "It's like saying if you give a kid a tetanus shot she'll
> want to jab rusty nails in her feet.")
> The Eagle Forum and the Beverly LaHaye Institute also wrote briefs
> in support of Hobby Lobby; they have also derided contraception and
> women having sex.
>
> And when female reporters covered the Hobby Lobby decision, it was not
> a coincidence that the majority of us were being called sluts and
> whores across social media and elsewhere. To conservatives,
> contraception is not about health – it's about sex, their fear of sex,
> and a panic over women having sex that doesn't lead to babies. The
> more we ignore that truth – or focus on on the "valid" reasons women
> use birth control – the more women give ammunition, and give up the
> moral ground, to the right.
>
> Liberals concede the same ground when we make pro-choice arguments
> using the most extreme examples – rape, incest and health. Yes, women
> need abortions for those reasons – but they also need them when
> they're simply not ready to be parents. And that's OK.
>
> It's also OK – wonderful, even! – that women use birth control to have
> sex and not get pregnant. Even more wonderful: it works. The advent of
> contraception is arguably the most important liberatory discovery for
> women of all time. We're allowed to use it. And not just for our
> periods – but to have hot, sweaty, fantastic, fun, non-procreative
> sex. That doesn't make us "sluts"; it makes us human.
>
>
> You go girls!
>

We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
women.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
> liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
> be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
> women.

You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
happened.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 23:24:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> I don't know if there was child abuse because we didn't see it. We only
> know what we heard through the door.

Did you ever call the state or local Child Protective Services.? You
can report anonymously.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 09/07/2014 8:43 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
>> liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
>> be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
>> women.
>
> You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
> end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
> unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
> happened.
>
SOME men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Graham

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> If you mention home schooling to an American they
> are probably automatically think that it is due to religion.

Not to me. Mostly I think it's that people think that teachers aren't
worth a damn anymore and public schools are worthless. Well I happen
to think that teachers are just as good now as they ever were and
public schools are still good.

How many parents (that attended public schools) are even qualified to
teach their children all of the 12 grades? And how much time each day
to they really do this? Nonsense.

Kids growing up need a good well-rounded education and also time to
deal with social issues. Home schooling will really disable your child
for the future, imo. You need to send them out into the "real world"
while they still live at home and can get input from you.

No dance class crap is more important than a real education.

G.

On 7/9/2014 12:36 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:20:08 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2014 8:43 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
>>>> liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
>>>> be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
>>>> women.
>>>
>>> You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
>>> end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
>>> unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
>>> happened.
>>>
>> SOME men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Graham
>
> Sadly more men than not.
>

The entire situation is messed up, both men and women. Or should that
be boys and girls. Both side are often irresponsible in birth control
matters. Some girls want to get pregnant in hopes of snagging guy.
Some guy think it is a show of manhood to have a bunch of babies with
different women.

Many guys evade responsibility, but some are paying a lot of support for
their indiscretions. Much of the cost is borne by the tax paying middle
class. I'm not adverse to giving out birth control.

On 2014-07-09 10:43 AM, sf wrote:

> You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
> end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
> unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
> happened.
>

That is why I always that that the ultimate responsibility for birth
control should be the woman's. Lots of people reject that and say it is
not fair, that men should share the responsibility. That's all fine for
a nice PC attitude and all, but, as you pointed out, it is the woman who
ends up with the lifetime of responsibility.

On 2014-07-09 10:49 AM, sf wrote:

>> I don't know if there was child abuse because we didn't see it. We only
>> know what we heard through the door.
>
> Did you ever call the state or local Child Protective Services.? You
> can report anonymously.



We once called the police over an incident with a child in a car in
front of a local store. The kid was screaming and carrying on as if he
was being abducted. We wrote down the license number and got a
description of the car and the adults. The cops followed up and got
back to us..... out of control little brat.

On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 12:49:24 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
>
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 7/8/2014 2:54 AM, wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Back on the origins of this thread, the Hobby Lobby - I read this
>
> >> today in the Guardian
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> snipped
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
>
> >liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
>
> >be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
>
> >women.
>
>
>
> Yes that's true but sadly now many women are aiding and abetting their
>
> hold on power.

I have seen people that work against their best interests. I can't say if it's because they're short-sighted or gullible. I guess it's a combination of both. "You gotta know your enemy" is what I always say. :-)

On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 4:43:13 AM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
>
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> > We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
>
> > liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
>
> > be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
>
> > women.
>
>
>
> You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
>
> end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
>
> unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
>
> happened.
>
>

My wife was asked to be a witness at a ******* wedding. I think that's kind of nutty because the bride and bride have only known each other for a couple of months. If it's a business deal in order to procure tax benifits, 2 months is fine. Anything else and is ill-advised. I suppose that a lot of *** folks are getting married these days simply because they can. OTOH, they don't have to deal with the vexing reproduction rights issues.

>
> --
>
> All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 23:24:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> I don't know if there was child abuse because we didn't see it. We only
>> know what we heard through the door.
>
> Did you ever call the state or local Child Protective Services.? You
> can report anonymously.

No and I wouldn't. As I said, we didn't see anything. We heard noises
through the door. I would never report anything just based on noises like
that. The girl was freaking out at our house for no apparent reason. For
all I know, the noises we heard her making at her house could have been the
same. It did sound to us like she was being hit but I also know that sounds
can be deceptive.

On 2014-07-09 4:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:

>
> My wife was asked to be a witness at a ******* wedding. I think
> that's kind of nutty because the bride and bride have only known each
> other for a couple of months.

Just wait a while. Then you will see problems with same sex divorces. We
have had a couple interesting cases since same sex marriages were
allowed here.

First of all, there was all sorts of news coverage of the first *******
marriage. They names and pictures were plastered all over the media.
It was a different story when they got divorced. There was a publication
ban issued because they did not want to be publicly identified. Funny
how they loved the attention when they broke that first barrier.

*** couples have been flocking here to get married since same sex
marriages became legal. Now some of those marriages are failing. There
was an case a few months ago where a female couple are whining they they
cannot get divorced. One was American (from Florida) and her spouse is
British. Neither Britain nor the state of Florida recognize ***
marriages so they can't get divorced there. They can't get divorced in
Canada because they have to meet residency requirements. These two
foreigners are trying to get Canada to change its laws, to drop the
residency requirements. Our government has no interest in becoming a
mecca for quickie divorces, and for good reason. There are child
custody and support issues that would have to be enforced. Our
government has enough on its legislative plate without having to amend
our domestic laws to appease foreigners who came here for marriages of
convenience.

If it's a business deal in order to
> procure tax benifits, 2 months is fine. Anything else and is
> ill-advised. I suppose that a lot of *** folks are getting married
> these days simply because they can. OTOH, they don't have to deal
> with the vexing reproduction rights issues.
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't
>> hurt.