On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:30:19 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
Ninja) wrote:

>Julia Altshuler > writes:
>
>>There was an interesting article on this subject in one of the advice
>>columns (forget which one). Apparently one person needed a special
>>machine to breathe. The machine made a soft humming noise. The soft
>>humming noise disturbed the person in front of it at the symphony. To
>>my way of thinking (and, I believe, yours), if you can't be quiet while
>>listening to music at the symphony, stay home!
>
> Wow. You called the ill person an "it"?

No, moron. She called the MACHINE 'it'.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:09:55 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article
>,
> Elaine Parrish > wrote:
>
>
>> Restaurants don't do themselves any favors by tolerating disruptive kids.
>> It is better to lose one disruptive family than to lose a number of quiet
>> customers that decide to go elsewhere.
>
>
>Of course, the corollary is that it is better to lose a single person
>who has no tolerance for normal kid behavior rather than a bunch of
>families.

Haven't seen anyone in this thread or the previous one talking about
'normal kid behavior'.

>>The little boy was kicking
>> the underside of the table and banging his flatware on the table. It
>> started out quietly enough and his mother said, "if you do that again,
>> I'm gonna slap you." Of course, he did it again, and she said it
>> again...and again, and again, and again. Every time she threatened him,
>> she got louder and every time he did it again, he got louder.
>
>This is so bad, but happens all too often.

Yup. It does. Far too many parents threaten discipline but then
don't deliver. This teaches the kid a fine lesson: "I don't have to
do as I'm told."

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

Glitter Ninja wrote:
If you kick out the person with Tourette's who is unable
> to control outbursts because it bothers you, then the lady next to you
> can kick out the paraplegic who is drooling because it bothers her.


The problem with this argument is that it works in both directions.
(Can someone provide me with the Latin phrase for it-- the idea of
taking a good idea and making it absurb by taking to a ridiculous
extreme?)


I agree that there's something wrong with being able to get rid of
people because of some small trait that they can't help but which
someone else finds offensive. If it is Tourette's or a breathing
machine today, who is to say that it won't be drooling or being ugly
tomorrow? Good point. Now consider the opposite extreme.


Let's say that instead of a low hum on the breathing machine it was a
lot of machinery, something that took up a lot of room, smelled bad and
made a loud clanking. Let's say the disabled person needed it to
breathe and live and really couldn't go out without it. Does that
person still get to attend the symphony because he can't help it no
matter how many people he disturbs?


And then you get into dueling disabilities. What about the person who
is nearly deaf and can't hear the music when there is distracting noise
around? Shouldn't she be entitled to a special environment where her
disability is taken into consideration and accounted for? An
environment that consists of, say, a concert hall with no machinery in
it making noise?


That's pretty much the situation you have in some schools today. I'm
all for mainstreaming the kids with special needs, the ones who can't
help being disruptive, running around the room, yelling out of turn,
etc. I do believe that attention disorders are real and that children
with the disorder need educations too. The trouble is that there are
other children who can't study and learn in an environment where kids
are being disruptive, running around the room and yelling out of turn.
Shouldn't their needs be met also?


There are kids who really need class work taught at their grade level,
not one with Down's syndrome children there who are being mainstreamed.
So you get dueling disabilities. The Down's syndrome kids will
benefit most from being in the regular classroom, not segregated out
with other Down's syndrome kids. The ones without Down's syndrome will
benefit from being in a class with other children who are learning and
progressing as they are. What to do?


--Lia

"Denny Wheeler" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:13:38 GMT, "Knit Chic" >
> wrote:
>
>>>> Another street person had finally had enough of it and said in a
>>>> decisive
>>>> tone "knock it off." The disturber made a nasty remark back to him and
>>>> left. Good riddance. The guy who said "knock it off" must've been in
>>>> his
>>>> 20's, so I know this phrase is still being used.
>>>> Dee Dee
>>
>>It's a disability, and it's called Tourette (easy enough to google it) and
>>if someone is happy that a Tourettes suffer is kicked out of a library ...
>>they are truly the sick one.
>
> Evidently you have a reading disorder? If you claim not to, please
> show where Dee Dee said the noisy person was kicked out.
>
> --
> -denny-

Denny:
Reading Comprehension: A+
Dee Dee

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> aem wrote:
>
>
>> No, she's not right. The ADA sets up requirements that employers
>> must follow to ensure that disabled employees are accommodated in the
>> workplace. It has nothing to do with the behavior of anybody else,
>> including as patrons in a public place. -aem
>
>
> You are incorrect, that's only ADA Title I. The ADA also (among other
> things) prohibits discrimination in access to public services and
> facilities, like libraries.
>

I wonder how that would apply here. "Access" certainly means that
wheelchair-bound people must have ramps, wide doors, elevators, etc.
available so they can literally get into the place. But does it mean that
once in a library or other place they can engage in any and all disruptive
behavior as long as it is related to their disability? I would not think so.


--
Peter Aitken

"Glitter Ninja" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Aitken" > writes:
>
>>It's a tough situation, but no one suggested that people with disabilities
>>be kept locked in a house. That would be horrid. But there are a few
>>places
>>where inappropriate noise is out of place - libraries, some concerts,
>>fancy
>>restaurants, for example. Just because someone has a disability does not
>>absolve them or their parents from being considerate of others.
>
> Our society should be able to handle the needs of the disabled just as
> much as the needs of the "normal". You can't kick a person out of a
> library because they are disabled, no matter how much the disability
> bothers you. If you kick out the person with Tourette's who is unable
> to control outbursts because it bothers you, then the lady next to you
> can kick out the paraplegic who is drooling because it bothers her.

You really don't get it. It has nothing to do with bothering me, I do not
consider my personal preferences to be so important. It has to do with the
fact that it is a widely accepted cultural rule that you should be quiet
while in a library. A drooling paraplegic at the library might bother some
people but they would be out of place to complain because there is no
general expectation that a library will be drool-free.

And I should point out that no one has suggested kicking anyone out of a
library because they are disabled.



--
Peter Aitken

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
...
> Glitter Ninja wrote:
> If you kick out the person with Tourette's who is unable
>> to control outbursts because it bothers you, then the lady next to you
>> can kick out the paraplegic who is drooling because it bothers her.
>
>
> The problem with this argument is that it works in both directions. (Can
> someone provide me with the Latin phrase for it-- the idea of taking a
> good idea and making it absurb by taking to a ridiculous extreme?)
>
>
> I agree that there's something wrong with being able to get rid of people
> because of some small trait that they can't help but which someone else
> finds offensive. If it is Tourette's or a breathing machine today, who is
> to say that it won't be drooling or being ugly tomorrow? Good point. Now
> consider the opposite extreme.
>
>
> Let's say that instead of a low hum on the breathing machine it was a lot
> of machinery, something that took up a lot of room, smelled bad and made a
> loud clanking. Let's say the disabled person needed it to breathe and
> live and really couldn't go out without it. Does that person still get to
> attend the symphony because he can't help it no matter how many people he
> disturbs?
>
>
> And then you get into dueling disabilities. What about the person who is
> nearly deaf and can't hear the music when there is distracting noise
> around? Shouldn't she be entitled to a special environment where her
> disability is taken into consideration and accounted for? An environment
> that consists of, say, a concert hall with no machinery in it making
> noise?
>
>
> That's pretty much the situation you have in some schools today. I'm all
> for mainstreaming the kids with special needs, the ones who can't help
> being disruptive, running around the room, yelling out of turn, etc. I do
> believe that attention disorders are real and that children with the
> disorder need educations too. The trouble is that there are other
> children who can't study and learn in an environment where kids are being
> disruptive, running around the room and yelling out of turn. Shouldn't
> their needs be met also?
>
>
> There are kids who really need class work taught at their grade level, not
> one with Down's syndrome children there who are being mainstreamed. So you
> get dueling disabilities. The Down's syndrome kids will benefit most from
> being in the regular classroom, not segregated out with other Down's
> syndrome kids. The ones without Down's syndrome will benefit from being
> in a class with other children who are learning and progressing as they
> are. What to do?
>
>
> --Lia
>

Reductio ad absurdum



--
Peter Aitken

"Glitter Ninja" > wrote in message
...
> Julia Altshuler > writes:
>
>>There was an interesting article on this subject in one of the advice
>>columns (forget which one). Apparently one person needed a special
>>machine to breathe. The machine made a soft humming noise. The soft
>>humming noise disturbed the person in front of it at the symphony. To
>>my way of thinking (and, I believe, yours), if you can't be quiet while
>>listening to music at the symphony, stay home!
>
> Wow. You called the ill person an "it"? Why?

Oh don't be a twit. "It" obviously refers to the machine, not the person.


--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
om...
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
>> aem wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, she's not right. The ADA sets up requirements that employers
>>> must follow to ensure that disabled employees are accommodated in the
>>> workplace. It has nothing to do with the behavior of anybody else,
>>> including as patrons in a public place. -aem
>>
>>
>> You are incorrect, that's only ADA Title I. The ADA also (among other
>> things) prohibits discrimination in access to public services and
>> facilities, like libraries.
>>
>
> I wonder how that would apply here. "Access" certainly means that
> wheelchair-bound people must have ramps, wide doors, elevators, etc.
> available so they can literally get into the place. But does it mean that
> once in a library or other place they can engage in any and all disruptive
> behavior as long as it is related to their disability? I would not think
> so.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

The ADA went totally overboard in a number of ways. Example: Here, there's a
park on Lake Ontario where, in order to get down to the beach, you have to
scramble down an embankment. For various reasons, people prefer to swim at
this park, but there are no lifeguards. So, it's illegal to swim here and
the cops occasionally slide down the embankment, get their shoes dirty, and
make people leave the water. It was suggested to the town board that hiring
a couple of lifeguards would be very easy, and cheap. But, that would make
it an official public beach, and the town would then need to build ramps for
the disabled, as well as rest rooms. (There are porta-potties now). The
distance between the road and the embankment is too short for rest rooms -
cesspools must be a certain distance from a body of water. That means we'd
need to build a pedestrian tunnel under the road blah blah blah....you get
the picture.

So, the silliness goes on and on. People swim, some drown, and the cops
waste their time yelling at people, who get right back in the water when the
cops leave.

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
> ...

>>The problem with this argument is that it works in both directions. (Can
>>someone provide me with the Latin phrase for it-- the idea of taking a
>>good idea and making it absurd by taking to a ridiculous extreme?)

> Reductio ad absurdum



Ah, thank-you. I'll need reminding again. For some reason Latin
phrases always escape me. I have trouble remembering "Quando Omni
Flunkus Moritati" too.


--Lia

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Glitter Ninja" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Peter Aitken" > writes:
> >
> >>It's a tough situation, but no one suggested that people with disabilities
> >>be kept locked in a house. That would be horrid. But there are a few
> >>places
> >>where inappropriate noise is out of place - libraries, some concerts,
> >>fancy
> >>restaurants, for example. Just because someone has a disability does not
> >>absolve them or their parents from being considerate of others.
> >
> > Our society should be able to handle the needs of the disabled just as
> > much as the needs of the "normal". You can't kick a person out of a
> > library because they are disabled, no matter how much the disability
> > bothers you. If you kick out the person with Tourette's who is unable
> > to control outbursts because it bothers you, then the lady next to you
> > can kick out the paraplegic who is drooling because it bothers her.
>
> You really don't get it. It has nothing to do with bothering me, I do not
> consider my personal preferences to be so important. It has to do with the
> fact that it is a widely accepted cultural rule that you should be quiet
> while in a library. A drooling paraplegic at the library might bother some
> people but they would be out of place to complain because there is no
> general expectation that a library will be drool-free.
>
> And I should point out that no one has suggested kicking anyone out of a
> library because they are disabled.

'Zactly. No one is saying to deny the disabled access, but once there
they must comply with *all* the rules that everyone else is required to
observe, otherwise chaos will ensue... even the incontinent will once
admitted shit in the stacks at will. I think people here are
extrapolating on "access" to mean a lot more than is intended with
admission... just because your ticket grants admission to the theater
it does not grant permission to do whatever one wishes, it grants ONLY
admission... yoose still required to comply with ALL the rulz.
Admission, like a driver's licence, is a privilege, not a right,
certainly not a right to drive how one wants.... do the handicapped get
to drive however they like, of course not, they are required to observe
ALL the same laws/rules as everyone else. And so if a library requires
"Quiet", then the handicapped must comply too, or suffer the same
consequences as anyone else who for whatever reason does not comply.

To accommodate with the least disruption most libraries are divided
into sections where more or less degree of commotion is tolerated;
Reference, Adult, Young Adult, and Children. Yoose ultra liberal
*******s can figger it out... if yoose possess the civilty.

Sheldon Silence

-L. wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Thank you! I remember going to lunch with a co-worker almost 30
>> years ago. She was off, I had to work that day. She brought her
>> 3-year old with her. The kid was dipping fries in ketchup and
>> throwing them at me and all she would say was, "Quit!" and then turn
>> back to talk to me. He didn't quit. And I had to go back to work!
>> with ketchup stains on my blouse and stockings. I was extremely
>> angry but didn't feel like I could take it upon myself to discipline
>> her kid or tell her how to do it. I'm a *lot* older now and
>> wouldn't hesitate to tell her to either get the f***ing ketchup away
>> from him or I'd start slapping his little hands for her.
>>
>> Jill
>
> I would have emoved the fries and the ketchup away from his reach,
> friendship or no friendship. If he's throwing things at you, he needs
> to be stopped, and if Mom won't do it, I will.
>
I was 18 or 19 years old... what did I know about telling a parent how to
disclipline her child? Stupid, I know, but I kept waiting for her to DO
something other than say "Gary, quit!"

> Reminds me of the Mom who allowed her kid to poke a kitten at the
> Humane Society one day when I was volunteering. After the third time
> she told him to stop and he didn't, I stopped him. I said " STOP
> poking the kitten!" Mom gave me the hairy eyeball but I didn't care.
> She's just lucky I didn't POKE him, too.
>
> -L.

I hear you there. And I hope they didn't get to adopt a kitten!

Jill

Glitter Ninja wrote:
> "Knit Chic" > writes:
>
>> I also have a child w/ a disability (6 yrs), there are times she
>> makes sounds that she can't help. When she does, we stay. I'm not
>> going to keep her locked in the house because other people want to
>> live in a perfect world.
>
> I worked with special needs kids at a junior high school and it was
> amazing what people act like around the disabled. Our class had a
> weekly job training activity at places like Wal-Mart or a car wash,
> and customers would be so rude. We'd get complaints -- often from the
> elderly -- about silly things that our students couldn't control, like
> noises or bad pronunciation of words.
> I bet anything these people did NOT ever say anything to an unruly
> child, though.

Thank you! Where I shop for groceries (OB: Food sort of) they employ mildly
retarded people to bag up the groceries. These people don't act out but if
they did I wouldn't criticize them or be offended by it. They are
unfailingly polite people, in fact often overly polite as they deem this is
the social norm and strive for it. They are "learning disabled", not
STUPID. It doesn't bother me if they slur their words or can't pronounce
something. I chat with them while the checker rings up my purchases.

> The adult with Tourettes may not have known he was being a nuisance.
> Sometimes Tourette's like behavior occurs in people with other
> disabilities and they are unaware. While some with the disease know
> when it's happening and can excuse themselves, others don't.

There are medications to help control it, but if you're homeless and suffer
from Tourette's that's (sadly) probably not an option. Yeah, we'll give out
methedone to someone who purposely got themselves hooked on heroin, but no
free meds for someone with a legitimate medical condition.

> It's possible people didn't know what the man in the library was
> suffering from, or they only see the TV version of the disease and
> think
> he should control himself. But I agree, if he has a disability he has
> every right to use the library facilities. Just cussing and being a
> nuisance out of orneriness is a different story.
>
> Stacia

Exactly. Walking around cussing people out - like the example Michael
(dog3) gave of the woman in his neighborhood yelling out her SUV that he was
a faggot - is totally unacceptable behavior. Ditto parents who allow their
kids to engage in the same sort of behavior without disciplining the child
*immediately*.

Jill

Default User wrote:
> aem wrote:
>
>
> > No, she's not right. The ADA sets up requirements that employers
> > must follow to ensure that disabled employees are accommodated in the
> > workplace. It has nothing to do with the behavior of anybody else,
> > including as patrons in a public place. -aem
>
>
> You are incorrect, that's only ADA Title I. The ADA also (among other
> things) prohibits discrimination in access to public services and
> facilities, like libraries.
>
You are correct. I removed my post quickly as soon as I remembered
that, but you caught it before I removed it. -aem

In article >,
Denny Wheeler > wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:09:55 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> >Of course, the corollary is that it is better to lose a single person
> >who has no tolerance for normal kid behavior rather than a bunch of
> >families.
>
> Haven't seen anyone in this thread or the previous one talking about
> 'normal kid behavior'.


Read the above. I just did.

:-)

It depends on the situation, and you have to be there to judge it, but
I've certainly seen occasional adults who cannot tolerate normal kid
behavior. They need to find places where there aren't any kids.

Many years ago, before we had kids, we rented an apartment in Oakland.
It wasn't a bad neighborhood, but it was a really cheap apartment
(US$165 per month, furnished). The apartment managers were really old,
and very nice. The wife just raved about the restaurant down the hill.
We went there for lunch one weekend. It was a cafeteria, and you walked
through the line and picked out what you wanted. I swear that we were
the only customers under 65. They had a lot of jello, canned fruit and
really bland hot (well, warm at least) foods. It was quite edible and
cheap, just what your typical retiree with no money and bad digestion
would like. I don't remember ever going back.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:06:41 -0500, "Dee Randall"
> wrote:

>Denny:
>Reading Comprehension: A+
>Dee Dee

Thank you.
(smiles)

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

aem wrote:
> Default User wrote:
> > aem wrote:
> >
> >
> > > No, she's not right. The ADA sets up requirements that employers
> > > must follow to ensure that disabled employees are accommodated in the
> > > workplace. It has nothing to do with the behavior of anybody else,
> > > including as patrons in a public place. -aem
> >
> >
> > You are incorrect, that's only ADA Title I. The ADA also (among other
> > things) prohibits discrimination in access to public services and
> > facilities, like libraries.
> >
> You are correct. I removed my post quickly as soon as I remembered
> that, but you caught it before I removed it.

Why remove your post? You were correct. Removal for disruptive
behaviours is NOT discrimination. Libraries accomodate all kinds of
disabilities, including but not limited to non-ambulatory, sight
impaired including seeing eye dogs, etc.... they'll even bring the
library to you, but they are not required to accommodate/tolerate
*disruptive* behaviours. I spend a lot of time in libraries. I've
often witnessed where parents were told to remove their unruly
children, where people were told to leave for all sorts of disruptive
behaviours including noisiness. Libraries are not obligated to
ascertain the details of any disability or even if a disability exists,
in fact they are barred from inquiring about anyones medical
condition... if you're noisily disruptive you can be made to leave...
the same as you can be ejected for singing, spitting, stomping, banging
the furniture, even for use of cell phones. Access and disruptiveness
are totally separate issues. The ADA does in no way support
disruptiveness.

Sheldon

aem wrote:

>
> Default User wrote:
> > aem wrote:

> > You are incorrect, that's only ADA Title I. The ADA also (among
> > other things) prohibits discrimination in access to public services
> > and facilities, like libraries.
> >
> You are correct. I removed my post quickly as soon as I remembered
> that, but you caught it before I removed it. -aem

Can't beat that lightning speed!!!



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Sheldon wrote:
> aem wrote:
> > Default User wrote:
> > > aem wrote:
> > > > No, she's not right. The ADA sets up requirements that employers
> > > > must follow to ensure that disabled employees are accommodated in the
> > > > workplace. It has nothing to do with the behavior of anybody else,
> > > > including as patrons in a public place. -aem
> > >
> > > You are incorrect, that's only ADA Title I. The ADA also (among other
> > > things) prohibits discrimination in access to public services and
> > > facilities, like libraries.
> > >
> > You are correct. I removed my post quickly as soon as I remembered
> > that, but you caught it before I removed it.
>
> Why remove your post? You were correct.

Yes and no. I was wrong to say the ADA only applied to
employer-employee relations. It does also apply to access to public
places.

> Removal for disruptive
> behaviours is NOT discrimination. [snip]

I agree. Just because the ADA mandates access, it does not require
that objectionable behavior be tolerated. But the ADA is just a
distraction here, where the issue is about reasonable limits of
behavior, not federal law. -aem

In article
>,
Elaine Parrish > wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dan Abel wrote:

> Being horrid and bratty is never a child's fault. It is the parents'
> fault.


I have three adult children. I've been there and done that. They were
as different as night and day. Same house, same parents, stay at home
mom, me with the same job the whole time. We had friends with the same
story. Same everything, but one kid was very easy, and one very
difficult. My wife is still friends with the mom. Last I heard, the
oldest went to a military academy (these are very hard to get into, and
only take the best. You don't pay to go there, they pay the students to
go. This means you have to serve in that branch of military for some
years.) The other son was in prison.



> > This is so bad, but happens all too often. Positive reinforcement is
> > the way to go. I have heard this over and over again. Negative
> > reinforcment is a last resort, and sometimes doesn't work. With a
> > dining room with 100 seats, or a classroom with 30, sometimes that's all
> > you can do. Back when I worked, the woman in the office next to mine
> > taught dog training. You can use negative reinforcement on dogs, they
> > feel guilty about it. Still, it isn't recommended. Other animals don't
> > respond to this. When training killer whales, negative reinforcement
> > may shorten your lifespan considerably.
> >
> > :-)



> Positive reinforcement is all well and good, but you have to have
> something positive to reinforce. Children should always have a choice:
> behave properly or suffer the consequences. It is not a matter of forcing
> them to do the right thing. It is a matter of teaching them responsibilty
> for their actions and paying the "fine" when they choose not to.


I think we're on the same page here. I'm just saying that negative
reinforcement by itself isn't very effective. Unlike the killer whales,
kids of a certain age can be talked to and reasoned with. You explain
the problem, "Kid, your behavior in this restaurant is not acceptable."
You explain the positive reinforcement, "Stop this behavior, and we'll
take you next time we go to a restaurant.". Explain the consequences,
"If you continue this behavior then your brother goes next time but you
stay home with a babysitter".

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:09:55 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> It depends on the situation, and you have to be there to judge it, but
> I've certainly seen occasional adults who cannot tolerate normal kid
> behavior. They need to find places where there aren't any kids.
>
Ah, but how do you FIND one (unless there is a sign such as the one which
kicked off this topic in the first place?).

I've posted here before about places where you wouldn't *think* you'd find
kids... places that are mostly bars/taverns that happen to serve burgers and
appetizer-type food. No "kiddie menu". I was trounced for being irritated
because there was a couple in the booth behind us with two young (say 4 and
6 year old) unruly kids and the parents wouldn't do anything about them.
The older one kept standing up (turned facing us) and yelling across the
booth over our heads and kicking the booth (which happened to be right at my
back). Neither of the children wanted anything the mother suggested from
the menu - Chicken tenders? No. Hamburger? No. Nachos? No. How do I
know this? Because the kids were so loud the parents had to speak *over*
them so we were privy to every bit of this parent/child interaction.

I didn't feel it was an appropriate place for them to take kids in the first
place. It was around 5PM; plenty of blue collar types sitting at the bar
drinking beer and watching sports. Adults (like us) in booths along the
wall. No other children except the unruly loud ones in the booth behind us.
It was exasperating. We could have left, sure, but we were there first; the
server had just brought us our burgers and a second round of drinks.

Jill

In article >,
Julia Altshuler > wrote:


> There are kids who really need class work taught at their grade level,
> not one with Down's syndrome children there who are being mainstreamed.
> So you get dueling disabilities. The Down's syndrome kids will
> benefit most from being in the regular classroom, not segregated out
> with other Down's syndrome kids. The ones without Down's syndrome will
> benefit from being in a class with other children who are learning and
> progressing as they are. What to do?


Be reasonable, maybe? Sometimes I wonder if some parents are being
selfish about this. It's too hard to take care of their disabled child,
so let the school do it.

There was a family in our area who made a big deal out of having their
kindergarden daughter be mainstreamed. She had an older sister who was
on the same soccer team as my daughter. So, I sometimes saw the
kindergarden kid at games. I watched her one game. They parked her on
the sideline, so at least she had something to watch. Not one parent,
or anyone else, paid one second of attention to that kid for the whole
game. We're talking an hour here, probably. Not one word, not one
touch. Nothing at all. She was in a stroller. It was a tiny stroller,
and she was a good-sized five YO. They had her well-strapped in. She
just sat there the whole time, flailing her arms and legs around and
making noises. Her behavior wasn't a problem, but I imagine it was a
big problem in the classroom. How come if it's so important for her to
be in a regular classroom, where she pretty obviously wasn't going to
get anything at all out of it, they can leave her totally without
attention for an hour? Now, I don't really know anything about this,
and maybe she got something out of the game, and maybe she got something
out of being in a regular class, but it made me sad to see her there
without any attention at all for an hour.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> Be reasonable, maybe? Sometimes I wonder if some parents are being
> selfish about this. It's too hard to take care of their disabled child,
> so let the school do it.

Bingo. Either that or they think their child is going to beat the odds and
become a rocket scientist. My wife was a special ed teacher who spent 10
years of her career in a school for the mentally retarded, a term than it no
longer PC. They had a dedicated staff who worked hard with those kids. Being
among students with similar problems they had a social life at school. They
had good programs that would prepare the kids for a position in a sheltered
work shop or into a line of work they could handle and earn a living. A small
group of parents pushed for integrating their kids into a regular classroom.
The school board didn't mind shutting down the school and saving a fortune.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Elaine Parrish > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > Being horrid and bratty is never a child's fault. It is the parents'
> > fault.
>
>
> I have three adult children. I've been there and done that. They were
> as different as night and day. Same house, same parents, stay at home
> mom, me with the same job the whole time. We had friends with the same
> story. Same everything, but one kid was very easy, and one very
> difficult. My wife is still friends with the mom. Last I heard, the
> oldest went to a military academy (these are very hard to get into, and
> only take the best. You don't pay to go there, they pay the students to
> go. This means you have to serve in that branch of military for some
> years.) The other son was in prison.
>

I understand what you are saying here and I agree with you. I think we
understand today, more than ever before, that there are kids with
physical, mental, and emotional problems that are beyond the realm of an
undiciplined child.

My input into this topic has been regarding a normal, healthy child that
misbehaves without consequences - the normal, run-of-the-mill horrid brat.
Brats are not born. Thay are made by parents who can't or won't do the
right thing by their children.


Elaine, too


<snipped>
>
> --
> Dan Abel
>
> Petaluma, California, USA
>

In article >,
Julia Altshuler > wrote:



> (babies will fuss and cry at times) and how much can be (even babies
> learn quickly not to fuss and cry when they know they'll be removed if
> they do).

You and I have butted heads over the little ones before. I guess it's
time again. Babies don't learn behavior patterns. They are busy
learning much more basic stuff. It's the job of the parents to
recognize when the baby is losing it, and to take action (like removal).
I'm guessing that you've never had babies. They don't work like that.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>(babies will fuss and cry at times) and how much can be (even babies
>>learn quickly not to fuss and cry when they know they'll be removed if
>>they do).
>
>
> You and I have butted heads over the little ones before. I guess it's
> time again. Babies don't learn behavior patterns. They are busy
> learning much more basic stuff. It's the job of the parents to
> recognize when the baby is losing it, and to take action (like removal).
> I'm guessing that you've never had babies. They don't work like that.
>

or when you have a three year old like mine, who wallops you with a
punch, and then giggles and asks if you are angry. Babies and kids freak
out. I'm not abouty to inflict that on those who have chosen to be free
of such obligations

--

saerah

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

On Wed 30 Nov 2005 09:32:08p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it sarah
bennett?

> Dan Abel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>(babies will fuss and cry at times) and how much can be (even babies
>>>learn quickly not to fuss and cry when they know they'll be removed if
>>>they do).
>>
>>
>> You and I have butted heads over the little ones before. I guess it's
>> time again. Babies don't learn behavior patterns. They are busy
>> learning much more basic stuff. It's the job of the parents to
>> recognize when the baby is losing it, and to take action (like removal).
>> I'm guessing that you've never had babies. They don't work like that.
>>
>
> or when you have a three year old like mine, who wallops you with a
> punch, and then giggles and asks if you are angry. Babies and kids freak
> out. I'm not abouty to inflict that on those who have chosen to be free
> of such obligations
>

I know there are many mothers like you, Sarah, but there are still not
enough. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________________________

A chicken in every pot is a *LOT* of chicken!

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Wed 30 Nov 2005 09:32:08p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it sarah
> bennett?
>
>
>>Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>(babies will fuss and cry at times) and how much can be (even babies
>>>>learn quickly not to fuss and cry when they know they'll be removed if
>>>>they do).
>>>
>>>
>>>You and I have butted heads over the little ones before. I guess it's
>>>time again. Babies don't learn behavior patterns. They are busy
>>>learning much more basic stuff. It's the job of the parents to
>>>recognize when the baby is losing it, and to take action (like removal).
>>>I'm guessing that you've never had babies. They don't work like that.
>>>
>>
>>or when you have a three year old like mine, who wallops you with a
>>punch, and then giggles and asks if you are angry. Babies and kids freak
>>out. I'm not abouty to inflict that on those who have chosen to be free
>>of such obligations
>>
>
>
> I know there are many mothers like you, Sarah, but there are still not
> enough. :-)
>

Heh. Tell it to my next door neighbor, who keeps pounding on the damn
wall when kidlet's being difficult about going to bed. (because that's
how you get a kid to sleep, apparently- scaring the bejeebus out of
them, right?)It doesn't seem to matter that I have apologized 8 trillion
times, and asked them nicely to please not pound on the wall. I mean, I
understand that if our kid is screaming, it's hard to hunker down
yourself, but what am I supposed to do? let her stay up as late as she
wants? I mean, now that I have a job again, I'd like to stay employed,
and not get fired for oversleeping *again* because I was up till 2 am
with an insomniac preschooler. Then again, without any income on my
part, we would get evicted, and then the neighbor's problem would be
solved. (These people have a child themselves, or maybe I would be a bit
less bitchy about it)

--

saerah

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

In article >,
Dan Abel > wrote:

>Babies don't learn behavior patterns.

They certainly do, and fast. Behavior reinforcement through reward
and punishment is a powerful thing.

I remember learning about an Indian tribe (Cheyenne I think) in an
anthropology class. Wherever they camped, they designated a tree
outside the camp for hanging crying babies in the branches (the
papoose was hung with the baby inside).

The babies quickly learned that crying would get them nowhere but to
be stuck in a tree with other crying babies.

This only works, of course, if the babies receive lots of love and
attention at all other times.

-A

Elaine Parrish wrote:
<snip>

> I looked at the kid and said, "No baby. I would never hurt a sweet little
> boy like you. It's not your fault that you don't know how to act in
> public. It's your mama's fault for not teaching you anything at home." I
> looked over at the mother and said, "Lady, if I were going to "get"
> somebody, it would be you. What a horrible thing to tell a child. You
> should be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you learn some parenting skills.
> You need them badly. That child deserves better from you."


Perfect!

Back when I was working security, parents liked to tell their kids, "If
you don't behave, she's going to arrest you and take you to jail!" It
never occured to me to tell the kids, "No, I wouldn't do that to
you...but I will take your mommy!"

Lisa Ann

On Wed 30 Nov 2005 09:46:54p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it sarah
bennett?

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Wed 30 Nov 2005 09:32:08p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it sarah
>> bennett?
>>
>>
>>>Dan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(babies will fuss and cry at times) and how much can be (even babies
>>>>>learn quickly not to fuss and cry when they know they'll be removed
>>>>>if they do).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You and I have butted heads over the little ones before. I guess it's
>>>>time again. Babies don't learn behavior patterns. They are busy
>>>>learning much more basic stuff. It's the job of the parents to
>>>>recognize when the baby is losing it, and to take action (like
>>>>removal). I'm guessing that you've never had babies. They don't work
>>>>like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>or when you have a three year old like mine, who wallops you with a
>>>punch, and then giggles and asks if you are angry. Babies and kids
>>>freak out. I'm not abouty to inflict that on those who have chosen to
>>>be free of such obligations
>>>
>>
>>
>> I know there are many mothers like you, Sarah, but there are still not
>> enough. :-)
>>
>
> Heh. Tell it to my next door neighbor, who keeps pounding on the damn
> wall when kidlet's being difficult about going to bed. (because that's
> how you get a kid to sleep, apparently- scaring the bejeebus out of
> them, right?)It doesn't seem to matter that I have apologized 8 trillion
> times, and asked them nicely to please not pound on the wall. I mean, I
> understand that if our kid is screaming, it's hard to hunker down
> yourself, but what am I supposed to do? let her stay up as late as she
> wants? I mean, now that I have a job again, I'd like to stay employed,
> and not get fired for oversleeping *again* because I was up till 2 am
> with an insomniac preschooler. Then again, without any income on my
> part, we would get evicted, and then the neighbor's problem would be
> solved. (These people have a child themselves, or maybe I would be a bit
> less bitchy about it)
>

That kind of situation is difficult if not impossible. I can't think of
any better way to deal with it than what you've already tried.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________________________

A chicken in every pot is a *LOT* of chicken!

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Wed 30 Nov 2005 09:46:54p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it sarah
> bennett?
>
>
>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed 30 Nov 2005 09:32:08p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it sarah
>>>bennett?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>(babies will fuss and cry at times) and how much can be (even babies
>>>>>>learn quickly not to fuss and cry when they know they'll be removed
>>>>>>if they do).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You and I have butted heads over the little ones before. I guess it's
>>>>>time again. Babies don't learn behavior patterns. They are busy
>>>>>learning much more basic stuff. It's the job of the parents to
>>>>>recognize when the baby is losing it, and to take action (like
>>>>>removal). I'm guessing that you've never had babies. They don't work
>>>>>like that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>or when you have a three year old like mine, who wallops you with a
>>>>punch, and then giggles and asks if you are angry. Babies and kids
>>>>freak out. I'm not abouty to inflict that on those who have chosen to
>>>>be free of such obligations
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I know there are many mothers like you, Sarah, but there are still not
>>>enough. :-)
>>>
>>
>>Heh. Tell it to my next door neighbor, who keeps pounding on the damn
>>wall when kidlet's being difficult about going to bed. (because that's
>>how you get a kid to sleep, apparently- scaring the bejeebus out of
>>them, right?)It doesn't seem to matter that I have apologized 8 trillion
>>times, and asked them nicely to please not pound on the wall. I mean, I
>>understand that if our kid is screaming, it's hard to hunker down
>>yourself, but what am I supposed to do? let her stay up as late as she
>>wants? I mean, now that I have a job again, I'd like to stay employed,
>>and not get fired for oversleeping *again* because I was up till 2 am
>>with an insomniac preschooler. Then again, without any income on my
>>part, we would get evicted, and then the neighbor's problem would be
>>solved. (These people have a child themselves, or maybe I would be a bit
>>less bitchy about it)
>>
>
>
> That kind of situation is difficult if not impossible. I can't think of
> any better way to deal with it than what you've already tried.
>

Well, we explained that he was cranky just like her . She is going to
bed at a much more reasonable hour now (unlike her mother, who is
yawning atm and should get off the damn computer :> )It would have been
better if we could have gotten her sleep schedule straightened out when
I was having to get up at 5 am, though.

--

saerah

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

On 30 Nov 2005 11:58:56 -0800, "aem" > wrote:

> I removed my post quickly as soon as I remembered
>that, but you caught it before I removed it. -aem

You shouldn't bother to attempt canceling a sent post. Very few news
servers honor cancel requests any more. This is because many people
spoofed such.

What you did do, was remove your post from the Google Groups
archive--but it certainly propagated to many servers before that
happened.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:33:39 -0600, Elaine Parrish >
wrote:

>Brats are not born. Thay are made by parents who can't or won't do the
>right thing by their children.

Even so.

And if you don't object, the above--with attribution--goes into my
sigfile.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:57:08 -0600, Elaine Parrish >
wrote:

>I looked at the kid and said, "No baby. I would never hurt a sweet little
>boy like you. It's not your fault that you don't know how to act in
>public. It's your mama's fault for not teaching you anything at home." I
>looked over at the mother and said, "Lady, if I were going to "get"
>somebody, it would be you. What a horrible thing to tell a child. You
>should be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you learn some parenting skills.
>You need them badly. That child deserves better from you."

Applause!!

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:


> I didn't feel it was an appropriate place for them to take kids in the first
> place. It was around 5PM; plenty of blue collar types sitting at the bar
> drinking beer and watching sports. Adults (like us) in booths along the
> wall. No other children except the unruly loud ones in the booth behind us.
> It was exasperating. We could have left, sure, but we were there first; the
> server had just brought us our burgers and a second round of drinks.


Maybe a third round of drinks?


:-)

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

"Cam" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> -L. wrote:
> > Remember the thread about the Chicago restauranteur who took hell for
> > asking his patrons to control their children (via a nice little sign
> > asking them to "behave" and use "inside voices")? Here's the
> > follow-up: A parent who actually "gets it".
> > -L.
>
> "Unattended children will be given a cappucino and a free puppy"

Heheh, funny, but the day after you posted this, I got a picture of an
actual sign saying that E-mailed to me - made me chuckle.

Anyone wants to see the pic (nicely embroidered sign IIRC) just gimme a
shout (E-mail addy here is valid).



Shaun aRe

Lisa Ann wrote:
> Elaine Parrish wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>I looked at the kid and said, "No baby. I would never hurt a sweet little
>>boy like you. It's not your fault that you don't know how to act in
>>public. It's your mama's fault for not teaching you anything at home." I
>>looked over at the mother and said, "Lady, if I were going to "get"
>>somebody, it would be you. What a horrible thing to tell a child. You
>>should be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you learn some parenting skills.
>>You need them badly. That child deserves better from you."
>
>
>
> Perfect!
>
> Back when I was working security, parents liked to tell their kids, "If
> you don't behave, she's going to arrest you and take you to jail!" It
> never occured to me to tell the kids, "No, I wouldn't do that to
> you...but I will take your mommy!"
>
> Lisa Ann
>


I hate when parents use law enforcement to scare their small children
(different when we are talking about older kids and actual law-breaking
behavior) It teaches small children to be afraid of people in uniform.
They should know that those people are there to help you if you get in
trouble.

I have my own version of this "sort of" - If my kids act up in public
and I can't make a quick escape (ie waiting in line to pay for something
etc) I explain to them that they are being disruptive and rude to the
others in the store and they should be ashamed of their behavior. At 3
and 5 it seems to work. I don't think it is as extreme as "that lady is
going to..." It's not fair to use someone else as a discipline tool. I
have pointed out others if there is a danger of the kids pushing the
cart into them or something...not the same thing though

Roberta (in VA)

"Roberta" > wrote

> I hate when parents use law enforcement to scare their small children
> (different when we are talking about older kids and actual law-breaking
> behavior) It teaches small children to be afraid of people in uniform.
> They should know that those people are there to help you if you get in
> trouble.

Heh, when I was a kid, it was the MPs ... I have no idea what I did as
a little kid to be threatened with being reported to the MP (there was
always one around for my parents to point to), but there you have it.
To this day I'm afraid of cops, MPs!, toll collectors ... anyone standing
around looking authoritative (laugh). Librarians ...

nancy

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>
>> I didn't feel it was an appropriate place for them to take kids in
>> the first place. It was around 5PM; plenty of blue collar types
>> sitting at the bar drinking beer and watching sports. Adults (like
>> us) in booths along the wall. No other children except the unruly
>> loud ones in the booth behind us. It was exasperating. We could
>> have left, sure, but we were there first; the server had just
>> brought us our burgers and a second round of drinks.
>
>
> Maybe a third round of drinks?
>
>
> :-)

LOL! We ate quickly and left... never went back. It sure screwed up our
evening, though.

Jill