|
|
In article ,
Scott en Aztl?n wrote: On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:00:51 GMT, dragonlady wrote: The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone. My kids are now all 18 and older, and I have not stopped caring. I'm glad to no longer be "on the hook", but I still care passionately. If I thought invading their privacy at this point would serve any useful purpose, I'd do it. You gotta draw the line at some point. Where will that be for you? Caring? Never. My mom still cares about what *I'm* doing, and I'm 52. In other cases, the parents CAN still be held responsible no matter how old the "kid" is -- for example, if my car or house are found to have illegal drugs in them, I could still be fined or have my property confiscated, even if I didn't know they were there. That's only a problem if you plan to have your adult children still living in your home as opposed to away at college or on their own. If they are at college but they stay with you during semester breaks and over the summer, then I would consider them not yet fully adult and continue to monitor them as necessary. Two of my adult children DO still live with me, because I can't afford to send them to 4 year colleges. They live at home, and attend a local community college -- and I support them, as do many parents of college age kids. I'm one of those "bleeding heart liberals" (though I much prefer to think of myself as progressive). The only thing I find offensive about your statement is that you stopped caring. I don't think I'll EVER stop caring! I never said I'd stop caring about the kids, I said I'd stop caring what they were talking about on the phone - unless they gave me probable cause to be suspicious, of course. ;) You SAID you stopped caring about what they were doing once their behavior would no longer put you on the hook legally. Now you're saying that, if they gave you cause to be suspicious, you'd still care enough to eavesdrop. Can't have it both ways -- and I'm saying that, if I thought listening in on their phone calls now would be helpful in any way, I'd still do it. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
|
Byron Canfield wrote:
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message oups.com... Mark wrote: I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other kid admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else say, and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay - inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained. Well, I think you hit on it. The AP article (and the original poster of the thread) made a distinct point of misquoting the court case in order to create a sensational headline, solely for the purpose of riling everybody. Oh? Well, I posted this and here are the AP headers and 1st paragraph: Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation. (KM) |
In article ,
Scott en Aztl?n wrote: On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:10:28 GMT, dragonlady wrote: You gotta draw the line at some point. Where will that be for you? Caring? Never. My mom still cares about what *I'm* doing, and I'm 52. At some point a parent has to let go and stop trying to micromanage their childrens' lives. I guess with some parents that occurs after the parent's death. ;) Why, in your mind, does "caring" equal "micromanging" -- or, for that matter, ANY managing? I can detach with love -- that means I keep caring, but acknowledge that they are in charge of their own lives. I CAN control MY decisions, and that might mean, for example, no longer paying for college if they don't take it seriously enough to finish classes. But that isn't an attempt to control what THEY do -- just making clear boundaries: as long as they are in school, and taking school seriously, I will cover books, tuition and fees, keep them in transportation, and provide free room and board. If they STOP going to school, they can provide their own transportation and, if they want to live here, pay room and board. Recently, I've had to make clear that if they choose to NOT live at home, I will NOT give them money for ongoing living expenses. I can afford to cover that if they are living here, but we don't have extra money to cover their rent, utilities, etc. living somewhere else. You SAID you stopped caring about what they were doing once their behavior would no longer put you on the hook legally. Now you're saying that, if they gave you cause to be suspicious, you'd still care enough to eavesdrop. IF I have reason to suspect that they are, for example, using illegal drugs in my home or one of my vehicles, then I will certainly do whatever is necessary to protect myself. In the absence of any reason to suspect such things, however, I won't waste my time eavesdropping on their boring conversations. I'm saying that, if I thought listening in on their phone calls now would be helpful in any way, I'd still do it. So if you thought your daughter was dating a "bad boy" type who was no good for her, you'd eavesdrop on their phone conversations and try to intervene? Not me. Some things people just have to learn for themselves. ;) Where on earth did I say THAT? When I say "if I thought it would help", I'm talking about finding out they are into things like illegal drugs (using and/or selling), stealing, unsafe sex -- basically, things that are illegal or could kill them -- and I believed that violating their privacy would provide me with the kind of information I needed to intervene. I DID intervene when a 21 yo "bad boy" started hanging around my younger daughter when she was 14, but I smelled a predator (accurately, as it turned out) and he is now in prison on a variety of charges related to his activities with minors. I was desperately trying to keep her safe from this jerk. However, other than that, I have NEVER tried to control who my kids are friends with, even when I think their friends are bad for them. And they HAVE made some astoundingly bad choices in friends! The most I've done is tried to make sure they spend lots of time in places healthy for them, so they'd have an opportunity to make good friends, too -- places like the theater program they all enjoyed, and church, which they ALSO enjoyed. Heck, for a while, one of my kids dated a young man who lived under a bridge. He had lots of problems. I invited him for dinner as often as he wanted to eat with us, and, when he was VERY ill, allowed him to sleep in our house (on the sofa!) for a couple of weeks. (I had, at one point, allowed him to stay for a few weeks while he was waiting to get into transitional housing; however, when a room became available, he decided he didn't want the amount of structure required to live there, so I threw him out.) I did not "approve" of their relationship, but I also knew that if she wanted to see him, she would -- I figured if I kept them close, it would be better all around. Unfortunately, his going away present to her was a case of Hepatitis B. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
wrote in message
... Byron Canfield wrote: "Curtis CCR" wrote in message oups.com... Mark wrote: I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other kid admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else say, and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay - inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained. Well, I think you hit on it. The AP article (and the original poster of the thread) made a distinct point of misquoting the court case in order to create a sensational headline, solely for the purpose of riling everybody. Oh? Well, I posted this and here are the AP headers and 1st paragraph: Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation. --which confirms my statement, as it is made clear, later in the article that the AP summation is extrapolating, rather than quoting the court decision; that the court merely ruled that evidence collected in that manner was inadmissible in court.. -- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield |
Bill Crocker wrote:
It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. --------------- In California as in many states both ends of any conversation must agree to be taped. Steve |
Mark wrote:
On 10 Dec 2004 12:09:43 GMT, (Gordon Burditt) wrote: It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. [] But, again, recording/wire-tap laws are determined at the federal level. Any state laws are superseded by federal law anyway. ----------------------------------------- Nope. TV-mythology. Even the federal courts have to award warrants congizant of state laws in which they are applied. Steve |
Mark wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:32:50 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote: On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:14 -0500, Mark wrote: On 10 Dec 2004 13:18:54 GMT, (Gordon Burditt) wrote: It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being made. Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in. Incorrect. It's a federal determination (wire tap). Local state regulations cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in California. Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be") in different states. No, federal supersedes local. Always has and always will. It all comes down to this. Everything I've ever heard on this subject suggests that Gordon is correct. While states may impose their own laws IN ADDITION to federal laws, they cannot put a law on the books that contradicts federal law. Look at all the mess going on now with gay marriage and trying to make a constitutional amendment. That would eliminate any/all state laws that say it's OK. ---------------------- State rights vs federal subsumption is more complex than merely the word: "contradicts". The State cannot forbid that which is subsumed under the federal assurance of human rights or any and all high court interpretations of that effect, and of the commercial effects of over-reaching federal law, but things not so directly banned by federal aegis are game for state control. Steve |
Mark wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:10 -0500, "Dave C." wrote: As I wrote elsewhere . . . Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents should mind their own business. Don't have kids, eh? ------------------ Not unless you're willing to be limited by requirements that you treat them honorably and humanely, no. Steve |
JerryL wrote:
When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I didn't care. ----------------- So what you did was to simply ensure that you would never REALLY know what was happening in his life, and you still don't. He undoubtedly used the knowledge of your spying as a means to disinform you. Charming what people think are the results of their actions. Steve |
Mark wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:57:15 -0500, "JerryL" wrote: snip But back to the original deal. If I think something is going on with my kids that isn't right and listening in on a phone call will let me know for sure - I'm going to do it. Period. If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be using the phone. If you were a parent who gave a ****, you'd do things differently. Phone trust has nothing to do with anything. When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I didn't care. As long as I was responsible for him, I did what I thought was right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys of his own and he admits that he would have gotten into trouble had I not monitored his actions. If ever the State thinks they can do a better job than I can as a parent, they are welcome to take care of my kids, stay up with them all night when they are sick, walk them to school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and worry about them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine, I'll do it my way. Bottom line, that's what it comes down to. Well put! ---------------- That's because you're an idiot and don't grasp the secondary effect she had, to never actually be able to know what was really going on, to teach her son how to lie better and keep secrets, and how to disinform when he believed she was listening in. But much worse, to make her son realize that she was on her OWN side, and not on his, and that he couldn't really count on her for anything. Our kids could count on us not dishonoring them or trying to control them by dishonor, and thus they told us everything. Steve |
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:15:55 -0500, Mark wrote: Not to mention another reason for "invading" your kid's "privacy". Some of the foolish actions they may take could very well cost the parent both legally and financially. BINGO. And as long as I am on the hook legaly and financially for my child's behavior, I'm going to control that behavior in any way I see fit. The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone. Sorry if that offends you bleeding heart liberals in the audience. ;) ------------------------------------ The problem with your kind of ignorance is that the EFFECT that you THINK that it has, it doesn't. As soon as you try to be controlling your child will remove their trust from you and you will know MUCH less than you THINK you know from then on, you will NEVER be able to trust them, because they will never trust you or even LIKE you, everything they do after that is merely PLAY-ACTING!! If you don't understand that this is true, then either your kids are actually even more congenitally simple-minded than YOU are, or you've made yourself blind, deaf, and dumb! There is NO effective way to control anyone with their own mind and control of their own body, you simply can't control them every second and have a life of your own! They know this. In addition to that you destroy any actual use they might have had for you by making yourself obnoxious, and you have taught them that they can't count on anyone like you. Steve |
Tom wrote:
JerryL stated so wisely: When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I didn't care. As long as I was responsible for him, I did what I thought was right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys of his own and he admits that he would have gotten into trouble had I not monitored his actions. If ever the State thinks they can do a better job than I can as a parent, they are welcome to take care of my kids, stay up with them all night when they are sick, walk them to school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and worry about them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine, I'll do it my way. AMEN!!! -- Tom ----------------- Funny how consistently those who say "Amen" to ignorance reprove their own. Steve |
|
MashedTaters wrote:
In misc.kids wrote: Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation. Wow. That's rather across the board. One special case comes to mind. What if the teenager is emotionally handicapped? I know of a fetal alcohol syndrom girl. Her adopted mother occassionally listened to her phone conversations. The girl had no mainstream friends. She did have a number of friends she met at special functions (Special Olympics, a special bowling league). These friends were spread throughout the city or region and weren't "in the flesh" except during the events. So the phone was critical to this girl's social life. That's how she stayed in touch with friends. By picking up the phone one day, the mom found out a 30'ish man was calling her daughter regularly. The man was asking her daughter about condoms, where they were going to meet, etc. So I guess that conversation couldn't be used to convict a guy of statutory rape or child molestation. That's ... not believable. There must be some clause that's not being mentioned. --------------------- Yeah. The "you're merely ignorant" clause. Without a warrant, contents of phone calls are protected even from heresay about them as being "fruit of the poisoned tree" because they have the "reasonable expectation of privacy". Steve |
Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke: Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation. That's bull****. It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it! ------------------- Not in a majority of US states. Steve |
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:23:56 -0800, "ajpdla" wrote: That's bull****. It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it! Nice try, but not true. Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not OK for a mother to monitor her minor child? ------------------- There is less expectation of privacy in the workplace. And the employer pays for the setting. You would STILL need a warrant to make a conversation court-admissible. Steve |
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." wrote: Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not OK for a mother to monitor her minor child? Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of employment. And a minor child has no rights to begin with. --------------------------- Entirely wrong. I don't see the difference. ------------------ Nor can someone as ignorant as you be expected to. Steve |
Dave C. wrote:
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." wrote: Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not OK for a mother to monitor her minor child? Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of employment. And a minor child has no rights to begin with. Actually, a minor child does have some rights. It is illegal to eavesdrop on phone conversations, and there is no exception for age of the people talking on the phone. Minor children do NOT have the right to talk on the phone, however. So as I've stated several times, if you don't want to OBEY THE LAW and let your child's phone conversations be private, then forbid your children from using the phone. -Dave ------------------- Actually a majority of states punish ANY attempt to deprive a child of the right to call police or emergency services, and if you try you can be imprisoned! Steve |
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500, wrote: Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation. Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant. "It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days," said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. That *is* ridiculous. Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking place using her property, just as an employer has the right to monitor employees' emails, phone calls, and even keystrokes. Minor children should have no expectation of privacy. ----------------- Legally wrong. What's next? --------------- The improved observance of the Rights of Children. Steve |
dragonlady wrote:
In article , "Dave C." wrote: That *is* ridiculous. Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking place using her property No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls at my discretion. I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from time to time kept me aware of what she was doing. -------------------------- People who dishonor their children that way GET dishonored BY their children. A friend of mine who hated her father used to plant things in her father's sock drawer for her mother to find, receipts carefully altered, porno, etc. Those who **** with their kids are destined to be ****ed BY their kids. Steve |
Curtis CCR wrote:
dragonlady wrote: In article , "Dave C." wrote: That *is* ridiculous. Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking place using her property No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls at my discretion. You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably have no legal worries. The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter. Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your discretion. -------------------- And as soon as you reveal to her that you violated HERS, HER discretion will forever exclude you from her life. Sort of like: You get just one look, and never ever again. Fool me once, **** on you, you don't GET twice!! People who **** with their kids have a death-wish. Steve |
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:41:25 -0500, "Dave C." wrote: That *is* ridiculous. Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking place using her property No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while using it. Why does a child have an expectation or privacy but an employee does not? And forget that crap about how you "signed your rights away" when you joined the company; I've worked plenty of jobs in my life and never signed such a document, yet I know that my phone calls and email can be monitored by my remployer at any time. -------------------- They provide the equipment solely for you to perform their business, not yours. It's a basic right the employer has - I don't need to sign anything for it to be in effect. ------------ True. But the relationship is inherent, like using their printer. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child shouldn't be on the phone at all. If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can buy her own phone service. Pre-paid cell phones are widely available - no credit check required. ----------------------------- When you let anyone use your telephone, you surrender your control of it and have no right to invade their privacy. When you provide a phone ONLY for THEM to perform YOUR business purposes, the burden is quite different. When you try to bar your child from using a phone in their residence for their own private purposes, you're asking for them to do hateful things to you which you will fully deserve. Put another way . . . if you don't trust your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your child shouldn't be using the phone, period. I guess you feel the same way about the GPS tracking device I have installed in the car that my teenaged son drives? ;) ------------------------------- Creative vandalism. Somebody sure must have wanted that GPS, Pop! Steve |
R. Steve Walz stated so wisely:
Funny how consistently those who say "Amen" to ignorance reprove their own. Steve Ignorance? I have raised children to adulthood. I agree with most all this man had to say. I merely used 'Amen' to state that. If you've raised children and had the misfortune to have your child misdirected by the child of parent(s) that do not raise them properly, you would agree as well. I gave trust first and when proven wrong, I reacted to the situation and did what had to be done. As long as they are in MY house...Screw my childrens rights! I have the right to raise children that don't cause me any more problem than life has to offer. Raise your children correctly now or visit them in prison later. Bottom line...I raise my children so that you don't need the police to protect you and if everyone did, this world would be a much better place to live! -- Tom "That man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest." -Henry Thoreau |
Tom wrote:
R. Steve Walz stated so wisely: Funny how consistently those who say "Amen" to ignorance reprove their own. Steve Ignorance? I have raised children to adulthood. I agree with most all this man had to say. I merely used 'Amen' to state that. ------------------------- Proving yet again that the ignorant are too ignorant to even KNOW they're ignorant, you piece of Xtian crap. If you've raised children and had the misfortune to have your child misdirected by the child of parent(s) that do not raise them properly, you would agree as well. ----------------------------------------- You're the only kind of human **** who do that. did what had to be done. As long as they are in MY house...Screw my childrens rights! ------------------ Your recklessness screws their lives, and yours. I have the right to raise children that don't cause me any more problem than life has to offer. -------------------- You got nuthin'. You have the right to do right, not to do wrong. Raise your children correctly now or visit them in prison later. ------------------------ My kids aren't in prison, but lots of kids from **** like you are. Bottom line...I raise my children so that you don't need the police to protect you and if everyone did, this world would be a much better place to live! Tom --------------------- You imagine the exact opposite to what is true. YOU and the **** in your head causes child criminality. Your attitude is what causes children to become mass-murderers. You just don't grasp that because of your ignorant pride. Steve |
wrote in message ups.com... I have to laugh, I think Dave C. is a lawyer. The minute I remove the phones from my house because I can't trust my kids, then when there is an emergency and something happens to my minor child, I will be considered an irresponsible parent because they can't call 911 and I'll be sued by my kid and the child welfare department. Where is the common sense here. Parents are responsible for their minor childs actions.....PERIOD. Parents, do what you must to keep your kids safe! The Child Protective Services are highly corrupt. They don't know a thing about raising kids properly. Most of the case workers don't even have kids and are most likely to lie on you in a heartbeat! Tread carefully. Case workers should not have absolute immunity, and neither should judges and prosecutors! DeWayne |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... wrote: Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then you DESERVE ALL the results!! Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE, is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!! Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Spoken by a true non-parent. You are so full of **** you must have brown eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still have a problem child,,, obviously you have NO experience at this or your kids are in the less than 10 age which is when some really start to rebel. All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation marks tells me you have an agenda,, or are you a 16 year old. What a dumb ass. Read a book dumb****. Jeff --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004 |
Jeff wrote:
Spoken by a true non-parent. Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent. -- Mike Rosenberg http://www.macconsult.com Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida http://bogart-tribute.net Tribute to Humphrey Bogart Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius |
"Mike Rosenberg" wrote in message id... Jeff wrote: Spoken by a true non-parent. Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I dont care. He obviously is one of the holier than thow types and doesnt have a realistic grasp of human nature. I know I am most likely quite senior to him and have seen many, many cases of good- bad parenting and the results defies his so called pie in the sky attitude of parent-child relationships. Human nature or parent child relationships are not mathematical equations where 2 +2 = 4 like he desperately wants everyone to believe, by his rantings. Quite honestly he comes accross as a cross posting lunatic. Jeff --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004 |
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:12:30 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote: So if you thought your daughter was dating a "bad boy" type who was no good for her, you'd eavesdrop on their phone conversations and try to intervene? Not me. Some things people just have to learn for themselves. ;) -- Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Too bad you contradict yourself in every message you post. |
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:50:37 GMT, "Jeff"
wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... wrote: Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then you DESERVE ALL the results!! Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE, is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!! Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Spoken by a true non-parent. You are so full of **** you must have brown eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still have a problem child,,, obviously you have NO experience at this or your kids are in the less than 10 age which is when some really start to rebel. All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation marks tells me you have an agenda,, or are you a 16 year old. What a dumb ass. Read a book dumb****. Jeff Reading a book is probably part of the problem, not a solution. It sounds like everything he knows is based on books he has read, with no real experience to show the difference between theory and practice. |
Jeff wrote:
Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent. I dont care. He obviously is one of the holier than thow types and doesnt have a realistic grasp of human nature. Ah, now that's a whole different thing altogether. Quite honestly he comes accross as a cross posting lunatic. A lunatic perhaps, but not a cross-posting one. When you see him cross-posting, it's because he's responding to a message that's already cross-posted. -- Mike Rosenberg http://www.macconsult.com Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida http://bogart-tribute.net Tribute to Humphrey Bogart Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius |
"Bob Ward" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:50:37 GMT, "Jeff" wrote: Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then you DESERVE ALL the results!! Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE, is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!! Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- Spoken by a true non-parent. You are so full of **** you must have brown eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still have a problem child,,, obviously you have NO experience at this or your kids are in the less than 10 age which is when some really start to rebel. All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation marks tells me you have an agenda,, or are you a 16 year old. What a dumb ass. Read a book dumb****. Jeff Reading a book is probably part of the problem, not a solution. It sounds like everything he knows is based on books he has read, with no real experience to show the difference between theory and practice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- You may very well be right on that point. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004 |
Jeff wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then you DESERVE ALL the results!! Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE, is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!! Steve Spoken by a true non-parent. ----------------- You're delusionally wrong. I've got two raised and off on their own in their late twenties and early thirties. Son 31 and daughter 28. You are so full of **** you must have brown eyes. ----------------- The only **** you see is in YOUR head, behind YOUR eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still have a problem child,,, -------------------- Nope, nonsense, never ever seen it. In fact, what you think doing "everything right" then MUST BE WRONG, ****head!! You have some psychologically DEFECTIVE pet notions that YOU just don't want to see go down in FLAMES, but they do! They really do!: You see, control freaks like you **** up everything you touch, your marriages, your children, your lives. obviously you have NO experience at this ---------------------- WWRRRRONNGGGGOOO!!!! or your kids are in the less than 10 age ------------------------ WWRRROONNGGOO AGAIN!!!! which is when some really start to rebel. ---------------------------- Hint!: Hey, King Big****. Your "colonists" don't rebel unless you TREAT THEM LIKE ****! Mine didn't at ALL, because they NEVER HAD TO! It isn't a necessity, you know! Well no, you don't know, do you? Rebellion is a symptom of ABUSE in a chronically child-abusive culture like THIS one! All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation marks tells me you have an agenda, ------------------------------- Damn straight, the RIGHT ONE! I want to see the people like you who **** up children STOPPED! or are you a 16 year old. ------------------------- Nope, born in 1950. I'm 54. What a dumb ass. Read a book dumb****. Jeff ----------------------------- Already read them. (Also wrote some big hunks of several others.) And if YOU had you'd know that they agree with ME, you child-abusive dip****. Steve |
Jeff wrote:
"Mike Rosenberg" wrote in message id... Jeff wrote: Spoken by a true non-parent. Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent. I dont care. He obviously is one of the holier than thow types and doesnt have a realistic grasp of human nature. ----------------- You mean I'm someone you SHOULD have learned respect for and just admitted that I'm someone who had learned more than you and from whom you should learn. But you're such an ill-raised little egotist that it would damage you emotionally to permit that awareness. Like most emotionally immature Americans you fancy that anyone who disagrees with your grunting inability to express yourself at depth, or anyone who thinks deeply on an issue, is "unrealistic", which actually means that you're alienated from the truth about your sick sick culture. I know I am most likely quite senior to him ----------------- Are you over 54? And are you actually mature? I doubt it. and have seen many, many cases of good- bad parenting and the results defies his so called pie in the sky attitude of parent-child relationships. ----------------- The pie isn't in the sky if you get to eat it, moron. The pie is quite tasty for me and MY family, yours is sour grapes! Don't tell us it can't be done merely because YOU don't want to do it the right way! Human nature or parent child relationships are not mathematical equations where 2 +2 = 4 like he desperately wants everyone to believe, by his rantings. -------------------- The math works just fine for anyone who doesn't have your neurotic emotionally defective agenda against accepting it. Abusers always want to claim that "ideal methods of treating others don't really work" when what they mean is that they couldn't stop themselves from misbehaving and abusing others!! Quite honestly he comes accross as a cross posting lunatic. Jeff ----------------------- Criminals personalities always think juries and judges are insane. I post here, if others add newsgroups to annoy or attract others, I ignore them. Steve |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then you DESERVE ALL the results!! Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE, is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!! Steve Spoken by a true non-parent. ----------------- You're delusionally wrong. I've got two raised and off on their own in their late twenties and early thirties. Son 31 and daughter 28. You are so full of **** you must have brown eyes. ----------------- The only **** you see is in YOUR head, behind YOUR eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still have a problem child,,, -------------------- Nope, nonsense, never ever seen it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just becuase you have never seen it doesnt mean it never happens. It most certainly does happen,, more than "you" may think, in that tiny little pompous ass brain of yours. Go spend some time at a counselling facility for kids and just see how kids can choose the wrong path in life all by themselves. They're not abused or mistreated kids, many come from very normal loving homes, Christian homes where the parents really do practice what they preach. FYI I work in hospital enviroment and have for more than 20 years now, and I see this kind of stuff quite often. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In fact, what you think doing "everything right" then MUST BE WRONG, ****head!! You have some psychologically DEFECTIVE pet notions that YOU just don't want to see go down in FLAMES, but they do! They really do!: You see, control freaks like you **** up everything you touch, your marriages, your children, your lives. obviously you have NO experience at this ---------------------- WWRRRRONNGGGGOOO!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You post all this "crap" in the manner that you post it with all your "all caps" and stupid exclamation points and you expect "anybody" to believe you. And you call ME a control freak?? Again what an absolute pompous ass. I would suggest you are the acting control freak here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- which is when some really start to rebel. ---------------------------- Hint!: Hey, King Big****. Your "colonists" don't rebel unless you TREAT THEM LIKE ****! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Absolutely untrue,, rebelling is actually quite normal for preteens and teens, its part of growing up and establishing their own independence. Its what a parent does about it that counts. Like I said get a real education on the subject. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mine didn't at ALL, because they NEVER HAD TO! It isn't a necessity, you know! Well no, you don't know, do you? Rebellion is a symptom of ABUSE in a chronically child-abusive culture like THIS one! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What total BS this is,, all rebellion is from abuse huh. Now you have just blown any tiny little shred of credibility you "may" have had, blown,,, gone . Like I said before read a book, get a life ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation marks tells me you have an agenda, ------------------------------- Damn straight, the RIGHT ONE! I want to see the people like you who **** up children STOPPED! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My kids are all grown and gone,, all of them are decent law abiding, tax paying, successful citizens. They arent screwed up freaks like you are soooo desperately trying to imply. Man you must come from the twilight zone or somewhere. The mere fact that you are trying to imply my kids are mental defectives because of my parenting skills without knowing a thing about me or my familiy really speaks volumes about YOU. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And if YOU had you'd know that they agree with ME, you child-abusive dip****. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus you are quite taken with yourself arent you?? Once again you call me a control freak????? You call me a child abuser?? Do you know my distant past??? have you spoken with my children??? NO . You are full of nothing more than conjecture and inuendo, nothing more. There is only one thing worse than a pompous ass, and that is a self righteous, indignant pompous ass,, kinda like you stevie Oh and welcome to my killfile, you truly arent worth my time. I dont debate with unrealistic, narcissistic, asses like you Jeff --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004 |
In article ,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls at my discretion. I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from time to time kept me aware of what she was doing. -------------------------- People who dishonor their children that way GET dishonored BY their children. A friend of mine who hated her father used to plant things in her father's sock drawer for her mother to find, receipts carefully altered, porno, etc. Those who **** with their kids are destined to be ****ed BY their kids. Steve Steve, I started out honoring her: I had to change my ways when she started DIShonoring me (and herself) and doing things that were dangerous. I did what I felt I had to do to keep her alive -- and that is NOT an exageration. It turned out she was severely depressed, but adolescent depression manifests in odd ways, which I did not recognize: in her case, it was mostly phenominal anger along with acting out. And I think violating their privacy OPENLY does honor them -- you tell them what you are doing, and why, and don't hide it. Sneaking is dishonorable, but I never did that. FWIW, it worked: I managed to keep her out of several really dangerous situations, and eventually, the depression was diagnosed and appropriately treated. She's almost 19 now, not anxious to move out, going to college, and just came in, told me I looked wonderful, gave me a kiss on the cheek, agreed to drop me off later today (so DH and I wouldn't be somewhere with two cars; as a side benefit, it means she gets to use MY car for the rest of the day), and stayed for a short chat with me (and her boyfriend) before the two of them went back to her room. I think our relationship is good. I know you think your kids never got into serious trouble because you are such a wonderful parent. It's a lovely theory. But at some point, other things influence your kids as well -- and when things start to go badly, you sometimes need different tools. I remember one conversation with this particular daughter, where I said that, in spite of everything, I thought I'd been a pretty good parent. She said, "In spite of WHAT?" I didn't want to be insulting -- I mean, what could I say? After a moment, I said, "In spite of the fact that my kid's lives are not exactly what I'd dreamed they'd be." She put her hands on her hips and said, "Well! YOUR job isn't to dream for us. YOUR job is to just keep us alive until we grow up enough to have our OWN dreams." I figure as long as a teenager can put me in my appropriate place like that, I've done a pretty good job of parenting. Not perfect, Lord knows, but pretty good. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:45:08 GMT, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote: Parents can and some do "everything" right and still have a problem child,,, -------------------- Nope, nonsense, never ever seen it. I had a neighbor with 3 daughters and a son. The son and one of the daughters were twins. The parents and the daughters were nice people; polite, friendly, religious. Excellent neighbors in every way. The son? At his 14th birthday he informed his parents that he was now an "adult" and would no longer listen to or obey his parents. He was into drugs & alcohol, running with a "bad crowd". In short, a thug. At the age of 16, the son attacked my wife and beat her almost to death. His reason? he was "mad at the world" and took it out on the first person he saw, my wife. He was recently paroled after serving 8 years for the assault. Did these parents do "everything" right with the daughters, and "everything" wrong with the son? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Professional Shop Rat: 14,542 days in a GM plant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com