A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How Children REALLY React To Control



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 9th 04, 01:55 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:41:06 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


The more I think about this exercise, the more it looks like
something deliberately contrived to generate a particular
emotional reaction.


You are correct. That IS the point. To explore the actual experiences
of people, not create, as you seem to be doing below, move away from
the real and into the theoretical.

To teach someone about how others experience things it is useful to
point out their own experiences that may be similar.

An
objective analysis


Again, a jump away from the point of training people to use and
develop their capacity for empathy. PET is based on empathy as ONE of
its principles. There are others of course.


I view empathay as both extremely valuable and potentially dangerous.
Without empathy, true objectivity is impossible because a person doesn't
really understand the consequences of an action if he can't empathize with
those who will be affected by those consequences. But when empathy is
overly focused on one particular aspect of a situation, causing other
aspects of the situation to be ignored or given less weight than they
deserve, that excessive focus can be extremely dangerous.

Yes, it is valuable for parents to empathize with how their children are
likely to feel about assertion of parental authority, and to understand how
their children might react. But parents also have to take a larger and
longer view, to consider (and empathize with) the consequences if they fail
to exert their authority. What will it do to the child's future if they do
not intervene? What dangers will the child's behavior present to the child
or to others? How would their child's behavior affect other children, both
now and in the future? And, for that matter, how would their child's
behavior affect them (the parents)?

As I said, parents need to empathize. But if they get so caught up in
empathizing with one aspect of the overall situation that they ignore other
aspects, they are likely to make worse choices than they would if they
empathize but also look at the overall picture objectively. I view empathy
as a part of objectivity, not a replacement for it.

would try to pin down how control by adults is likely to
affect individual children.


You seem to be missing something. The exercise was with a room full of
people, so in fact one would have a rich producting of of just what
you ask for. Usually such exercises result in long lists of wall
posted newsprint display of the group's responses.

And one would then know how individual people in this group were
effected by adult controls.


If the exercise is conducted in such a way that each person's list is seen
separately, that would indeed portray what reactions individual children
went through, although the question of how often the various reactions
occurred would remain. And if that is the way the exercise is conducted in
the classes, then the problem of not providing an idea of how many different
reactions individual children tend to go through would not apply in that
context.

snip

Worse, a person might add something to the list because
it happened once or twice, but have others end up thinking it
happened on a much more regular basis.


What would be the problem? It isn't a frequency issue. The purpose is
to identify different effects by adult control over children.


I assume you're aware that people with agendas frequently manipulate their
choice of what information to present and how to present it in order to make
their viewpoint look as strong as possible. My concern is that Dr. Gordon
seems to be doing that here, calling attention to what can go wrong without
encouraging people to examine the entire context. To the extent that he
includes the possibility of children's reacting by behaving at all, he
portrays it in a negative light ("Being submissive, conforming, complying;
being dutiful, docile, apple-polishing, being a goody-goody, teacher's
pet"). Further, he encourages people to focus on how many of the coping
behaviors they exhibited, not on how common or serious they were (especially
in contrast with the total length of childhood). So the exercise seems
aimed more at causing people to form a negative opinion of the use of
authority than at causing them to objectively evaluate how the risks and
benefits of using authority balance against each other.

snip

The problem in this society is that the risk/benefit of punishment is
rarely even looked at, or if done, because of long taught,
conditioned, societal values, the risk will be rated low and the
benefits relatively high for punishment.


I'm inclined to strongly agree that society (or at least a very large part
of it) tends to underestimate the risks and overestimate the effectiveness.
But I think Dr. Gordon's article errs in the opposite direction.

The unchallenged belief in punishment as a way of controlling
relationships has consequences we see around us all the time. Divorce
rates, school dropout rates, crime rates, failures in international
diplomacy, job failures.


This accusation has some validity, but it ignores other, more important
causes.

It seems to me that the biggest factor in the divorce rate is that we as a
society have largely replaced, "for better, or for worse... til death do you
part" with "until you get tired of that person or find someone you'd rather
be with." Yes, situations where spouses' desire to punish each other drives
them farther apart are a contributing factor. But I think lack of
commitment - both on a personal level and as part of the legal concept of
what marriage is - is the deeper problem. (And I would point out that
society's belief in punishment is probably weaker now than it was before the
divorce rate started skyrocketing, not stronger.)

With dropout rates, I think the biggest problem is a lack of choice in our
education system. When families have little or no choice regarding what
kind of school a child will go to, and what is available is not a good fit
for the child, that creates serious problems. Of course if the child reacts
to those problems by getting bored or frustrated and misbehaving, and is in
turn punished for that misbehavior, that makes the situation even worse.
But if families could (and would) choose schools that were a better fit for
their children, and if children who are considering dropping out had the
option of changing to a type of school that fit their needs and desires
better instead, that would deal with the problem a whole lot closer to its
source.

The people most likely to be criminals are those who suffered abusive
treatment as children (and by "abusive," I refer to more than just what
legally qualifies as abuse). When parents yell or punish because they are
angry rather than because they make a calm, rational decision that a child's
behavior warrants a particular punishment, the damage can be enormous. And
if parents take out anger or frustration they get from elsewhere on their
children, the situation is even worse. Portraying the crime rate as a
result of excessive belief in punishment when the things criminals went
through as children are so disproportionately likely to involve a lot more
than just punishment is highly misleading.

I'm not trying to say that "the unchallenged belief in punishment" doesn't
cause problems in all of these areas. A lot of people do seriously
overestimate how much punishment can accomplish and underestimate the
importance of other things. But I think you're painting a highly misleading
picture when you blame belief in punishment for issues that have other
important causes and contributing factors.


  #12  
Old June 9th 04, 02:27 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

There is a difference between a "punitive" parent or teacher and one
who occasionally makes reasonable use of punishment.

---------------------
Nope. Wrong is wrong. It is wrong to punish a child for anything
that is not criminal, that would be his right to do is he were an
adult, namely any circumstance in which you want to control a
child's actions.


I won't quote your whole message, but I find your faith in your own
infallibility both obnoxious and insulting - especially when you try to tell
me I'm wrong about my own life just because my reactions don't fit your
prejudice. That reflects a degree of prejudice that would probably make a
brick wall easier to have an intelligent debate with. I doubt that you
would be any more likely than a wall to even consider changing your mind,
and at least a wall wouldn't insult me along the way.


  #13  
Old June 9th 04, 03:15 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Nope. Wrong is wrong. It is wrong to punish a child for anything
that is not criminal, that would be his right to do is he were an
adult, namely any circumstance in which you want to control a
child's actions.


I think I'll respond to this point after all, if only for the benefit of
anyone else who might be interested in the issue.

Adults face consequences for far more than just criminal offenses. For
example, an adult who is obnoxious to his boss or is unwilling to do his job
can generally expect to get fired. That, in turn, can result being unable
to buy food, pay the rent, and so forth - especially if a person keeps being
obnoxious or lazy and getting fired.

The idea of firing children from their "job" of being their parents'
children because they behave obnoxiously, or because they refuse to do a
reasonable share of work around the house, or some such would be completely
impractical - not to mention reprehensible in the eyes of most civilized
people. Therefore, parents are given authority to punish children in other
ways that are far less damaging than throwing the children out on the street
would be.

In other cases, actions that parents punish children for involve a danger to
the child. I suppose one could argue that if a five-year-old girl wants to
go wandering through a dangerous part of town alone at night, it is her life
at stake and thus should be her choice. But most people take the view that
a five-year-old girl doesn't understand the risks well enough to be ready to
make that choice for herself. Therefore, we give parents authority to make
and enforce rules to protect their children's safety.

Do some parents abuse their power? Yes. Do some parents do too much
threatening and not enough discussing and explaining and looking for
compromises and alternatives? Yes.

But by and large, the system works. And throwing it out before we're
positive that we have something that will work better in the real world,
with real parents and real children, would be foolish. To the best of my
knowledge, even societies that seek to abolish corporal punishment
invariably allow other forms of punishment.

Nathan


  #14  
Old June 9th 04, 06:48 PM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control

In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

: But by and large, the system works. And throwing it out before we're
: positive that we have something that will work better in the real world,
: with real parents and real children, would be foolish.

Once again, Nathan, you appear to be talking about win/win cooperative
nonpunitive discipline as if it were some sort of new untested concept
rather than a set of approaches to dealing with conflict in the
parent/child relationship developed decades ago and used successfully in
thousands of families.

Chris
  #15  
Old June 9th 04, 06:58 PM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control

: In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

[snip]
: But by and large, the system works.

I beg to differ. Punishment is the most heavily overrated child
discipline technique. I posted an article by Gordon the other day about
workshops he has led, inviting participants to list the ways they reacted
to punitive authoritarian control as children. Virtually none of the
reactions were desirable.

Which of the reactions listed did you engage in as a child, Nathan?
Note that I don't ask if you engaged in some of them because I know you
did - we all did.

By and large, a system with this many side effects, and with some such
side effects on the list manifesting themselves in every child raised
under it, doesn't "work" very well at all.

Chris
  #16  
Old June 9th 04, 07:37 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control


On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

From the thomas gordon's website:

"Reviews of Research of the P.E.T. Course
There have been two extensive reviews of P.E.T. course evaluation studies.
The first, by Ronald Levant of Boston University, reviewed 23 different
studies. The author concluded that many of the studies had methodological
discrepancies. Nevertheless, out of a total of 149 comparisons between
P.E.T. and control groups or alternative programs, 32% favored P.E.T., 11%
favored the alternative group, and 57% found no significant differences."

---------------------------------
All this means is the for most purposes, programs similar to this are
simularly effective, so you're lying like the **** you always are.

And the **** is coming out of your mouth again! :-)

The point here is not blindly believe to any book or philosoply but learn
and filter out what is applicable to you and what is not. Hey, even
Dobson recommended Thomas Gordon. :-)
Doan

------------------------------------
No, you vicious ****, again what you're trying to pass off is the
individualized permission to "hey, if you think for a moment that
PET doesn't work "for you" just shuck it and start hitting again!",
which is nothing more than your usual excuse for your violent anti-child
perversion!!
Steve

Nope! I just don't blindly believe the "experts" nor do I believe that
INFANTICIDE is ok! But I do believe and have proof that your mouth is
FULL OF ****! ;-)

Doan

  #17  
Old June 9th 04, 09:23 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control

On 9 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

: But by and large, the system works. And throwing it out before we're
: positive that we have something that will work better in the real world,
: with real parents and real children, would be foolish.

Once again, Nathan, you appear to be talking about win/win cooperative
nonpunitive discipline as if it were some sort of new untested concept
rather than a set of approaches to dealing with conflict in the
parent/child relationship developed decades ago and used successfully in
thousands of families.

Ah! I just love the logic. :-) Isn't this the same argument that you
don't like about spanking? Afterall, spanking has been used for thousands
of years and BILLIONS of families.

Doan

  #18  
Old June 9th 04, 10:25 PM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:41:06 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


The more I think about this exercise, the more it looks like
something deliberately contrived to generate a particular
emotional reaction.


You are correct. That IS the point. To explore the actual experiences
of people, not create, as you seem to be doing below, move away from
the real and into the theoretical.

To teach someone about how others experience things it is useful to
point out their own experiences that may be similar.

An
objective analysis


Again, a jump away from the point of training people to use and
develop their capacity for empathy. PET is based on empathy as ONE of
its principles. There are others of course.


I view empathay as both extremely valuable and potentially dangerous.
Without empathy, true objectivity is impossible because a person doesn't
really understand the consequences of an action if he can't empathize with
those who will be affected by those consequences. But when empathy is
overly focused on one particular aspect of a situation, causing other
aspects of the situation to be ignored or given less weight than they
deserve, that excessive focus can be extremely dangerous.

----------------------
Empathy is irrelevant except that it might cause people to be fairly
given their freedom, such as children.


Yes, it is valuable for parents to empathize with how their children are
likely to feel about assertion of parental authority, and to understand how
their children might react. But parents also have to take a larger and
longer view, to consider (and empathize with) the consequences if they fail
to exert their authority. What will it do to the child's future if they do
not intervene? What dangers will the child's behavior present to the child
or to others? How would their child's behavior affect other children, both
now and in the future? And, for that matter, how would their child's
behavior affect them (the parents)?

------------------------------------
Nonsense, either the child harms others criminally, as in the case of
an adult criminal, or else they do what is within their right, just
as an adult might. If they are within their rights as an adult, then
you have NO right to interfere! The first thing a productive person's
actions MUST be is THEIR OWN and VOLUNTARY, or you have produced a
time-bomb that will turn on you and the rest of society!! As long as
a child remains within their rights, you have NO right to interfere!


As I said, parents need to empathize. But if they get so caught up in
empathizing with one aspect of the overall situation that they ignore other
aspects, they are likely to make worse choices than they would if they
empathize but also look at the overall picture objectively. I view empathy
as a part of objectivity, not a replacement for it.

--------------------------
It's NOT either your place OR your right, to interfere with the
lives of children if they do not want you to, unless the child has
become criminal toward others and committed crimes that adults would
be punished for. NOT EVEN IF YOU'RE THEIR PARENT!!!!


I assume you're aware that people with agendas frequently manipulate their
choice of what information to present and how to present it in order to make
their viewpoint look as strong as possible. My concern is that Dr. Gordon
seems to be doing that here, calling attention to what can go wrong without
encouraging people to examine the entire context. To the extent that he
includes the possibility of children's reacting by behaving at all, he
portrays it in a negative light ("Being submissive, conforming, complying;
being dutiful, docile, apple-polishing, being a goody-goody, teacher's
pet").

------------------
Kids who are well-treated do actually happen to really like, love,
and appreciate the help of the people who treat them well, their
teachers and others, just as lond as they are not coerced!


So the exercise seems
aimed more at causing people to form a negative opinion of the use of
authority

-----------------
That *IS* the effect of the assumption of illicit authority, such
as that used against children which would NOT and could NOT be used
in the same manner upon adults without a revolution!!


than at causing them to objectively evaluate how the risks and
benefits of using authority balance against each other.

----------------------
There is no such balance, coercing others always results in evil,
because you cannot show me a way in which you can interefere in
my life and coerce me that I will not wish quite naturally to kill
you for, and if it continued, I would indeed kill you quite dead!!!


The problem in this society is that the risk/benefit of punishment is
rarely even looked at, or if done, because of long taught,
conditioned, societal values, the risk will be rated low and the
benefits relatively high for punishment.


I'm inclined to strongly agree that society (or at least a very large part
of it) tends to underestimate the risks and overestimate the effectiveness.
But I think Dr. Gordon's article errs in the opposite direction.

--------------------------
No, he finally says it all and gets it right! People cannot be
coerced and bullied as children or else their chief motiavation
toward all authority when they are grown will be to wish to destroy
it, even if it is duly and democratically constituted.


The unchallenged belief in punishment as a way of controlling
relationships has consequences we see around us all the time. Divorce
rates, school dropout rates, crime rates, failures in international
diplomacy, job failures.


This accusation has some validity, but it ignores other, more important
causes.

-------------------------------------
Nope, it doesn't. You have a sick neurotic need to find some, any
justification for hitting people smaller than you if they don't obey
you, and that is nothing but a coward's diseased mental condition!!
It means you're insecure and immature and can't mind your own ****ing
business and that you'd best off find a better "hobby" than ****ing
with people that way!!


It seems to me that the biggest factor in the divorce rate is that we as a
society have largely replaced, "for better, or for worse... til death do you
part" with "until you get tired of that person or find someone you'd rather
be with."

--------------
There's absolutely NO reason for ANYONE to live with someone they
can't love any longer than they can stand to. Nobody but insane
rapists, delusional stalkers, family annihilators, and wife and
child batterers and child mnolestors think otherwise. That kind
of thinking is a mental illness!


Yes, situations where spouses' desire to punish each other drives
them farther apart are a contributing factor. But I think lack of
commitment - both on a personal level and as part of the legal concept of
what marriage is - is the deeper problem. (And I would point out that
society's belief in punishment is probably weaker now than it was before the
divorce rate started skyrocketing, not stronger.)

---------------------------
People started divorcing the people whose guts they hated as soon as
it became legally and socially acceptible to do so in their social
circle, and some of it is only just now happening. The trends for
divorce, and as well for marriage in these age groups where the
divorce rate first skyrocketed shows they are now receding and leaving
behind new marriages of friendship in their wake, replacing the old
power-oriented bully-victim marriages of the 40's and 50's!! It wasn't
a "liberal" or a "permissive" upbringing, because those who brought
them up *WERE* rightists, and WERE the very ones getting divorces,
and NOT their much more liberal kids!


But if families could (and would) choose schools that were a better fit for
their children, and if children who are considering dropping out had the
option of changing to a type of school that fit their needs and desires
better instead, that would deal with the problem a whole lot closer to its
source.

-------------------------------
If you want good schools, make yours better!
You don't even have any RIGHT to a school that is better than your
society provides! SO PROVIDE, YOU STINGY RIGHTIST FREAK!!


Portraying the crime rate as a
result of excessive belief in punishment when the things criminals went
through as children are so disproportionately likely to involve a lot more
than just punishment is highly misleading.

-----------------------------------
No it isn't, EVERY book on criminology for the last HUNDRED YEARS
has said that inmate/patient case studies show that ALL criminality
can be traced to child abuse AT OR BELOW the level of illegality!!


I'm not trying to say that "the unchallenged belief in punishment" doesn't
cause problems in all of these areas. A lot of people do seriously
overestimate how much punishment can accomplish and underestimate the
importance of other things. But I think you're painting a highly misleading
picture when you blame belief in punishment for issues that have other
important causes and contributing factors.

----------------------------------
Punishment for ANYTHING BUT absolute criminality NEVER accomplishes
ANY GOOD, so stop trying to justify it to your sick self!! And even
so, we don't even hit imprisoned criminals!!
Steve
  #19  
Old June 9th 04, 10:29 PM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

There is a difference between a "punitive" parent or teacher and one
who occasionally makes reasonable use of punishment.

---------------------
Nope. Wrong is wrong. It is wrong to punish a child for anything
that is not criminal, that would be his right to do is he were an
adult, namely any circumstance in which you want to control a
child's actions.


I won't quote your whole message, but I find your faith in your own
infallibility both obnoxious and insulting

---------------
Tough **** you abusive sicko.


- especially when you try to tell
me I'm wrong about my own life just because my reactions don't fit your
prejudice.

---------------
Tough ****! I don't need any supposed "prejudice".
I'M RIGHT because I know what people think inside!
You know the same Truth inside,
but you're too ****ing stupid and frightened to admit it!


That reflects a degree of prejudice that would probably make a
brick wall easier to have an intelligent debate with. I doubt that you
would be any more likely than a wall to even consider changing your mind,
and at least a wall wouldn't insult me along the way.

-------------------
In other words, you're ****-out of reason and logic.
Steve
  #20  
Old June 9th 04, 10:48 PM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Children REALLY React To Control

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Nope. Wrong is wrong. It is wrong to punish a child for anything
that is not criminal, that would be his right to do is he were an
adult, namely any circumstance in which you want to control a
child's actions.


I think I'll respond to this point after all, if only for the benefit of
anyone else who might be interested in the issue.

-------------------------------
You already did, sicko!


Adults face consequences for far more than just criminal offenses. For
example, an adult who is obnoxious to his boss or is unwilling to do his job
can generally expect to get fired. That, in turn, can result being unable
to buy food, pay the rent, and so forth - especially if a person keeps being
obnoxious or lazy and getting fired.

----------------------------------
Irrelevant, people who can't handle variation in human presentation
need to be removed from power and held up to ridicule. Failing to
kotow to royalty used to be a hanging offense, but these thieving
parasitic rich *******s need to be knocked the **** off their stools
and told that the Democracy will run NOT merely government now, but
also the economic system, and to serve everyone, not merely them and
their 8 vacations a year!


The idea of firing children from their "job" of being their parents'
children because they behave obnoxiously, or because they refuse to do a
reasonable share of work around the house, or some such would be completely
impractical - not to mention reprehensible in the eyes of most civilized
people.

------------------------
It's *NOT* their ****ing job, asswipe, it's THEIR ****ING HOME! They
have the right to do what they want AT HOME, DON'T YOU, ASSHOLE???
Well so do they, they inherited THEIR share of their parents home
by having been dragged into existence against their inmformed consent
and express permission, and those who did this owe them a residence
and their fair share of their estate, as well as support till they
can stand on their own, in THEIR good time!!! And as far as "cleaning
their room" or what-not, THEY OWN IT, they can do as they please till
they change their mind and decide to do differently!


Therefore, parents are given authority to punish children in other
ways that are far less damaging than throwing the children out on the street
would be.

--------------------------
Nope, that's theft and assault, and for it they should be publically
beaten or their children should burn their ****ing house down with
THEM IN IT!


In other cases, actions that parents punish children for involve a danger to
the child. I suppose one could argue that if a five-year-old girl wants to
go wandering through a dangerous part of town alone at night, it is her life
at stake and thus should be her choice.

-----------------------
No 5 year old wants to die, and they know about death. If they step
into traffic they don't know, amd rescuing them or younger kids is
perfectly reasonable. Even pushing an adult back who has stepped in
front of a car or bus is reasonable, even if you have to lay hands
on them, but them you let go and apologize and explain. Well that is
what you do for children, you do NOT try to shame or bully them, you
educate them, that is your obligation, but abuse of their rights is
NOT your right!


But most people take the view that
a five-year-old girl doesn't understand the risks well enough to be ready to
make that choice for herself. Therefore, we give parents authority to make
and enforce rules to protect their children's safety.

------------------
You obviously don't have kids, a 5 year old is terrified of the street.


Do some parents abuse their power? Yes. Do some parents do too much
threatening and not enough discussing and explaining and looking for
compromises and alternatives? Yes.

-------------------
Don't EVEN claim that there aren't LOTS of us who haven't told you
how to do it a LOT better, but you won't listen because you're abusive
sickos who are still trying to get "one-up" in an adult-child situation,
even if you're trying now from the WRONG SIDE OF IT to try to assauge
your emotional hurt from when YOU were a child! That IS why parents
hit children, because they think they, like THEIR parents, can GET
AWAY WITH IT, and they have enormous hurt from it that they feel they
can only exorcize by finally it being THEM WHO GETS TO DO THE HITTING!!
In other words, it's all a form of disgusting fraternity HAZING!!


But by and large, the system works.

--------------------
That is often claimed as long as the current methods aren't actually
killing off children, but only just crippling them emotionally and
psychologically. Newsflash: That's NOT what is called "working"!!!


And throwing it out before we're
positive that we have something that will work better in the real world,
with real parents and real children, would be foolish. To the best of my
knowledge, even societies that seek to abolish corporal punishment
invariably allow other forms of punishment.

Nathan

------------------
Nonsense, they haven't so far,
Steve
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY Malev General 0 December 12th 03 04:53 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
New common sense child-rearing book Kent General 6 September 3rd 03 12:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.